Gifted Education - Case Study Example

Gifted Education Case Study Introduction It is unarguable that every child reserves the right to pursue an education in order to obtain the necessary skills and knowledge for coping with life challenges. Despite the level of skills that a child may harbor, education and social scholars agree that every child deserves an education that can develop and enhance their capacity. However, it is worth noting that some students, referred to as “gifted” children tend to demonstrate some remarkable differences from their regular peers in terms of skills and abilities. , the term “gifted” is used in reference to students who have an IQ score above 130. According to the IQ scale, a score between 130 and 144 indicates moderate giftedness. A score of between 145 and 159 indicates highly gifted, and a score of between 160 and 179 indicates an exceptionally gifted individual. It is imperative to note that due to the present criticism of intelligence tests, as well as the changes regarding definition of intelligence, the current intelligence tests are not sufficient to be solely accepted as the sole identifier of gifted students. The individual differences amongst children of different ages bring forth challenges in the identification of the gifted children. On the other hand, schools find the initial assessments difficult in that it cannot fully establish the actual talent of the child. Therefore, it is palpable that the use of different strategies over a lengthy period significantly helps in the recognition and identification of giftedness in a child. The physical, social, and cognitive development remains varied among children. Largely, growth in children is rapid though with variations among different children from other families. It is worth noting that the cognitive and motor skills appear suddenly in children. Identification of giftedness in children is better done through behavioral observations and the verbal ability in different classroom settings. In addition, information from people close to the children and the child’s artwork products will give a hint on the giftedness of the child. In order to understand the apparent differences that exist between gifted students and the general education children, there is a need to evaluate the numerous characteristics, in terms of skills and abilities, between the two groups. Incidentally, the aim of this paper is to present a research study on the major variations between gifted and non-gifted children based on several factors such as special abilities and IQ scores. The paper also analyzes the environmental and psychological aspects that may have a significant impact on intelligence and performance of the two groups of students. Annotated Bibliography Chan, D. (2003). Assessing adjustment problems of gifted students in Hong Kong: the development of the student adjustment problems inventory. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 107-117. This study identified several coping strategies that enable gifted students to fit into the school environment with other regular students. The study entailed helping the students eliminate or reduce their coping strategies such as valuing their peer acceptance regardless of their giftedness and involvement in several activities. It was found that younger males who exhibited lower aptitude scores were more likely to engage in passive approaches. Gagne, F. (2005). From non-competence to exceptional talent: Exploring the range of academic achievement within and between grade levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 139-153. The study examined the increasing difference in knowledge and skills that occurs within the first nine years of schooling between gifted students and their regular counterparts. Using developmental standard score, the researchers found that the range between the slowest and fastest learner was greater than the 8-year gap in skills and knowledge between 1st and 9th grade students. The researchers concluded that such gaps should not be regarded as failure within the formal education system, but should be viewed as a confirmation of individual variations between gifted and non-gifted students. Gross, M. (1994). Radical acceleration: Responding to academic and social needs for extremely gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5, 4, 7-18. The aim of this study was to determine whether the social self-concept of gifted students is affected in any way when such students are allowed to interact with students in mixed ability classrooms. It was found that the brightest children with IQ above 160 still demonstrated some social self-concepts that were one standard deviation above their regular counterparts. Kennedy, D. (1995). Glimpses of a highly gifted child in a heterogeneous classroom. Roeper Review, 17, 3, 164-168. The aim of this study was to assess the interactions between gifted children, teachers, and the school environment. The researchers concluded that for gifted children to be successful, the institutional interventions for the highly gifted children must be designed to deal with the affective and cognitive elements of their giftedness. It was also noted that placing gifted students with their mental peers has significant influence on the students within the regular classroom. Thus, radical acceleration is essential for the highly gifted children. Hong, E., & Aqui, Y.. (2004). Korean teachers’ attitudes toward academic brilliance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 191-201. The major aim of this study was to examine whether placement of students in differenr classes has any effect on their attitudes. The study found that students in different placements exhibited similar beliefs about the Maths subject, but the academically gifted students seemed to be more efficacious than other students. These students were also found to employ more cognitive strategies and valued the learning of the subject than the non-gifted students. Sayler, M., & Brookshire, W. (1993). Social, emotional, and behavioral adjustment of accelerated students, students in gifted classes, and regular students in eighth grade. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 4, 150-154. The study focused on the emotional, behavioral, and social development of regular students and students in gifted programs within the United States. The study found out that the accelerants were not affected emotionally, behaviorally, or socially by the acceleration programs. In most of the cases, the gifted students had an adjustment equal to or even better than that of the regular students. Literature Review According to Kokot (1999), gifted can be defined as having skills, sensitivity and awareness for purposes of understanding and transferring the cognitive and emotional experiences that relate children to their peers. Thus, gifted can be perceived as the product of general ability, personal consideration, and motivation. In another study by Maker and Nielson, (1996), giftedness was defined as the possession of a special ability to understand concepts easily and faster. It also involves the ability to integrate and improve the acquired skill, and the possession of a problem-solving skill whenever the concerned individual is faced with a challenge or a hindrance. According to a report by the U.S. Department of Education, gifted children and students with remarkable talent demonstrate the potential for performing at outstanding high levels of accomplishment as compared with other children of similar age, in the same environment, and having similar levels of experience. It is plausible that the motivation towards the science and art of learning is one of the critical effective factors for predicting the success levels of science courses for students. Therefore, detecting the numerous factors that affect the achievement of gifted and non-gifted students can help in paving the way establishing learning environments, and regulating the students’ self-learning process. Following Preuss and Dubow study regarding the gifted and the non-gifted children, it is evident that they vary greatly concerning stress management (Preuss &Dubow, 2004). In this study, both the regular and gifted children were exposed to the stressful event through academic pressure and peer relations. Interestingly, the gifted children engaged a more problem solving techniques in coping with the stress as compared with their regular children. Male gifted students, to a larger extent, like quick and easy solutions and tend to adapt easily to any new environment. On the other hand, the female gifted students are not aggressive as their male counterparts. Females prefer support strategies in coping with stress. Herein, they share with other external parties with the intentions of getting a solution (Preuss &Dubow, 2004). In most cases, gifted children are prone to increased risk concerning the development of a number of social or emotional functions. Thus, gifted children stand disadvantaged, as there are possibilities for them to not exploiting their fully potential. In addition, gifted children experience additional stress from the need of being perfect and the fact that their peers misunderstand (Preuss &Dubow, 2004). Regarding the increased issues about the gifted children, Porter (2006) in ‘twelve myths of gifted children’ proposes for the IQ testing. According to Porter (2006), the IQ testing, should focus more on gifted children experiencing difficulties in the social, emotional, and academic arena. IQ tests were meant to measure minimal skills and abilities as opposed to the real situation on the ground (Sternberg et al., 1996). The development of music, sport, thinking process, and creativity are not supposed to be measured by IQ. Therefore, for better and accurate analysis, IQ tests should remain doing the original purpose to avoid unfair treatment. Research Model In order to understand the differences between gifted and non-gifted students, the research study described in this paper aimed at comparing the learning styles and motivation styles towards science learning for both gifted and non-gifted students. Firstly, a screening model was utilized as a form of a quantitative research process. The study used 10 third grade gifted students from a local training center for gifted children and 20 third grade non-gifted children from a local primary school. The students were screened for their learning styles, and the results were tabulated as shown in the table below; Learning Styles N X SS Independent Gifted Student Non-gifted student 10 20 3.83 3.75 0.574 0.512 Dependent Gifted student Non-gifted student 10 20 4.11 3.97 0.480 0.557 Participative Gifted student Non-gifted student 10 20 4.30 3.94 0.440 0.586 Avoidant Gifted student Non-gifted student 10 20 2.10 2.81 0.560 0.746 Competitive Gifted student Non-gifted student 10 20 4.10 4.02 0.582 0.630 The students’ answers to the three items provided in the provided questionnaire demonstrated their preferred learning style among independent, dependent, avoidant and participative. Results and Discussion As shown in the table above, the gifted students’ participative, independent, and dependent learning skills ratio are seen to be higher than those of the non-gifted students. However, the avoidant learning skill ratio was found to be higher for the non-gifted students than their gifted peers. It is clear that the greatest learning style ratio for the gifted students is the participative learning style at (X= 4.30). The lowest learning style ratio for this category of students is the avoidant learning style whose ratio stands at (X=2.10). When it comes to the non-gifted students, competitive learning style comes out as having the highest learning style ratio at (X= 4.02). As seen in the analysis of results above, it is plausible that the gifted students’ competitive, participative, independent, and dependent learning styles are higher than those of their non-gifted counterparts are. These findings related well to an early finding by Porter (2006) who noted that gifted students have better learning outcomes than their regular counterparts. The researcher attributed the findings to the fact that gifted students are capable of utilizing their cognitive skills in solving any problems that they may encounter. While it was noted that the participative learning style had the greatest average number of gifted students, competitive learning style had the greatest average number of the non-gifted students. From these results, it can be argued that gifted students usually exhibit strong eagerness to learn and understand the content of the course or topic under study. These students accept the task of offering information out of the classroom, and they like sharing the acquired knowledge and skills when asked to do so. Furthermore, such students often demonstrate effort of fulfilling their teachers’ expectations. For the non-gifted students, it can be argued that they have a high preference for a teacher-oriented learning process. Furthermore, these students believe that competing with other students will make them more successful. The competition will also allow them to obtain rewards, and attract their teacher’s attention. In this light, the identification of the gifted children, within a school setting, should be based on a number of parameters. During the identification process the special education needs of the student should be taken into account. In conclusion, it is imperative for people to understand the multifaceted nature of giftedness. The giftedness of the child should be pegged on genetic or the innate abilities (Smith, 2006; Borland, 2005; Sternberg &Davidson, 2005). The giftedness of a child takes different forms in a variety of settings, be it, in learning, sports, and others. In other cases, giftedness is nurtured by the society contrary to something discovered. Therefore, it is paramount that people should understand the full concept of giftedness before the identification of a child as being either gifted or not. It is only through this that the policies and practices of giftedness get impacted positively. Discussions of cognitive characteristics should include the metacognitive aspect. The metacognitive discussion will help so much regarding the identification of the gifted children. The gifted and the average children respond differently to a situation that requires awareness, memory, and insight. To a simple question, the gifted will have a range of solutions with all of them seeming to be correct. For example, a student with age seven, and an IQ of over 200 may be unable to answer the question of the work of a doctor. According to the gifted child, there are many types of doctors each doing a different role. Therefore, they will always fail to get the question right. Conversely, the moderately gifted child will not find any difficult in this question. Therefore, gifted children stand having higher degrees of scrutiny and amalgamation than the demands of the question. References Chan, D. (2003). Assessing adjustment problems of gifted students in Hong Kong: the development of the student adjustment problems inventory. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 107-117. Gagne, F. (2005). From non-competence to exceptional talent: Exploring the range of academic achievement within and between grade levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 139-153. Gray-Fow, B. (2005). Discovering and Developing Talent in Schools. An inclusive approach. London: David Fulton Publishers. Gross, M. (1994). Radical acceleration: Responding to academic and social needs for extremely gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5, 7-18. Hong, E., & Aqui, Y.. (2004). Korean teachers’ attitudes toward academic brilliance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 191-201. Kennedy, D. (1995). Glimpses of a highly gifted child in a heterogeneous classroom. Roeper Review, 17, 164-168. Kokot, S. (1999). Help our child is gifted. Cape Town: Redford House publication. Maker, C., & Nielson, A. (1996). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners. Austin: Pro-Ed Porter, L. (2006). Twelve myths of gifted education. Retrieved 22nd April 2015 from https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source= web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flouisepor ter.com.au%2Fpdfs%2Ftwelve_myths_of_gifted_education_ web.pdf&ei=E7kVUe22CauPiAew_YHIBA&usg=AFQjCNE9n 0-3aqkFj3Mo9KuGG9o0CURuLA&sig2=g7evxhLhLFpxm9pRZ MrigQ&bvm=bv.42080656,d.aGc Sayler, M., & Brookshire, W. (1993). Social, emotional, and behavioral adjustment of accelerated students, students in gifted classes, and regular students in eighth grade. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 4, 150-154. Smith, M. M. C. (2006). Principles of inclusion. Implications for able learners. New York, Oxon: Routledge. Tannenbaum, A. (2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis, Handbook of gifted education. Boston: Pearson Education. Thomson, T., & Mintzes, J. (2002). Cognitive structure and the affective domain. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 6, 644-660. Read More