Identification of Gifted Students - Term Paper Example

Identification of Gifted Students Name Institution Contents 1.0 Introduction 2 2.0 Background to the Report 3 3.0 Programs for Gifted Students 6 3.1. The Student 7 3.2. The Differentiated Class 8 3.3. Scaffolding 9 3.4. Self-Regulation 9 3.5. The Curriculum Essentials 10 4.0 The Identification Process 10 4.1. Test Score Nominations 12 4.2. Teacher Nominations 13 4.3. Alternative Pathways 13 4.4. Safety Valves 14 4.5. Parent Orientation and Notification 14 4.6. Re-evaluation 14 5.0 Monitoring and Evaluation 15 6.0. Conclusion 17 References 19 Appendix 1: Extended Model of Dynamic Differentiation 22 Appendix 2: Description of Operating Elements 23 Identification of Gifted Students 1.0 Introduction The diversity that characterizes learning institutions today necessitates the differentiation of learning programs in which the curriculum considers the differences among the learners and aims to cater to the unique needs of each student. Program differentiation, as defined in this report, refers to a deliberate manipulation of the standard curriculum, instructional procedures and evaluation criteria to suit the specific, often unique needs of gifted students (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006; VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005). Over time, the identification of gifted children has shifted from the traditional teacher-centered approach to a learner-centered approach that places more emphasis on a student’s gifts, characteristics, strengths and learning needs (Maker & Nielson, 2006). Moreover, the identification process varies depending on the substantial and procedural approaches (Handa, 2009). The learner-centered approach prescribes that for the differentiation of curriculum for gifted students to be successful, the learning objectives must be differentiated first (Handa, 2009; Tomlinson & Strickland, 2005). In this approach, the planning stage encompasses identifying the basic and complex content, student gifts, talents and attributes, and the learner’s academic needs (Eriksson, 2015). This report seeks to propose a system of identification to select (gifted) students for a program in which a class for the gifted students in each grade is created. The report presents brief background information on best practices in the identification of gifted students, and the evolution of the process that hinges on the key concerns in the identification of gifted students. Additionally, the programs and the identification process are described in the report. 2.0 Background to the Report For many years, the identification of gifted students has been based on performance on intelligence tests (Brown et al., 2005). In this approach, a gifted and talented student was identified as an above-average performer in tests that were systematically structured to single out performers who came out ahead of the pack. In the traditional techniques of identifying gifted students, the learners responded to test items, the responses were compared among the candidates, and results were presented in a merit list that relied mostly on relativity on the Stanford-Binet Scale (McBee et al., 2014). The traditional techniques of identifying gifted students were preferred because they presented accurate IQ scores (Peters & Gentry, 2010). However, the measurement approaches employed by these techniques often involved technicalities, and the resulting figure required expert interpretation (Mathews et al., 2013). For instance, Ambrose & Machek (2014) observed that the ultimate test score required an in-depth interpretation, as there was need to comprehend the figure, its construction and the implications it had for the student’s future (page 6). These limitations of the techniques led researchers to explore other approaches for identifying gifted and talented students, since curriculum differentiation was fast becoming a key concern in academic practice. Moreover, there was need among developmental and behavioral scholars to come up with a system that could be used to assess the different types and constructs of intelligence, since intelligence is abstract and multifaceted (Callahan, 2005). The exploration of a more rigorous technique of identifying gifted students led to the development of the theory of multiple intelligences by Gardner in 1983 (Ambrose & Machek, 2014). In this model of identifying gifted students, seven distinct types of intelligences were identified: interpersonal, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, logical (mathematical), linguistic and spatial. The essence of the identification of these different types of intelligence was an important milestone, as it enabled the development of measurement techniques based on a specific, desired type of intelligence (Brown et al., 2005). Although significant progress was made in developing a comprehensive approach for identifying gifted students, questions arose among scholars on the increased reliance on intelligence and IQ as the parameters of identifying giftedness. The need for broader parameters in identifying giftedness led to the development of the triarchic theory of intelligence. The triarchic model is a much better approach, as it entails assessing the creativity, practicality and analytical ability of students, among other constructs, in order to evaluate their giftedness (Benson, 2008). As espoused by these early approaches, the identification of gifted students is a process that over time evolves to encompass the intellective as well as the non-intellective approaches. An ideal model of identifying giftedness needs to address both aspects. In the past few decades, the specific approaches developed to identify giftedness have led researchers to reassess the definition of giftedness and talents (Renzulli et al., 2009). As the definitions of these two terms were evaluated (a process that led to no consensus in the discipline), there was increased understanding of human abilities and their manifestations (Makel, 2009). More aptly, as Wame et al. (2013) put it, the approaches that advocate for the use of multiple techniques to identify giftedness gained currency, owing to the increased conception of what we in common parlance conceive as talents and gifts (Wilson & Gilmore, 2012). Since this realization, the models developed to assess giftedness and ultimately develop programs for the gifted students tend to have multidimensional approaches involving both teacher- and student-oriented methods, evaluation of the selected identification program, and reliance on factual information as a basis for programming (Brown et al., 2005; Benson, 2008; VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005). Moreover, Fullan (2006) observed that the approaches employ an array of techniques over a prolonged period and incorporate situational factors that may influence individual abilities (Benson, 2008). Essentially, there has been a remarkable evolution in the models employed to identify giftedness. The emerging approaches in the discipline acknowledge the multidimensional nature of giftedness and conceive intelligence as a multifaceted concept (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005). Renzulli et al. (2009) concluded that the development of differentiated curriculum for gifted students over the past few decades had been characterized by curriculum instruction and the identification process. Further, the emphasis on application of authentic tools and data for program evaluation has taken center stage in the new models (Brown et al., 2005). Although considerable progress has been made in the development of models for assessing giftedness, many behavioral psychologists argue that there is no structured manner of measuring giftedness due to its abstract and subjective nature (Wilson & Gilmore, 2012). The essence of this argument is that the efficacy for a model identifying giftedness must be evaluated based on a robust, generally accepted conception of what giftedness entails. Worrell & Erwin (2011) posited that if the goal of a model is to identify (gifted) students for a differentiated curriculum (program for gifted students), there was need to have a clear understanding of what giftedness is and how it manifests in individuals (page 321). The implication of this observation on this report is that the development of a model to discern gifted students from ordinary students must be guided by the comprehensive approaches that marked the evolution of past models, as well as the key concept being assessed, which is giftedness. More aptly, the changes in models of assessing giftedness have been characterized by specificity as much as it has been characterized by inclusiveness. 3.0 Programs for Gifted Students The identification of gifted students is usually followed by the development of a suitable program (curriculum) that caters to their special needs, since gifted students often manifest different academic needs and abilities compared to their peers (Ambrose & Machek, 2014). This report adopts a comprehensive approach for developing a curriculum in each grade for any students identified as gifted. The model is an integrative approach that involves a series of enrichment programs. Of the two most common programs for gifted students include the enrichment and acceleration programs. It is imperative to also note that the enrichment programs have fewer delimitations as concerns both the behavioral and cognitive development (Brown et al., 2005; Eriksson, 2015; McBee et al., 2014). For this reason, this report adopts the model of dynamic differentiation (MoDD) by Smith (2009) to describe a program for gifted students that ensures their academic needs are fully addressed. The model will be structured around the individual students, their immediate class setting and their relationships with teachers. 3.1. The Student This framework is centered on the individual (gifted) learner. The program is structured around the gifted learner’s readiness, interests, strengths and learning style. These learner characteristics are identified and the learner needs are profiled using complementary assessment tools. Smith (2009) noted that at the onset of any curriculum differentiation, the learner readiness is usually the key focus of curriculum developers for gifted students (page 14). Since gifted learners at each stage will be in the same class, it will be much easier for teachers to conduct class assessments without necessarily standardizing some concepts for general conception. The establishment of learning centers is a deliberate plan for gifted students as it enables the “pooling together of talents thereby enabling a unified classroom setting in which students can develop their cognitive abilities without necessarily inhibiting the psychological development of peers” (Handa, 2009: Smith, 2009). The proposed program is as shown in the following figure. Figure 1.0: The Model of Dynamic Differentiation (MoDD) Adopted from Smith (2009) 3.2. The Differentiated Class This is the point in the model where the proposed program is supposed to yield the highest level of enrichment for the student. At this point, the learning program for the gifted students in each grade will involve differentiation strategies such as varying teaching vocabulary, using practice-based instructions, and general differentiation of content, outcomes and products. This is the most flexible point of the proposed model since the proposed activities here will be employed in varying combinations depending on availability of resources, teachers and ongoing assessments. This aligns with the fact that the overriding aim of differentiation at the class level for gifted students is to maximize enrichment for the entire class (Smith, 2009; Renzulli, 2009). 3.3. Scaffolding This is the third level of curriculum differentiation for gifted students. The proposed program recognizes that there are times when the gifted students will require additional support at the classroom level and individually. Scaffolding for gifted students seeks to build on the enrichment processes initiated earlier in the program (Smith, 2009). In light of this finding, the report proposes that scaffolding for the gifted students in each grade will involve modeling strategies, instructional grouping, mentoring, teaching the enabling skills and balancing the modeling instructions. The various curriculum differentiation strategies at this point as proposed by this report are informed by the finding that gifted learners often need support in various forms via their respective forms of proximal development (Shepard, 2005). Moreover, the proposed program at this point seeks to structure a constructive feedback system from peers, teachers and volunteers who will form the foundation of advanced learning provisions. 3.4. Self-Regulation At an advanced level of curriculum differentiation for gifted students, the proposed curriculum provides an allowance for students to work independently and this may involve innovative ventures. The program will specifically condition students to self-instructed learning and individualized learning processes. Additionally, and as noted by Peters & Gentry (2010), this stage involves elements of acceleration curriculum. This makes the MoDD a comprehensive approach that has elements of acceleration programs based on enrichment. The essence of self-regulation in the proposed program is that it enables students to assess their own strengths and progress, a process that informs problem-based teaching and learning for gifted students (Fullan, 2006). 3.5. The Curriculum Essentials The proposed program of curriculum differentiation for the gifted student classes places a lot of importance on the attributes of the learner as the foundation upon which the process is based. The classroom ecology also comes into play as the immediate environment through which enrichment activities are performed. The model is flexible, allowing for assistance for students in areas where they require support, and later allowing them to take self-assessments to identify areas in which they need further development. The MoDD adopted for the proposed program also gives teachers a central role in the differentiated curriculum for gifted learners. Furthermore, the stages of curriculum development in Figure 1.0 do not necessarily have to be sequential; the processes can be implemented simultaneously to ensure continuous learning for gifted students. Renzulli, 2015; Brown et al., 2005; Eriksson, 2015; and McBee et al., 2014 have supported the MoDD as the most effective model of structuring a learning program for gifted students. The other advantage of this model is that it can be extended to cater to a broader academic ecology (see Appendix 1). The focus now shifts to the process of identifying gifted students, since even the well-designed program will inevitably fail if the subjects do no match the specifications for which the program was developed (Smith, 2009). The following section describes the proposed identification process for discerning giftedness among the students. 4.0 The Identification Process This section describes how students for the program outlined in the preceding section can be screened for giftedness. This section is informed by the finding that gifted students often have three key characteristics: task commitment, ability and creativity (Renzulli, 2015). This program will assess general ability, specific ability, task commitment and creativity (see Appendix 2 for respective connotations). To be selected for the program, students must satisfactorily display an overlap of the attributes as displayed in the following figure. Figure 2.0: Characteristics of Gifted Students Adopted from Renzulli (2015) The identification process proposed by this report, unlike the program, adopts a systematic approach. The stages are sequential, and they are intricately related in a mutually reinforcing manner that seeks to rigorously screen students for selection. The steps range from test score nominations to action information systems in a structure that gives teachers a critical role in identifying gifted students. The following figure gives a framework for the proposed model. Figure 3.0: The Conceptual Framework of the Proposed Identification Process Adopted from Renzulli (2015) 4.1. Test Score Nominations In addition to the conventional test score selection systems, which set the benchmark at the 85th percentile, this report takes into consideration the various situational variables that impinge on the test score selection criteria (Renzulli, 2015). The selection criteria at this point provides an allowance for gifted students who might be affected by situational variables that may inhibit their performance on the standardized tests. The procedure will segment the students into two groups and select those who score above the 92nd percentile in both groups to ensure traditionally “gifted” learners are selected. This is based on the findings that test score nominations are often most effective for identification of giftedness at the elementary levels (Ambrose & Machek, 2014). The robustness of the selection mechanism at this point in the identification process is that any potentially gifted students are selected for advanced screening. 4.2. Teacher Nominations This is the second stage in the identification process. The teachers are informed of the students who have made it past the test score stage and then can nominate students with “special” abilities that cannot be assessed using test scores. This stage is informed by the fact that teachers are best placed to identify unique learner abilities such as unique insights and analytical capabilities (Mathews et al., 2013). This process will enable identification of abilities such as degree of task commitment, unique interests, degree of creativity and potential for intellectual growth. For this procedure, the identification process will employ the use of qualitative and quantitative instruments such as teacher nomination forms and rating scales (Likert, nominal, ordinal and interval scales) in order to come up with a composite profile of selected students. 4.3. Alternative Pathways This stage provides an opportunity for the endorsement of students by peers, creativity tests, product assessments, self-nominations and extra procedures that may be deemed necessary by the selection committee based on the prevailing situation. This stage differs from the previous two in that the alternative pathways selection is not automatic; it will require the approval of the selection committee. For this process, the identification process will involve placing the students nominated in this category on a trial in which they are given special tests to ascertain the respective endorsement items. Additionally, at this stage, the selection committee will review historical records of the students to ascertain their “giftedness” in the areas of endorsement. 4.4. Safety Valves Since the preceding procedures involve subjective selection mechanisms to some extent, there is need to provide a “control valve” in the process that ensures that this subjectiveness does not lead to bias or “over-nomination” of certain candidates at the expense of others. For instance, in the teacher selection stage, certain teachers may select students into the talent pool for being prompt in following their instructions rather than the objective curriculum instruction. For this particular process, this report proposes that teachers should be given a chance to nominate their former students into the pool, a process that may involve selecting students who had been left out in the second step. Moreover, teachers might be asked to assess the selected students for suitability. This procedure is helpful for the identification process since it can help bring back “otherwise gifted” learners who might have been held back by certain socioeconomic factors that affected their performances. 4.5. Parent Orientation and Notification This stage involves informing the parents of the selected students that their children have been selected for the gifted class for that particular year. Parents are provided a detailed explanation of the identification process. At this stage, the parents may be asked to aid in assessing learner progress, provide any additional interests not identified by the procedure and provide any additional resources required for their students in the gifted class. 4.6. Re-evaluation Despite the control measures to ensure all gifted students are identified for the gifted students program for each grade, there is the possibility that this procedure may not work perfectly. For this reason, this report proposes the use of action information nominations that encompass the dynamic interactions resulting from a learner’s excitement to assess advancement. This process also involves reviewing the entire procedure to ensure that all processes were followed exhaustively. The structure and timeline for this process is as illustrated in the following figure. Figure 4.0: PERT Chart for the Proposed Identification Process for Gifted Students Program 5.0 Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation of the identification process will be performed at each stage to ensure that the following stages are founded on a robust preceding process. The selection committee will put in place a monitoring and evaluation team, which will employ SERVQUAL-structured questionnaires to obtain the stakeholder perceptions about selections at each stage of the identification process. Additionally, scrutiny of documents used for the selection process will be verified at each stage to ensure that the actions taken conform to the document implications. For instance, the monitoring and evaluation team will scrutinize the teacher nomination forms and qualitative scales to ensure the selection at the second stage was satisfactory, fair and therefore complete. A key part of the evaluation of the selection process and curriculum differentiation will entail collection of all the necessary information, which will form a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the selection process. This process involves making a decision as to whether the information on which decisions were made in the processes were valid. This leads the monitoring and evaluation team to make a judgment as to whether the process needs to be reviewed or nullified altogether. The evaluation procedure to be adopted in this report will rely on four key constructs that govern the models used in identification of giftedness. First, the evaluation process will be guided by the intention of each stage of the identification process. In this leading criterion, the goals of each stage as elaborated in the preceding section should have guided the selection process at that stage. Second, the planning procedures at each level of the selection process (i.e., the personnel, instruments and resources employed at each level) will be examined to ensure they met the required standards. Third, the implementing procedure including how the actual selection process was done will be examined. Finally, the monitoring and evaluation team will have to assess the ultimate outcomes of the process. More aptly, this will focus on the outcomes of the re-evaluation stage described in the selection process. This final criterion is the most direct assessment of the process since the selected individuals will actually be examined for the respective gifts that propelled them into the talent pool. The structure of identification adopted in this report is informed by the fact that best practices in selection process of gifted students needs to be systematic, multistage and outcome-oriented (Hussain et al, 2015). 6.0. Conclusion The identification of gifted students is a multidimensional process that involves not only assessing for intelligence but also for task commitment, creativity and specific ability. The process involves the collective efforts of all stakeholders including the students themselves, peers, teachers and parents. The differentiation programs for gifted students proposed in this report place teachers in a key role because they can identify unique student talents that psychometric tests cannot identify. Moreover, it is important to note at this point that this report proposes identification mechanisms and a gifted students program that is flexible to incorporate changes in the ever-dynamic academic discipline. References Ambrose, L., & Machek, G.R. (2014). Identifying Creatively Gifted Students: Necessity of a Multi-Method Approach. Contemporary School Psychology, 1-7. Benson, E. (2008). Intelligent intelligence testing. Monitor on Psychology, 34(2), 48-51. 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. DOI:10.1177/001698620504900107 Callahan, C.M. (2005). Identifying gifted students from underrepresented populations. Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 98-104. DOI:10.1207/s15430421tip4402_4 Eriksson, G. (2015). Book Review: Differentiation for Gifted Learners: Beyond the Basics. Gifted Education International, 31(2), 176-177. DOI:10.1177/0261429414540382 Fullan, M. (2006). The future of educational change: System thinkers in action. Journal of Educational Change, 7(3), 113-122. DOI:10.1007/s10833-006-9003-9 Handa, M.C. (2009). Learner-centred differentiation model: A new framework. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 18(2), 55-66. Makel, M.C. (2009). Student and parent attitudes before and after the gifted identification process. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(1), 126-143. Hussain, A., Dogar, A.H., Azeem, M., & Shakoor, A. Evaluation of Curriculum Development and Selection Process. Retrieved on September 2, 2015 from Maker, C., & Nielson, A.B. (1996). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners. PRO-ED, 8700 Shoal Creek Blvd., Austin, TX 78757-6897. Matthews, M., Peters, S., McCoach, D.B., & McBee, M. (2013). Beyond gifted education: Designing and implementing advanced academic programs. Sourcebooks, Inc. McBee, M.T., Peters, S.J., & Waterman, C. (2014). Combining scores in multiple-criteria assessment systems: The impact of combination rule. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 69-89. DOI:10.1177/0016986213513794. Nielsen, P.B. (2013). Interdisciplinary knowledge production. University of Copenhagen < http://go.ku.dk/research/wp5_interdisciplinary_knowledge_production/> Peters, S.J., & Gentry, M. (2010). Multigroup construct validity evidence of the HOPE Scale: Instrumentation to identify low-income elementary students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 298-313. DOI:10.1177/0016986210378332 Renzulli, J.S., Siegle, D., Reis, S.M., Gavin, M.K., & Sytsma Reed, R.E. (2009). An investigation of the reliability and factor structure of four new scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(1), 84-108. Renzulli (2015). A Practical System for Identifying Gifted Learners. Retrieved on September 1, 2015 from Shepard, L.A. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educational leadership, 63(3), 66-70. Smith, S.R. (2009). A dynamic ecological framework for differentiating the primary curriculum. Gifted and Talented International, 24(2), 9-20. Tomlinson, C.A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction & understanding by design: Connecting content and kids. ASCD. Tomlinson, C.A., & Strickland, C.A. (2005). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum, grades 9-12. ASCD. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 211-217. Warne, R.T., Anderson, B., & Johnson, A.O. (2013). The impact of race and ethnicity on the identification process for giftedness in Utah. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 0162353213506065. Wilson, K., & Gilmore, L. (2012). Assessing intellectual functioning in young adolescents: How do the WISC-IV and SB5 compare? Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 22(01), 1-14. Worrell, F.C., & Erwin, J. O. (2011). Best practices in identifying students for gifted and talented education programs. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(4), 319-340. Appendix 1: Extended Model of Dynamic Differentiation Adopted from Smith (2009) Appendix 2: Description of Operating Elements Adopted from Renzulli (2015) Read More