The Extent, Nature and Effectiveness of Planned Approaches in ...

literature in relation to New Zealand’s educational context. Additionally, the review reports bothpublished and unpublished New Zealand research, and in cases where information was not readilyavailable, personal communication was sought and is reported.Definitions and identification. Given the plethora of theoretical concepts of giftedness, coupled withthe recognition of multiple areas of special ability, research related to the effectiveness ofidentification or provisions must firstly be considered in light of the gifted population underexamination. As Ziegler and Raul (2000) state, “the theory defines the data for which this theory couldbe relevant” (p. 113). In other words, results obtained under one notion of giftedness, or within onesub-population of ‘the gifted and talented,’ cannot be generalised or compared to results of anotherstudy relying upon a different perspective of giftedness.Similarly, although the field of gifted education has clearly shifted to a much broaderconceptualisation of giftedness and talent, it seems that in many cases the identification methodsemployed by researchers are measures of intelligence or achievement (Ziegler & Raul, 2000).Identification of this nature may be the most simplistic approach, but it does not accurately measurethe multi-dimensional, dynamic nature of giftedness and talent. Furthermore, Ziegler and Raul (2000)report that many research studies are reliant upon a single criterion for identification of participants.Even when multiple or different measures of identification are utilised, it is difficult to makegeneralisations or comparisons across studies.The underlying conceptions of giftedness, alongside the identification methods employed, create whatZiegler and Raul (2000) refer to as a ‘toothbrush concept.’ “It seems that everybody has a toothbrush,but nobody wants to use a toothbrush which belongs to somebody else” (p. 114). They see these issuesas problematic in gifted education research, concluding that the research field is “more or lessfragmented,” and so, warning that the “results cannot easily be compared to one another” (p. 131).Therefore, caution must be taken in the interpretation, integration, and application of researchfindings. Every effort has been taken in this review to explain the definition and identificationpractices reported in the research studies cited, when that information was available.Research designs and measures of effectiveness. Slavin (1987, 1991) raises concerns regarding theinadequacy of research designs employed by researchers in gifted and talented education. He statesthat most studies related to effectiveness, and specifically of enrichment programmes, comparestudents who were assigned to gifted programmes to those of similar ability who were rejected fromthe programmes. Many of these studies control for intelligence quotient and prior achievement, but donot take into consideration other factors such as motivation or current achievement. Goldring (1990)also discusses this concern, stating that “one cannot match on all the relevant variables; therefore,matching is usually implemented on those variables that are easiest to measure” (p. 315). However, asWinner states, “Only with random assignment can we be sure that gains experienced by the children… are due to the program, and not to pre-existing differences between the two groups of children”(1996a, p. 262). As Reid (1996) points out, research of this nature creates ethical dilemmas, andperhaps for that reason, the type of research called for has not been carried out.Slavin (1988) also discusses the problems related to different approaches to teaching and learning(both content and process orientations) which are employed in gifted programmes and otheralternatives, concluding that it is difficult to compare the effects upon students. Allan (1991) claimsthat the measurements used are possibly too insensitive to measure or pick-up the effects of differentapproaches. Kulik (1991) discusses the inadequacy of criterion measures used in gifted educationresearch studies, specifically those studies related to ability grouping. In many studies, standardisedachievement tests are used to measure academic gains, however, he believes these might not give atrue measure of effectiveness. He states that research utilising local tests tends to give way to strongerresults, therefore concluding that the effects claimed by many studies may be underestimates. Allan(1991) relays the complaints of many teachers, that too often “tests don’t evaluate what they areteaching” (p. 61).9