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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Ministry of Education (2000) describes the following methods of identification: teachernomination; rating scales; standardised tests; tests of intelligence or scholastic ability; tests ofachievement; teacher-made tests; portfolio assessment; parent nomination; self-nomination; and peernomination. Each of these is further elaborated upon in this section of the literature review.The greatest advantage of using multiple methods of identification is the opportunity to identify manydifferent students’ gifts and talents. Multi-method identification has the potential to be inclusive, asopposed to exclusive (Davis & Rimm, 1998). Furthermore, because every method of identification hasits weaknesses, as well as strengths, by combining a number of approaches these may becounterbalanced. Additionally, the data obtained from different methods may confirm or contradictone another.In theory, this is a sensible way to identify the gifts and talents in students; but, in practice, it maypresent difficulties. Evans (1996/97) sums these up as “time, money, bureaucracy, and challenges to… decision-making” (p. 84). The challenges to decision-making refer to the level of subjectivityrequired to make sense of the multiple identification data whilst remaining as objective as possible.Feldhusen and Jarwin (2000) suggest the need for research related to defensible ways of combiningthe data, and practical ways of validating decisions. Frasier (1997a) elucidates the potential difficultiesas increased costs, the need for teacher/observer training, higher levels of involvement, the balancingof breadth and depth of coverage, collection of assessment tools, and decision-making regarding theappropriateness, validity and reliability (McAlpine, 1996) of some measures. Finally, it is importantthat the multiple identification methods utilised are being used to collect data directly related to theconcept of giftedness and talent, and to ensure that the information gained from each measure is alsointer-related (Davis & Rimm, 1998; McAlpine, 1996). Callahan et al. (1995) state that this is a logicalrecommendation, but “its implementation is hampered by slow development in the assessment field”(p. 12).Educators who cast the net widely, gathering information about students’ strengths, qualities, interests,and abilities from many different sources, must make decisions of what to do with the information.This requires ‘systematic assembly and scrutiny’ of all measures of potential and performance (Officefor Standards in Education, 2001). McAlpine (1996) describes the use of multiple methods to screenpossible candidates for gifted and talented programmes, followed by formal procedures ofidentification. Although the Ministry of Education (2000) strongly encourages schools to utilisemultiple methods of identification, it does not provide insight into how educators might deal with, andmake decisions from, the information gathered during the identification process. The literature,however, reports several common approaches to making sense of multiple identification data:1. As a means of ‘screening’ potentially gifted and talented students, whereby, the multiplemethods become ‘multiple hoops’ or ‘multiple steps’ in the identification process (Evans,1996/97; Callahan et al., 1995);2. As a means of gathering data, translating it into a point system, collating it in a matrixformat, and calculating a total score for which an identification ‘cut-off score’ is established(Davis & Rimm, 1998; Feldhusen & Jarwin, 2000);3. As a means of gathering multiple data, translating it into a point system, and setting multiplecut-off points (Feldhusen & Jarwin, 2000); or4. As a means of collating the data to create a profile of the gifted and talented student’sdocumented special abilities (Frasier, 1997a; Renzulli, 2001a; Rogers, 2002b; Taylor, 2001).All of these approaches utilise multiple methods of identification based on an “and” factor, wherebyeducators use approaches in conjunction with one another. However, it is plausible that a fifthapproach may be used by schools and that is to rely upon one method or another (Riley, 2003). Inother words, schools may be employing a variety of identification methods, but not necessarily in16
combination. The desirable approach to multi-method identification would be to use measures injuxtaposition with one another, as opposed to separately.Each of the four previously mentioned strategies for dealing with multiple sources of information ascited in the international literature are however problematic. For example, Evans (1996/97) reportsthat in the United States when multiple methods are utilised for screening, the bottom-line for decisionmaking is intelligence or achievement testing. She reports that this process nullifies all other data andbecomes reliant upon standardised testing as ‘the cornerstone’ of identification. In this way, multimethodidentification translates itself into single-method decision-making, or as Renzulli (2003)describes, “… the multiple criteria game ends up being a smoke screen for the same old test basedapproach…” (no page given). Callahan et al. (1995) believe that in order to avoid thismisinterpretation of multi-method approaches, educators should reconceptualise this principle as‘alternative pathways.’The second approach, whereby multiple factors are quantified and a total score is calculated, could beconceived as an ‘apples and oranges’ approach, with difficulty arising in combining data fromdifferent sources (McAlpine, 1996). As Feldhusen and Jarwin (2000) state, the problem educators arefaced with is how to reduce and combine the data in a defensible way. Additionally, as Davis andRimm (1998) point out, students who excel in a few areas by meeting or exceeding the score-basedcriteria could produce a mediocre score, and thus be excluded from gifted and talented programmes.Setting multiple cut-off scores also presents dilemmas: the setting of such scores is often arbitrary,based upon other factors such as student numbers (Feldhusen & Jarwin, 2000).Finally, in creating a profile or portfolio of giftedness and talent, the issue of subjectivity comes to thefore. Someone must translate the information into educational decisions (Frasier, 1997a). Moltzen(2000a) indicates that this is often overcome in New Zealand schools when teachers meet together todiscuss the outcomes of the identification process. If the overall purpose in identification is to makethe connection between the gifted and talented student and his educational experiences, then a profileor portfolio of ability would most readily facilitate this. “The intent of the use of multiple criteria is togive professionals the most complete picture of the student and to allow many ways for a student toexhibit talent” (Callahan et al., 1995, p. 12).A good example of a student portfolio is Renzulli’s Total Talent Portfolio (2001a). This portfolio isdesigned to serve as a means for collecting and collating student data from the identification and inrelation to their strengths. These strengths include their preferred learning styles, interests, abilities,thinking styles, and ways of expression. Renzulli also recommends that teachers include samples ofthe student’s exemplary work. He refers to these components as ‘status information’ which coupledwith teacher referrals about ‘remarkable responses to learning situations,’ are referred to as ‘actioninformation.’ This combination results in two outcomes: the focus becomes gifted behaviours andgifted services (in both cases rather than gifted students). In New Zealand, Taylor (2001) has devised asimilar approach with the focus upon both identification and appropriate provision.In relation to utilising a multi-method approach to identification, Feldhusen and Jarwin (1993), state,“It is important … to recognize that this approach does not necessarily guarantee making validdecisions” (p. 238). What is important is not so much how many methods are used, but thecontribution each method will make to the identification of giftedness and talent. For example,Chessman (2003) reports that in Australia, although all states and territories are committedphilosophically to multiple criteria for identification, for the most part there is heavy reliance onteacher nomination and test performance. In this scenario, there may be advocacy for multiplemethods, but the actual use of these is out of sync or imbalanced. Just as important is the nature of thechosen methods which comprise a multi-method approach. For example, Reid (1992) criticises multimethodapproaches which overlook cultural differences in the selection and implementation of thevarious identification tools.Identification as a means to an end. The purpose in identifying the gifts and talents of students is tocreate educational opportunities which build upon those. Therefore, this principle refers to the use of17
Page 1 and 2: The Extent, Nature and Effectivenes
Page 3 and 4: iii
Page 6 and 7: AcknowledgementsThe research team w
Page 8 and 9: viii
Page 10 and 11: The Nature and Extent of Identifica
Page 12 and 13: Table 28. School-Based Provisions:
Page 14 and 15: policy (Ministry of Education, 2002
Page 17 and 18: Introduction to the Literature Revi
Page 19 and 20: national and international theory a
Page 21 and 22: literature in relation to New Zeala
Page 23 and 24: DEFINITIONS AND CHARACTERISTICSTher
Page 25 and 26: It is also important to remember th
Page 27: classroom. She further recommends t
Page 31 and 32: identification and the opportunitie
Page 33 and 34: words, teacher identification in yo
Page 35 and 36: Tests of intelligence. Tests of int
Page 37 and 38: 2003). The bias reported in these t
Page 39 and 40: mentioned, it must be recognised th
Page 41: that ‘all parents think their chi
Page 46: The adaptations made to content, pr
Page 49 and 50: same time, relationships can be bui
Page 51 and 52: 6. The classroom has a comfortable,
Page 53 and 54: Freeman (1998) conceives enrichment
Page 55 and 56: egular classroom can also alleviate
Page 57 and 58: • These learners should have oppo
Page 59 and 60: learning there seems to be reluctan
Page 61 and 62: Swiatek (2002) concludes that the S
Page 63 and 64: Perhaps in the historical debate ov
Page 65 and 66: The New Zealand Curriculum recognis
Page 67 and 68: Stocktake Report to the Minister of
Page 69 and 70: The model reflects many of the prin
Page 71 and 72: • The establishment of learning g
Page 73 and 74: challenging for them” (Fielder et
Page 75 and 76: (1986) believe that if grouping is
Page 77 and 78: EDUCATING GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDE
Page 79 and 80:
and exposure to higher level thinki
Page 81 and 82:
5. Ensure the student is equipped a
Page 83 and 84:
• A documented programme for an i
Page 85 and 86:
There are some suggestions that IEP
Page 87 and 88:
Potential Weaknesses• Time consum
Page 89 and 90:
always be concerned to protect stud
Page 91 and 92:
Similar findings were reported by J
Page 93 and 94:
Potential Strengths• Working in t
Page 95 and 96:
Kaplan (1999) outlines the followin
Page 97 and 98:
Potential weaknesses of learning ce
Page 99 and 100:
Developed specifically as a model f
Page 101 and 102:
earlier in this review of the liter
Page 103 and 104:
• A practical option for small or
Page 105 and 106:
programmes of this nature. Macleod
Page 107 and 108:
have significant but varying positi
Page 109 and 110:
• Missed instruction (Cox & Danie
Page 111 and 112:
describe American secondary schools
Page 113 and 114:
felt that instruction was more stud
Page 115 and 116:
Recommendations for Effective Pract
Page 117 and 118:
Outcomes for StudentsEarly entry is
Page 119 and 120:
difficulties, Cornell et al. (1991)
Page 121 and 122:
opportunities for acceleration and
Page 123 and 124:
Burns and Lewis (2000) conducted a
Page 125 and 126:
way, competitions allow students a
Page 127 and 128:
hundred and sixteen of these Olympi
Page 129 and 130:
her wings so that those special abi
Page 131 and 132:
programmes: establish a “definiti
Page 133 and 134:
determine what features are essenti
Page 135 and 136:
their responses (Harrison, 2003). O
Page 137 and 138:
ideas beyond the school curriculum,
Page 139 and 140:
• Narrow selection criteria inclu
Page 141 and 142:
Culture free and culture fair tests
Page 143 and 144:
In her examination of successful pr
Page 145 and 146:
potential (Torrance, 1984). Mentors
Page 147 and 148:
Provisions: ProblemsShortage of cul
Page 149 and 150:
content and context of learning is
Page 151 and 152:
concept/phenomenon, threat of isola
Page 153 and 154:
Similarly, Doidge (1990) recommends
Page 155 and 156:
cooperative team approach is helpfu
Page 157 and 158:
student outcomes is briefly discuss
Page 159 and 160:
a link between programme evaluation
Page 161 and 162:
• Community and parental contribu
Page 163 and 164:
Cathcart (1996) states that, “som
Page 165 and 166:
• Is passionate about discipline,
Page 167 and 168:
Whilst all of these are promising p
Page 169 and 170:
THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF IDENTIFICA
Page 171 and 172:
profiles or cumulative work folders
Page 173 and 174:
QuestionnaireThis purpose of the qu
Page 175 and 176:
questionnaire the quality of these
Page 177 and 178:
• Income Support Payments Receive
Page 179 and 180:
of these schools reported one, wher
Page 181 and 182:
Table 9. Written Policies and Proce
Page 183 and 184:
We are very much in our conception
Page 185 and 186:
Table 11. School-Based Concept or D
Page 187 and 188:
Some schools recognised the potenti
Page 189 and 190:
Table 12. Formal Identification by
Page 191 and 192:
The frequencies for this section ar
Page 193 and 194:
Table 17. Identification Methods: C
Page 195 and 196:
Table 19. Identification Methods: S
Page 197 and 198:
Summary: Formal Identification of G
Page 199 and 200:
Table 24. Community-Based Provision
Page 201 and 202:
Table 25. School-based Provision by
Page 203 and 204:
Provisions: Intellectual/Academic.
Page 205 and 206:
Table 31. Provisions: Gifted and Ta
Page 207 and 208:
primary schools are making schoolwi
Page 209 and 210:
Resource provision, staffing, is a
Page 211 and 212:
Case StudiesTo add richness to this
Page 213 and 214:
7. Measures to ensure identificatio
Page 215 and 216:
Table 36. Profile of School A.Overa
Page 217 and 218:
intelligences, inquiry learning, an
Page 219 and 220:
School B’s JourneyThis full prima
Page 221 and 222:
Table 38. Profile of School C.Overa
Page 223 and 224:
included. Teachers chose which acti
Page 225 and 226:
School D’s JourneyWhile it is dif
Page 227 and 228:
Table 40. Profile of School E.Overa
Page 229 and 230:
isks. As part of this inclusive phi
Page 231 and 232:
School F’s JourneyPrior to the pr
Page 233 and 234:
Table 42. Profile of School G.Overa
Page 235 and 236:
School electives and the annual sch
Page 237 and 238:
School H’s JourneyThe gifted and
Page 239 and 240:
School I’s JourneyThe journey for
Page 241 and 242:
Table 45. Profile of School J.Overa
Page 243 and 244:
community who may be able to suppor
Page 245 and 246:
IdentificationDuring the in-depth i
Page 247 and 248:
1. A talent detector form that asks
Page 249 and 250:
The process in one school for the i
Page 251 and 252:
Have an established gifted register
Page 253 and 254:
Withdrawal programmes. The ‘succe
Page 255 and 256:
It’s actually releasing children
Page 257 and 258:
Difficulties. Providing for gifted
Page 259 and 260:
Knowing that Mäori kids like team
Page 261 and 262:
To counteract the previously mentio
Page 263 and 264:
classroom teacher for inclusion in
Page 265 and 266:
additional funds for competitions,
Page 267 and 268:
classes during Enrichment. The coor
Page 269 and 270:
One of the main day to day operatio
Page 271 and 272:
The intermediate school teachers of
Page 273 and 274:
cluster programme, as well as press
Page 275 and 276:
not all students could participate,
Page 277 and 278:
levels of schooling, and overall or
Page 279 and 280:
The rationale for professional read
Page 281 and 282:
DiscussionThe purpose in this resea
Page 283 and 284:
Schoolwide organisation of gifted a
Page 285 and 286:
inclusive nature of giftedness and
Page 287 and 288:
provisions in their procedures. Mee
Page 289 and 290:
ConclusionsThis section of the rese
Page 291 and 292:
eflect the core principles of gifte
Page 293 and 294:
ReferencesAdams, C., & Cross, T. (1
Page 295 and 296:
Betts, G. (1985). Autonomous Learne
Page 297 and 298:
Callahan, C.M., Hunsaker, S.L., Ada
Page 299 and 300:
Cross, T. (1994). Alternative inqui
Page 301 and 302:
Feldhusen, J.F. (1997). Educating t
Page 303 and 304:
Freeman, J. (1998). Educating the v
Page 305 and 306:
Heller, K.A., & Schofield, N.J. (20
Page 307 and 308:
Kaufmann, F.A., Harrel, G., Milam,
Page 309 and 310:
Lewis, G. (2002). Alternatives to a
Page 311 and 312:
McGee, C., Jones, A., Cowie, B., Hi
Page 313 and 314:
Montgomery, W. (2001). Creating cul
Page 315 and 316:
Plunkett, M., & Harvey, D. (1995).
Page 317 and 318:
Renzulli, J.S. (1986). Systems and
Page 319 and 320:
Robinson, A. (1991). Cooperative le
Page 321 and 322:
Slavin, R.E. (1988). Synthesis of r
Page 323 and 324:
Timutimu-Thorpe, H. (1988). E awhi
Page 325 and 326:
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2000). Theory
Page 327 and 328:
APPENDIX ALiterature Review Templat
Page 329 and 330:
Section 2: THEORY-BASED REFERENCES
Page 331 and 332:
APPENDIX BSchool Questionnaire20033
Page 333 and 334:
321
Page 335 and 336:
323
Page 337 and 338:
325
Page 339 and 340:
APPENDIX CInformation Sheets andInt
Page 341 and 342:
The Extent and Nature of Identifica
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
As compensation for your school’s
Page 347 and 348:
APPENDIX DConsent Forms335
Page 349:
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?