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

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