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

professional development opportunities. As the Ministry of Education (2000) indicates, the likelihoodof accurate teacher identification of giftedness and talent rises when teachers are well-informed of thenature and purposes of the programme, and when their ‘gut instincts’ are supported with objectiveteacher rating scales or checklists. George (1997) adds to this that teacher identification must also besystematic with clear means of assessing, recording, and communicating the educational needs ofgifted and talented students.Empirical research related to the effectiveness of teacher nomination and reported in the literature isquite dated and was primarily conducted in the United States, with some of the research usingintelligence tests’ results as the criterion for determining effectiveness. Therefore, it is not reported inthis review of the literature. However, the concerns derived from the empirical research arecontinually and consistently reiterated in the literature and these are discussed.One of the major issues regarding the potential ineffectiveness of teacher identification of giftednessand talent is teacher bias and stereotyping (Davis & Rimm, 1998; Moltzen, 2000a). These writersdescribe teacher identification of ‘teacher pleasers,’ or well-behaved, conforming students, who mayor may not be gifted and talented. The danger here is overlooking gifted students who are displayingnegative classroom behaviours or underachieving. Moltzen (2000a) contends that this misidentificationis less likely in New Zealand primary schools given teachers’ orientations towardindividualised learning. However, the lack of pre-service and in-service education specifically relatedto gifted and talented students is of concern in relation to a teacher’s ability to accurately identify allgifted and talented students, including those from typically under-represented groups.McAlpine (1996) writes that teachers may reflect attitudinal biases in relation to students of differentcultures, socioeconomic statuses, or gender. For example, Bevan-Brown (1996) points out theimplications of cultural stereotyping and ethnocentricity which, without professional awareness anddevelopment, would impinge upon a teacher’s accurate identification of Mäori gifted and talentedstudents. Lee (1999) observed that teachers in Queensland who were asked to nominate children formathematics and science enrichment overwhelmingly identified more boys than girls.Teachers’ conceptions of giftedness and talent will no doubt influence their identification of thesestudents. Lee (1999) conducted phenomenographic research which investigated the conceptions ofgifted young children held by sixteen early childhood teachers who had successfully nominatedchildren for an enrichment programme at the Queensland University of Technology. The teachers inher study described gifted and talented children in these ways: excellent; having potential; being rare;being noticeable; possessing innate or God-given ability; being motivated; and demonstratingasynchronous development. Lee believes that it is important to understand the behaviours readilyidentified by teachers, as well as those which may be ignored by teachers, in order to enhance theireffectiveness through professional development and shared understandings.Braggett (1998a) states that many teachers lack confidence in their ability to identify giftedness andtalent. He feels that these teachers tend to view giftedness as a ‘complete package,’ possessed by asmall minority of students, which can be identified with accuracy and precision. Braggett’s positionalso demonstrates the relationship between how one defines, and subsequently identifies, giftednessand talent. It also raises the question of teachers’ opportunities to develop confidence, based uponbuilding their understandings of the identification of gifted and talented students through professionaldevelopment and support. Research conducted in the United States concluded that althoughidentification policies were in place, many teachers simply did not know where to go, who to consult,or how to find out about identification of giftedness (Evans, 1996/97).Another possible interpretation of Braggett’s view is in relation to potential versus demonstrated giftsand talents – with those teachers searching for exactness in identification basing their conceptions ofgiftedness and talent upon performance. In the Report by the Senate Select Committee on theEducation of Gifted and Talented Children in Australia (1998) it is reported that the efficiency ofteacher identification of gifted children appears to increase with the age of the children. In other20