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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

parent nomination. However, of respondents to Riley’s (2003) survey of rural schools, 23% indicatedtheir use of parental nomination.Because parents, caregivers, and whänau have been involved in the life of a gifted student for longerthan a school term or school year, they can provide information that may not be available fromclassroom observations, school records, or test scores (Riley, 1999). Rogers (2002b) outlines the typesof information parents can provide: cognitive functioning information in relation to how quickly orwell a child learns; learning strength information; personality characteristics; learning preferences;personal interests; enrichment activities, such as travel, clubs, or cultural activities; and books thechild has read. Davis and Rimm (1998) add to this list preferred activities when alone, relationshipswith others, and special problems and/or needs. Parents of young children can provide importantinformation related to their development, for example, if the child began reading at an early age(McAlpine, 1996).A study undertaken by Freeman (1998) discovered that 10% of children reported to the NationalAssociation for Gifted Children (UK) by their parents as being gifted were only of average ability ontests of intelligence and in their school performance. Thus, the accuracy of parent identification wasquite high, leading Freeman to state “most of the children presented as gifted were indeed so, asmeasured by IQ and specific tests of talent, even when the teachers were dismissive of the child'sexceptional potential” (p. 14). Similarly, Gross and Sleap (2001) report that 90% of parents of highlygifted students in a longitudinal study conducted in Australia were aware that their child was gifted bythe age of two.In New Zealand, Allan’s (1999) research into the development of her teacher observation scalesconcluded that parents are reliable in identifying specific gifted behaviours in young children. A recentNew Zealand study conducted by Neiderer et al. (2003) found that parents were more likely thanteachers to nominate their children as having special mathematical abilities. The result was two-fold:more ‘hits’ (0.86) and more ‘misses’ (0.53) in the accuracy of parental identification in relation to theirchildren’s results on a test of mathematical problem-solving abilities. A similar phenomenon isreported by Turner and Olzewski-Kubilius (2003), whereby parental identification for Talent Searchesis reported as more frequent and less accurate than standardised testing. However, they conclude thatthe differences in accuracy are so slight the benefits of parental identification outweigh these. Theyreport that ‘many more students’ are given opportunities when parents are included in theidentification process.Bevan-Brown (1993, 1996) suggests that parents of Mäori students may be reluctant to nominate theirown children, due to fears of being perceived as whakahïhï or boastful and therefore recommends thatother whänau members or Kaumätua be invited into the identification process. It is important torecognise that this reluctance does not mean that Mäori parents are not proud of their children or thatthey do not want to see them successfully achieve.There are several ways in which educators can facilitate parental nominations: parent-teacherinterviews; questionnaires; and checklists of behaviours (McAlpine, 1996). As Moltzen (2000a)recommends, teachers should ask for specific information rather than being general and open-ended.Renzulli (2003) supports this, adding that teachers should “use the information for makingaccommodations that respect individual interests and strengths” (p. 2). Another important factor infacilitating parental nomination is to ensure that the questions asked reflect the school’s definition andprovisions for gifted and talented students.Cathcart (1994) has developed an extensive parent nomination form for New Zealand educators.Unlike other parent nomination checklists, Cathcart recommends that a follow-up interview to discussresponses and potentially different interpretations of those be undertaken.Keen (2001) reports that within the participants in his study, some teachers were “…ambivalent aboutthe ‘politics’ and bias of parental input into the process of recognising giftedness” (p. 7). Thereluctance to utilise family in the identification of giftedness seems to stem from educator assumptions28
that ‘all parents think their children are gifted’ and as a result they will no doubt overestimate theirchild’s abilities. Indeed, this can sometimes be the case, but as Moltzen (2000a) points out,overestimation of abilities is uncommon. Sometimes parents will do the opposite and underestimate,perhaps not even understand, their child’s special abilities. Therefore, as with other forms ofidentification parent, caregiver, or whänau nomination should be used in combination with othermethods.Peer nomination. Another method of identification is the use of students’ peers to help uncover theirindividual strengths, abilities, and qualities. The Ministry of Education (2000) suggests this as aneffective method, particularly in the identification of special abilities normally seen outside the wallsof the classroom. For example, students will be well aware of the Saturday morning sports stars,‘behind-the-scene’ leaders on the local marae, musical entertainers, and even playground comedians.They will also have some insight into the students with special abilities displayed within theclassroom. This is because students tend to “know who’s who” (Davis & Rimm, 1998, p. 79). Withthis recognition of the special relationships students have amongst each other, it is not surprising thatDavis and Rimm (1998) report that peer nomination is used in approximately 25 percent of Americanschools’ multi-method approaches. Although peer nomination is a recommended practice within NewZealand, this review of the literature yielded only one reference to the frequency of its use. In Riley’s(2003) survey of rural principals only two of the 206 responding schools indicated use of peernominations.In New Zealand, Le Sueur (2000) has developed a peer nomination form based upon affectivebehaviours associated with giftedness and talent which is freely available to schools. Its developmentfollowed the steps outlined by Gagné (1989), but the validity, reliability, and overall effectiveness ofthis instrument have not been determined, and it is not clear how many schools are utilising this tool.McAlpine and Reid (1996) suggest that peer nomination be used in tandem with their TeacherObservation Scales for Identifying Children with Special Abilities, and provide an example of howteachers can ensure the two work well together by reflecting the same student behaviours.The research surrounding the effectiveness of peer nominations is limited and somewhat dated. Forexample, many writers make reference to a 1989 article by Banbury and Wellington which argues forpeer nomination and outlines suggestions for their construction. Also cited is another 1989 study byGagné which critiques the earlier studies of peer nominations, concluding that these studies weremethodologically weak and proposing a plan for more effective research. It seems, however, that few,if any, researchers have answered this call.Despite the lack of empirical research related to the effectiveness of peer nomination, there are someguidelines available regarding its use. Several writers (Davis & Rimm, 1998; McAlpine, 1996;Ministry of Education, 2000; Moltzen, 2000a) argue that peer nomination is a suitable approach foridentifying potentially under-represented groups of gifted and talented students (culturally diverse,students with disabilities, and low socioeconomic groups). Renzulli (2003) has developed The AlphaProject Peer Nomination Simulation, which he states is especially effective in the identification ofculturally diverse students and ‘street smart’ kids. However, Reid (1992) argues that peer nominationamongst Mäori and Pacific Island children is “antithetical to prevailing peer values and codes ofconduct” (p. 55). Bevan-Brown’s (1993, 1996) research does not confirm Reid’s findings. Sherecommends peer nomination as a viable identification of Mäori students with special abilities,recommending that it is most successful when the students know and trust the facilitator.Potential limitations of valid peer nominations may also relate to the age of students. Davis and Rimm(1998) warn that young children may misinterpret the behaviours of their peers; for example, they maymistakenly think ‘fast finishers’ or ‘fast-but-poor work’ are indications of ‘smart’ peers. It is alsoplausible that older students would tend to name their peer group only. Students may also be moresuccessful at identifying their ‘high performing’ peers, for as Freeman (1998) points out, thelikelihood of classmates recognising hidden potential is minimal. Careful facilitation of peernomination can assist in eliminating these dangers, and should take into account the language andformat utilised. The Ministry of Education (2000) also recommends that culturally-relevant behaviours29
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 and 28: classroom. She further recommends t
Page 29 and 30: combination. The desirable approach
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: mentioned, it must be recognised th
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?