A smattering of thoughts on gifted & talented characteristics and identification

Characteristics and Identification – Topic 2

A non-assessment post, so a bit more of a collection of thoughts rather than anything else. There may or may not be wine involved too, so excuse an grammatical lapses.

As I am reading my notes and quotes for the week, I cannot help but come to a number of conclusions; though maybe suspicions might be more apt.

Firstly to the question of: what is gifted and/or talented? My understanding, and therefore my usage, at this stage is that talented is the expression of gifted. Or, that gifted is potential and talent the application. As to identification itself, many of the listed characteristics, in Sayler scales for example, seem readily achievable.

I am still looking for a very basic screening tool. Neihart and Betts profiles (2010) offer a marking criteria of giftedness, but this is not quite what I am looking for. Historically, the purpose seems to have been to simply identify the high IQ types so that they could be offered extension, or even to be celebrated. Gazed upon like gazelles in a park. Instead, Gifted and talented students need to be identified simply because it is right and just to do so. It is to their benefit, as well that of the school and wider society.

Making this more important is the fact that typical features of the gifted and talented can be two sided. Brian Cooper (2012) speaks of smooth sailing and rough seas (a metaphor I feel the need to unnecessarily extend) – hinting at the changeable ocean  that is gifted life – (sorry), highlighting just some of the challenges that need to be considered. Looking at analytical skills alone, the ability to identify relationships readily can lead to connecting to inappropriate or overly personal topics (Cooper, 2012). Everything has a flipside.

But how are we to identify those with potential? In sport, the potential is readily apparent. Good movement cannot be hidden and those that thrive in that way have a tendency to feel the need to express their skills. Hidden intellect, or academic talent, is readily masked and requires the teacher to be actively searching. In my own school environment, a model of identification needs to be one that identifies, in particular, those that are hidden amongst their peers. I am hoping one becomes apparent to me before school returns next year, rather than continuing to look at children with suspicion. “Are you the one I am looking for?”

“Identification should be an essential part of any school policy for gifted and talented” (Merrotsy, Bannister-Tyrrell, Jones, & Gunn, 2016). I would argue that it should simply be embedded in school policy. Identifying student needs should be a priority for all. A number of short courses have been identified that assist teachers in identification. Merrotsy et al (2016) state that, teachers without a minimum of twelve hours training in gifted identification, are likely to miss many potentially gifted students. They also point out that Gayle Gear (University of Alabama) has devised a short course that leads to identification success rates of 85%. I cannot help but think that some of the repetitive, ineffectual professional development that teachers currently undertake should spent on such programs. At least for teachers interested in the topic.

It is important to remember that giftedness is a construct. Fraser et al (1995) expand on this idea, “Giftedness is psychological construct that cannot be measured accurately”. It requires observation and some sort of agreed upon indicators. There are “certain fundamental and identifiable traits, aptitudes and behaviours”. These indicators should be what prompts further investigation as well as program design.

Focussing on the aptitudes, Shavinina (2009) equates aptitude with readiness to learn and identifies four: prior knowledge and skill, interest, ability to reason symbol system, & persistence in the type of learning environment. This is applicable to all students, though is crucial for the gifted student. Thoughts from this reading of Shavanina continue below.

Exceptionality, or perceptions of it, depends largely upon the norm group. The high flyer within the class or cohort may simply be that; not necessarily gifted, simply a bright student. This does not mean that the opportunity to extend the student is not the same, or not to be taken. Returning to last topic’s idea of the gifted continuum, the high flyer has their place and should have the opportunity to challenge their capabilities at a suitable level.

How useful is an arbitrary demarcation anyway? “The majority of students who would be classified as gifted one year would not be so classified a few years later.” The only survivors are likely to be the extreme outliers. Again, while being somewhat mindful of my own confirmation bias, this indicates the importance of not saying ‘here is the line you must cross’. It also raised the question whether segregated differentiation for gifted students is the answer. Who will miss out? Knowing the way kids, and many if not most adults, see arbitrary lines in the sand, it will become ‘beyond this lies smart’. Be on the wrong side of it and be condemned to the stupid masses.

I am still left with: what am I to do? What difference can I make? I am liking the idea of a really basic and simple screening tool for the start of each year. On occasion I have been known to add bonus questions to the board, for those ahead of the class. I am wondering if I was able to target this with some degree of accuracy, if I might see more students taking the opportunity to challenge themselves.

The next topic looks at the underachievers, a type of student that I am sure that surrounds me. I am very much looking forward to this. I have also been reminded, while marking assessment, that there are many students whose ideas are A’s while their writing is a C level or below. Another challenge to ponder upon, but one that I am very happy that, as an English faculty, we are seeing improvements with our dedicated work with Prof. Ian Hunter’s sentence, paragraph and essay structures.

More to come in a couple of days.

Back to studying again

Right, so an explanation maybe required. It has been a long time since I last posted anything in this blog. That is for a number of reasons, but primarily laziness winning out over my good intentions. Having just started studying again - MA: English through UNE - it seems a good time. Also, one of my first units has reflective writing as one of the assessments. I have been intending to do this as part of my teaching practice anyway, so here we are.

Below is my first post for EDLT481 Education of the Gifted and Talented. I enjoyed writing it and it is wonderful to have the requirement to consider these issues rather than it simply feeling like something I should do.

Myths lead to misunderstanding, leading to missed opportunities

The more that I read and reflected in topic one, the more I came to believe the title of this little thought bubble. Having said that, it is probably giving a brief overview of the basis of my, potential, biases. I am the parent of four very intelligent children – not claiming gifted at this stage – three of whom, the boys, have Asperger’s. My eldest finished high school last week and will achieve a good OP and received an A on the QCS test, without breaking an academic sweat. A great teacher arrived too late in his special interest area, ancient history, to really challenge him. The second son is in year seven, likes school well enough, but is showing nothing of his potential. His teachers know he is more than capable; his Aspiness gets in the way. Sorry, but this waffly disclaimer goes on for another paragraph.

For myself, I was in the first selective cohort at Gosford High. Like a number of my friends, I struggled. Topic one’s readings have provided some confirmation – confirmation bias perhaps – as to why that was. Why some of my friends, who have gone onto achieve wonderful things in their chosen fields, dropped out of school. Which is what I ended up doing, early on in year eleven. I have come believe that there were number of factors that affected my approach to education at that stage. The most glaring of which is the myths that, “Gifted children will do fine on their own” and that there is a distinct model of a gifted student as the earlier paradigms would seem to assume (Bannister-Tyrrell, Merrotsy, Jones, & Gunn, 2016).

Beginning with the second myth first, the Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA)(n.d.) is quite clear on the fact that students showing gifted and talented traits can be quite varied across a number of areas. Importantly, the same document states that students are entitled to “rigorous, relevant and engaging learning opportunities”. I am left wondering how that can be achieved in the current system where everything must be measured. There is nothing wrong with being results orientated, but a grade, or NAPLAN score, should not be the only measure of a good education.

No method is perfect, or can accomplish every goal, though at least Gagné has provided a source that encourages a different approach. The 2008 Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) begins to do more than simply separate gifts and talents. By breaking away from the paradigm that says IQ is paramount, the opportunity arises to identify a range of talents. Even more significantly, Gagné has identified a number of factors or influences that contribute to the realisation of the gifted student’s potential. While still showing some limitations, this goes a long way to acknowledging the fact that one gifted and talented student is not the same as the next. There is no simple equation.

Another approach might go further to destroy this myth. We have seen in the last ten years or so greater recognition that the Autism spectrum is just that, a spectrum. I believe that this approach should be applied to giftedness. Approaching giftedness as a continuum provides the opportunity to begin to the gifted and talented student as an individual rather than a specific group. This approach lends itself immediately to appropriate differentiation. As seen in British Columbia (Laine & Stanley, 1989), a continuum rather than a dichotomous approach can be an incredibly effective method of establishing programming for the gifted and talented. It is a system through which all students can profit.

This system asks the question, ‘what can we do with what we have?’ Bypassing the limitations of funding and resourcing, using a continuum approach has allowed students to access extension, or even different curriculum as required, on an individual basis, creating provisions within the “students’ daily lives”(Laine & Blank, 1989). The programming is designed to develop students to be “more independent managers of their own education”, and provides opportunity for counselling rather than extension if that is what is required by the individual. This article only provides an overview of the program, so I am very interested in exploring this further.

An individual approach that exists along a continuum addresses both of the myths identified earlier in this ramble. When a student is considered in this way, it is possible to differentiate quite specifically. Another personal belief that all of this reinforces, is that the current method of segregating students due to their age is outdated. If all truly exist on a continuum and, as the Melbourne Declaration (2008) states, all students have a right to an education that meets their needs, progressing students through their education based on their turning another year older rather than attaining mastery of a skill or knowledge area is at once holding students back while leaving others behind.

There are ways to address these issues, but while funding models and governmental policy stays firmly rooted in the past, the status quo will remain. While this is a problem, it does take me to another thought that plagued me throughout this topic. What can I do as an individual teacher, in my smallish school, in a regional area? Ideas are brewing away. I look forward to exploring these issues as the unit progresses.

References other than topic readings

Laine, C.J., & Blank, S.S., (1989) Integrative Program Policy for the Gifted: Continuum or Dichotomy? Canadian Journal of Education Vol. 14 No. 1