Project ARTS was designed as a research and development project to identify high-ability, artistically talented third graders from four different ethnic backgrounds in seven rural schools and to implement differentiated arts programs for them. Locally designed identification measures, developed by teachers and community members, were found to be appropriate by teachers and staff if several different measures were used. In research about identification of students for Project ARTS, scores on the Torrance Tests of Creativity, Clark's Drawing Abilities Test, and state achievement tests were found to be correlated. Except at one site, gender was not found to be a significant variable on these tests. It was recommended that local measures, the CDAT, and achievement tests be used to identify artistically talented students in rural communities with populations similar to those in Project ARTS.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
2.
Bachtel, A. E. (1988). A study of current selection and identification processes and schooling for K-12 artistically gifted and talented students (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 12A-3597
3.
Baldwin, A. (1984). The Baldwin Identification Matrix 2 for Identification of Gifted and Talented. New York: Trillium Press.
4.
Bolster, S. J. (1990, March). Collaboration on curriculum. Paper presented at the Rural Education Symposium of the American Council on Rural Special Education and the National Rural and Small Schools Consortium, Tucson, AZ.
5.
Brooks, P. R. (1997). Targeting potentially talented and gifted minority students for academic advancement. In J. F. Smutny (Ed.), The young gifted child (pp. 133-146). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
6.
Buros, O. (Ed.). (1972). The seventh mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, NJ: The Gryphon Press.
7.
Clark, G. (1989). Screening and identifying students talented in the visual arts: Clark's Drawing Abilities Test. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(3), 98-105.
8.
Clark, G. (1992). Using history to design current research: The background of Clark's Drawing Abilities Test. In P. Amburgy, D. Soucy, M. Stankiewicz, B. Wilson, & M. Wilson (Eds.), The history of art education: Proceedings from the second Penn State conference, 1989 (pp. 191-199). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association (NAEA).
9.
Clark, G. (1993). Judging children's drawings as measures of art abilities. Studies in Art Education, 34, 72-81.
10.
Clark, G., & Wilson, T. (1991). Screening and identifying gifted/talented students in the visual arts with Clark's Drawing Abilities Test. Roeper Review, 13, 92-97.
11.
Clark, G., & Zimmerman, E. (1992). Issues and practices related to identification of gifted and talented students in the visual arts. (Research Monograph No. 9202). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
12.
Clark, G., & Zimmerman, E. (1994). Programming opportunities for students talented in the visual arts. (Research Monograph No. RBDM 9402). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
13.
Clark, G., & Zimmerman, E. (1998). Nurturing the arts in programs for gifted and talented students. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 747-756.
14.
Eisner, E. W. (1972). Educating artistic vision. New York: Macmillan.
15.
Elam, A. H., Goodwin, N., & Doughty, R. (1988). Guidelines for the identification of artistically gifted and talented students (Revised). Columbia, SC: South Carolina State Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 306761).
16.
Fredette, B. (1993). Issues in identifying visually gifted young children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED370568)
17.
Freeman, J. (1991). Gifted children growing up. London: Cassell.
18.
Hamblen, K. (1988). If it will be tested, it will be taught. A rationale worthy of examination. Art Education, 41(5), 59-62.
19.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York: Macmillan.
20.
Keirouz, K. S. (1990). The Indiana guide on identification of gifted/talented students. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of Education.
21.
Leonhard, C. (1991). The status of arts education in American public schools: Report on a survey conducted by the National Arts Education Research Center at the University of Illinois. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Council for Research in Music Education, University of Illinois.
22.
Linn, L. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (1995). Measurement and assessment in teaching (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
23.
Nachtigal, P. N. (1992). Rural schools: Obsolete... or harbinger of the future?Educational Horizons, 70, 66-70.
24.
Pegnato, C. W., & Birch, J. (1959). Locating gifted children in junior high schools: A comparison of methods. Exceptional Children, 25, 300-304.
25.
Sabol, F. R. (1994). A critical examination of visual arts achievement tests from state departments of education in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
26.
Smutny, J. F. (1997). Special opportunities: Challenges and opportunities. In J. F. Smutny (Ed.), The young gifted child (pp. 91-94). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
27.
Spicker, H. H., Southern, W. T., & Davis, B. I. (1987). The rural gifted child. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 155-157.
28.
Swassing, R. H. (1985). Teaching gifted children and adolescents. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
29.
Torrance, E. P. (1997). Talent among children who are economically disadvantaged or culturally different. In J. F. Smutny (Ed.), The gifted young child (pp. 95-118). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
30.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1988). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. Denver, CO: Love.
31.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (Ed.). (1998). Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd ed.). Denver, CO: Love.
32.
Yochim, L. D. (1967). Perceptual growth in creativity. Scranton, PA: International Textbook.
33.
Zimmerman, E. (1992). Assessing students' progress and achievements in art. Art Education, 45(6), 34-38
34.
Zimmerman, E. (1994). How should students' progress and achievements be assessed? A case for assessment that is responsive to diverse students' needs. Visual Arts Research, 20(1), 29-35.
