Issues regarding the identification of gifted students have perplexed the field almost since its inception. How one identifies gifted students has tremendous ramifications for a gifted education program's size, curriculum, instructional methods, and administration. Little is known, however, regarding educator beliefs regarding gifted identification methods. The current national study surveyed 900 public school educators regarding which identification methods they supported. The educators believed that standardized tests, portfolios of student work, and teacher nominations were valid means of identification but did not support parent or peer nominations. Statistically significant differences existed between administrators and gifted education specialists, on the one hand, and regular classroom teachers, on the other hand, regarding the usefulness of standardized test scores and teacher nominations as methods of identifying students for gifted programs. Such results are potentially valuable to school administrators, gifted education specialists, and regular classroom teachers who work with gifted students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlerM. J. (1998). The Paideia proposal: An educational manifesto. New York: Touchstone
2.
AshtonP. T.WebbR. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman
3.
BenbowC. P.MinorL. L. (1990). Cognitive profile of verbally and mathematically precocious students: Implications for identification of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly,34, 21–26
4.
BenbowC. P.StanleyJ. C. (1982). Consequences in high school and college of sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: A longitudinal perspective. American Educational Research Journal,19, 598–622
5.
BorlandJ. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children: The case for no conception of giftedness. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 1–19). New York: Cambridge University Press
6.
BorlandJ. H.SchnurR.WrightL. (2000). Economically disadvantaged students in a school for the academically gifted: A postpositivist inquiry into individual and family adjustment. Gifted Child Quarterly,44, 13–32
BrodyL. E.AssoulineS. G.StanleyJ. C. (1990). Five years of early entrants: Predicting successful achievement in college. Gifted Child Quarterly,34, 138–142
9.
BrodyL. E.StanleyJ. C. (2005). Youths who reason exceptionally well mathematically and/or verbally: Using the MVT: D4 model to develop their talents. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 20–37). New York: Cambridge University Press
10.
BrownS. W.RenzulliJ. S.GubbinsE. J.SiegleD.ZhangW.ChenC. H. (2005). Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly,49, 68–79
11.
CallahanC. M. (1982). Myth: There must be “winners” and “losers” in identification and programming!Gifted Child Quarterly,26, 17–19
12.
CallahanC. M. (2001). Fourth down and inches. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,12, 148–156
13.
CallahanC. M.MillerE. M. (2005). A child-responsive model of giftedness. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 38–51). New York: Cambridge University Press
14.
ClarkB (2001). Growing up gifted: Developing potential at school and in the home (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall
15.
CohenR. J.SwerdlikM. E. (2005). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill
16.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America's brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development
17.
CramondB.MartinC. E. (1987). Inservice and preservice teachers' attitudes toward the academically brilliant. Gifted Child Quarterly,31, 15–19
18.
DavisG. A.RimmS. B. (2003). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
19.
DealT. E.PetersonK. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
20.
DuFourR.EakerR. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service
21.
DukeD. L. (2003). The challenges of educational change. Boston: Allyn & Bacon
22.
DukeD. L. (2005). Education empire: The evolution of an excellent suburban school system. Albany: The State University of New York Press
23.
FinkA (1995a). How to analyze survey data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
24.
FinkA (1995b). How to sample in surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
25.
FinkA (1995c). The survey handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
26.
FordD. Y. (2003). Two other wrongs don't make a right: Sacrificing the needs of diverse students does not solve gifted education's unresolved problems. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,26, 283–291
27.
FordD. Y.HarrisJ. J. (1999). Multicultural gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press
28.
FullanM (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press
29.
GagnéF. (1983). Perceptions of programs for gifted children: Agreement on principles but disagreement over modalities. B.C. Journal of Special Education,7, 113–127
30.
GayL. R.AirasianP. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education
31.
GottfredsonL. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence,24, 13–23
32.
GottfredsonL. S. (2003). The science and politics of intelligence in gifted education. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 25–40). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
33.
HelferJ. A.SchrothS. T. (2007, Spring). Seeing and seeing as: The challenges in the identification of gifted children. Conceptual Foundations,15 (1), 12–17
34.
KaplanS. N. (2005). Layering differentiated curricula for the gifted and talented. In KarnesF. A.BeanS. M. (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (2nd ed., pp. 107–131). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press
35.
Lupkowski-ShoplikA.BenbowC. P.AssoulineS. G.BrodyL. E. (2003). Talent searches: Meeting the needs of academically talented youth. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 204–218). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
36.
MarlandS. P.Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented, Volume 1. Report to the Congress of the United States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
37.
MaxwellS. E.DelaneyH. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparative procedure (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
38.
McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2007). What predicts teachers' attitudes toward the gifted?Gifted Child Quarterly,51, 246–255
39.
MönksF. J.KatzkoM. W. (2005). Giftedness and gifted education. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness(2nd ed., pp. 187–200). New York: Cambridge University Press
40.
MoonT. R.CallahanC. M. (2001). Curricular modifications, family outreach, and a mentoring program: Impacts on achievement and gifted identification in high-risk primary students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,24, 305–321
41.
OakesJ (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
42.
PedhazurE. J.SchmelkinL. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
43.
ReisS. M.SmallM. A. (2005). The varied and unique characteristics exhibited by diverse gifted and talented learners. In KarnesF. A.BeanS. M. (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted(2nd ed., pp. 3–35). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press
44.
RenzulliJ. S. (1982). Myth: The gifted constitute 3–5% of the population. Gifted Child Quarterly,26, 11–14
45.
RenzulliJ. S. (2003). Conception of giftedness and its relationship to the development of social capital. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 75–87). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
46.
RenzulliJ. S.DelcourtM. A. B. (1986). The legacy and logic of research on the identification of gifted persons. Gifted Child Quarterly,30, 20–23
47.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press
48.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (2003). The schoolwide enrichment model: Developing creative and productive giftedness. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 184–203). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
49.
RimmS (1984). The characteristics approach: Identification and beyond. Gifted Child Quarterly,28, 181–187
50.
SchrothS. T. (2007). Levels of service. In CallahanC. M.PluckerJ. A. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 281–294. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press
51.
SchrothS. T.HelferJ. A. (2008). Urban school districts' enrichment programs: Who should be served?Journal of Urban Education,5(1), 7–17
52.
SchunkD. H. (1987). Peer models and children's behavioral change. Review of Educational Research,52, 149–174
53.
StanleyJ. C. (1980). On educating the gifted. Educational Researcher,9 (3), 8–12
54.
SternbergR. J. (2002). Beyond g: The theory of successful intelligence. In SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L. (Eds.), The general factor of intelligence: How general is it? (pp. 447–479. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
55.
SternbergR. J. (2003). Giftedness according to the theory of successful intelligence. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 88–99). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
56.
SternbergR. J. (2005). The WICS model of giftedness. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 327–342). New York: Cambridge University Press
57.
StrongeJ. H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
58.
TannenbaumA. J. (2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 45–59). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
59.
TomlinsonC. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
60.
TomlinsonC. A.CallahanC. M.LelliK. M. (1997). Challenging expectations: Case studies of high-potential, culturally diverse young children. Gifted Child Quarterly,41 (2), 5–17
61.
TomlinsonC. A.GouldH.SchrothS. T.JarvisJ. (2006). Multiple case studies of teachers and classrooms successful in supporting academic success of high potential low economic students of color (Research Monograph No. 06220). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
62.
TomlinsonC. A.KaplanS. N.RenzulliJ. S.PurcellJ.LeppienJ.BurnsD. (2002). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop high potential and challenge high-ability learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
63.
TorranceE. P. (1984). The role of creativity in identification of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly,28, 153–156
64.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.BrownE. F. (2005). An analysis of gifted education curricular models. In KarnesF. A.BeanS. M. (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (2nd ed., pp. 75–105). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press
65.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.FengA. X.EvansB. L. (2007). Patterns of identification and performance among gifted students identified through performance tasks: A three-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly,51, 218–231
66.
VolkerM. A. (2006). Reporting effect size estimates in school psychology research. Psychology in the Schools,43, 653–672
67.
Von KárolyiC.Ramos-FordV.GardnerH. (2003). Multiple intelligences: A perspective on giftedness. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 100–112). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
68.
WorrellF. C.SzarkoJ. E.GabelkoN. H. (2001). Multi-year persistence of nontraditional students in an academic talent development program. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,12, 80–89
69.
WorthamS. C. (2008). Assessment in early childhood education (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall
