Subjective identification procedures

I. 1.8.4.1. Teacher nominations

The first step considered by schools to identify students for participation in a gifted program is to involve teachers in putting forth nominations for gifted assessment.

If gifted abilities are shown in the classroom, teachers should be able to identify students with outstanding abilities and capabilities. Often the opinion of an experienced and skilled teacher is accepted as a reliable procedure in identifying a gifted child. In Portugal, nomination by teachers are the most used means when selecting students for enrichment programs (Almeida et al., 2013).

However, teachers are often not qualified to nominate gifted students because of their lack of knowledge and awareness of the characteristics of the gifted (Nogueira &

Almeida, 1988). Authors have referred to the teachers’ overreliance on cognitive abilities and academic abilities (Guskin, Peng & Simon, 1992; Moon & Brighton, 2008), while overlooking creativity as indicators of giftedness. Kuo, Maker, Su, and Hu (2009) highlight that the students that teachers tend to overlook as gifted (false negative) either underachieve, are from underprivileged backgrounds, ethnic minorities (Szymansky & Shaff, 2013), have learning difficulties or emotional and behavioural problems. Girls are also often overlooked. Teachers are also often found to make inaccurate judgments about gifted children at the earlier ages. However, researchers have found that the efficiency of such identification appears to increase with older children. For example at the secondary level, teachers are found to be more accurate when nominating students.

One of the most commonly used scales for teacher nomination is Scales for Rating the Behavioural Characteristics of Superior Students. In order to obtain more objective data, other forms include analysis of the child’s portfolio of work and even structured interviews.

34 I. 1.8.4.2. Parent nominations

Parents nomination can often be more accurate than teacher nominations in identification of gifted pre-school and primary school pupils, i.e., in younger ages.

Candeias et al. (2003) state interestingly that when parents identify giftedness in their offspring, their perception of the concept is multidimensional in that they include cognitive, motivational and socio-affective characteristics. It is this global vision that the parents have that the author suggests to be of extreme importance. In contrast, Almeida et al., (2013) request for caution as parents may either over or underestimate their children’s capabilities; parents who have higher academic qualifications tend to underestimate their children’s capabilities whilst experience with gifted families shows that some parents fear labelling their children as different or as gifted. The authors go on further to say that parents fear the pressure labelling may exert on the children, and on themselves as educators of their own children while confronting an educational system which seems far from capable of catering for the various needs of this population. In order to reduce biases and to improve the accuracy of identification on parents’ behalf, it is recommended that questionnaires, rating scales and checklists be implemented.

I. 1.8.4.3. Peer nominations

Peer nominations are used for older gifted students in the form of a checklist or questionnaires and more often to collect data on characteristics such as leadership and creativity. This data is of course vulnerable to aspects such as peer rivalry, students’

social adjustment problems, underachievement and students that are from underprivileged backgrounds may or may not be evaluated fairly (Maitra, 2000).

Researchers have often presented not only conceptions but often identification procedures with them too. Reis and Renzulli (1982) put forth a system which connects both the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1977) and the Revolving Door Identification Model (Renzulli, Reis, & Smith, 1981). This model aims to provide enrichment activities to more students in a school context – not the common percentage of 3%–5% of the school population. Both contributors gather that opening up

35

possibilities for a broader range of students aids in reducing the attitudes of elitism and negativity surrounding the opportunity of specialised provision to these learners.

Renzulli argues that studies have shown that is it the top 15%–20 % of students demonstrating above-average ability (not superior ability) that have probabilities of developing task commitment and creativity and therefore giftedness. Additionally, research has shown that the activities typically used in these programs work very well with these students. This talent pool is identified using four kinds of data: (1) information from standardised intelligence tests, cognitive ability tests, creative tests etc.; (2) nomination by peers, parents and teachers as well as self-nominations; (3) sociometric data derived from peers; and (4) actual performance evaluation through accomplished products. All of these students then participate in an enrichment Type I program. These activities are a series of exploratory activities designed to put them in touch with fields which are not part of the regular curriculum, i.e., field trips, conferences, presentations etc. Students are also encouraged to explore their own area of interest further. Type II activities are designed to develop critical thinking, divergent thinking, inquiry training, personal and social development and others. The experiences themselves revolve around the materials, methods and instructional techniques. Type III advanced learning revolve around individual or small group work that aims to investigate a real, concrete problem. Here, students are encouraged to think and work as professionals; they determine the problem, select an appropriate investigative method and come up with a product. Renzulli and Reis (1982) give examples of children having created a walking robot and having analysed the effects of acid rain over the period of a year. Renzulli and Reis (1982) state that above average students are provided Type I and Type II activities on a regular basis and other regular students are offered it periodically. The students who demonstrate interest in these activities will have the possibility of revolving into Type III activities.

The principle underpinning the movement from each Type is action information.

This concept assumes that when students are extremely interested or intrigued about an idea or interest, he/she will be compelled to be more committed, involved and more productive too. The transitting from one revolving door to another is decided upon via assessment and continuous observations collected during the activities. This assessment provides yet another level of identification which in turn may help minimise any problems borne out of pre-selection. Additionally, this model goes as further to include

36

a possibility of special nominations so that the probabilities of overlooking any talent pool members may be minimised. It is this aspect which distinguishes the RDIM model from many others. It is also a reflection of the concept provided by Renzulli. The flexibility inherent in the process of identification is coherent with giftedness being developmental. Renzulli promotes task commitment and creativity as the result of the various set of experiences proposed in this model, contrary to pre-determined conditions for entry to a program. Renzulli requests that we lose our idealist need of wanting to know who our gifted learners are on the first day of classes and urges a focus towards developing gifted behaviours. Foregoing this “bureaucratic tidiness” will result in a fairer and more democratic identification process. Aspects that are related with divergent thinking and creative-productive giftedness are those mostly valued by society. Renzulli reiterates the need to refrain from falling prey to easy and objective measurements and relying on these as the major driving forces of an identification process.

In Portugal, more specifically in the autonomous region of Madeira, where more work in the area of identification of the gifted can be seen (Antunes & Almeida, 2008), the school of thought is closely linked to Renzulli’s definition of giftedness. Pocinho (2009) describes the approach to identification as being multi-referential (records from parents, teachers, relatives), multicontextual (home, school, social, etc.), multi-method (various identification procedures) and multi-temporal (longitudinal, transversal). The identification process is carried out by a teacher, a psychologist and a professional from the gifted field. Tests used consist of the Griffith Development Scale, Raven’s Progress Matrices, Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Abstract Intelligence Test and WISC III.

These are used in conjunction with nominations from teachers, parents and relatives, anamneses and reports on children’s hobbies and interests. Identification of the students range between 2%–5% of the regional school population which is within the range of 3%–5% proposed nationally (Pocinho, 2009) and the 3%-10% stated by EURYDICE (2008). The identification, enrichment programmes and the monitoring phases are all conducive to a school of thought where giftedness is perceived as an emerging process and where opportunities are created and talents stimulated.

Heller (2004) defends the need of having various phases in the identification process, in part similar to the one proposed by Renzulli (2005). Heller recommends an initial screening to all students, then a need to identify 20%–25% within that field.

37

Interviews and individual tests can then be used to identify the top 5% and the last step would involve identifying the top 2%–3% that would require the special provisional measures.

An identification carried out solely on the basis of quantitative measures may increase the probability of the occurrence of two types of errors: a student might not be identified and is gifted (false negative) and one that is incorrectly identified as gifted (false positive) (Almeida & Oliveira, 2013; Pocinho, 2009). Moreover, giftedness should not be reduced only to cognitive psychological variables either; aspects such as risk-taking, perseverance, anxiety-management and others should all be evaluated (Almeida, Lobo, Almeida, Rocha, & Piske, 2017).

Heller (2004) contends that the difficulties inherent in the definition of giftedness lead to the difficulties in the measurement of giftedness. The difficulties are reflected in what to assess, why assess, what methods to use in order to measure giftedness and when to use them.

Lack of preparation in professionals will also hinder the process of identification. Familiarity with the multi-dimensional array of measuring techniques, and their application and interpretation and more knowledge of giftedness are factors which are considered fundamental in the execution of more accurate identification procedures (Almeida, Araújo, Sainz-Gomez, & Prieto 2016). Almeida et al. (2016) expound on this by drawing attention to the lack of training in giftedness in initial and ongoing training. Studies show that more explicit training in the identification procedures lead to more precision in assessment of the gifted population.

It is also important to note that research has shown that the involvement of varied agents and sources of information have enhanced the identification process.

While parents play an important role in the early years of identification, teachers and peers as well as other informal and formal sources of information take progressively more of a prominent role (VanTassel-Baska, Feng, and Evans, 2007).

In order to create a more accurate and just manner in which to identify gifted students from special populations, Almeida et al. (2016) recommend the use of (i) an array of multiple sources as measures; (ii) cultural and linguistic bias free measures; and (iii) the use of a team of trained professionals to individually assess each case study. It should be kept in mind that the multi-method approach is absolutely vital. As Renzulli

38

(2005) explains, giftedness occurs in some people, in particular circumstances and in certain moments. He further asserts that it is our mission to provide a wide range of experiences for this potential self-expression to take place. Renzulli adds that “when it comes to identification, it is far better to have imprecise answers to the right questions than precise answers to the wrong questions” (Renzulli, 1984, p.164).