The NSW Government Strategy on Education: Identification of Gifted and Talented Students Analytical Essay

Introduction

Gifted and talented students have skills that set them apart from the other average students.

Gifted students have superior intellect and academic performance above average while talented students perform above average in more than one area of human performance particularly in physical, creative, intellectual, and social areas.

However, these students fail to achieve their full potential because of lack of an appropriate policy, curriculum challenges and lack of appropriate identification procedures.

Prior to the NSW policy, the education of the gifted and talented students had low priority and the existing curriculum could not meet the needs of these students. In this respect, the Australian Government undertook considerable changes towards promoting the education of gifted and talented students.

In order to attain high quality educational outcomes for the gifted and talented students, “the NSW government committed itself to developing an appropriate curriculum that could cater for the needs of these students within educational settings” (Braggett, 1985, p.28).

The gifted and talented students are diverse and come from different cultural and socioeconomic groups making the identification of such students quite a challenge. These students are easily identifiable in school settings where their natural abilities are evident.

The identification procedures should be inclusive involving the input of all the people who interact with these students including their teachers, fellow students, professionals and parents (Gagnés, 2003, p.12). The identification procedures primarily involve the use of nomination, screening, and monitoring of the students.

Off-level testing is also another way of identifying the individual student’s ability in school settings. Effective identification of the gifted students involves a multifaceted approach, which includes both objective and subjective procedures.

Qualities of Gifted and Talented Students

Gifted and talented students have distinguishing intellectual and personal characteristics that set them apart from the rest of the other students.

According to Babad and Budoff (1994), these students have exceptional reasoning capability, which is associated with intellectual curiosity of their surroundings and a passion for learning new things (p.53). Intellectually, they have higher learning concentration and analytical skills.

They also possess a high level of creativity characterized by divergent thinking and endeavor to challenge the existing concepts coupled with a higher rate of learning new ideas and concepts in addition to keen sense of abstraction and imagination.

In addition, they also exhibit moral concern in their actions and have a deep sense of justice. Even though not solely, the gifted and talented students portray such rational traits largely as compared to ‘normal’ or average students.

In addition to the intellectual qualities, the gifted and talented students also exhibit peculiar personality traits that do not exist in other students. They possess a greater tendency towards introversion as opposed to extroverted personalities.

They are also insightful relying on their own exceptional reasoning capability to analyze situations (Babad, & Budoff, 1994, p.54). Because of their tendency to hold divergent views, they tend not to conform to the existing concepts or perceptions.

In case of injustice, they are willing to question the rules or authority reflecting their keen sense of justice. They are also empathic and exhibit a deep sense of self-awareness. Their superior imaginative ability means that they possess an excellent sense of humor.

In spite of the exceptional intellectual and personality traits possessed by the gifted and talented students, just as the underachievers they may also display negative characteristics. They have the tendency to be stubborn and rarely participate in class activities making them uncooperative in teamwork activities (Davis & Rimm, 1998, p.26).

Teachers and educational instructors view the children’s tendency to question the authority as rebellious. They also display emotional frustration because of failure of the educational systems to meet their needs.

Their class work may be sketchy and disorganized because of their tendency not to conform to common class practices giving teachers a hard time in evaluating and monitoring their progress effectively.

They show less interest in detail and they are usually absentminded. Most of these students display these intellectual and personality traits; however, because of their diversity, teachers and instructors use different criteria to identify such students.

In this regard, the teachers classify the intellectual and personality characteristics of the gifted and talented students into six profiles. The high achiever belongs to Type I category and exhibits dependence as opposed to independence their actions (Gross, 1993, p. 23).

As a result, they lack complete self-autonomy and can attain great achievements if they become independent. Because of their dependence on others, they are more likeable by teachers and peers compared to the other students.

In contrast, Type II category consists of the challenger, who has exceptional creative abilities and offers challenges to teachers and caregivers as well. As a result, they view him/her as being rebellious to the authority.

Type III student, on the other hand, is a gifted student who tries to conceal his or her intellectual prowess often due to a conflict between the social and academic success (Gross, 1993, p.25).

A dropout or a Gifted with a Learning Disability (GLD) student belongs to Type IV student, who has a long history of underachievement often because of lack of appropriate support programs or existence of a curriculum that does not focus on motivating them.

In addition, this student may be a gifted underachiever and the lack of appropriate educational programs affects him/her from realizing his/her full potential.

A Type V student is the double-barreled student, who has emotional, physical, or learning impairment in addition to the giftedness. However, the education system recognizes the student more for his/her impairment at the expense of the gifted potential.

The last category, Type VI, is the autonomous student, who is an independent gifted learner. However, for this student to realize high achievements, special educational programs are important.

Identification Methodology for the Gifted and Talented Students

The Australian government bases the NSW identification procedures on the Gagnes’ Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT). This model provides an ideal perspective of giftedness and talent and describes the connection between identification of the gifted and talented students and curriculum programs.

According to this model, gifted students “have the potential that is above average in one of the domains of human ability: intellectual, creative, physical and social” (Gagnés, 2003, p.52). Talented students, on the other hand, possess “skills in one or more areas of human performance” (Gagnés, 2003, p. 52).

The model further draws a distinction between talent and giftedness. Giftedness transforms into a talent after appropriate training and therefore, a gifted student will not become talented without appropriate training or instruction.

The identification procedures used for most of the gifted and talented students may not be appropriate for students with diverse cultural backgrounds or from low socio-economic status.

The DGMT model presents the distinction between potential and performance of the gifted and talented students, with accelerated progression noted as the appropriate alternative to the current curricula (NSW Board of Studies, 1997, p. 12).

The accelerated progression ensures a challenging and yet a satisfying learning environment that does not disadvantage the gifted and talented students.

Teacher assessment of the students anywhere along the learning stages can demonstrate student achievement with regard to the syllabus and help to identify gifted students for possible intervention programs in schools (Babad & Budoff, 1994, p. 25).

Monitoring the progress of the students towards the achievement of set objectives also provides the best way of identifying the gifted students.

Identification Procedures of the Gifted and Talented Students

The identification procedures of the gifted and talented students fall into two major groups: objective and subjective procedures. Subjective procedures are qualitative in nature and allow the teachers and instructors to make judgments based on close observations of the student.

The procedure relies on teacher, parent, or peer nomination with supportive evidence from previous records of the student’s performance. Objective procedures, on the other hand, are quantitative in nature and involve standardized tests to determine the student’s ability or achievement.

These tests include the off-level testing, standardized performance testing and sometimes IQ or psychometric testing (Richert, 1991, p.112). For effective identification of these students, the evidence of both the students’ potential and their present performance is vital.

Additionally, the procedures must provide the factors attributable to the student’s performance or underachievement. Richert (1991) posits, the identification of gifted and talented students “falls into a broad three-stage process viz. nomination, screening and monitoring” (p.103).

The nomination stage involves the teachers, the parents, peers, school counselors and other caregivers in the identification of the gifted and talented students within educational settings. This stage relies on subjective information collected via checklists, which teachers distribute into the target population in person or through the school website. Screening procedure is more “objective than the nomination process and involves the use of a combination of measures to assess potential or performance with regard to the syllabus…monitoring relies on teacher observations to obtain the picture of the student’s performance, interests, skills, strengths, and weaknesses” Richert 1991, p.106).

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Subjective Identification Procedures

The subjective methods involve the use checklist information provided by the teachers, parents, students, and caregivers to identify the gifted and talented students during the nomination process.

The specific approaches used under the subjective identification procedures include teacher nomination, parent, or caretaker and peer nomination. The teacher nomination is advantageous in many respects.

Firstly, the teacher can evaluate the student responses with regard to a variety of classroom activities to identify a student with exceptional intellectual or physical qualities.

Secondly, the teacher, with behavioral checklists and observations, can give valid information concerning the student’s abilities and subsequently nominate him/her (Lidz, 1991, p.223).

Teacher nomination can also provide information related to the causes of underachievement experienced by the individual student and recommend for appropriate programs or curricula.

Teacher nomination as compared to other identification procedures is more reliable and easier. A teacher may note that a new student is able to accomplish challenging tasks more easily followed by demand for further challenges and once the curricula does not meet this, the student becomes frustrated or bored.

However, teacher nomination has some disadvantages among them the possibility of bias. Teachers may view the student, particularly Type II student as rebellious because of the challenges he/she poses to teachers and consequently fails for the nomination (Rogers, 2002, p.57).

In addition, since students spend more time at home than in school, the teacher may not have sufficient information about the out-of class accomplishments of the student and therefore the procedure is not all-inclusive.

Teacher nomination may also not be effective in the identification of talented students from disadvantaged groups or from low socio-economic backgrounds. Underachievers may not reveal their exceptional qualities to the teachers making their identification problematic.

Parent nomination has some advantages over the teacher identification procedures. Firstly, the parents or caretakers understand their children much better than the teachers given that children spend more time at home than at school.

Therefore, the parents are conversant with their children’s whereabouts and can provide valuable insights regarding the learning needs of these children (Passow & Frasier, 1994, p.199).

Secondly, the parents are familiar with their child’s out of school accomplishments, which necessarily do not relate to class work and therefore their contribution is vital in the identification of the gifted and talented students.

Thirdly, it is the parent, who through careful observation of his/her child in the early years can spot the exceptional quality long before the child enrolls in school.

Therefore, the parent’s input is vital in the identification of talented and gifted students. However, parents may fail to disclose their child’s exceptional abilities for fear of victimization of trading falsehoods.

In addition, the parents may provide biased information regarding the abilities of their children to create an impression that they have ‘genius children’.

Peer nomination on the other hand, is effective in identification of students with exceptional abilities and is more reliable because the students spend more time playing together (Whitmore, 1980, p. 56).

Peer nomination also may reveal valuable insights that are not readily available when using the other identification tools. Gifted students can also identify characteristics of giftedness, which other children possess. The peers are well aware of the student’s abilities and qualities.

The interaction of these students with the child in settings, which teachers and parents cannot access, is the reason attributable to this fact. Therefore, peer nomination can provide valuable information regarding the child in non-learning context.

However, peer nomination has limitations in its effectiveness. The peers, being young, may not fully understand what peer nomination is as they are yet to make much social connections.

Therefore, the information provided by the peers may not be sufficient in the identification of the gifted and talented students (Whitmore, 1980, p.96).

In addition, peer nomination just like teacher nomination, may not be effective in the identification of students from disadvantaged or students from low socio-economic backgrounds.

Adolescents, in particular, may give wrongful information because each would want to nominate himself/herself as a gifted student while others may conceal their exceptional qualities.

Students may not be aware of the exceptional qualities of their fellow student, particularly of the opposite gender, if they do not freely interact outside the learning context.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Objective Identification Procedures

The objective identification procedures measure quantitatively the potential and the current performance levels of the students under learning environment. Among the objective tests, is the IQ test, that measures the difference between the students’ age and his/her level of mental ability.

An IQ test is important in measuring the potential of the student to achieve highly within the educational settings (Steinberg, 1985, p.87).

IQ tests also provide information regarding the student’s strengths and weaknesses within the learning context, which is important in identification of students with extraordinary intellectual abilities as well as underachievers.

The IQ tests also provide information regarding the student’s verbal and nonverbal skills, which is important in identifying gifted students.

The IQ tests have some limitations when compared to the other objective identification procedures. The IQ tests do not provide information regarding internal and external factors that influence the development of talent among gifted students.

The tests also do not show how well a student can handle information outside the learning context. Therefore, while IQ tests may be effective in predicting the potential of a student, it is not a very efficient method of predicting the performance of a student in a nonacademic environment.

The IQ tests however do not consider the many changes in a child’s development from childhood to adolescence (Gardner, 1983, p.226)).

In addition, IQ tests cannot fully measure all the aspects of intelligence. Intelligence comprises of interplay of many factors that vary from one culture to another and therefore not measurable by a single test.

The other objective identification procedure is the off-level testing technique, which involves administering a test in a particular subject meant for older students to younger students.

The off-level testing aims at determining the extent of a student’s skill or knowledge in a particular area, which is important in identifying talent or giftedness.

The off-level tests are important in the determination of the talented students and subjecting them to accelerated progression instead of the normal curriculum (NSW Board of Studies, 1997, p. 18).

Off-level tests rely on the student’s pre-existing skills and knowledge in a particular area with less regard to age or grade making them a better tool for identifying gifted students than the IQ tests (Rodgers, 2002, p. 23).

In addition, off-level tests also measures the extent to which the student is ready for more challenge as compared to the IQ tests that only measure the potential of the student. The Off-level tests may not also be effective in identifying gifted students coming from backgrounds other than the prevailing dominant culture.

Standardized performance tests are also others strategies of identifying the gifted or talented students. Administration of a standardized test occurs in a “standard and consistent manner” (Gardner, 1983, p.140).

The questions and the assessment criteria for standardized tests are consistent and standard. It is easier to document results of any standardized testing, an outstanding advantage of these tests.

The standardized tests also offer an additional advantage of aggregation, whereby compilation of the student’s skills in a particular field takes place over time (Gardner, 1983, p.143). Standardized tests, however, cannot measure creativity or imagination, which are the qualities of gifted students.

In addition, these tests cannot measure initiative or curiosity of the student. The experience outside the learning context influences the student’s performance in addition to what a student learns in school.

The standardized tests fail to test the student’s learning abilities outside the learning context. Furthermore, the standardized testing scores do not take into account the student’s verbal and nonverbal skills or the socio-economic background of the student.

Conclusion

In order to attain high quality educational outcomes for the gifted and talented students, the identification of these students is the first step. The NSW government strategy relies on the parent/community nomination, peer nomination and teacher nomination of the student based on evidence of exceptional performance.

All these strategies are subjective and may not be effective in identifying the gifted students. Objective approaches, on the other hand, include IQ test, standardized testing, and off-level testing. They provide unbiased procedures for the identification of the gifted students.

However, these tests fail to take into account the student’s learning abilities outside the educational settings (Steinberg, 1985, p. 76). Therefore, in order, to identify effectively gifted students given their diverse qualities, an all-inclusive approach involving both the objective and subjective is important.

Once identified, special NSW educational programs or curricula are necessary to cater for their academic needs.

References

Babad, E., & Budoff, M. (1994). Sensitivity and validity of learning potential measurement in three levels of ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(3), 439-447.

Braggett, E. (1985). The Education of Gifted and Talented Children: Australian Provision. Canberra: Commonwealth Schools Commission.

Davis, G., & Rimm, S. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gagnés, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. New York: Merrill

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gross, M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. London: Routledge.

Lidz, C. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guildford.

NSW Board of Studies. (1997). Policy for the Education of Gifted and Talented Students. Sydney: NSW Department of School Education.

Passow, A., & Frasier, M. (1994). Toward improving identification of talent potential among minority and disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 18(3), 198-202.

Richert, E. (1991). Rampant problems and promising practices in identification. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Rogers, K. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: Matching the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Steinberg, R. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Whitmore, J. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.