ID Literature Review Ashley Jenkins

Citation: Coleman, Mary Ruth. (2003). Identification of Students Who are Gifted.
Retrieved
from
http://www.ldonline.org/article/The_Identification_of_Students_Who_are_Gifted.
Annotation: Author, university professor, and senior scientist emerita at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, Mary Ruth Coleman addresses the pros and cons of identifying gifted
children and why gifted students with disabilities fail to be identified.
Reflection: Serving students needs should be top priority within schools. Too often gifted
students needs are not viewed as important and contributes to the failure of identifying gifted
abilities in particular subpopulations. As Coleman states, identification remains critical to
ensuring that children receive the services they need to thrive in school. The identification of
the twice-exceptional student continues to be overlooked or unheard of in many schools. Many
never understanding that one can both struggle and need assistant in one area but be a whiz in
another. The school system has four problems that exist within the identification process:
disproportionate representation, disregard for theoretical knowledge of intelligence,
inappropriate use of statistical formulas, and mismatching between identification and services.
Coleman points out there is an over reliance on standardized tests, narrow conceptions of
intelligence and the resulting definitions of giftedness. This thought process has led to the
underrepresentation of culturally/linguistically or economically disadvantaged students in the
gifted program. Coleman is not without ideas to combat this issue. Coleman offers that, Student
portfolios, showing work over time; performance-based assessments; and projects that involve
collaboration with peers can all supplement standardized testing. Interestingly enough, it is
mentioned that while identification of the gifted student is often a priority the real challenge may
come in actually providing resources and adequate services to such students once identified.
Both identification and services must match to meet the students needs. Coleman states, A
school or school system needs first to survey the possibilities it can offer students, both in regular
classrooms and special classrooms, so that it can set the stage for planning optimal matches of
students and options. Faced with these challenges, administration and teachers must learn to
recognize potential in students and began to nurture those students once identified. Coleman
brings awareness to the overlooked and underserved population and pushes educators to question
the status quo.
Important People

Jaime Castellano
Mary Ruth Coleman
James Gallagher
Carol Ann Tomlinson

Terms To Know

Disproportionate representation
Statistical formulas
Subpopulations
Twice-exceptional

Citation: Gallagher, J., Coleman, M., & Nelson, S. (1995). Perceptions of Educational
Reform By Educators Representing Middle Schools, Cooperative Learning, and
Gifted Education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66-75.
Annotation: Gallagher, Coleman, and Nelson chose to explore the perceptions of educators of
the gifted versus the general population within cooperative learning environments. The article
has focused on middle school since it has been the largest beneficiary of the reform movements
focused on cooperative learning in the classroom and heterogeneous grouping.
Reflection: Cooperative learning and heterogeneous ability grouping is most likely familiar to
all educators, particularly middle school educators. But how do reforms that advocate for these
strategies within schools affect gifted students? The authors point out that, There is the implicit
assumption that the key curriculum needs of all students can be met through such heterogeneous
grouping strategies. One by-product of that assumption has been a reduction of honors programs
or other special programs for gifted students. In order to access the perceptions of gifted
education, surveys were sent to educators involved in both gifted education and middle school
education. One area that emerged as a concern was the identification process. This is not
surprising considering the research out there that overwhelmingly shows the disproportionate
amount of underserved students from gifted education. The article states it was an overwhelming
agreement for both sectors of educators that, the failure to recognize underachieving gifted
students and the need for student identification in order to assure appropriate services, was an
issue. However the focus was slightly different for the middle school educators believing that
current practices overlook many students, but the gifted educators focused on the need to provide
services. This is not surprising. Of course, the educators of the gifted will be more concerned
about the services provided to those already identified, those they teach, while the general
education educators will be concerned about the students they feel were overlooked. Once again,
those they teach. Both groups of educators agreed that there were not enough staff development
in helping all teachers identify the characteristics of gifted students to meet their needs. Often the
perception that gifted students will be just fine regardless of what they are given must be
debunked as well among staff. So it is a positive to find that many teachers do wish for more
understanding of the gifted student. Lastly, the two groups of educators differed on the benefits
of cooperative learning. The middle school educators were larger proponents of the movement
while gifted educators did not believe it challenged the students enough. The overall issue with
the disagreements between the two groups is how this would impact future policy. The authors
found that gifted educators are not often consulted when implementing new reforms. A complaint
often voiced by many classroom educators.
Important People

David W. Johnson
Roger T. Johnson
Spencer Kagan
Susanne Nelson
Richard Riley

Terms To Know

Cooperative Learning

Heterogeneous Grouping

Citation: Vantassel-Baska, J., Feng, A., & Evans, B. (2007). Patterns of Identification and
Performance Among Gifted Students Identified Through Performance Tasks: A
Three-Year Analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 218-231.
Annotation: With all the issues with IQ-based forms of identifying gifted students, VantasselBaska, Feng, and Evans tracked the identification process of students in South Carolina using a
performance-based measure. The goal was to learn whether there were differences in
performance in students that were identified traditionally versus with the performance tasks.
Reflection: Performance-based identification is helpful in that is has shown to identify more
underrepresented populations as gifted. While alternative methods for identification are great, it
is unfortunate that it must occur due to the failure of traditional methods to identify
underrepresented students. Vantassel-Baske et al. states, It is often suggested that multiple
criteria and information sources be used when identifying gifted children in any context
(Coleman, 2003). These might include test scores, grades, interviews, performance tasks,
recommendations, and several other possible identification methods. Although this is
recommended for all gifted students, research reviews suggest that traditional assessment
methods, including standardized IQ tests, teacher recommendations, and parent questionnaires,
are particularly insufficient in identifying gifted minority and low-income students. Either
enough training is not placed into helping teachers identify gifted students or perceptions are too
strong and are failing the underrepresented students in being identified. The study compared the
success of students on statewide assessments with students that were traditionally identified as
gifted. More male students were identified traditionally, while more females identified upon the
inclusion of the performance-based task. This is not surprising as girls can be underrepresented.
More students that were on free and reduced lunch and black students were also identified
through performance-based. The performance-based were also stronger on nonverbal ability.
Within the study, it was found that the students identified through the traditional model
performed at a higher level on state assessments, but the correlation was stronger by looking at
students that were stronger verbally versus nonverbally. The study notes, Although more lowincome students and minority students are being located, the protocol is also identifying more
majority students who have strong nonverbal aptitude. Moreover, the follow-up study on these
learners in the program suggests that some suffer from learning problems associated with the
imbalance between verbal and mathematical abilities (VanTassel-Baska et al., 2004).While the
students identified through the performance-based method were not as advanced as their peers,
their performance did improve within 2 years in the gifted program. I think this shows that they
were served and their needs were met. All types of learners should be included, so it is still
important to identify the strong nonverbal learners.
Important People

Mary Frasier
A. Harry Passow
Joyce Vantassel-Baska

Terms To Know

Aptitude

Performance task
Traditional Model

Citation: Giessman, J., Gambrell, J.L., & Stebbins, M.S. (2013). Minority Performance on
the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, Second Edition, Versus the Cognitive Abilities
Test, Form 6: One gifted Programs Experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 101-109.
Annotation: Giessman, Gambrell, and Stebbins studies the use of the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability
Test, Second Edition (NNAT2) in comparison to other evaluations like the Form 6 of the
Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT6) and its use in identifying underrepresented groups in gifted
programs.
Reflection: Once again the issue of underrepresented populations in the gifted program is an
issue that is addressed. As stated in the article, the National Association for Gifted Children
(NAGC; 2010b) recommends that students with identified needs represent diverse backgrounds
and reflect the total student population of the district andto that endsupports non-biased
and equitable identification strategies, including the use of nonverbal tests (Standard 2.3).
Nonverbal tests are becoming an identifier that helps address the underrepresented being
included in gifted and talented programs nationally. However, this is not without concerns.
Within the article, it is mentioned that some are concerned that the nonverbal tests are not
measuring the same constructs as the tests they are supplementing. My main concern is without
nonverbal testing, there will be a bias against students, especially English Language Learners. In
fact, within the research findings it was noted that that ELL and Asian students had a significant
advantage when using the Naglieri for identification. The Naglieri is described as, a culturally
neutral evaluation of students nonverbal reasoning and general problem-solving ability,
regardless of the individual students primary language, education, culture or socioeconomic
background The authors sought to find whether or not this held true and cast doubt on the
Naglieri s claims. Overall, the issues with the study cannot be overlooked, such as the Naglieri
only being given online and the lack of technological background to certain subgroups that took
it in that way. Also, although the findings can be helpful, a more intensive, purposeful study that
tracked the students more thoroughly would have been more beneficial. Ultimately, the benefits
of nonverbal assessments in identifying gifted, particularly ELL students, should not be
disregarded.
Important People

James Borland
Donna Ford
Jack Naglieri
David Wechsler

Terms To Know

CogAt6
Cognitive Ability
Composite
Culturally/Linguistically Disadvantaged
NNAT2

Nonverbal Ability
Quantitative Battery
Socioeconomic Background