Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pp
Volume 3 Number 1 Summer 2009
The path of least resistance and least trouble is a mental rut already made. It requires troublesome work to
undertake the alternation of old beliefs. Self-conceit often regards it as a sign of weakness to admit that a
belief to which we have once committed ourselves is wrong. We get so identified with an idea that it is
literally a “pet” notion and we rise to its defense and stop our eyes and ears to anything different.
- John Dewey
Ask anyone who is vested in ensuring that gifted students impressions of potentially gifted and talented students into a
receive appropriate educational programming and services, more appropriate understanding of such characteristics”
and it is likely he or she has heard derogatory comments (Heath, 1997, p. 22).
about this population from those who hold differing
perspectives. Such comments often include: One avenue that has been explored in the literature to raise
• Gifted students will do just fine on their own. awareness of the characteristics and educational needs of
• Gifted programs are elitist and give participating gifted students is the use of effective public relations
students an unfair advantage. strategies (Besnoy, 2005; Karnes, Lewis, & Stephens, 1999;
• Gifted students need to be grouped with other Troxclair & Karnes, 1997). While such efforts are promising in
students, so they can learn how to get along with building community support for gifted programs and
others. services, a more comprehensive and ongoing approach is
• Gifted students are know-it-alls who think they are needed to reverse the existing biases and negative attitudes
better than everyone else. held by the teachers who provide educational services to
• Gifted students are bookworms with poor social skills. gifted students.
• All children are gifted.
Such biases and negative stereotyping become deeply rooted The characteristics of effective teachers of the gifted have been
and are often perpetuated by those who are uninformed examined by many researchers over the past 40+ years
about the characteristics and needs of gifted students. (Bishop, 1968; Chan, 2001; Freehill, 1974; Hansford, 1985;
Copenhaver and McIntyre (1992) found that teachers not Maddux, Samples-Lachman & Cummings, 1985; Mills, 2003;
experienced in gifted education hold more negative views of Newland, 1962; Renzulli, 1992; Torrance & Myers, 1970;
gifted students than those who were experienced gifted Wendel & Heiser, 1989; Whitlock & DuCette, 1989). While
education teachers. Others have concluded that teachers have there seems to be a general consensus regarding the personal
more positive attitudes towards gifted students when they are and professional characteristics of successful teachers of the
exposed to coursework or professional development gifted (see Table 1), this research has typically focused on the
experiences pertaining to gifted education (Davis & Rimm, identification of those teacher characteristics that seem to
1985; Orenstein, 1984; Weiner & O’Shea, 1963). One benefit gifted students in the classroom. Little research exists
implication of these findings is the need to design that examines how these identified characteristics might
comprehensive teacher preparation and professional actually be cultivated through teacher education and
development programs that help “convert negative professional development.
Table 1. Personal & Professional Characteristics of Effective Teachers of the Gifted Cited in the Literature
Newland, 1962
Renzulli, 1992
Freehill, 1974
Bishop, 1968
Characteristic
Lachman, &
Chan, 2001
Mills, 2003
1970
1989
1989
Superior Intelligence; Knowledgeable 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Greater Literary and Cultural Interests 9
Higher Achievement Orientation 9 9 9
Stimulating and Imaginative 9 9 9
Student-Centered Teaching Style; Facilitative 9 9 9
Enthusiasm for Subject Matter 9 9 9 9 9
Preference for Teaching the Gifted 9
Flexible 9 9 9 9
Self-Confident 9 9 9 9
Consideration for Individual Differences 9
Empathetic 9 9
Love of Learning 9 9
Curiosity 9 9
High Energy 9 9
Accepting and Open 9 9 9 9
Strong Communication Skills 9
Good Sense of Humor 9 9 9
Though a love of learning and reading seems to be obscure interests. The post-assessment drawing depicts
represented in both drawings from Teacher C, the pre- one who is well-rounded and genuinely loves learning
assessment drawing depicts the stereotypical gifted and thus conveys a more positive representation of a
learner (i.e., male with glasses) with narrowly defined, gifted learner.
References
Besnoy, K. (2005). Using public relations strategies to advocate for gifted programming in your school. Gifted Child Today, 28(1), 32-37.
Bishop, W. (1968). Successful teachers of the gifted. Exceptional Children, 34(5), 317-325.
Chan, D. (2001). Characteristics and competencies of teachers of gifted learners: The Hong Kong teacher perspective. Roeper Review, 23(4), 197-
202.
Copenhaver, R., & McIntyre, D. (1992). Teachers’ perceptions of gifted students. Roeper Review, 14(3), 151-53.
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Freehill, M. (1974). Intelligence, empathy and methodologic bias about teaching the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 18(4), 247-8.
Hansford, S. J. (1985). What it takes to be a G/T teacher. Gifted Child Monthly, 15-17.
Heath, W. (1997). What are the most effective characteristics of teachers of the gifted? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED411665).
Karnes, F., Lewis, J., & Stephens, K. (1999). Parents and teachers working together for advocacy through public relations. Gifted Child Today
Magazine, 22(1), 14-18.
Maddux, C. D., Samples-Lachman, I. & Cummings, R. (1985). Preferences of gifted students for selected teacher characteristics. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 29(4), 160-63.
Mills, C. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: teacher background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 47(4), 272-281.
Newland, E. T. (1962). Some observations on essential qualifications of teachers of the mentally superior. Exceptional Children, 29, 111-14.
Orenstein, A. (1984, June). What organizational characteristics are important in planning, implementing, and maintaining programs for the
gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(3), 99-105.
Renzulli, J. S. (1992). A general theory for the development of creative productivity in young people. In F. J. Mönks & W. A. M. Peters (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children: Talent for the future (pp.51 -72). Maastricht, The Netherlands: Van
Gorcum.
Torrance, E. P., & Myers, R. E. (1970). Creative teaching and learning. New York: Dodd, Mead.
Troxclair, D., & Karnes, F. (1997). Public relations: Advocating for gifted students. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 20(3), 38-41, n50.
Weiner, J., & O’Shea, H. (1963). Attitudes of university faculty, administrators, teachers, supervisors, and university students toward the gifted.
Exceptional Children, 30(4), 163-165.
Wendel, R., & Heiser, S. (1989). Effective instructional characteristics of teachers of junior high school gifted students. Roeper Review, 11(3), 151-
53.
Whitlock, M., & DuCette, J. (1989). Outstanding and average teachers of the gifted: a comparative study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(1), 15-21.
Analysis and Findings accuracy scores and the students’ actual test scores. Results
indicated no significant relationship between the teacher
To explore the first question of whether early childhood and ratings and the student test scores, but a significant inverse
middle school teachers can accurately identify divergent relationship (r278 = -.325, p = .000) between the teacher
thinkers, correlations were performed between the teacher accuracy scores and the student test scores. No correlation
ratings and the students’ actual test scores, and the teachers’ between teacher ratings and student test scores indicates that
References
Goff, K., & Torrance, E. P. (2002). The Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA). Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
Jalongo, M. (2003). The child’s right to creative thought and expression: A position paper of the Association for Childhood Education International.
Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www.acei.org/creativepp.htm
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Thinking creatively in action and movement (TCAM). Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
This issue also features a review of an important work in our field. Scott Peters, who very recently received his Ph.D. from Purdue
(congratulations Scott!), has contributed a review of David Lohman’s (2006) monograph on the topic of identifying minority
students. Scott says he thinks every GT researcher should read the monograph, and I agree; promoting a widespread understanding
of the nuts and bolts of how our identification processes work will be vital to the future of our field.
Please be sure to submit your proposals by AERA’s new deadline of July 15, now only a few days away!
Finally, please consider submitting a brief report about your current research-in-progress for our fall issue of Gifted Children.
Reports should be approximately 1,500 to 2,500 words in length, although I’m willing to consider manuscripts of other lengths. I
also would be interested in reviews of important new books or other works that are relevant to gifted education. I look forward to
receiving submissions by August 31, 2009 via email to michael.matthews@uncc.edu.
Topics related to the identification and education of individual school of interest is unlikely to emulate the same
underrepresented students have become more and more characteristics of the tests’ normative sample. Put more
common in the scholarly literature over the last several years. simply, Lohman (2006) gave the example of the 5% of
In addition, the monographs Overlooked Gems (VanTassel- American schools whose average achievement test score is
Baska & Stambaugh, 2008) as well as the Achievement Trap around 95% when compared to the rest of the nation. In this
(Wyner, Bridgeland, & Diiulio, 2007) have both devoted setting, national norms do very little in telling an educator
substantial time and effort to describing the plight of gifted which students are in need of special services. However,
and talented students from low-income families. In addition when students in schools are compared to each other,
to students from low-income families, those from Hispanic, educators are better suited to make decisions about
African American, and Native American backgrounds are instructional placement. In this case, the gifted and talented
also under-nominated and under-represented in programs for classes might involve only students in the top .5% when
the gifted and talented (Yoon & Gentry, 2009). This issue of compared to national norms, but in the top 25% of the local
students from certain income and racial/ethnic groups being school population. Lohman’s argument is thus that the more
disproportionately represented in gifted and talented specific the norm group used for comparison, the better. This
programs is one of the greatest challenges facing the field. is true for groupings such as income, race/ethnicity, as well as
school or grade-level groups. The use of narrowly defined
Despite a great deal of effort being devoted to the topic, few comparison groups allows educators to see which students
manuscripts have devoted as much detail and practical are achieving or have the potential to achieve given similar
applications toward solving the problem as a 2006 background and circumstances.
monograph by David Lohman entitled Identifying Academically
Talented Minority Students. In this monograph, Lohman Lohman’s (2006) monograph is not a simple read, but instead
addresses many topics with regard to underrepresentation. involves an incredibly in-depth discussion of why the field of
Although this review cannot reproduce the information gifted and talented education is having such trouble reaching
provided in the 58-page monograph, one point in particular is proportional representation and how we can proceed toward
worth discussing in detail. such a goal in a more productive fashion. He also provides
multiple examples of how several common cures (e.g.,
One of Lohman’s chief arguments is that a major barrier to nonverbal tests) have failed to solve the problem. No other
proportional identification is that large-scale standardized scholarly piece has looked so honestly at the field while at the
tests, even when used and used correctly, often involve same time offering practical suggestions for improvement,
national norm comparisons. He explains that such such as the combining of multiple measures in a multiple-
comparisons might be useful for establishing how well a pathways format to allow for the most accurate identification
student or a school is performing compared to the rest of the (and example datasets are provided). The Lohman
country, but such a comparison is less useful in making monograph is a well-written and well-conceived piece that
classroom or program placement decisions since the should be read by every person concerned with the education
of gifted and talented students.
References
Lohman, D. F. (2006). Identifying academically talented minority students (Research Monograph RM05216). Storrs, CT: The National Research
Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Retrieved June 8, 2009, from
http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman/
VanTassel-Baska, J. L., & Stambaugh, T. S. (Eds). (2008). Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners.
Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
Wyner, J. S., Bridgeland, J. M., & Diiulio, J. J. (2007). The achievement trap. Washington, DC: The Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.
Yoon, S., & Gentry, M. (2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian
American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 121-136.
The AERA Online Submission System is now open and each division and SIG will establish Review Panels to review
receiving proposals for the 2010 Annual Meeting. Please note proposals for the Annual Meeting. The reviews will be
that the deadline for submission of proposals is MUCH carried out from August 10-September 15.
earlier this year. The deadline is July 15, 2009. When you
choose your preferred session formats, be aware that AERA The full description of the new review process is available on
will be cutting the number of paper sessions and increasing the AERA website:
the number of poster and roundtable sessions available. http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Publications/Journals
Therefore, it will be to your benefit to select more than one /Educational_Researcher/3804/298-299_05EDR09.pdf
session format option.
Thanks so much, and feel free to contact me via email
In addition, AERA has changed the format of the review (betsy.mccoach@uconn.edu) with any questions.
process for the 2010 annual meeting. Beginning this year
Author Notes
An Inward look: A review of David Lohman’s 2006 monograph entitled Identifying Academically Talented Minority Students
Dr. Scott Peters is Assistant Professor of Educational Foundations at the University of Wisconsin – Whitewater. Address:
Department of Educational Foundations, Winther Hall 6035, 800 W. Main St., Whitewater, WI 53190. Email: peterss@uww.edu
SENG Conference: SENG/Florida Association for the Gifted Summit Friday July 17 - Sunday July 19
Orlando, Florida
Chair
Karen Rogers
kbrogers@stthomas.edu (June 2008-June 2010)
Chair Elect
Marcia Gentry
mgentry@purdue.edu (June 2008-June 2010)
Secretary
Cheryll M. Adams
cadams@bsu.edu (June 2008-June 2010)
Treasurer
Robbie McHardy
rmchar@lsu.edu (June 2009-June 2011)
Program Chair
Betsy McCoach
betsy.mccoach@uconn.edu (June 2009 – June 2010)
Members-at-Large
Jill Adelson
jill.adelson@uconn.edu (June 2009-June 2011)
Jonathan A. Plucker
jplucker@indiana.edu (June 2009-2011)
Catherine Little
catherine.little@uconn.edu (June 2006-June 2010)
David Yun Dai
ddai@uamail.albany.edu (June 2008-June 2010)
Student Representative
Kristina Ayers Paul
kayerspaul@gmail.com (June 2008-June 2010)
Newsletter Editor
Angela Housand
housanda@uncw.edu (June 2009-June 2011)
GIFTED CHILDREN
An Electronic Journal of the AERA SIG Research on Giftedness and Talent.