Great8 - Gifted Child Quarterly http:/gcq.sagepub.com...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
http://gcq.sagepub.com Gifted Child Quarterly DOI: 10.1177/001698620504900107 2005; 49; 68 Gifted Child Quarterly Scott W. Brown, Joseph S. Renzulli, E. Jean Gubbins, Del Siegle, Wanli Zhang and Ching-Hui Chen Assumptions Underlying the Identification of Gifted and Talented Students http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/49/1/68 The online version of this article can be found at: Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: National Association for Gifted Children can be found at: Gifted Child Quarterly Additional services and information for http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts: http://gcq.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions: http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/49/1/68 Citations by Katherine Prammer on April 21, 2009 http://gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Its better to have imprecise answers to the right questions than precise answers to the wrong questions. —Donald Campbell Procedures for identifying gifted and talented stu- dents are probably the most discussed and written about topic in our field. For the better part of the previous cen- tury, test scores dominated the identification process. Even with the advent of new theories of intelligence (e.g., Gardner, 1983; Sternberg, 1985) and broadened conceptions of giftedness (e.g., Gagné, 1999; Renzulli, 1978, 1988; Simonton, 1997), actual practices specified in state and district guidelines continue to be dominated by cognitive ability test scores. Recognition of the need for a broader base of identification criteria has progressed from theoretical and research-based advances to general- ly accepted recommendations included in standard text- books in the field (Colangelo & Davis, 1997; Coleman & Cross, 2001; Davis & Rimm, 1998, 2004; Gallagher & Gallagher, 1994; Maker & Nielson. 1996; VanTassel- Baska, 1998). The quest for objectivity has undoubtedly perpetuated the comfort that “numbers” and the tidiness that cutoff scores have provided for those who design identification systems. However, people closest to direct services (classroom teachers and teachers of the gifted) often challenge the validity of purely objective approach- es. Frequently commented upon are examples of high levels of performance and creativity among nonselected students and the lack of program-sponsored opportuni- ties, resources, and encouragement for students who would clearly benefit from such services. What is interesting about differences between recent developments in theory and teachers’ reactions to identi- fication decisions is that no one has empirically examined the attitudes of people most affected by identification sys- tems and people who frequently make policy decisions or advise decision makers. The beliefs of practitioners and policymakers are important because, in the final analysis, these are the people who must carry out their responsi- bilities harmoniously and ensure that there is integrity Assumptions Underlying the Identification of Gifted and Talented Students Scott W. Brown, Joseph S. Renzulli, Ching-Hui Chen E. Jean Gubbins, Del Siegle, Wanli Zhang
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 10/07/2009 for the course EDP 300 taught by Professor West during the Spring '09 term at West Chester.

Page1 / 13

Great8 - Gifted Child Quarterly http:/gcq.sagepub.com...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online