Identification concerns and promises for gifted students of diverse populations

Theory Into Practice, Spring, 2005 by Alexinia Young Baldwin

Classes for gifted students have continued to lack a representative number of diverse, minority students commensurate with their numbers in the population. The concern for this population of students has generated much discussion about why there has been so much difficulty in identifying these students, as well as how effective standardized identification instruments and authenticated checklist and curricula changes can be promising activities for the future. There is still much resistance to movements away from the IQ test as the only assessment technique; however, the increasing number of minority students makes changes for the future necessary and has generated some creative solutions to be considered. These issues and recommended changes are discussed in this article.

**********

IDENTIFICATION PROCESSES HAVE traditionally evoked emotional responses, due to the traditional expectations and consequences of scores made on the various intelligence instruments used. Children from culturally diverse backgrounds have experienced a wide range of explanations regarding their lack of inclusion in programs for gifted students. In an attempt to understand differences, many attempts have been made to look at the effects of culture, societal attitudes, and language on the lack of inclusion of African Americans and other minority groups in programs for gifted students (Baldwin & Vialle, 1999). The IQ score has traditionally been the method of sorting out who is gifted and who might not be gifted. It is this tradition that has been called into question by educational researchers and scholars, due to the mounting evidence that IQ scores are not the only indicators of giftedness.

Researchers, such as Gardner (1983) and Sternberg (1997), have introduced new concepts of intelligence which often defy assessment through the traditional identification process most often used by school districts. These educational researchers have extended the early theories and concerns about identification that were proposed and supported by Baldwin (1984), Bernal and Reyna (1975), Frasier (1989), Guilford (1967), Passow (1978), and Torrance (1971). For example, Baldwin (1984) proposed the Baldwin Identification Matrix, based on several assumptions, such as

1. Giftedness can be expressed through a variety of behaviors and the expression of giftedness in one dimension is just as important as giftedness in another.

2. Intelligence is a broad concept that goes beyond language and logic; it encompasses a wide range of human abilities.

3. Carefully planned subjective assessment techniques can be used effectively, along with objective measures.

4. Giftedness in an area can be a clue to the presence of potential giftedness in another area or a catalyst for the development of giftedness in another area.

5. All cultures have individuals who exhibit behaviors that are indicative of giftedness (Baldwin, 1984, p. 3).

These basic areas provided a construct for subsequent hypothetical statements and have been drawn from the work of Marland (1972), Renzulli and Hartman (1971), and Torrance's (1971) definition which set the stage for a broader understanding of giftedness. These four areas comprise the following: (a) cognitive, (b) creative (products), (c) psychosocial, and (d) psychomotor. As shown in Figure 1, above-average ability can be exhibited in various aspects of human response to stimuli, when it shows creative problem-solving ability and task commitment or intense interest in a single area or a combination of areas (Baldwin, 1984).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The distinctions regarding the terms gifted or talented have often stirred differing opinions. References to those who are designated as gifted are frequently considered academically gifted, and those who are exceptional achievers in the graphic and performing areas are commonly considered talented, not gifted. In 2000, Gagne explored this area of concern with his model, referred to as the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent. In an effort to help the reader understand his meanings of these various terms used to indicate giftedness, Tannebaum (2000) included the following footnote:

   Because the terms "giftedness," "talent," "creativity,"
   and "genius" appear in this chapter, a brief note
   is in order concerning their intended meaning.
   "Giftedness" and "talent" are used synonymously to
   encompass publicly valued abilities.... (p. 23)

Aligned with this notion, Arieti (1976) and Renzulli (1978) have both used the three-ring circle to illustrate and explain their concept of giftedness. In the case of Arieti, the three rings were talent, creativity, and aptitude, with giftedness lying in the area of the three circles overlapping. This model incorporated a demonstration of outstanding ability plus divergent thinking and mental abilities. On the contrary, Renzulli's model incorporated above-average ability, task commitment, and creativity with the confluence of the circles indicating giftedness.

In 1983, Tannebaum proposed a model which incorporated a combination of factors that are important in considering what giftedness is and what should be considered in identifying those who are gifted. These factors are general ability (referring to the g factor); nonintellective factors, such as dedication and willingness to make sacrifices to accomplish a goal; special ability factors that show outstanding performance in a particular area; environmental factors (e.g., stimulating home environment); and chance factors that are unpredictable circumstances in life (e.g., parents, order of birth within a family, etc.). With these popular models in mind, assessment criteria for use with children from diverse communities must be extensive enough to provide a comprehensive profile of the student's giftedness. It is also important to contextualize these introductory paragraphs in relation to the challenges involved in identifying ethnic minorities for gifted programs.