Download - Recognition of Giftedness in the Early Years of School ... · 164 Recognition of Giftedness in the Early Years of School: Perspectives of Teachers, Parents, and Children Kerry A

164

Recognition of Giftedness in the Early Years of School:

Perspectives of Teachers, Parents, and Children

Kerry A. Hodge and Coral R. Kemp Macquarie University

although teacher underestimation of ability can have a detrimental effect on children’s achievement and motivation, the accuracy of australian teachers in identifying intel-lectual giftedness in young children has not been investigated. this study followed 14 children, identified as potentially gifted while preschoolers, for up to 3 of their early years of school, collecting questionnaire data from 26 teachers and the parents, as well as inter-view and norm-referenced test data from the children. teachers rated more highly the children whose test scores were more consistently in the gifted range, but more than half of the children were underestimated by at least 1 teacher, especially where nonverbal ability was higher than verbal ability. Strengths in reading were more readily recog-nized than strengths in spelling and mathematics. child attitudes and behaviors, as well as some mutual parent-teacher distrust, may have contributed to teacher underestima-tion. implications for practice and further research are discussed.

Appropriateexpectationsandlearningexperiencesinschooldependon accurate recognition of a child’s performance level or potential.AccordingtoGoodandBrophy(1997), teacherexpectationsguideperceptions (what is noticed or not), interpretations, and behavior.Whenteachersunderestimateachild’sabilitylevel,underachievementcanresult,aneffectthatTerrassier(1985,p.273)calledthe“NegativePygmalionEffect.”Harrison(2003)definedagiftedchildas

onewhoperformsorhasthepotentialtoperformatalevelsignificantlybeyondhisorheragepeersandwhoseuniqueabilitiesandcharacteristicsrequirespecialprovisionsandsocialandemotionalsupportfromthefamily,communityandeducationalcontext.(p.8)

KerryHodgeisaResearchFellowattheMacquarieUniversitySpecialEducationCentreinSydney,Australia,wheresheconvenesandteachesapostgraduatecertificateingiftededucation.CoralKempisSeniorLecturerinSpecialEducationatMacquarieUniversity,wheresheconvenesthepostgraduateearlyinterventioncourseandsupervisesresearchstudents.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted.Vol.30,No.2,2006,pp.164–204.Copyright©2006PrufrockPressInc.,http://www.prufrock.com

Recognition of Giftedness 165

Underestimation of a gifted child increases the risk that theserequired interventions will not be provided. Without modifica-tion, the regular curriculum is unlikely to meet the gifted child’sneeds(Robinson,2003),and,ifunchallenged,thatchildmayescapeinto imagination or reading (Freeman, 1979), behave disruptively(Diezmann&Watters,1995),orsimplyconformtolowexpectations.Inanyofthesescenarios,thenegativeattitudestoschooldescribedbyPorath(1996)andAssouline(1997)mayensue.Thegiftedchild’ssocial and emotional behaviors can also be misunderstood. He orshecanbethoughtimmatureorunfriendlyforspendingtimealone(Kitano,1989)whentheissueislackofcommoninterests(Porath,1996)orabsenceofotherchildrenwithanequallymatureconceptof friendship(Gross,2002;Harrison,2005).Perfectionismcanbeseen as refusal to try something new; a concern for justice mightappearasdefyingauthority(Kitano,1990).

Quite young children can be identified as gifted. The longitu-dinal study by Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst, and Guerin (1994)found that advancement could be detected as early as 18 monthsofage,whiletheseminalstudybyRoedell,Jackson,andRobinson(1980)investigatedthequantitativeandqualitativewaysthatgiftedpreschoolers expressed their abilities. With early identification,thestimulating,evendemanding,environmentthatRobinsonandRobinson(1992)advocatedforyoungchildren’srealizationoftheirpotentialcanfollow.Earlychildhoodteacherscanalsobealertforgiftedchildrenwho,havingthetendencytoengage insocialcom-parisonsearlierthantheirpeers(Robinson,1993)andtoconformtothebehavioralnormsoftheiragegroup(Dockett,Perry,Howard,Whitton,&Cusack,2002),mighthidetheirabilities.Forexample,Dockettetal.foundthatprecociousreadersstoppedreadingintheirfirst weeks of school, having realized that other children did notreadandwerenotexpectedto.Becausetheattitudesandbehaviorsofyoungchildrenaremoreamenabletopositivechangethanaretheentrenchedpatternsofolderchildren(Whitmore,1986),theunder-achievementdocumentedbylongitudinalstudiesofgiftedchildren(Freeman,2001;Gross,2003)mightbeavoidedbyearlyidentifica-tionandintervention.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted166

MostoftheresearchintotheaccuracyofteachernominationsofchildrenasgiftedwasconductedintheUnitedStatesinthe1970s,where teachers were asked to nominate gifted children in theirclasses and the general intelligence of the children was indepen-dentlyassessed.Effectiveness(i.e.,notoverlookinggiftedchildren)andefficiency(i.e.,notoverestimatingnongiftedchildren)ofteacheridentification were usually calculated. Gear’s (1976) review of theaccuracyofteacherjudgmentofabilityincludedfourstudiesofkin-dergarten or grade 1 teachers whose effectiveness ranged between10%and48%,whiletheirefficiencywasmostly30–50%.IncludedinGear’sreviewwasastudybyJacobs(1971)whofoundthat,ofthechildrenoverestimatedbyteachers,twothirdswereverballyadept,cooperative, and keen to please their teacher. In contrast, a morerecentstudybyReisandPurcell (1993), inwhich470teachersofchildreningrades2–6wereaskedtonominatechildrenforwhomcurriculumcompactingwasnecessary,concludedthattheteacherswereabletoselectappropriatechildren.ReisandPurcellreportedthat,foronegraderhigherthancurrentgrade,thechildrenachievedameanpercentileof93inreadingandmathconceptsandameanpercentileof90inmathcomputation(subtestsoftheIowaTestsofBasicSkills).Russianteachers’ratingsoftheintellectualabilitiesoffirst graders (gifted and nongifted) in Scheblanova’s study (1996)agreed only 54% with the children’s results on a test of cognitiveabilities. No published research was found about the effectivenessofAustralianteachers’nominationsofchildrenasgifted,althoughAlsop’s(1997)investigationintothecounselingneedsofparentsof47giftedchildrenfoundthatthechild’steacherhadrecommendedaformalassessmentinonly17%ofthecases.

Ciha,Harris,Hoffman,andPotter(1974)comparedtheeffec-tiveness of teachers and parents of kindergarten children usingquestionnaire responses and found that teachers’ effectiveness wasmuchlowerthanthatofparents(22%vs.67%).Theeffectivenessofparentsinidentifyingintellectualgiftednessintheiryoungchildrenhasbeenshowninanumberofstudies,withsamplesrangingfrom21tomore than500, tobebetween50%and96%forIQsabove125 (Louis & Lewis, 1992; McGuffog, Feiring, & Lewis, 1987;Parkinson, 1990; Roedell et al., 1980; Silverman, Chitwood, &


Waters,1986).However,theuseofIQscoresasthesolecriterionforgiftednessinyoungchildreninthesestudiesisproblematicbecauseithasbeenshownthatIQscoresaremorereliableaftertheageof6 than at a younger age (McCall, Appelbaum, & Hogarty, 1973;Wilson,1983).Despite thegreatereffectiveness shownbyparentsin these studies, more of the Australian teachers interviewed byPlunkett (2000b) perceived that parents often overestimated theirchildasgiftedthanthoughtparentswerecorrectinidentifyinggift-edness(50%vs.36%).ThismightexplainthereportsfromparentsinAlsop’s(1997)samplethatonly25%ofclassroomteachersand29%ofschoolprincipalsweresupportivewhenconsultedaboutthechild’sassessmentforgiftedness.Areviewoftheliteratureonparent-schoolinvolvementintheeducationofgiftedchildren(Dettman&Colangelo, 1980) described a continuum from a passive trustingapproach(frequentlyleadingtodissatisfaction)toassertivenessthatcoulddamagerelationshipswiththeschool.IntheAustraliancon-text,Braggett,Ashman,andNoble(1983)reportedbothgoodanddifficult parent-school relationships but did not quantify the pro-portionsofeach,whereas83%ofparentsfeltpushywhenmeetingwithteachersabouttheirchild’seducationalneedsinAlsop’sstudy.

Several researchers have investigated teachers’ beliefs aboutgiftedness that might contribute to their lack of accuracy in iden-tification. Some have found that teachers tended to view gifted-ness as achievement rather than potential (Freeman, 1979; Lee,1999),whereasinotherstudies(e.g.,Plunkett,2000b)potentialwasthoughttobemoreimportant.Leealsofoundthatteachersviewedmotivationtoachieveascriticaltogiftedness.

Norm-referenced testing, which measures differences amongindividuals in a sample of behavior (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997) sothat comparison with children of the same age can be made andchangeovertimecanbemeasured(Sattler,1992), isnotroutinelyusedwithyoungchildreninschoolsinthestateofNewSouthWales(NSW),exceptwhenaschoolpsychologistadministerstestsfollow-ingaclassroomteacher’sreferral.AccordingtoGross(1993),teach-ersinAustraliaviewnorm-referencedtestingaselitistandprefertorely more on professional judgment. Unless individual schools orteacherschoosetousenorm-referencedtests,state-widebenchmark


BasicSkillsTestsinliteracyandnumeracy,administeredingrade3andprovidingapercentilewithinthecohort,maybethefirstoppor-tunityforchildrentoshowhowtheiracademicachievementcom-pareswiththatofotherchildrenintheirschoolandstate.

McBride (1992) and Plunkett (2000a) found that the methodthat Australian teachers most frequently reported using to identifygiftednesswasobservation.ElementaryschoolteachersinNSWareencouraged to combine observation with a continual gathering ofinformationbyinformalmethodssuchascurriculum-basedtestsandcollection of products for evaluation (New South Wales Board ofStudies,2005),whichareoftenkeptinaportfoliothatbecomesthebasisforreportingtoparents.Althoughportfolioassessmenthasbeenhailedasadevelopmentallyappropriatewaytoidentifyyounggiftedchildren(Shaklee,1992;Wright&Borland,1993),providedthattheteacherisawareofthecharacteristicsofgiftedness( Johnsen,Ryser,&Dougherty, 1993; Porter, 1999), a review by Herman and Winters(1994)showedthatinvestigationsintothereliabilityandvalidityoftheportfoliomethodinidentifyinggiftednesshavebeensparseandthatstabilityhadnotbeenestablishedforscoresorratingsovertime.Anotherfactorinidentificationbyteachersistheopportunity,orlackof opportunity, that the curriculum provides to reveal achievementbeyondgradeexpectations(Braggett,1997;Shaklee,1992).

Forobservationtobeeffectiveinidentification,teachersneedtobeskilledobserversandhaveagoodgraspofbothnormalchilddevel-opmentandgiftedcharacteristics(Barbour,1992;McBride,1992;Shaklee,1992).Thereexistsasubstantialbodyofknowledgeaboutreliablequalitativeorbehavioralindicatorsofgiftednessfrommanystudies. Silverman (2003), for example, reported on the researchthroughwhichsheandhercolleagueshavedevelopedandrevisedaratingscaleof25characteristicsofgiftedness.Yet,anAustraliangov-ernmentinquiryintogiftededucationhasreportedthatfewteachersinthiscountryhavehadtrainingthatwouldassisttheminidentify-inggiftedstudents(CommonwealthofAustralia,2001).

Thereappearstohavebeenlittleresearchthathasinvestigatedyoungchildren’sperceptionsofteachers’recognitionoftheirabili-tiesorhasinvestigatedthechildren’sowncontributionstoteachers’perceptions.AlthoughGross(1993)askedtheexceptionallygifted


childreninherstudywhetherthey“playeddown”theirabilitiesandwhether the teacher knew this, the results of these questions havenotbeenreported separatelyandarenotevident in thepresentedcasestudies.Gross(1993)did,however,reportthatfluentreadersonschoolentryoftenhidthatskillinordertofitinwithagepeers.

Despite declarations that early identification is imperative forearlyintervention(Silverman,1992;Stile&Hudson,1993),nosys-tematic attempt is made in NSW to identify gifted children untilgrade4,forentrytospecialclassescalled“OpportunityClasses”ingrades 5–6. Unless teachers in the early years of school recognizeexceptionalachievementorpotential,yearsofunsatisfactoryeduca-tionanddeterioratingattitudesmayoccurbeforetheopportunitytoenteragiftedprogramisoffered.

Apart from Scheblanova’s (1996) study, the effectiveness ofearlychildhoodteachersinidentifyinggiftednesssincethe1970sisunknown.Aspartofalargerlongitudinalinvestigationoftheissuesin identifying giftedness in young Australian children, the currentstudysetouttoinvestigatehowteachersintheearlyyearsofschoolperceived the ability levels and the strengths of potentially giftedchildren and how these perceptions related to scores on indepen-dentbutconcurrenttestsofabilityandachievement.Parentpercep-tionsofschools’andteachers’responsestotheirchild’sneedsandthecontributionthatthechildrenthemselvesmayhavemadetothoseteachers’perceptionswerealsoinvestigated.Specificallytheresearchquestionsthatwereaddressedwere:

1. Whatweretheteachers’perceptionsoftheabilityofthechildrenidentifiedaspotentiallygifted,andwhatwastherelationshipbetweentheseperceptionsandconcurrentindependenttesting?

2. Whatstrengthsdidtheteachersperceiveforthesechil-dren,andhowdidtheseperceptionsrelatetotheconcur-rentindependenttestresultsandtobehavioralindicatorsofgiftedness?

3. Whatchildbehaviorsorattitudeshadthepotentialtoassistorhinderteacherrecognitionofgiftedness?

4. Whatperspectivedidparentshaveinrelationtotheschool’sabilitytocatertotheneedsoftheirchild?


Method

Participants and Setting

The children. Child participants were a convenience sample of 6malesand8femaleswhohadbeenidentifiedbytheirparentsorpre-schoolteachersaspotentiallygiftedpriortoorduringattendanceattwopreschoolprogramsoperatingattheSpecialEducationCentreatMacquarieUniversity,Sydney,Australia.Indicatorsofgiftednessinthepreschoolyearscamefromqualitativedata(parentquestion-nairesandteacherobservations)andquantitativedata(testsofabil-ityandacademicachievement),whichhavebeenreportedbyHodgeandKemp(2000). Nine children were among the 11 children enrolled in thePreschoolEnrichmentandExtensionClass(PEEC),a1-yearpart-time program for preschoolers nominated as potentially gifted bytheirparents.Fivechildrenhadattended,for2,3,or5daysperweek,theinclusiveEarlySchool(ES)program,inwhichallchildrenexpe-rienced a traditional preschool program, and those with intellec-tualdisabilitiesalsoreceivedacademic instruction.Bothprogramsoffered an enriching curriculum of free play and more structuredexperiencesthat invitedchildrentorevealbehavioral indicatorsofgiftedness,includinganyacademicskillstheypossessed(seeHodge& Kemp, 2002). Apart from some playful activities to encouragephonologicalawarenessintheESprogram,neitherprogramsoughttoteachacademicskillstotheparticipatingchildren.

Ageandgradeofschoolentryvaried.Ninechildrenenteredkin-dergarten,thefirstyearofschoolinNSW,attheexpectedage(M =5years,2months,);2childrenwerepermittedearlyentrytokinder-gartenatages4years,4monthsand4years,5months;3childrenwereaccelerateddirectlyintograde1(M=5years,5months).

The Parents.Allchildrencamefromsuburbsconsideredmiddleclass.ElevenwerefromAnglo-Australianbackgrounds,and3werefromAsian backgrounds. Their parents were well educated: 20 parentshadcompleteduniversityeducation,7hadcompletedothertertiaryeducation, and 1 had completed secondary education. While the


mothersusuallywrotethequestionnaireresponses,itwasnotclearwhetherfathershadprovidedinput,apartfromfourquestionnaireswherefatherinputwasexplicit.

The teachers.Of33teacherswhotaughtaparticipatingchild inanyyear of this study, 26 (all female) chose to participate. Twenty-onetaught ingovernmentschools,and5taught in independentschools.Thegradesinwhichtheytaughtaparticipantchildwerekindergarten(9teachers),grade1(9teachers),grade2(6teachers),andgrade3(2teachers).Ofthe25teacherswhoreporteddataonclasscomposition,21taughtsinglegradeclasses,3taughtcompositesoftwogrades,and1taughtamultiageclassacrossthreegrades,whichwastheonlyclassthatwassolelyfor“giftedorbright”children.Ofthe24teacherswhoreportedyearsofteachingexperience,3hadtaughtfor5–10years,10hadtaughtfor11–20years,and11hadtaughtformorethan20years.Ofthe25teacherswhorespondedtoaquestionabouttrainingingiftededucation,1teacherpossessedaformalqualificationingiftededuca-tion(master’sdegree),16teachershadattendedaprofessionaldevelop-mentcourseingiftededucation(durationunknown),and7teachersreportedhavinghadnoprofessionaldevelopmentingiftededucation.

Procedure

AllmeasureswereadministeredinNovember–Decembereachyear,attheendoftheAustralianschoolyear.Parentquestionnaireswerepostedtohomeaddresseswithaletterinvitingparents’andchildren’spartici-pation.Ifwillingtoparticipate,parentswereaskedtogivetheirchildhisorherownenclosedletterthatexplainedthetestingandinterviewprocesses.Astampedself-addressedenvelopewasenclosedforreturnoftheparentquestionnaire.Parentswillingfortheirfamilytopartici-patewereaskedtogivetheirchildanenclosed,personalizedletterthatexplained the testing and interview process. The children’s tests andinterviewswereconductedattheSpecialEducationCentre.Toavoidinfluencingparentresponses,promisedreportsdetailingthechild’stestresultsweresenttoparentsafterreturnoftheirquestionnaire. Withparentalconsent,theprincipalsofthechildren’sschoolsweresentaletterrequestingapprovalofparticipationbythechild’scurrent


teacher, if the teacher so wished. Participation involved the anony-mouscompletionofaquestionnaireanditsreturninanenclosedandstampedself-addressedenvelope.Aletterexplainedtotheteacherthatthechildwasnotnecessarilygifted,thatthechildwouldbetestedandinterviewed,andthattheparentswouldnothaveaccesstotheteacher’sresponses.Iftheteachershadnotrespondedbeforeschoolsclosedforthesummervacation,areminderletterandaduplicateofthequestion-naireweresentearlyinthenewschoolyearwiththerequestthatthequestionnairebecompletedasifattheendofthepreviousschoolyear.

Measures

formal Measures of ability. Each year the children were given thesame norm-referenced tests of verbal ability and nonverbal abilitythatwereusedinthepreschoolyearinplaceofIQtests,theresultsofwhicharemorereliableafterage6(McCalletal.,1973;Wilson,1983).Theability testsusedhavebeenrecommendedasuseful ina battery of tests rather than as sole measures of cognitive ability(Matthews,1988;Sattler,1992).

ThePeabodyPictureVocabularyTest–Revised(PPVT-R;Dunn& Dunn, 1981) measured verbal ability, using parallel versions inalternateyears.Thistestisoftenusedinresearchasacognitiveassess-mentortomeasurescholasticaptitude(Goodwin&Goodwin,1982)andhasbeenreportedinareviewbyBracken,Prasse,andMcCallum(1984)tocorrelatewellwithmostIQtests.Thethirdeditionofthetest(PPVT-III;Dunn,Dunn,&Dunn,1997),unchangedincontent,wasstandardizedjustasthepresentresearchbegan,so,inordertoavoidoverestimationthroughtheFlynneffect(Flynn,1987),children’sresultswereconvertedtoscoresonthethirdeditionusingatableprovidedintheexaminer’smanual.Ascoreofpercentile98orhigher(twostandarddeviationsabovethemean)wasconsideredtobeinthegiftedrange.

ThetestofnonverbalabilitywastheColoredProgressiveMatrices(CPM;Raven,Court,&Raven,1995),whichhasAustraliannormsforages5.5to10.5years.TheStandardProgressiveMatrices(SPM;Raven,Court,&Raven,1998),withAustraliannormsforages8.5–17.0,wasusedwhentheCPM’sceilinghadbeenmet,oralmostmet,inthepreviousyear’stesting.Describedasbeing“asclosetoastudy


ofpurethinkingprocessesintheabsenceofspecificcontentacquisi-tionasisavailable”(Cherkes-Julkowski,Stolzenberg,&Segal,1990,p.7),theSPMhasbeenfoundtobecomparablewithIQasapredic-torofacademicsuccessinchildrenaged5–18(Saccuzzo&Johnson,1995).Becausethehighestscoregiveninthetestnormsispercentile95+,thiswasconsideredtobethegiftedrange.

formal Measures of academic achievement. These were tests com-monlyused inAustralianschools.TheNealeAnalysisofReading-Revised (Neale-R; Neale, 1988) is a measure of reading accuracy,comprehension, and rate (although rate was not reported) as thechildreadstext.Themorerecentnormsofthethirdedition(Neale-III;Neale,1999)wereusedbecausethetestwasunchangedandthestandardizationwascarriedout(fornormsintherangeof1yearofschoolto7yearsofschool)inthefinaltermoftheschoolyear,whichmatchedthetimingof testingofparticipantchildren.Formswerealternated each year to avoid practice effects. Scores of percentiles98orhigher(atleasttwostandarddeviationsabovethemean)wereconsideredtobeinthegiftedrange.

In the absence of a test of written expression normed onAustralian children, the South Australian Spelling Test (SAST;Westwood,1999),with1993normsthatgaveaspellingageinthe6.0–15.5yearsrange,wasused.Informationfromthetestauthor(P.Westwood, personal communication, June 4, 2002) that the stan-darddeviationofthetestwas7.75rawscorepointsallowedcalcula-tionofstandarddeviationsabovethemean;arawscoretwostandarddeviationsabovethemeanwasregardedasinthegiftedrange.

Atthetime,nonorm-referencedtestofmathematicswasavail-able that had Australian norms for children in the first 3 yearsof school. The Test of Early Mathematics Ability (Ginsberg &Baroody, 1983) had been used in the preschool year and, in ret-rospect, despite its U.S. norms, would have been better than nomeasureinthefirstyearofschool.Inthesecondandthirdyearsofschool,theProgressiveAchievementTestofMathematics–Revised(PATMaths–R; Australian Council for Educational Research,1997)wasusedasanabove-leveltest,wherebyperformanceatthemean for two grades higher indicated achievement that was suffi-


ciently advanced to require a differentiated curriculum (Assouline&Lupkowski-Shoplik,1997)andwasthereforeconsideredtobeinthegiftedrange.PATMaths–Remphasizesmathematicalreasoninginthenumberstrand,butthestrandsofspace,measurement,chanceand data, and working mathematically are also assessed. A studypublished since the current study was undertaken has concludedthattheNewZealand-normedversionofthistest(PATMaths;Reid,1993) was only 78% effective in identifying mathematical gifted-nessinchildrenaged9–12(Niederer,Irwin,Irwin,&Reilly,2003).However,itsuseofscoresonanunvalidatedtestofproblemsolvingasthecriterionformathematicalgiftednessanditsuseofPATMathsgrade-level,ratherthanoff-level,normsweakenNiedereretal.’srec-ommendation that the test should not be used to identify mathe-maticalgiftedness.Inthecurrentstudy,Form1(normedforgrades3–5inNSW)wasgiventochildreningrades1and2whosereadingagewasatleast8years;Form2(normedforgrades5–7inNSW)was given to allow a greater test ceiling when children had scoredclosetotheceilingofForm1inthepreviousyear.

Parent Questionnaire. Theparentquestionnairecontaineditemscho-sentoelicitdetailonparentperceptionsoftheschools’andteachers’recognitionandaccommodationoftheneedsofgiftedchildreninthecurrentyear.The itemsrelevant to this studyrequireda ratingonaLikertscaleof1–5abouttheextenttowhichtheparentthoughtthat(a)thechildworkedtohisorherabilityinclass,(b)theteacherrec-ognizedthechild’sabilities,and(c) theschool tookseriouslyat thetimeofenrollmenttheparent’sinformation,ifoffered,thatthechildmaybegifted.Parentswereaskedforreasonsiftheyhadchosennottotelltheschoolthatthechildmightbegifted.Therewasalsoanopen-endedquestionaboutanyunexpectedissuesatschoolduringtheyear. teacher Questionnaire. The questionnaire was constructed and pre-sentedasagatheringofinformationandopinionratherthanasatestofteacherskillinrecognizingachildwhowassurelygifted.Theteach-erswereaskedtoratetheabilityleveloftheparticipatingchildintheirclass(a little above average, far above average,or not above average)andtonominateanystrengthstheyhadobservedinthechild.Theques-


tionaboutstrengthswasleft“open”toseewhetherbehavioralstrengthswouldbeincludedalongwithacademicstrengths.Inaddition,apartfromquestionsabouttheteacher’syearsofteachingexperience,trainingingiftededucation,andcompositionoftheclasstaught(size,gradeorgrades,andwhetherability-grouped),thequestionnaireaskedwhether(a)thechildhadbeenintroducedasgifted,and(b)ithadbeenneces-sarytotestthischildbeyondtheusualclassassessments. The child interview. A structured interview, implemented by theresearcherwhowasknowntothechildrenfromtheirpreschoolyear,containedthesamequestionsforeverychildandaimedtogainthechild’s perceptions of his or her school and class experience, espe-ciallytheresponsetoteacherexpectationsandthetypeandlevelofworkgiven. Ifnecessary,apromptsuchas“Canyoutellmemoreaboutthat?”wasgiven. Theinterviewbeganwithopenquestionsaboutwhatthechildlikedanddislikedabout school,whichconveyed themessage thatacriticalviewwaspermissible.Evidenceofteacheraccuracyofrec-ognitionofthechild’sabilitieswasthefocusofquestionsabout(a)workthatwasdifficultandworkthatwaseasy,and(b)theteacher’sknowingthatthisworkwasdifficultoreasy.Evidenceofchildbehav-iorsandattitudesthatmightassistorhinderteacherrecognitionofpotentialgiftednesswasthefocusofquestionsaboutthechild’s(a)preferencefordifficultoreasyworkandreasonsforthispreference,(b)readinesstocomplywithteacherrequests,and(c)perceptionofwhatpleasedordispleasedtheteacher,whichTannenbaum(1997)describedasthegroundrulesforsuccessintheclassroom.

Tapesweretranscribedverbatimbeforeanalysis.Asecondinde-pendent transcription of one third of tapes selected at random asareliabilitycheckfoundoccasionaldifferencesinfunctionalwords(e.g.,and,the)butnodifferencesthataffectedmeaning.

Data Analysis

Multiplesourcesofdata,quantitativeandqualitative,wereemployedtopermitinvestigationoftherelationshipsamongindividualmea-sures.


Effectiveness of teacher identification of Giftedness. ThiswascalculatedaccordingtoGear’s(1976)method,whodeterminedtheratioofcon-firmedgiftedstudentsnominatedbytheteacherstotheactualnumberofgiftedchildrenintheclassroom.Inthecurrentstudy,effectivenesswascalculatedasthenumberofteacherswhoratedasfar above aver-ageaparticipantchildwhoobtainedatleastonetestscoreinthegiftedrangeasaproportionofthetotalnumberofparticipantchildrenwhoobtainedatleastonetestscoreinthegiftedrange.Roedelletal.(1980)concludedthat,becauseyoungchildrencanbevariableinthetestingsituation,evenonetestscorethatisexceptionalindicatesthatayoungchild should not be discounted as gifted. They referred to this as a“bestperformance”philosophy(p.38),andtheirviewhasfoundsup-portfromBorlandandWright(1994)andSilverman(1998).

relationship Between teacher ratings of ability and children’s test Scores. Teacherswereofferedthreeranksonascaleofperceivedabil-ity,butwhentwoteachersindicatedarankthatfellbetween1 (far above average) and2 (a little above average),thiswasincorporatedintothedataanalysisasthesecondrank(quite above average) sothata little above average becamerank3 andnot above averagebecamerank4.Tocorrespondtothesefourranksofperceivedability,eachyearthescoreforeachchildforeachtestwasrankedbetween1and4accordingtocriteriaderivedfromtestnormsregardingdegreeaboveaverage(seeTable1).

ASpearmanrank-differencecorrelationwasusedtoexaminetherelationshipbetweentheabilityofthechildasrankedbytheteacherandtherankedscoresfor(a)verbalability,(b)nonverbalability,(c)reading accuracy, (d) reading comprehension, (e) spelling, and (f )mathematics.Dependingonthereturnofteacherquestionnairesandthenumberofyearsofparticipationperchild,therewere0–3relation-shipsthatcouldbeexaminedforeachchild.Eachsetofdatathathada teacher questionnaire and a concurrent test score was treated as aseparateparticipant.Correlationswerecorrectedfortiesinranking.

Thesizeofthecorrelationwasthefocusofanalysisbecausethesmallsamplesizemeantthat itwouldbedifficulttoreachstatisti-cal significance, even with moderate to large correlations. Giventhat multiple comparisons were made using the same data sets, it


was appropriate to adopt the more conservative alpha level of .01inordertoguardagainstaType1error(falsepositives).Therewasadanger,however,thatwithaverysmallsamplesizeaType2error(falsenegatives)couldalsobemade.Inorderfortheretobeastatisti-callysignificantrelationship(atthe.01level)betweenthePPVT-IIIandCPM/SPMscoresandteacher ratingofability (n =25), andbetweenthemeasuresofreadingaccuracy,readingcomprehension,andspellingandteacherratingofability(n =25),thecorrelationswouldneedtobe.511orgreater.Fortherelationshipbetweenabil-itymeasuresandteacherratingtobesignificantforchildreninthefirstyearofschool(n =10),thecorrelationswouldneedtobe.794orgreater.FortherelationshipbetweenthePATMaths-Rscoresandteacherratingofability(n =15),toreachstatisticalsignificanceacorrelation of .654 or better was required (see Table of CriticalValuesforrs;Sheskin,1997,p.707).

Inordertofurtherexamineteachereffectiveness,themeannum-beroftestscoresinthegiftedrangecorrespondingtoeachrankofteacherratingwascalculated.Inordertodeterminewhethertherewasarelationshipbetweentheconsistencyofachild’stestscoresandteacherratingsofability,acalculationwasmadeforeachchildof(a)themeannumberofannualtestscoresinthegiftedrangewhetherrated by a teacher or not, and (b) the proportion of ratings as far above average. Thesedatawereanalyzeddescriptively.

Table 1

Ranks Allocated to Test Scores

Rank

Test

1Farabove

average

2Quiteabove

average

3Alittleabove

average

4Notabove

averagePPVT-IIIa 98+ 95–97 85–94 <85CPM/SPMa 95+ 90–94 75–89 <75Neale-IIIa 98+ 95–97 84–94 <84SASTb 2.0+ 1.5–1.9 1.0–1.4 <1.0PATMaths-Rc 5+ 4 3 2or<2

note. Test criterion: apercentile, bSDs > mean, cstanine for two grades higher.


analysis of Questionnaire and interview data. Questionsthataskedforayes/noresponsewereanalyzedbyfrequencyofeachresponse.Atallywasalsomadeofalternateresponses:probably ori don’t know.Responses to open questions in the teacher questionnaire and thechild interviewswereexaminedfor themesthatwerethenquanti-fied.Forbehavioralstrengthsnominatedbyteachers,aquantitativesummarywasmadeoftheirconsistencywithindicatorsofgiftednessfromtheresearchliterature.

analysis of relationships Between Quantitative and Qualitative data. Dataweresummarizedintableformtoallowvisualinspectionoftherelationshipsbetweenquantitativedata(ranksoftestscoresorranksderived from teacher ratings) and themes that emerged from thequalitativedata.Strengthsnominatedbyteachersthatwerespecifictoreading,spelling,ormathematicswerecomparedwiththechild’sscore in theconcurrentyearontherelevantachievementtest.Foreachtest,aquantitativesummarywasmadeofagreementbetween(a)ateacher’snominationofstrengthinthatacademicarea,and(b)achievementbythecorrespondingchildontherelevanttestaccord-ingtotheranks1–4outlinedpreviously.

Results

Teacher Perceptions

teacher ratings of ability and Their relationship to test Scores. Inthefirstyearofschool,10teachersgaveratingsofchildabilitybetween1(far above average)and3(a little above average),and1teacherfailedtorateachild’sability(M=2.3).Inthesecondyearofschool,10teachersgaveratingsbetween1and4(not above average;M=2.0).Inthethirdyearofschool,5teachersgaveratingsbetween1and3(M=1.4). concurrent scores.Comparisonofteacherratingsofchildabilitywiththechild’sconcurrenttestscoresshowedthatin12ofthe13instancesthatachildwasratedasfar above average, heorshe hadatleastonescoreinthegiftedrange(seeTable2).Althoughthe13th


childhadnoconcurrentscoreinthegiftedrange,hedidhavescoresinthegiftedrangeinthepreviousandfollowingyears.AsTable2shows, each year the children who were rated as far above averagehadahighermeanofscoresinthegiftedrangethanchildrenratedlower,althoughninelowerratings(eightchildren,onechildtwice)alsocoincidedwithatleastonescoreinthegiftedrange.Threelowerratingscoincidedwithnoscoresinthegiftedrange.Withoneexcep-tion,astherankofteacherratingsdropped,sodidthemeannumberoftestscoresinthegiftedrange.

Table 2

Relationship Between Teacher Ratings of Child Ability and Test Scores

Teacherratingofability

Numberofchildrenwithatleastone

scoreinthegiftedrange

Meannumberofscoresinthegifted

rangeFirstyearofschool

Faraboveaverage(n=4) 4 2.75Quiteaboveaverage(n=0)Alittleaboveaverage(n=6) 4 1.7Notaboveaverage(n=0)Norating(n=4) 4 3.25

SecondyearofschoolFaraboveaverage(n=5) 4 3.2Quiteaboveaverage(n=2) 2 2Alittleaboveaverage(n=1) 1 1Notaboveaverage(n=2) 1a 1.5

ThirdyearofschoolFaraboveaverage(n=4) 4 3.75Quiteaboveaverage(n=0)Alittleaboveaverage(n=1) 1 1Notaboveaverage(n=0)Norating(n = 4) 4 3.75

note. aThis child had been accelerated midyear into the rating teacher’s class.


The25teacherswhoratedachild’sabilityhadaneffectivenessrateof57.1%,becausetheyratedachildasfar above averagein12ofthe21instancesthatachildhadatleastoneconcurrentscoreinthegifted range. Of the nine underestimations, in seven instances thechildhadaconcurrentnonverbalabilityscoreinthegiftedrangebutaverbalabilityscorebelowthegiftedrange,whileintheremaininginstancesbothnonverbalandverbalscoreswereinthegiftedrange.Infourofthenineunderestimations,thechildalsohadatleastoneconcurrentachievementscoreinthegiftedrange. consistency of individuals’ scores over time.Acrossthe3yearsofschool,3childrenhadameannumberof4–5annualtestscoresinthegiftedrange,5hadanannualmeanof2–3,and6hadanannualmeanof0–1.7.Forchildrenalways ratedas far above average, themean ranged from 0.7 to 5 tests annually in the gifted range. Forchildrenratedloweratleastonce,themeanrangedfrom0to4testsannually,whileforchildrenalwaysratedbelowfar above averagethemeanrangedfrom0to2testsannually.Ofthe5childrenwhohadameanofatleastthreeannualtestscoresinthegiftedrange,3wereratedbelowfar above averageoncein2or3years. relationship between teacher ratings and ability testing. Acrossthe3years, theSpearmanrank-differencecorrelationbetweenteacherratingsofabilityandthePPVT-IIIwasrs=.362,p=.08,andthecor-relationbetweenteacherratingsofabilityandtheCPM/SPMwasrs=.112,p=.58.Whenteachers’ratingsinthefirstyearofschoolwereseparated fromthose inthesecondandthirdyearsandwerecorrelated with children’s scores on ability tests in the same years,theSpearmanrank-differencecorrelationbetweenteacherratingsinthefirstyearofschoolandverbalabilityscoresinthatyearwasrs=.763,p=.02.Inthefirstyear,thecorrelationbetweenteacherper-ceptionofabilityandnonverbalscoreswasrs=.175,p=.60.Noneofthesecorrelationswassignificantatthe.01level,althoughtherewas a large correlation between teacher ratings in the first year ofschoolandverbalabilityandalesserbutstillsmalltomoderatecor-relationbetweenverbalabilityandteacherratingsofabilityacrossthe3years. relationship between teacher ratings and achievement testing. TheSpearman rank-difference correlations between teacher ratings of


abilityandthemeasureofreadingwasrs=.367,p=.07,foraccuracyandrs=-.115,p=.57forcomprehension.Thecorrelationbetweenteacher ratings of ability and the measure of spelling was rs = .282,p = .17. The correlation between teacher ratings of ability and themeasureofmathematics(forjustthesecondandthirdyearsofschool)wasrs = .402,p=.13. Whentheratingsofteachersinthefirstyearofschoolwereseparatedandcorrelatedwithchildren’sconcurrentscoresonachievementtests,thecorrelationswere(a)readingaccuracyrs=.376,p=.26;(b)readingcomprehensionrs=.330,p=.32;and(c)spellingrs = -.074, p = .82. There was no separation for mathemat-icsbecausenonorm-referencedtestwasgiveninmathematicsinthefirstyearofschool.Again,noneofthesecorrelationsreachedstatisticalsignificance,althoughthecorrelationswereofmoderatesizebetweenteacherperceptionand(a)readingaccuracyinthefirstyearandacrossthe3years,(b)readingcomprehensioninthefirstyear,and(c)math-ematicsinthecombinedsecondandthirdyears.teacher ratings of ability and Their relationship to introduction of the child as Gifted.Teachersemployedtheentirerangeofratingsforchil-drenwhowereintroducedasgiftedbutmostfrequently(60%ofthetime)ratedthemasfaraboveaverage.Teachersrated9ofthesechil-drenasfaraboveaverage,2asquiteaboveaverage,3asalittleaboveaverage,and1child,whohadbeenacceleratedintoherclassmidyear,as not above average. Children not introduced as gifted were alsogivenarangeofratingsbutmostfrequently(55%)wereratedasalittleaboveaverage.Teachersrated3ofthesechildrenasfaraboveaverage,5asalittleaboveaverage,and1asnotaboveaverage.

teacher Perceptions of child’s academic Strengths and Their relationship to test Scores. reading. Of the 18 nominations of strength in reading, 14coincidedwithaNeale-IIIaccuracypercentileof95orhigher(8ofthesewithapercentileof98orhigher),2coincidedwithaccuracyscores in the above-average range, and 2 coincided with accuracyscoresintheaveragerange.Intheeightinstanceswhereachildwasnot nominated as strong in reading, scores were below the 94thpercentile.Fivenominationsofstrengthinreadingcoincidedwith


aNeale-IIIcomprehensionscoreofpercentile95orhigher(threewithpercentile98orhigher),sixcoincidedwithpercentilesintheabove-averagerange,andsixcoincidedwithcomprehensionscoresintheaveragerange. Spelling. Of the children nominated for strength in spelling,fivedidhavespellingachievementinthegiftedrange.Twochildrennominatedforstrengthinspellinghadscores1–1.4Sdsabovethemean, while four teachers did not perceive children with achieve-mentatthislevelasstronginspelling.Nineteachersdidnotnomi-natespellingstrengthforchildrenwhosescorewasatleast1.5Sdsabovethemean.(Sevenofthesechildrenscoredinthegiftedrange,and one teacher actually commented that the child’s spelling wasaverage.)Sixchildrenwerenotperceivedas strong in spellingandhadscoreslessthan1Sdabovethemean. Mathematics.Teacheridentificationofstrengthinnumeracywascompared with scores in the PATMaths-R test used as above-leveltestinginthesecondandthirdyearsofschool.Theabsenceofnorm-referenced testing in mathematics in the first year of school madeimpossibleanycomparisoninthatyearbetweenteacheridentificationofstrengthsinnumeracyandtestscores.However,inthefirstyear,just2teachersnominatedstrengthinmathematics,inakindergartenchildandinachildwhohadentereddirectlytograde1.(Thelatterscoredinthegiftedrangeinbothsubsequentyears.)While9teachersidenti-fiedstrengthinmathematicsinthesecondandthirdyearsofschoolinchildrenwhoscoredstanine4or5onPATMaths-Rnormsfortwogradeshigher,3otherchildrenwithscoresofstanine4or5werenotidentifiedasstronginmathematics.Childrenwithscoresofstanine3orlowerwerenotidentifiedasstronginmathematics.

teacher testing Beyond the usual. Although they were not askedwhatwasusual,4of the26 teachers reported that they tested thechildbeyondtheusualfortheclass(4inreadingand1inmathemat-ics),and3askedfortestingbyaschoolpsychologist.Fouroftheseteachersratedthechildasfar above average, 2(whoemphasizedthattestingwasattherequestofparents)ratedthechildasa little above average, and1gavenorating.


teacher Perceptions of Behavioral Strengths and Their relationship to ratings of ability. Fourteenteachers(54%)nominatedstrengthsthatwerebehavioral(nonacademic).SeeTable3forananalysisofthe kinds of strengths nominated, their consistency with indica-torsofintellectualgiftednessfromtheresearchliterature,andtheirrelationshiptoteacherratingsofability.Thebehavioralstrengthsofinitiative,enjoymentofchallenge,attractiontolikemindsorother“bright” children, and conscientiousness were nominated only forchildrenratedasfar above average.Eightbehavioralstrengthswerenominated for children given ratings of far above average, as wellaslowerratings(sixindicatinggiftedness),andthreestrengthsthatindicatedgiftednesswerenominatedforchildrenwithratingsbelowfar above average.

Parent Perceptions

Overthe3years,thefrequencyofparents’ratingsoftheextenttowhichtheythoughttheirchildworkedtohisorherabilityinclasswas:1(never):0%,2(not often):9%,3(sometimes):50%,4(often):34.5%,and5(always):6.5%.Themeanratingwas3.3.Itwasevidentfromthefollowingcommentthatthisquestionwasinterpretedbyatleastoneparentasaperceptionofthechild’seffortratherthanofthechallengeoffered:“Schoolworkisalwaysbelowherlevelbutshetriesherbest.” Thefrequencyofratingsoftheextenttowhichthechild’steacherrecognizedthechild’sabilitieswas:1(greatly underestimates):3%,2(underestimates a little):51%,and3(accurately recognizes):36%.Themeanwas2.2. Noparentratedteacherrecognitionas4(overestimates a little)or5(greatly overestimates).Sixpercentofratingsfellbetween1and2,andonesuchratingwasaccompaniedbythecomment:“Theteachersaysshecancountto20.Sheactuallycountsto100thenbyhundredsto1,000,thenonandon.Shecountsby2sto20,5sto100,10sto100.”Fourpercentofratingsfellbetween2and3.

Whenenrollingtheirchildinschoolforthefirsttimeorifchang-ing schools, 75% of parents informed the school that their childmightbegiftedorthatthechildcouldalreadyread,while25%didnot.Reasonsgivenfornottellingtheschoolofpossiblegiftedness


were thewish for thechild tobe treatednormally, fearofappear-ingpushyandhavethechildsufferasaresult,confidencethatthe

Table 3

Relationship Between Frequencies of Teacher Perceptions of Behavioral Strengths and Ability Ratings

Reportedstrength(andsupportfromresearchliteraturea)

Abilityratingaboveaverage

Far QuiteA

Little NotBehaviorsconsistentwithindicatorsofintellectualgiftedness

Language—mature/descriptive(Silverman,2003)

3 1

Problemsolving/logicalthinking(Silverman,2003)

3 1

Initiative/self-motivation(Gottfriedetal.,1994)

2

Enjoymentofchallenges(Harrison,2005) 2Drawntobrightchildren(Gross&Start,

1989)2

Conscientious(Hafenstein&Tucker,1995)

2

Divergentthinking/imagination(Rogers&Silverman,1998)

2 3 1

Senseofhumor(Rogers&Silverman,1998)

1 1

Perceptiveness/depthofthinking(Parkinson,1990)

1 1

Generalknowledge(Silverman,2003) 1 1Spatialabilities(Rogers&Silverman,

1998)1

Memory(Silverman,2003) 1Deepknowledgeintopicofinterest

(Gross,1993)1child(norating)

BehaviorsnotconsistentwithindicatorsofintellectualgiftednessSkillincreative/performingarts 1 2Computerskills 1 1

note. a For brevity, only one reference is supplied, although others exist.


schoolcateredforindividuals,andperceivingthatthechildwasnotexceptional.Forthosewhodidtelltheschoolofpossiblegiftedness,thefrequenciesofratingsofthedegreetowhichtheschooltookseri-ouslythisnewswere1 (not at all):0%,2(not very):33%,3(moder-ately):33%,4(quite):25%,and6(very):9%.Themeanratingwas3.0. Allratingsof4or5werebyparentsofchildrencommencingschoolasearlyentrantstokindergarten(firstyearofschool)orskip-pingkindergartenandenteringgrade1.Oneparentwastoldthatthetermgiftedwasusedtooloosely.

Some parents reported unexpected issues relating to teacherrecognitionoftheirchild’sabilities.Twoparentsweredisappointedbyteachers’negativityoremphasisonweaknessesfollowingassess-mentparentshadinitiatedbecausetheyfelttheirchildwasunder-estimated.One7-year-oldchildwastestedbyaschoolpsychologistwhoreportedaWechslerIntelligenceScaleforChildren(Thirdedi-tion; Wechsler, 1991) full scale IQ of 121 and suggested that thePerformancescalewasdepressedbyfinemotordifficulties.Thepar-entwrote:

Aftertesting,thecounselorsuggestedthathemayhaveahand-eyecoordinationproblem,soheiscurrentlyattendingahandwritinggroupweekly.Ihavefeltforawhilethatthehandwritingissueisbeingusedasabitofascapegoat,andtheschoolisplacingmoreemphasisonthisthannecessary.

Thesecondchildwastestedindependentlyoftheschoolatage6 years, 6 months when the parents felt that the teacher viewedhim as “naughty and average.” A Stanford-Binet (Fourth edition;Thorndike,Hagen,&Sattler,1986)IQscore that includedscoresofpercentile98.5and99+amongthefoursubscaleswas,accordingtotheparents,followedatschoolbya“lessconfrontational”teacherattitudebutonlyminorchangestoworklevelsandexpectations.AthirdchildhadarrivedatschoolwithanIQscoreinthegiftedrange,and,whentheparentsaskedformorechallengingwork,theyweretold that testing (apparently curriculum-based) indicated that thechilddidnotcopewithofferedextensionworkandthattheyshould“letyourdaughterbeachild.”


Otherissuesreportedbyparentsandpossiblyrelatingtoteacherperceptionsofabilitywereperfectionismorfearoffailure(8ofthe14children),boredominclass(6children),resistingorhavingdiffi-cultywithhandwriting(6children),avoidingthelimelightorwant-ingto“fitin”(3children),strivingtopleasetheteacher(3children),discomfortwithadults(2children),lowself-confidence(2children),rushingwork(1child),andnonconformingbehavior(1child).

Child Perceptions

difficulty of Work and teacher Perception.Fromchildren’snominationsofworkinanacademicarea(reading,writing/spelling,ormathemat-ics)aseasyordifficult,thereweremoreindicationsthatchildrenwerenotbeingchallenged(36reportsofeasywork)thantherewereindica-tionsthattheywerebeingchallenged(18reportsofdifficultwork),andtherewereeightreports,from6children,thatnoworkwasdif-ficult.Askedwhethertheythoughtthattheteacherknewthatworkwas easy, 61% of children thought she knew and 18% thought sheprobablyknew.Theproportionofchildrenwhothoughttheteacherdidnotknowwas18%,and3%didnotventureanopinion.Regardingteacherknowledgeofworkbeingdifficult,for9children(27%)thequestionwasinadvertentlynotaskedafterchildrenreportedthatnoworkwasdifficult.Ofthe24responsestothisquestion,58%reportedthat theteacherknew,while17%reportedthat sheprobablyknew,and25%reportedthattheteacherdidnotknow.

Preference for Easy or difficult Work. When children were askedwhether theypreferredeasyordifficultwork,43%ofreports indi-catedapreferencefordifficultwork,36%foreasywork,12%forbotheasyanddifficultwork,and9%forwork“inbetween”or“atmylevel.”Theproportionofchildrenreportingapreferenceforeasyworkwashighestinthefirstyear,andtheproportionreportingapreferencefordifficultworkwashighestinthesecondyear.Reasonsforpreferringeasyworkincludedfinishingquickly(fourreports)andreportedonceeach:(a)beingabletodomorework,(b)gettingeverythingcorrect,(c)avoidingembarrassment,and(d)beingabletotalkwhileworking.Reasonsforpreferringdifficultworkincludedlikingachallenge(five


reports)andonceeach:(a)makingthebrainworkharder,(b)havingnothingtodoiffinishingeasyworkquickly,(c)sensingprogress,and(d)wantingtoavoid“beinglikeHomerSimpson.”Onechildsaidhelikeddifficultworkbecauseitwasstilleasy. Childrenwhopreferredeasyworkweregivenarangeofratingsbytheirteachers,aswerechildrenwhopreferreddifficultwork.Ofthechildrenratedasfar above average,abouthalfpreferredeasyworkandabouthalfpreferreddifficultwork.Childrenratedlowerdidnotnecessarilyprefereasywork.

Willingness to comply With teacher requests. In the first year ofschool,childrenreportedthattheteacherwaspleasedanddispleasedby specific behaviors and standards of work. “Sit up straight” and“finishworkfast,”forexample,wouldpleaseateacher,but“lyingonthefloor”and“scribbling”wouldnot.Bythethirdyearofschool,thereportsweremoregeneralizedaboutpleasingtheteacher(e.g.,“workmostlycorrect”)anddispleasingher(e.g.,“wastingtheteach-er’stime”).Inthefirstyearofschool,behaviorwasmentionedmorethanwork(30and17instancesrespectively);inthesecondyearofschool, behavior was also mentioned more than work (20 and 14instances);and,inthethirdyear,reportsofbehaviorandworkwereequalinnumber(14).Whenresponsestopleasinganddispleasingwereconsideredtogether,thecategoriesthatwererankedfirst,sec-ond,andthirdaspleasingwere(a)beingquietorlistening,(b)behav-ingwell (“beinggood”), and(c) followingroutines.Thenext fourrankingsinorderwereworkthatwas(a)neat,correct,orhard(equalrank),(b)“good,”or(c)quick,whilethe lowestrankings involvedbeingkindorhelpful,notcopyingor“dobbing”(tellingtales);onechildthoughtthat“nothingmuch”pleasedtheteacher. When asked whether there were times when they did notwant to do what the teacher asked, there were five “yes” and nine“no” responses in the first year, nine “yes” and one “no” responsesin the second year, and seven “yes” and two “no” responses in thethird year. Children who offered detail mentioned work that wasdislikedorboring(e.g.,“Likewhenwehavetodo20setsofmen-tals,which iseveryday,andyougetsoboredof it.”).Whenthosewhorespondedwitha“yes”wereaskedwhattheydo,therewere18


responsesindicatingcomplianceafterallandtheconsequencesfornoncompliance. Of the three responses indicating resistance, onechildreportedignoringtheteacherwithoutconsequence(thischildwasrateda little above average),onechild(ratedfar above average)reported postponing but having to eventually comply (sometimeswhentimingwasinconvenienttohimself ),andonechild(ratedfar above average)reportedthattheteacherdidnotnoticebecauseshesatinthebackrow.Childrenacrossalltheratingsgivenbyteachersweresometimesunwillingtocomply.Teachersdidnotgivehigherratingstochildrenwhoweremorewillingtocomply.

Discussion

The Teacher Perspective

teacher Perceptions of ability and Their relationship to concurrent independent testing.Therewassomeevidenceofaccuracyinteacherestimationsofability.Thechildrenwhomteachersratedasfaraboveaveragedidhavemorescoresinthegiftedrangethanchildrenratedlower, and, in all but one case, there were decreasing numbers ofscoresatthislevelasratingranksdecreased.Theeffectivenessrateof57.1%ishigherthantherangeof10–48%reportedbyGear’s(1976)reviewofstudiesthatcomparedteachernominationofchildrenasgifted with the children’s IQ scores. It is, however, still quite low,especiallybecausethequestionnairecouldbeconsideredaprompt,whereas other studies provided an unselected sample from whichteacheraccuracywasdetermined.Moreover,morethanhalfofthechildrenwereunderestimatedbyatleastoneteacher,includingsomewithameanofatleastthreeannualtestscoresinthegiftedrange,whichsuggeststhatevenconsistentabilityand/orachievementatanexceptionallevelwasnotapparenttosometeachers.Ayearwithanunderestimatingteachercouldbeaseriouseducationaldisadvantage(Hall,2001).

Althoughteacherswerenotaskedtoratechildabilityinsepa-ratedomains,comparisonoftheabilityratingswithrankingsofthechildren’s various concurrent test scores indicated those domains


thatmostcloselymatchedtheteacherratings.Overthe3yearsofschool,theSpearmanrank-differencecorrelationsbetweenteachers’ratingsofchildabilityandranksonthePPVT-IIIandCPM/SPMsuggestedthatteachersnoticedverbalabilitymoreeasilythannon-verbalability(rs=.362andrs=.112respectively).Thiswasespeciallythe case in the first year of school when the correlations betweenteacherratingsofabilityandtheranksonthesetestswerers=.763andrs=.175respectively.Itishardlysurprisingthattheseteachersnoticedreceptivelanguageabilitybecause,inAustralianearlychild-hoodclassrooms,thepracticesofwhole-classorallessons,typically“onthemat,”andofintroductionsandinstructionsgiventotheclassasawholebeforechildrencomplete tasks independentlyarecom-mon.However,itisofconcernthatratingsofnot above averageora little above averageweregiventochildrenwhoseCPM/SPMscoresinthegiftedrangeindicatedanexceptionalabilitytothinklogically.Perhapsnonverbalabilityislesseasilyrecognizedintheearlyyearsofschool.Only4teachersnominatedlogicalthinkingorproblemsolvingasastrength,whichsuggeststhatinsomeclassroomsthecur-riculum allowed more scope for children to display these abilitiesthaninotherclassrooms.

Comparison of teacher perceptions of ability with academicachievementscoresshouldacknowledgethatteacherssawchildren’sresponses toagreaterbreadthof skillsandcontentwithinanaca-demicareathanatestcouldsample.Ontheotherhand,theresearchtestsprobablyassessedhigherlevelsofachievementthanclassroomassessments,especiallybecausefewteachersappearedtousenorm-referencedtests.Teacherratingsofabilityappearedtoberelatedtochildren’sskillinreadingaccuracyoverthe3years(rs=.362),askillthatwouldalsohavebeenreflectedinthecorrelationinthesecondandthirdyearsbetweenteacherratingsandmathematicsonatestthatrequiredaccuratereadingofthequestions(rs=.402).Inclusionofatestofcomputationmayhaveshownaquitedifferentrelation-shipbetweenteacherratingsofabilityandPATMaths-Rranks.

More accurate information could have been gained by askingteacherstoratechildrenseparatelyonthevariousabilityandachieve-mentdomains.Thiscouldalsohaveshownwhether,asGross(1993)found,teachersregardedachildasgiftedinthemostvisibledomain


andoftendisregardedalmostequalachievementinanotherdomain.However, because such questions could have been more threaten-ingtoteachersthantheprocessesofrating“ability”andnominatingstrengths and weaknesses, it might have jeopardized the question-nairereturnrate,especiallybecausetheteacherswereinformedthatthechildrenwouldbetested.

teacher Perceptions of Strengths and Their relationship to concurrent test results.Readingwastheacademicareamostoftenidentifiedasastrength,andmostofthechildrenidentifiedasstronginreadingdidhaveNeale-IIIaccuracypercentilesofatleast95.Teachersdidnotoverlookasgifted(far above average)thosechildrenwhoseaccuracyscoreswerehigh,butonechildwhosecomprehensionscoreswereinthegiftedrangewasoverlooked.Accurateidentificationofreadingskillisunderstandable,giventhestrongfocusonestablishingreadingintheearlyyearsofschoolasafoundationskill,andtheseteachers,likethoseinSiegleandPowell’s(2004)study,mayhaveassociatedavidreadingwithgiftedness.Reading isalsoanarea inwhichpre-cocity could become evident because, even if reading instructionwerebasedwellbelowthechild’s level,thetypicalearlychildhoodclassroom’ssignsandotherreadingmatterprovideopportunitiesforreading(althoughasilentreadermightnotbeasreadilyrecognized).Childrenenteringschoolwithreadingskillsthathadbeenmeasuredasadvancedwhileatpreschoolwererecognizedasstronginreading,soitappearsthatnoneofthesechildrenhidtheirreadingabilityinwaysreportedbyGross(1993)andDockettetal.(2002). Spellingstrengthwasnotasreadilyrecognized.Whilechildrenidentifiedasstronginspellinghadspellingscoresinthegiftedrange,somechildrenwhosescoreswereinthegiftedrange,oralittlebelow,were not so identified. This may reflect an approach to teachingspellingcommonlytakeninAustraliawherethesamespellingwordsaregivenwithoutapretesttoallchildrentobelearnedduringtheweek.Thiswouldeffectivelylimitthechild’sopportunitytodisplayadvancedspellingskill.Alackofopen-endedwrittenactivitiescouldalsolimitthechild’sopportunitytospellwordsbeyondthosenor-mallyoccurringinthegrade’scurriculum.


Mathematicswasidentifiedasastrengthinapproximatelyhalfofthechildrenineachofthesecondandthirdyearsofschool,yettherewerechildrenwithPATMaths-Rscoresinthegiftedrangeandjustbelowwhowerenotidentifiedasstronginmathematics.BecausePATMaths-Rmeasuresproblemsolvinginmathematics,perhapstheteachersoftheseunidentifiedhighscorersfocusedonotheraspectsofmathematics,suchascomputation,whenassessingmathematicalstrength.Itisnoteworthythatonly2teachersidentifiedstrengthinmathematicsinachildinthefirstyearofschool(kindergartenforonechildandgrade1fortheother).Theabsenceofnorm-referenceddataonthechildren’smathematicalskillinthefirstyearofschoolmakesjudgmentaboutteacheridentificationofmathematicalskillinthatyeardubious,buttherewerechildrenwithpreschoolmathematicsscoresinthegiftedrangeorjustbelow(Hodge&Kemp,2000)whowerenotidentifiedinthefirstyearasstronginmathematics.Thepro-portionofteachersidentifyingstrengthinmathematicsinthefirstyearmighthavebeendifferentifteacherdatahadnotbeenlackingforsomeofthehighestscorersinmathematicsbeforeschoolentry.Nevertheless,giventhatsomeparentsofkindergartenchildrencom-mentedthattheirchildrenweregivenmathematicstasksinschoolwellbelowtheirlevelofcompetence,thekindergartenmathematicscurriculum could have limited the children’s opportunity to showtheiradvancedskills.ThisreinforcedthefindingbyWright(1991)thatthemathematicscurriculumforNSWkindergartenclasseswasmostsuitedtotheleastadvancedchildren.Inrecentyears,anorm-referenced test of mathematical skill in Australian children in thefirst3yearsofschool,ICanDoMaths(Doig&deLemos,2000),hasbeenpublished.Itsusefulnessindetectingexceptionalmathematicalabilityhas,however,notyetbeenestablished.

The Parents’ Perspective

After experiencing a year in the school environment, few parentsappeared to have much confidence in the school’s ability to caterwellfortheirchild.Thiswasexpressedanecdotallyand,astheyearspassed,throughgraduallydecliningparentratingsofteacheraccu-racy in recognition of the child’s ability and of the child’s work-


ing to ability (although this latter rating might have incorporatedwithin-childfactors,aswellasenvironmentalfactors).Mostparentsexpressed some degree of dissatisfaction with the amount of chal-lenge their child was offered, and some parents felt “bruised” byencounterswithschoolexecutivesorclassroomteachers.

Communication between parents and school executives orteachingstaffwasanissueformostparentsatsometimeoranother,andthereappearedtobesomedistrustonbothsidesratherthanthesharingofinformationrecommendedbyRoedell(1986)tobenefitthechild.Inthecurrentresearch,someparentsadoptedthepassiveapproach described by Dettman and Colangelo’s (1980) review,decidingnottoinformtheschoolthattheirchildwas,ormightbe,gifted and accepting class placement without intervention. Thosewhoweremoreassertivestillseemedtotreadcautiouslyinordertoavoidunpleasantrepercussionsforthechildandthemselves.Thismaybearesultofparentperceptionthatonlyonethirdoftheinformedschoolswereperceivedtotakethenewsofpossiblegiftednessmorethan moderately seriously and that teacher response to parent sug-gestionsofgiftednessorofworktooeasywasnotveryencouragingof furtherparent input.AsPlunkett’s (2000b)studyofAustralianteachersfound,therewassometeacherdoubtabouttheaccuracyoftheparents’judgmentoftheirchild’sability,aswellassomedoubtabout the outcomes of formal assessments. Parents were not veryconfident of the teachers’ accuracy either, perceiving underestima-tionbymorethanhalfoftheteachers.Yet,childrenwithtestscoresinthegiftedrangeweremorelikelytoberatedasfar above averageiftheyhadbeenintroducedasgifted,soitappearedthattherewereadvantagesinmentioningthepossibilityofgiftedness.

That parents felt the teacher response to requests for harderwork, more challenge, or appropriate reading materials was oftendefensive,and,asRoedell(1986)suggestedcanhappen,resultedinteachers’pointingoutthechild’sweakerareaswithoutacknowledg-ingthestrengths,mighthavereflectedthetendencynotedbyBaska(1989) that schools concentrate on weaknesses because they havethe mechanisms for dealing with these. Perhaps the teachers wor-ried that parents were too ambitious for their child (Hills, 1987;


Howe,1990)orwerepushinghimorhertoenhancetheirownsta-tus(Harrison,2003).

Otherpossibleinterpretationsforteacherdefensivenesswerethattheteachers,whomostlytaughtmixed-abilityclassesorcompositesofmorethanonegrade,feltoverburdenedbythedisparatelearningneedsintheirclasses,asproposedbyRobinson,Zigler,&Gallagher(2000),orwereunsure justhowtoextendthechild.Perhaps,too,thechild’sreadinesstomeetteacherexpectationsorwantingnottoappeardifferenttopeers(Freeman,1979;Gross,2002)meantthatheorshedidnotstandout intheclassroomenvironment,and,asRoedell(1986)suggested,parentsmightnothaveunderstoodhowtheirchildrespondedinagrouplearningsituation.

Child Behaviors and Attitudes That May Have Assisted or Hindered Teacher Recognition of Giftedness

The skills and attitudes that teachers consistently nominated asstrengthsinchildrenwhomtheyperceivedtobefaraboveaverage,orthatmoreoftenaccompaniedthehighestratingthanlowerratings,were indicators of giftedness according to the research literature.Thefrequenciesweresmall,however,withnomorethan6teachers(commonlytwo)nominatinganyonebehaviorand42%ofteachersnominatingnobehavioral strengthsatall.Small frequenciesaside,thebehaviorsandattitudesthatseemedtoassistrecognitionofabil-ityfar above averageinvolvedlanguageandthinking;motivationandinitiative;andanenjoymentofchallenge,other“bright”people,andhumor.Divergentthinking,however,despitebeingnominatedmostfrequentlyasastrength,wasnotassociatedwithperceptionsofabil-ityfar above averageasoftenaswithlowerperceivedlevelsofability.Asmallproportionofthestrengthsdidnothavesupportfromtheliteratureas indicating intellectualgiftedness, althoughtheycouldindicategiftednessdefinedmorebroadlythaninthecurrentresearch.Advancedcomputingskillshavenotbeenestablishedasanindicatorofgiftedness,butthedepthandbreadthoftechnologicaladvancessuggestthatthisareashouldbecomeafocusofresearch.Whilesometeachersdidappeartorecognizeandunderstandbehaviors indica-tiveofgiftedness,asagrouptheteachersdidnotappeartobevery


familiarwithbehavioralindicatorsofgiftedness,eventhoughmorethan 70% reported having had professional development in giftededucation.Forexample,itseemsunlikelythatthechildren’sreason-ing abilities observed by parents or the teacher/researcher beforeschoolentryinall14children(Hodge&Kemp,2000)haddisap-peared.Yet,only4ofthe26teachersnominatedlogicalthinkingorproblemsolvingasastrength.Alternatively,werethechildrenhidingthisability,orweretheseearlychildhoodclassroomsnotencourag-ingitsdisplay?

Unwillingnesstocomplywithteacherrequestswasnotrelatedtoteacherratingsofability,butthegeneralcompliancewithteacherrequestsmayhavemaskedtheabilitylevelsofchildrenperceivedtobelessableorthetrueextentoftheabilitiesthatteachersdidrec-ognize.Itwasapparentfrom(a)thechildren’sperceptionsofwhatpleasedtheteacher,(b)theirtendencytoperceivethattheteachermostlyknewwhatwaseasyordifficultforthem,and(c)theiraccep-tanceofhavingtocomply(ifreluctantly)withteacherrequests,thatthechildrenrecognizedtheauthorityoftheteacher.Unfortunately,thechildrenwerenotaskedwhethertheycommunicatedtheirpref-erenceforeasyordifficultworktotheirteacher.Somechildrenmayhave been sufficiently confident to do so, verbally or nonverbally,whileothersmayhavehiddentheir truefeelingsandacceptedthelevelofworkgivenwithoutcomment,becausegoodbehaviorwasperceived more frequently than good work as a way to please theteacher.Itisunlikelythatthosechildrenwhoclearlypreferredeasywork would have let the teacher know that they were capable ofharderwork.

Itispossiblethatinbusyclassroomsteachersmakeassumptionsabout children’s learning preferences based on their observationsand their experience of other children, as well as on the productsof learning,withouthavingtimetotestthoseassumptionsinone-to-one interactions. Lack of opportunity or inclination for teach-erstoknowmoreabouttheattitudesandmotivesofindividualsintheirclasses(e.g.,perfectionism,sensitivitytocriticism)couldbeanissueinidentificationofgiftedness.Informationfromparentscouldassisthere,especiallyifinvitedroutinelybytheteacherearlyintheschoolyear,becauseitwasapparentthatparentswereawareoftheir


children’s behaviors and attitudes but found it somewhat difficultto advocate on their child’s behalf, especially once a problem hadarisen.Alsousefulcouldbemoretimetoobservethechildinplayor self-selected activities, provided that activity choices were suffi-cientlyopen-endedandstimulatingandthatteacherswerefamiliarwithbothnormalchilddevelopmentandthebehavioralindicatorsofgiftedness(Barbour,1992;McBride,1992;Shaklee,1992).

Analysisoftherelationshipbetweenkindsofperceivedstrengthsandteacher ratings suggests that teachers ratedchildrenmore fre-quentlyasfarabove averagewhenstrengthsinliteracyornumeracywereperceived,withorwithoutaccompanyingbehavioralstrengthsthatmightindicatetheunderlyingintellectualabilities.This,alongwith the apparent low level of familiarity with behavioral indica-torsofgiftednessalreadydiscussed,suggeststhattheseteachers,liketeachers inotherstudies(Freeman,1979;Lee,1999)wereplacingemphasis on academic achievement when making decisions abouttheabilitylevelsofthechildren.Becauselackofchallengeappeared,from the perspective of some children and most parents, to be anissue,teachers’judgingabilitybyachievementprobablymeantjudg-ingabilitywhileunderestimatingthelevelofthatachievement,espe-ciallybecausenorm-referencedassessmentwasapparentlyrare.

Therewasmoreinformationthatwouldhavebeenusefulfromteachers, including(a) theirusualassessmentprocedures, (b)theirunderstandingofnorm-referencedassessments(includingIQtests),(c)theirconceptsofgiftedness,and(d)thecontentofprofessionaldevelopment courses attended. On the other hand, a longer andperhapsthreateningquestionnaireataparticularlybusytimeintheschoolyearmightneverhavebeenreturned.

Conclusions

Explorationfromtheviewpointsofteachers,parents,andchildrenofidentificationofgiftednessintheearlyyearsofschoolrevealedapictureofsomeaccuracyandsomeunderestimationoftheabilitiesofpotentiallygiftedchildren.Teachersratedmorehighlythechil-drenwhoscoredmoreconsistentlyinthegiftedrange.Yet,evenwith


aselectedsamplethatwaslikelytoincludegiftedchildren,theeffec-tivenessrateofteacheridentificationofgiftednesswaslessthan60%,becausetherewerenineinstanceswhereachildachievedatleastoneconcurrentabilityorachievementscoreinthegiftedrangebutwasnotratedbyhisorherteacheras far above average.Childrenwhowerehighachieversinclasswereusuallyrecognizedasfar above aver-ageinability,whereaschildrenwhosedevelopmentwaslessevenorwhoseabilitieshadnottranslatedintoacademicachievementtendedtobeseenmerelyasa little above average.Itappearedfromparentandchilddatathatsomechildrenwerenotassessedortaughtinwaysthatinvitedthemtorevealthetrueextentoftheirabilities,especiallytheirnonverbalabilities. It also seemedthatchildren’scompliancewithteacherrequestsmighthavecontributedtounderestimation.

Thesmallconveniencesampledoesnotallowgeneralizationofthesefindingsbeyondthestudy’sparticipants.However,thestudyhas highlighted the need to investigate further, with a larger andmorerepresentativesample,theeffectivenessofteacherrecognitionoftheabilitiesofthepotentiallygiftedyoungchildrentheymayfindin their classrooms. The quantity and quality of the professionaldevelopmentthatsometeachershadhadwasunclear,buttheunder-estimation of some children, the minimal use of norm-referencedassessments,thevariablenominationofbehavioralstrengthsindica-tiveofgiftedness,andthereluctancetotapparentknowledgeofthechildsuggestedthatitwasnotadequate.Becauseearlyidentificationof actual or potential giftedness is crucial to appropriate intellec-tualprovisionsandsocialandemotionalsupport,moreresearchisneededabouthowteachersinthefirstyearsofschooljudgetheabil-itylevelsofthechildrenintheirclasses.

References

Alsop,G.(1997).Copingorcounseling:Familiesofintellectuallygiftedstudents.roeper review, 20,28–34.

Anastasi,A.,&Urbina,S.(1997).Psychological testing(7thed.).UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Prentice-HallInternational.


Assouline, S. G. (1997). Assessment of gifted children. In N.Colangelo&G.A.Davis(Eds.),Handbook of gifted education (2nded.,pp.89–108).Boston:Allyn&Bacon.

Assouline,S.G.,&Lupkowski-Shoplik,A.(1997).Talentsearches:Amodelforthediscoveryanddevelopmentofacademictalent.InN.Colangelo&G.A.Davis(Eds.),Handbook of gifted educa-tion (2nded.,pp.170–188).Boston:Allyn&Bacon.

AustralianCouncilforEducationalResearch.(1997).Progressive achievement test in Mathematics-revised. Melbourne,Australia:Author.

Barbour,N.B.(1992).Earlychildhoodgiftededucation:Acollab-orativeperspective.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 145–162.

Baska,L.K.(1989).Characteristicsandneedsofthegifted.InJ.Feldhusen,J.VanTassel-Baska,&K.Seeley(Eds.),Excellence in educating the gifted(pp.15–28).Denver,CO:Love.

Borland, J.H.,&Wright,L. (1994). Identifyingyoung,poten-tiallygifted,economicallydisadvantagedstudents.Gifted child Quarterly, 38,164–171.

Bracken,B.A.,Prasse,D.P.,&McCallum,R.S.(1984).PeabodyPictureVocabularyTest-Revised:Anappraisalandreview.School Psychology review, 13, 49–60.

Braggett, E. J. (1997). A developmental concept of giftedness:Implications for the regular classroom. Gifted Education international, 12(2),64–71.

Braggett,E.J.,Ashman,A.,&Noble,J.(1983).Theexpressedneedsofparentsofgiftedchildren.Gifted Education international, 1,80–83.

Cherkes-Julkowski,M.,Stolzenberg,J.,&Segal,L.(1990).Promptedcognitivetestingasadiagnosticcompensationforattentionaldeficits:TheRavenStandardProgressiveMatricesandattentiondeficitdisorder.learning disabilities, 2, 1–7.

Ciha,T.E.,Harris,R.,Hoffman,C.,&Potter,M.W.(1974).Parentsasidentifiersofgiftedness,ignoredbutaccurate.Gifted child Quarterly, 18,191–195.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2001). the report of the Senate Employment, Workplace relations, Small Business and Education


references committee on the Education of Gifted children. Canberra,Australia:CommonwealthGovernmentPrintingService.

Dettman,D.F.,&Colangelo,N.(1980).Afunctionalmodelforcounselingparentsofgiftedstudents.Gifted child Quarterly, 24,158–161.

Diezmann,C.M.,&Watters,J.J.(1995,September).off with the fairies or gifted? the problems of the exceptionally gifted child.Paper presented at the annual conference of the AustralianScience Teachers Association, Brisbane, Australia. (ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.ED390234)

Dockett,S.,Perry,B.,Howard,P.,Whitton,D.,&Cusack,M.(2002).Australianchildrenstartingschool.childhood Education, 78, 349–353.

Doig,B.,&deLemos,M.(2000).i can do Maths. Melbourne,Australia:AustralianCouncilforEducationalResearch.

Dunn,L.M.,&Dunn,L.M.(1981).Peabody Picture Vocabulary test (Rev.ed.).CirclePines,MN:AmericanGuidanceService.

Dunn,L.M.,Dunn,L.M.,&Dunn,D.M.(1997).Peabody Picture Vocabulary test (3rded.).CirclePines,MN:AmericanGuidanceService.

Flynn,J.R.(1987).MassiveIQgainsin14nations:WhatIQtestsreallymeasure.Psychological Bulletin, 101,171–191.

Freeman,J.(1979).Gifted children: their identification and develop-ment in a social context.Lancaster,UK:MTPPress.

Freeman, J. (2001). Gifted children grown up. London: DavidFulton.

Gear,G.H.(1976).Accuracyofteacherjudgmentinidentifyingintellectuallygiftedchildren:Areviewoftheliterature.Gifted child Quarterly, 20, 478–489.

Ginsberg,H.P.,&Baroody,A.(1983).test of Early Mathematics ability.Austin,TX:PRO-ED.

Good,T.L.,&Brophy,J.E.(1997).looking in classrooms (7thed.).NewYork:Longman.

Goodwin,W.L.,&Goodwin,L.D.(1982).Youngchildrenandmeasurement:Standardizedandnonstandardizedinstrumentsinearlychildhoodeducation.InB.Spodek(Ed.),Handbook of


research in early childhood education (pp.441–463).NewYork:TheFreePress.

Gottfried,A.W.,Gottfried,A.E.,Bathurst,K.,&Guerin,D.W.(1994).Gifted iQ: Early developmental aspects. the fullerton longitudinal Study.NewYork:PlenumPress.

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

Gross,M.U.M.(2002).Playpartnerorsureshelter:Whatgiftedchildrenlookforinfriendship.Gifted, 124, 1,11.

Gross,M.U.M.(2003).Exceptionally gifted children (2nded.).London:Routledge.

Gross,M.U.M.,&Start,B.(1989).“Notwavingbutdrowning”:TheexceptionallygiftedchildinAustralia.InS.Bailey,E.Braggett,&M.Robinson(Eds.),8th world conference on gifted and talented children: the challenge of excellence: a vision splendid (pp.25–36).WaggaWagga,NewSouthWales:AustralianAssociationfortheEducationoftheGiftedandTalentedinassociationwithWorldCouncilforGiftedandTalentedChildren.

Hafenstein,N.L.,&Tucker,B.(1995,April).case studies in diver-sity: individual differences in abilities and traits of young gifted children.PaperpresentedattheannualmeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,SanFrancisco,CA.(ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.ED385047)

Hall,J.(2001).Teacherthinking:Perceptionsoftheteacherofthegifted.australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 10,19–28.

Harrison,C.(2003).Giftedness in early childhood (3rded.).Sydney,Australia:GERRIC.

Harrison,C.(2005).Young gifted children: their search for complex-ity and connection.Exeter,Australia:INSCRIPT.

Herman,J.L.,&Winters,L.(1994).Portfolioresearch:Aslimcol-lection.Educational leadership, 52(2),48–55.

Hills,T.W.(1987).Children in the fast lane: Implications forearlychildhoodpolicyandpractice.Early childhood research Quarterly, 2, 265–273.

Hodge,K.A.,&Kemp,C.R.(2000).Exploringthenatureofgifted-nessinpreschoolchildren.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24,46–73.


Hodge,K.A.,&Kemp,C.R.(2002).Theroleofaninvitationalcurriculumintheidentificationofgiftednessinyoungchildren.australian Journal of Early childhood, 27(1),33–38.

Howe,M.J.(1990).Sense and nonsense about hothouse children.Oxford:BPSBlackwell.

Jacobs,J.C.(1971).Effectivenessofteacherandparentidentifi-cationofgiftedasafunctionofschoollevel.Psychology in the Schools, 8,140–142.

Johnsen,S.,Ryser,G.,&Dougherty,E.(1993).Thevalidityofprod-uctportfoliosintheidentificationofgiftedstudents.Gifted international, 8(1),43–47.

Kitano,M.K.(1989).TheK–3teacher’sroleinrecognizingandsup-portingyounggiftedchildren.Young children, 44(3), 57–63.

Kitano,M.K.(1990).Intellectualabilitiesandpsychologicalinten-sities inyoungchildren: Implications for thegifted.roeper review, 13, 5–10.

Lee,L.(1999).Teachers’conceptionsofgiftedandtalentedyoungchildren.High ability Studies, 10,183–196.

Louis,B.,&Lewis,M.(1992).Parentalbeliefsaboutgiftednessinyoungchildrenandtheirrelationtoactualabilitylevel.Gifted child Quarterly, 36,27–31.

Matthews,D.(1988).Raven’sMatricesintheidentificationofgift-edness.roeper review, 10,159–162.

McBride, N. (1992). Early identification of the gifted and tal-entedstudents:Wheredoteachers stand?Gifted Education international, 8,19–22.

McCall, R . B., Appelbaum, M. I., & Hogarty, P. S. (1973).Developmentalchangesinmentalperformance.Monographs of the Society for research in child development, 38(3,SerialNo.150).

McGuffog,C.,Feiring,C.,&Lewis,M.(1987).Thediverseprofileoftheextremelygiftedchild.roeper review, 10, 82–89.

Neale,M.D.(1988).neale analysis of reading (Rev.ed.).Melbourne,Australia:ACERPress.

Neale,M.D.(1999).NealeAnalysisofreading(3rded.).Melbourne,Australia:ACERPress.


NewSouthWalesBoardofStudies.(2005).Principles of assessment for learning.RetrievedJanuary18,2006,fromhttp://arc.board-ofstudies.nsw.edu.au/go/k-6/assess-principles

Niederer, K., Irwin, R. J., Irwin, K. C., & Reilly, I. L. (2003).IdentificationofmathematicallygiftedchildreninNewZealand.High ability Studies, 14(1),71–84.

Parkinson,M.L.(1990).Findingandservinggiftedpreschoolers.understanding our Gifted, 2(5),1,10–13.

Plunkett,M.(2000a).Educatingteacherstomeettheneedsofgiftedstudents:Anoptionoranecessity?talentEd, 18(1–2),9–16.

Plunkett,M.(2000b).Impactingonteacherattitudestowardgiftedstudents.australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 9(2),33–42.

Porath,M.(1996).Affectiveandmotivationalconsiderationsintheassessmentofgiftedlearners.roeper review, 19, 13–17.

Porter,L.(1999).Gifted young children: a guide for teachers and par-ents.Sydney,Australia:Allen&Unwin.

Raven,J.C.,Court,J.H.,&Raven,J.(1995).colored Progressive Matrices.Oxford,UK:OxfordPsychologistsPress.

Raven,J.C.,Court,J.H.,&Raven,J.(1998).Standard Progressive Matrices. Oxford,UK:OxfordPsychologistsPress.

Reid,N.A.(1993).Progressive achievement test of Mathematics: teacher’s manual. Wellington,NZ:NewZealandCouncilforEducationalResearch.

Reis,S.M.,&Purcell,J.H.(1993).Ananalysisofcontentelimina-tionandstrategiesusedbyelementaryclassroomteachersinthecurriculumcompactingprocess.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16,147–170.

Robinson,N.M.(1993).Identifyingandnurturinggifted,veryyoungchildren.InK.A.Heller,F.J.Mönks,&A.H.Passow(Eds.),international handbook of research and development of giftedness (pp.507–524).Oxford,UK:Pergamon.

Robinson,N.M.(2003).Twowrongsdonotmakearight:Sacrificingtheneedsofgiftedstudentsdoesnotsolvesociety’sunsolvedproblems.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 251–273.

Robinson,N.M.,&Robinson,H.(1992).Theuseofstandardizedtestswithyounggiftedchildren.InP.S.Klein&A.J.Tannenbaum(Eds.),to be young and gifted(pp.141–170).Norwood,NJ:Ablex.


Robinson,N.,Zigler,E.,&Gallagher,J.(2000).Twotailsofthenor-malcurve.american Psychologist, 55,1413–1424.

Roedell,W.C.(1986).Socioemotionalvulnerabilitiesofyounggiftedchildren.InJ.R.Whitmore(Ed.),intellectual giftedness in young children: recognition and development (pp.17–29). NewYork:TheHaworthPress.

Roedell,W.C.,Jackson,N.E.,&Robinson,H.B.(1980).Gifted young children.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

Rogers,M.,&Silverman,L.K.(1998).recognizing giftedness in young children. Denver, CO: Gifted Development Center.(ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.ED428471)

Saccuzzo,D.P.,&Johnson,N.E.(1995).Traditionalpsychomet-rictestsandproportionaterepresentation:Aninterventionandprogramevaluationstudy.Psychological assessment, 7, 183–194.

Sattler,J.M.(1992).assessment of children (3rded.).SanDiego,CA:JeromeSattler.

Scheblanova,H.(1996).Alongitudinalstudyofintellectualandcreativedevelopmentingiftedprimaryschoolchildren.High ability Studies, 7(1),51–54.

Shaklee, B. D. (1992). Identification of young gifted students.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15,131–144.

Sheskin,D.(1997).Handbook of parametric and nonparametric sta-tistical procedures.BocaRaton,FL:Chapman&Hall/CRC.

Siegle,D.,&Powell,T.(2004).Exploringteacherbiaseswhennomi-natingstudentsforgiftedprograms.Gifted child Quarterly, 48,21–29.

Silverman,L.K.(1992).Theimportanceofearlyidentificationofthegifted.Highly Gifted children, 8(1),5,16–17.

Silverman,L.K.(1998).using test results to support clinical judgment.Denver,CO:GiftedDevelopmentCenter.(ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.ED428474)

Silverman, L. K. (2003). characteristics of Giftedness Scale: research and review of the literature. (AvailablefromtheGiftedDevelopmentCenter,1452MarionStreet,Denver,CO80218)

Silverman,L.K.,Chitwood,D.G.,&Waters,J.L.(1986).Younggiftedchildren:Canparentsidentifygiftedness?topics in Early childhood Special Education, 6,23–38.


Stile,S.,&Hudson,B.(1993).Earlyinterventionwithchildrenwhoaregifted:DECrecommendedpractice.InDivisionofEarlyChildhood,dEc recommended practices: indicators of qual-ity in programs for infants and young children with special needs and their families (pp.127–139).Pittsburgh,PA:CouncilforExceptionalChildren.(ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.ED370268)

Tannenbaum,A.J.(1997).Themeaningandmakingofgiftedness.InN.Colangelo&G.A.Davis(Eds.),Handbook of gifted educa-tion (2nded.,pp.27–42).Boston:Allyn&Bacon.

Terrassier,J-C.(1985).Dyssynchrony-unevendevelopment.InJ.Freeman(Ed.),the psychology of gifted children(pp.265–274).NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons.

Thorndike,R.L.,Hagen,E.P.,&Sattler,J.M.(1986).technical manual for the Stanford-Binet intelligence Scale (4th ed.).Chicago:Riverside.

Wechsler,D.(1991).Manual for the Wechsler intelligence Scale for children–third edition (WiSc–iii).SanAntonio,TX:ThePsychologicalCorporation.

Westwood,P.S.(1999).Spelling: approaches to teaching and assess-ment. Melbourne,Australia:AustralianCouncilforEducationalResearch.

Whitmore,J.R.(1986).Preventingsevereunderachievementanddevelopingachievementmotivation.InJ.R.Whitmore(Ed.),intellectual giftedness in young children: recognition and develop-ment (pp.119–133). NewYork:TheHaworthPress.

Wilson,R.S.(1983).TheLouisvilleTwinStudy:Developmentalsynchroniesinbehavior.child development, 54, 298–316.

Wright,R.J.(1991).Whatnumberknowledgeispossessedbychil-drenenteringthekindergartenyearofschool?the Mathematics Education research Journal, 3(1),1–16.

Wright,L.,&Borland,J.H.(1993).Usingearlychildhooddevelop-mentalportfoliosintheidentificationandeducationofyoung,economicallydisadvantaged,potentiallygiftedstudents.roeper review, 15,205–210.


Author Note

Correspondence concerning this article can be sent to KerryHodge,MacquarieUniversitySpecialEducationCentre,MacquarieUniversity, Sydney, Australia, 2109; Phone: 9850 8690; E-mail:[email protected].

Download - Recognition of Giftedness in the Early Years of School ... · 164 Recognition of Giftedness in the Early Years of School: Perspectives of Teachers, Parents, and Children Kerry A

Top Related