August 2016 Newsletter
www.oagct.org
President's Corner
I hope that everyone has had a refreshing summer. I sincerely hope everyone had an opportunity to rest and rejuvenate before heading back to the upcoming school year. I look forward to this school year and to being the president of this amazing organization.
The Oklahoma Association for Gifted Creative and Talented has several great things lined up. We have our quarterly newsletter, which will bring you helpful suggestions and ideas, discuss current research, review books, and cover important topics such as identification and affect. This coming spring, we will have our annual conference and have been hard at work securing our location and speaker.
In June, we said goodbye to Dr. Diane Montgomery, who has served on the OAGCT board for 34 years. Her contributions to gifted education in the state of Oklahoma benefit all of us in this field. Cathryn McCarthy also stepped down from the board. We appreciate the passion and work she has put into this organization and the field of gifted education. Sandy Lundak, who has spent countless hours reviewing applications for scholarships, has also stepped down. We deeply appreciate the service these women have given to this organization.
We welcome several new board members at the start of this year. Amber Gates is our new Family and Services chair, and Stephanie Hathcock will be our OSU representative.
We have two universities in this state that offer courses for Gifted Certification: Oklahoma State University and the University of Central Oklahoma. Even though certification is not required in order to teach gifted in Oklahoma schools, the education you receive by taking the coursework will be invaluable. As I completed my coursework in gifted, I discovered that I became a better classroom teacher and was better able to address the needs of all my students, not just the ones who are gifted. I would recommend these courses for all teachers.
Gifted education in Oklahoma would truly not be as far along as it is in Oklahoma without the undying work of the amazing individuals on the OAGCT board and the members they work with. If you are passionate about education of the gifted, please consider joining us on the board. If you do not have time to be a board member, but would like to contribute in some way, send newsletter articles or present at our annual conference. If there are topics or specific issues that you feel should be addressed, please contact one of the board members.
This quarterly newsletter focuses on topics related to identification of students who are gifted. I once had an argument with a colleague about identifying gifted students. He felt that it was wrong to label students. This is a very understandable perspective. When we label students, we determine expectations. We all know students who are highly gifted and capable that do not live up to our expectation of their ability. I, on the other hand, believe that identification is a tool not a label. Those of us who teach in the gifted field realize that identifying a gifted student often has nothing to do with what they are able to do academically. When we identify our gifted students, we are able to give our co-teachers the tools necessary to help that student become the best version of themselves. We are better able to work with students and teachers to achieve the best possible classroom environment and the best possible resulting product. In the end, identification of students who are gifted helps us to become the best teachers we can be.
Have an amazing school year!
Elizabeth Albright
2017 OAGCT Conference
Stay tuned for more details at www.oagct.org
Friday, Feb 10, 2017, 08:00 AM
University of Central Oklahoma, North University Drive, Edmond, OK, United States
“Factors That Influence In-Service and Preservice Teachers’ Nominations of Students for Gifted and Talented Programs”
Review by Linda Thompson
Gifted and Talented programs depend on teacher nominations, teacher observations, and testing to determine whether students qualify to participate. The authors of the study “Factors That Influence In-service and Preservice Teachers’ Nominations of Students for Gifted and Talented Programs” point out that “A classroom teacher’s unique perspective is valuable when considering students for gifted and talented programs” (Siegle, Moore, Mann, & Wilson, 2010). Teachers are an important part of the qualification process. Using observation checklists and academic work, teachers recommend students for gifted and talented programs. How do educators determine which children to refer? What influences their recommendations? According to the authors there are eight characteristics that might influence teachers’ recommendations (Siegle, et al., 2010).
These characteristics are:
Gender: The authors quoted several studies that indicate that teacher interaction with male and female students is observably different and that stereotypes influence their view of students (Siegle et al., 2010).
Age: Teachers view giftedness differently depending on the age of the students. Studies indicate elementary teachers choose characteristics with negative connotations more often than secondary teachers (Siegle et al., 2010).
Student Interest: Educators consider student interests in academics and interests outside the academic arena as important factors (Siegle et al. 2010). Siegle, et al. state that “The cultivation of student interests has long been a central component of many gifted programming models (Siegle et al. 2010).
Student Ability: Student academic ability is an important indicator of giftedness (Siegle et al. 2010).
Personality Traits: Social behavior, cognitive traits, leadership ability, and emotional maturity are traits that the authors identified as influences on referrals for gifted and talented programs (Siegle et al., 2010).
Family Background Characteristics: Siegle et al. state that student backgrounds influence recommendations. The authors quoted studies that indicate that students from high SES backgrounds are more likely to be nominated for gifted programs (Siegle et al. 2010).
Specificity of Selection Criteria: The authors state that teachers tend to focus on academic achievement when not given specific criteria for nominations and that when given specific criteria the accuracy of nominations increased (Siegle et al., 2010).
Teacher Self-Efficacy: Educators’ understanding of the characteristics of giftedness and their “own sense of adequacy” (Siegle et al., 2010) in the process influence the nomination. The authors used two studies to indicate that teachers are concerned with misidentifying gifted and talented students (Siegle et al., 2010).
Methodology
The authors measured the attitudes of 290 preservice and 95 in-service teachers using 11 student profiles. The subjects were asked to study the profiles and determine which ones to recommend for their districts’ gifted program (Siegle et al., 2010). The results were very interesting. Educators recognized gifted characteristics embedded in the profiles, voracious readers were more likely to be recommended, and in-service teachers were more likely to nominate students that had an older sibling in the program than preservice teachers (Siegle et al., 2010). A significant finding was that how a given gifted characteristic is presented is important. The connotations of words in behavior checklists seemed to influence teacher responses. The authors used the example of using the word “leader” as opposed to “bossy”, “sensitive” vs. “emotional”, and “strongly independent” as opposed to “stubborn” (Siegle et al., 2010). The authors recommended that future research address the validity of checklists (Siegle et al., 2010). They also recommended that teachers be trained in how gifted characteristics on a checklist can be perceived as positive or negative but still indicate giftedness (Siegle et al., 2010). Their conclusion is that characteristics of giftedness need to be clearly defined and educators need training to recognize specific criteria for referrals (Siegle et al., 2010).
The teacher referral process is important in finding students that need to be served in gifted and talented programs. Classroom teachers are an integral part of the process. As teachers who serve gifted students we need to be mindful of the influences that impact teacher recommendations and assist teachers to correctly identify students.
References
Siegle, Del, Moore, Michelle, Mann, Rebecca L., & Wilson, Hope E. (2010). Factors that influence in-service and preservice teachers’ nominations of students for gifted and talented programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, pp. 337-360.
Beverly Riggs Camp Scholarship
The following students were some of the 2016 recipients:
Trace Burchart
Toby Ford
Toby attended the Sooner Flight Academy.
"I (Toby) want to be an aerospace engineer. We participated in various activities like building small rockets, realistic flight simulation and exploring Westheimer Airport. The highlight of the week was visiting the FAA and Will Rogers Airport to see behind the scenes and touring the airport. We took the controls of a Piper Warrior airplane on a cross country trip to Chickasha and Lindsay. Thank you for this opportunity."
Will Martin
Identification of Special Needs Populations
According to the Education of Gifted and Talented Children Act (1981) there are two different methods of qualification for gifted services in Oklahoma. Students identified as Category 1 on the Annual Report of Gifted and Talented Education are children who score in the 97th percentile or higher on a nationally standardized test of intellectual ability, taking into account the test’s standard error of measure. Students who are identified as Category 2 on the Report are children who are identified by a multiple criteria evaluation assessment set up by the local school district.
Identification criteria is meant to be multipronged in nature and assess student strengths. Typical identification criteria includes scoring in the top three percent on a nationally standardized test of intellectual ability and may also include excelling in creative thinking ability, leadership ability, visual and performing arts ability, and specific academic ability. Once all the identification procedures are completed, the determination is made within a school district whether to place a student in a gifted program (Education of Gifted and Talented Children Act, 1981).
The Needs of Diverse Gifted Populations
Cross (2013) noted that in order to identify all of the potentially gifted students in the United States, educators need to move beyond their own conceptualization of giftedness in order to help the less privileged. While numerous identified gifted students come from financially wealthy families, countless others go unnoticed without appropriate identification protocol being in place.
Research by Foley-Nicpon, Assouline, and Colangelo (2013) pointed out that while twice-exceptional students are gaining increased recognition in literature, few educators outside of gifted education understand the needs of these children. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 14 categories of disabilities are listed. According to these researchers (Foley-Nicpon, Assouline, & Colangelo, 2013), autism spectrum disorders, specific learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and emotional disturbances are the categories most familiar to educators due to the profusion of research literature. However, due to the complexities of twice-exceptional gifted students, educators lack the experience in dealing with the unique needs of these children. Hence teachers focus on the weakness of the twice- exceptional student instead of their strengths leaving this population underrepresented in gifted programs.
Coleman and Shah-Coltrane (2015) revealed that since 1974 progress has been made in reaching the underrepresented students in gifted and talented programs. However, there are still discrepancies between racial access to challenging curriculums, programs, and extracurricular activities. Schools serving high populations of minority students offer fewer advanced courses, and gifted and talented programs. Such schools have difficulty attracting qualified teachers, furnishing adequate facilities, providing the latest technology, supplying quality education materials, and maintaining sufficient funds. Black students are less likely than their white peers to enroll in challenging courses (Coleman & Shah-Coltrane, 2015).
Conclusion
Olszewski-Kubilius and Thomson (2010) recommend a multifaceted and flexible approach to gifted programming for underrepresented populations of advanced students. Such programs should concentrate on individual strengths and compensate for weaknesses. Programs tailored to fit the individual student demonstrate the most effectiveness in reaching underrepresented populations in gifted programs.
References
Coleman, M. R., & Shah-Coltrane, S. (2015). Children of promise: Dr. James Gallagher's thoughts on underrepresentation within gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38, 70-76. doi:http://dx.doi.org/0001905469;
10.1177/0162353214565556
Cross, T. (2013). Social Emotional Needs: On the Social and Emotional Lives of Gifted Students: Using a Baseball Metaphor to Illustrate the Opportunities of Gifted Students From Different Socioeconomic Backgrounds. Gifted Child Today, 36(4), 263-265.
Foley-Nicpon, M., Assouline, S., & Colangelo, N. (2013). Twice-Exceptional Learners: Who Needs to Know What? Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(3), 169-180.
Oklahoma State Department of Education (2016). The State of Oklahoma. Retrieved from http://sde.ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/Education%20of%20Gifted%20and
%20Talented%20Children%20Act.pdf
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. (2010). Gifted programming for poor or minority urban students: Issues and lessons learned. Gifted Child Today, 33(4), 58-64. Retrieved July 18, 2016, from http://www.davidsongifted.org/Search-
Gamify Learning to Build the 4 Cs
By Karen Dotson
You don't need a locked room for Breakoutedu, just a few locks and a lockable box or two. You can create your own games or visit Breakoutedu.com to try one of the many free games created and tested by members of the Breakoutedu community.
Join the Breakoutedu community on Facebook or Twitter and you'll find lots of ideas to make your own games. Games can be purely based on critical and creative thinking puzzles or can be based on a novel or content area concepts. Many teachers are even having their students create their own Breakout games as a form of assessment. Watch an introductory video here to learn more. Breakoutedu does sell the recommended supplies, but a purchase isn't required. In fact, some of the games are completely digital and don't require any locks or boxes at all.
Breakoutedu was recently featured in The Atlantic.
Identification of Special Populations
Special populations include students who are African American, Hispanic American, economically disadvantaged, and twice exceptional students. In the last newsletter I wrote how to identify gifted and talented Hispanic American students. In this newsletter I write how to identify African American, economically disadvantaged, and twice exceptional gifted and talented students. There are many students who are gifted; yet since they may not fit the typical gifted characteristics these students are left unidentified.
Economically Disadvantaged Students
The issue of identification with low SES gifted students is a critical one in the field of education for the gifted and has long been problematic. The low number of these children being identified for traditional gifted programming, even today, attests to the fact that the problems are not resolved. Talent loss among disadvantaged gifted youth continues virtually unabated (Frasier, 1991).
Clark (1992) states that the first test in solving this problem is to make parents, teachers, principals, and boards of education aware that gifted learners can be found in low SES homes. Even when traditional testing fails, characteristics can be checklisted with some degree of accuracy. According to Clark, some of the following traits of low SES gifted learners which pertain to identification can be observed in the school setting:
high mathematical abilities
alertness, curiosity
independence
initiative, eagerness to do new things
fluency in nonverbal communication
imagination in thinking
flexibility in approach to problems
learning quickly through experience
retaining and using ideas and information well
shows a desire to learn in daily work
original and creative
uses language rich in imagery
responds well to visual media and concrete activitiess
shows leadership among peers; is responsible
sees relationships among unrelated ideas
entrepreneurial
keen sense of humor
Clark, B. (1992). Growing up gifted (4th edition). New York: MacMillan.
Frasier, M. (1991). Disadvantaged and culturally diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(3), 234.
African American Students
African-American students have different characteristics than white students. Gay (1978) has suggested that G/T African-American students:
may feel alienated by school at an early age
seek structure and organization in required tasks
may be difficult to motivate in some abstract activities
may have a large vocabulary inappropriate for the school setting
make up games and activities
may demonstrate strong concentration due to persistent noise in the home environment;
may express displeasure at having to stop an activity
have a pronounced need for low amounts of supervision
may neglect school work due to other responsibilities and interests
may not meet expected achievement levels
African-American students may have different cognitive strengths and weaknesses than whites.
Some evidence exists that African-American students:
High nonverbal fluency and originality
High creative productivity in small group settings
Are best able to solve problems with visual and auditory content,
High creativity in movement, dance, and other physical activities
Use of language rich in imagery
Ability to be highly motivated by games, music, sports, humor
Have strong memories and are adept at convergent production
Weaknesses might include vocabulary and divergent verbal production (Bruch, 1971).
Twice- Exceptional Students
Here is an article on how to identify twice- exceptional students. http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/6960
OAGCT
Email: correspondingsec@oagct.org
Website: www.oagct.org
Location: PO Box 14290, Tulsa, OK 74159
Phone: 918-224-3400
Facebook: facebook.com/OAGCT
Twitter: @oagct
Standards for Not-So-Standard Kids
By Nicolette Hall
After the STEM conference at OSU and EngageOK events, it is easy to see that the new focus of PD in the state of Oklahoma is on the new Oklahoma Academic Standards (OAS). Principals will most likely want educators of the gifted to be implementing these standards in the upcoming year, and overall, they seem to be a bit more challenging as far as depth and complexity, for our students.
That being said...how familiar are you with our national gifted programming standards from NAGC? While it is important to comply with what your administration asks of you, educators of the gifted also have an obligation to teach in a way that is best for gifted learners' unique needs. There are 6 Pre-K-12th grade programming standards, including Learning and Development, Assessment, Curriculum Planning and Instruction, Learning Environments, Programming, and Professional Development. The NAGC site has these available for download, along with essential questions and a self-reflection guide on how well you and/or your district are meeting these standards. You can also purchase them to avoid printing, and it comes with the items shown in the photo below.
Wrapping up, while familiarizing yourself with the new standards in Oklahoma, brush up on the NAGC programming standards as well. How can you achieve the OAS standards while integrating gifted education standards? Knowing this will help you teach using best practices for gifted and will make you more informed when speaking with administrators and parents about your teaching practices. Have a fantastic school year!
Identifying Gifted and Talented English Language Learners
How do we identify high ability and potential, and support Gifted/Talented English Language Learners? Nationally, Non ELLs participate in Gifted/Talented programs at a rate of three and a half times that of ELL students: Non ELL-GT students = 7%; ELL-GT students = 2% according to the US Dept. of Education, March 2014.
Gifted/Talented English Language Learners may demonstrate their potential within the cultural context of learning a second language. In addition to the cultural context, Gifted/Talented English Language Learners also exhibit typical intellectual and academic characteristics. Poverty may also be a factor. Awareness of typical gifted economically disadvantaged characteristics of children living in poverty may also provide another lens to screen for gifted programming.
Environmental barriers and implicit biases make it difficult to identify Gifted/Talented English Language Learners.
Using Standardized Tests for identification tends to rely on demonstrated achievement rather than emphasizing aptitude/potential.
- Even when using standardized non-verbal intelligence tests, most tests assume a certain kind of language socialization, and students who lack this socialization are, by definition, disadvantaged.
- Test administrators must use language to tell the students what they are to do.
- Selecting tests that reduce cultural and linguistic bias is not an easy task.
- In some cultures, the use of such test scores signals a lack of respect for the families’ heritages and the ways in which giftedness may be expressed within them.
- African American, Hispanic, and Native American children are disproportionately underrepresented when intelligence, achievement, and ability test scores are used as the criteria for gifted/talented programs.
Steps to successfully identify and serving high-ability English Language Learners:
- Provide ongoing training to all departments on the characteristics of Gifted English Language Learners
- Collaborate with teachers of gifted programming, teachers of ELL programs, and classroom teachers
- Use multiple criteria measures to identify rather than a single criteria (both quantitative and qualitative)
- If using achievement assessments, consider using local norms
- · Encourage staff to recommend students for screening based on observed characteristics-language proficiency should NOT be a criteria or gate keeper for identification