Gifted & Talented

Ninety-four percent of gifted-education experts from across the United States and in four other countries responding to a Duke University survey said there exists a lack of agreement about how to define the term "gifted"in the United States. These experts cited a lack of any nationally agreed-upon definition, vague terminology used by officials in different states, uncertainty over whether creativity is a component of giftedness, and a lack of evidence for the increasingly popular notion of multiple intelligences. However, more than 75 percent of experts responding agreed research findings in the gifted-education field have encouraged innovations in the regular classroom. These innovations include greater emphasis on individualized instruction in regular classrooms, greater recognition of the benefits of ability grouping, and more recognition that accelerated classes positively correlate with achievement. Experts also agreed research in the gifted field shows that children's questions should drive classroom instruction. In addition to concerns about definitions of "gifted," 41 percent of those responding also cited problems with processes used for identifying gifted students. Problems included a narrow range of criteria for determining who is gifted, a large number of gifted youngsters who fail to meet test cut-off scores for special services, the failure of schools to take into account gifted students with poor test-taking skills, an insufficient number of tests with high-enough ceilings to allow schools to measure adequately the extraordinary abilities of some gifted students, and schools' failure to utilize assessments that take into account individual talents of highly capable students. Thirty percent agreed the validity of existing test instruments is questionable. In addition, 30 percent voiced concern about the under-representation of minority students in gifted programs. They also suggested current testing measures work significantly less well with culturally diverse populations, including students from poor families and students from families where English is the second language, if it's spoken at all. The survey was designed to address the question: How adequately is America preparing its academically gifted students for the future, especially those in the middle class and among the poor who attend public schools? It was sent to 137 gifted-education experts, including scholars, researchers and practitioners. Among those queried were officers and members of the National Association of Gifted Children, as well as members of the editorial boards of five professional journals in the field. Sixty-four experts responded. In addition to experts in the United States, specialists included those in Canada, Australia, Germany and Singapore. Leading the survey was Steven I. Pfeiffer, Duke adjunct professor of psychology and education and child psychologist who heads the Duke Talent Identification Program. It identifies nearly 100,000 academically talented seventh-graders in the United States each year, based on Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) or American College Test (ACT) scores. Pfeiffer said he conducted his survey to understand better emerging issues in the gifted-education field. "The challenges facing public education today are at least as great as they've ever been," he said. "The public's concern with accountability and a perception that our educational system needs fixing only increases the pressure. Attention to the special needs of America's brightest students should be an important part of any education reform agenda. My fear is the needs of America's gifted students will be ignored." He based his latest effort, he said, on similar surveys that he's conducted in the past with experts in the mental-retardation field. In his latest survey, Pfeiffer said, all experts responding were affiliated with a university. The experts averaged more than 20 years experience in the field each. They were asked three open-ended questions: What is meant by the term "gifted"? What are the most pressing questions left unanswered in the field? What research findings from the last five years have been most important? A majority of experts agreed two important questions remain unanswered: How can teachers better address gifted students' needs in the regular classroom? In what ways can regular classroom teachers, as well as special gifted teachers, work cooperatively to provide gifted students with individualized instruction? The specialists, in addition, showed consensus on eight additional questions. These included: How can technology be best used to support individualized instruction in the regular classroom? In what ways can the regular classroom curriculum be made more stimulating? Respondents pointed as well to a need for more research on how to better understand students' individual talents and pressures: At what point, for instance, does a prodigy become creative and productive? How can academic underachievement, a common problem among gifted students, be prevented? Can hidden learning disabilities be detected? Can a public school implement a mentoring programs for gifted students that can succeed? In light of the survey results, Pfeiffer recommends psychologists become involved in three practical ways with the gifted-education field: Assume a leadership role in identifying gifted students, especially gifted preschoolers. Serve as consultants to the public schools to promote a highly enriched, complex, novel and accelerated curriculum for gifted students, as well as to provide teachers with the latest research findings related to children's learning and development. Provide counseling services for gifted students and their parents to offset challenges associated with such talent, including greater risk for social and emotional problems and uneven development. "Gifted youth, like all our special needs students, require special attention to reach their full potential," Pfeiffer said. "The cost to society if they're left unattended is great. "Our nation, as well as the international community, faces many difficult challenges ahead, from solving the problems of poverty to protecting our environment. One of our society's best hopes for the future is to recognize, identify and nurture gifted youths' full academic potential. "America's brightest students are arguably one of our most precious natural resources." Pfeiffer's paper is scheduled to be published in the coming months in the journal Professional Psychology: Research and Practice.

Written by Linda Haac.