Not used: The reading reminded me of a time my son's teacher gave students an extra credit problem to take home. She was looking for a different answer than the expected: One that required divergent thinking. My son solved the problem—it met all the criteria—but it was marked wrong because it wasn't the one in the instructional materials. I was amazed. She was looking for divergent thinking, but not TOO divergent.

1. After reading the chapters, what new insights do you have regarding gifted child identification?

I also thought of a student who took the math placement test in the engineering program at Rolla. They said he placed in the most advanced course because he only missed one question on the placement test. The student said, "No, I got them all right. Show me what you thought was wrong." They did and the student showed the faculty that their calculation was wrong. I can't imagine having that kind of confidence in my ability. Some teachers find that threatening.

I was glad to see some of the norm-referenced measures that did not require IQ testing, such as SIGS and GATES. Despite the early publication date, I had not heard the case against using achievement tests for identifying gifted (p. 32).

The discussion on divergent thinking was interesting. I was interested in a psychometric definition of creativity that included fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. I was also interested in the list of characteristics of creative people generated by case studies (e.g., tolerates ambiguity, risk taker, persistent). The complexity of the list makes me realize how complicated assessment might be.

I thought the vulnerable areas (chart on p. 16) was interesting.

I don't remember ever seeing student interviews used in the assessment process.

2. What are some of the major "issues" surrounding gifted child identification?

a. People often view giftedness in a narrow way.

People think anyone gifted has it easy. In reading chapter one, I thought about an online support group I joined to see what parents thought about giftedness. All their children were gifted, with a disability (2% of the population with disabilities according to our text, p. 19. Their challenges and frustrations sometimes seemed overwhelming.

b. Many teachers find gifted children to be difficult.

c. The underrepresentation in gifted programs of students from minorities is a problem. Some people use a deficit approach to education (p. 42). We need tests or assessment procedures that are appropriate for students who are English language learners, immigrants, different socio-economic status, and with disabilities.

Park University's People to People International chapter recently took on a new endeavor, the International Pen Pal Program. Talks began this past spring between Park's Office of International Affairs and Education and instructors from the North Kansas City (Mo.) School District's Students in Academically Gifted Education program. The discussions centered on expanding the successful International Classroom Partnership Program in which Park University international students speak to NKCSD third graders about life in their home countries. Since all third-grade gifted students in the district work on an extensive year-long research project on the country of their choice, it would benefit them to have a pen pal from their selected country. The idea took hold and was implemented in October. http://news.park.edu/pub/news_001102.shtml

Sharon Chadwell, Ed.D., adjunct professor of business at the Lackland Air Force Base Campus Center, San Antonio, and Online, presented research findings from her dissertation "Teachers' and Parents' Perceptions Concerning the Underrepresentation of Gifted African-American Students: A Phenomenological Study" at the Delta Kappa Gamma Society International's convention. http://news.park.edu/cgi-bin/news/exec/search.cgi?cat=36&template=index%2Facadsuccess.html&perpage=10&start=161

About the Honors Program:

The Park University Honors Program features faculty highly motivated to work with you, the academically exceptional student. Class focus during the first two years in specially designed LS100, EN106, and one-hour credit courses features guest lecturers from the University as well as the greater community. Class focus during the second two years features your self-designed exploration of a subject about which you feel passionate. You will interact with a faculty mentor of your choice who will help guide that exploration. Program students receive one-on-one attention designed to help them realize goals including contribution to local and global communities, internships, study abroad, graduate school, and careers. You will also participate in service learning, an important step to fulfilling leadership potential.

Program Students Enjoy:

• Small classes devoted to reading, discussion, research skills, portfolio design, project completion, and service

• Emphasis on analytical and critical thinking skills in a rigorous academic environment

• Design of your own research project

• Assistance in application for fellowships and graduate schools

• Assistance in competition for prestigious scholarships, including Rhodes, Fulbright, and Truman

• Financial support for study-abroad programs for qualified students

• Internships

• Service Learning

• Research project immersion

• Connection with community, both on and off campus

Completing Program Requirements, Students Will:

• Participate in the program for 4-5 semesters, comprising a total of 8-15 hours depending upon status when entering

• Design a project in collaboration with a professor that involves data collection and critical analysis to be completed while at Park University

• Prepare final written and oral presentations for a Park University audience and/or another appropriate venue

Degree with Honors Courses:

• LS100 - First-Year Seminar for Honors- This first-year seminar course for Honors students is structured around service, campus activities, independent research, small group discussion, and intensive writing across disciplines, with a focus on global issues. It is the foundation for upper level courses. 3:0:3

• EN106 - First Year Writing Seminar II: Academic Research and Writing for Honors - The course provides sustained experience with research and writing tasks common in the academy. Students will explore various academic genres, with particular focus on learning to undertake academic inquiry; engage in close reading; incorporate research into writing; and document sources, with a special emphasis on Honors focus, such as service and/or global issues. 3:0:3

• HN 210 Academic Exploration and Responsibility - This course focuses on portfolio design for application for scholarships and other opportunities. It meets once weekly for discussion of Opportunities in Academic Disciplines, study abroad, internships, and global concerns. 1:0:1

• HN 300 Research and Writing Orientation - This course provides a foundation for the completion of the final project in the Honors Option Program as well as opportunities to gain experience in conducting research. 1:0:1

• HN 302 Honors Project - This course must be taken a minimum of two (2) semesters and can be taken for an additional semester under extenuating circumstances. The continuing participation in the Program requires approval of the advisor(s) and the Honors Committee. The advisor(s) will directly oversee and guide the student and the student must continue to progress in their plan of study. 2:0:2

• HN 400 Honors Seminar - This course requires final development of the public presentation of the project conducted by the student under guidance of their advisor(s). A major component of this course is the public presentation or other proper forum which allows exposure of the final product. Prerequisites: HN 300, HN 302. 3:0:3 http://www.park.edu/honors/

1. How do identification criteria in your district compare with the guidelines for your state? How do they compare with the NAGC standards for identification?

I looked up my local school district, which didn't exactly fit with the law. The law talks about "precocious development of mental capacity and learning potential as determined by competent professional evaluation." The district needs to provide services for "sufficient numbers" of students. The guidelines say that students may be outstanding in one or more areas. Then students receive "differentiated instruction suitable for their levels of intellectual, physical, and social maturity. Student evaluation is based on two stages, screening that is as inclusive as possible and individual evaluation (10-20% of and placement.
a. IQ above 95th percentile (124-125)

b. Academic ability norm referenced test--95th

c. Results of valid test of creativity or ability related to the gifted program.

d. Documented evidence of exceptionality in academics, fine arts, or fit to gifted program.

e. And teacher observation or other documentation.

f. Alternative identification is available for underrepresented populations (clear guidelines, objective and competent professional evaluation).

g. Transfer if previous placed in a comparable program, meets criteria of new program, student & parents agree.

Here is information from Park Hill, which is my neighborhood school district.

Qualifying for Gifted Programs

The state of Missouri sets the guidelines for deciding which students qualify for gifted programs. Missouri gifted programs serve those students who are in the top two to three percent of the district population.

Students new to the Park Hill District will have their transcript records evaluated to determine placement in the Park Hill Bridges program. Please be sure to indicate on the district enrollment form if your student was evaluated for a gifted program in your previous school district.

How Students are Identified for the Park Hill Gifted Program:
All students who score at the 95% level or higher in three or more content areas qualify for the gifted screening process.

Parents will be notified by phone or letter to grant permission for further testing. After testing is completed, the gifted teacher will meet with the District Coordinator to determine if a student qualifies, or if further testing is needed.

When all testing is completed, a final letter will be sent to notify parents if a student qualifies for placement in the district gifted program. Students who qualify will have to have parental permission for placement in the gifted program.

http://phschoolwires1.parkhill.k12.mo.us/148210419104825807/blank/browse.asp?A=383&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&C=54360

2. To what extent do you think the identification process in your district finds all the children who need gifted services? Given what you have learned thus far, would you suggest any changes?

No matter how effective, I doubt if any identification process will find every student who could benefit from gifted services.

Reflection Paper 1. Joan Aitken

A psychologist-friend used my daughter for practice while working on test administration certification, and she suggested I have my daughter's elementary school test my daughter for their gifted program. The school district tested her and said she didn't qualify. When my daughter was in high school--in a different school district--her school asked me to test her because they believed she had a high IQ. Instead, my daughter left school, took a GED, and started college, which worked out well.

After reading the Johnsen (2004) book, I see two key problems: How to identify students with special needs, then what to do. I probably always knew this, but I now see these more as hurdles. In reading the Johnsen text, I was struck by the many assessment measures available. I recall one professor who said that the main thing to know about IQ assessment is that it's extremely difficult and requires a professional with enormous, extensive training, and I can't do it. Actually, I like work in assessment, so it's not that I can't do it, but I'm not qualified to do this kind of assessment. I've completed a course in special education assessment and came away feeling pretty incompetent. Reading chapter 4 makes me want to learn how to administer tests, but it also brings back my feelings as a parent in trying to make good decisions about my daughter. If I'm overwhelmed by trying to figure out the meaning of the different tests and what should be done, I can imagine how parents feel when educators are spewing assessment data at them.

So, my reflection brings me to chapter 5. I'm hoping that someone more qualified than I will decide that a student is qualified for a gifted program. I'm confident that if a student is identified as gifted, then they are. The more likely error is that we fail to identify students as gifted when indeed they are gifted and would benefit from differentiated instruction. Here are some conclusions from the chapter.

• Use multiple assessments, including quantitative and qualitative measures.

• Several different assessments can be a good approach because "no single test samples all behaviors" (p. 108).

• Tests measuring the same trait--such as intelligence--can produce different results (Johnsen, 2004, p. 108).

• Using multiple assessments gives a broader view of the student, which can be important because students may behave differently in different contexts.

The idea that too many measures can cause elitism is interesting. If the school is using various tests to try to confirm the identification of gifted, that seems very different from trying to narrow to the most gifted. I also would say that the use of a lot of assessment testing is an ordeal for the student. How does going through an extensive assessment process--and ultimately being rejected--make the child feel?

As a teacher, I don't seem to have the power and influence needed to make a difference. As an administrator, I spent all my time solving crisis-level situations and trying to help students learn the basics. I don't think I spent one minute thinking about helping gifted kids. Still, I like the goal of developing a fair system for identifying gifted students for special services:

• Advocacy

• Defensibility

• Equity

• Pluralism

• Comprehensiveness

• Pragmatism (pp. 108-109).

My certification is in mild/moderate cross-categorical disabilities and teaching English for speakers of other languages, and I'm working on certification for teaching students who are gifted. So, I'm concerned about the assessment process regarding IQ at the high and low end, including underrepresented populations. It's clear that many teachers--and students--dislike the students outside the norm on both ends of the scale. This assessment is so complicated and has so many implications. Identification and placement is designed to improve education, but they can cause frustration for students, parents, and educators. The objective is to identify students so that educators can better meet students' needs so they succeed.

Johnsen, S. K. (2004). Identifying gifted students: A practical guide. Waco: TX: Texas Association for the Gifted Talented.

---------

Although not an IQ test, I was told to administer a test to determine whether or not a student should remain in a special program, when I'd never had any training in the test's administration. I also think of the websites that offer this kind of diagnosis "determine your IQ free with a 10-minute test."

1. What types of instruments are appropriate for assessing student "understanding" of curriculum that is deeper and more complex than typical grade-level work?

I thought the discussion of holistic and analytical trait rubrics was interesting. Either could potentially assess deeper and more complex work. I think in Communication Arts, my students would benefit from more skill analysis. Students tend to see communication as common sense and abstract, so skill analysis would give them concrete information for change.

2. How can we give feedback to students and inform parents on the progress their children are making?

I think description is important. One of the advantages of a good rubric, for example, is the description of criteria for assessment and what meets various levels of expectation. I often find myself circling the words in the rubric that are most applicable to the student's work, which give me much more detailed description than if I wrote out comments from scratch each time.

I thought the grouping of student work was interesting. I don't believe anyone ever suggested that to me, but I've done it. I also tell students "I would rank your work as one of the best I've seen related to x, y, z."

The teacher can build in standards so students and parents know if the student is meeting those standards. In addition, by using rubrics, the teacher can increase consistency in grading. Clear definition improves educational targets and subsequent instruction.

3. How do scoring guides help students understand what is expected of them?

Rubrics tell the students the criteria for scoring, which usually includes the various requirements, what constitutes meeting (or not meeting or exceeding expectations). By looking at the criteria, the student knows what to include in his or her work. The student can figure out what is important, which I think often eludes students. In a sense, the student can grade oneself before ever receiving feedback from the teacher.

Arter, J., & McTighe, J. (2001). Scoring rubrics in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, chapters 1, 2, 3.
 

Reflection Paper 2--Rubrics (Joan Aitken)

I have served on the UMKC assessment committee and now on the Park University Assessment Committee for many years. Once a month at Park, I review every core assessment rubric for each new or modified course. As a committee, we discuss details of the rubric, what needs to be revised, and either approve them or send them back to the faculty for revision. I'm mentioning my role because I've done this so much that I've failed to look for little details that could really make a different in my own use of rubrics.

Insight 1. Online students especially need rubrics. A couple weeks ago regarding the reflection paper for this course, I couldn't open the rubric before I submitted my paper. It really bothered me--Blackboard was supposed to be down for repairs while I was finalizing my reflection paper, but I hadn't read the notice--and I realized how much I like to see a rubric as a student. The online learning staff of our university is pushing us to use a rubric for every assignment, to which faculty are resistant. In that one moment I realized how in the dark online students are because they can't have those casual conversations about what the teacher likes. Rubrics can be particularly helpful for online students. I also thought about the frustration when I follow a rubric as a student, and the professor doesn't seem to follow the rubric in grading.

Insight 2. I should attach the feedback to the online grading comments. As feedback, you sent a general statement about my first reflection paper, and attached the rubric with your comments. This sounds strange, but that strategy had never crossed my mind. When teaching online, I go on and on in the comments box, but it never occurred to me to attach the rubric. I immediately implemented that strategy for the student term papers due week six of my online course. Grading and feedback was so easy and consistent. I use attachments all the time, I'm just amazed I hadn't thought to attach the rubric, and so appreciative that you modeled that for me.

Insight 3. My rubrics need improved clarity to enhance correct revisions. Looking at the example rubrics from students in the class, I noticed some very different language across the top. I use mastery learning, so either the student does or doesn't do what I'm after. There are levels of problems, however, and I realized that student work should improve with clear rubrics. I was interested in some of the usability items (p. 67). Clear statements will help students understand what I mean by each element. Clarity in the rubric will automatically explain their scores to students and what revisions are needed for mastery. When I see what students are missing, I can modify instruction so that the final draft is better. Revision is an important part of the learning process (p. 88), and students should revise more effectively through use of rubrics during stages of core assessment preparation.

Insight 4. I need to use rubrics better in the teaching process.  Seeing the example public speaking measure and the language of one of the students in this class gave me a jump start on changing my public speaking rubric. I couldn't believe that I already had four items under each category on my form. That's rather interesting that I had previously conceptualized each to have four parts, which made the language of "three" or "less than three" appropriate for other categories. Exposing students to the criteria at the beginning of instruction should improve learning (p. 83). By going over the rubric in class, I am applying course content to the specific application.

Insight 5. The rubrics need to be linked to program and course goals. Meanwhile, two weeks ago my university changed the university rubric template so that instead of writing the numbers of each course goal in the line, the whole goal must be written out. That improves clarity by 100% because the reader doesn't have to cross check the rubric to the goals. I already mentioned in my plan for revising rubrics that on my course evaluations, students say that I don't use assignments that link to course goals. I'll bet there isn't a professor outside the school of education who does it as carefully as I do. So, I realized my problem matter of communicating that link so students see it.

Insight 6. The rubric categories need to reflect correct grading percentages. Faculty tend to say "the point system on our rubrics doesn't work, so there's no point in using it." In looking at the way you put the points earned in the left column, it struck me how easy it would be to make the columns effective for grading by using portions of points. Arter and McTighe (2001) suggest the correct way to figure percentages based on each item (p. 78). In the grid below, instead of the all or nothing approach I was using, I've set the middle "nearing standards" column to be a B or 80% ("average" for graduate school).

Arter, J., McTighe, J. M. (2001). Scoring rubrics in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Material based on a University of Missouri course taught by Margaret (Marte) Mason Bock, Ed.D.: SPECIAL ED 8405: ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION IN GIFTED EDUCATION