The persistent underrepresentation of ethnic minority students in gifted programs requires change. Because identification tools used for entry into gifted programs often are held responsible for minority underrepresentation, this study investigated several nontraditional assessments for their efficacy in identifying both minority and nonminority students. A sample of 433 sixth-grade students responded to a drawing task and to two problem-solving assessments. Peer and teacher nominations also were used in the identification process. Findings indicated that the assessments identified a proportionate number of minority and nonminority students with potential in art or problem solving. The study holds promise for a multidimensional approach and for specific nontraditional assessments as means of effectively identifying both minority and nonminority student talents in art and problem solving. The study also suggests directions for further research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alamprese. J.A., Erlanger, W.J., & Brigham. N. (1989). No gift wasted: Effective strategies for educating highly able disadvantaged students in math and science (Vols. 1-2) (USOE contract #300-87-0152). Cosmos Corporation.
2.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061. Science for All Americans. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Baldwin. A.Y. (1984). The Baldwin Identification Matrix 2 for identification of the gifted and talented: A handbook for its use. New York: Trillium.
4.
Baldwin. A.Y. (1987). I'm black but look at me, I am also gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly.31, 180-185.
5.
Bernal, E.M. (1980). Methods of identifying gifted minority students. ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests. Measurement. & Evaluation. Educational Testing Service. Princeton. NJ. Report 72.
6.
Borland. J. (1978). Teacher identification of the gifted: A new look . Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2. 22-32.
Children s Defense Fund. (1991). The state of America's children 1991. Washington. DC: Author.
9.
Cornia. I., Stubbs. C. & Winters. N. (1983). Art is elementary. Teaching visual thinking through art concepts. Layton, UT: Gibbs M. Smith.
10.
Covington. M.V. & Beery, R.G. (1976). Self-worth and school learning. New York: Holt. Rinchart & Winston.
11.
Cox, J., & Daniel. N. (1983, November/December). Identification: Special problems and special populations. G/C/T, 54-61.
12.
Crabbe, A.B. (1982). Creating a brighter future: An update on the future problem solving problem. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 5, 2-9.
13.
Escalante, J., & Dirman. J. (1990). Jaime Escalante math program. Washington. DC: National Education Association.
14.
Feldhusen. J. (1992, Decemher). Talent identification and development . Paper presented at the Jacob K Javits grantees meeting. Washington. DC.
15.
Feldman. D.H. (1992). Has there been a paradigm shift in gifted education ? In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline. & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.). Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development. Unionville, NY: Trillium.
16.
Ford, D.Y., & Harris, J.J. (1990). On discovering the hidden treasure of gifted and talented black children. Roeper Review, 13, 27-32.
17.
Fordham, S., & Ogbu. J.U. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with the burden of "acting white. Urban Review, 18, 176-206.
18.
Frasier, M.M. (1989). Poor and minority students can be gifted, too!Educational Leadership. 46(6), 16-18.
19.
Frasier, M.M. (1990. April). The equitable identification of gifted and talented children. In B. Shade (Chair), Issues in the education of gifted and talented minority children . Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Boston. MA.
20.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences . New York: Basic Books.
21.
Hilliard, A. (1991). Do we have the will to educate all children?Educational Leadership, 49(1), 3136.
22.
Hocevar, D. (1979). Ideational fluency as a confounding factor in the measurement of originality. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 191-196.
23.
Kunjufu. J. (1990). Countering the conspiracy to destroy black boys (Vol. 3). Chicago: African American Images.
24.
Madand. S.P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented (Vol. 1). Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. commissioner of Education. Washington. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
25.
McKenzie, J.A. (1986). The influence of identification practices. race and SES on the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 93-95.
26.
McLeod. J., & Cropley, S. (1989). Fostering academic excellence. New York: Oxford.
27.
Mitchell, B.M. (1988). A strategy for the identification of the culturally different gifted/talenied child. Roeper Review, 10. 165-167.
28.
National Center for Education Statistics. ( 1992). Dropout rates in the United States: 1991. Washington. DC: Education Department.
29.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics . Reston, VA: Author.
30.
Parnes, S.J. (1981). The magic of your mind. Buffalo. NY: Creative. Education Foundation.
31.
Passow, A.H. (1972). The gifted and the disadvantaged. The National Elementary Principal, 51, 24-31.
32.
Passow, A.H. (1991). Urban schools a second (?) or third (?) time around: Priorities for curricular and instructional reform. Education and Urban Society, 3, 243-255.
33.
Pogrow, S. (1990). Challenging at-risk students: Findings from the HOTS program. Phi Delta Koppan.71, 389-397.
34.
Renzulli, J.S. (1978). What makes giftedness: Reexamining a definition . Phi Delta Kappan,60, 108-184.
35.
Resnick, L., & Klopfer, L. (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: An overview. In L. Resnick & L. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. 1989 ASCD Yearbook (pp. 1-18). Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development .
36.
Richert, E.S. (1987). Rampant problems and promising practices in the identification of disadvantaged gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 149-154.
37.
Riehert, E.S., Alvino, J.J., & McDonnel. R.C. (1982). National report on identification: Assessment and recommendations for comprehensive identification of gifted and talented youth. Sewell, NJ: Educational Improvement Center-South.
38.
Runco, M.A. (1985). Reliability and convergent validity of ideational flexibility as a function of academic achievement. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 61, 1075-1081.
39.
Shade. B. (1991, April). The University of Wisconsin-Parkside STREAM Program. Presentation at University of Wisconsin-Whitewater STREAM Task Force Meeting, Whitewater, WI.
40.
Smith. J., LeRose, B., & Clasen, R. (1991). Underrepresentation of minority students in gifted programs: Yes! It matters. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 81-83.
41.
Stinespring, J. (1991). The quest to find an alternative way to identify artistic talent in black students. Roeper Review, 14, 59-62.
42.
Strom, B. (1990, April). The influence of teacher perceptions on the identification and treatment of gifted minority children. In B. Shade (Chair), Issues in the education of gifted and talented minority children. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
43.
Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence . New York: Cambridge University Press.
44.
Sullivan. A. (1973). The identification of gifted and academically talented black students: A hidden exceptionality. The Journal of Special Education, 7, 373-379.
