This study evaluated the relationship of teacher nomination instruments to later performance of students in a gifted program. Teacher nominations were based on two instruments, an instrument designed specifically to assess gifted behaviors of students from culturally divergent and/or low income populations and an instrument designed to assess gifted behaviors in the general population. Separate canonical correlation analyses between these two instruments and a gifted teacher rating of student performance resulted in significant findings indicating relationships between the teacher nominations and later school performance. Structure correlations showed nominations based on thinking abilities, general gifted behaviors, and special learning skills were related to later performance on creativity, group skills, and language abilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Borland, J.H. (1978). Teacher identification of the gifted: A new look . Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2, 22-32. Frasier, M.M. (1987). The identification of gifted Black students: Developing new perspectives. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 155-180.
2.
Frasier, M.M. & Passow, A.H. (1994). Toward a new paradigm for identifying talent potentials . Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut , National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
3.
Frasier, M.M., Hunsaker, S.L., Lee, J., Finley, V.S., Garcia, J.H., Martin, D., & Frank, E. (1995a). An exploratory study of the effectiveness of the Staff Development Model and the Research-based Assessment Plan in improving the identification ofgifted economically disadvantaged students. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
4.
Frasier, M.M., Hunsaker, S.L., Lee, J., Mitchell, S., Cramond, B., Krisel, K., Garcia, J.H., Martin, D., Frank, E., & Finley, V.S. (1995b). Core attributes o f giftedness: A foundation for recognizing the gifted potential of minority and economically disadvantaged students. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
5.
Gagne, F. (1994). Are teachers really poor talent detectors? Comments on Pegnato and Birch's (1959) study of the effectiveness and efficiency of various identification techniques. Gifted Chid Quarterly, 38, 124-126.
6.
Gainous, E.C. (1985). Effects of the training program, Identification of the Potentially Gifted, on teachers' accuracy in the identification of intellectually gifted children. Dissertation Abstracts International , 46, 1140A. (University Microfilms No. AAC8512268)
7.
Goddard, H.H. (1928). School training of gifted childrenYonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.
8.
Hunsaker, S.L. (1994). Creativity as a characteristic of giftedness: Teachers see it, then they don't. Roeper Review, 17, 11-15. Jefferson, T.J. (1955). Notes on the state of Virginia (W. Peden, Ed.). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press . (Original work published in 1787)
9.
Kaufman, A.S., & Harrison, P.L. (1986). Intelligence tests and gifted assessment: What are the positives?Roeper Review, 8, 154-159.
10.
Meyer, A.E. (1957). An educational history of the American people . New York: McGraw-Hill.
11.
Migdal, B. (1984). Identification, ratings and reading achievement of gifted kindergarten children. Dissertation Abstracts International , 45, 3610A. (University Microfilms No. AAC8502720)
12.
Mims, J.S. (1988). Access to gifted and talented education: Alternative strategies for underrepresented students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 2619A. (University Microfilms No. AAC8811924)
13.
Pegnato, C.W., & Birch, J.W. (1959). Locating gifted children in junior high schools: Comparison of methods. Exceptional Children, 25, 300-304.
14.
Renzulli, J.S., & Delcourt, M.A.B. (1986). The legacy and logic of research on the identification of gifted persons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 20-23.
15.
Renzulli, J.S., Smith, L.H., White, A.J., Callahan, C.M., & Hartman, R.K. (1976). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
16.
Renzulli, J.S., & Westberg, K. (1991). Scale for rating students' participation in the local gifted education program. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.
17.
Shore, B.M., Cornell, D.G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V.S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis. New York: Teachers College Press.
18.
Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19.
Taylor, L.L. (1986). Teacher accuracy in the selection of gifted characteristics. MastersAbstracts International, 24, 189.
20.
Torrance, E.P. (1974). Differences are not deficits. Teachers College Record, 75, 471- 487.
21.
Tuliao, N.A.C. (1986). The identification of culturally-different gifted and talented children. Dissertation Abstracts International , 48, 281A. (University Microfilms No. AAC8710615)
22.
VanTassel-Baska, J.L. (1989). The role of the family in the success of disadvantaged gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 22-36
