This qualitative multisite single case study is designed to explore the conception of giftedness held by four experienced teachers. These teachers were from three school districts piloting the Early Assessment for Exceptional Potential portfolio assessment model (Shaklee, Barbour, Ambrose, Viechnicki, & Rohrer, 1991). Teacher interviews triangulated by multiple secondary sources were analyzed to answer the research question guiding the study: How do primary teachers conceptualize giftedness in young children!
Findings revealed that the four teachers shared a similar image of giftedness. This conception had two dimensions: classroom performance and affective style of the students. Teachers assessed children developmentally against their peers for extremely unusual intellectual and/or academic ability as demonstrated by what children said and did, and a “spark, ” or qualitative difference in these children characterized by intensity, high visibility, and/or uniqueness. Four strands of evidence created the teachers' image of child potential.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshmanS.VukelichC. (1983). The effect of different types of nomination forms on teachers' identification of gifted children. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 518–523.
2.
BlumerH. (1972). Symbolic interactionism. In SpradleyJ. (Ed.), Culture and cognition (pp. 65–83). Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.
3.
BorlandJ. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press.
4.
BouldingK. E. (1972). The image. In SpradleyJ. (Ed.), Culture and Cognition (pp. 41–51). Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.
5.
ClarkC.PetersonP. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.
6.
DavisG.RimmS. (1989). Education of the gifted and talented, (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
7.
EricksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.
8.
FrasierM. (1991). Disadvantaged and culturally diverse gifted students. fournal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 234–245.
9.
GearG. H. (1978) Effects of training on teachers' accuracy in the identification of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 90–97.
10.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
11.
GuskinS.Chao-YingJ.SimonM. (1992). Do teachers react to “multiple intelligences”? Effects of teachers' stereotypes on judgments and expectancies for students with diverse patterns of giftedness/talent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(1), 32–37.
12.
HagenE. (1980). Identification of the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
HanninenG. (1988). A study of teacher training in gifted education. Roeper Review, 10(3), 139–144.
14.
HartyH. (1984). Predictability of giftedness identification indices for two recognized approaches to elementary school gifted education. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 337–342.
15.
HogeR.ColadarciT. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 59, 297–313.
16.
HorowitzF. D.O'BrienM. (1985). Epilogue: Perspectives on research and development. In HorowitzF.O'BrienM. (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 201–245). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
17.
JonesB. (1991). Transcript of interview. Kent, OH: Kent State University.
18.
JonesB. (1992). Transcript of interview. Kent, OH: Kent State University.
19.
KarnesM.JohnsonL. (1991). Preschool/Primary gifted child. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 267–283.
20.
KernsJ. (1991). Transcript of interview. Kent, OH: Kent State University.
21.
KitanoM. (1990). A developmental model for identifying and serving young gifted children. Early Child Developmental Care, 63, 19–31.
22.
LauerJ. M.AsherJ. W. (1987). Composition, research, empirical designs. New York: Oxford University.
23.
PattonM. W. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
24.
PegnatoC. B.BirchJ. W. (1959). Locating gifted children in junior high school: A comparison of methods. Exceptional Children, 23, 300–304.
RoedellW. (1986). Socioemotional vulnerabilities of young gifted children. In WhitmoreJ. (Ed.) Intellectual giftedness in young children (pp. 17–30). New York: Haworth.
27.
SchackG.StarkoA. (1990). Identification of gifted students: An analysis of criteria preferred by preservice teachers, classroom teachers, and teachers of the gifted. Journal for the Education of Gifted, 13, 346–361.
28.
ShakleeB.BarbourN.AmbroseR.ViechnickiK.RohrerJ. (1991, May). Early assessment of exceptional potential in young minority and/or economically disadvantaged students, continuation grant proposal. Kent, OH: Kent State University.
29.
ShakleeB.WhitmoreJ.BarbourN.BartonL.AmbroseR.ViechnickiK. (1989). Early assessment of exceptional potential in young minority and/or economically disadvantaged students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research Improvement.
30.
ShulmanL. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, (3rd ed.) (pp. 3–37). New York: Macmillan.
31.
SpradleyJ. (1972). Foundations of cultural knowledge. In SpradleyJ. (Ed.), Culture and cognition (pp. 3–38). Prospect Heights: Wave-land Press.
32.
SpradleyJ. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
33.
TannenbaumA. (1983). Gifted children. New York, Macmillan.
34.
VaneS. (1991). Transcript of interview. Kent, OH: Kent State University.
35.
VaneS. (1992). Transcript of interview. Kent, OH: Kent State University.
36.
WilliamsL. (1991). Transcript of interview. Kent, OH: Kent State University.
37.
WhitmoreJ. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
38.
WhitmoreJ. (1988). Gifted children at risk for learning difficulties. Teaching Exceptional Children, 20(4), 10–14.
39.
WolfleJ.SouthernW. T. (1991). Teachers' assessment of preschool and primary giftedness. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED315945).
40.
YinR. K. (1988). Case study research: design & methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
