Using a postpositivistic method of inquiry, this study examined themes that emerged in the language of Latino, African American, Native American, immigrant Asian, and low-income Anglo individuals as they nominated individuals for a hypothetical gifted program. Reflected values differed from group to group and differed considerably from those reflected in classroom teachers' language in an earlier study. The researcher theorized that value orientations of mainstream teachers, who make referrals for programs after initial screening procedures, preclude their valuing behaviors deemed valuable by nonmainstream individuals and also inhibit behaviors deemed gifted by teachers. Findings suggest that the mode of inquiry can be useful for those who seek new ways to conceptualize giftedness and who seek to explain phenomena, such as the underrepresentation of nonmainstream groups in gifted education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ElliotAdderholdt M.AlgozzineK.AlgozzineB.HaneyK. (1991). Current state practices in educating students who are gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 14, 20–23.
2.
AltheideD. L. (1987). Intelligence testing and Chicanos: A quality of life issue. Social Problems, 27, 186–195.
3.
BaldwinA. Y. (1978). Introduction. In BaldwinA. Y.GearG. H.LucitoL. J. (Eds.), Educational planning for the gifted: Overcoming cultural, geographic and socioeconomic barriers (pp. 1–5). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 161 173).
4.
BaldwinA. Y. (1985 April). Identification and programming for Black gifted children. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Anaheim, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 261 495).
5.
BandaC. (1989). Promoting pluralism and power. In MakerC. J.SchieverS. W. (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities (pp. 27–33). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
6.
BarkanJ. H.BernalE. M. (1991). Gifted education for bilingual and limited English proficient students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 144–147.
7.
BennettK. P.LecompteM. D. (1990). How schools work: Sociological analysis of education. White Plains, NY: Longman.
BernalE. M.Jr. (1977). Assessment procedures for Chicano children: The sad state of the art. Aztlan-International fournal of Chicano Studies Research, 8, 69–81.
10.
BernalE. M.Jr. (1981). Special problems and procedures for identifying minority gifted students. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 203 652).
11.
BorlandJ. H. (1990). Postpositivist inquiry: Implications of the “new philosophy of science” for the field of the education of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 161–167.
12.
BorlandJ. H. (1993). Giftedness and “The new philosophy of science.” Understanding Our Gifted, 5(6), 1, 11–14.
13.
BourdieuP.PasseronJ. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. London: Sage.
14.
BruchC. B.CurryJ. A. (1978). Personal learnings: A current synthesis on the culturally different gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 313–321.
15.
BuchananN. K.JavierL.SingD.PlunkettT. (1993). Performance-based identification of culturally diverse gifted students: A Pilot Study. Preliminary Report Prepared for The Pacific Rim Symposium on Higher Education Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 369 249).
16.
BuckleyK. C. P. (1992). A survey of educational values and conceptions of gifted intelligence held by parents who have enrolled their children in programs for the gifted. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(1), 127-A.
17.
CallahanC. M.TomlinsonC. A.PizzatP. (April, 1993). Contexts for promise: Promising practices in the identification of gifted and talented students. Charlottesville, VA: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Virginia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372 592).
18.
CicourelA. V.KitsuseJ. I. (1963). The educational decision-makers. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Marrill.
ColemanL. J.SandersM. D.CrossT. L. (1997). Perennial debates and tacit assumptions in the education of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(3), 105–111.
21.
DeAvilaE. A.HavassyB. (1974). IQ tests and minority children. Austin, TX: Dissemination Center for Bilingual Bicultural Education. (ERIC Reproduction Document No. ED 109 261).
22.
DuranB. J.WefferR. E. (1992). Immigrants' aspirations, high school process, and academic outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 163–181.
23.
FeldhusenJ. F. (1998). A conception of talent and talent development. In FriedmanR. C.RogersK. B. (Eds.), Talent in context: Historical and social perspectives on giftedness (pp. 193–209). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
24.
FeldmanD. H. (1992). Has there been a paradigm shift in gifted education? In ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.AmbrosonD. L. (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 89–94). Boston: Trillium Press.
25.
FloreyJ.TafoyaN. (1988). Identifying gifted and talented American Indian Students: An overview. Las Cruces, NM: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 296 810).
26.
FordD. Y. (1996). Reversing under achievement among gifted Black students: Promising practices and programs. New York: Teachers College Press.
27.
FrasierM. M. (1991). Disadvantaged and culturally diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 234–245.
28.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
29.
GarrisonL. (1989). Programming for the gifted American Indian student. In MakerC. J.SchieverS. W. (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible Programs for cultural and ethnic minorities (pp. 116–127). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
30.
GeertzC. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretative theory of culture. In GeertzC. (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays by Clifford Geertz (pp. 3–32). New York: Basic Books.
31.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
32.
GoodwinM. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among Black children, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
33.
GrantB. (1995). The place of achievement in the life of the spirit and the education of gifted students. Roeper Review, 18, 132–134.
34.
GubaE. G. (1990). Subjectivity and objectivity. In EisnerE. W.PeshkinA. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 74–91). New York: Teachers College Press.
35.
HogeR. (1988). Issues in the definition and measurement of the giftedness construct. Educational Researcher, 43, 12–16.
36.
HookC. M.RosenshineB. V. (1979). Accuracy of teacher reports of their classroom behavior. Review of Education, 49(2), 1–12.
37.
HamiltonHoward M.FranksB. A. (1995). Gifted adolescents: Psychology, behaviors, values, and developmental implications. Roeper Review, 17, 186–191.
38.
KingoreB. W. (1990). Kingore observation inventory (KOI). Des Moines, IA: Leadership Publications.
39.
KleinsasserA. (1986). Exploration of an ambitious culture: Conflicts facing gifted females in rural communities. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Rural and Small Schools Consortium, Bellingham, WA. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 278 522).
40.
LakeR. (1990 September). An Indian father's plea. Teacher Magazine, 51–53.
41.
LancyD. F. (1993). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to the major traditions. New York: Longman.
42.
LareauA. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education. New York: Falmer.
43.
LaveJ. (1988). Cognition in practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
45.
LubinskiD.SchmidtD. B.BenbowC. P. (1996). A 20-year stability analysis of the study of values for intellectually gifted individuals from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 443–451.
46.
MakerC. J. (1989). Programs for gifted minority students: A synthesis of perspectives. In MakerC. J.SchieverS. W. (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities (pp. 293–309). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
47.
MakerC. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 41–50.
48.
MakerC. J.NielsonA. B.RogersJ. A. (1994). Giftedness, diversity, and problem-solving. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(1), 4–19.
49.
MargolinL. (1994). Goodness personified: The emergence of gifted children. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine DeGruyter.
50.
MarlandS. J. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented. (Report to the Congress of the United States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 056 243).
51.
McKenneyN. R.BennettC. E. (1994). Issues regarding data on race and ethnicity: The census bureau experience. Public Health Reports, 109(1), 16–25.
52.
MehanH.WoodH. (1975). The reality of ethnomethodology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
53.
MercerJ. R.LewisJ. F. (1978). Using the system of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment (SOMPA) to identify the gifted minority child. In BaldwinA. Y.GearG. H.LucitoL. J. (Eds.), Educational planning for the gifted: Overcoming cultural, geographic and socioeconomic barriers (pp. 7–13). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
54.
MistryJ.RogoffB. (1985). A cultural perspective on the development of talent. In HorowitzF. D.O'BrienM. (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 125–144). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
55.
MontgomeryD. (1989). Identification of giftedness among American Indian people. In MakerC. J.SchieverS. W. (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities (pp. 79–90). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
56.
National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. (1993). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
57.
PassowA. H. (1972). The gifted and the disadvantaged. National Elementary Principal, 52(3), 24–31.
58.
PassowA. H. (1986). Educational programs for minority/disadvantaged gifted students. In KanevskyL. (Ed.), Issues in gifted education (pp. 147–172). San Diego, CA: San Diego City Schools GATE Program.
59.
PassowA. H.FrasierM. M. (1996). Toward improving identification of talent potential among minority and disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 19, 198–202.
60.
PetersonJ. S. (1997). Bright, tough, and resilient, and not in a gifted program. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 8, 121–136.
61.
PetersonJ. S.MargolinL. (1997). Naming gifted children: An example of unintended “reproduction.” Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 82–100.
62.
PhelpsR. E.MearaN. M.DavisK. L.PattonM. J. (1991). Blacks' and Whites' perceptions of verbal aggression. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 345–350.
63.
ReidN. (1992). Correcting cultural myopia: The discovery and nurturance of the culturally-different gifted and talented in New Zealand. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 357 532).
64.
RenzulliJ. S.DelcourtM. A. (1986). The legacy and logic of research on the identification of gifted persons. Gifted Child Quarterly30, 20–23.
65.
RenzulliJ. S.HartmanR. K. (1971). Scale for rating behavioral characteristics of superior students. Exceptional Children, 38, 243–248.
66.
RichardsonV.AndersP.TidwellD.LloydC. (1991). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 559–586.
67.
RichertE. S. (1985). Identification of gifted children in the United States: The need for pluralistic assessment. Roeper Review, 8, 68–72.
68.
RichertE. S. (1987). Rampant problems and promising practices in the identification of disadvantaged gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 149–154.
69.
RichertE. S. (1992). Equitable identification of students with gifted potential. Washington, DC: Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 366 159).
70.
RichertE. S. (1997). Excellence with equity in identification and programming. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 75–88). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
71.
RiessmanF. (1962). The culturally disadvantaged child. New York: Harper & Row.
72.
RomanL. G.AppleM. W. (1990). Is naturalism a move away from positivism? Materialist and feminist approaches to subjectivity in ethnographic research. In EisnerE. W.PeshkinA. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 38–95). New York: Teachers College Press.
73.
ScottM. S.PerouR.UrbanoR.HoganA.GoldS. (1992). The identification of giftedness: A comparison of White, Hispanic, and Black families. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 131–139.
74.
ShenW.MoW. (1990). Reaching out to their cultures-Building community with Asian-American families. (ERIC Reproduction Document No. ED 351 435).
75.
SpindlerG.SpindlerL. (1990). The American cultural dialogue and its transmission. London: Falmer Press.
76.
TannenbaumA. J. (1990). Defensible? Venerable? Vulnerable? An essay review of Maker and Schiever, Defensible Programs for Cultural and Ethnic Minorities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 84–86.
77.
TonemahS. A. (1991). Philosophical perspectives of gifted and talented American Indian education. Journal of American Indian Education, 31(1), 3–9.
78.
TorranceE. P. (1973). What gifted disadvantaged children can teach their teachers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 17, 243–249.
79.
TorranceE. P. (1977). Discovery and nurtuiance of giftedness in the culturally different. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 145 621).
80.
TorranceE. P. (1978). Ways of discovering gifted Black children. In BaldwinA. Y.GearG. H.LucitoL. J. (Eds.), Educational planning for the gifted: Overcoming cultural, geographic and socioeconomic barriers (pp. 29–33). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
81.
TreffingerD. J.FeldhusenJ. F. (1996). Talent recognition and development: Successor to gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 181–193.
82.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (1991). Cultural diversity in gifted education. Understanding Our Gifted, 3(6), 1, 10–11.
83.
WilcoxK. (1982). Ethnography as a methodology and its applications to the study of schooling: A review. In SpindlerG. (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling (pp. 456–458). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
84.
WittyE. (1978). Equal educational opportunity for gifted minority group children: Promise or possibility? Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 344–352.
