The under-representation of children from culturally different and low SES backgrounds in programs for the gifted is widely recognised. The cause of this under-representation can, at least in part, be attributed to the inappropriateness of the identification methods used. This paper presents the findings of a major study which sought to determine the effectiveness of a specific dynamic testing method for identifying high academic potential in Australian Aboriginal children.
The dynamic testing method used in the study involved a test—intervention—retest format where the intervention was designed to address predicted causes of underachievement. The results suggest that dynamic testing was an effective identification tool for the study children, revealing high academic potential in similar proportions to those in the instrument normative population.
This study has implications for both gifted education and the education of culturally different children generally arising from the findings that many of the children were ‘invisible’ underachievers and that it is possible to identify such underachievement through the dynamic testing process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnastasiA. (1988). Psychological Testing. New York: Macmillan.
2.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
BraggettE. J. (1985). Education of Gifted and Talented Children: Australian Provision. Canberra: Commonwealth Schools Commission.
5.
BrophyJ. E. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51, 5–32.
6.
BudoffM. (1987). Measures for assessing learning potential. In LidzC. (Ed.), Dynamic Assessment (pp.173–195). New YorkThe Guilford Press.
7.
Butler-PorN. (1993). Underachieving gifted students. In HellerK. A.MönksF. J.PassowA. H. (Eds), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (pp.649–668). Oxford: Pergamon.
8.
CarlsonJ. S.WiedlK. H. (1979). Toward a differential testing approach: Testing-the-limits employing the Raven Matrices. Intelligence, 3, 323–344.
9.
CohenL.ManionL. (1994). Research Methods in Education, (4th Ed.). London: Routledge.
10.
ColangeloN. (2002). Counseling gifted and talented students. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter, 0, 5–9.
11.
CravenR. G.MarshH. W.DebusR. L. (1991). Effects of internally focused feedback and attributional feedback on enhancement of academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 17–27.
12.
DavisG. A.RimmS. B. (1998). Education of the Gifted and Talented. (4th ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
13.
de LemosM. M. (1989). Standard Progressive Matrices. Australian ManualHawthorne: Jenkin Buxton Printers.
14.
EmbretsonS. E. (1987). Toward development of a psychometric approach. In LidzC. S. (Ed.), Dynamic Assessment (pp.141–170). New York: The Guilford Press.
15.
FeuersteinR.RandY.HoffmanM. B. (1979). The Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers. Baltimore: University Park Press.
16.
FordD. Y. (1996). Reversing Underachievement Among Gifted Black Students. New York: Teachers College Press.
17.
FrasierM. M. (1997). Gifted minority students: Refraining approaches to their identification and education. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds), Handbook of Gifted Education (Vol. 2, pp.498–515), Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
18.
GagnéF. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A development model and its impact on the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18(2), 103–111.
19.
GagnéF. (1998). A proposal for subcategories within gifted or talented populations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(2), 87–95.
20.
GallagherJ.ColemanM. R. (1992). State Policies for the Identification of Gifted Students from Special Populations: Three States in Profile, University of North Carolina.
21.
GluttingJ. J.McDermottP. A. (1990). Principles and problems in learning potential. In ReynoldsC. R.KamphausR. W. (Eds), The Handbook of Psychological Assessment of Children. Intelligence and Achievement (pp.296–347). New York: The Guilford Press.
22.
GrigorenkoE. L.SternbergR. J. (1998). Dynamic testing. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 75–111.
23.
GrossM. U. M. (1989). The pursuit of excellence or the search for intimacy? The forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth. Roeper Review, 11(4), 189–194.
24.
HarslettM. (1996). The concept of giftedness from an Aboriginal cultural perspective. Gifted Education International, 11, 100–106.
25.
JensenA. R. (1981). Straight Talk about Mental Tests. London: The Free Press.
26.
KanevskyL. (2000). Dynamic assessment of gifted students. In HellerK. A.MonksF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (pp.283–295). New York: Elsevier.
27.
LidzC. S. (1997). Dynamic assessment approaches. In FlanaganD. S.GenshaftJ. L.HarrisonP. L. (Eds), Contemporary Intellectual Assessment (pp.281–296). New York: The Guilford Press.
28.
LidzC.MacrineS. L. (2001). An alternative approach to the identification of culturally and linguistically diverse learners: The contribution of dynamic assessment. School Psychology International, 22, 74–96.
29.
LovagliaM. J.LucasJ. W.HouserJ. A.ThyeS. R.MarkovskyB. (1998). Status processes and mental ability test scores. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 195–228.
30.
LovagliaM. J.ThompkinsD.LucasJ.ThyeS. (2000). The shadow of the future: How negative expectations cloud test performance. Paper presented at the Fifth Biennial Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA.
31.
MatthewsD. J. (1988). Raven's Matrices in the identification of giftedness. Roeper Review, 10, 159–162.
32.
McConnochieK. (1982). Aboriginal and Australian education: Historical perspectives. In SherwoodJ. (Ed.), Aboriginal Education: Issues and Innovations (pp.17–32), Perth: Creative Research.
33.
OgbuJ. U. (1994). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17(4), 355–383.
34.
PendarvisE. D. (1990). The Abilities of Gifted Children. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35.
ReisS. M.McCoachD. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go?Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152–170.
36.
RichertE. S. (1985). Identification of gifted children in the United States. The need for pluralistic assessment, Roeper Review, 8, 68–72.
37.
RieberR. W.CartonA. S. (Eds.). (1987). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1). New York: Plenum Press.
38.
RosenthalR.JacobsonL. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils' Intellectual Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
39.
RyanW. (1976). Blaming the Victim. New York: Vintage Books.
40.
SchunkD. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 337–345.
41.
SkuyM.KanielS.TzurielD. (1988). Dynamic assessment of intellectually superior Israeli children in a low socio-economic status community. Gifted Education International, 5, 90–96.
42.
SteeleC. M.AronsonJ. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.
43.
SternbergR. J. (2001). Giftedness as developing expertise: A theory of the interface between high abilities and achieved excellence. High Ability Studies, 12(2), 159–179.
44.
TaylorS. D. (1998). Minority students and gifted and talented programs: Perceptions, attitudes and awareness. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney.
45.
TzurielD.FeuersteinR. (1992). Dynamic group assessment for prescriptive teaching: Differential effects of treatments. In HaywoodH. C.TzurielD. (Eds), Interactive Assessment (pp.187–206). New York: Springer-Verlag.
46.
ValenciaR. R.SolorzanoD. G. (1997). Contemporary deficit thinking. In ValenciaR. R. (Ed.), The Evolution of Deficit Thinking (pp.160–210). London: The Falmer Press.
47.
VygotskyL. S. (1974). Thought and Language. Cambridge: The M.I.T Press.
48.
WhitmoreJ. R. (1987). Conceptualizing the issues of underserved populations of gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(3), 141–153.
