Intelligence-ranking assessments are not designed to capture giftedness expressed as creativity or style, nor does potential manifest itself in most academic testing (Lohman et al., 2008; Mun et al., 2020; Siegle et al., 2016). This inability to account for gifts which figure prominently in many gifted case studies (Hebert, 2019; Meyer & Rinn, 2021; Reis & Peters, 2021) does a disservice to a whole category of students who are intelligent in non-academic ways. Fourth grader Kell, who receives special education services, reflected on the time it took for him to reveal his abilities in the project:
It’s good. It’s just when I first started, I’m like, ugh not this. I have to do so much research, I have to do art. And then when I started falling behind, I started not liking it. Then once I started getting more in progress on the one day, I’m like, finally!
When Kell did feel the pieces click into place, his sense of satisfaction is clear with that, “finally!” exclamation. In the focus group, the team of teachers expressed agreement that a PBL unit like the Regional Showcase would provide them with greater insight into student abilities for gifted identification than would traditional academic measures on their own. This suggests that diverse identification methods including PBL outputs are a crucial tool to consider when addressing diversity gaps in gifted identification. Creating an assessment system with multiple measures which prioritize a broad range of abilities rather than narrow, traditional, academic intelligence measures (Gubbins et al., 2021; Silverman & Gilman, 2020) would allow for more representative and multi-dimensional gifted programs.
RESOURCES
Gubbins, E. J., Siegle, D., Ottone-Cross, K., McCoach, D. B., Langley, S. D., Callahan, C. M., Brodersen, A. V., & Caughey, M. (2021). Identifying and Serving Gifted and Talented Students: Are Identification and Services Connected? The Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(2), 115-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220988308
Hebert, T. P. (2019). A Longitudinal Case Study of Exceptional Leadership Talent. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(1), 22-35. http://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218800068
Lohman, D. F., Korb, K. A., & Lakin, J. M. (2008). Identifying academically gifted English-language learners using nonverbal tests: A comparison of the Raven, NNAT, and CogAT. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(4), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208321808
Meyer, M. S., & Rinn, A. N. (2021). Developing leadership talent in adolescents and emerging adults: A systematic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(3), 287-313. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211007556
Mun, R. U., Ezzani, M. D., Lee, L. E., & Ottwein, J. K. (2021). Building systemic capacity to improve identification and services in gifted education: A case study of one district. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(2), 132-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220967376
Reis, S. M., & Peters, P. M. (2021). Research on the Schoolwide Enrichment Model: Four decades of insights, innovation, and evolution. Gifted Education International, 37(2), 109-141. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0261429420963987
Siegle, D., Gubbins, E. J., O’Rourke, P., Langley, S. D., Mun, R. U., Luria, S., & Plucker, J. A. (2016). Barriers to underserved students’ participation in gifted programs and possible solutions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(2), 103-131. https://doi-org.ezproxy.neu.edu/10.1177/0162353216640930
Silverman, L. K., & Gilman, B. J. (2020). Best practices in gifted identification and assessment: Lessons from the WISC‐V. Psychology in the Schools, 57(10), 1569-1581. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22361
Note: This is an excerpt from my 2023 dissertation:
Wise, L. R. (2023). Genius Move: Recognizing Gifted Potential Through a Project Based Learning Unit of Study. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://www.proquest.com/openview/87269f080d782ead14d2174ee01bcba9/1.pdf
Gifted Weekly 