Introduction

I chose to complete these two modules because I have recently been assigned a case involving a 10 year old student, new to this region, who is struggling to make social connections at school. He has been identified by his teacher as 'gifted' and she believes that this is the reason for his social isolation. In order to support the teacher to use evidence based practice (EBP), I would like to find out more about this topic - the 'tika' in the He Ritenga Whaimōhio model of EBP (McFarlane & McFarlane, 2013). My knowledge about this topic before starting is limited to papers undertaken in completing a Psychology undergraduate degree many years ago when Gagné was the theorist in vogue, knowledge and experience developed as a teacher using a Project Based Learning pedagogical approach, running a 'gifted and talented' after school programme, and as a parent of a child who was assessed by their school as 'gifted'. My prior knowledge and understanding is thus from a range of different perspectives.

Initial stance

Prior to commencing these two units, my understanding of giftedness, is that it is at least in some part, involves a comparative measure of some form of intelligence and/or one or more areas of high interest in which the child or adult excels. Further, there is a component of effort required. That is, there must be some output. Potential alone is not enough. It needs to manifest itself in terms of superior performance in a particular field. While I'm aware that this viewpoint may have been superseded by more current research, it is my starting point. I also believe that it is important to be cognisant that some individuals many not want to be singled out as different from their peers, and some may feel the burden of meeting very high expectations. Tall poppy syndrome continues to be an element of New Zealand culture negatively impacting gifted students. My stance is that the answer to meeting the needs of all students, including gifted students, is first knowing your students, providing a positive and inclusive learning environment,  providing differentiated high interest, and engaging learning opportunities, and having a flexible approach to planning, structure and environment. In addition, providing opportunities for students to interact with appropriate peers and experts, thereby promoting collaboration and interconnectedness.

Definitions/models

The subject of superior intelligence or ability has been the topic of debate for many years. Even the current term 'gifted and talented' it is argued, should be 'gifted or talented' (Gagne, 1992) as they are not synonymous. In the course of these modules I've learned about the historical origins of giftedness research and its goal of creating environments that foster excellence, beginning during the period in which Darwin and Mendel were theorising evolution and genetics. Galton (1869), proposed genius to be rooted in the etiology of genetics, based on noting a familial connection between those who gained eminence in a particular field. His observations however, failed to consider possible familial advantage. Disparity in relative advantage is one of the key issues when considering gifted education today.

I've gained an understanding of the major shifts in thinking about giftedness, starting from Terman (1921), who was one of the first to define giftedness in terms of Intelligence Quotient (IQ) which formed the basis of thinking about giftedness for many years to come. This focus on IQ as a measure of giftedness has since been criticised for a number of reasons: it ignores occurrence of giftedness across a range of different endeavours; dependence on other personality traits such as interest, motivation, persistence, diligence; and the effect of circumstance on realising potential. Researchers (Urban et. al., 1982, 1984; Wieczerkowski et. al., 1985; Gallagher, 1986) determined these "facilitating factors" as essential drivers if an exceptional potential is to be realised. Gallagher's model of 'intellectual productivity' identifying six specific facilitating factors, serves to highlight not only the controversy but also the complexity of defining and identifying giftedness, and was the beginning of a movement away from intelligence quotients towards differential giftedness theories (Feldhusen et. al., 1985). Many of the 'facilitating factors' Gallagher proposed (the ability to master abstract systems of symbols; opportunities for talent development; parental encouragement of talent; self-confidence; subcultural approval of intellectual activities; and peer influences) appear in some form in more recent models and continue to be contentious issues faced by societies today. 

The Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness (Renzulli,1986, 1998) theory has become a more popular model, defining giftedness in terms of 'creative productivity', being both creative and productive in a way that impacts society (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).

Renzulli's 3 Ring model has gained traction in the New Zealand context, because it allows for cultural intelligences, in keeping with a more culturally grounded view of giftedness. Criticisms of Renzulli's model centre around its failure to acknowledge individuals who may have above average ability but who have not yet found  a context in which they are motivated to exert effort or demonstrate task creativity and therefore have not yet demonstrated potential performance. Intuitively, this might broaden the definition too widely by implying that everyone is gifted, awaiting the appropriate motivational context. However, it does make me consider whether, if everyone has the potential for giftedness given the right circumstances, the priority of addressing wider issues of equity in New Zealand and particularly in education, and the necessity for  educational institutes to ensure a wide range of learning contexts so that students have the opportunity to find their superpower should be paramount.

Another much cited development in thinking about giftedness is Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences which moves away from the more traditional view of intelligence to one of multiple intelligences, specifically:  linguistic, logical/mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist. Gardner believes that individuals may have one or more of these intelligences, based on hereditary and experiential factors, and these competencies can be further developed. Gardner's theory seems more in keeping with learning styles rather than intelligences and applicable to all learners. It does however run the risk that generalised teaching pedagogies may not address the specific learning needs of those truly exceptional students, the potential Einstein's of this world (Le Sueur, 2002).

The Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) (Gagné, 1992; 2000) makes a clear distinction between gifted and talented: giftedness is a natural ability in at least one domain that falls into the top ten percent of aged peers, whereas talent is defined as developed skills or abilities in at least one domain that is in the top ten percent comparative to peers that have also had this same skill nurtured and developed. Thus these terms are not synonymous. Giftedness is a natural or raw ability implying a genetic component, while talent is a nurtured and developed skill. This aligns with Renzulli's model, where talent is the realisation of the natural gift through task commitment or development. Development alone is not necessarily a reliable predictor of future achievement as this is contingent on having the innate ability, the preexistence of giftedness (Plazinić et. al., 2019). These papers have made me think about the question of which aged peer cohort should be used as a comparative measure? Should this be the individual's local community, national, or international community? Discussions with colleagues about this question elicited many anecdotes of students identified as gifted in one school community context and realising when they moved to another community, that they were on a pas or below their new peer group. The significance of this is the impact that a 'gifted' label may have on an individuals.

The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) proposed by Renzulli and Reis (1994), is a model based on the premise that by providing a wide range of enrichment experiences as well as advanced level follow-up opportunities, all learners' needs will be accommodated. It purports to avoid concerns about elitism and detrimental labelling by providing rich learning opportunities to whole cohorts as well as targeting gifted and talented students. It is essentially an inquiry model of learning utilising individuals' strengths and interests.

Unless I have misunderstood the SEM model, advantage to the general cohort appears to me to be limited to a trickle down effect via general curriculum adaptation through introduction of enrichments and differentiation, and through small group inquiries based on high interest topics (enrichment clusters)  facilitated by an appropriate expert. From my perspective, this simply equates to quality teaching. 

Identification of gifted students involves a range of different processes, such as parental recommendation, IQ

tests (verbal and nonverbal abilities), standardized achievement tests, anecdotal records, identification checklists, and rating scales. Thus there is still an over emphasis on academic prowess and IQ assessments.

The New Zealand context

What constitutes giftedness in the New Zealand context is culturally and ethnically dependent and thus may vary from community to community depending on the values of individual communities. However, it would be a mistake to assume that all communities are homogenous and have shared values and goals. Māori are underrepresented in statistics for identification of gifted students in New Zealand largely due to the Eurocentricity of definition and assessment measures (Macfarlane & Moltzen, 2005; Ministry of Education, 2000). Both Māori and Pacific cultures tend to have a wider definition of giftedness which includes "spiritual, cognitive, affective, aesthetic, artistic, psychomotor, social, intuitive, creative, leadership and cultural" dimensions (Bevan-Brown, 1993). In both Māori and Pacific cultures, there is also a strong element of giving back to the community. According to Bevan-Brown, the single most important factor in identifying gifted Māori (and Pacific) students is to provide a "culturally-safe and culturally valuing" classroom and school environment so that students are confident to shine within their cultural context (Bevan-Brown, 2004 as discussed in Macfarlane and Moltzen (2005). Further, it is important when identifying giftedness and providing extension opportunities, that these measures and goals are co-constructed with whānau and appropriate members of the local community (eg. Kaumatua). Having close home and school partnerships are critical to ensuring success for gifted Māori students.

Issues in gifted and talented education

As raised in the research, there are a number of issues that specifically relate to gifted students. Some students feel undue pressure to excel, not only in their area of expertise but for some, in all domains. A fear of not meeting the high expectations that go with the gifted label, the pressure to be perfect, can negatively impact student wellbeing. For other students, stereotyping and tall poppy syndrome may result in dumbing down their abilities in an effort to fit in with peers, or a lack of social integration. The harm is not restricted to students. A sense of elitism that accompanies the gifted label can see parents vying to promote their child.

In the TED video "Gifted, creative and highly sensitive children" Heidi Hass Gable suggests that a gift in a particular domain may be accompanied by a deficit in another domain, and in particular, uneven social development. This may be due to a lack of opportunity for social connections. Further, an inability to relate to peers can further result in social isolation.

A failure to meet the learning needs of gifted students may result in boredom and manifest itself in poor behaviour. Equally, gifted students may not develop the self-management skills necessary to support higher learning when this is available. A mismatch between social and intellectual development is described as a potential failure of exclusive gifted programmes.

Every gifted Māori [and Pacific] child has their own whakapapa, their own history. This can provide a starting point for what can be taught, learnt from (and with) students, their whānau and their communities. If we want to accelerate gifted Māori students' pride in their culture, academic success, and engagement in learning, schools need to teach, acknowledge and celebrate the history, values and whakapapa of Māori students and their communities. This means teaching should be localised and include role models to example Māori giftedness. In New Zealand, the Ka Hikitia policy framework states that all Māori students achieve academic success as Māori. However, most New Zealand classrooms do not yet reflect these practices.

How is this relevant to my context?

Regardless of semantics in the meaning of 'giftedness' and 'talent', the consensus of the literature is that giftedness is a continuum. It is not a matter of being gifted or not gifted. Giftedness is not fixed, it can be developed over time given appropriate environment and opportunity. Further, other factors such as culture, ability, gender and chance contribute to the successful development of gifts/talents. There is much evidence from longitudinal studies that support a distinction between "academic giftedness and creative/productive giftedness" and that the educational focus should be on developing creative/productive behaviours rather than higher learning opportunities. This is in keeping with Māori and Pacific communities values of giftedness and service.

The many stereotypes and myths about gifted learners, as previously discussed,  can affect gifted learners in a multitude of ways. Students not provided with sufficient challenge may become disengaged with schooling. Gifted students may become socially isolated either to due to resentment because they stand out from their peers or because they themselves have difficulty connecting with age equivalent peers. Some students may feel anxiety associated with high pressure to achieve, and may not get the support to be successful across the curriculum because they are deemed capable learners. Equally, a lack of awareness that giftedness in one or more areas may be accompanied by weaknesses in other areas may lead to failure to meet their needs. Some gifted students may be overlooked, particularly those demonstrating cultural giftedness, and so Māori and Pacific students may not be identified and given the support and encouragement they need.

Specialist teachers can build greater understanding by providing information about giftedness to schools, teachers and parents. They can share important documents that can be discussed, including Gifted and Talented Students - Meeting Their Needs in New Zealand Schools, Nurturing gifted and talented children, and Learning Support Action Plan 2019-2025. They can share and promote an understanding of Māori and Pacific concepts of giftedness and they can look deeper and ask the right questions when taking on new or reflecting on existing cases. The child is more than their behaviour, engagement, attitude.

In considering how I will use this learning to support the student in my current caseload, as well as other students and teachers in the future, I will:

• Have an awareness that giftedness can be expressed in many different ways

• Support schools to encourage Māori and Pacific students to connect with and take pride in their culture and provide opportunities for them to shine within a Māori/Pacific context.

• Provide opportunity for Māori students to develop 'Mana Tangata' competencies

• Is there a culture of learning in the classroom/school?

• Use strengths to manage limitations (strengths based practice)

• Consider if the class/school is explicitly teaching emotional intelligences and support appropriately

• Support teachers/schools to cultivate intrapersonal intelligences, such as self-discipline, self control, the ability to deal with and overcome distractions, planfulness, and flexible thinking

• Explicitly teach cognitive, metacognitive, and emotional intelligence

• Know your students

• Encourage teachers/schools to use a UDL framework

• Ask students to share their voice and act on it

Opportunities available in Northland

Previously, a one day Mindlab run by Mind Plus, operated from Kerikeri Primary School. This programme was cancelled due to lack of uptake. My preliminary inquiries suggest that it might be possible to re-establish a one day school in one of my liaison schools. Plans for this were underway prior to the latest COVID lockdown. I fear, with such a short term, this may not happen until next year. This would provide an opportunity for some students to make connections with other students.

Has my stance changed?

My awareness and perception of gifted students has changed in that I have a better understanding of what giftedness looks like in the New Zealand context and in particular, the Māori concept of giftedness and what schools can do to identify and support all Māori and Pacific learners, including gifted learners.

Next steps

Using this information, we hypothesised that [Name redacted] needs support with social development. The teacher has decided to use a more collaborative approach in the form of a  multi-level cooperative group pedagogy, using an inquiry model, and giving [Name redacted] the opportunity to be a leader/mentor to other members of the group. This is preferable to providing an individualised computer based programme that he works on independently, which further stands him apart from his peers. Cooperative groups are designed to improve the academic skills of all team members, developing collaborative and communicative skill sets of all team members and to develop cognitive and metacognitive skills. Explicitly, teaching the following skills to the whole class will also benefit [Name redacted]. 

• Positive interdependence

• Individual accountability

• Group and individual reflection

• Small group skills

• Face to face interactions

References