This powerpoint presentation was designed as an assignment towards a Certificate in Gifted Education. It is an annotated bibliography of six primary sources associated with issues surrounding the identification of Gifted Learners

1. COURSE 2 – IDENTIFICATION OF
GIFTED LEARNERS
Assignment 1 – Annotated Bibliography
By Kirstie O’Connor

2. INTRODUCTION:
The identification of gifted students can be daunting
and challenging task, especially for educators who are
new to the field.
The purpose of the following annotated bibliography is
to provide a ‘helping hand’ for teachers to begin to
understand the issues surrounding the identification
of gifted learners.

3.  Erwin, J. O. & Worrell, F. C. (2012). Assessment practices
and the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted
and talented education. Journal of Pyschoeducational
Assessment. 30, 74-87.
Erwin and Worrell offer a comprehensive discussion of the
issues surrounding the underrepresentation of
minority students in GATE programs in the United
States. Their own study examined the socio-economic
and cultural backgrounds of students selected for
enrichment Summer programs based multiple
criteria, concluding that underrepresentation was
indicative of a prolific and concerning achievement
gap. In contrast, McBee (2006), cited below discusses
underrepresentation as the result of inequalities in
the process of nomination rather than assessment
tools. Of the sources listed here, Erwin and Worrell
provide substantial introductory knowledge
surrounding the construct of giftedness and the means and
reliability of various assessment practices, making
this source useful for those whose knowledge of this
area is limited.

4. Massé, L. &Gangé, F. (1996). Should Self-Nominations be
allowed in peer nomination forms? Gifted Child Quarterly,
40(24), 24-30.
In this article Massé and Gagné consider whether the use of
self-nominations in peer nomination forms is a valid
method to identify gifted learners. Extending on the
work of Dove (1986), this study examined the
correlation between self-nominations, peer-
nominations and teacher nominations and considered
twelve descriptions of abilities in a sample of 392
French-Speaking students. Ultimately, the conclusion
drawn was that self-nominations had no detrimental
impact and that they should be utilised. This study
was aware of its own limitations due to the narrow
sample and its culturally specific context. Although it
provides an interesting view on self-nomination as a
tool for identification, further consideration should be
given, and it would not be recommended that self-
nomination be used as an isolated measure of
identification.

5. McBee, M. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for
gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic
status. Journal of Advanced Academics. 17. 103-111.
McBee’sanalysis of the source of referrals for gifted
programs in the state of Georgia adds to the
discussion of the underrepresentation of minority
students in gifted programs; his research indicates
that this may be caused not by issues surrounding
assessment, but rather by inequalities in
nominations. The chosen sample and the screening
process used in this study strove to attain reliable
data. McBee was unable to reach a definitive conclusion
regarding ability distribution without further
examination and expensive alterations to existing
nomination processes, but sought to represent both sides
of the argument. For this reason, McBee’s study is
useful in context with the existing rhetoric surrounding
underrepresentation of minority students and for
examining the approach of school systems. In
considering teacher nominations this research should be
considered alongside Siegle and Powell’s (2004), cited
below, study of teacher biases.

6. Siegle, D. and Powell, T. (2004). Exploring teacher biases
when nominating students for gifted programs. Gifted
Child Quarterly. 48(1). 21-29.
This study explored teacher biases and their role on the
identification process, revealing that if gender biases
are present, they are minimal; however it
alsohypothesisedthat educators seemed to privilege
particular traits of giftedness over others. One
interesting point was that gifted and talented
specialists seemed to more likely to identify students,
and to focus on student strengths rather than areas
of weakness. The researchers identified the
limitations of the study due to its narrow and skewed
sample, with all participants having some
knowledge and a perceived interest in gifted and
talented education, and made recommendations for
how subsequent studies could increase the validity of
the data. For an educator new to the area, this article
could be useful in promoting critical reflection on
their own biases and consideration of how they
identify students.

7. Silverman, L. K. (1989, October). Lost: One IQ point per year
for the gifted. Paper presented at the National Association
for Gifted Children 36th Annual Convention, Cincinnati,
OH.
Silverman considers of the difficulties and
negative impacts on the highly and profoundly
gifted when Intelligence Quotients norms are
condensed in order to adhere to a standard curved
distribution. Silverman stresses the existence of a
discrepancy between the theoretical and actual
distribution of high capabilities and that revised
psychometric testing makes it increasingly
difficult to differentiate the highly and
profoundly gifted. The recommendation is made
that a variety of testing techniques are used. As
the purpose of this source is to consider the impact on
changing norms on the highly gifted, it does not
include an explanation of the function or
implementation of psychometric testing. Some prior
knowledge of this area is required in order to fully
comprehend Silverman’s argument.

8. Silverman, L. K., Chitwood, D. G. and Waters, J. L.
(1986). Young gifted children: Can parents identify
Giftedness? Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 6, 23-38.
This study, despite its small sample size of twenty one
children tested in Denver Colorado offers interesting
insight into the validity of a parent’s ability to identify
traits of giftedness in their child when provided with a list
of sixteen specific characteristics associated with
giftedness. The study revealed an accuracy of the parents
with over 90% of these children formally identified as at
least mildly gifted. Of greater interest however is the
hypothesis proposed 100% of the subjects not identified as
gifted were subject to early and habitual ear infections,
with the implication being that this may have caused an
auditory processing difficulties. This study is significant
for educators as it may encourage them educators to be
more aware of the ability of the parents to recognise their
child’s ability, and to not discount such suspicions.

9. WHERE TO FROM HERE?
 The above is just a small sampling of the
information surrounding gifted and talented
education. This is a dynamic area that continues
to be of interest to researchers and that continues
to raise ongoing questions of which there are no
easy answers.
 To find out more about this area, please speak to
me as the Gifted and Talented Coordinator; I
have many more resources available.

10. OR……
 Alternatively, you may wish to undertake studies
of your own, such as the Certificate of Gifted
Education from GERRIC at the University of
New South Wales:
 https://education.arts.unsw.edu.
au/about-us/gerric/for-educators/
coge/