EDG 550A Module 1 Discussion Post

1. As you review the various characteristics and traits of giftedness that have been
identified, what universal traits seem to recur across all domains and cultures?
While gifted individuals are a heterogenous group, there are common characteristics and

traits that occur within the group. The foundational trait is high intelligence. Even in gifted

individuals who excel outside of academics, at least a moderately high IQ was common.

MacKinnon (1978) argued that “A base level of intelligence usually is essential for creative

productivity” and Walberg (1982) found that historically eminent persons had, “at least

moderately high intelligence” (as cited in Rimm et al., 2018, p. 30 & 31).

Another trait common amongst gifted individuals is being developmentally advanced,

particularly in language and reading. Rimm et al., (2018) defined intellectually gifted students as

“developmentally advanced in language and thought” and went on further to discuss how

“superior comprehension skills” naturally follow the advanced language development of

intellectually gifted children (p. 26).

Several studies have found that gifted individuals who achieve success in their domain

almost always had positive and supportive families. Bloom and Sosniak (1981) discovered that

“parents were almost entirely responsible for nurturing the children’s early interests and

developing their children’s skills to extraordinary levels” (as cited in Rimm et al., 2018, p. 33).

In Cox’s (1926) study of eminent persons she concluded that individuals who achieved eminence

likely had intelligent parents and advantaged circumstances and Morelock and Feldman (1997,

2003) concluded that prodigies “were born into families that recognized, valued, and fostered

that ability” (as cited in Rimm et al., 2018, p. 34-35).

Gifted students typically have a high level of self-confidence and independence. Often,

this is driven by their history of success in various settings where they are able to excel (Rimm et
al., 2018). Gifted students often prefer to work alone or with other gifted students and hold high

expectations for themselves (Rimm et al., 2018).

Responding to this question made me wonder about the traits of gifted students who are

not identified. Rimm et al., (2018) described the bias in selecting gifted students through

nominations as teachers often recommend well behaved and high-achieving students and

identification policies that include a cognitive ability and/or achievement test score could

exclude students. Do the students who are not identified and/or who may be underachieving

possess similar characteristics as gifted students who are identified? In what way does

identification shape the traits of gifted students if at all? I also wonder if there have been studies

on eminent adults who were not identified as gifted during their K-12 schooling as compared to

those who were identified as gifted. Is there a difference in the characteristics or family values?

2. After reviewing these characteristics and traits think about 4-5 reasons why language,
culture, economic status, family background, and/or disability might influence the
development of these characteristics associated with giftedness or why they might be
perceived different through a different cultural lens?
Studies have shown the importance of family support of gifted individuals in developing

their talents (Bloom and Sosniak, 1981; Morelock and Feldman, 1997, 2003; as cited in Rimm et

al., 2018). Independence may run counter to family values in collectivistic cultures where the

needs of the community trump the wants of individuals. In this case, independence may not be

developed and a student’s motivation in a particular subject or idea may be redirected to meet a

particular community need. On the other hand, a collectivistic culture may see the potential in a

community member and seek to develop their talent for the benefit of the community. I have

seen examples of this with outstanding athletes where entire communities attend games, ensure

the athlete makes it to practice, etc.

 A disability may inhibit the development of a student’s high self-confidence because they are

not able to experience success due to their disability. A learning or physical disability could

interfere with how a student is able to express their understanding of complex topics and limit

their opportunities to engage in high level content. A behavioral disability could bias a teacher

from recommending a student for gifted services because “underachieving or troublesome gifted

students are eliminated too easily from gifted programing” (Rimm et al., 2018, p. 31).

Cox (1926) concluded that individuals who achieved eminence came from advantaged

circumstances (as cited in Rimm et al., 2018) and in the study by Bloom and Sosniak (1981),

they found that home environments were an essential factor in talent development, writing, “We

were looking for exceptional kids and what we round were exceptional conditions” (p. 247, as

cited in Rimm et al., 2018, p. 33). Both of these studies highlight the importance of

circumstances in fostering talent development. Gifted students born into families with limited

resources, such as low socio-economic status, may never realize their full potential because their

talent could not be prioritized and/or parents did not know or could not access resources to

cultivate their child’s talent.

Students learning English are impacted in the development of gifted characteristics because

EL students are put into classes based on their English level, rather than their academic or

cognitive ability. Language barriers would impede their ability to understand the content as it is

presented and/or express their learning and reduce their opportunities for identification for gifted

services.

3. Why is it recommended to use multiple criteria to test and measure giftedness, and how
does this align to the statement that not all gifted students possess the same
traits/characteristic, nor require the same type of service?
 One core reason for using multiple criteria to identify giftedness is “to identify more minority

and economically disadvantaged students” (Rimm et al., 2018, p. 41). Central to identification is

the need to match services to student needs (Hertzog & Leppien, 2015). Giftedness comes in a

variety of forms and as such multiple criteria need to be used to identify as many students as

possible who perform or show the potential to perform at high levels in their respective

domain(s). Nominations should come from multiple sources including teachers, parents,

students, peers, and community members to ensure a large talent pool (Hertzog & Leppien,

2015). Additionally, any tests used for identification need to make accommodations for students

with disabilities and in a language appropriate for students learning English so they have equal

opportunity for demonstrating their strengths. Identification procedures should identify students

for the gifted program such that the make up of the gifted program matches the make up of the

school and/or district. Rimm et al. (2018) argue that the first goal in the identification of

students for gifted programing is to be inclusive. This can only be done when all students have

an equal opportunity to demonstrate their abilities and all abilities are considered.

4. While your text discussed the use of multiple criteria (intelligence or aptitude, academic
measures, rating scales, performance assessments, etc.) to identify students, what
cautionary statements must be followed to ensure best practice in the identification and
selection of gifted students and why?
Multiple criteria for identifying gifted students should provide the committee with sufficient

information to understand student abilities and to select students who will benefit from gifted

services as well as ensure that all students who could benefit can participate in the gifted

programs. Hertzog and Leppien (2015) stressed that composite scores are not a substitute for

looking at individual sub scores on various assessments and should not be used as a requirement

for entrance to gifted programs. Students may be advanced in one area but not in others. These

students still need services, but this will not be indicated on a composite score. Additionally,
scores and norms need to be understood and calibrated/converted so that they can be effectively

and accurately compared. Students may also be overlooked for needed gifted services if they

score just below a predetermined cut score on a specific test regardless of their potential as

shown by other metrics. Strict cut scores are a concern because test scores always come with a

measure of error (Hertzog & Leppien, 2015). A student who scored just below the cut score

could take the test again and score a few points above on the second attempt.

References:
Hertzog, N., & Leppien, J.H. (2015, December). Multiple criteria for identification of the most

highly capable: What does that mean? WERA Conference, Hilton Hotel and Conference

Center, Seattle, WA.

Rimm, S. B., Siegle, D. & Davis, G.A. (2018). Education of the gifted and talented (7th ed.).

Pearson Education, Inc.