Welcome and Hello

Not sure if there is anyone in this course?

Hi Glen,I'm glad that you have found your way on to the web site and hope that as the year goes along there will be more students joining you on this module. At present you are all alone but also in the very priveleged position of having your very own tutor! You may want to join in the discussion boards with the other students on the MA SEN at present but also you should find that the general hot seats which are available will meet your needs. At present we have the Distance Learning librarian on line to answer your questions. Go to the link from the Home page.
Welcome to the programme and I hope that you enjoy studying.
Introduce yourself to the others on the MA SEN welcome link.
All best Ruth Green
Programme Leader

Hi Glen,I'm glad that you have found your way on to the web site and hope that as the year goes along there will be more students joining you on this module. At present you are all alone but also in the very priveleged position of having your very own tutor! You may want to join in the discussion boards with the other students on the MA SEN at present but also you should find that the general hot seats which are available will meet your needs. At present we have the Distance Learning librarian on line to answer your questions. Go to the link from the Home page.
Welcome to the programme and I hope that you enjoy studying.
Introduce yourself to the others on the MA SEN welcome link.
All best Ruth Green
Programme Leader

Hello Glen
As referred to above, I would like to extend my welcome to you as your own tutor!

I would also like to ensure that my help to you on this course is of a practical nature, as well is based in the theoretical discussion about giftedness in general.

I am particularly interested in how you can define concepts of giftedness and whether or not these are different to the definitions or models understood by a school's Senior Leadership Team? Would there be differences in understanding according to the experience of teachers?Are current definitions appropriate for schools in a multi-cultural context and multicultural communities?

If you have any thoughts on the above, please let me know.

I wonder if you've managed to look at the reading list yet? If you have any concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Best wishes
Philip

Hi Glen
I have just enrolled on the Gifted Education Programme. Can you tell me a little about what you are doing? I am still trying to work out the focus of my research. I am finding it difficult to access books. The Library does not seem to have many of the books I have asked for. What about you? Any tips?

Nieves Vara Gonzalez

Hi to Glen and others.

I have just enrolled on the Gifted education side to. Looking forward to partaking in discussions.

Duncan

Thought I'd get the ball rolling.


Have been looking at some of the literature which has caused me to ponder a few questions and I would be interested to read people’s views.

In 'What makes giftedness', Renzulli (1978) argues that in order to be classified as gifted there must be clear interaction between 3 clusters - High Intelligence, High task commitment and High creativity. When there is interaction between all three then a child is truly gifted.
UK government (and others) suggest that a child can be classified as gifted even though they are 'underachieving'. However, if Renzulli is correct then this leaves several distinct questions as posed by Passow (1981) firstly, Is giftedness potential alone or must it be manifested through actual performance? and secondly, Are underachievers indeed gifted or should only achievers be gifted?

In my own view I agree primarily with Renzulli in that there does need to be a strong correlation between the three clusters especially, to my mind, the concept of task commitment. However, what do we regard as underachievement? Do we look solely at targets or are we looking at child potential? I think that there is possibly a contradiction of terms between the terms gifted and underachievement in that if a child is truly gifted then they would be achieving beyond our expectations.

What are others views?

Hi Duncan

I don't really believe that if a child is truly gifted they would be achieving beyond our expectations. Not always. There are so many reasons why a child with an IQ of 130+ would be easily missed in the classroom. Firstly you have the teachers who are untrained in the field of the G&T and who just don't know how to plan and deliver appropriate teaching for these children. After a few years the children have learned to switch off in the classroom and just do the bare minimum to get by and not get into trouble. You also have the kids that "dumb down" in order to fit in with their peers.Being a nerd is not cool! I am also thinking of cases where children come from very troubled backgrounds or in areas of social deprivation. Keeping safe at school or walking back home without being attacked is at the top of their thinking. Never mind the school project on the moon!! I do believe that there are a lot of underachievers in our schools. Teacher training to recognise and provide appropriately for this children is probably the key to reach to these children. But, hey, who cares about the gifted?? Just look at us: Hardly anyone enrolled on this course! What does that tell us?


Nieves

Thank you Nieves for your comments. I agree with you that there are many reasons why a child will not 'show off' their giftedness and a lot of these are to do with peer pressure and outside factors. In my own experience I have seen many children who have hidden their giftedness.
You mention about teachers not being trained in the field of G+T education. I know from personal experience that teacher training on G+T is very linited. However, could the the reason for not being trained in G+T be simply that we can not 'agree' on a concept of what giftedness is? You mention children having an IQ of 130+. In your opinion do you think that only children with an IQ of 130+ are regarded as Gifted? If this is the case how do you determin talented? This idea of a working definiation of Giifted and Talented fascinates me. As how can we cater for gifted and taleneted if we do not know what were looking for? However, does it really matter. If we are providing high quality teaching that is appropriately differentiated, will we not meet the needs of our G+T anyway?

Hi Duncan
Good to hear from you. I will try to give my opinion on the questions you raised.
I believe that the main reason for teachers not to be trained in the field of G&T is the widespread attitute that gifted kids will "do fine" even without special provision.The percentage of gifted children compared with the rest of the population is small so their "voices" are too weak to make an impact. I think society as a whole feels that the gifted kids are the lucky ones who can just sail through education without any effort so they don't really need special attention. I believe that most psychologists use the figure of 130+ in an IQ test as a "cut off" point to define a child as gifted or not. Howevever, the government in this country determines as gifted all those children at the top 10% of ability in their cohort regardless of their IQ. I believe that teachers should not think that only the high fliers are the gifted kids but should also look for POTENTIAL in all the other children. But without special trainining in the field on the G&T I think that a lot of teachers would fail to spot potential.
A child could be highly gifted in languages but struggle in maths, for example, and not have an overall high IQ. I still think that that child is gifted in languages and needs special provision in that area.
I have come across several definitions of talented. The government considers talented the children who excel in non academic subjects. However I spoke to someone at the NAGC and, as I understood it, a gift is what a child is born with (eg.the ability to learn fast/ good physique, etc..) and the talent is the combination of that gift plus a lot of practice to achieve exceptionally high standards ( eg amazing reading ability/exceptional fast runner).This is a different definition of G&T to that of the government and so it gets confusing. I tend to agree with the NAGC as I can't understand why there should be a division of academic or non academic subjects to call someone gifted or talented. It almost undermines the importance of the talented in comparison with the gifted. What do you think?
Nieves

Hi Nieves,
Many thanks for your comments. I completely agree with you in that I think a big part of our problem is that teachers generally are not sure about what they are looking for when it comes to gifted and talented. In my experience teachers feel that a gifted mathematician is easy to spot as is someone who is gifted at literacy. However, spotting a gifted geographer or historian is a lot more difficult.
I fully believe that someone who is gfted and talented in any area should be catered for and stretched to reach full potential, whether that be in school or through external angencies and the school acting as a sign post. I feel that if, for what ever reason, the school can not offer an extension program (lets say for sport) then the school should be prepared to point the parents/child in the right direction.
The 10% that the government put on our G+T needs, in my mind is limited, and I am more comfortable with the new idea, certainly for primary school where we can choose our own percentage as long as we can justify it.
In my research I have come across other definitions of G+T and it would be great to hear your views. Firstly, Renzulli talks about a correlation between creativity, intellegence and motivation and the three working together in the gifted child. Second opinion is that a child is talented if the excell in one particular area of the curriculum be it academic or not (ie maths) but the gifted child is one who excells in all areas of the curriculum. Therefore instead of looking at a child as being a gifted mathematician they are known as a talented mathematician just as the sporting child would be considered talented. I have also come across the definition you gave with regards to the gift being the ability to be good at something and the talent being the outworking of the gift.
Personally i do not see being gifted as being better than being talented, if you adopt the tradition approach of gifted being academic and talented being non academic. I agree that there shouldn't be a division between gifted and talented I feel that any child should have the opportunity to develop whatever stregths they have. Which is way I like the idea of of talented is being good at one or more things and gifted is being good at everything. However, I am still a long way from a definition I like. We are currently looking at gifted as being a children who is far and above where they should be for there age related targets, but even this has it's floors.
Many thanks for your interesting discussion, I really enjoy working with G+T but the more I get into it, the more of a mine field I seem to uncover.
Duncan

I have found the following book which I think is worth reading. I have only managed to read a generous preview but I recommend it! I would love to read the whole book but it costs £62 and M. University does not have a copy. The title is Handbook of giftedness in children: psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices. By Steven I. Pfeiffer

Here is the link for the preview. Let me know what you think.

http://books.google.co.uk/b[…]nfancy+through+Adulthood%22

Nieves