Who is Gifted? The Stability of Scores on the DISCOVER Assessment and the Raven’s Progressive Matrices in Diné Gifted Children
Keywords:
Raven’in İlerlemeli Matrisi, üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin tanılanması, Navaholu çocuklar, RPM, Identifying Gifted Students, Diné ChildrenAbstract
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the sta- bility of the Discovering Intellectual Strengths and Ca- pabilities through Observation while allowing for Varied Ethic Responses (DISCOVER) assessment, when used across time, to identify 74 Diné gifted chil- dren, and the Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM), when used across time, to identify 52 Diné gifted chil- dren. Students were tested when they were in the sec- ond, third, and fourth grades. An analysis of the data using three methods (viz., calculating the change dif- ferences on each student’s scores, obtaining correla- tion coefficients, and applying a linear single regres- sion analysis across the three testing periods) pro- vides evidence of the stability of three of the five DIS- COVER activities—Spatial Analytical, Spatial Artistic, and Oral Linguistic, as well as the overall score. The overall DISCOVER score provides greater evidence of stability than do students’ scores from the RPM,which varied from year to year. Based on the results of this study, the authors concluded that the DIS- COVER assessment is a culturally fair instrument, and is more appropriate when used to identify Diné gifted children than traditional tests. Future researchers may consider conducting a long and large-scale longitudi- nal investigation into the same research problem, as well as designing a mixed-method study to investigate how Diné children understand the RPM prob- lems to highlight any potential cultural components.
Öz
Bu çalışmanın amacı, Navaholu (Amerika’da yaşayan bir yerli grup) öğrencilerin tanılanmasında kullanılan DISCOVER (Entelektüel Yeteneğin ve Potansiyelin Gözlem yoluyla Keşfedilmesi) değerlendirmesinden ve Raven’in İlerlemeli Matrisi’nden elde edilen verile- rin farklı zaman aralıklarındaki tutarlılığını araştır- maktır. Çalışma kapsamında 2. 3. ve 4. sınıfta öğrenim gören 74 Navaholu üstün yetenekli öğrenciye DISCO- VER, 52 Navaholu üstün yetenekli öğrenciye ise Ra- ven uygulanmıştır. Veri analizinde fark analizleri, ko- relasyon analizi ve basit doğrusal regresyon analizi olmak üzere üç yöntemden yararlanılmıştır. Verilerinanalizi sonucunda DISCOVER aktivitelerinden üçü- nün (Uzamsal Analitik, Uzamsal Sanat ve Dil) ve top- lam puanın tutarlı olduğu bulunmuştur. Ayrıca DISCOVER’ın, Raven’in İlerlemeli Matrisi’ne göre farklı yıllardaki ölçümlerinde daha tutarlı olduğu so- nucuna ulaşılmıştır. Çalışmanın bulguları DISCOVER değerlendirmesinin farklı kültürlerde kullanılabile- cek bir ölçek olduğunu ve Navaholu üstün yetenekli öğrencileri tanılamada geleneksel testlere kıyasla daha uygun olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. İleri araştır- malarda, daha uzun yılları ve daha çok örneklemi kapsayan boylamsal araştırmalar gerçekleştirilebilir. Ayrıca potansiyel kültürel bileşeni vurgulamak için Navaholu çocukların Raven’in İlerlemeli Matrisi problemlerini nasıl anladıklarına yönelik karma araş- tırmalar da yapılabilir.
References
Alhusaini, A. (2006). Factors that have influenced the criteria for defining giftedness in Saudi Arabia. Un- published manuscript. King Abdul-Aziz University.
Alhusaini, A. & Maker, J. (in press). The predictive validity of the DISCOVER assessment to iden- tify general creativity in Diné children. Manuscript submitted for publication. Journal of Creative Behavior.
Amabile, M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Baska, L. (1986). The use of the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices for the selection of magnet junior high school students. Roeper Review, 8(3), 181-184. doi:10.1080/02783198609552969
Beckley, D. (1998). Gifted and learning disabled: Twice-exceptional students. Storrs, CT: Neag Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
Beecher, M., & Sweeny, M. (2008). Closing the gap with curriculum enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3), 502-530.
Bittker, M. (1991). Patterns of academic achievement in students who qualified for a gifted program on the basis of nonverbal tests. Roeper review, 14(2), 65-67. doi:10.1080/02783199109553389
Borland, H. (2008). Identification. In J. Plucker & C. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 261-280). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press Inc.
Brody, E., & Mills, J. (1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(3), 282-296. doi:10.1177/002221949703000304
Byrt, E., & Gill, E. (1973). Standardization of raven’s standard progressive matrices and mill hill vocabulary for the irish population: Ages 6–12. Unpublished master’s thesis. University College Cork.
Castellano, A. (2003). Special populations in gifted education: Working with diverse gifted learners. Bos- ton, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Clark, B. (1997). Growing up gifted. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Clasen, R., Middleton, A., & Connell, T. (1994). Assessing artistic and problem-solving performance in minority and nonminority students using a nontraditional multidimensional ap- proach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 27-32. doi:10.1177/001698629403800104
Clemons, L. (2008). Underachieving gifted students: A social cognitive model. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
Clinkenbeard, R. (2007). Economic arguments for gifted education. Gifted Children, 2(1), 5-9.
Colangelo, N., & Davis, A. (1991). Introduction and historical overview. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 3-13). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Ba- con.
Cole, S., & Zieky, J. (2001). The new faces of fairness. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 369- 382. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2001.tb01132.x
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, L. (2001). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development, guidance, and teaching. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Coleman, M. R. (2001). Surviving or thriving? 21 gifted boys with learning disabilities share their school stories. Gifted Child Today, 24(3), 56-63.
Coleman, M. R. (2003). The identification of students who are gifted. The ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. Retrieved from: http://ericec.org/digests/e644.html
Draper, J. (2002). School mathematics reform, constructivism, and literacy: A case for literacy in- struction in the reform-oriented math classroom. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Liter- acy, 45(6), 520-529.
Erdimez, O., & Maker, J. (2012). The predictive validity of the DISCOVER performance-based assessment to identify the academic achievement of Diné students. Unpublished manuscript. University of Arizona.
Feldhusen, F., Hoover, M., & Sayler, F. (1990). Identification of gifted students at the secondary level. Monroe, NY: Trillium.
Ford, Y. (1998). The under-representation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. The Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 4-14. doi:10.1177/002246699803200102
Ford, Y., Grantham, C., & Whiting, W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74, 289-306.
Fraenkel, J. & Wallen, N. (2010) How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: BasicBooks.
Gardner, H. (1992). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (n. d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved April 24, 2013, from BrainyQuote.com Web site: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/howardgard194106.html
Getzels, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1967). Scientific creativity. Science Journal, 3(9), 80-84.
Getzels, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley.
Gilliam, E., Carpenter, O., & Christensen, R. (1996). Gifted and talented evaluation scales: A norm- referenced procedure for identifying gifted and talented students. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Glasser, W. (1993). The quality school teacher. New York: Harper Collins.
Gravetter, J., & Wallnau, B. (2009). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learn- ing.
Gregory, J. (2004). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Griffiths, S. (1997). The comparative validity of assessments based on different theories for the purpose of identifying gifted ethnic minority students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Arizona.
Jensen, A. (1973). How biased are culture-loaded tests? [Document Resume]. Retrieved from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED080644
Johnson, M. (2006). Internet use and cognitive development: A theoretical framework. E-Learning, (3)4, 565-573.
Kassymov, A. (2000). Researchers and implementers: Comparison of inter-rater reliability. Unpublished manuscript. University of Arizona.
Kratzmeier, H., & Horn, R. (1979). Manual: Raven-matrizen-test, standard progressive matrices. Wein- heim, Germany: Beltz Test.
Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G. (2007). Educational testing and measurement. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Lohman, F. (2005). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying academically gifted students: An doi:10.1177/001698620504900203
perspective. Gifted child quarterly, 49(2), 111-138.
Lori, A. (1997). Storytelling and personal traits: Investigating the relationship between children’s storytelling ability and their interpersonal and intrapersonal traits. Gifted Education Inter- national, 13, 57- 66.
Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes and doi:10.1177/001698629604000106. solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 41-50.
Maker, C. J. (1993). Report on project STEP-UP in Arizona. Unpublished report. University of Ari- zona.
Maker, C. J., Nielson, B., & Rogers, A. (1994). Giftedness, diversity, and problem solving: Multiple intelligences and diversity in educational settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(1), 4- 19.
McBee, M. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 103-111.
McBee, M. (2010). Examining the probability of identification for gifted programs for students in Georgia elementary schools: A multilevel path analysis study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 283-297. doi:10.1177/0016986210377927
Menard, S. (1991). Longitudinal research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Miller, L., & Brewer, D. (2003). The a-z of social research. London: Sage.
Miller, M. (n. d.) Graduate research methods: Reliability and validity. Western International University, Retrieved from: http://michaeljmillerphd.com/res500_lecturenotes/reliability_and_va- lidity.pdf
Neisser, U. (1997). Rising scores on intelligence tests. American Scientist, 85(5), 440–447.
Nielson, B. (1994). Traditional identification: Elitist, racist, sexist? New evidence. CAG Communi- cator: The Journal of the California Association for the Gifted, 24(3), 18-19, 26-31.
Nowak, M. (2001, November). Twice-exceptional (gifted + learning disabled) students, the equality ideal, and the reward structure of the educational system. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC.
Owen, K. (1992). The suitability of raven’s standard progressive matrices for various groups in South Africa. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 149-159. doi:10.1016/0191- 8869(92)90037-P
Pinchok, N., & Ploeg, A. (2009). A brief on performance-based assessment technical considerations from an international perspective. The Great Lakes East Comprehensive Center. Retrieved from: http://www.learningpt.org/greatlakeseast/newsletters/OH_DOE_Perf_Assess_pi- lot_project.pdf
Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, (37)3, 439-468. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 1770.1987.tb00579.x
Ramos, E. (2010). Let us in: Latino underrepresentation in gifted and talented programs. Journal of Cultural Diversity 17(4), 151-3.
Raven, J. (1941). Standardisation of progressive matrices. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 19(1), 137-150. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8341.1941.tb00316.x
Raven, J. (2000). The Raven’s progressive matrices: Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 1-48.
Raven, J., & Walshaw, B. (1944). Vocabulary tests. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 20, 185-194.
Reis, S., & McCoach, B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152-170.
Renzulli, J. (1990). A practical system for identifying gifted and talented students. Early Childhood Development, 63, 9-18.
Sak, U., & Maker, C. J. (2003). The long-term predictive validity of a performance-based assessment used to identify gifted CLD students. Proceedings of the 15th Biennial World Conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Students. Adelaide, Australia: World Council for Gifted and Talented Students.
Saldaña, D. (2001). Cultural competency: A practical guide for mental health service providers. Austin, TX: Hogg Foundation for Mental Health.
Sarouphim, K. (1999a). DISCOVER: A promising alternative assessment for the identification of gifted minorities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(4), 244-251. doi:10.1177/001698629904300403
Sarouphim, K. (1999b). Discovering multiple intelligences through a performance-based assess- ment: Consistency with independent ratings. Exceptional Children, 65(2), 151-161.
Sarouphim, K. (2000). Internal structure of DISCOVER: A performance-based assessment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23(3), 314-327.
Sarouphim, K. (2001). DISCOVER: Concurrent validity, gender differences, and identification of minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 130-138. doi:10.1177/001698620104500206
Sarouphim, K. (2002). DISCOVER in high school: Identifying gifted Hispanic and Native American students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 14(1), 30-38. doi:10.4219/jsge-2002-385
Sattler, M. (1988). Assessment of children. (3rd ed.). San Diego: Jerome M. Sattler.
Shah, N. (2011). Investing in gifted education could cost little, report finds. Retrieved from: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/speced/2011/11/_gifted_education_has_been.html
Spearman, C. (1923). The nature of ‘intelligence’ and the principles of cognition. London: Macmillan.
Sternberg, R. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.
Sternberg, R. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tan, S., & Maker, C. J. (2012). The predictive validity of the raven progressive matrices for identifying academic achievement of the Diné children. Unpublished manuscript. University of Arizona.
Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2012). Digest of Education Statistics, 2011. NCES 2012-001. National Center for Education Statistics.
Van Tassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Avery, L. (2002). Using performance tasks in the identification of economically disadvantaged and minority
gifted learners: Findings from project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 110-123. doi:10.1177/001698620204600204
Wellisch, M. & Brown, J. (2011). Where are the underachievers in the DMTG's academic talent de- velopment? Talent Development & Excellence, 3(1) 115-117.
Yamin, T. (2006). Practical procedures to select gifted students in public schools. Unpublished Article, Arabian Gulf University.
Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (2012). Shortcomings of the IQ-based construct of underachievement. Roeper Review, 34(2), 123-132. doi:10.1080/02783193.2012.660726
