Model of Identification for Gifted Learners †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Model of Identification for Gifted Learners. Answer: Introduction My countrys education system concentraes on the chalk and takl system. In this system, the delivery system features the teacher who gives direction through talks while the student engages in discussions or question and answer session. This method may not be able to recognize unique and gifted children. A gifted child is one whose intelligence is above normal. Bevan-Brown (2009) identifies giftednesss as exceptionality stating that the gifted child has certain qualities. According to the New Zealand Association for Gifted Children, giftedness is natural and includes childrren with unconventional behavior, intellectual and emotional intelligence(NZAGC, 2018). Theorists acknolwege creativity as one of the factors of gifted children who often have high sensitivity to the surrounding, exceptional memory and observation ability(Weber, 2015). Research also recommend creativity in special gifts as a form of talents(Yuen Fong, 2014). In the modern era where innovation is a critical factor fo r success creative minds excel as innovators. According to the Marland Report (Colangelo Wood, 2015), high performing children have the potential to engage in the following: General intellectual ability Specific academic aptitude Creative or productive thinking Leadership ability Visual and performing arts Psychomotor ability: Cretive and productive Model In my opinion, the essence of creativity is achieevable with the maximization of output with limited resources. Having considered the theoretical aspects of a gifted mind, I decided to develop a creative and productive model. The figure below represents an illutsration of this model used for the idenitfication of creative abilities in children. This is an primary level tool for learners between 9 and 15 years. This approach is exclusive because it derives its motivation in the world of innovation where ICT skills are necessary (Freeman, 2013). Its design also supports creativity with team work and scientific measuring tools(Somech Drach-Zahavy, 2013). This tool measures five attributes of a learner in order to identify the level of creative intelligence and productivity, The Analytical child: This is the ability to solve problems and represents a learner who is able to work independently, accomplish taks make numerical data and apply formulas. This is also a learner who has the ability to analyse and solve complex problems such as arithmetics (Hayes, 2013) Designing child: This is the ability to innovate, experiment, find and give vision. This student is playful but takes risks, is effective in developing ideas from startup and takes opportunity to experiment (Voogt, et al., 2013). The Communicator: This child has the ability to work in a team, express oneself and persuade. This is a unique ability that brings out language abilities in children. It supports the sociocultural group effect. Arranging Child: This is a student who is able to arrange and put things in order without struggling. The ability to plan, organize and accoplish tasks is not in every child. This includes all kinds of tasks including paper work and building blocks. The practical ability: This is the ability to see the solution, initiate solutions and develop a vision, and find practical solutions in order to get it done(Beetham Sharpe, 2013) Its Usefulness The model is useful in the identification of a gifted child who contributes within a specific group setting (Taifel, 1981). Designed using the successful intelligence theory, it supports the notion that a successfully gifted person defines their ability within a sociocultural context (Stenberg, 1985). A group may have a dominant culture but there is a common thread of giftedness, level of intelligence, and creativity. Therefore, this model acknowledges that there is a need to provide opportunities for the development of the gifted talents. Consequently, parental involvement in the children influences performance because teachers are more willing to work with students whose parents show interest. From research, an effective model has a social, emotional and psychological effect. This model is a solution to the failure of the standardized national assessments, which have locked the potential of many students by offering a narrow and one-sided focus. Motivated by Taifel Turner (2004) this model borrows from the social identity theory, which supports social psychology. It also adds value to Robert Stenbergs approach to intelligence via the triachic theory of practical, creative and analytical intelligence (Stenberg, 1985). From the model example, analytical skills support the evaluation, analysis, comparison and contrast abilities. Creative skills enhance the invention, discovery and creativity ability while practical ability encourages innovation. Moved by Amanda Champdanys talk on a school systems role of encouraging and shaping successful gifts the model develops a practical solution (Amanda, 2016). Advantages of measuring potential thorugh creativity This model is useful because it supports creativity on a wider scale. It capitalies on the four categories of creativity highlighted in the 4Cs namely: Big C ( Eminence in creativity developed across time, big ideas, and innovators ) Little C ( Every day creativity, high imagination, inquisitive and connects to knowledge ) Pro-C ( Professional creators e.g scientists, historians, musicians, painters, leaders..) Mini C ( transformative, meaningful and personal experinces) From this example, creativity reflects on a persons life from an early age and is traceable in daily activities. This model explores a childs experiences checking their potential as creative individuals. The surrounding environment supports this creativity highlighting different ways in which creativity comes out. The approach points out creativity as a product of interpersonal behaviour and self-expression. However, it reiterates the need for social support from parents, friends and family in order to nurture it. How to measure creativity This method supports the use of the following tools and techniques for measuring the five elements of the creativity model: Psychometric tests( critical for placement in schools and learning centers) Expert analysis ( supervisor based ratings by different experts on different activities) Self-ratings ( measures divergent modes of thinking in different tasks or assessments) Torrance Tests of Creativity Thinking ( TTCT-for support in daily activities) Guiding students on the level of creativity involves a domain specific process that motivates an individuals creativity, interest and behaviour. This is the classification of creative ability through specific categories for an age specific target group. Children have different levels of creativity. This is evident in varied thinking capabilities, talents and innovativeness. This model may not be able to identify all obstacles to giftedness because of the following: Time constraints The complicated role of motivation as a creativity factor Lack of clear definition of failure as part of innovation Failure to define coping mechanisms for criticism during creativity Inconsistency Conclusion Gifted children are unique and it is not easy to identify and nature them. Scholars point out that in order to identify such children, it is important to design an effective tool that motivates the students to identify who they are and focus on shaping their success. Teachers find it difficult to identify such creative minds at once because of the ineffectiveness of tools and techniques used in measuring abilities. Creativity as one of the special attributes of gifted children is hard to detect. A good model needs a comprehensive approach that measures a persons analytical, problem solving, communication, arranging and practical abilities. These distinguish a learner from others within a diverse group. The above model is effective in identifying creativity through specific measures across different activities. Its application of theoretical models in order to come up with a measure of creativity makes it suitable for the target age groups. However, it uses different tests to check fo r levels of creativity, which is time consuming. From this model, the social environment is critical in shaping a persons creativity. This is an integrated approach to measuring and shaping creativity. References Amanda, C., 2016. Building Diversity in Gifted Programs. [Online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1nx_zdemPk Beetham, H. Sharpe, R., 2013. Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st Century Learning. s.l.:Routledge. Bevan-Brown, J., 2009. Idnetifying and providing for gifted and talented Maori students. APEX, Volume 15. Colangelo, N. Wood, S. M., 2015. Counselling the gifted: Past, present, and future directions. Journal of Counseling Development, 93(2), pp. 133-142. Freeman, J., 2013. Gifted children grown up. s.l.:David Fulton Publishers. Hayes, J. R., 2013. The complete problem solver. s.l.:Routledge . Kaufman, J. C. Beghetto, R. A., 2013. Do People Recognise the Four Cs? Examining Layperson conceptions of Creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7(3), pp. 229-236. NZAGC, 2018. What is Giftedness?. [Online] Available at: https://www.giftedchildren.org.nz/what-is-this-gifted-thing-all-about/ Somech, A. Drach-Zahavy, A., 2013. Translating team creativity to innovation implimentation. the role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39(3), pp. 684-708. Steele, C. M., 1997. A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and perfomance. American Psychologist, 52(6), p. 613. Stenberg, R., 1985. Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. s.l.:Cambridge University Press. Taifel, H., 1981. The Social identity theory of intergroup behavior. s.l.:Cambridge University Press. Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C. Mishra, P., 2013. Challenges to learning and Schooling in the digital networked world of teh 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), pp. 403-413. Weber, M., 2015. Teacher expectations, ethnicity and the achievement gap. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 50(1), pp. 55-69. Yuen, M. Fong, W. R., 2014. Perfectionism and Chinese Gifted Learners. Roepers Review, Volume 2, pp. 81-91.