Teachers’ Role in Recognising Gifted Students in Malaysian Schools

(First published in Jayakaran Mukundan (ed.) Reflections, Visions & Dreams of Practice: Selected Papers from the International Education Conference 2001. Kuala Lumpur: ITC Learning Sdn. Bhd.)

Inderbir K Sandhu, PhD
Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia (2001)

The study of the area of giftedness is a relatively new subject in Malaysia. In fact, to date, there has been no provision in special education for gifted students in the Malaysian system of education. Some Malaysian researchers have attempted studies in the area of identification of gifted students, however, not to a level of policy implementation. In fact, the mission of the Special Education Department in Malaysia does not indicate, in any sense, support for gifted students. The main mission, however, is quite clearly directed to the other extreme, the disabled, and the slow learners.

Therefore, gifted students in Malaysia appear to be a neglected group. Left unidentified and unrecognised, there is a possibility of gifted students underachieving, or even abusing their gifts by involvement in socially unhealthy activities. This would lead to waste of talents due to not being able to develop their potential fully, especially for a fast developing country like Malaysia. Therefore, something has to be done to enable this group of individuals to be recognised. For a start, highly able students need to be recognised and screened in the classroom. This directly looks at the importance of teachers.

Giftedness Defined

Before going on, giftedness should be defined as definition is closely linked to identification. Gifted individuals have different abilities, talents, and personalities. Even so, a sizeable proportion of the individuals categorised as gifted are distinguished from their non-gifted counterparts by virtue of superior general intelligence, which is measured by intelligence tests.

In the early part of the twentieth century, gifted children were generally defined in terms of intelligence as measured on standardised IQ tests. Giftedness was treated as though it was synonymous with academic achievement or intelligence test scores (Webb & Kleine, 1993). However, identification of gifted children has moved beyond traditional IQ based definitions of giftedness to broader perspectives, which view giftedness as a multifaceted process, one that includes many talents, aptitudes, and general high ability in any field. This raised doubts as to whether only individuals with a score of over 120 points (for example) on an intelligence test are considered gifted, or if there is a likelihood of individuals scoring below that point could be categorised as gifted as well.

Extensive research and discussion on the definition of giftedness today has produced various definitions which considers aspects other than IQ scores alone. One of the most widely used definitions of giftedness is produced by Renzulli (1978) and resembles most other definitions used today. Renzulli’s description of the “three-ring concept of giftedness” based on extensive research, produced a broader outlook of the definition of giftedness. This conception is represented in the form of three interlocking rings.

Renzulli’s Three-ring Concept of Giftedness

Renzulli explained that no single cluster makes giftedness and that each ring contributes equally to the definition of gifted students (Renzulli et.al., 1981). Students are identified as gifted when all three clusters exist concurrently. Therefore, all three factors have to be considered equally in the identification of gifted children. This differs from most definitions of giftedness that placed higher emphasis on the ability level of children rather than any other characteristics.

Renzulli also warned against heavy reliance on traditional indications of ability especially in the upper ranges of IQ points. The trait of above average ability in his model is not simply considered as above average intelligence, but rather above average aptitude in any field of human endeavour. According to him, the characteristics that distinguish bright individuals from the others are motivation and creativity, and not high scores alone. Individuals who are most productive are not always those who score above the 95 percentile on standardised tests. Therefore, the use of high cut-off points should be avoided, so that about 15-20% of the total population can be included in the gifted group.

With regards to creativity, until today, there is yet no agreement on the concept of creativity. Though he does not provide a definition, it is clear in Renzulli’s argument that creativity is a function of characteristics such as originality of thinking, freshness of approach, the ability to set aside established conventions and procedures, and the originality, novelty or uniqueness of a person’s contribution (Monks & Boxtell, in Freeman, 1985).

The third cluster, task commitment, represents energy brought to bear on a particular problem or specific performance area rather than a generalised trait. Factors that have been associated with task commitment are persistence in the accomplishments of ends, intrinsic motivation and a driving absorption in work, independence, self-reliance, and self-initiative (Renzulli et.al., 1981).

Due to problems of objectivity in measurements of creativity and task commitment, Renzulli proposed in their identification a heavy reliance on ratings of performance. Creativity can be subjectively measured by rating procedures that evaluate a past and present performance (Monks & Boxtell, in Freeman, 1985). As for task commitment, an even heavier reliance is on performance. This can be done by teachers in classrooms as a method of evaluating both creativity and task commitment.

The definition of giftedness proposed by Renzulli in his three-ring concept of giftedness is unusual, but similar definitions have been suggested in an earlier definition of genius in the nineteenth century by Galton (1869), and a more recent one in the 1970’s by Albert (1975). Galton proposed motivational factors, effort, and natural ability as personality traits that were necessary conditions of genius. According to Albert, remarkable qualities attributed to persons of genius are perceptiveness, continuity, endurance, productivity and influence (in Callahan, 1981).

In conclusion, it is clear that giftedness is broader and more varied than just a definition in terms of IQ, but in general terms, focuses on performance as the key attribute in defining giftedness. This directly looks at the role of teachers. Since intelligence is seen to be a fundamental aspect in the definition of giftedness, it does, to a certain extent, influence the abilities, talents, and personalities demonstrated by gifted individuals.

Why teachers?

Identification can be done by parents as well. Parents know their children better than anyone else. True. So, should parents not be better recognisers? For one, it is easier to give formal training to teachers in the screening of gifted students, which may be much more difficult with parents. Secondly, parents may have vested interests in determining giftedness in their children. In the rat race these days, parents may be inclined to subconsciously force certain characteristics that are associated to giftedness in their children. Especially in Malaysia where this is such a new subject and slowly gaining attention from enthusiastic parents, who may also link status with giftedness. The whole identification process then becomes very subjective.

A more objective measure would be identification by teachers. Why? Simply, due to the fact that the time spent with students in schools enables them to determine certain distinct traits of gifted students. But first, let us consider a few arguments on the pros and cons of teacher nomination.

Teacher Nomination in Identifying Gifted Students

Teacher nomination is one of the most commonly used and recommended means for identifying potentially gifted students (Marland, 1971; Martinson, 1981, Clark, 1992). However, whether teacher nomination is an effective measure in the identification of gifted students, has been subjected to many studies over the years. The reliability of an ordinary classroom teacher’s screening is something to be thought about very carefully.

Walton (1961) found teacher judgement on its own to be unreliable as only one in five children nominated by teachers was later identified as gifted on the Stanford-Binet intelligence test. Barbe (1965) reported that 25 percent of the most gifted students were undetected through teacher nomination. Gallagher (1966) found that none of the studies that he reviewed showed positive implications of teacher nomination. There is also an added problem of over-nomination of either sex by different teachers. In his study on the effectiveness of teacher and parent identification, Jacobs (1971) reported that kindergarten teachers only nominated 10 percent of children who had been identified as gifted. According to Martinson (1981), this method has limited usefulness. She added that in combination with other means, the success of teacher nomination increased. However, of the various means used, teacher judgement was the least effective.

One of the most frequently cited studies in the literature of the identification of gifted students is Pegnato and Birch’s (1959) study of the effectiveness and efficiency of various identification techniques. The authors concluded that teacher nominations were neither effective nor efficient enough to be relied upon. In their research, Pegnato and Birch’s objective was to compare the relative efficiency and effectiveness of seven identification methods of locating gifted children in junior high schools. The methods used were teacher judgement, honour roll, creativity in arts or music, students council membership, superiority in mathematics, group intelligence test scores, and group achievement test scores. A rather low percentage of 45% (of the percentage of gifted students located through each method) for effectiveness and 27% (of the ratio between the total number of students each method referred for individual examination and the number of gifted found among those referred) for efficiency of teacher nomination was derived from their study. Therefore, they chose a definition of giftedness based on scores achieved by pupils on the Stanford-Binet IQ test, administered individually by an educational psychologist. This involved two stages of screening: the first by means of group tests of IQ and achievement, and the second by testing the pupils that have already been screened individually by a psychologist. Gallagher (1966) had also proposed a similar procedure for the identification of gifted students.

Denton and Postlethwaite (1985) noted that many highly creative pupils who would be overlooked by IQ tests also tended to be unpopular with teachers, and therefore might easily be overlooked if identification was to be based on teachers’ judgements. Freeman (1991) found teachers to be good judges of the examination potential of their pupils. However, they (the teachers) often judge future success based on present success, and have difficulty recognising gifted students when their potential was undeveloped (for example poor presentation, as in spasticity, emotional problems, or lack of encouragement at home).

Nevertheless, the work of Pegnato and Birch and other authors with similar IQ based definitions and methodology can be highly criticised mainly because they only depended on one small sub-set within the broader definition of giftedness. In fact, it appeared that their conclusion could only be used to identify students of the one sub-set of giftedness, which is basically defined in terms of high IQ. Pupils with other specific abilities are not included in this definition. An interesting review by Gagne (1994) on Pegnato and Birch’s (1959) data on their measures of effectiveness and efficiency of the teacher nomination method shed some light on the subject. It was concluded here that educators should stop citing their (Pegnato and Birch) study as proof of poor teacher judgement in identifying gifted students. Additionally, a different picture seemed to emerge in further research in this area. Most previous studies that showed disappointing results with regards to teacher nomination were due to the fact that these nominations in reality relied on teachers to define the concept of “giftedness” and therefore, students were nominated based on the teachers’ varied definitions. In addition, on many occasions teachers were restricted in the number of students they could nominate, thus limiting the possible effectiveness of nomination (Walton, 1961).

In a study on the effects of training teachers’ accuracy in the identification of gifted students, Gear (1978) found that the effectiveness of teacher selection was improved; in fact, the trained teachers were found to be twice as effective as were untrained teachers. According to Hopkins (1986, in Imison, et.al.), teachers appeared to be in a good position to assess the performance of students in various subjects. Their position enables them to devise tests, provide assignments, and observe students who are talented in specific areas.

Regardless of its limitations as pointed out by Martinson (1981), she indicated several reasons for teacher judgement to be a part of the screening process. The participation of teachers in the study and observation of characteristics of gifted students is seen as a valuable part of in-service training. When combined with other methods, teachers’ judgement increases the odds that children will not be overlooked for referral. She added that even though this is difficult to prove, teachers’ participation should increase interest in teacher awareness of gifted students and their educational needs.

On the subject of the reliability of teacher nomination, researchers should be prepared to accept that the involvement of the ordinary classroom teacher in identifying gifted pupils may or may not be reliable to a certain extent. Cutts and Moseley (1957) pointed out that the principle assessment tool in discovering bright students in a classroom should be systematic observation that is carefully guided so as to minimise halo effects, take into account relevant characteristics, and note general behaviour rather than critical incidents. This concern calls for a more structured, objective teacher identification procedures based on specific behavioural criteria.

The Use of Checklists in Teacher Nomination

The major dilemma faced in teacher nomination is to select an appropriate sample of students so as not to miss anyone who is gifted, but at the same time not to select too many who may not test as gifted. For this purpose, one way to have a higher accuracy rate for the screening is by the use of a general checklist with a list of common characteristics of gifted students. Checklists provide evidence about pupil characteristics to encourage teachers to look for appropriate clues.

Many checklists have been produced to guide educators to identify gifted students based on pupils’ characteristics (for instance by Laycock, 1957; Renzulli, Hartman and Callahan, 1971; Shields, 1973; Martinson, 1975). An appropriate step to take is to ensure that the checklists used for nominating students are standardised and guide teachers’ judgement. Several checklists have been constructed in response to calls for a more objective and structured method of teacher nomination. Renzulli, Hartman and Callahan (1971) provided a detailed report of attempts to validate the Scale for Rating Behavioural Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS), which is constructed on the basis of research and contains sub-scales. There is also a high correlation between ratings on these sub-scales and other objective measures of the relevant characteristics.

According to Clark (1979), before a checklist can be used effectively, the teachers should have an understanding of the clues to gifted behaviour. Clues to giftedness can be provided by researching and observing the student’s family history and cultural background, early physical and mental development, outstanding socio-emotional sensitivity, leadership qualities, versatility and achievement in academics, differences in the organisation of intellectual functions, or creative patterns of behaviour. Nevertheless, there is as yet no detailed analysis carried out on the effectiveness of any checklist.

A detailed review of literature on teacher judgement measures by Hoge and Cudmore (1986) had them conclude that there was very little empirical foundation for the negative evaluations associated with teacher nomination measures. In addition, more studies presently tend to support teacher judgement measures to identify gifted students. According to Borland (1978) teachers can improve their efficiency in selecting cognitively gifted students when a list of specific behaviours, as in a checklist, are given to them as a guide for rating or nominating criteria.

In conclusion, the use of teacher nomination is important in the identification of gifted students, as long as it is used cautiously alongside other methods of identification. Most studies that are critical to the use of teacher nomination seldom, if ever, provide teachers with an outline or with behavioural definitions of the qualities that should be looked for in the identification of gifted students (Callahan, 1981). Therefore, the use of a structured rating scale like the SRBCSS helps to reduce bias and is much higher in terms of validity in teacher nomination.

Identifying Gifted Students Based On Their Profiles

A very interesting method that can be employed in determining gifted students is by looking at their profiles and this can only be done by teachers. Based on the definition of giftedness today which looks at gifted students in a much broader perspective, determines that there are different types of gifted students, not only high achievers. Therefore, teachers could use a profile called ‘The Profiles of the Gifted and Talented’ developed by Betts and Neihart (1988). This profile was developed after several years of observations, interviews, and reviews of literature, and enables teachers to understand the cognitive, emotional and social needs of gifted students by looking closely at their feelings, behaviour, and needs. Gifted students are distinguished by six different profiles that describe and compare the needs, feelings, and behaviour of gifted children. The division of different types of gifted students enables one to see that gifted students come in various kinds, as opposed to the widely accepted stereotype gifted (the high-flyers and well adjusted). This may be of help especially for teacher nomination, as teachers are apparently sensitive to multiple intelligences if they are exposed to a sufficient range of information about their students (Guskin, Peng, and Simon, 1992). Hence, information on the types of gifted students that existed based on the profile would be able to help teachers nominate a wider range of students in the gifted circle, especially the atypically gifted.

The six types of giftedness includes the successful (Type 1), the challenging (Type 2), the underground (Type 3), the dropouts (Type 4), the double labelled (Type 5) and the autonomous learner (Type 6). The summary of each of the profile is briefly discussed below.

The Type 1’s are the most easily identifiable, and may account for up to about 90% of the identified gifted students in schools. They are the students who have learnt the system and are well adjusted to society with a generally high self-concepts. They are obedient, display appropriate behaviour, and are high achievers, therefore, loved by parents and teachers. However, they can also get bored at school and learn the system fast enough so as to use the minimum effort to get by. They are also dependent on the system, thus less creative and imaginative, and lack autonomy.

The Type 2 gifted are the divergently gifted, who possess high levels of creativity. They do not conform to the system and often have conflicts with teachers and parents. They get frustrated, as the school system does not recognise their abilities. They may be seen as disruptive in the classroom and often possess negative self-concepts, even though they are quite creative. This is the group of gifted students who are at risk of dropping out of schools for unhealthy activities, like getting involved in drugs or exhibiting delinquent behaviour.

The Type 3’s refers to gifted students who deny their talents or hide their giftedness in order to feel more included with a non-gifted peer group. They are generally middle school females, who are frequently insecure and anxious as their belonging need rise dramatically at that stage. Their changing needs often conflicts with the expectations of parents and teachers. These types appear to benefit from being accepted as they are at the time.

The Type 4 gifted are the angry and frustrated students whose needs have not been recognised for many years and they feel rejected in the system. They express themselves by being depressed or withdrawn and responding defensively. They are identified very late, therefore, they are bitter and resentful due to feelings of neglect and have very low self-esteem. For these students, counselling is highly recommended.

Students identified as Type 5 are gifted students who are physically or emotionally handicapped in some way, or have a learning disability. This group does not show behaviours of giftedness that can identify them in schools. They show signs of stress, frustration, rejection, helplessness, or isolation. They are also often impatient and critical with a low self-esteem. These students are easily ignored as they are seen as average. School systems seem to focus more on their weaknesses, and therefore fail to nurture their strengths. In a study by Lafrance (1994), teacher respondents showed an awareness of creative thinking characteristics in children who were gifted but were, however, unaware of creative thinking characteristics in children who were learning disabled. This shows that the Type 5 gifted students are at risk of not being identified at all.

Finally, the Type 6 gifted are the autonomous learners who have learnt to work effectively in the school system. Unlike Type 1, they do not work for the system, but rather make the system work for them. They are very successful, liked by parents, teachers and peers, and have a high self-concept with some leadership capacity within their surroundings. They accept themselves and are risk takers, which goes well with their independent and self-directed nature. They are also able to express their feelings, goals, and needs freely and appropriately (Betts & Neihart, 1988).

The reason for using this profile as a guideline to differentiate types of gifted students is to understand the different social and emotional needs of specified types in particular. This is very helpful for identification purposes. If teachers could use this profile as a guide when identifying gifted students in a classroom, they would probably not miss out the “at-risk” gifted, such as the challenging, the dropout, and the underground.

As the profile will be given out to teachers prior to identification, they are encouraged to use it as a theoretical base to identify gifted students as a whole. The application of the approach will provide deeper and greater understanding of gifted students.

Conclusion

The only way to get started in a nation-wide attempt to identify gifted students in a regular classroom is to train teachers to identify them. In the Malaysian classroom today, teachers still find it hard to accept students other than the high-achievers as gifted (Kaur, 2000).

In fact, teachers may feel threatened by the behaviour of a student profiled as challenging and dropout. Their reaction to these students may well be negative, for example to discourage questions being asked, especially with the creatively gifted. In fact, this is a common problem of gifted students, not only in Malaysia, but also in other cultures where teachers regard gifted students in classrooms as a threat. This may eventually lead to frustration and the gifted children would be encouraged to gradually withdraw into a world of their own.

In terms of neglect of gifted students in Malaysian schools, the group that is most neglected are the creatives, rather than the high achievers. The high achievers are gifted students with high achievement academically, therefore easily identifiable. The creatives do not do as well academically as the achievers, and are usually non-conformist, therefore quite unpopular with teachers. Hence, the creatively gifted is in more danger of being neglected in comparison to the achieving gifted. This suggests that in terms of the adaptation of the Malaysian gifted to school, the creatively gifted is more at risk of developing poor adaptation to the school environment compared to the achieving gifted.

Therefore, if teachers are exposed to the profiles of different types of gifted students in a classroom and the kind of treatment that is necessary to help them achieve their full potential, they would be able to help these students. This calls for some kind to proper training for all teachers to be able to identify different types of gifted students in a classroom, if any.

To conclude, Malaysia needs to start a gifted education program incorporated into the national school curriculum, just as what has been practised for the past many years for the other extreme, the slow learners. Just what do we do to get this started? Train the teachers. Expose them to the existence of students other than the high-achievers as gifted, and start giving them attention. Teachers play such an important role here. Otherwise, we would keep losing out in our attempts to produce many high-flyers, and keep producing high-scorers. Malaysia has a long way to go compared to her neighbours, but never too long. Why not start now?

Reference

Albert, R.S. (1975) Toward a behavioural definition of genius. American Psychologist, 30, 140-151.
Barbe, W.B. (1965) Psychology and Education of the Gifted. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Betts, G.T., & Neihart, M. (1988) Profiles of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32 (2), 248-253.
Callahan, C.M. (1981) Superior abilities. In Kaufmann, J.M. & Hallahan, D.P. Handbook of Special Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Clark, B. (1992) (4^th ed.) Growing Up Gifted. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Cutts, N.E., & Moseley, N (1957) Teaching the Bright and Gifted. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Denton, C. & Postlewaite, K. (1982) The Identification of More Able Pupils in Comprehensive Schools: Final Report Part 1 & 2. U.K.: Oxford Educational Research Group.
Gagne, F. (1994) Are teachers really poor talent detectors? Comments on Pegnato and Birch (1959) study of the effectiveness and efficiency of various identification techniques. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38 (3), 124-126.
Gallanger, J.J (1966) Research Summary on Gifted Child Education. Department of Program Development for Gifted Children, Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction: Illinois.
Galton, F. (1869) Hereditary Genius. New York: Macmillan.
Gear, G. (1975) Identification of the potentially gifted. In Callahan, C.M. (1981) Superior ability. In Kaufmann, J.M. & Hallahan, D.P. Handbook of Special Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Guskin, S.L., Peng, C-Y. J., & Simon, M. (1992) Do teachers react to “multiple intelligences”? Effects of teachers’ stereotypes on judgements and expectancies for students with diverse patterns of giftedness/talent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, (1), 32-37.
Hoge, R.D. & Cudmore, L. (1986) The use of teacher-judgement measures in the identification of gifted pupils. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2, 181-196.
Jacobs, J.C. (1971) Rorschach studies reveal possible misinterpretations of personality traits of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 16, 195-200.
Kaur, Inderbir (2000) Adaptation of Gifted Students to the System of Education in Malaysian Secondary Schools. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Cambridge, UK.
LaFrance, E.B. (1994) An insider’s perspective: Teachers observations of creative thinking in Exceptional Children. Roeper Review, 16 (4), 256-257.
Martinson, R.A (1981) The Identification of the Gifted and Talented. Reston, Virginia: The Council for Exceptional Children.
Marland, S.P. (1971) Education of the Gifted and talented. Report to the Congress of the US by the Commissioner of Education, Washington, D.C: US Government Printing Office.
Monks, F.J. & Boxtel, H.W. (1985) Gifted adolescent: A developmental perspective. In Freeman, J. (ed.) The Psychology of Gifted Children. Great Britain: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Pegnato, C.W. & Birch, J.W. (1959) Locating gifted children in junior high schools. Exceptional Children, 25 (7), 300-304.
Renzulli, J.S. (1978) What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184.
Renzulli, J.S., & Hartman, R.K., (1971) Scale for rating behavioural characteristics of superior students. Exceptional Children, 38, 243-248.
Renzulli, J.S., Reis, S.M., & Smith, L.H. (1981) The Revolving Door Identification Model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Walton, G. (1961) Identification of the intellectually gifted children in the public school kindergarten. In Callahan, C.M. Superior ability. In Kaufmann, J.M. & Hallahan, D.P. (1981) Handbook of Special Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Webb, J.T., & Kleine, P.A. (1993) Assessing gifted and talented children. In J. Culbertson, & D. Willis (Eds.), Testing Young Children. (383-407) Austin, TX, Pro-Ed.