Journal of Gifted/Talented Education (영재교육연구)

The Korean Society for the Gifted (한국영재학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Analysis of Elementary School Teachers' Identification Criteria and Nominations of Gifted Students

관찰추천 과정에서 초등학교 교사가 인식하는 영재학생 판별기준과 추천요인 분석

  • Received : 2013.09.23
  • Accepted : 2013.10.26
  • Published : 2013.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

What are the identification criteria elementary school teachers prefer? What are the characteristics of students that teachers consider when nominating them to gifted programs? Will those criteria of identification/nomination differ as to teacher experiences related to gifted education or teacher involvement in the professional development? This study aims to find the answer to these questions. For this purpose, a total of 511 elementary school teachers with a varying degree of experiences with gifted education were recruited from 23 schools in 11 school districts in Seoul. The results show that teachers generally preferred task commitment, creativity, curiosity, and domain specific talents as criteria for identifying gifted students, while perceiving achievement records, total grades, leadership, and general intelligence as less important. Teachers experienced in gifted education or having been involved in professional development perceived curiosity, task commitment, and creativity as more important than teachers without such experiences. The importance-performance analysis of identification criteria indicates that teachers reported high importance on task commitment, curiosity, and creativity, but those factors were less considered in actual nomination. On the contrary, teachers reported low importance on quick learning and achievement(total grades, subject grades), but those were highly considered in nomination. A similar pattern was found in both experienced and nonexperienced teachers although the importance-performance gap was higher for the latter. Implications for teacher nominations and professional development were discussed.

초등학교 교사가 중요하다고 인식하는 영재판별의 기준은 무엇일까? 그리고 실제로 영재교육 대상자를 관찰/추천할 때 고려하는 학생의 행동특성은 무엇일까? 이러한 판별 및 추천기준은 교사의 영재교육관련 경험이나 인식수준에 따라 달라질까? 이 연구는 이러한 질문에 대한 해답을 구하고자 시도되었다. 연구를 위해 서울시 11개 교육지원청 소속 초등학교에서 3~6학년을 담당하는 511명의 교사들이 설문에 참여하였다. 분석 결과, 연구에 참여한 전체 초등학교 교사들은 영재판별 기준으로 과제집착력, 창의성, 호기심, 특수영역의 재능 순으로 중요하다고 인식한 반면, 수상실적, 전체학업성적, 리더십, 일반지능의 순으로 중요하지 않다고 인식하는 것으로 나타났다. 영재교육관련 경험이 있거나 인식수준이 높은 교사들은 그렇지 않은 교사들보다 호기심, 과제집착력 등의 동기적 특성과 창의성을 영재판별의 기준으로 더 중요하게 간주하는 것으로 나타났다. 판별기준의 중요도 인식과 실제 학생추천 시 고려도 간의 차이검증 결과, 호기심, 과제집착력 등의 동기적 특성과 특수재능, 창의성 등의 인지적 특성은 영재판별 기준으로 중요하게 인식하는 반면, 실제 추천 시 고려한 정도는 상대적으로 낮았다. 반면, 리더십, 학습능력, 학업성취도, 수상실적은 중요도보다 고려도가 더 높게 나타났다. 판별기준의 중요도-고려도 간 괴리는 영재교육관련 경험자와 무경험자 모두 유사한 패턴을 보여주었지만, 전문성이 부족한 무경험자에게서 더 크게 나타났다. 연구결과는 교사들로 하여금 영재들이 가질 수 있는 다양한 행동특성 프로파일에 대한 인식을 강화하고 상대적으로 관찰이 용이한 특성(학업성취 등)에 대한 과잉 선호를 경계하도록 할 필요성을 제기한다.

Keywords

References

  1. 고민석, 박병태 (2011). 영재관찰추천 과정에서 담임교사의 영재교육전문성 인식수준에 따른 영재판별의 차이. 영재교육연구, 21(2), 427-447.
  2. 류지영 (2010). 관찰 추천을 통한 영재판별에 대한 영재담당교사들의 인식과 태도. 한국교원교육연구, 27(2), 159-178.
  3. 박민정, 전동렬 (2008). 과학 영재교육 대상자 선발방법으로서 교사 추천제 분석: 학생의 과학적 태도, 탐구력, 사고력, 문제해결력, 창의성을 중심으로. 한국과학교육학회지, 28(2), 111-119.
  4. 정경아, 정해숙, 권오남 (2004). 중등학생의 수학에서의 성별 격차 및 해소 방안 연구. 한국여성개발원.
  5. 조선미 (2011). 영재교육대상자 교사추천과정에서의 영재행동평정척도의 활용. 영재와 영재교육, 10(2), 5-30.
  6. 하주현 (2003). 창의적 사고와 문제발견 사고의 연령에 따른 차이. 교육심리연구, 17(1), 315-331.
  7. Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (2000). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability at age 13: Their status 20 years later. Psychological Sciences, 11(6), 474-480. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00291
  8. Birch, J. W. (1984). Is any identification procedure necessary? Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 157-161. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628402800404
  9. Borland, J. H. (1978). Teacher identification of the gifted: A new look. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2, 22-32.
  10. Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potential gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 164-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800402
  11. Buss, T. V., Dahme, G., Wagner, H., & Wieczerkowski, W. (1986). Factors underlying teacher perceptions of highly gifted students: A cross-cultural study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 903-915. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448604600410
  12. Copenhaver, R. W., & McIntyre, D. J. (1992). Teachers' perceptions of gifted students. Roeper Review, 14(3), 151-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199209553411
  13. Davis, G., & Rimm, S. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
  14. Endepohls-Ulpe, M., & Ruf, H. (2005). Primary school teachers' criteria for the identification of gifted pupils. High Ability Studies, 16(2), 219-228.
  15. Feldhusen, J. F., & Goh, B. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An integrative review of theory, research, and development. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 231-247. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0803_3
  16. Fox, L. H., Benbow, C. P., & Perkins, S. (1983). An accelerated mathematics program for girls: A longitudinal evaluation. In C. P. Benbow & J. Stanley (Eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development (pp. 113-131). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  17. Gagne, F. (1993). Sex differences in the aptitude and talents of children as judged by peers and teachers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629303700204
  18. Gagne, F. (1994). Are teachers really poor detectors? Comments on Pegnato and Birch's (1959) study of the effectiveness and efficiency of various identification techniques. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 124-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800305
  19. Gainous, E. C. (1985). Effects of the training program, Identification of the Potentially Gifted, on teachers' accuracy in the identification of intellectually gifted children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 1140A.
  20. Gear, G. H. (1978). Effects of training on teachers' accuracy in the identification of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 90-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698627802200121
  21. Guskin, S. L., Peng, C. J., & Majd-Jabbari, M. (1988). Teachers' perceptions of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 216-221. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628803200106
  22. Guskin, S. L., Peng, C. J., & Simon, M. (1992). Do teachers react to "multiple intelligences"? Effects of teachers' stereotypes on judgments and expectancies for students with diverse patterns of giftedness/talent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 78-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629203600205
  23. Hany, E. A. (1995). Teachers' cognitive processes of identifying gifted students. In M. K. Katzko & F. J. Monks (Eds.), Nurturing talent: Individual needs and social ability (pp. 184-198). Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
  24. Heller, K. A., Perleth, C., & Lim, T. K. (2005). The Munich model of giftedness designed to identify and promote gifted students. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 172-197). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Hoge, R. D., & Cudmore, L. (1986). The use of teacher-judgment measures in the identification of gifted pupils. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2, 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(86)90016-8
  26. Hunsaker, S. L. (1994). Creativity as a characteristic of giftedness: Teachers see it, then don't. Roeper Review, 17(1), 11-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199409553610
  27. Hunsaker, S. L., Finley, V. S., & Frank, E. L. (1997). An analysis of teacher nominations and student performance in gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 19-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629704100203
  28. Johnsen, S. K. (2008). Identifying gifted and talented learners. In F. A. Karnes & K. R. Stephens (Eds.), Achieving excellence: Educating the gifted and talented (pp. 135-153). NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
  29. Karnes, F. A., & Koch, S. F. (1985). State definitions of the gifted and talented: An update and analysis. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 8(4), 285-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235328500800405
  30. Marland, S. P. (1971). Education of gifted and talented. Vol. 1. Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
  31. McBee, M. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 103-111. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2006-686
  32. McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2007). What predicts teachers' attitudes toward the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 246-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302719
  33. Neber, J. (2004). Teacher identification of students for gifted programs: Nominations to a summer school for highly-gifted students. Psychology Science, 46, 348-362.
  34. Neumeister, K. L. S., Adams, C. M., Pierce, R. L., Cassady, J. C., & Dixon, F. A. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers' perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 479-499. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2007-503
  35. Pegnato, C. W., & Birch, J. W. (1959). Locating gifted children in junior high schools: A comparison of methods. Exceptional Children, 25, 300-304. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440295902500702
  36. Pfeiffer, S. I. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for students who are gifted: What the experts say. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 161-169. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700207
  37. Pfeiffer, S. I., & Jarosewich, I. (2003). Gifted Rating Scales. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
  38. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes gifedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184.
  39. Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., Hartman, R. K., & Westberg, K. L. (1997). Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  40. Schack, G. D., & Starko, A. J. (1990). Identification of gifted students: An analysis of criteria preferred by preservice teachers, classroom teachers, and teachers of the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(4), 346-363. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329001300405
  41. Siegle, D., & Powell, T. (2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800103
  42. Siegle, D., Moroe, M., Mann, R. L., & Wilson, H. E. (2010). Factors that influence in-service and preservice teachers'nominations of students for gifted and talented programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(3), 337-360. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321003300303
  43. Ziegler, A., & Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 3-21). Amsterdam: Elsevier.