Assessment Journal Questions 1: What Is The Difference Betwe

Assessment Journal Questions1 What Is The Difference Between The Foll

1. What is the difference between the following tests? Explain and give an example. Which would be best for gifted student identification? a. Normative vs. Criterion b. Ability vs. Achievement c. Group vs. Individual

2. What is geographical giftedness? Why does it occur?

3. What are 3 problems or areas for improvement with this district’s plan to identify gifted students? Apple District uses the CogAT to identify gifted students for both their academic and arts gifted programs. Students with a 125 or above are placed in both programs. Students are only given the CogAT in 3rd grade. 4. Jewel District uses the ISTEP to identify gifted students. What is the main issue with that test?

Other Aspects 1. Underachievement: Why do gifted students underachieve? What can we do about it? 2. Perfectionism: What are the forms? What can we do? 3. Be able to read a case study of a student. Identify characteristics and create a few recommendations.

Paper For Above instruction

Understanding the nuances of assessing giftedness is central to developing effective identification strategies and providing appropriate educational support. The distinctions among various tests and concepts, such as normative versus criterion-referenced assessments, ability versus achievement tests, and group versus individual testing, shape the way educators identify and serve gifted learners. Recognizing these differences helps ensure that assessments accurately capture a student's potential and strengths.

The difference between normative and criterion-referenced tests is fundamental. Normative tests compare a student's performance to a normative sample, providing percentile ranks and standardized scores, which are useful for benchmarking students against peers. For example, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale is a normative assessment that helps identify students with high IQs who may qualify for gifted programs. Conversely, criterion-referenced tests measure a student's mastery of specific content or skills against predefined standards, independent of other students’ performances. An example is a state mathematics proficiency exam, which may highlight a student’s mastery level but not their relative standing among peers. For gifted identification, normative tests like the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) are typically more appropriate because they help locate students with exceptional cognitive potential compared to their peers.

Ability versus achievement tests are also distinct. Ability tests assess a student's innate potential, such as reasoning and problem-solving skills, while achievement tests evaluate learned knowledge and skills. Ability tests like the Raven’s Progressive Matrices gauge reasoning capacity, essential for identifying giftedness. Achievement tests, such as standardized reading and math tests, demonstrate mastery of content but may not effectively identify innate talent, especially if a student's background has limited exposure to certain content areas.

Group versus individual assessments also have their roles. Group testing, like the CogAT administered in large classrooms, allows for economical screening of multiple students simultaneously, helping to identify potential giftedness quickly. However, individual assessments, such as clinical interviews or one-on-one IQ testing, provide deeper insights into a student's cognitive abilities, reducing the influence of test anxiety or testing conditions. For gifted identification, initial group testing can be supplemented by individual assessments to confirm high-potential students and ensure equitable evaluation.

Geographical giftedness refers to the phenomenon where students from specific locations or regions demonstrate higher levels of giftedness due to various factors such as enriched local resources, cultural emphasis on education, or socioeconomic status. This form of giftedness occurs because certain communities provide more opportunities for intellectual development, access to quality education, extracurricular activities, or stimulation conducive to giftedness. For example, students in affluent districts with well-funded schools may outperform peers due to advanced curricula, enrichment programs, or parental support, highlighting the importance of equitable resource distribution.

Addressing issues related to district identification plans is crucial for equitable access to gifted programs. In Apple District’s case, reliance solely on the CogAT to identify gifted students, with a cutoff score of 125, might overlook talented students who perform well on other measures or excel in areas not captured by the CogAT. Limiting testing to third grade misses early identification opportunities and may fail to recognize students whose abilities develop later. Furthermore, placing students in both programs based solely on this score neglects the diversity of giftedness, such as artistic or creative talents, which standardized cognitive tests may not measure effectively.

Similarly, Jewel District’s dependence on the ISTEP to identify gifted students presents issues because standardized achievement tests primarily measure academic content mastery, often emphasizing rote memorization and test-taking skills rather than innate ability or creative potential. This approach risks excluding students who are gifted but do not perform well on standardized achievement tests due to test anxiety, language barriers, or socio-economic factors. Therefore, alternative or supplementary measures, including ability assessments and portfolios of creative work, are recommended to ensure a more comprehensive identification process.

Underachievement among gifted students is a persistent challenge. Despite their potential, some students do not perform up to expectations, often due to motivational issues, lack of appropriately challenging curriculum, social-emotional factors, or lack of engagement. Motivation theories suggest that underachievement can stem from a mismatch between a student's interests and the curriculum, or from inadequate support structures. To combat this, educators can implement differentiated instruction, offer enrichment opportunities, foster intrinsic motivation through choice and relevance, and support socio-emotional development to build resilience and self-confidence.

Perfectionism, often considered a double-edged sword, manifests in two primary forms: adaptive and maladaptive. Adaptive perfectionism drives students to achieve high standards and persist despite difficulties, while maladaptive perfectionism involves excessive concern over mistakes, fear of failure, and procrastination. Perfectionism can lead to stress, anxiety, and burnout among gifted students, impairing their social and emotional well-being. Strategies to address perfectionism include teaching growth mindset principles, emphasizing effort and learning over flawless performance, and promoting self-compassion. Creating classroom environments that value progress and effort helps reduce undue pressure on gifted students to be perfect.

A comprehensive understanding of student case studies involves analyzing behavioral, emotional, and academic characteristics. For instance, a gifted student who displays asynchronous development—being academically advanced but emotionally delayed—may require social skills coaching. In contrast, a student exhibiting perfectionism and anxiety might benefit from counseling and stress management strategies. Tailored recommendations should consider the student’s strengths, challenges, interests, and motivational factors. Implementing individualized learning plans and fostering a supportive environment are essential steps in nurturing gifted learners and addressing their unique needs.

References

• Assouline, S. G., & Nichols, C. (2006). The Psychology of Giftedness and Creativity. Roeper Review, 28(4), 242-247.
• Borland, J. H. (2005). Gifted students and underachievement: What do we know? Roeper Review, 28(4), 183–189.
• Feldman, D. H. (2003). Nature’s Gambit: Cognitive Giftedness and the Problem of Overexcitability. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Exceptionally Gifted Students: Their Needs and Their Potential. Gifted Education International, 19(2-3), 85-97.
• Lambert, N. M., & McQueen, C. A. (2015). The Role of Identification and Curriculum in Gifted Education. Journal of Advanced Academics, 26(3), 180-204.
• Neihart, M. (2007). Underachievement and Gifted Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 259–269.
• Renzulli, J. S. (2012). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A How-to Guide for Educational Excellence. Creative Learning Press.
• Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted Education: A Proposed Direction Forward Based on Psychological Science. Psychology Review, 118(1), 105-131.
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. ASCD.
• Torres, A. R., & Arnott, S. (2010). Addressing Perfectionism in Gifted Students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 22(3), 142-154.