Identification checklist
From observations in the classrooms, it was found that mathematically gifted children are often active and curious in their learning, persistent and innovative in their efforts, and flexible and fast in grasping complex and abstract mathematical concepts. Hence as behavioural indicators, gifted students often exhibit one or more of the following traits:
- Ability to think and work abstractly in flexible and creative ways
- Ability to see mathematical patterns and relationships
- Ability to generalize mathematical material
- Quickness in learning, understanding and applying mathematical ideas
- Ability to transfer learning to new untaught mathematical situations
- Flexibility of mental processes - ability to switch rapidly from one operation to another
- Ability to remember generalized relations and methods of solving specific problems
- Driven to find the easiest, clearest, and most economical ways to solve problems
Assessment instruments
According to Sternberg (2007), different cultures have different conceptions of what it means to be gifted; and in identifying children to be gifted, the cultural context in which the children grow up in is often ignored. It is important to recognize that definitions of giftedness should be more inclusive, recognizing ability areas instead of focusing only on academic ability.
The use of performance-based assessments has been on the rise as advocates cite many advantages of using these instruments; such as the assessment of higher order skills, reduction of the gap between testing and instruction, coverage of broad areas of intelligence, and assessment of students in life-like and complex situations (Maker, 1993; O’Neil, 1992).
For approaches to testing procedures, the dynamic approach is suitable as this approach examines how the student functions within an environment and how his learning needs would be matched with an appropriate prescription for instruction.
For individually administered intelligence test, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence 5 Factor test is appropriate as it examines fluid reasoning (solving novel problems), quantitative reasoning (different dimensions of mathematical thinking), knowledge (measure acquisition of general information and oral production of explanations), visual spatial processing (measure components of visualization, spatial reasoning, assembling puzzle-like forms) and working memory (process of temporarily storing and manipulating information in short-term memory). This test would have to administered by a psychologist and be given under standardized procedures and conditions and the testing time ranges from thirty to ninety minutes.
For culturally unbiased testing, the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM) is recommended as it is a test of nonverbal ability designed to be equally effective with English and non-English-speaking populations. The RSPM comprises of 60 problems (divided into 5 sets of 12 items each) and consists of presenting a series of figures, each with a missing piece. Below each figure are six to eight alternative pieces, but only one completes the figure. Both the reliability and validity of RSPM are reasonably high. This test would have to administered by a psychologist and be given under standardized procedures and conditions and the testing time ranges from thirty-five to forty-five minutes.
For academic evaluation, one tool to measure academic achievement in math content, operations and applications would be the Key Math Diagnostic Arithmetic Test. This test would have to administered by a special education teacher and be given under standardized procedures and conditions and the testing time ranges from thirty to forty-five minutes. The use of a two-tiered model (Lee, Matthews & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2008) is also encouraged as it looks at both the performance on a grade-level achievement test and an above-level testing.
The use of performance-based assessments has been on the rise as advocates cite many advantages of using these instruments; such as the assessment of higher order skills, reduction of the gap between testing and instruction, coverage of broad areas of intelligence, and assessment of students in life-like and complex situations (Maker, 1993; O’Neil, 1992).
For approaches to testing procedures, the dynamic approach is suitable as this approach examines how the student functions within an environment and how his learning needs would be matched with an appropriate prescription for instruction.
For individually administered intelligence test, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence 5 Factor test is appropriate as it examines fluid reasoning (solving novel problems), quantitative reasoning (different dimensions of mathematical thinking), knowledge (measure acquisition of general information and oral production of explanations), visual spatial processing (measure components of visualization, spatial reasoning, assembling puzzle-like forms) and working memory (process of temporarily storing and manipulating information in short-term memory). This test would have to administered by a psychologist and be given under standardized procedures and conditions and the testing time ranges from thirty to ninety minutes.
For culturally unbiased testing, the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM) is recommended as it is a test of nonverbal ability designed to be equally effective with English and non-English-speaking populations. The RSPM comprises of 60 problems (divided into 5 sets of 12 items each) and consists of presenting a series of figures, each with a missing piece. Below each figure are six to eight alternative pieces, but only one completes the figure. Both the reliability and validity of RSPM are reasonably high. This test would have to administered by a psychologist and be given under standardized procedures and conditions and the testing time ranges from thirty-five to forty-five minutes.
For academic evaluation, one tool to measure academic achievement in math content, operations and applications would be the Key Math Diagnostic Arithmetic Test. This test would have to administered by a special education teacher and be given under standardized procedures and conditions and the testing time ranges from thirty to forty-five minutes. The use of a two-tiered model (Lee, Matthews & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2008) is also encouraged as it looks at both the performance on a grade-level achievement test and an above-level testing.
