Article
| Title: | Shoda pedagogické nominace a skupinového testu inteligence při skríningu intelektového nadání : sonda do problematiky |
| Variant title: | Agreement between teacher nomination and group-administered intelligence testing in the process of intellectual giftedness screening : a pilot study |
| Author: | |
| Source document: | Studia paedagogica. 2020, vol. 25, iss. 3, pp. [131]-151 |
| Extent: | [131]-151 |
| ISSN: | 1803-7437 (print); 2336-4521 (online) |
| DOI: | 10.5817/SP2020-3-5 |
| Type: | Article (Czech) |
| Stable URL: | http://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/142861 |
| License: |
PDF
Abstract(s):
Cílem studie je provést sondu do procesu skríningu intelektového nadání žáků v běžné základní škole. Předmětem této sondy je srovnat dva typy postupů pro identifikaci potenciálně intelektově nadaných žáků – nominace pedagogů (včetně seřazení žáků dle míry domnělého nadání) a výsledků skupinově administrovaného testu fluidní inteligence (CFT 20-R). Současně byla zhodnocena délka praxe pedagogů jakožto faktoru, který může ovlivňovat souvislost nominace učitele a výsledků inteligenčního testu. Výzkumu se zúčastnilo 6 třídních učitelů vybrané základní školy, kteří posuzovali celkem 106 žáků ze čtvrtých a pátých tříd. Míra shody mezi oběma postupy je spíše nízká a není ovlivněna délkou praxe zapojených pedagogů. Byl však nalezen slabý vztah mezi pořadím vybraných žáků stanoveným pedagogem v rámci nominace a fluidní inteligencí měřenou testem. Tato z jištění a jejich možné příčiny jsou diskutovány společně s doporučeními pro další směřování v rámci identifikace nadaných dětí a s ním souvisejícím vzděláváním pedagogů.
The aim of this pilot study was to describe the process of screening children for intellectual giftedness in a Czech school. The main topic of this study was to compare two procedures for identifying gifted pupils: teacher nomination (including the ranking of children by their assumed level of giftedness) and the results of a groupadministered fluid intelligence test (CFT 20-R). In addition, the length of the teachers' experience was considered as a factor that might influence the relationship between teacher nominations and CFT 20-R results. The sample consisted of 6 form teachers from a selected primary school who evaluated 106 pupils from the 4th and 5th grades. The level of agreement between the two procedures was quite low and was not influenced by the length of experience in our sample of teachers. However, our study found a weak relationship between the teachers' ranking of nominated pupils and the pupils' fluid intelligence as measured by the test. The discussion section of this paper examines these findings and gives possible recommendations for future directions regarding the identification of giftedness and related training of teachers.
The aim of this pilot study was to describe the process of screening children for intellectual giftedness in a Czech school. The main topic of this study was to compare two procedures for identifying gifted pupils: teacher nomination (including the ranking of children by their assumed level of giftedness) and the results of a groupadministered fluid intelligence test (CFT 20-R). In addition, the length of the teachers' experience was considered as a factor that might influence the relationship between teacher nominations and CFT 20-R results. The sample consisted of 6 form teachers from a selected primary school who evaluated 106 pupils from the 4th and 5th grades. The level of agreement between the two procedures was quite low and was not influenced by the length of experience in our sample of teachers. However, our study found a weak relationship between the teachers' ranking of nominated pupils and the pupils' fluid intelligence as measured by the test. The discussion section of this paper examines these findings and gives possible recommendations for future directions regarding the identification of giftedness and related training of teachers.
Keywords:
intelektově nadaní žáci; identifikace; učitelé; délka praxe; fluidní inteligence
intellectually gifted pupils; identification; teachers; length of experience; fluid intelligence
intellectually gifted pupils; identification; teachers; length of experience; fluid intelligence
Note:
Studie byla podpořena v rámci Specifického výzkumu MUNI/A/1137/2019 Fakulty sociálních studií Masarykovy univerzity.
References:
[1] Acar, S., Sen, S., & Cayirdag, N. (2016). Consistency of the performance and nonperformance methods in gifted identification: A multilevel meta-analytic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216634438 | DOI 10.1177/0016986216634438
[2] Baudson, T. G., & Preckel, F. (2016). Teachers' conceptions of gifted and average-ability students on achievement-relevant dimensions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216647115 | DOI 10.1177/0016986216647115
[3] Benson, N. F., & Kranzler, J. H. (2017). Another look at the construct validity of the gifted rating scales: Preschool/kindergarten and school forms. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(8), 782–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282917710377 | DOI 10.1177/0734282917710377
[4] Carman, C. A. (2011). Stereotypes of giftedness in current and future educators. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(5), 790–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353211417340 | DOI 10.1177/0162353211417340
[5] Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 | DOI 10.1177/001316446002000104
[6] Čavojská, M., & Šedá, S. (2010). Vyhledáváme rozumově nadané žáky, krok za krokem s nadaným žákem: Metodická příručka. Výzkumný ústav pedagogický.
[7] Česká školní inspekce. (2016). Tematická zpráva – Vzdělávání nadaných, talentovaných a mimořádně nadaných dětí a žáků. ČŠI. https://www.csicr.cz/cz/Aktuality/Tematicka-zprava-Vzdelavani-nadanych,-talentovanych
[8] Dai, D. Y. (2018). A history of giftedness: Paradigms and paradoxes. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children. Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (2nd ed., s. 1–14). Springer.
[9] Demaray, M. K., & Elliot, S. N. (1998). Teachers' judgments of students' academic functioning: A comparison of actual and predicted performances. School Psychology Quarterly, 13(1), 8–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088969 | DOI 10.1037/h0088969
[10] Dočkal, V. (2016). Diagnostika nadania v teórii, vo výskume a v praxi. Svět nadání, 5(1), 12–22.
[11] Endepohls-Ulpe, M., & Ruf, H. (2006). Primary school teachers' criteria for the identification of gifted pupils. High Ability Studies, 16(2), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130600618140 | DOI 10.1080/13598130600618140
[12] Fajmonová, V., Hönigová, S., Urbánek, T., & Širůček, J. (2015). CFT 20-R – Cattellův test fluidní inteligence. Hogrefe – Testcentrum.
[13] Foreman, J. L., & Gubbins, E. J. (2015). Teachers see what ability scores cannot: Predicting student performance with challenging mathematics. Journal of Advanced Academics, 26(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14552279 | DOI 10.1177/1932202X14552279
[14] Freeman, J., & Josepsson, B. (2002). A gifted programme in Iceland and its effects. High Ability Studies, 13(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130220132299 | DOI 10.1080/13598130220132299
[15] Gagné, F. (1994). Are teachers really poor talent detectors? Comments on Pegnato and Birch's (1959) study of the effectiveness and efficiency of various identification techniques. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 124–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800305 | DOI 10.1177/001698629403800305
[16] Gagné, F. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In R. J. Stern-berg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., s. 98–120). Cambridge University Press.
[17] Gear, G. H. (1976). Accuracy of teacher judgment in identifying intellectually gifted children: A review of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20(4), 478–489. https://doi.org/doi:10.1177/001698627602000416 | DOI 10.1177/001698627602000416
[18] Gentry, M., & Mann, R. L. (2008). Total school cluster grouping & differentiation: A comprehensive, research-based plan for raising student achievement & improving teacher practices. Creative Learning Press.
[19] Gross, M. U. M. (1997). Changing teacher attitudes towards gifted children: An early and essential step. In J. Chan, R. Li, & J. Spinks (Eds.), Maximizing potential: Lengthening and strengthe-ning our stride (s. 3–22). The University of Hong Kong Social Sciences Research Centre.
[20] Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800304 | DOI 10.1177/001698629403800304
[21] Havigerová, J. M. (2013). Vyhledávání nadaných dětí v předškolním věku: Škála charakteristik nadání a její adaptace na české podmínky. Grada Publishing.
[22] Havigerová, J. M., Haviger, J., & Juklová, K. (2013). Škála charakteristik nadání pro předškolní děti – Shody a rozpory v posuzování nadání předškoláků mezi učitelkami MŠ a rodiči. e-Pedagogium, 13(3), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.5507/epd.2013.033 | DOI 10.5507/epd.2013.033
[23] Hříbková, L., Nejedlý, P., & Zhouf, J. (2013). IDENA – Posuzovací škály a didaktické testy k vyhledávání nadaných žáků. Národní ústav pro vzdělávání.
[24] Hunsaker, S. L. (1994). Creativity as a characteristic of giftedness: Teachers see it, then they don't. Roeper Review, 17(1), 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199409553610 | DOI 10.1080/02783199409553610
[25] Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S. (1998). Teachers' ability to estimate item difficulty: A test of assumptions in the Angoff standard setting method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1998.tb00528.x | DOI 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1998.tb00528.x
[26] Jabůrek, M. (2014). Přehled českých a zahraničních posuzovacích škál pro identifikaci nadání u dětí předškolního a školního věku. Svět nadání, 3(1), 18–36.
[27] Jacobs, J. C. (1971). Effectiveness of teacher and parent identification of gifted children as a function of school level. Psychology in the Schools, 8(2), 140–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(197104)8:2<140::AID-PITS2310080210>3.0.CO;2-K | DOI 10.1002/1520-6807(197104)8:2<140::AID-PITS2310080210>3.0.CO;2-K
[28] Johnson, A. B., Vickers, L., & Price, R. (1995). Teaching gifted children: A summer institute for regular classroom teacher. Education, 105(2), 193–200.
[29] Kaufman, S. B., Reynolds, M. R., Liu, X., Kaufman, A. S., & McGrew, K. S. (2012). Are cognitive g and academic achievement g one and the same g? An exploration on the Woodcock–Johnson and Kaufman tests. Intelligence, 40(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.01.009 | DOI 10.1016/j.intell.2012.01.009
[30] Kornmann, J., Zettler, I., Kammerer, Y., Gerjets, P., & Trautwein, U. (2015). What characterizes children nominated as gifted by teachers? A closer consideration of working memory and intelligence. High Ability Studies, 26(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1033513 | DOI 10.1080/13598139.2015.1033513
[31] Kronborg, L., & Plunkett, M. (2013). Responding to professional learning: How effective teachers differentiate teaching and learning strategies to engage highly able adolescents. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 22(2), 52–63.
[32] Kvist, A. V., & Gustafsson, J. E. (2008). The relation between fluid intelligence and the general factor as a function of cultural background: A test of Cattell's Investment theory. Intelligence, 36(5), 422–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.08.004 | DOI 10.1016/j.intell.2007.08.004
[33] Machts, N., Kaiser, J., Schmidt, F. T. C., & Möller, J. (2016). Accuracy of teachers' judgments of students' cognitive abilities: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 19, 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.06.003 | DOI 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.06.003
[34] Machů, E. (2010). Nadaný žák. Paido.
[35] McBee, M. (2010). Examining the probability of identification for gifted programs for students in Georgia elementary schools: A multilevel path analysis study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210377927 | DOI 10.1177/0016986210377927
[36] McClain, M. C., & Pfeiffer, S. (2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28(1), 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2012.643757 | DOI 10.1080/15377903.2012.643757
[37] McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2007). What predicts teachers' attitudes toward the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302719 | DOI 10.1177/0016986207302719
[38] Mönks, F. J., & Katzko, M. W. (2005). Giftedness and gifted education. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., s. 187–201). Cambridge University Press.
[39] Národní ústav pro vzdělávání. (2018). Standard komplexní diagnostiky mimořádného (intelektového) nadání. http://www.nuv.cz/uploads/rovne_prilezitosti_ve_vzdelavani/nadani/diagnostika/standard_diagnostiky_mn_2018_12_06.pdf
[40] National Association for Gifted Children. (2015). 2014–2015 – State of the States in gifted education: Policy and practice data. NAGC. http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/key%20reports/2014-2015%20State%20of%20the%20States%20%28final%29.pdf
[41] 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 | DOI 10.4219/jeg-2007-503
[42] Pegnato, C. W., & Birch, J. W. (1959). Locating gifted children in junior high schools – a comparison of methods. Exceptional Children, 25(7), 300–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440295902500702 | DOI 10.1177/001440295902500702
[43] Pfeiffer, S. I. (2001). Professional psychology and the gifted: Emerging practice opportunities. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32(2), 175–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.32.2.175 | DOI 10.1037/0735-7028.32.2.175
[44] Portešová, Š., Budíková, M., & Koutková, H. (2008). Postoje českých učitelů ke vzdělávání mimořádně nadaných žáků. Psychologia a patopsychologia dieťaťa, 42(3) 229–251.
[45] Reams, R., Chamrad, D., & Robinson, N. M. (1990). The race is not necessarily to the swift: Validity of WISC-R bonus points for speed. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(3), 108–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629003400304 | DOI 10.1177/001698629003400304
[46] Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring definition of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., s. 246–280). Cambridge University Press.
[47] Renzulli, J. S., & Delcourt, M. (1986). The legacy and logic of research on the identification of gifted persons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628603000104 | DOI 10.1177/001698628603000104
[48] 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. Creative Learning Press.
[49] Rost, D. H., & Hanses, P. (1997). Wer nichts leistet, ist nicht begabt? Zur Identifikation hochbegabter Underachiever durch Lehrkräfte. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 29(2), 167–177.
[50] Rothenbusch, S., Voss, T., Golle, J., & Zettler, I. (2018). Linking teacher and parent ratings of teacher-nominated gifted elementary school students to each other and to school grades. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 230–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752100 | DOI 10.1177/0016986217752100
[51] Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2018). The cattell-horn-carroll theory of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & E. M. McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (4th ed., s. 73–163). The Guilford Press.
[52] Siegle, D. (2001). Overcoming bias in gifted and talented referrals. Gifted and Talented Commu-nicator, 32(3), 22–25.
[53] Siegle, D., & Powell, T. (2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800103 | DOI 10.1177/001698620404800103
[54] Silverman, L. K. (1993). Characteristics of giftedness scale. Gifted Development Center.
[55] Silverman, L. K. (2009). The measurement of giftedness. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (s. 947–970). Springer.
[56] Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. (Eds.). (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
[57] Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, S. B. (2018). Theories and conceptions of giftedness. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (2nd ed., s. 29–47). Springer.
[58] Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056 | DOI 10.1177/1529100611418056
[59] Südkamp, A., Kaiser, J., & Möller, J. (2012). Accuracy of teachers' judgments of students' academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027627 | DOI 10.1037/a0027627
[60] Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Giftedness: A psychosocial approach. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (s. 21–252). Cambridge University Press.
[61] Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford University Press.
[62] VandenBos, G. (2007). APA dictionary of psychology. American Psychological Association.
[63] Vyhláška č. 27/2016 Sb., o vzdělávání žáků se speciálními vzdělávacími potřebami a žáků nadaných, ve znění účinném od 1. 1. 2018. (2018). http://www.msmt.cz/dokumenty-3/vyhlaska-c-27-2016-sb-o-vzdelavani-zaku-se-specialnimi-2
[64] Worrell, F. C., & Erwin, J. O. (2011). Best practices in identifying students for gifted and talented education programs. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(4), 319–340. ttps://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2011.615817 | DOI 10.1080/15377903.2011.615817
