Identifying gifted and talented students in Design and Technology

1. Identifying gifted and talented students in Design and Technology Adrian Twissell MA 2010

2. Aims • Background to the study- definitions & models • Overview of study- methods & participants • Results of study • Conclusion • Using subject specific identification criteria Identification of gifted and talented students

3. Aim of the study “Can teachers use the results of cognitive ability tests to identify giftedness in D&T?” A Twissell 2010

4. Current Whole School Approach • Identifies top 30% in each Year group as gifted (unpublished) • Based on top 30% of MidYIS, YELLIS or GCSE average point score in Sixth Form Criticisms • Assumes giftedness is fixed • Not related to subject specific ability • Is not ‘peer’ related • Does not take account of qualitative methods A Twissell 2010

5. What is Giftedness and Talent? ‘Children and young people with one or more abilities developed to a level significantly ahead of their year group (or with the potential to develop those abilities)’ DfES (2006) Giftedness - possession and use of outstanding natural abilities in at least one domain that places an individual at least among the top 10% of age peers. Talent - outstanding mastery of systematically developed abilities/skills/knowledge in at least one field of human activity to a degree that places the individual at least among the top 10% of age peers who are/have been active in that field or fields. Gagné(2004) A Twissell 2010

6. Who is Gifted and Talented? • QCDA definition ‘‘Gifted’ learners are those who have abilities in one or more subjects in the statutory school curriculum other than art and design, music and PE’ ‘’Talented learners are those who have abilities in art and design, music, PE or performing arts such as dance and drama’ QCDA (2009) A Twissell 2010

7. Who is Gifted and Talented? (CEM Centre) • CEM Centre definition ‘Gifted’ refers to those considered to be ‘mentally gifted’. CEM Centre believe that these students should be identified using aptitude measures. ‘Talented’ refers to those students who ‘perform’ at a high level. CEM Centre believe that these students should be identified using achievement measures. Mentally Gifted based on MidYIS/YELLIS Scores Above 130 = top 2% nationally Above 126 = top 5% nationally Above 120 = top 10% nationally A Twissell 2010

8. Alternative Conceptions • Renzulli’s Three-Ringed Conception of Giftedness Above-Average Ability Task Commitment General Performance Areas Mathematics Visual Arts Physical Sciences Philosophy Social Sciences Law Religion Language Arts Music Life Sciences Movement Arts Specific Performance Areas Cartooning Electronics Astronomy Musical Composition Public Opinion Polling Landscape Jewellery Design Architecture Map Making Chemistry Choreography Microphotography Biography City Planning Film Making Poetry Statistics Local History Creativity Source: Renzulli(1978) ‘The Three-Ringed Conception of Giftedness’ A Twissell 2010

9. Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent CATALYSTS Talent = top 10% SYSTEMATICALLY DEVELOPED SKILLS FIELDS Academics: language, science, humanities Arts: visual, drama, music Business: sales, entrepreneurship, management Leisure: chess, video games, puzzles Social Action: media, public office Sports: individual & team Technology: trades & craft, electronics, computers INTRAPERSONAL Physical/Mental characteristics Self Management Giftedness = top 10% NATURAL ABILITIES DOMAINS Intellectual Creative Socioaffective Sensorimotor DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS Informal/formal learning & practicing ENVIRONMENTAL Milleu Persons Provisions Events CHANCE Source: Gagné(2004) A Twissell 2010

10. Data Collection GCSE raw score data Gifted in Art, D&T, Drama, History & PE Teacher’s Survey in Art, D&T, Drama & PE D&T Design Question Scores Verification of D&T G&T with NC Levels Pearson’s ‘r’ Correlation with MidYIS/YELLIS Mean Score Comparison Pearson’s ‘r’ Correlation Mean analysis between D&T Strands Percentrank/ Decile Comparison Qualitative Analysis Discussion & Conclusions Outline of Study/Method A Twissell 2010

11. QCDA’s subject specific identification criteria • demonstrate high levels of technological understanding and application • display high-quality making and precise practical skills • have flashes of inspiration and highly original or innovative ideas • demonstrate different ways of working or different approaches to issues • be sensitive to aesthetic, social and cultural issues when designing and evaluating • be capable of rigorous analysis and interpretation of products • get frustrated when a teacher demands that they follow a rigid design-and-make process • work comfortably in contexts beyond their own experience and empathise with users' and clients' needs and wants • performance at an unusually advanced national curriculum level for their age group • the outcomes of specific tasks • evidence of particular aptitudes • the way pupils respond to questions • the questions that pupils ask themselves QCDA (2009) Subject specific criteria was given to Art, Drama and PE History used their existing register A Twissell 2010

12. Comparing GCSE raw scores with MidYIS scores in D&T Comparison between GCSE (2008) Raw score and MidYIS score (n=170, r=0.31, p<0.01, 100 degrees of freedom) A Twissell 2010

13. Comparing GCSE raw scores with YELLIS scores in D&T Comparison between GCSE (2008) raw score and YELLIS score (n=183, r=0.37, p<0.001, 100 degrees of freedom) A Twissell 2010

14. Comparing mean YELLIS scores and subtest scores within D&T strands

15. Comparing mean MidYIS scores and subtest scores with students identified gifted in D&T, Art, Drama, PE & History

16. Decile comparison method Score % Rank G&T? 140 100 138 99 G&T 136 97 132 95 G&T 128 89 124 78 122 72 G&T 121 71 G&T 120 70 % Rank G&T 99 95 72 71 1st decile 3rd decile A Twissell 2010

17. Comparing gifted Year 8 D&T students with Year 8 population based on MidYIS score Comparison of deciles between Year 8 gifted in D&T (n=29) and rest of Year 8 (n=151) A Twissell 2010

18. Comparing gifted Year 8 D&T students with Year 8 population based on MidYIS non-verbal score Comparison of deciles between Year 8 gifted in D&T (n=29) and rest of Year 8 (n=151) on nonverbal score A Twissell 2010

19. Comparing gifted in Year 8 Art Student’s with rest of Year 8 on MidYIS Non-verbal Score Comparison between gifted in Art on Nonverbal score and Year 8 population A Twissell 2010

20. Comparing Year 8 end of year exam design question with MidYIS score End of Year 8 exam design question mark and MidYIS score correlation (n=170, r=0.21, p<0.05, 100 degrees of freedom) A Twissell 2010

21. Comparing gifted in Year 8 with rest of Year 8 on MidYIS Maths Score Gifted sample’s maths score decile comparison with rest of Year 8 A Twissell 2010

22. Comparing Coursework, Written Paper & YELLIS Scores Using Pearson’s ‘r’ correlation coeficient >0.19=5% (5 in 100 may occur by chance) >0.25=1% (1 in 100 may occur by chance) >0.32=.1% (1 in 1000 may occur by chance)

23. ConclusionEvidence from the study’s data • MidYIS/YELLIS useful indication of students’ general intellectual ability • There is a good correlation between achieving well on CATs and achieving well at GCSE in D&T • There are indications that this applies to both coursework and written exams • Use of MidYIS/YELLIS for identification of gifted not supported in D&T, Art or PE • D&T, Art and PE generally score well on MidYIS non-verbal measure A Twissell 2010

24. ConclusionEvidence from the literature • Aptitude measures (IQ, CAT etc) are extremely reliable (Gagné, 2005) • General intellectual ability (‘g’) is a concept overwhelmingly accepted as being central to an individuals ability (Jensen, 1981; Lubinski, 2009) • Multidimensional measures increase the likelihood of identifying specific aptitudes (Gardner, 1997; Heller, 2004) • Persistence or ‘task commitment’ may be central to an individual’s gifted profile (Ericsson et al., 2009; Mayer, 2005; Renzulli, 1978) • Creative thinking may be central to an individual’s giftedness (Sternberg et al., 2006) A Twissell 2010

25. Using the QCDA (2009) Identification Criteria A Twissell 2010

26. E.P. Torrance’s Factors Gifted, successful individuals: • Have a love for the work they do • Are persistent in their work • Have a clear purpose in life • Have diverse experiences • Have high energy levels • Are open to change ‘Over the long haul these factors become more important than traditional measures of intelligence and academic ability’ (Torrance, 2004) Source: Torrance (2004) Great Expectations: Creative Achievements of the Sociometric Stars in a 30-Year Study A Twissell 2010

27. Tilsley’s DIP Model Definition identification Provision (DIP) Source: Tilsley (1995) A Twissell 2010

28. Tilsley’s PEP Model Provision Evaluation Provision (PEP) Source: Tilsley (1995) A Twissell 2010

29. References DfES(2006) Identifying Gifted and Talented Pupils-Getting Started, retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/giftedand&talented on 16th November 2009. Ericsson, K.A., Nandagopal, K. and Roring, R.W. (2009) Toward a Science of Exceptional Achievement: Attaining Superior Performance through Deliberate Practice, Longevity, Regeneration, and Optimal Health, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1172: 199-217. Gagne, F. (2004) Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory, High Ability Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp119-147. Gagne, F. (2005) From Gifts to Talents: The DMGT as a Developmental Model. In Sternberg, R.J. and Davidson (Eds.) Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd Edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp98-119. Gardner, H. (1997) Extraordinary Minds: Portraits Of Exceptional Individuals And An Examination of Our Extraordinariness, London: Weidenfeldand Nicholson. Heller, K.A. (2004) Identification of Gifted and Talented Students, Psychology Science, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp302-323. Jensen, A. R. (1981) Straight Talk About Mental Tests,London: Methuen. Lubinski, D. (2009) Exceptional Cognitive Ability: The Phenotype, Behaviour Genetics, 39: pp350-358. Mayer, R.E. (2005) The Scientific Study of Giftedness. In Sternberg, R.J. and Davidson (Eds.) Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd Edition), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp437-447. Renzulli (1978)What Makes Giftedness: Reexamining a Definition, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp180-184. Sternberg, R.J., Grigorenko, E. L. and Jarvin, L. (2006) Identification of the gifted in the new millennium: Two assessments for ability testing and for the broad identification of gifted students, Korean Journal of Educational Policy, 3:2, pp7-27. Tilsley, P. (1995), ‘The Use Of Tests And Test Data In Identification Or Recognition Of High Ability’, Flying High, 2, 43-50. Retrieved from ‘http://scs.une.edu.au/TalentEd/gate_pip/index.html’ on 13th July 2009. Torrance (2004) Great Expectations: Creative Achievements of the Sociometric Stars in a 30-Year Study, The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,Vol. 16, No.1, pp5-13. QCDA (2009) Identifying gifted pupils in design and technology, retrieved from the world wide web: http://www.qcda.gov.uk/2206.aspx on 16th December 2009. A Twissell 2010