The see me statement: an action research investigation of a teaching strategy designed to promote understanding of non-traditional indicators of giftedness

Abstract

This action research study explored the development and impact of an educational activity, the See Me Statement, designed for students enrolled in a gifted and talented teaching endorsement program. Driven by the pervasive issues of underrepresentation in gifted education, the See Me Statement was designed to scaffold understanding of diverse indicators of giftedness and encourage participants to view the classroom through the eyes of a gifted student who does not fit the mold of the stereotypical gifted child. Following an introduction to Frasier’s Traits, Aptitudes, and Behaviors (TABs) tool, participants wrote letters from the perspective of unidentified gifted students and urged their teachers and administrators to see them and address their unique strengths and challenges. Thematic analysis of See Me Statements revealed examples of all ten components of the TABs, with an impressive representation of atypical behaviors that are likely to indicate giftedness. Analysis of participant reflections on the assignment indicated that writing from the perspective of a gifted child promoted empathy and encouraged current and future action to address the diverse strengths and needs of all gifted children. Findings support the continual need to carefully address potential misconceptions of giftedness, and reveal the positive impact of including an affective/attitudinal component in professional learning opportunities concerning the gifted.

Keywords

• Action Research
• Diversity
• Gifted Education
• Professional Development
• Underrepresentation

References

1. Aguilar, E. (2010). Teaching secrets: When the kids don’t share your culture. Education Digest, 76(4), 52–54.
2. Baek, E., Cagiltay, K., Boling, E., & Frick, T. (2007). User-centered design and development. In M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 659-670). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
3. Barcelona, A.B. (2020). An analytic hierarchy process for quality action researches in education. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(3), 517-523.
4. Bazeley, P. (2009). Analysing qualitative data: More than ‘identifying themes’. The Malaysian Journal of Qualitative Research, 2(2), 6–22.
5. Besnoy, K. D., Dantzler, J., Besnoy, L. R., & Byrne, C. (2016). Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to measure construct validity of the Traits, Aptitudes, and Behaviors Scale (TABS). Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(1), 3–22.
6. Bitterman, A., Goldring, R., & Gray, L. (2013). Characteristics of public and private elementary and secondary school principals in the United States: Results from the 2011–12 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2013-313). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
7. Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
8. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2). pp. 77-101.

9. Buchmann, M. (1987). Teaching knowledge: The lights that teachers live by. Oxford Review of Education, 13(2), 151–64.
10. Boyd, A., Gorham, J.J., Justice, J.E>, & Anderson, J.L. (2013). Examining the apprenticeship of observation with preservice teachers: The practice of blogging to facilitate autobiographical reflection and critique. Teacher Education Quarterly, 40(3), 27-47.
11. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
12. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
13. Boyd, A., Gorham, J. J., Justice, J. E., & Anderson, J. L. (2013). Examining the apprenticeship of observation with preservice teachers: The practice of blogging to facilitate autobiographical reflection and critique. Teacher Education Quarterly,40(3), 27–47
14. Callahan, C. M. (2001). Beyond the gifted stereotype. Educational Leadership, 59(3), 42-46.
15. Castagno, A.E. (2008). “I don’t want to hear that!”: Legitimating whiteness through silence in schools. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 39(3), 314–333.
16. Chapman, C., Paterson, M., & Medves, J. M. (2011). The quipped project: Exploring relevance and rigor of action research using established principles and criteria. The Qualitative Report, 16(1), 208-228. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR16-1/chapman.pdf
17. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative Research. International Pearson Merril Prentice Hall.
18. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
19. Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2019). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
20. DasGupta, S. & Charon, R. (2004). Personal illness narratives: Using reflective writing to teach empathy. Academic Medicine, 79(4), 351-356.
21. Day, C., & Lee, J. C. K. (Eds). (2011). New understandings of teacher’s work: Emotions and educational change. Dordrecht, Germany: Springer.
22. de Vignemont, F., & Singer, T. (2006). The empathic brain: How, when and why? Trends in Cognitive Science, 2, 435-441.
23. Deen, S.R., Mangurian, C. & Cabaniss, D.L. (2010). Points of contact: Using first-person narratives to help foster empathy in psychiatric residents. Acad Psychiatry, 34, 438-441.
24. Decety, J., & Jackson, P. (2006). A social-neuroscience perspective on empathy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 54-58.
25. Dolby, N. (2012). Rethinking multicultural education for the next generation: The new empathy and social justice. New York, NY: Routledge.
26. Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Treffinger, D. J. (1992). Bringing out the Giftedness in Your Child, John Wiley, New York.
27. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267-285.
28. Edinger, M. J. (2020). What’s in Your Gifted Education Online Teacher Professional Development? Incorporating Theory- and Practice-Based Elements of Instructional Learning Design. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(4), 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220938051
29. Elhoweris, H., Mutua, K., Alsheikh, N., & Holloway, P. (2005). The effect of the child’s ethnicity on teachers’ referral and recommendation decisions in the gifted/talented programs. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 25-31.
30. Erwin, J.O., & Worrell, F.C. (2012). Assessment practices and the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted and talented education. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 74-87.
31. Esquierdo, J. J., & Arreguín-Anderson, M. (2012). The “invisible” gifted and talented bilingual students: A current report on enrollment in GT programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353211432041
32. Fairbairn, G. J. (2002). Ethics, empathy and storytelling in professional development. Learning in Health and Social Care, 1(1), 22-32.
33. Ferrick, Brenna. (2015). The wicked smaht kids: seeking an adequate public education for gifted elementary and secondary students in Massachusetts. UMass Law Review, 10(2).
34. Fletcher, K. L., & Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2012). Research on perfectionism and achievement motivation: Implications for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 668–677.
35. Ford, D. Y. (2003). Two wrongs don’t make a right: Sacrificing the needs of diverse students does not solve gifted education’s unresolved problems. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 283–291.
36. Ford, D. Y. (2004). Intelligence testing and cultural diversity: Concerns, cautions and considerations (RM04204). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
37. Ford, D. Y. (2010). Underrepresentation of culturally different students in gifted education: Reflections about current problems and recommendations for the future. Gifted Child Today, 33(3), 31-35.
38. Ford, D. Y. (2014). Segregation and the Underrepresentation of Blacks and Hispanics in Gifted Education: Social Inequality and Deficit Paradigms. Roeper Review, 36(3), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2014.919563
39. Ford, D. Y., & Grantham, T. C. (2003). Providing access for gifted culturally diverse students: From deficit thinking to dynamic thinking. Theory Into Practice, 42, 217–225.
40. Ford, D. Y., & Whiting, G.W. (2011). Beyond testing: Social and psychological considerations in recruiting and retaining gifted black students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24(1), 131-155.
41. Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74, 289–308.
42. Ford, D. Y., Harris, J. J., III, Tyson, C. A., & Frazier Trotman, M. (2002). Beyond deficit thinking: Providing access for gifted African American students. Roeper Review, 24, 52–58.
43. Ford, D.Y. & Whiting, G. W. (2010). Beyond testing: Social and psychological considerations in recruiting and retaining gifted black students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(1), pp. 131–155
44. Frasier, M. M. (1991). Eliminating four barriers to the identification of gifted minority students. In E.L. Hiatt (Ed.), Update on gifted education: Identifying and serving diverse populations (p. 2-10). Austin: Texas Education Agency.
45. Frasier, M. M. (1997). Gifted minority students: Reframing approaches to their identification and education. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., p. 498-515). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
46. Frasier, M. M., & Passow, A. H. (1994). Towards a New Paradigm for Identifying Talent Potential. (Research Monograph 94112). Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted Talented, University of Connecticut.
47. Frasier, M. M., Martin, D., García, J. H., Finley, V. S., Frank, E., Krisel, S., & King, L. L. (1995). A new window for looking at gifted children (RM95222). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
48. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915-945.
49. Grantham, T. C., & Ford, D. Y. (2007). Continuing the search for equity and excellence: An overview of Frasier’s Talent Assessment Profile (F-TAP). Gifted Education Press Quarterly, 21(2), 2–4.
50. Grantham, T. C., Frasier, M. M., Roberts, A. C., & Bridges, E. M. (2005). Parent advocacy for culturally diverse gifted students. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 138–147.
51. Green, J. (2000) Understanding social programs through evaluation. In Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 981–999). London, England: Sage.
52. Grissom, J. A., & Redding, C. (2016). Discretion and Disproportionality: Explaining the Underrepresentation of High-Achieving Students of Color in Gifted Programs. AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175
53. Hammond, C. (2009). Borrowing from the B schools: The legal case study as course ma- terials for transaction oriented elective courses: A response to the challenges of the MacCrate Report and the Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching Report on legal education. Transactions: The Tennessee Journal of Business Law, 11(1), 9- 39.
54. Holmes, A.G. (2020). Researcher positionality – A consideration of its influence and place in qualitative research – A new researcher guide. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(4), 1-10.
55. 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(2), 19–24.
56. Johnsen, S.K. (2018). Identification. In J.L. Roberts, T.F. Inman, & J.H. Robins (Eds.), Introduction to gifted education (p. 121-144). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
57. Johnson, A. P. (2008). A short guide to action research (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
58. Kelchtermans, G., Ballet, K., & Piot, L. (2009). Surviving diversity in times of performa- tivity: Understanding teachers' emotional experience of change. In P. Schutz, & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research (pp. 215-232). New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
59. Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 149-170. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00101-4
60. Landis, R. N. & Reschly, A. L. (2013). Reexamining gifted underachievement and dropout through the lens of student engagement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(2), 220-249.
61. Lincoln, Y., Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
62. Little, C. A., & Housand, B. C. (2011). Avenues to Professional Learning Online. Gifted Child Today, 34(4), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217511415383
63. Learning Forward. (2011). Standards for professional learning. The Professional Learning Association.
64. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
65. Martin, D. E. (2003). Mary M. Frasier: A master and mentor in the field of gifted education. Roeper Review, 25(4), 158–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554221
66. Maxwell, L. A. (2014). U.S. schools become ‘majority minority’. Education Week, 34 (1), 1-16.
67. 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.
68. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta- analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/ finalreport.pdf
69. Melrose, M. J. (2001). Maximizing the rigor of action research: Why would you want to? How could you? Field Methods, 13(2), 160-180.
70. Mertler, C. A. (2022). Introduction to educational research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
71. Mertler, Craig A. (2021). Action research as teacher inquiry: A viable strategy for resolving problems of practice. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 26(19). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7275/22014442
72. Michael-Chadwell, S. (2010). Examining the underrepresentation of underserved students in gifted programs from a transformational leadership vantage point. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 99-130.
73. Mun, R. U., Hemmler, V., Langley, S. D., Ware, S., Gubbins, E. J., Callahan, C. M., … Siegle, D. (2020). Identifying and Serving English Learners in Gifted Education: Looking Back and Moving Forward. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(4), 297–335.
74. Moon, S. (2009). Myth 15: High-ability students don’t face problems and challenges. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 274-276.
75. National Association for Gifted Children. (2015). 2014-2015 State of the states in gifted education: Policy and practice data. https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/key%20 reports/2014-2015%20State%20of%20the%20States%20(final).pdf
76. National Association for Gifted Children. (2019). 2019 pre-K-grade 12 gifted program- ming standards. http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/standards/Intro%202019%20 Programming%20Standards.pdf
77. Nilsson, M. Ejlertsson, G. Andersson, I. & Blomqvist, K. (2015). Caring as a salutogenic aspect in teacher’s lives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46(6), 51-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.009
78. Olenchak. F. R., & Reis, S. M. (2002). Gifted students with learning disabilities. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. Robinson, and S. Moon (Eds.), The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Children (pp. 177-192). Waco TX: Prufrock Press.
79. Overview of Frasier’s Talent Assessment Profile (F-TAP). Gifted Education Press Quarterly, 21(2), 2-4.
80. Peck, N., Maude, S., & Brotherson, M. (2015). Understanding pre- school teachers’ perspective on empathy: A qualitative inquiry. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43, 169-179.
81. Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity. One’s own. Educational researcher, 17(7), 17-21.
82. Peters, S. J. (2019, February, 25). Gifted and talented: Finding and calculating representation rates. National Association for Gifted Children. https://www.nagc.org/blog/gifted-and-talented-finding-and-calculating-representation-rates
83. Peterson, J. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social and emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 280-282.
84. Peters, S. J., Gentry, M., Whiting, G. W., & McBee, M. T. (2019). Who Gets Served in Gifted Education? Demographic Representation and a Call for Action. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4).
85. Peterson, J.S. (2012). The asset-burden paradox of giftedness: A 15-year phenomenological, longitudinal case study. Roeper Review, 34, 244-260.
86. Rizza, M.G., & Morrison, W. F. (2002). Uncovering stereotypes and identifying characteristics of gifted students and students with emotional/behavioral disabilities. Roeper Review, 25(2), 73-77.
87. Richardson, V. (2003). The dilemmas of professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 401-406.
88. Reis, S.M. & Renzulli, J.S. (2009). Myth 1: The gifted and talented constitute one single homogeneous group and giftedness is a way of being that stays in the person over time and experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 233-235.
89. Roeper, A. (2012). Asynchrony and sensitivity. In Neille, A., Piechowski, C. S., Tolan, S. S. (Eds.), Off the charts! Asynchrony and the gifted (pp. 170-181). Unionville, NY: Royal Fireworks.
90. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 769-802). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
91. Sayi, A. K. (2018). Teachers’ views about the teacher training program for gifted education. Journal of Education and learning, 7(4), 262 – 273.
92. Schuler, Patricia A. (2000). Perfectionism and gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11(4).
93. Siegle, D. (2001, April). Teacher bias in identifying gifted and talented students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Kansas City, MO.
94. Spiro, H. (1992). What is empathy and can it be taught. Annals of Internal Medicine, 116(10), 843-864.
95. Spoon, R., Rubenstein, L. D. V., Shively, K., Stith, K., Ascolani, M., & Potts, M. L. (2020). Reconceptualizing Professional Learning Within the Gifted Field: Exploring the Instruct to Innovate Model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(3), 193–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353220933001
96. Stringer, E. (2013). Action research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
97. Sutherland, M. (1986). Education and empathy. British Journal of Educational Studies, 34(2), 142-151. Torrance Center for Creativity and Talent Development. (2016). TABS: Frasier’s traits, aptitudes, and behaviors. The University of Georgia.
98. Tobin, G. A., Begley, C. M. (2004). Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, 388–396. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03207.x
99. Treffinger, D. J. (2009). Guest editorial. Gifted Child Today, 53(4), 229 – 232.
100. Tuckett, A. G., (2005). Applying thematic analysis theory to practice: A researcher’s experience. Contemporary Nurse, 19(1-2), 75-87.
101. U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Office for Civil Rights, dear colleague letter: Resource comparability. Washington, DC: Author
102. van Rooij, S. W. (2012). Research-based personas: Teaching empathy in professional education. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 12(3), 77–86. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1092115.pdf
103. Vaughan, M. & Mertler, C.A. (2020). Re-orienting our thinking away from “professional development for educators” and toward the “development of professional educators.” Journal of School Leadership, 31(6), 569 – 584.
104. Warren, C. A. (2018). Empathy, Teacher Dispositions, and Preparation for Culturally Responsive Pedagogy. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117712487
105. Wright, B.L, Ford, D. Y., & Young, J.L. (2017). Ignorance or indifference? Seeking excellence and equity for under-represented students of color in gifted education. Global Education Review, 4(1). 45-60.
106. Wood, L. M., Sebar, B., & Vecchio, N. (2020). Application of Rigour and Credibility in Qualitative Document Analysis: Lessons Learnt from a Case Study. The Qualitative Report, 25(2), 456-470. https://doi.org/ 10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4240
107. Yoo, J., & Carter, D. (2017). Teacher emotion and learning as praxis: Professional development that matters. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2017v42n3.3