success

fail

Dec	JAN	Feb
	12
2006	2007	2008

1 capture

12 Jan 2007

About this capture

N.B. Barbour (1992) Early Childhood Gifted Education: A Collaborative Perspective

The goal of this article is to find common best practices of gifted education and early childhood education by comparing literature and practices in both fields. For the field of early childhood education the author names the following basic ideas: (1) focus on group rather than individual needs, (2) unit based curriculum for pre-K-level and content based for K-level, (3) unimportance of assessment, (4) observation, (5) sometimes multi-age groups. For gifted education the followint key points are listed: (1) concerning all ages, usually practiced age 8 and up, (2) formal assessment (of aptitude) and identification important components, (3) many different settings, (4) curriculum based on children’s interest, (5)newer trends consider underserved gifted populations including young children. She states that while early intervention is a common practice in early childhood education it usually is not considered necessary for gifted children. Citing Whitmore (1986) she states that “early discouragement or disregard of exceptional potential may serve to permanently obscure talents”. For the use of wholistic, thematic curriculum, taken from the interest areas of the children, the author states that it is an intersecting point between both areas of education as well as involvement of parents and the whole family. For assessment the author suggests to utilize all kinds of observation by teachers and parents as well as portfolios and peer-/self nomination. The author is convinced that early intervention is important for all young children and pleads for more communication between both areas (Barbour1992).

D. Stipek et al. (1995) Effects of Different Instructional Approaches on Young Children’s Achievement and Motivation

The authors describe the two extremes of child-centered and teacher-centered instruction and their effect on (not necessarily gifted) young children. Their literature review does not find superiority of either model. In a study on 227 children who partly were in a child-centered and partly in a teacher-centered facility they examined parameters of children’s motivation (e.g. Expectation for success, Preference for challenge) with varying test methods. The authors found that child-centered methods are preferrable in general, because children are showing higher motivation and independence if they are taught in such a way. The authors also write that a direct instructional method does not necessarily have to inhibit motivation and children’s independence if performed in a flexible way adjusted to the children (Stipek, Feiler, Daniels, & Milburn 1995).

The goal of this article is to show problems with early childhoos gifted education practices. The authors state that usually the focus is on early identification but not on the evaluation of gifted preschool programs. The benefit of early labeling of children is questioned. A literature review shows that “The majority of well designed studies indicate that early entry has a negative effect on achievement”. Other studies claim that early entry is beneficial for children who are “ready”. The authors’ review shows that no matter if they attend preschools or not children do well. More important is if they are in a rich environment having the chance to explore. The article finally states that one needs to be careful about the motivation for early childhood intervention so that children are not “used” by society. (Colangelo & Fleuridas1986)

T. Field (1991) Quality Infant Day Care and Grade School Behavior and Performance

The purpose of this article is to examine the effect of attendance in a good quality day care and later self concept and performance. The literature review examines the question if early entry into day care puts children at an emotional and behavioural disadvantage. The author’s review yields that such children are not disadvantaged if the day care quality is good. The quality of the centers is defined by factors like child-to-teacher ratio, equipment, but not necessarily by academic curriculum.

In one study children were examined who had spent years in a stable and high quality day care setting till they reached school age. These 28 children had entered the facility at different ages. Student’s self esteem (assessed by questionnaires) was higher the longer they spent in the day care. Also parents considered those children happer, more assertive and less aggressive. The second study examines performance of 50 children in 6th grade who had been in day care centers starting at different ages. Teacher observations and video tapes of behavioural patterns were used as well as SAT and other academic scores. Also in this study a positive correlation is found between time in the center and performance. Children were assigned more often to the gifted programs in their schools. It could not be clarified if parents of gifted children put their children earlier into day care or if the longer time in a school/group setting made the children more accustomed to academics than children who had not been there as long (Field1991).

The author does not introduce a review or a research paper. The goal of this short article is to clarify the discrepancy between acceleration and the timely passing through the Piagetian steps of development. In this context the author renames the practice commonly described as acceleration to tailoring. He explicitly excludes gifted children from his rule of not hurrying children through their childhood. No literature review or further reasoning is given - this article merely seems to mirror the opinion of the author (Elkind1988a).

The author’s goal is to warn teachers and parents not to start early instruction too early in a child’s life. His arguments are based on literature from the fields of child psychiatry, child psychology and pediatrics, but the author does not cite sources. The author warns not to start formal instruction without attending to individual development of the children, not to put too much pressure on children, not to try developing isolated skills and not to focus on reading just for fun. He also faces the argument that the modern technology surrounding children gets them ready earlier for formal instruction. His answer to it is that the biological capacities of children do not change with a change of the surroundings. But he admitts that the children are exposed to a host of information. Yet in his opinion children only can use this information if they have the chance to reflect and talk about it, which is not always the case. Biological reasons are in the way of earlier and earlier formal academic instruction in his opinion. This article can be found in a non peer reviewed journal and mirrors the opinion of the author. It is not focussed on gifted children (Elkind1988b). This article is an excerpt from the author’s book Miseducation: Preschoolers at Risk (Elkind1987)

This article contains a thorough literature overview about different definitions of giftedness. The author examines the stability of predictions for the later life of the children as well as conditions for eminence. For discussing the practice of “labeling” and stereotyping children from early on Freeman cites her own longitudinal study (Freeman, 1979) concluding that labeled children showed more behavioural problems than their non-abeled gifted peers. However, this could be also based in the fact that the selection of labeled individuals was dependent upon whether their parents were members in the NAGC. In this case the parents could be in this organization primarily because the children showed behavioural problems. Freeman discusses the origins of giftedness, the nurture vs. nature problem and different perceptions of eastern and western cultures, Gardner’s MI theory as well as Sternberg’s concept of giftedness as organization of knowledge dependent on the environment. Citing her own study Freeman does not see a correlation between high ability and emotional problems. Yet she states that they may be vulnerable due to their sensitivity. Freeman concludes that there are some educational concerns. She addresses possible different learning styles, underachievement as reaction to low expectations, hiding giftedness, mentally switching of in class. Freeman advocates “consistent challenge” in a “Sports approach” comparing gifted education with the education of aspiring athletes (Freeman1995).

K.S. Meador (1992) Emerging Rainbows: A Review of the Literature on Creativity in Preschoolers

The goal of this article is to show the effect of formal early schooling on creativity. The author explains several definitions for creativity (e.g. Amabile, Torrance) and uses Shmukler’s creative elements model. The next part of the author’s literature review evaluates play as the work of children, connecting play with creativity. Based on her thorough review she states that play and creativity are positively correlated. Her conclusion is that creativity can be quenched with formal schooling and that more research is needed in how educators can avoid this loss of the initial creativity (Meador1992).

This article which also appeared in the Journal for the Education of the Gifted examines early identification of young and very young gifted children as well as possible early interventions in an extensive literature review. The first part focusses on child prodigies than on gifted children who do not produce or show their exceptional talents. With several biographical examples the author shows how important nurture and support of the family is for those people to grow up productive members of society and on the other hand how damaging a rigorous early education can be. The author examines the effect of caretaker-child interaction on the development and concludes that “the skill areas in which children excelled most were linked to those stimulated most from early infancy to age 5”. Tannenbaum calls for longitudinal research to find good ways how to support the early development of gifted children (Tannenbaum1992).

N McBride (1992) Early Identification of the Gifted and Talented Students: Where Do Teachers Stand?

The goal of this article is given in the title: to examine the positions of teachers regarding early identification of gifted youngsters. The author gives a short literature review introducing into different definitions of giftedness. Teachers were surveyed about their own concept about giftedness. McBride found two different groups of teachers, one already having been involved in gifted programming and seeming experienced concerned about issues like labeling, expectations etc. The other group was reluctant to single out children in the opinion that each child has gifts. This group had not been involved in gifted education before. The methods of finding the subjects and the statistics are not explained in the article. The two groups also had different opinions about how to identify gifted children. While the first group emphasized observation while the second group utilized moer checklists and formal testing. The first group used “high level work” and “task commitment” as identifyer while both groups utilized parent input and observations. The first group advocated for early identification so that educational measures could be taken. The second group agreed with the part about identification, but rather as a preventive measure to avoid behavioural and boredom problems. The article is not written clearly and the literature review is not really connected with the study (McBride1992).

Barbour, N. B. (1992). Early Childhood Gifted Education: A Collaborative Perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15(2), 145-162.

Colangelo, N., & Fleuridas, C. (1986). The Abdication of Childhood. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 561-563.

Elkind, D. (1987). Miseducation: Preschoolers ad Risk. New York City: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Elkind, D. (1988b). The “Miseducation” of Young Children. Education Digest.

Field, T. (1991). Quality Infant Day Care and Grade School Behavior and Performance. Child Development, 62, 863-870.

Freeman, J. (1995). Annotation: Recent Studies of Giftedness in Children. Journal of Child Psychology Psychiatry, 36(4), 531-547.

McBride, N. (1992). Early Identification of the Gifted and Talented Students: Where Do Teachers Stand? Gifted Education International, 8, 19-22.

Meador, K. S. (1992). Emerging Rainbows: A Review of the Literature on Creativity in Preschoolers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15(2).

Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D., & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of Different Instructional Approaches on Young Children’s Achievement and Motivation. Child Development, 66(1), 209-223.

Tannenbaum, A. (1992). Early Signs of Giftedness. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.