Presentation

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

2. Identification of gifted and talented students
Aims
•Background to the study- definitions & models
•Overview of study- methods & participants
•Results of study
•Conclusion
•Using subject specific identification criteria
A Twissell 2010

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• Identifies top 30% in each Year group as gifted (unpublished)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
Creativity
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
General Performance Areas
Mathematics Visual Arts Physical Sciences
Philosophy Social Sciences Law
Religion Language Arts Music
Life Sciences Movement Arts
Source: Renzulli (1978) „The Three-Ringed Conception of Giftedness‟
A Twissell 2010

9. Gagné‟s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent
Giftedness = top 10%
NATURAL
ABILITIES
DOMAINS
Intellectual
Creative
Socioaffective
Sensorimotor
INTRAPERSONAL
Physical/Mental
characteristics
Self Management
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
CHANCE
ENVIRONMENTAL
Milleu
Persons
Provisions
Events
DEVELOPMENTAL
PROCESS
Informal/formal learning &
practicing
CATALYSTS
Source: Gagné (2004)
A Twissell 2010

10. Outline of Study/Method
GCSE raw score
data
Gifted in Art, D&T,
Drama, History &
PE
D&T Design
Question Scores
Teacher‟s Survey
in Art, D&T,
Drama & PE
Data Collection
Verification of
D&T G&T with NC
Levels
Mean Score
Comparison
Percentrank/
Decile
Comparison
Pearson‟s „r‟
Correlation with
MidYIS/YELLIS
Mean analysis
between D&T
Strands
Pearson‟s „r‟
Correlation
Qualitative
Analysis
Discussion &
Conclusions
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
0
20
40
60
80
100
95 115 135 155
MidYIS Score
GCSERawScore
GCSE Raw Score
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
0
20
40
60
80
100
95 115 135 155
YELLIS Score
GCSERawScore
GCSE Raw Score
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
Graphics
n=42
Resistant Materials
n=103
Systems
n=38
YELLIS Score
Group
(Standard Deviation)
123.40 (8.56) 124.43 (9.56) 125.97 (10.98)
Rest of Year 11
(Standard Deviation)
124.84 (9.97) 124.63 (9.85) 124.13 (9.27)
Maths
Group
(Standard Deviation)
124.26 (12.22) 125.17 (10.74) 125.95 (12.21)
Rest of Year 11
(Standard Deviation)
125.38 (11.12) 125.06 (12.17) 124.90 (11.15)
Vocabulary
Group
(Standard Deviation)
118.02 (7.30) 118.95 (9.97) 120.95 (10.61)
Rest of Year 11
(Standard Deviation)
119.49 (10.15) 119.41 (9.08) 118.68 (9.26)
Patterns
Group
(Standard Deviation)
110.12 (10.91) 107.50 (13.68) 111.19 (13.03)
Rest of Year 11
(Standard Deviation)
108.48 (13.56) 110.62 (11.88) 108.26 (12.95)
A Twissell 2010

15. Comparing mean MidYIS scores and subtest scores with
students identified gifted in D&T, Art, Drama, PE & History
Total Year 8 Population n=180 Vocab Maths NonVerbal Skills MidYIS Score
Gifted in D&T n=29 (16%) 121 (8.87) 130 (10.19) 125 (11.54) 123 (13.98) 128 (7.37)
Rest of Year 8 122 (9.60) 127 (11.37) 120 (12.02) 118 (11.10) 126 (9.42)
Gifted in ART n=14 (8%) 123 (7.49) 129 (12.41) 128 (13.10) 119 (13.36) 128 (8.36)
Rest of Year 8 121 (9.62) 127 (11.14) 120 (11.82) 118 (11.68) 126 (9.18)
Gifted in DRAMA n=37 (21%) 125 (10.41) 132 (10.97) 124 (12.76) 122 (13.30) 131 (9.23)
Rest of Year 8 121 (9.02) 126 (11.03) 120 (11.80) 118 (11.28) 125 (8.76)
Gifted in PE n=9 (5%) 122 (11.75) 128 (12.23) 127 (12.31) 121 (13.06) 127 (9.50)
Rest of Year 8
122 (9.37) 127 (11.21) 120 (12.00) 118 (11.74) 127 (9.13)
Gifted in History n=17 (9%) 126 (8.53) 131 (10.30) 124 (12.34) 123 (10.60) 132(9.54)
Rest of Year 8 121 (9.41) 126 (11.25) 120 (12.02) 118 (11.81) 126(8.91)
A Twissell 2010

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
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Percentrank (Band 1=Top Decile 90-100%
on MidYIS Score)
PercentageofStudents
Gifted in D&T %
Rest of Y8 %
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
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Percentrank (Band 1=Top 90%)
PercentageofStudents
Gifted in D&T %
Rest of Y8 %
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
Comparison Between Gifted in Art & Year 8
Population on Nonverbal Score
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Percentrank (Band 1=Top Decile 90-
100%on Nonverbal Score)
PercentageofStudents
% Gifted in Art
% of Y8 population
A Twissell 2010

20. Comparing Year 8 end of year exam design
question with MidYIS score
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
90 110 130 150
MidYIS Score
DesignQuestionMark
Design Question
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
D&T Gifted and Rest of Year 8 Comparison on MidYIS
Maths Score
0
5
10
15
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Percentrank (Band 1=Top Decile 90-100%
on MidYIS Maths Score
Percentageof
Students
% Gifted D&T
% Rest of Y8
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
D&T GCSE (n=181) Combined GCSE
Raw Score
Coursework Exam
Overall YELLIS Score 0.37 0.30 0.36
Maths 0.38 0.33 0.32
Vocab 0.21 0.15 0.28
Patterns 0.20 0.20 0.11
CWK/EXAM Correlation All
Groups
0.36
>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)
A Twissell 2010

23. Conclusion
Evidence 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. Conclusion
Evidence 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: Weidenfeld
and 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