Creativity in Gifted Education

Just a few thoughts that I had about the readings...

           "I'm above average in ability and high in creativity...but motivation was always a problem" (Davis, 277).  Renzulli's three-ring definition of 'giftedness' identifies traits that highly talented people that have made contributions to society possess - high levels of creativity, task commitment, and intelligence. Unfortunately, many educational program designers use these criteria as a formula for identifying students as 'gifted.'  The text states that this was never the intention of this definition. Obviously, this negatively impacts students that are highly intelligent but lack the motivation to take risks and follow through with creative tasks. Think about the number of students that you see that have so much potential that they do nothing with it and are content with blending in or being 'average.' Even more so, think about those students that have so much potential and what they choose to do with their 'gift' has a negative impact on society.  Their lack of motivation could be the result of many things such disappointments, lack of opportunity, lack of awareness of gifts, laziness, etc., and their contributions go undone. It's a shame that many schools districts including Wake County follow this model for identifying 'gifted' students.  They favor high test scores and IQ levels over the creativity that a child shows. Rubrics, ranges, percentile scores, etc. are established as a baseline when creativity can not accurately be assessed numerically or captured in a range or rubric.  Instead, Renzulli recommends a "highly flexible...five step identification process" that holistically evaluates students' giftedness, and the trait of motivation is one that is a part of the cultivation process for students once they have been identified.  

Further recommendations from the text and articles include acceleration and enrichment programs for students.  These ideas seem more prominent in secondary school while at the elementary level classroom teachers are expected to differentiate for a wide range  of students.  In the upper elementary grades, 'gifted' students often receive services outside of the classroom because that is the best way to meet the needs of a majority of students within a grade at one time. These services seem very disjointed from the regular classroom instruction and students feel that what they are learning in their pull out services is not a part of the regular education curriculum.  Thus, this in itself can have a negative impact on motivation.  

So, perhaps loosen the criteria. "When in doubt, admit" (279). It is better to catch a wide range of abilities to be sure that those that are truly talented can receive the services that they need. But does that really work? Are those students really being targeted for receiving instruction at their zone of proximal development if they are being taught at a level that meets the needs of moderately gifted or average students? This wide net of ability in itself is what the regular classroom atmosphere is.

This goes to show us that the identification process in itself is flawed.  It is based on one's definition of what giftedness is.  This definition may come from a variety of experts in the field, but as mentioned with Renzulli's three-ring definition, these 'formulas' could misinterpreted or misused.  The best way to identify giftedness in education is to provide teachers with additional training in gifted education and stress the importance of fostering and facilitating creativity in students.