Other methods of identification, such as observing students’ behaviours, have been employed to identify GELLs as either an alternative to (or sometimes in complement with) intelligence and achievement test scores. For instance, the ENTER model created by Ziegler and Stoeger (2004) provides five steps for identifying giftedness: Explore, Narrow, Test, Evaluate, and Review. The ENTER model emphasises the exploration of the general behaviours and performance levels at home, in school, and even with peer groups. The Sports Approach by Freeman (1998) particularly helps researchers to define able language learners through their regularly and consistently executing opportunities or actions. Both of these two
54
methods of identification seek to firstly provide opportunities for all, then observing the learners’ learning process for this identification. Both of these approaches emphasise that the perspective of teachers, parents, or peers in observing the general behaviours and performance of potential able learners and this is important for understanding and supporting gifted individuals. While these studies are referring to the school age population, the principles they espouse offer an insight into how identification might be undertaken post school.
According to Ziegler (2014), educators are able to observe as well as participate in gifted learners’ learning procedures, and consequently they also play an important role in gifted learner identification. For example, teachers are able to conduct their teaching in ways which consider the needs of gifted learners and other learners, and also monitor the performance of gifted learners in doing tasks. Therefore, it is crucial for teachers to recognize gifted learners in their classes (Harris, et al., 2009; Dean, 2001). However, Gear (1978) argues that teachers are influenced by their attitude or training programmes and therefore they might not always provide a useful or reliable judgment on their students’ potential abilities. In contrast, a later study by Guskin, et al. (1992) claimed that the trained teacher can be sensitive to their learners’ range of abilities and can provide valuable and useful information on students’ potential abilities. The study by Vreys, et al., (2017) perhaps could offer a way of uniting these two opposing views by arguing that the essential condition for the effectiveness of teachers’ identification of gifted learners is that teachers are sufficiently trained for providing best practice for gifted students (Vreys, et al., 2017). In line with this notion, studies have suggested that the lack of knowledge and understanding about giftedness can limit teachers’ understanding and lead to misconceptions when they identify gifted students (Lassig, 2009; Harris, et al., 2009). Likewise, the study by VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh (2005) argues that teachers may have to learn specific knowledge and challenge their own beliefs in order to be successful in their observations of gifted individuals. They may need to acquire or update their knowledge about giftedness, in terms of the different behaviours and interests which able learners may display. These ideas with their roots in school education have implications for educators in post school institutions.
Teachers may also have to change the perception of their role in teaching gifted learners. For instance, some teachers tend to see themselves as knowledge mediators for gifted learners, believing that gifted learners must follow their instructions in class so that then they can pass the required assessment. This belief can result in teachers being seen as the exclusive
55
authority in the classroom, which may restrict the occurrence of behaviours of gifted individuals. Indeed, given the stereotypes about gifted learners, some teachers may not believe in the existence of giftedness or gifted individuals in low socioeconomic communities (Blackburn, et al., 2016). These kinds of beliefs and stereotypes may lead educators to fail to recognise the behaviours and needs of gifted individuals in their classes. Blackburn, et al. (2016) claims that some English language teachers identify some students as GELLs when in they are simply students who can achieve high or excellent academic performance in class or tests. Although GELLs have some characteristics of ELLs, teachers identifying GELLs merely focused on test scores may overlook those who can use language in more sophisticated ways.
The role of parents is also treated as a significant influence in identifying GELLs. According to Sabatella (2003), parents can provide a good source of information on their children’s abilities, motivations, and strengths as they observe the behaviour of their children in various situations. Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius (2006) take a similar position in that parents are the most knowledgeable source of information about their children’s strengths and weaknesses. They can provide different opinions and information about giftedness in comparison to teachers. Some literature also supports the view that parents as sources additional information about their children’s gifted abilities and that they can supplement what the teacher may not observe in classes (McBee, 2006; 2010). It should be noted that the knowledge of parents about giftedness can influence their perceptions and understanding about their gifted children. For instance, research by Louis & Lewis (1992) stated that some parents believed that only good creativity, memory and abstract thinking could be labels to help them identify giftedness. Some studies that investigated specific groups, such as that of Wu (2008) and Yang (2007), claimed that Asian American parents, particularly Chinese American parents, believed high academic achievement was the evidence for identifying their gifted children, and that the characteristics of hard work, high level of interest, and effort were necessary conditions for gifted learners to achieve academic success. In particular, fathers of White and Asian parents generally emphasised high grades or entry to a successful university as a definition for gifted students’ academic success (Ablard & Parker, 1997). These studies mainly investigated Asian families and there has been little research on this topic within gifted cohorts. All of the above research which investigated Asian families indicated similar results in parental understanding and beliefs about giftedness, but these results merely indicated the phenomena for Asian families, not for all ethnicities. Therefore,
56
it may be useful to investigate the influence of another culture on the perceptions, understanding and knowledge of parents regarding giftedness.
Parents’ education levels and socioeconomic status in relation to their cultural background can influence their perceptions of giftedness which, in turn, then affect their nomination of their children as gifted. Steinmayr, et al. (2010) point out that parents with higher education degrees present highly similar characteristics of gifted learners to those used by state schools for identification; however, this is not the case for parents with a lower education level. In addition, McBee (2006; 2010) points out ethnicity and socioeconomic status can influence parents’ identification of giftedness, as parental nomination rates of gifted children for gifted programmes are higher among Asian, White, and Native American parents, and among middle and high socioeconomic status families than in other ethnic groups such as Hispanic parents. Furthermore, the emotional response of parents (such as either pride or fear) towards their children’s gifted language abilities can influence their nomination of their gifted children as gifted (Bernal, 2002; Dean, 2001).