Advertisement

Ethical and Professional Practice Issues in the Provision of Educational Services to Gifted Students

  • Kristin C. Thompson
  • Richard J. Morris
Chapter

Abstract

Using ethical principles for psychologists and school psychologists as a guideline, this chapter discusses the ethical and professional practice issues that may arise when providing educational services to gifted children. Issues related to the varying definitions of “giftedness” and their impact on the identification of gifted children are discussed, as well as considerations for reliable and valid assessments of gifted children. Also included is a discussion of ethical and professional issues to consider when deciding on the most appropriate educational placement for gifted students, given that contemporary definitions of giftedness may not be consistent with a school’s curriculum for gifted students.

Keywords

Ethics Professional practice Intelligence Assessment Gifted education 

References

  1. American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
  2. Archambault, F. X., Jr., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers (Research Monograph 93102). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.Google Scholar
  3. Bain S. K., Bell S. M., (2016) Social Self-Concept, Social Attributions, and Peer Relationships in Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Graders Who Are Gifted Compared to High Achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly 48 (3):167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bui, S. A., Craig, S. G., & Imberman, S. A. (2014). Is gifted education a bright idea? Assessing the impact of gifted and talented programs on students. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6, 30–62.Google Scholar
  5. Callahan, C. M. (2005). Identifying gifted students from underrepresented populations. Theory into Practice, 44, 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2016). Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 13678–13683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605043113 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Cavilla, D. (2017). Observation and analysis of three gifted underachievers in an underserved, urban high school setting. Gifted Education International, 33, 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, S. J. (1981). What is giftedness? A multidimensional approach. In A. H. Kramer (Ed.), Gifted children: Challenging their potential (pp. 33–45). New York: Trillium Press.Google Scholar
  9. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.Google Scholar
  10. Eklund, K., Tanner, N., Stoll, K., & Anway, L. (2015). Identifying emotional and behavioral risk among gifted and nongifted children: A multi-gate, multi-informant approach. School Psychology Quarterly, 30, 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000080 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Flanagan, D.P., & Harrison, P.L. (2012). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues (3rd Edition). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ford, D. Y., Grantha, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Another look at the achievement gap: Learning from the experiences of gifted black students. Urban Education, 43, 216–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907312344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ford, D. Y., Moore, J. L., & Harmon, D. A. (2005). Integrating multicultural and gifted education: A curricular framework. Theory Into Practice, 44, 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gagne, F. (2012). The DMGT 2.0: From gifted inputs to talented outputs. In C. M. Callahan & H. L. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 56–68). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Gallagher, J. J., & Gallagher, S. A. (1994). Teaching the gifted child (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  16. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Giessman, J. A., Gambrell, J. L., & Stebbins, M. S. (2013). Minority performance on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, Second Edition, Versus the Cognitive Abilities Test, Form 6. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris, T., Graves, S., Serpell, Z. N., & Pearson, B. (2013). Promoting culturally competent assessment in schools. In C. S. Clauss-Ehlers, Z. N. Serpell, & M. D. Weist (Eds.), Handbook of culturally responsive school mental health: Advancing research, training, practice, and policy (pp. 209–218). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4948-5_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jauk, E., Benedek, M., Dunst, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2013). The relationship between intelligence and creativity: New support for the threshold hypothesis by means of empirical breakpoint detection. Intelligence, 41, 212–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnsen, S. K. (2003). Issues in the assessment of talent development. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 201–214). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kanaya, T., Ceci, S. J., & Scullin, M. H. (2003). The rise and fall of IQ in special education: Historical trends and their implications. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 453–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaufman, J. C., Kaufman, S. B., & Plucker, J. A. (2013). Contemporary theories of intelligence. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 811–822). New York: Oxford University Pres.Google Scholar
  24. Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligence people be creative? The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16, 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, S. Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. T. (2012). Academically gifted students’ perceived interpersonal competence and peer relationships. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212442568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lovecky, D. V. (1992). Exploring social and emotional aspects of giftedness in children. Roeper Review, 15, 18–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Luria, S. R., O’Brien, R. L., & Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity in gifted education: Increasing accuracy and diversity. Annals of the new York Academy of Sciences, 1377, 44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McBee, M. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McClain, M. C., & Pfeiffer, S. (2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28, 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2012.643757 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary, 11th ed. (2016). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.Google Scholar
  31. Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2005). Increasing minority children’s participation in gifted classes using the NNAT: A response to Lohman. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2015). Misconceptions about the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test: A commentary of concerns and disagreements. Roeper Review, 37, 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2015.1077497 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nandis, 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, 220–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. National Association of Gifted Children (2008). The role of assessments in the identification of gifted children. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  36. National Association of Gifted Children. (2010). Redefining giftedness for a new century: Shifting the paradigm. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  37. National Association of Gifted Children. (2017). Gifted education practices. Retrieved from: https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-education-practices
  38. National Association of School Psychologists. (2010). Professional conduct manual. Bethesda, MD: Author.Google Scholar
  39. Pfeiffer, S. I. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for students who are gifted: What the experts say. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pfeiffer, S. I. (2013). Serving the gifted: Evidence-based clinical and psychoeducational practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Pfeiffer, S. I. (2015). Essentials of gifted assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  42. Preckel, F., Baudson, T. G., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., & Glock, S. (2015). Gifted and maladjusted? Implicit attitudes and automatic associations related to gifted children. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 1160–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Renati, R., Bonfiglio, N. S., & Pfeiffer, S. (2016). Challenges of raising a gifted children. Gifted Education International, 33, 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429416650948 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness?: Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184.Google Scholar
  45. Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Emerging conceptions of giftedness: Building a bridge to the New Century. Exceptionality, 10, 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reynolds, C. R., Livingston, R. B., & Willson, V. (2008). Measurement and assessment in education (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  47. Riedl-Cross, J., & Cross, T. L. (2015). Clinical and mental health issues in counseling the gifted individual. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93, 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rollins, M. R., & Cross, T. L. (2014). Assessing the psychological changes of gifted students attending a residential high school with an outcome measurement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 337–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roth, P. L., BeVier, C. A., Bobko, P., Switzer, F. S., III, & Tyler, P. (2001). Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 54, 297–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rothenbush, S., Zettler, I., Voss, T., Losch, T., & Trautwein, U. (2016). Exploring reference group effects on teachers’ nominations of gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 883–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. Stephen, K. R., & Karnes, F. A. (2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented revisited. Exceptional Children, 66, 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sternberg, R. J. (1984). Toward a triarchic theory of human intelligence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Stopper, M. (2013). Meeting the social and emotional needs of gifted and talented children. New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  56. Terman, L. M. (1926). Genetic studies of genius: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis: A development and expansion of the vectors of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  58. Trahan, L. H., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., & Merrill, H. (2014). The Flynn effect: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1332–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. US Department of Education. (2014). Office for Civil Rights, dear colleague letter: Resource comparability. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  60. Valdes, G. (2014). Expanding definitions of giftedness: The case of young interpreters from immigrant communities. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Van der Meulen, R. T., van der Bruggen, C. O., Split, J. L., Verouden, J., Berkhout, M., & Bogels, S. M. (2014). The pullout program day a week school for gifted children: Effects on social-emotional and academic functioning. Child & Youth Care Forum, 43, 287–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2007). Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  63. Vogl, K., & Preckel, F. (2013). Full-time ability grouping of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513795 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weber, C. L., & Stanley, L. (2012). Education parents of gifted children. Gifted Child Today, 35, 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217512437734 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wechsler, D. (2014). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (5th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.Google Scholar
  66. Weiss, R., & Rosinski, A. (2016). Ethical considerations in cross-cultural assessment. In T. R. Masson (Ed.), Inside forensic psychology (pp. 3–17). Santa Barbara: Prager.Google Scholar
  67. Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. J. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms (Research Monograph 93104). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.Google Scholar
  68. Yoo, J. E., & Moon, S. M. (2006). Counseling needs of gifted students: An analysis of intake forms at a university-based counseling center. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristin C. Thompson
    • 1
  • Richard J. Morris
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations