Identifying Gifted Learners: A Creative and Productive Model

This report introduces a creative and productive model designed to identify gifted learners, particularly focusing on creativity as a key attribute. The model, aimed at learners aged 9-15, measures five attributes: analytical skills, designing ability, communication skills, arranging ability, and practical application. It draws upon successful intelligence theory and social identity theory, emphasizing the importance of sociocultural context and social support in nurturing giftedness. The model utilizes psychometric tests, expert analysis, self-ratings, and Torrance Tests of Creativity Thinking (TTCT) to measure creativity levels. While acknowledging limitations such as time constraints and the complexity of motivation, the report concludes that this model provides a comprehensive approach to identifying and shaping creativity in gifted children, distinguishing them within diverse groups and offering a practical solution to the narrow focus of standardized assessments. Desklib provides access to similar solved assignments and past papers for students.

Model of identification for Gifted Learners
(Search for Creative Minds)

Introduction
Creativity as Giftedness
My country’s education system concentraes on the ‘chalk and takl’ system. In this system, the
delivery system features the teacher who gives direction through talks while the student
engages in discussions or question and answer session. This method may not be able to
recognize unique and gifted children. A gifted child is one whose intelligence is above
normal. Bevan-Brown (2009) identifies giftednesss as exceptionality stating that the gifted
child has certain qualities. According to the New Zealand Association for Gifted Children,
giftedness is natural and includes childrren with unconventional behavior, intellectual and
emotional intelligence (NZAGC, 2018). Theorists acknolwege creativity as one of the factors
of gifted children who often have high sensitivity to the surrounding, exceptional memory
and observation ability (Weber, 2015). Research also recommend creativity in special gifts
as a form of talents (Yuen & Fong, 2014). In the modern era where innovation is a critical
factor for success creative minds excel as innovators. According to the Marland Report
(Colangelo & Wood, 2015), high performing children have the potential to engage in the
following:
1. General intellectual ability
2. Specific academic aptitude
3. Creative or productive thinking
4. Leadership ability
5. Visual and performing arts
6. Psychomotor ability:

Cretive and productive Model
In my opinion, the essence of creativity is achieevable with the maximization of output with
limited resources. Having considered the theoretical aspects of a gifted mind, I decided to
develop a creative and productive model. The figure below represents an illutsration of this
model used for the idenitfication of creative abilities in children. This is an primary level tool
for learners between 9 and 15 years. This approach is exclusive because it derives its
motivation in the world of innovation where ICT skills are necessary (Freeman, 2013). Its
design also supports creativity with team work and scientific measuring tools(Somech &
Drach-Zahavy, 2013). This tool measures five attributes of a learner in order to identify the
level of creative intelligence and productivity,
Figure 1: Creativity model
Acombined model of creativity and productivity is a fusion of creativity, innovative skills and
problem solving skills.
The
designer( Devel
oper,
experimenter)
Innovative skills
Analytical
child
The creative
and productive
model
Proble slolving skills
The
communicator
( team player,
expressing ideas,
listening, talking,
and persuading
people
The arranger
( puting in
order, detail
specific
creativity
The Practial
( Ability to
apply ideas
in real life)

Why the focus on creativity and productivity?
Although similar to most creative models, it incorporates the practical application which
ensures that the creative mind is also productive.
1. The Analytical child: This is the ability to solve problems and represents a learner
who is able to work independently, accomplish taks make numerical data and apply
formulas. This is also a learner who has the ability to analyse and solve complex
problems such as arithmetics (Hayes, 2013)
2. Designing child: This is the ability to innovate, experiment, find and give vision. This
student is playful but takes risks, is effective in developing ideas from startup and
takes opportunity to experiment (Voogt, et al., 2013).
3. The Communicator: This child has the ability to work in a team, express oneself and
persuade. This is a unique ability that brings out language abilities in children. It
supports the sociocultural group effect.
4. Arranging Child: This is a student who is able to arrange and put things in order
without struggling. The ability to plan, organize and accoplish tasks is not in every
child. This includes all kinds of tasks including paper work and building blocks.
5. The practical ability: This is the ability to see the solution, initiate solutions and
develop a vision, and find practical solutions in order to get it done (Beetham &
Sharpe, 2013)
Its Usefulness
The model is useful in the identification of a gifted child who contributes within a specific
group setting (Taifel, 1981). Designed using the successful intelligence theory, it supports the
notion that a successfully gifted person defines their ability within a sociocultural context
(Stenberg, 1985). A group may have a dominant culture but there is a common thread of
giftedness, level of intelligence, and creativity. Therefore, this model acknowledges that there

is a need to provide opportunities for the development of the gifted talents. Consequently,
parental involvement in the children influences performance because teachers are more
willing to work with students whose parents show interest.
From research, an effective model has a social, emotional and psychological effect. This
model is a solution to the failure of the standardized national assessments, which have locked
the potential of many students by offering a narrow and one-sided focus. Motivated by Taifel
& Turner (2004) this model borrows from the social identity theory, which supports social
psychology. It also adds value to Robert Stenberg’s approach to intelligence via the triachic
theory of practical, creative and analytical intelligence (Stenberg, 1985).
From the model example, analytical skills support the evaluation, analysis, comparison and
contrast abilities. Creative skills enhance the invention, discovery and creativity ability while
practical ability encourages innovation. Moved by Amanda Champdany’s talk on a school
system’s role of encouraging and shaping successful gifts the model develops a practical
solution (Amanda, 2016).
Advantages of measuring potential thorugh creativity
This model is useful because it supports creativity on a wider scale. It capitalies on the four
categories of creativity highlighted in the 4Cs namely:
 Big C ( Eminence in creativity developed across time, big ideas, and innovators )
 Little C ( Every day creativity, high imagination, inquisitive and connects to
knowledge )
 Pro-C ( Professional creators e.g scientists, historians, musicians, painters, leaders..)
 Mini C ( transformative, meaningful and personal experinces)

Figure 2: The Four CPROFESSIONAL s ( (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2013)
From this example, creativity reflects on a person’s life from an early age and is traceable in
daily activities. This model explores a child’s experiences checking their potential as creative
individuals. The surrounding environment supports this creativity highlighting different ways
in which creativity comes out. The approach points out creativity as a product of
interpersonal behaviour and self-expression. However, it reiterates the need for social support
from parents, friends and family in order to nurture it.
How to measure creativity
This method supports the use of the following tools and techniques for measuring the five
elements of the creativity model:
 Psychometric tests( critical for placement in schools and learning centers)
 Expert analysis ( supervisor based ratings by different experts on different activities)
 Self-ratings ( measures divergent modes of thinking in different tasks or assessments)
 Torrance Tests of Creativity Thinking ( TTCT-for support in daily activities)

Guiding students on the level of creativity involves a domain specific process that motivates
an individual’s creativity, interest and behaviour. This is the classification of creative ability
through specific categories for an age specific target group.
Disadvantages
Children have different levels of creativity. This is evident in varied thinking capabilities,
talents and innovativeness. This model may not be able to identify all obstacles to giftedness
because of the following:
 Time constraints
 The complicated role of motivation as a creativity factor
 Lack of clear definition of failure as part of innovation
 Failure to define coping mechanisms for criticism during creativity
 Inconsistency
Conclusion
Gifted children are unique and it is not easy to identify and nature them. Scholars point out
that in order to identify such children, it is important to design an effective tool that motivates
the students to identify who they are and focus on shaping their success. Teachers find it
difficult to identify such creative minds at once because of the ineffectiveness of tools and
techniques used in measuring abilities. Creativity as one of the special attributes of gifted
children is hard to detect. A good model needs a comprehensive approach that measures a
person’s analytical, problem solving, communication, arranging and practical abilities. These
distinguish a learner from others within a diverse group. The above model is effective in
identifying creativity through specific measures across different activities. Its application of
theoretical models in order to come up with a measure of creativity makes it suitable for the
target age groups. However, it uses different tests to check for levels of creativity, which is

time consuming. From this model, the social environment is critical in shaping a person’s
creativity. This is an integrated approach to measuring and shaping creativity.
References
Amanda, C., 2016. Building Diversity in Gifted Programs. [Online]
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1nx_zdemPk
Beetham, H. & Sharpe, R., 2013. Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st
Century Learning. s.l.:Routledge.
Bevan-Brown, J., 2009. Idnetifying and providing for gifted and talented Maori students.
APEX, Volume 15.
Colangelo, N. & Wood, S. M., 2015. Counselling the gifted: Past, present, and future
directions. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(2), pp. 133-142.
Freeman, J., 2013. Gifted children grown up. s.l.:David Fulton Publishers.
Hayes, J. R., 2013. The complete problem solver. s.l.:Routledge .
Kaufman, J. C. & Beghetto, R. A., 2013. Do People Recognise the Four Cs? Examining
Layperson conceptions of Creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7(3),
pp. 229-236.

NZAGC, 2018. What is Giftedness?. [Online]
Available at: https://www.giftedchildren.org.nz/what-is-this-gifted-thing-all-about/
Somech, A. & Drach-Zahavy, A., 2013. Translating team creativity to innovation
implimentation. the role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of
Management, 39(3), pp. 684-708.
Steele, C. M., 1997. A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
perfomance. American Psychologist, 52(6), p. 613.
Stenberg, R., 1985. Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. s.l.:Cambridge
University Press.
Taifel, H., 1981. The Social identity theory of intergroup behavior. s.l.:Cambridge University
Press.
Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C. & Mishra, P., 2013. Challenges to learning and Schooling in
the digital networked world of teh 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
29(5), pp. 403-413.
Weber, M., 2015. Teacher expectations, ethnicity and the achievement gap. New Zealand
Journal of Educational Studies, 50(1), pp. 55-69.
Yuen, M. & Fong, W. R., 2014. Perfectionism and Chinese Gifted Learners. Roepers Review,
Volume 2, pp. 81-91.