A Five Year Follow-up Study of the Nebraska Project: Still a long way to go ...

Experts in gifted education acknowledge the weaknesses associated with traditional identification procedures, which rely exclusively on the use of IQ and achievement test scores (Renzulli & Purcell, 1996). Problems noted in numerous studies include the varied definitions and criteria developed by using these identification procedures and the persistent inappropriate and biased uses of instruments and assessment procedures (Alvino, McDonnel, & Richart, 1981; Cox & Daniel, 1983; Frasier & Passow, 1994; Gallagher, 1994a; Maker, 1996; Ormrod, 1985; Passow & Frasier, 1996; Richart, 1985; Ross, 1993; Shaklee, 1992). As a result, programs for gifted and talented students often have an underrepresentation of special populations, specifically, culturally different and economically disadvantaged students.

In response to the limitations associated with traditional identification procedures, numerous studies (e.g., Baldwin, 1994; Berger, 1992; Clasen, 1993; Pizzat, 1993; Shaklee, 1993; Starnes, 1993; Wright & Borland, 1993) were financed under the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act in 1989. The Javits Education Act supported the research and development of innovative identification procedures and methods which went beyond using standardized tests and were less biased for the culturally different and economically disadvantaged populations. As a result, the Javits grants contributed to answering important questions about how to conduct unbiased assessments, to identify disadvantaged students as gifted or talented, and to provide a rich and challenging education to them (Ross, 1994).

The new practices emerging from the Javits grants and other studies reflected a recognition of intelligence as multi-faceted; an acceptance of the multiple manifestations of giftedness; an emphasis on authentic assessment tools and assessment over time; expansion of sources of information; a philosophy of inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness; a strong link between the identification and instruction; collaborative efforts; use of identification to enhance understanding; early and on-going plans and procedures to evaluate the identification process; and relationships with the general education reform movement (Callahan, 1993). These new practices are now consistently recommended across the nation for the selection and enrollment of students in gifted education programs (Richmond, 1996). In a recent newsletter of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, Gubbins (1997) stated that now programming issues, rather than identification procedures, should become more central in the field of gifted education. The Javits grants are respected for the contributions they have made in moving this thinking of the field forward over the last ten years.

Although many researchers and practitioners have accepted the recommendations of many Javits Projects and supported a paradigm shift in gifted education, Maker (1996) indicates a complete or universal shift has not occurred. Several authors (Coleman & Gallagher, 1995; Cramond, 1997; Maker, 1996; Richmond, 1996) have reported that many states still continue to use a single criterion and depend on the traditional IQ and achievement test scores for entrance into gifted programs. Even when alternative procedures or multiple criteria are used, the test scores still take priority or are weighed more heavily than qualitative data in the decision making process; judgments about the success of the alternative procedures are often based on how intimately they are related to and how correctly they predict a score on an intelligence test (Renzulli & Delcourt, 1986 quoted in Maker, 1996). Furthermore, a recent study of state policies by Coleman and Gallagher (1995) indicated that the demographics of gifted programs still suggest a significantly underidentified number of gifted students from culturally different and economically disadvantaged populations. Either, the findings and recommendations from the Javits projects are not being used in most states and communities, or if they are being implemented, are not working as intended or in too few communities to influence state reports of gifted education practices. A follow-up examination of practices in states and communities where Javits projects were originally developed could provide some insight into the efforts and barriers that are associated with implementing a paradigm shift in gifted education.

The National Research Center on Gifted and Talented reviewed the written documentation from almost all of the funded Javits projects in an attempt to summarize the projects and provide a brief description of each projects' strengths and highlights (Ross, 1994). Despite the evident improvement reported for the students that had participated in many of the original projects, the reviewers noted that many of these students could not reach the eligibility criteria of traditional gifted education programs (Gallagher, 1994b). For example, a student who scored 145 on the Stanford-Binet and a student who was exceptionally imaginative artistically or literally were considered equally truly gifted, based on the new concepts of intelligences promoted by most Javits projects (Gardner, 1983; Renzulli, 1988; Sternberg, 1988). What happens to students such as these, however, if their states and communities do not adopt new practices reflecting the paradigm shift toward a more unbiased approach to identification and enrollment in gifted education? Not to identify truly gifted students and provide them appropriate enrichment or other educational services may result in these students not maximizing their potentials, submerging their abilities, or possibly demonstrating disruptive or nonproductive behaviors as they progress through the grades (Ehrlich, 1982; Kitano & Kirby, 1985; Whitmore, 1980, 1982). Such underachieving behaviors during the early years might include inattention, restlessness, misachieving behaviors, hyperactivity, withdrawal, imaginary illness, or even outright refusal to go to school (Ehrlich, 1982; Whitmore, 1980). Follow-up examination of practices in states and communities where Javits projects were developed could provide some information about this phenomenon of underachievement of gifted students, if the Javits program models were not continued or their recommendations not implemented in those communities.

Sample Javits Projects

Examples of innovative identification practices developed by Javits funded projects include Project Synergy (Borland & Wright, 1994), the Early Assessment for Exceptional Potential (EAEP) Project (Shaklee, 1993), and the Nebraska Project (Griffin, 1993). To develop ways to identify and enhance the abilities of potentially young gifted students, especially in culturally different and economically disadvantaged populations, giftedness was perceived as multidimensional in these projects. In Project Synergy and the EAEP Project, identification was dependent on multiple sources, based on portfolio methods of assessment and thereby addressed the concept of hidden gifted students, those gifted students who would not be found using traditional methods. These projects emphasized that nontraditional forms of assessment that included products of the students' academic and creative work and experiences over time, should be encouraged, even required by school districts. These more inclusive forms of assessment were thought to be deserving of a prominent place in our educational practices because they have potential to reveal more meaningful information about the students which one-shot standardized tests can not measure. In the process of carrying out these assessment practices, project staff not only identified more potential gifted students but also, and perhaps more importantly, changed the professional philosophies, perspectives, and practices of teachers who participated (Coleman, 1994).

The Nebraska Project (Griffin, 1993; Griffin & McKenzie, 1993) developed the Nebraska Starry Night Observation (NSNO) protocol to provide K-2 grade classroom teachers with a means of early identification of able and creative students, in particular traditionally underserved students in small, rural schools and those from minority cultural groups. The Nebraska Project was quite innovative and important in several ways. First, it expanded the definitions of giftedness by recognizing the multiple manifestations of giftedness, which were perceived as being observable (Borland, 1978; Bredkamp & Rosegrant, 1992; Gear, 1978; Karnes & Johnson, 1986; Renzulli, Hartman, & Callahan, 1971), developmental and process-oriented. The NSNO instrument provided nominal descriptions of 17 key qualities or behaviors found repeatedly to be evident in the literature on the characteristics of gifted students. The authors included behaviors or qualities that were referenced by at least seven authors in their descriptions of gifted students, and were persistent in the literature over a period of multiple years.

In addition, the authors encouraged a tally system be used to note the frequency with which teachers observed any of these behaviors or qualities in the students' classroom activities, interactions, and assignments over a period of two weeks. The constellation of at least three noted behaviors with at least five total observations across the constellation constituted identification criteria for a potentially gifted student. The authors believed that such a liberal criteria would best identify all possible candidates with the greatest variety of possible qualities. Using this paradigm, identification of young able/creative students was based on daily performance over time rather than on one-shot tests.

Second, by combining an authentic instrument (NSNO) and an innovative technique (observation over time), the project tried to highlight students' potential talents and abilities by actually encouraging (training) teachers to look for them in classroom activities that could naturally elicit them. Third, as Ford (1994) suggests, students were assessed rather than just identified during the project. Rather than getting a yes/no answer on the question of whether the child was gifted or not, the project staff could describe the students' gifted traits by noting academic, social or emotional behaviors that occurred spontaneously and possibly consistently during child-oriented classroom activities and/or instruction of academics. Thus, during the Nebraska Project, assessment for identification, teaching, and evaluation was linked very closely to improve the educational opportunities for the potentially able/creative students. The project was developed on a Vygotskian theory that proposed context as being very important to children's development and, therefore, to the identification of giftedness by viewing giftedness as being expressed or developed auspiciously within developmentally-appropriate educational opportunities or interventions. Griffin's (director of the Nebraska Project) remarks quoted in Passow and Frasier's (1996) article well explain this aspect:

   The operational definition, therefore, of the `educate' aspect of the model
   is the creation of a developmentally-appropriate learning environment where
   students are actively involved in the construction of their own knowledge.
   For the `assess' aspect of the model, assessing student behaviors and
   student products is the primary means by which learning and progress are
   evaluated. (p. 3, Griffin, 1992 quoted in Passow & Frasier, 1996, pp.
   201-202).

By the end of the project, Griffin and colleagues had collected the completed NSNO protocols for 1,972 children in K-2 grades across 36 school districts in the state. Approximately 12% of the sample (240) met their criteria and were considered representative of potentially gifted students. In addition, more than the expected number of students from minority groups were identified as potentially gifted using the NSNO observation protocol. Whereas 14% of the 1,972 students represented a minority group in Nebraska's schools, 16% of the students identified as potentially gifted in the Nebraska Project represented minority populations. Furthermore, the authors reported that significantly more students with protocols that met criteria as potentially gifted were from constructivist classrooms suggesting that a teaching and learning philosophy may have biased or facilitated teacher observations and selections of potentially gifted students. Teachers with a bias for strengths-based, child-oriented approaches were more apt to provide opportunities for, or notice situations where creativity and exceptional thinking and talents could be demonstrated, thereby allowing for easier identification of exceptional students. These data suggested that teachers, using child-oriented curriculums and the NSNO observation protocol, could identify potentially gifted students from traditionally underrepresented populations at rates comparable to their membership proportions in a stratified sample.

The authors of the Nebraska Project also sought to identify clusters or types of students who were identified as able/creative or potentially gifted through their teacher observation procedures. They described four types of learners who met their identification criteria. They were described as follows: Type 1 students had the largest number of observed behaviors, typically possessed a large pool of information and reasoning, and were verbal and independent; Type 2 students had fewer behaviors observed but were curious, actively moving around and exploring the environment; Type 3 students were quiet, focused, and unexpectedly humorous; and Type 4 students were socially interactive, often seeing the big picture and viewing events comprehensively, and engaging with and being recognized by others.

The authors stressed the importance of noting each type of learner as having a right to gifted education programs. They also acknowledged the fact that students profiled as Type 1 were the most commonly identified in the project and are those who would probably be identified by almost anyone teaching in these students' classrooms, whereas students profiled as Types 2, 3, and 4 might easily be missed or misidentified as behaviorally disruptive. These students' exceptional abilities or creativity may be less overt or obvious than the behaviors displayed by Type 1 students in most traditional, teacher-oriented classrooms (Griffin & McKenzie, 1993).

Although the Nebraska Project yielded important and interesting results, there has been no effort to look at how the findings of the Nebraska Project are used or linked to the educational practices currently in the state of Nebraska; there has been no study to trace the students identified during the Nebraska Project over the last 5 years nor has there been any study to demonstrate whether there is a continuous effort to identify culturally different and economically disadvantaged young able/creative students utilizing the procedures developed in the Nebraska Project.

To address these issues in part, this pilot study was designed to provide follow-up data on a subset of the students identified as potentially gifted during the 1992 Nebraska Project. The primary research questions of the study were:

* Are students identified as potentially gifted during the Nebraska Project being served in gifted education programs in their communities today? What kinds of identification criteria have been used in these communities for enrolling students in gifted education programs?

* What is the current school performance and social and behavioral status of students who were identified during the Nebraska Project? Is there difference in the students' performance and social/behavioral status for students enrolled in gifted education programs today and those who are not enrolled?

* How do current behavioral traits for students previously identified as potentially gifted compare to behavioral traits reported for them five years ago?

* Are culturally different and economically disadvantaged students previously identified as potentially gifted currently enrolled in gifted education programs?

Methods

Participants

Participants for the study were selected following a review of 240 protocols for students previously identified in 1992 as part of the Nebraska Project as able and creative, or potentially gifted in the state's school districts. Five or more positive marks across three or more behavioral indicators on the Nebraska Starry Night Observation protocol (Griffin & McKenzie, 1993) were used as a criteria to identify able/creative students for the Nebraska Project. This pool of 240 students represented approximately 60 kindergartners, 120 first graders, and 60 second graders in the 1992 data base. Sixteen percent of these students represented ethnic minorities.

Seven school districts in the state of Nebraska were targeted for this pilot follow-up study in the Spring of 1997. These included two urban and five rural communities whose school administrators were known for their cooperative work with our university faculty and students in recent years and would likely respond to our request for cooperation. A total of 91 students from these districts met the criteria as potentially gifted in 1992, and included 10 students from ethnic minority groups. All 91 students were considered potential participants in this study. District administrators were mailed a list of these students' names and were asked to permit a follow-up of the students' academic and social performance in the current year. Three districts agreed to participate. (The others indicated that the time of the year made cooperation by teachers difficult.) Information provided by the administrators revealed that 11 students were no longer enrolled in the district schools and administrators could not provide information about their current whereabouts. Therefore, a total of 32 students were available for the current follow-up study, equaling 13% of the original identified sample in 1992. Unfortunately, one urban district, with the largest percentage of minority and economically disadvantaged children identified in the Nebraska Project chose not to participate in this pilot study due to time and staff constraints at the time the study was implemented.

For purposes of this study, a current teacher for each student was invited to participate. Students were not directly assessed. The 32 teachers were asked to complete independent surveys which inquired about the student's current academic and social performances and their status in gifted programs.

Instrument

The teacher surveys were designed using closed types of questions to inquire about family/child demographics, current status in gifted education programs, current academic performance, and current social/behavioral attributes. In addition, teachers were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale (Ashman & Vukeloch, 1983) how frequently (1 = never, 5 = always) and how well (quality) (1 = poor, 5 = excellent) the students demonstrated 17 behavioral traits associated with able and creative students. Appendix A, at the end of the article, demonstrates this Likert scale. These same 17 behaviors were the basis for identifying the students as able and creative in 1992 as part of the Nebraska Project. Although direct teacher observation would be more desirable, issues such as teacher training, time, and expense made the direct teacher observation impossible for this pilot follow-up study.

Procedure

Surveys were sent to the teachers of each student via the school principal. Each survey was accompanied by a cover letter explaining the project, the survey, and the respondent's rights and obligations. A self-addressed, postage-paid envelope was included for returning the completed survey to the investigators. A set of follow-up reminder letters were sent to each school administrator 10-12 days after the first surveys were distributed. The administrators were asked to distribute the reminder letters to teachers targeted for the study.

Data Analysis

Each survey was coded and entered into a database by the first author of this study. Twenty percent of the surveys were coded a second time by a research assistant, who was trained in coding and entry of the data. Point-by-point agreement was over 98%; all identified errors were corrected before the data were analyzed. Data were analyzed by the use of the SPSSx statistical package computer program. The SPSSx program generated descriptive data, including frequencies, percentages, and means for survey items regarding the current educational programs, current school performance, and current behavioral attributes. In addition, statistical comparisons (Chi-square) were made between students enrolled in gifted programs and students not currently enrolled ([Alpha] [is less than] .05). Finally, a nonparametric statistic (McNemar Change Test) was utilized to compare data collected five years ago with current data on the students' 17 behavioral characteristics and "constellations" of gifted behaviors ([Alpha] [is less than] (.07).

Results

Teachers completed and returned 18 surveys for a return rate of 56% and representing 10 girls and 8 boys. The students who had been in K-2nd grades five years ago were in 4th-6th grades at the time of this follow-up study. None of the 18 surveys represented students from cultural minority or economically disadvantaged groups. Only one student had a parent with less than a high school education and all children reportedly had at least one family member employed in skilled or professional jobs.

The results are organized around the key research questions regarding the 18 students' current status in gifted educational programs, academic performance, and behavioral attributes, and stability of the behaviors. Data provided by current teachers are compared with data collected by previous teachers 5 years ago regarding the 18 students' attributes and talents.

Current Status in Gifted Educational Programs

Current teachers were asked to indicate whether the students, who were identified as potentially able/creative during the Nebraska Project, were currently enrolled in any gifted education programs. Seven of the 18 students were reportedly enrolled in programs for gifted students; five of these students were described as gifted and talented, one as a highly gifted, and one as a high achiever. Among the seven students enrolled in gifted programs currently, five of them were girls and the other two were boys. Eleven of the 18 students, previously identified as potentially gifted were not currently enrolled in any gifted education programs, although three of these students had been considered for such programs. These three students had been considered as high achievers by their teachers in previous years, but not currently. One student currently not enrolled in a gifted education program had been identified, however, as needing special education services because of a behavior disorder.

Differentiated math and literature enrichment programs were noted for all of the students currently enrolled in gifted education programs. In addition, one student was reportedly assigned a mentor for his high ability.

Teachers' reports on how students were assessed and considered for gifted education programs revealed that the IQ test was used for six of the seven students currently enrolled. Achievement scores were used in addition to the IQ score for two students. The one student who was recognized as a high achiever was the only one who had products and past performance used for identification criteria among the students enrolled in gifted programs. No students who were currently enrolled in gifted programs were identified by their behavioral traits. Three of the eleven students not enrolled in gifted programs had non-test materials such as past performance and products reviewed, when they were considered for possible enrollment in gifted programs.

Current School Performance

Teachers reported positive traits for the current school performance of at least one-half of the 18 students represented in this study. All seven students enrolled in gifted education programs as well as two students not currently enrolled in gifted programs were reportedly performing in the top 10% of their class. Furthermore, the teachers reported that all of the students enrolled in gifted education programs were performing consistent with test scores for their abilities, demonstrating high quality of work, enjoying their school work, and having open and comfortable interactions with their teachers. However, only the latter quality (openness with teachers) was reported for more than one-half (73%) of the students not currently receiving gifted education services. Less than one-third of these students were described by teachers as having the more positive traits. The majority of these 11 unserved students were more often described by teachers as performing in the average or below average level in class, showing some or little consistency with their ability test scores, and having some or little knowledge of current school subjects. They were also described as presenting work of an average or poor quality and often delayed in submitting their work after established deadlines. Furthermore, seven of the 11 students in this group were described by their teachers as showing little enjoyment with their school work.

Current Behavioral Attributes

Teachers were asked to describe the students in terms of current social and behavioral traits. Attributes associated with gifted and talented students were evident in the teachers' reports for both the students currently enrolled in gifted education programs as well as those students who were not currently enrolled. Significantly more students currently enrolled in gifted education programs, however, reportedly demonstrated the majority of these attributes (p [is less than] .05). All of the students currently enrolled in gifted education programs demonstrated humor as a strength, and six of these seven students demonstrated strengths in attributes having to do with engaging with and being recognized by others; sharing information and things; actively exploring the environment; being observant; seeing the big picture and viewing events comprehensively; creativity and imagination; artistic representation of images through symbols; curiosity; independence and initiation; and possessing a large pool of information and reasoning. No fewer than five (71%) of the seven students currently enrolled in gifted education programs demonstrated each of the 17 gifted attributes by teacher reports. In contrast, no more than 4 (36%) students not enrolled in gifted education programs demonstrated any of the 17 attributes. The teachers described only four students not currently enrolled in gifted education programs as having strengths relative to humor and sensitivity to their own and others' feelings. The differences in the frequency of these traits between the two groups of students were statistically significant at the .05 level. Table 1 presents a summary of these data.

Table 1

Teachers' Reports on the Frequency of 17 Behaviors Representative of Gifted Students

                        Currently       Currently not
                       enrolled in       enrolled in         All
Behaviors            gifted programs   gifted programs     subjects
                         (N = 7)           (N=11)           (N=18)

Vocabulary                  5                 2               7
Moving(*)                   5                 1               6
Engages(*)                  6                 2               8
Recognized                  6                 2               8
Share                       6                 3               9
Explore(*)                  6                 2               8
Observant                   6                 2               8
Humor(*)                    7                 4               11
Sensitivity                 6                 4               10
See big picture(*)          6                 2               8
Acts                        5                 2               7
Fantasy(*)                  6                 2               8
Imagery(*)                  6                 0               6
Curiosity                   6                 2               8
Independent(*)              6                 2               8
Focus                       5                 2               7
Knows(*)                    6                 1               7

Note. Table includes reports of "often" and "always" combined. (*) p < .05

The results of this follow-up study also revealed that students, who were currently described by teachers as more possessing of a large pool of information and reasoning, verbal skills, independence, and willingness to share information, were more likely to be enrolled in gifted education programs. Six of the seven students currently enrolled in gifted programs demonstrated these Type 1 characteristics. One student not currently enrolled in gifted education programs also presented these characteristics. Interestingly, students not enrolled in gifted education programs were more likely to be characterized by other Types (Type 2 - 4) or showed a mix of types (e.g., Type 1 & 2 or Type 1 & 3).

Teachers reported behavioral characteristics representative of gifted underachievers (underachieving behaviors) for nine (50%) of the 18 students; this included one of the students currently enrolled in a gifted education program and eight of the 11 students not currently enrolled in gifted education programs. Interestingly, the one student who enrolled in gifted programs but showed underachieving behaviors was the only student described as `highly gifted' in this follow-up study. The result supports the findings of other studies (Silverman, 1993; Whitmore, 1980) that highly gifted students often do not fit in socially and demonstrate undesirable behavior patterns. The most frequently reported underachieving behaviors by teachers included lack of self-direction, lack of self-confidence, not motivated by usual incentives, and poor communication with peers or teachers. All of these behaviors were reported for the students not currently enrolled in gifted education programs. Table 2 presents a summary of the teachers' report of underachieving behaviors for these students.

Table 2
Teachers' Reports of Underachieving Behaviors

                          Currently       Currently not
Underachieving           enrolled in       enrolled in       All
Behaviors              gifted programs   gifted programs   subjects
                            (N=7)            (N=11)         (N=18)

Tendency to work
 alone                        1                 2             3
Hyperactivity                 0                 4             4
Disinterest in
 participation                0                 4             4
Lack of
 self-confidence(*)           0                 6             6
Stubbornness                  0                 3             3
Autonomous spirit             0                 1             1
Uncooperativeness             1                 3             4
Setting high goals            0                 2             2
Being bored by
 routines                     0                 3             3
Not motivated by
 usual incentives(*)          0                 6             6
Lack of
 self-direction(*)            0                 7             7
General immaturity            0                 1             1
Refusal to comply
 with rules                   0                 4             4
Rejection of
 assignments                  0                 2             2
Alienation by
 constant aggression          0                 1             1
Tendency to question
 too much                     0                 1             1
Poor communication
 with peers or
 teachers(*)                  0                 5             5
Daydreams                     1                 1             2
Other behaviors               0                 3             3

(*) p < .05

Stability of Students' Attributes Over 5 Years

The nonparametric McNemar test was used to note statistically significant changes in the occurrence of behavioral constellations between 1992 and 1997. The results suggest that the students' display of the 17 attributes used to identify potentially gifted and talented students in 1992 were quite stable over time. There were only two attributes that showed a significant difference in frequency of occurrence between the earlier Nebraska Project and the current teacher reports. Humor and sensitivity were noted to be statistically less stable than other attributes for these 18 students. Only two of these students showed `humor' as a positive or strong attribute in their K-2 data in 1992; teachers noted humor for 11 students in this present study (p [is less than] .02). Sensitivity was also reported in the present study for seven students who didn't reportedly demonstrate the attribute five years ago (p [is less than] .07).

Summary and Discussion

By providing follow-up data on a subset of the students identified as potentially gifted during the 1992, Javits-sponsored Nebraska Project, this pilot study tried to examine if and how the findings of the Nebraska Project are being used today to design gifted education services for students in the public schools in the state of Nebraska. These preliminary results suggest that the findings and recommendations of the Nebraska Project in 1992 are not being used in the three school districts surveyed in 1997. The following sections discuss the results with more detail.

Current Status in Gifted Education Programs

Like the other Javits projects, the results of the Nebraska Project provide support for an approach to educational assessment and related practices for gifted students, especially, but not limited to gifted students from culturally different or economically disadvantaged populations. Although the staff of the Nebraska Project reported that the project did increase teachers' and administrators' interest around the state in identifying underrepresented gifted students, and teachers' attitudes and behaviors changed regarding identification of and service for gifted students (Griffin, 1995), it is questionable whether these positive interests and attitudes have influenced practices five years later.

No students in the present study, who were currently enrolled in gifted education programs, were identified by their behavioral traits. Criteria for selecting these students for gifted programs did not include the 17 behaviors identified as indicative of giftedness. Furthermore, criteria used for these students do not appear to include the use of direct teacher observation of students' behaviors as a way of identifying gifted students. Although some alternative materials (e.g., past performance, product) were considered, it seemed that test scores still took priority and were weighed more heavily than the alternative non-test materials. Seven of the 18 students in the present study were selected for gifted education programs mainly through their school district's use of IQ test scores. This is disturbing given the fact that teachers reported similar behaviors for most of these students as had been described by previous teachers 5 years ago. Even though the research findings of most Javits Projects suggested that identification processes should be flexible, include all possible gifted students (Frasier & Passow, 1994), and recommended using non-traditional measures of talent, such as authentic assessments based on interactions of students with learning opportunities, the results of this pilot study suggest that some school districts in Nebraska have not implemented such practices.

Teacher observation based on the NSNO or other nontraditional identification methods (e.g., performance based assessment) should not be proposed as a replacement for standardized tests because information about their validity and reliability of such behavioral criteria is not adequately available, and they are criticized for certain biases and halo effects (Gear, 1976). However, they deserve to be considered as supplements to standardized tests, and may well provide more accurate or meaningful information especially for students who have high test anxiety or whose abilities are not represented in standardized tests (Sternberg, 1982). Students who demonstrate excellent behaviors or products through the nontraditional identification methods should be valued and respected as much as the students who have high IQ score or high academic achievement score. Therefore, students in the present study who scored low on standardized tests but rated high on the behavioral checklists in 1992 and 1997 should deserve further follow-up before district personnel regard them as average or even weak students (Sternberg, 1982).

Current School Performance & Behavioral Attributes

There are a number of potentially important differences between the students currently enrolled and students not enrolled in gifted education programs. One of them is their current school performance. Although teachers reported positive academic traits for more than one-half of the 18 students represented in this study, they indicated that the seven students currently enrolled in gifted programs showed very positive performance in school. Most of the students not enrolled in gifted programs, however, were described as having average or below average school performances. Similar to the results on current academic performance, students currently enrolled in gifted education programs showed more social and behavioral attributes associated with gifted and talented students than the un-enrolled students. Students not enrolled in gifted education programs showed more underachieving behaviors. These findings might be interpreted in several ways.

First, in this study an actual observation of student behaviors was not involved, as it was in 1992. If actual observations were involved and teachers had a chance to observe students' behaviors carefully in their classroom settings over a two-week period, the results might have indicated that teachers could observe as many gifted behaviors in students not enrolled in gifted education as were observed in students enrolled in gifted education programs. Related to this, another explanation could be that current teachers were biased in their judgments, especially with the absence of direct observation, assigning higher ratings to the students who were labeled as gifted. Research has indicated labels do influence teachers' judgments (Birch, 1984). Some teachers might believe that gifted students automatically show positive academic performance and attributes associated with giftedness. Eby (1983) indicated that teachers are more likely to look for gifted students than gifted behaviors and can be more biased in their decision making when they were asked to rate their students without careful direct observation.

Second, teachers may differentiate instruction for the gifted students, as enrollment in gifted education is designed to address these students' individual needs for alternative content and/or instruction. This differentiation in school instruction may result in higher overall academic performance and consequently higher ratings from their teachers for demonstration of gifted behaviors.

Third, not all of the 17 gifted attributes may be recognized and valued in classrooms, especially in the upper grade levels. According to the results of this study, Type 1 behaviors in particular (possessing a large pool of information and reasoning, verbal, independent, and sharing information and things) may be more recognized and valued in classrooms, than other types of behaviors such as curiosity, active exploration of the environment, quietness, focus, unexpected humor, social interactiveness and viewing events comprehensively. These latter behaviors, typical characteristics of Type 2, 3, & 4 students, may be more difficult to notice if careful observation is not utilized, and considered as problematic behaviors, especially a behavior such as moving and doing associated with actively exploring the environment (Griffin & McKenzie, 1993). Interestingly, no student currently enrolled in gifted education programs was checked for `moving and doing' during the 1992 Nebraska Project. However, five of the students who currently show underachieving behaviors were reported to show `moving and doing' behavior 5 years ago, but not currently.

Finally, students who were assessed and met identification criteria during the 1992 Nebraska Project might still be potentially or possibly gifted, but without appropriate identification and programming over the past 5 years, may have underachieved in their school settings. These students may be currently noticed for their underachieving behaviors and not for the gifted attributes or potentials they continue to possess. Underachieving behaviors may camouflage gifted behaviors (Whitmore, 1980). It is not clear in the present study whether the students' poor or average ratings were due to the lack of the students being identified as gifted by the district or the lack of gifted education services being provided to them; however, there is a large discrepancy between the teacher reports of potential for these unserved students five years ago and the current school performance of these students as reported by current teachers. Regardless of the reasons, this discrepancy may suggest an invisible and incredible loss to the students themselves and to our society. Research has evidenced that our society's most productive persons are not always those who score at the 95th percentile on standardized tests (Renzulli, 1979). Efforts should be made to find hidden and untraditional gifted students who may not score high on the standardized tests but would contribute to society through their creative, gifted and talented potential in their later lives.

Stability of Gifted Behaviors Over Time

The results of the McNemar Change Test indicated that the students' display of 17 attributes used to identify potentially gifted students in 1992 were quite stable over time, except for the traits of humor and sensitivity. Although the change in instrument formats, from observation and tallying to recall and Likert scale ratings, may have influenced the teachers' abilities to report these gifted behaviors, it appears that teachers do notice the behaviors regardless of the types of instrumentation used. If these gifted behaviors are truly stable over time, then the limited number of students currently enrolled in gifted education programs in this pilot study must be due to the district criteria that do not consider or value the behaviors that Griffin and McKenzie (1993) noted to be frequently reported as gifted attributes in the literature.

Two attributes, humor and sensitivity, in particular require further review. Only two of the students currently enrolled in gifted education programs and four students not currently served were observed to possess `humor' and 'sensitivity' respectively as gifted attributes during the 1992 Nebraska Project. In the present study, `humor' and `sensitivity' were reported for 11 and 10 of the students, respectively. This may imply that humor and sensitivity are attributes that are difficult to detect in K-2 classroom observations; these attributes may be more developmentally appropriate or naturally occurring among 4th and 6th grade students than younger students. But these behaviors should not be regarded as insignificant as qualities of giftedness or less useful in the early identification of young gifted students; these behaviors have been strongly supported as indicators of giftedness in the literature (Duncan & Dreger, 1978; Ehrlich, 1982; Kitano, 1989; Male & Perrone, 1979; Mitchell, 1988; Ogilvie, 1973; Renzulli, Smith, White, Callahan & Hartman, 1976; Roedell, Jackson, & Robinson, 1980; Silverman, 1986).

Limitations

The results of this pilot follow-up study should be generalized with caution. First, the number of students represented in this pilot study was quite small representing less than 10% of the original state-wide sample of identified students in 1992. Secondly, the sample used for this study contained no students from minority groups, limiting the degree to which the NSNO protocol and its 17 behavioral traits can be considered effective in identifying the underserved populations. Furthermore, the sample studied in this research had been selected on their availability and willingness to participate. Although more than 50% of the teachers contacted responded with a completed survey, there is always the possibility that the teachers of students who did not return a survey represented a very different profile of students than was discussed here. Given the time of year the study was initiated, it was not possible to conduct follow-up contact with nonresponding teachers to inquire as to their reasons for not participating. The possibility remains that substantially different findings would be obtained if future follow-up studies were done for a larger number of the original Nebraska Project participants.

Recommendation

The results of this pilot study suggest a continued use of traditional identification practices, supporting some educators' views that many of the original Javits sponsored projects have remained insular (Callahan, 1996). The results of this study indicate that there should be more efforts to follow-up other Javits-sponsored projects to answer the unanswered questions relative to the existence of a paradigm shift in gifted education identification and program practices. Changes in identification procedures need to be documented and their influence on possible changes in program practices need to be explored. If the preliminary findings of this study are indicative of trends across the country, there will need to be further investigations of the rationale or barriers that are associated with a state' s or community's interest in implementing new, more research-based practices for gifted and talented students.

For example, a lack of funding from state education departments and rigid identification regulations, as well as lack of communication between the researchers and practitioners may influence a state's implementation of new practices. In addition, although the emerging paradigm shift in the field of gifted education is generally perceived positively (Maker, 1996), some educators are concerned that recommended practices are too hasty and do not address the qualitatively different needs of the gifted child (Morelock, 1996). These ideological differences may need to be carefully examined.

It is also assumed that some barriers to implementing new practices in gifted education are tied to administrators' and teachers' attitudes toward a definition of giftedness or the criteria for selecting students for gifted programs. Administrators and teachers may need professional development opportunities to successfully translate recent research findings into everyday practices. Teacher-training programs in early childhood and elementary education should be educated to include non-traditional behaviors (e.g., humor, sensitivity, imagery, etc.) in their definitions of giftedness, and in the process of observing behavioral traits that can help identify gifted and talented students in their classrooms. Finally, both in preservice and inservice programs, there should be a campaign to have teachers, parents and administrators focus less on labeling (Who is/is not gifted?) and more on assessment/diagnosis of students' outstanding abilities and needs. Though it is easy to find nice students who do well in school and score high on tests, much money and efforts are being expended in formal identification of these students (Davidson, 1986). These efforts and moneys could be redirected to find possibly, potentially, and/or hidden able/creative students through more informal and untraditional ways.

Changes in identification procedures however, should be accompanied by and connected to changes in curriculum and instruction (Maker, 1995, 1996). Teachers should be trained to learn how to create classrooms that will allow for easier observation of the traits of giftedness in naturally occurring interactions with peers, adults, and academic materials and content. Teachers in all grade levels should also be trained to adjust/adapt current curriculum and teaching strategies to match the unique traits/abilities of students in their classrooms, regardless of their labels or identification status. Individualized educational programs in inclusive (not exclusive) programs is necessary if gifted education is to succeed in identifying and promoting the abilities of all students with special talents. Special programs, activities and strategies developed to aid gifted students should be implemented in regular education programs to benefit more and more students (Feldhusen, 1995; Gallagher, 1994b; Treffinger & Feldhusen, 1996).

For all this to happen, however, there need to be flexible rules and regulations combined with strong leadership at state and community levels (Coleman & Gallagher, 1995). There should be a belief that creative and innovative methods can assist in solving the problems in identifying gifted students in our educational systems. It is sad to see that the rapid growth in the literature related to the identification issues in gifted education has not been paralleled by a comparable interest in the actual educational practices associated with the identification of students for placement in gifted programs. This small pilot follow-up study suggests that the research-practice gap may be quite large. It is time to bring research and practice into congruence in the field of gifted education. The Javits Projects, including the Nebraska Project, offered hope that traditional, narrow, and biased identification practices can be improved. Only time will tell if these Javits Projects can render an avenue to provide rich and challenging education to all our able, talented, creative students. Unfortunately at the present time, it appears we have a long way to go.

REFERENCES

Alvino, J., McDonnel, R., & Richart, S. (1981). National survey of identification practices in gifted and talented education. Exceptional Children, 48, 124-132.

Ashman, S. S., & Vukeloch, C. (1983). The effect of different types of nomination forms on teachers' identification of gifted children. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 518-528.

Baldwin, A. Y. (1994). The seven plus story: Developing hidden talent among students in socioeconomically disadvantaged environments. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38 (2), 80-84.

Berger, S. L. (1992). Programs and practices in gifted education: Projects funded by the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 1988. Reston, Virginia: The Council for Exceptional Children.

Birch, J. W. (1984). Is any identification procedure necessary? Gifted Child Quarterly, 28 (4), 157-161.

Borland, J. (1978). Teacher identification of the gifted: A new look. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2 (1), 22-32.

Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38 (4), 164-171.

Bredkamp, S., & Rosegrant, T. (1992). Reaching potentials: Appropriate curriculum and assessment for young children. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children (AEYC).

Callahan, C. M. (1993). Contexts for promise: Noteworthy practices and innovations in the identification of gifted students. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372 592).

Callahan, C. M. (1996). A critical self-study of gifted education: Healthy practice, necessary evil, or sedition? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19 (2), 148-163.

Clasen, D. R. (1993). Project STREAM: Support, training and resources for educating able minorities. In C. M. Callahan, (Ed.), Contexts for promise: Noteworthy practices and innovations in the identification of gifted students (pp. 1-21). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372 592).

Coleman, L. J. (1994). Portfolio assessment: A key to identifying hidden talents and empowering teachers of young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38 (2), 65-69.

Coleman, M. R., & Gallagher, J. J. (1995). State identification policies: Gifted students from special populations. Roeper Review, 17 (4), 268-275.

Cox, J., & Daniel, N. (1983). Identification: Special problems and special populations. Gifted Child Today, 54-61.

Cramond, B. (1997). The use of multiple criteria for identifying gifted students. Gifted Education Supplement from the Roeper Review, 20 (2), Al-A7.

Davidson, K. (1986). The case against formal identification. Gifted Child Today, 9 (6), 7-11.

Duncan, J., & Dreger, R. (1978). Behavioral analysis and identification of gifted children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 133, 43-57.

Eby, J. W. (1983). Gifted behavior: A nonelitist approach. Educational Leadership, 40 (8), 30-36.

Ehrlich, V. Z. (1982). Gifted children: A guide for parents and teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Feldhusen, J. F. (1995). Talent development vs. gifted education. The Educational Forum, 59, 346-349.

Ford, D. Y. (1994). The recruitment and retention of African-American students in gifted education programs: Implications and recommendations (No. RBDM 9405). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Frasier, M. M., & Passow, A. H. (1994). Toward a new paradigm for identifying talent potential (Monograph 94111). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Gallagher, J. J. (1994a). Current and historical thinking on education for gifted and talented students. In P. O. Ross (Ed.), National excellencee: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

Gallagher, J. J. (1994b). A retrospective view: The Javits program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38 (2), 95-96.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gear, G. H. (1976). Accuracy of teacher judgment in identifying intellectually gifted children: A review of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20, 478-490.

Gear, G. H. (1978). Effects of training on teacher judgment in identifying intellectually gifted children: A review of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 90-97.

Griffin, N. S. (1993). Nebraska project - Replication guide. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Griffin, N. S. (1995). Content validity and field-test results of Nebraska Starry Night Observation Protocol. Unpublished manuscript, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Griffin, N. S., & McKenzie, J. (1993). Nebraska Starry Night: A behavior-based observation protocol, version 8.893. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Gubbins, E. J. (Spring, 1997). NRC/GT: Research should inform practice. The NRC G/T Newsletter, Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Karnes, M. E., & Johnson, L. J. (1986). Identification and assessment of gifted/talented handicapped and nonhandicapped children in early childhood. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 18, 35-54.

Kitano, M. K. (1989). The k-3 teacher's role in recognizing and supporting young gifted children. Young Children, 34, 57-63.

Kitano, M. K., & Kirby, D. F. (1985). Gifted education: A comprehensive view. Boston: Little, brown and Company.

Maker, C. J. (1995). Nurturing giftedness in young children. Reston, VA: The Council of Exceptional Children.

Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes and promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40 (1), 41-50.

Male, R. A., & Perrone, P. (1979). Identifying talent and giftedness, part II. Roeper Review, 2 (2), 5-7.

Mitchell, B. M. (1988). A strategy for the identification of the culturally different gifted/talented child. Roeper Review, 10 (3).

Morelock, M. J. (1996). On the nature of giftedness and talent: Imposing order on chaos. Roeper Review, 19 (1), 4-12.

Ogilvie, E. (1973). Individual differences and the behavioral criteria of giftedness: Gifted children in the primary schools. London: Macmillan Education Ltd.

Ormrod, J. E. (1985). Issues in the identification of gifted and talented students. Texas Tech Journal of Education, 12 (2), 63-77.

Passow, A. H., & Frasier, M. M. (1996). Toward improving identification of talent potential among minority and disadvantaged students, Roeper Review, 18 (3), 198-202.

Pizzat, P. M. (I 993). Spotting talent early in minority students: Project STEMS in Howard County, Maryland. In C. M. Callahan, (Ed.), Contexts for promise: Noteworthy practices and innovations in the identification of gifted students (pp. 73-84). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372 592).

Renzulli, J. S. (1979). What makes giftedness: A reexamination of the definition of the gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Office.

Renzulli, J. S. (1988). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Renzulli, J. S., & Purcell, J. H. (1996). Gifted education: A look around and a look ahead. Roeper Review, 18 (3), 173-178.

Renzulli, J. S., Hartman, R. K., & Callahan, C. M. (1971). Teacher identification of superior students. Exceptional Children, 38, 211-214.

Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C, M., & Hartman, R. K. (1976). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Wethersfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Richart, E. S. (1985). Identification of gifted students: An update. Roeper Review, 8, 68-72.

Richmond, P. (1996). Tapping hidden talent: The identification of culturally diverse students for gifted education programs in the southeastern United States. Unpublished Dissertation. Virginia: The College of William and Mary.

Roedell, W. C., Jackson, N. E., & Robinson, H. B. (1980). Gifted young children. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College Press.

Ross, P. O. (1993). National excellence: The case for developing America's talent. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Ross, P. O. (1994). Introduction to descriptions of Javits grant projects. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38 (2), 64.

Shaklee, B. D. (1992). Identification of young gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15 (2), 134-144.

Shaklee, B. (1993). Preliminary findings of the early assessment for exceptional potential project. Roeper Review, 16 (2), 105-109.

Silverman, L. K. (1986). Parenting young gifted children. In J. R. Whitmore. (Ed.), Intellectual giftedness in young children. New York: Haworth Press.

Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver, CO: Love.

Starnes, W. T. (1993). A model program for identifying young underserved gifted students. In C. M. Callahan, (Ed.), Contexts for promise: Noteworthy practices and innovations in the identification of gifted students (pp. 43-60). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372 592).

Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Lies we live by: Misapplication of tests in identifying the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26 (4), 157-161.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A triarchic view of intelligence in cross-cultural perspective. In S. H. Irvine & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Human abilities in cultural context (pp. 60-85). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Treffinger, D. J., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1996). Talent recognition and development: Successor to gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19 (2), 181-193.

Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Whitmore, J. R. (1982). Recognizing and developing hidden giftedness. The Elementary School Journal, 82 (3), 274-283.

Wright, L., & Borland, J. (1993). Using early childhood developmental portfolios in the identification and education of young, economically disadvantaged, potentially gifted students. Roeper Review, 15 (4), 205-210.

Appendix A

17 High Ability and Creativity Behaviors

     FREQUENCY
 never      always
                                     BEHAVIORS

1   2   3   4   5                   Vocabulary
                    (fluent; comprehends a lot; verbally
                    expressive; uses novel & "Big" words;
                    associates/connects ideas & words
                    creatively; uses complex grammar)

1   2   3   4   5                Moving and Doing
                    (consistently expresses knowledge and
                    ability through moving & constructing;
                    demonstrates well; shows how or what;
                    provides exhibits; nonverbally expressive)

1   2   3   4   5                     Engages
                    (shares information; initiates
                    interactions; directs/leads others;
                    encourages; offers or extends
                    instruction/help)

1   2   3   4   5              Recognized by others
                    (sought out by others; seen as a
                    resource; attracts others; responsive;
                    admired)

1   2   3   4   5               Share & Volunteers
                    (extends to others; illustrates for
                    others; connects/describes; explains/
                    instructs; helps/shows others; advises;
                    encourages)

1   2   3   4   5                    Explores
                    (actively interacts with environment and
                    discovers, experiments, designs, and
                    constructs; organizes/sorts creatively;
                    enjoys solving problems; creates games &
                    puzzles)

1   2   3   4   5                    Observant
                    (first to notice any change; sees
                    relations & patterns; connects/associates/
                    predicts; examines differences;
                    distinguishes sharply)

1   2   3   4   5                      Humor
                    (jokes; witty, clever, original; is often
                    novel and spontaneous; reacts/responds
                    humorously and creatively)

1   2   3   4   5                    Sensitive
                    (emotionally expressive/hypersensitive;
                    insightful; thoughtful; sympathetic/
                    empathetic; anxious; self-aware;
                    concerns/cares for others very much)

1   2   3   4   5              Sees the big picture
                    (recognizes patterns; views events
                    comprehensively; connects seemingly
                    unrelated topics; aware of social issues)

1   2   3   4   5                 Hungers to Act
                    (expresses self very actively; wants to
                    be seen; eager to be involved; performs;
                    uses lots of gesture; spontaneous; leads;
                    announces; enthusiastic; attempts to be
                    center stage)

1   2   3   4   5              Fantasy & Imagination
                    (invents; imitates creatively; imagines;
                    pretends; engages in original construction
                    or novel design)

1   2   3   4   5                     Imagery
                    (uses metaphor, symbolism; illustrates;
                    artistic; clever, novel, original;
                    expressive; vivid representation of images
                    through drawing, written or oral language)

1   2   3   4   5               Curious & Questions
                    (asks lots of questions; examines;
                    explores "how & why"; wants to know about
                    unfamiliar things; asks questions that are
                    difficult to answer)

1   2   3   4   5                   Independent
                    (works alone; self-directed; initiates;
                    doesn't need assistance or direction;
                    plans/pursues/solves independently)

1   2   3   4   5                      Focus
                    (concentrates; persists; stays absorbed;
                    completes details; diligent)

1   2   3   4   5                      Knows
                    (possesses large pool of information and
                    able to comprehend much information;
                    reasons & synthesizes at higher level;
                    analyzes & interprets quickly and
                    efficiently; recognizes mistakes and
                    corrects others; applies higher level
                    thinking skills)

     QUALITY
 poor     excellent
                                     BEHAVIORS

1   2   3   4   5                   Vocabulary
                    (fluent; comprehends a lot; verbally
                    expressive; uses novel & "Big" words;
                    associates/connects ideas & words
                    creatively; uses complex grammar)

1   2   3   4   5                Moving and Doing
                    (consistently expresses knowledge and
                    ability through moving & constructing;
                    demonstrates well; shows how or what;
                    provides exhibits; nonverbally expressive)

1   2   3   4   5                     Engages
                    (shares information; initiates
                    interactions; directs/leads others;
                    encourages; offers or extends
                    instruction/help)

1   2   3   4   5              Recognized by others
                    (sought out by others; seen as a
                    resource; attracts others; responsive;
                    admired)

1   2   3   4   5               Share & Volunteers
                    (extends to others; illustrates for
                    others; connects/describes; explains/
                    instructs; helps/shows others; advises;
                    encourages)

1   2   3   4   5                    Explores
                    (actively interacts with environment and
                    discovers, experiments, designs, and
                    constructs; organizes/sorts creatively;
                    enjoys solving problems; creates games &
                    puzzles)

1   2   3   4   5                    Observant
                    (first to notice any change; sees
                    relations & patterns; connects/associates/
                    predicts; examines differences;
                    distinguishes sharply)

1   2   3   4   5                      Humor
                    (jokes; witty, clever, original; is often
                    novel and spontaneous; reacts/responds
                    humorously and creatively)

1   2   3   4   5                    Sensitive
                    (emotionally expressive/hypersensitive;
                    insightful; thoughtful; sympathetic/
                    empathetic; anxious; self-aware;
                    concerns/cares for others very much)

1   2   3   4   5              Sees the big picture
                    (recognizes patterns; views events
                    comprehensively; connects seemingly
                    unrelated topics; aware of social issues)

1   2   3   4   5                 Hungers to Act
                    (expresses self very actively; wants to
                    be seen; eager to be involved; performs;
                    uses lots of gesture; spontaneous; leads;
                    announces; enthusiastic; attempts to be
                    center stage)

1   2   3   4   5              Fantasy & Imagination
                    (invents; imitates creatively; imagines;
                    pretends; engages in original construction
                    or novel design)

1   2   3   4   5                     Imagery
                    (uses metaphor, symbolism; illustrates;
                    artistic; clever, novel, original;
                    expressive; vivid representation of images
                    through drawing, written or oral language)

1   2   3   4   5               Curious & Questions
                    (asks lots of questions; examines;
                    explores "how & why"; wants to know about
                    unfamiliar things; asks questions that are
                    difficult to answer)

1   2   3   4   5                   Independent
                    (works alone; self-directed; initiates;
                    doesn't need assistance or direction;
                    plans/pursues/solves independently)

1   2   3   4   5                      Focus
                    (concentrates; persists; stays absorbed;
                    completes details; diligent)

1   2   3   4   5                      Knows
                    (possesses large pool of information and
                    able to comprehend much information;
                    reasons & synthesizes at higher level;
                    analyzes & interprets quickly and
                    efficiently; recognizes mistakes and
                    corrects others; applies higher level
                    thinking skills)

Manuscript submitted July, 1998.

Revision accepted January, 1999.

Ki-Soon Han has a doctoral degree from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in Special Education with specialization in Gifted Education. Christine Marvin is an Associate Professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln where she teaches graduate courses in the area of early childhood special education.