English language learners (ELLs) are students whose first language is not English and who are still learning the English language in schools. The most widely used term is ELL but other commonly used terms include limited English proficient (LEP), students learning English as a second language (ESL), English speakers of other languages (ESOL), students learning English as a new language (ENL), or English learner (EL). ELL status is usually defined by a student’s score on an English proficiency test (Pereira & Gentry, 2013).
In the United States, the ELL population has increased from 4.7 million (10%) in 1980 to 11.2 million (21%) in 2009 with more than 85% identifying themselves as Latino (Bianco & Harris, 2014). ELLs account for more than 4.4 million students in U.S. public schools (Cho, Yang, & Mandracchia, 2015) and comprise 15.1% of the K–12 public school population in Texas (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). Although the number of ELLs is increasing nationally and in Texas, they continue to be underrepresented in gifted programs. If challenging educational experiences to high-potential ELLs are not provided, they may not advance at a rate commensurate with their abilities. For example, Plucker, Burroughs, and Song (2010) reported that from 1996 to 2007 ELLs’ scores at advanced levels showed modest to no growth in reading and math while non-ELLs’ scores increased, widening the “excellence gap” or the gap between various subgroups of students. This uneven growth is not only important to ELLs’ educational trajectories but also to the future of an increasingly diverse society.
To identify literature applicable for gifted English language learners, we reviewed the following journals: Gifted Child Today, Gifted Child Quarterly, Journal of Advanced Academics, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, and Roeper Review. To be included in this summary, articles must have been published since 2006 and needed to directly concern English language learners. We excluded articles that reported studies conducted outside of the United States and articles that referred to culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse students without identifying English language learners as a separate subgroup. Using these criteria, 16 articles were identified and summarized. Articles included opinion or descriptive summaries (n = 4) as well as studies using quantitative (n = 4), qualitative (n = 6), and mixed methods (n = 2). In addition to the researchers’ review of gifted identification measures and gifted programming for ELLs, perspectives from ELLs and their parents and teachers were presented.
Researchers report that the underrepresentation of ELLs in gifted education has been and continues to be a concerning and pervasive problem (Briggs, Reis, & Sullivan, 2008; Pereira & Gentry, 2013). This underrepresentation may be due to teachers’ deficit view of students who lack strong English speaking skills (Bianco & Harris, 2014). ELLs may be overlooked in the identification process for gifted programming because of teachers’ bias toward students from diverse backgrounds or because teachers are looking for high academic performance, which is often hindered by English language learners’ language difficulties (Hughes, Shaunessy, Brice, Ratliff, & McHatton, 2006; Kogan, 2001). Researchers argued that code switching, or the ability to alternate between two languages for emphasis, should not be perceived negatively as a deficiency but should be considered as a potential intellectual advantage (Hughes et al., 2006). Hughes et al. (2006) suggested an alternative identification method for ELLs that included professional development for educators in recognizing potential giftedness in students’ use of code switching between languages. Pierce et al. (2006) emphasized professional development as well as modifications to the achievement and aptitude score cut-offs for gifted programming in their project, Clustering Learners Unlocks Equity Project (CLUE). Preliminary results indicated that more ELLs were identified using the new method that included nomination based on scores such as the Adams-Pierce Checklist or the Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices.
Other researchers investigated the impact of different tests typically used in nominating linguistically diverse students. For example, Giessman, Gambrell, and Stebbins (2013) examined the results of students’ scores on the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT6) and the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test Second Edition (NNAT2). They found that nonverbal battery of the CogAT6 appeared to identify as many or more ELLs than the NNAT2. Lohman, Korb, and Lakin (2008) also compared the performance of K–6 ELLs on different assessments, concluding that a comprehensive identification system that includes teacher ratings as well as a consideration of a broad range of talents and abilities is preferred. Their results indicated that the correlation between achievement tests and ability tests were higher for non-ELLs than ELLs; therefore, it may be better to compare English language learners with their peers rather than national norms. Although nonverbal tests minimize differences between ELLs and non-ELLs, these nonverbal tests are better predictors of math achievement than reading achievement.
In addition to identifying more potentially gifted culturally and linguistically diverse (CLED) students, Briggs, Reis, and Sullivan (2008) reported five categories of gifted programming that are effective for gifted ELLs. These categories include modifying identification processes, providing front-loading of advanced work prior to formal identification, making specific curriculum adjustments, establishing a connection with parents, and using program evaluation to highlight the students’ assets and successes. Additionally, Bianco and Harris (2014) suggested a strengths-based, multitiered Response to Intervention (RTI) model designed to increase the gifted potential of Spanish-speaking ELLs.
Three articles considered various programming or curriculum options used with high-ability ELLs in elementary school. For example, third-grade ELLs who were taught using a specific math curriculum, Mentoring Mathematical Minds (M3), demonstrated significantly higher mathematical achievement gains than the comparison students (Cho, Yang, & Mandracchia, 2015). In another study, Kitano and Lewis (2007) examined the relationship between gains in reading achievement and tutoring gifted elementary ELLs in a reading comprehension strategy. The results suggested that gifted ELLs benefit from tutoring that includes specific instruction related to decoding, visualizing/imagining, and determining importance in reading passages. Finally, three themes emerged from Pereira and Gentry’s (2013) examination of the experiences of high-potential elementary-aged ELLs: enjoyable school experiences that included academic and nonacademic activities, student commitment to learning and achievement, and positive student-teacher interactions throughout the day. The researchers, however, expressed potential concern regarding these achieving, high-potential, future-oriented ELLs perceived lack of challenge and lack of gifted services. They recommended the importance of educators focusing on strengths, not deficits, when identifying giftedness of ELLs.
Three articles focused on middle school ELLs. Reed (2007) used action research to examine methods to increase identification of ESOL students at a public middle school. After informally meeting with parents and teachers, the researcher-educator used a holistic process that included teacher recommendations, availability of specific domain support, English language acquisition, and a group-administered intelligence test. After one year of gifted services, Reed reported the students had more positive attitudes toward GATE and academic groups or activities. Additionally, more ESOL students received special recognition for their achievement. Shiu, Kettler, and Johnsen (2009) examined the differences between economically disadvantaged, native Spanish-speaking eighth-grade students who elected to enroll in an Advanced Placement (AP) Spanish language course and those who did not enroll. Enrollment in advanced classes appeared to cultivate an academically supportive peer group, honored the students’ native language, and ultimately encouraged students’ educational aspirations with more participants enrolling in AP classes in high school. The findings suggested that Spanish-speaking skills are an asset that can be used as a gateway to academic success. In the third article, the experiences of middle school ESOL students in general education were compared to their ESOL peers in gifted education (Shaunessy, McHatton, Hughes, Brice, & Ratliff, 2007).
During the researcher-facilitated social interaction discussion groups, gifted ESOL students were less likely to use Spanish in the discussion and express concerns about grade retention and were more likely to discuss academic achievement and report high parental expectations. Both groups recalled instances of perceived discrimination related to their ethnicity, academic ability, and/or English language skills. The authors stressed the importance of educator training and peer-nominations to increase the identification of ESOL students.
Outcomes and perspectives of high school and community college ELLs were also reported. Matthews and Mellon (2012) found that limited English proficient high school students who participated in a university-based summer program reported increased aspirations and confidence in their ability to attend postsecondary education. Students also reported improved academic skills and increased persistence in academic pursuits. Another article discussed student outcomes after implementing a program in El Paso high schools to increase student population in the AP program (Cannon, 2011). Positive changes included increases in (a) teachers’ willingness to help struggling AP students, (b) the number of students taking AP exams, (c) the number of exams taken, and (d) overall AP scores. Finally, using qualitative research, Reyes (2007) investigated the experiences of situationally marginalized Mexican Americans participating in a federally funded College Assistant Migrant Program (CAMP). Given the students’ backgrounds and lack of educational encouragement, the participants traditionally would not have been considered “college material,” but with appropriate support and opportunities, they experienced academic success. Reyes concluded by urging educators to view all students as having the potential for postsecondary success and encouraging administrators to take assertive actions to create academic and socially supportive environments where students might be able to interact with other successful students and become a part of an academic community.
Teacher perspectives were the focus of one study. Using a comparative case study, Levine and Marchs (2007) explored a team of teachers’ responses regarding one ELL. The results suggest that teacher-to-teacher collaboration, school-family partnerships, and the provision of instructional scaffolding to meet standards are some of the most beneficial actions that educators can take toward closing the achievement gap for ELLs.
Overall these articles summarize research that supports gifted program services for high-ability ELLs. Alternative identification procedures, nonverbal assessments, and programming may help ELLs unlock their potential and be prepared for postsecondary education.
Literature Review
Bianco, M., & Harris, B. (2014). Strength-based RTI: Developing gifted potential in Spanish-speaking English language learners. Gifted Child Today, 37, 169–176. doi:10.1177/1076217514530115
This article recommended a multileveled support RTI model to meet the needs of gifted Spanish-speaking ELLs. Although RTI has been used by special education since 2004, researchers are beginning to explore the RTI process with gifted students. Little research exists about the possibilities of using the RTI process to help meet the needs of underrepresented populations like ELLs. The article argued that much of the underrepresentation of ELLs in gifted programs is due to a deficit view that teachers have about students who cannot speak English. The authors described a three-tiered model that adds an outer layer to a strength-based RTI model that includes an awareness of student interests, culture, strengths, and language development. The proposed program seeks to be challenging and culturally appropriate for the unique needs of the gifted ELL population. Tier 1 provides a curriculum that is culturally and linguistically relevant to allow for potentially gifted ELLs to emerge. In this tier, students can demonstrate what they know without relying mainly on English to show it. Screening instruments should be sensitive to the native language and heavy language-loaded assessments should be avoided. Teachers need to reflect on their capability to pay attention to the cultural and affective needs of their students. Tier 2 intervention is best met with collaboration between members of the student’s educational team such as the general educator, gifted specialist, and the ESL specialist. In Tier 2, students study curriculum at a greater depth and learning needs are differentiated; in addition, ELLs require support for their native language and cultural background. If a student’s needs are not met with Tier 2 interventions, then gifted education identification is a possible Tier 3 intervention. ELLs require greater flexibility in identification and should include supplementary measures of performance. The authors noted that a strength-based RTI model for nurturing potential in ELLs may face challenges, but this process holds promise for emerging gifted ELLs.
Briggs, C. J., Reis, S. M., & Sullivan, E. E. (2008). A national view of promising programs and practices for culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 131–145. doi:10.1177/0016986208316037
In this qualitative study, the authors presented methods to increase identification of underrepresented culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse gifted and talented students. Twenty-five programs across the country were included with seven being selected for more intensive site-based study. Using an informal questionnaire to collect information about program success, the authors found that program delivery of services varied and included services such as pullout, resource, within classroom cluster grouping, summer enrichment, and after-school programming. Five categories emerged from analysis of the programs that successfully met the needs of gifted and potentially gifted CLED students: revised identification procedures, front-loading, curriculum adjustments, family connection, and program evaluation. Within these five categories, three features of gifted and talented programs and three intervention practices increased the participation of CLED students. The features included (a) teachers, administrators, and staff awareness of the underrepresentation problem; (b) their increased recognition of cultural effects on student performance; and (c) increased supports for faculty to make needed changes. The program directors in these successful programs stated their main goal was to increase the CLED participation in gifted programming. Three intervention practices were found that helped support the achievement of CLED students: (a) identification strategies focusing on the inclusion of CLED students, (b) instructional strategies, and (c) professional development. To help encourage increased identification of CLED students for gifted services, some of the program directors allowed for language differences and other needs of the students. Successful instructional strategies included early intervention, mentorships, enrichment opportunities, and best practices in gifted education. Three quarters of the program directors had plans to expand opportunities for CLED students. The research findings provide direction for other schools to expand support for the inclusion of gifted CLED students.
Cannon, M. (2011). View from the border: Removing barriers for urban gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 34(1), 26–30.
This author discussed challenges that two high schools in El Paso ISD faced as the district addressed the needs of gifted secondary ELLs. Although the two schools included in the study appeared to be similar from the outside, their demographics revealed a different picture. One school was only a few hundred feet from the U.S. border with Mexico. The main language spoken was Spanish and many of the students were new to the country with 92% of the students economically disadvantaged, 99% Hispanic, and 41% limited English proficient. The AP passing rate at the school was 7%. The second school’s demographics differed greatly with 27% economically disadvantaged, 72% Hispanic, and 8% limited English proficient. The AP passing rate was 51% and was above the state average. Variations in the AP program across the district included participation levels, number of AP courses offered, and AP passing rates. The limited number of AP courses taught at different campuses reflected the lack of opportunities for students at low-income schools. In order to increase equity from campus to campus, the author began a district-wide incentive program to increase student participation in the AP program with a grant from the Department of Education. The first of three goals focused on promoting a college-going culture at high-poverty schools through intervention, support, and more opportunities to take pre-AP and AP courses and receive college credit. The district began recruiting disadvantaged students for AP classes with an orientation for students and parents. Campuses developed an AP Action Plan that examined AP courses, retention rates, enrollment, test scores, and demographic subgroup performance on the exams. In addition, each campus created an AP Student Union that housed computers and printers and a place where students could meet for AP tutoring before, during, and after school. The second goal created an environment where the schools, parents, and the community could actively participate in building a challenging academic environment. Vertical AP curriculum teams were created in grades 6 through 12. Teachers were trained on the vertical alignment process and subject matter teachers worked together to build well-articulated instructional plans. Parent meetings focused on the belief that demanding coursework is valuable and beneficial. Community leaders were contacted to be mentors to high-risk student populations. The third goal concentrated on changing the attitudes and instructional strategies of teachers, administrators, and counselors through professional development. Although English language learners often needed assistance in developing skills or content knowledge, some teachers believed AP students should already be at a high level. Professional development aimed at changing teachers’ attitudes from weeding out capable students to providing additional support for ELLs in the AP class. Two years after the initiative began, the district showed an 8.6% increase in the number of students taking AP exams, a 5% increase in the number of exams taken, an 11.8% increase in AP scores, and a 6.8% increase in exams taken by Hispanic students. The small improvements were encouraging and can be a model to help other districts in improving AP services for gifted and high-ability ELLs.
Cho, S., Yang, J., & Mandracchia, M. (2015). Effects of M3 curriculum on mathematics and English proficiency achievement of mathematically promising English language learners. Journal of Advanced Academics, 26, 112–142.
This article focused on research related to the study of ELLs with above average math performance. This study used the Mentoring Mathematical Minds (M3) differentiated curriculum. The curriculum met the instructional needs of promising ELLs with aspects of advanced and important mathematics, deep understanding and complexity, differentiated instruction, and communication. The study examined (a) differences in math achievement and English proficiency between comparison and treatment groups after using the M3 program and (b) if teacher instructional behaviors would influence the M3 program effects on student outcomes. A mixed-methods research design was used. Participants included 171 third-grade mathematically promising ELLs from one school district in a large city in the northeast U.S. Eligible students were at or above English language proficiency level. Participants included 67% Hispanics and 23% Asians; the remaining 10% were from other ethnic groups. Multiple measures were used to identify the students including teacher and peer nominations, teacher checklist scores, and grades in math and English language arts. From a pool of qualified students, the top 50% of students were selected. The M3 program was used with the treatment group after school for 3 days per week for about 45 minutes each session. Both groups received the regular curriculum during the day. In the students’ second year, teachers used the 10-item Likert-type scale checklist, Mathematical Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students. These checklists helped identify the students who would participate in the program the following year during third grade. Before students participated in the program, three tests and a student demographic survey were given to both groups. The Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) is a nonverbal, age-based normed test of general cognitive ability and does not rely on language or motor skills. The Stanford English Language Proficiency (SELP) is a multiple-choice test that assesses general English language ability including recognition of English grammar, correct spelling, punctuation, capitalization, types of text, and comprehension. The Math Concept and Estimation subtest of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) was used to measure mathematical skills. Before the implementation of the M3 curriculum, teachers participated in a 3-day professional development workshop to learn about the program and strategies required to teach the program effectively. Research team members visited the treatment groups to monitor fidelity of the program’s implementation by using a checklist of observed behaviors. At the end of the implementation phase, the ITBS and SELP were readministered to the students. Three models were constructed that compared differences in mathematical achievement between the control and treatment groups. Results of mathematical achievement posttest scores of the treatment groups were significantly higher than the control groups when prior knowledge was controlled (e.g., effect size = .63; p =. 04), but not in English competence. Qualitative methodology was reported from analysis of observations of the classroom teachers’ instructional behaviors. In addition, the qualitative data analysis helped to identify implementation fidelity of the treatment program. Because the participants were at or above the intermediate level of English proficiency, the authors cannot generalize the results to low-level English proficient students who might participate in the program.
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: One gifted program’s experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 101–109. doi:10.1177/0016986213477190
The researchers used the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test Second Edition (NNAT2) and the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT6) to compare subgroup differences in performance of students who were screened for identification of gifted services to identify which test increased minority representation and which test predicted higher performance on the WISC-IV. A large Midwestern school district (about 18,000 students) had switched from using the CogAT6 to the NNAT2 for its district-wide screening in order to yield a more diverse population for identification for gifted services. The sample of students included 5,833 students who took the CogAT6 the previous year and 4,035 students who took the NNAT2. Demographic information was nearly the same between the two groups. Results indicated that performance gaps existed among subgroups across both instruments. The verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal standard age score (VQNSAS) measure generated the lowest ELL means compared to non-ELLs. This result suggested that ELLs had a disadvantage on verbal items or difficulty with the directions given in English. The CogAT6 Nonverbal battery and NNAT2 both were comparable in identifying students in underrepresented groups. The VQNSAS measure was the best at predicting general ability. The CogAT6 Composite showed greater predictive validity for the WISC-IV for the top 5%. Modifying the identification procedures by using a nonverbal screener may help minority underidentification, but gifted programs should not rely only on one test to increase representation. The authors noted that it would have been better to test all students with each of the instruments, but testing all students was impractical and financially costly.
Hughes, C. E., Shaunessy, E. S., Brice, A. R., Ratliff, M. A, & McHatton, P. A. (2006). Code switching among bilingual and limited English proficient students: Possible indicators of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 7–28.
Code switching can be defined as the use of complete sentences, phrases, and borrowed words from another language or context for emphatic purposes. Code switching can be seen in different cultural and generational groups as well as in various technological applications. For those ELLs with a high second language ability, code switching is seen as a strength because they are able to integrate both languages to enhance their speaking. Code switching for ELLs with low secondary language ability is viewed negatively because it is often a sign of deficiency in the second language (e.g., English). These nuances in complexity and sophistication are often missed and the majority of code-switching ELLs are tracked to lower educational settings. The authors of this article suggest that educators need to be better trained in recognizing the subtleties of code switching in order to identify more accurately gifted students who are also ELLs. Opportunities for further research are presented, including a study of the different purposes of code switching and analysis of which strategies are employed most frequently by gifted students, and whether gifted students move more quickly through language development or if they employ more sophisticated language strategies.
Kitano, M. K., & Lewis, R. B. (2007). Examining the relationship between reading achievement and tutoring duration and content for gifted culturally and linguistically diverse students from low-income backgrounds. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 295–325.
In this quantitative study, researchers investigated the effects of tutoring interventions incorporating different high- and low-level strategies on achievement in reading. Participants included a total of 58 third- through fifth-grade students enrolled in special Open Gate classrooms that are designed for gifted students from low-income settings. Seven different languages other than English were spoken in the homes of the participants; 74% (n = 43) of the participants came from homes with primary languages other than English. All students enrolled in the Open Gate program received regular tutoring. The study participants were served by 11 tutors who received 10 hours of training on teaching various low- and high-level reading strategies. The California Achievement Test, Sixth Edition (CAT/6) and classroom measures of reading fluency were used as measures of reading achievement in the pretest-posttest design. Students from the Open Gate program showed significant gains in reading both on the state standardized achievement test and on the classroom reading fluency measures. Although none of the reading strategies used during tutoring correlated significantly with standardized test score gains, the skills of decoding, visualizing/imagining, determining importance, and synthesis demonstrated a relationship with increased reading fluency. Results of this study suggest that, for students who are English learners, increases in reading fluency are significantly related to instruction in decoding, visualization/imagining, and determining importance. Researchers concluded that gifted elementary age students from low-income, culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds benefit from tutoring in decoding and higher level reading comprehension strategies. In addition, the research suggests that gifted students who are also English learners appear to benefit from tutoring in the full range of reading comprehension strategies.
Levine, T. H., & Marcus, A. S. (2007). Closing the achievement gap through teacher collaboration: Facilitating multiple trajectories of teacher learning. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 116–138. doi:10.4219/jaa-2007-707
A qualitative comparative case study design was used to explore the nature of learning that happened among a group of teachers collaborating to meet the needs of traditionally underserved students. Classroom observations, field notes, and interview responses were collected from a team of high school teachers (N = 4) who participated in regular collaboration over 2 years as a part of a campus initiative to meet the needs of underserved students. In addition to regular opportunities to collaborate, the team of teachers shared a limited number of students (N = 80) called a house. Each teacher served as an advisor to a smaller portion of the house (n = 20), were required to make regular family contacts, and had a specific focus on serving the needs of their ELLs. Three learning trajectories emerged from the initiative including the trajectories of collaboration, school-family partnership, and ELL instructional modifications. As collaboration developed, the teachers were more willing to ask for and provide help to one another, which generally resulted in an increase in strategies for meeting students’ needs. Believing that families were pivotal in their children’s learning, teachers engaged families in new ways by improving the quality of interactions as well as increasing the quantity of family contacts. Lastly, teachers provided more scaffolds for ELL learning as they improved their instructional modifications rather than lowering standards, which often results in widening the achievement gap. The authors stressed the importance of school leaders’ provision of time, training, and structures for identifying tensions and challenges in the collaboration process.
Lohman, D. F., Korb, K. A., & Lakin, J. M. (2008). Identifying academically gifted English-language learners using nonverbal tests: A comparison of the Raven, NNAT, and CogAT. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 275–296. doi:10.1177/0016986208321808
Researchers in this quantitative study compared the performance of a large sample of ELLs and non-ELLs on three nonverbal intelligence tests in an attempt to identify the best way to identify academically talented minority students. Tests included in the study were Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices, the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT), and the Cognitive Abilities Test (Form 6, CogAT). In addition to the three ability tests, results from the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards Dual Purpose Assessment (AIMS DPA) and the Stanford English Language Proficiency (SELP) provided normative and criterion-referenced information about student achievement. Assessment administrations were approximately one week apart. Participants for the study included 1,198 students in grades K–6 who completed all three of the nonverbal ability tests. Of these students, approximately 80–88% of each grade level were classified as continuing English language learners (CELL). Results showed that differences between ELLs’ and non-ELLs’ results were much smaller on the three nonverbal tests than on the Verbal and Quantitative batteries administered as part of the CogAT. For example, differences between ELLs and non-ELLs were twice as large on the CogAT Verbal battery as on the nonverbal section. Results also showed uniformly higher correlations between ability tests and achievement for non-ELLs than for ELLs. In addition, none of the nonverbal tests administered predicted reading achievement very well but were better predictors of mathematics achievement. Overall, the researchers found that the three tests differed in the quality of their norms, in the reliability of the scores they produced, and in their ability to identify the most academically able ELLs and non-ELLs. The authors stressed the importance of using a comprehensive identification system that takes into account a broad range of abilities and teacher ratings comparing students with their peers rather than national norm groups that may be inadequate.
Matthews, P. H., & Mellom, P. J. (2012). Shaping aspirations, awareness, academics, and action outcomes of summer enrichment programs for English-learning secondary students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 105–124.
A mixed-methods design was used to explore the effects of university based summer programs for ELLs. Participants included 85 students from a low-performing high school who had also been identified as having limited English proficiency. Of these students, 38 were male and 47 were female; 77 of the students reported Spanish as their primary home language. Data in the form of questionnaires, interviews, and student records (transcripts) were collected over two separate sessions of a month-long summer enrichment program designed for ELL secondary students in collaboration with a local university. Curriculum developed for the program was comprised of collaborative project-based lessons integrated with field experiences. Instructors worked to include specific strategies such as think/pair/share, KWL charts, kinesthetic integration, and cloze readings to meet the specific needs of ELLs. Results of the study suggest that involvement in the enrichment program gave participants a greater awareness of postsecondary educational options and an increased confidence in their ability to attend college. Students self-reported that after attending the summer program they felt more knowledgeable about what it takes to get into college. In fact, 92% reported a desire to attend and 90% felt confident in being accepted into a 4-year public university. Students also reported improved academic skills in language, science, and study skills as well as increased persistence in academic pursuits. Analysis of student transcripts showed no strong effects on student grades in schools, but researchers reported that after attending the summer program students began tracking themselves into more rigorous and challenging courses. Graduation rates for the first cohort were reported at 73%, an improvement over the campus’s overall 57% graduation rate for the year. The authors concluded by stressing the importance of (a) matching program curriculum to recommended appropriate instructional strategies, (b) providing opportunities for collaboration, and (c) creating a community for peer support when designing enrichment opportunities and programming for ELLs.
Pereira, N., & Gentry, M. (2013). A qualitative inquiry into the experiences of high-potential Hispanic English language learners in Midwestern schools. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24, 164–194. doi:10.1177/1932202X13494204
Using qualitative methodology, researchers explored the experiences of high-potential Hispanic ELLs who attended a small-town or rural public school in the Midwest. A bicultural/bilingual researcher interviewed teachers (n = 22), parents (n = 20), and low-income ELL elementary students (n = 22). Participants represented four schools comprised of 15% to 40% Hispanic students. Three major themes surfaced in the narrative analysis: enjoyable school experiences, positive peer and teacher interactions, and students’ commitment to do well in school. First, all students indicated academic activities, such as learning specific topics, reading, math, or science, were the most enjoyable aspects of school. Most parents also affirmed that their children enjoyed school experiences and learning. Teachers described activities in their classrooms that provided students with enjoyable challenges. Other enjoyable nonacademic activities mentioned by students included recess, physical education, games, sports, art, technology, library, and clubs. Second, it appeared that the schools had a strong community atmosphere as both teachers and students reported positive interactions throughout the day. Teachers recounted their efforts to integrate rather than differentiate ELLs and non-ELLs. Speaking predominantly English at school, students felt academically engaged and socially connected with Anglo-American and Hispanic peers. These findings contrasted with some previous research, leading the researcher to suggest that positive interactions with peers and teachers may be more characteristic at Midwestern small-town schools. It is also possible that students with lower English proficiency might not have felt as positively integrated. Third, students desired to learn and do well in school. More than one third of the students, however, did not perceive school as challenging, and 50% more indicated they felt challenged only in certain subjects or classes. More than half of the students indicated motivation to get good grades. Notwithstanding the fact that only one parent had a college degree, more than half of the parents indicated that they wanted their children to attend college. Despite economic, ethnic, and language barriers these students, in general, were cheerful, took advantage of learning opportunities, were doing well in school, and had high ambitions. The researchers, however, expressed concern that these achieving, high-potential, future-oriented students did not feel challenged and were not receiving gifted services at their schools. The teachers’ limited ESL training and decisions to not differentiate (or use ELL language acquisition strategies or best practices) between ELLs and non-ELLs were concerning; “This colorblind, unaware of second-language acquisition issues approach to education might be as problematic as a deficit-based approach” (p. 184). In conclusion, educators and researchers are advised to focus on strengths, not deficits, when considering characteristics and identifying giftedness of high-potential CLD students.
Pierce, R. L., Adams, C. M., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Cassady, J. C., Dixon, F. A., & Cross, T. L. (2006). Development of an identification procedure for a large urban school corporation: Identifying culturally diverse and academically gifted elementary students. Roeper Review, 29, 113–118. doi.org/10.1080/02783190709554394
Many teachers fail to recognize the potential of minority students and, therefore, do not nominate these individuals for gifted programs. The purpose of this article was to describe one program that sought to address this disparity, Clustering Learners Unlocks Equity (Project CLUE). As a result of a university‐school partnership, an identification plan was developed with the goal of increasing the number of English language learners and economically disadvantaged students. Casting the net widely in order to search for talented students, Project CLUE utilized a “sift-down model” in screening for gifted programs, which was implemented in conjunction with a 5-day professional development workshop designed to inform educators about characteristics of underserved gifted children. Initially, under Project CLUE, students qualified for gifted services based on a score of eight or higher on the Adams-Pierce Checklist (APC) or by earning a score at or above the 90th percentile on: (a) the TerraNova Achievement total battery, (b) two parts of the TerraNova battery, or (c) the Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM-C). After the first screening measure, 296 (8.2%) of 3,584 second-grade students qualified based on their TerraNova scores. An additional 26 (0.7%) students qualified based on the CPM-C or APC scores. The latter identification methods resulted in the identification of 41% more Hispanic (most of which were ESL), suggesting that the APC and CPM-C were more effective at identifying students with lower levels of English proficiency. However, based on statewide testing changes and gifted coordinator and teacher concerns about students (a) who were previously retained, (b) had single-subject aptitude that resulted in difficulty handling gifted material, and (c) were identified using only the nontraditional measures, the identification plan was modified. Identification based on standardized scores on the new test required a score at or above the 90th percentile on reading or math accompanied by a score above the 75th percentile on the other subject. In order to qualify for gifted programming using nontraditional measures under the new identification plan, individuals, such as ESL students, who had an APC score of 8 or higher also needed to score at or above the 90th percentile on the nonverbal CPM-C. The results from the revised plan had not been obtained, which prevented a comparison of the two identification plans.
Reed, C. F. (2007). We can identify and serve ESOL GATE students: A case study. Gifted Child Today, 30(2), 16–22. doi:10.4219/gct-2007-29
As a new gifted education resource teacher at an urban public middle school, the author was dismayed that although 62% of the school was comprised of English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), none had been identified for gifted services. Using action research, the educator-researcher sought to examine if ESOL students could be identified for gifted and talented education (GATE) and served in a meaningful manner. First, the researcher sought to change the attitudes of educators and ESOL parents. Aided by a supportive school principal, ESOL teachers were invited to participate in discussions about identification and screening procedures for GATE, ESOL student support, and appropriate course placements. Informational small-group meetings with trusted translators (for 37 different languages) educated the parents of ESOL students about the GATE program and were supplemented by letters to parent written in their native language. Families who demonstrated interest or teachers who were identified as having a high-potential ESOL student received an additional personal contact. Although not designed for English language learners, the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT) remained the only screening option available. Given the developing language skills of the children, 16 ESOL students who scored between the mean and the 84th percentile were eligible for further GATE consideration. After considering the student’s academic strengths, teacher recommendations, availability of specific domain support, and English language acquisition, 10 students were eligible for GATE programming (including two who moved during the summer) that included access to an after-school ESOL GATE tutor. Of the remaining students, five who were not yet able to read and write in English with ease enrolled in GATE social studies and, if supported by standardized test scores, algebra. The three students who had acquired basic English interpersonal communication skills were allowed to also add GATE English and/or algebra. At the conclusion of the school year, all of the students reenrolled in GATE or pre-IB courses at the high school. Favorable comments from non-GATE families supported a growing positivity toward ESOL students in GATE and worked to dispel some of the fears of other ESOL students, parents, and teachers. The resulting atmosphere of expanded opportunities encouraged ESOL students (GATE and non-GATE) to join student academic groups or activities, and 40 ESOL students received special recognition for their contributions/achievement. Additionally, several educators were inspired to pursue gifted training programs or endorsements, and as word got out, other local schools made inquiries about this ESOL GATE program.
Reyes, R. (2007). A collective pursuit of learning the possibility to be: The CAMP experience assisting situationally marginalized Mexican American students to a successful student identity. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 618–659. doi:10.4219/jaa-2007-556
Compared to other Hispanic and Anglo populations, students of Mexican descent tend to have lower academic achievement and experience greater educational inequalities. This case study describes the community college experience of five situationally marginalized students of Mexican descent. Specifically, the researcher examined how participants perceived their learning/development and how they change as a result of one year of community college and College Assistant Migrant Program (CAMP) involvement. CAMP is a federally funded college scholarship program designed to provide opportunities for migrant, agricultural, or low-income students. Participants, provided by CAMP, attended a community college in a small, rural town in Colorado. After dropping out of high school during her freshman year, Laura felt she lacked academic skills and self-confidence for college success. Once enrolled, she adopted a strong work ethic admitted her confidence increased as she experienced success in school. As an ESL student, Cristina had not believed that graduating from high school was a stretch and college was not an option. During her first year at college, her feelings of fear changed to feelings of pride as she experienced success in her coursework, and she learned how to balance work and school. Maria, as a teen mother of two, struggled to balance her family and academic demands. After earning a 4.0 GPA her first two quarters in college-level courses, she was forced to withdraw because of personal/family issues. She reported growing in practical knowledge and reported that she intends to return to college, possibly at a slower and easier pace. During high school, Luz moved back and forth from Mexico, taking a toll on her academics. Through CAMP, Luz learned how to communicate with others more effectively, and the success she experienced the first year inspired a confidence in her abilities. As a former gang member, Reuben did not care about school and rarely attended. After working in a warehouse and earning his GED, he learned about CAMP. He struggled in his first year of college due to peer pressure, family obligations, and a limited educational background. As he tried to navigate between the gang peer culture and the college culture, he felt like an outsider in both worlds, yet recognized positive change through the process, becoming more focused and confident. Given the students’ background and lack of educational encouragement, the participants traditionally would not have been considered “college material.” However, with appropriate support and opportunity, these students and others from similar backgrounds can experience academic success. Reyes urged educators to view all students as college material and encouraged schools to take aggressive actions to create academic environments where all students can pursue postsecondary education. The keys for success, he argued, depend on students believing that they can be part of an academic community through interacting with other successful students. The college community influence helps these individuals take actions to support that identity which ultimately leads to academic success and reinforces a positive academic identity.
Shaunessy, E., McHatton, P. A., Hughes, C., Brice, A., & Ratliff, M. A. (2007). Understanding the experiences of bilingual, Latino/a adolescents: Voices from gifted and general education. Roeper Review, 29, 174–182. doi:10.1080/02783190709554406
The experiences of first-generation bilingual Latino middle school students were explored in this article. Sixteen (8 GT/gifted education and 8 GE/general education) students who had, at one time, been enrolled in an English as a Second Language program in their urban public school, shared their educational experiences, observations, and recommendations. After analyzing six moderated discussions using both English and Spanish languages, researchers reported that GE students were more likely to use Spanish in the discussion (27% of the time vs. 10%). Four themes emerged from the qualitative grounded theory analysis including communication style, self-perception, education, and discrimination. GE students were more likely to converse using a Latino communication style filled with humor, enthusiasm, vitality, exaggerations, and laughter. Even though multiple speakers often spoke at the same time, they seemed to wait for the facilitator to prompt discussion. GT students, however, initiated discussions, elaborated their responses, explored subjects in greater depth, took turns talking, actively listened to responses, and used a monotone voice pattern. Both groups indicated that they felt less adept at using their native tongue than English and, therefore, desired to increase their Spanish fluency. GE students more frequently mentioned engaging in Spanish translation as a service to the community. Preferring to limit the amount of Spanish spoken at school, the GT students chose not to use the language to reach out to Latino peers. With respect to self-perception, the GT students expressed an understanding of their academic abilities and initiated conversation related to achievement, reporting the high expectations their parents held. In contrast, the GE students did not discuss their achievement and often shared concerns related to grade retention. Students who had not been promoted attributed their lack of progress to limited language proficiency and cultural discrimination. With respect to the education theme, both groups appreciated the students’ ethnic diversity at their school but desired more variety in school staff ethnicities. GE students criticized teachers and classroom management strategies, whereas the GT students focused more on the student roles of active knowledge seekers and expressed personal pride in their ability to work independently. The most positive and most negative statements about specific educators related either to the individual’s acceptance or rejection of the use of the Spanish language at school. Finally, both groups recalled instances of perceived discrimination related to their ethnicity, academic ability, and/or English language skills. GE students, however, were more vocal about perceived discrimination. They described an overall lack of acceptance by White teachers and students as evidenced by disapproving statements, and they indicated that a gregarious Latino communication style was mistakenly perceived as escalating behavior. One GT girl shared that teachers spoke to her and treated her differently when she was placed in a group of GT kids compared to a group of Latinos. Eligibility assessments for the GT program were conducted in English, and one GT student stated, “It would be difficult to be identified as gifted if you didn’t speak English.” Acknowledging a small sample size as a potential limitation, the researchers concluded GT Latino students prioritize schoolwork/education and have a more supportive educational environment for fostering academic identity. In contrast, GE students focused on cultural identity and described an ideal school setting as “fun” and ethnically diverse and gave little attention to academic components of education. The researchers theorize that the students’ connection or lack thereof to school may reflect the messages they receive from all levels of educators about their “place in the educational system” (p. 181). Accordingly, the researchers concluded by encouraging additional investigations regarding the social, affective, curricular, and cultural needs of both GE and GT bilingual Latino learners in order to inform best educational practices. Educator training and peer nominations were also suggested as initial measures to increase identification of culturally and linguistically diverse gifted students warning that assimilation should not “become a prerequisite for identification for gifted programs” (p. 181).
Shiu, A., Kettler, T., & Johnsen, S. K. (2009). Social effects of Hispanic students enrolled in an AP class in middle school. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 58–82. doi:10.1177/1932202X0902100104
In order to examine if native Spanish-language skills may serve as an asset in facilitating academic success, this study investigated differences between eighth-grade students at urban public schools who enrolled in an AP Spanish Language course and those who did not. Fifty-eight native Spanish-speaking economically disadvantaged students (16 males and 42 females) enrolled in an AP Spanish Language course. The comparison group included 18 male and 6 female native Spanish-speaking students randomly sampled from the eighth grade. At the completion of their eighth-grade year, all participants completed a 28-item questionnaire (in Spanish or English) addressing the students’ sense of belonging, academic attitudes, peer relationships, and parental involvement. Consistent with nationwide trends, more females chose greater academic challenge than males with over 70% of Hispanic females choosing to enroll in the AP course. AP females were more likely than AP males to agree that their close friends cared about earning good grades, steady employment, happy family, and investing in the community. Compared to the control group, students enrolled in AP courses were more likely to report that reading English was “more fun” and that their good friends valued good grades, a steady job, a happy family, and helping in the community. There were not significant differences between AP and non-AP groups or between AP males and AP females with respect to parental discussion, parental involvement, or academic self-confidence. Follow-up research in ninth grade demonstrated that 98% of the AP students were enrolled in a pre-AP or a college preparatory class. However, it is not clear if these differences existed before AP participation. It is commonly supposed that academic self-beliefs are formed and peer influence intensifies during middle school. A supportive peer group, therefore, developed through AP classes may serve to enhance ongoing enrollment in AP classes and potentially influence postsecondary aspirations for native-Spanish speaking middle school students.
References
Kogan, E. (2001). Gifted bilingual students: A paradox? New York, NY: Peter Lang.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Number and percentage of public school students participating in programs for English language learners, by state. Selected years, 2002–03 through 2012–13. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_204.20.asp
Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N., & Song, R. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! The growing excellence gap in K–12 education. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy.
Corina R. Kaul, M.A., received her B.S. degree from the University of Oregon and her master’s degree from Baylor University and is currently a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University where she is specializing in gifted education. Her current research interests focus on the long-term effects of summer enrichment programs for low-income students and addressing affective needs of gifted learners.
Kimberly A. Hardin, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Teacher Education Department at Abilene Christian University where she teaches writing methods, classroom management, and planning and instruction for diversified populations, and supervises clinical teachers. She spent 9 years in the Texas public school system where she taught grades 3 and 4 including cluster groups of gifted and talented students. She earned her bachelor’s in elementary education (EC-4) from Abilene Christian University, her master’s degree in educational administration from Lubbock Christian University, and her Ph.D. in educational psychology from Baylor University. Her research interests include gifted education, adult learning, teacher preparation, and professional development. She may be reached at kam00e@acu.edu.
Brenda K. Davis, M.A., is a professional school counselor and a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. She has more than 20 years of experience as a school counselor and educator and is currently the district gifted and talented coordinator for Bosqueville ISD. She serves on the Texas Association for Gifted and Talented Board of Directors. Her interests include social and emotional issues, gifted females, and creativity. She may be reached at Brenda_Davis1@baylor.edu.
Susan K. Johnsen, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University in Waco, TX, where she directed the Ph.D. program and programs related to gifted and talented education. She is editor of Gifted Child Today and coauthor of Identifying Gifted Students: A Practical Guide, the Independent Study Program, RTI for Gifted Students, Using the National Gifted Education Standards for University Teacher Preparation Programs, Using the National Gifted Education Standards for PreK–12 Professional Development, and more than 250 articles, monographs, technical reports, and other books related to gifted education. She has written three tests used in identifying gifted students: Test of Mathematical Abilities for Gifted Students (TOMAGS), Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI-4) and Screening Assessment for Gifted Elementary and Middle School Students (SAGES-2). She serves on the Board of Examiners of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education and is a reviewer and auditor of programs in gifted education. She is past president of The Association for the Gifted (TAG) and past president of the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented (TAGT). She has received awards for her work in the field of education, including NAGC’s President’s Award, CEC’s Leadership Award, TAG’s Leadership Award, TAGT’s President’s Award, TAGT’s Advocacy Award, and Baylor University’s Investigator Award, Teaching Award, and Contributions to the Academic Community. She may be reached at Department of Educational Psychology, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97301, Waco, TX 76798, USA or Susan_Johnsen@baylor.edu.
Yara N. Farah, Ph.D., received her doctorate in educational psychology from Baylor University. Her emphasis areas of study are gifted and talented education and measurement. Her research interests relate to gifted education, mathematics enrichment and instructional practices in inclusive classrooms, and twice-exceptional students. Yara is an author of several of “What the Research Says” articles in TEMPO, as well as other journal articles related to assessment and acceleration. Previously, she worked for a year as a special education teacher for students in grades 3 and 4. She also worked for one year as a paraprofessional in a fully inclusive school. She has a master’s degree in special education, mild to moderate, from California State University Northridge (CSUN) and a bachelor degree in elementary education, with a minor in psychology and a minor in philosophy, as well as a Diploma in Special Education from the American University of Beirut (AUB). She is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Center for Gifted Education, William & Mary.
