I used a common memory trick to remember the difference between quantitative and qualitative research/data in my doctoral stats classes: QUANTITATIVE data used quantities (or numbers) to represent the data and QUALITATIVE data used qualities (or descriptions) to represent the data. What are some common types of qualitative data we could collect on students we are considering for gifted programs? The two most popular are:
- Gifted behavioral checklists completed by teachers or parents, and
- Products/Performance Tasks such as writing samples, open-ended problem-solving activities, etc. that are scored holistically (we’ll talk about others in an upcoming post).
Qualitative data is harder to score than quantitative data because there usually isn’t just one answer and teachers have to use their judgment when scoring. Educators, however, often impose numerical values to the qualitative ratings or descriptions given to the pieces of data that are collected (which sort of makes these assessments quantitative measures since we are using numbers for ratings- but that is a debate for another day). However, even though qualitative data is more challenging to score, the information gleaned from it combined with quantitative data gives us a strong picture of a student’s academic performance and academic needs.
There are a few other known issues with using checklists and products as qualitative data for gifted identification besides scoring challenges. Checklists, even if nationally-normed and standardized, are not always accurate because of teacher bias. It is very easy for teachers to mark students lower on checklists based on their internal beliefs about gifted or the student. They usually aren’t even aware that they are doing it. The way to combat teacher bias in the use of gifted checklists is to train the teachers on how to use the checklist properly. Do not just stick it in a teacher’s box and have them do it with no explicit directions.
Checklists with parents are even more fraught with bias, in my opinion. Most gifted checklists are asking parents or teachers to compare each indicator of the checklist to other students who are similar to them. Well, parents often do not have an academic context of other students for comparison. So, they do the best they can, but often they are comparing their child to their other children, or the kids on their child’s soccer team, or things like that. Despite a parent’s best intentions, he or she is not able to properly compare their child to similar children and judge academics, creativity, or leadership. In our division, we stopped using parent checklists and started collecting parent input in a different way to help us know more about the student as a learner outside of school (stay tuned to the next two articles in my Gifted Identification Series).
As for products, the main issue for me with them is that there are no nationally-normed, standardized products that I have been able to find for school divisions to use to judge student performance on high-level, open-ended tasks. Thus, it’s up to each school division to come up with their own writing sample prompts, math activities, creativity tasks, etc., or to collect them from curriculum or workbooks that are designed for classroom use, not for gifted identification. Once we find these products, then we have the whole scoring issue with them that I already mentioned above.
Despite all of these challenges, it is still best practice to collect some qualitative data on students to represent a more well-rounded view of each child. As educators, we just must do our due diligence in selecting the best types of qualitative data to include in our testing process.
Are there any other things that educators should consider for gifted identification? Why, yes, there actually are! I will be discussing them in my next several articles. In the meantime, what types of qualitative data does your school division collect for the gifted identification process? Please add your ideas in the comments!
Teaching for Talent 