The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted
Screening Instrument
1
Running Head:
THE HISPANIC BILINGUAL GIFTED SCREENING
INSTRUMENT
Complementing the Assessment of Gifted Bilingual Students with The Hispanic
Bilingual Gifted Screening Instrument
Beverly J. Irby, Ed.D., Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas
Rafael Lara-Alecio, Ph.D., Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
Linda Roldríguez, Ed.D. Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted
Screening Instrument
2
Complementing the Assessment of Gifted Bilingual Students with The Hispanic
Bilingual Gifted Screening Instrument
Hispanic children in U.S. schools are the fastest growing ethnic group (U.S.
Department of Education, 1995). By 2050, the number of Hispanic students will increase
to more than 18 million, or 26.6% of the student population, making them the second
largest ethnic group in the country (Day, 1993). When focusing of specific states, the
percentages are magnified; for example, in Texas by the year 2030, Hispanics are
projected to represent 45.9% of the state’s population (Center for Demographic and
Socioeconomic Research and Education, 1996).
Although numbers of Hispanics are increasing, Hispanics, particularly those with
limited English proficiency (LEP), are not currently and equitably represented in
programs for gifted and talented (LaFontaine, 1987; Ortíz & González, 1989; Cohen,
1990; Colangelo & Davis, 1991). Furthermore, in a six-state study, Bermúdez and
Rakow (1993) determined that among the respondents from highly Hispanic populated
school districts, very few were identifying and/or serving gifted, LEP students, and of
those districts that have developed identification procedures for this group of students,
only 33% experienced success with the developed measures.
Underrepresentation of Hispanic Bilingual Students in Gifted Programs
A number of reasons have been given for the underrepresentation of Hispanic
LEP students in gifted/talented (GT) programs. These include the lack of valid tests or
instruments (Melesky, 1985; Cohen, 1990; Irby & Lara-Alecio, 1996), the biased nature
of standardized tests (Gonzalez & Yawkey, 1993), the ambiguous definitions of
giftedness (McKenzie, 1986), and teachers' lack of familiarity with LEP student
characteristics (Bermudez & Rakow, 1990). Furthermore, most procedures for
identifying GT students have been developed for use with the native English speaking,
middle class children (Cohen, 1988). Frequently because of their lack of English
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted
Screening Instrument
3
proficiency, LEP students are perceived as not being ready for gifted education (Harris,
1991). This frequently cited perception limits the definition for giftedness which is
reflective of the values and perceptions of the majority culture (Harris & Weismantel,
1991).
Reasons given by researchers for the underrepresentation of minority students in
GT programs include: 1) teachers' and appraisers' lack of knowledge and cultural
sensitivity; 2) bias in the standardization process; and 3) identification of students based
on a single test (Sawyer, 1993). Barkan and Bernal (1991) stated, "The historical
problem of having too few children from nondominant ethnic groups in gifted programs
derives precisely from decisions about what evidence of actual or potential giftedness one
requires" (p.144). For many years, no adequate identification measures have existed for
students who are not middle class native English speakers (Bermudez & Rakow, 1990)
since screening and identification procedures often rely on norms which exclude minority
learners (Marquez, Bermudez, & Rakow, 1992).
Need for Better Assessment and Identification Measures and Procedures
In one study, 78% of the GT coordinators who answered a questionnaire
acknowledged the need to use different means of assessment for LEP students, but only
32% believed their identification process was successful in identifying GT, LEP students
(Bermúdez & Rakow, 1993). This demonstrates the need to find valid, reliable, and
practical methods for screening language minority students into a pool for further study
and possible placement into a gifted education program.
Instruments developed for the identification of GT, LEP students should take into
account language, socioeconomic and cultural factors (Irby, Hernandez, Torres, &
Gonzales, 1997), because the particular instrument used has been determined to make a
difference in whether or not a student is identified as GT (Ortiz & Volloff, 1987). The use
of nontraditional and culturally sensitive methods of observation by teachers was
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted
Screening Instrument
4
recommended in screening procedures (Irby, et al., 1997). With regard to language,
students should be assessed in their native language (Melesky, 1985; Cohen, 1988), or
students should be assessed with instruments which do not use language at all. In fact,
nonverbal testing procedures have been strongly recommended as fair evaluation
instruments of culturally and linguistically different children (Bernal ,1974; Melesky,
1985; Tamaoke, Saklofske, & Ide ,1993; Clark, 1992). Even prior to the development and
use of identification instruments, the development of effective screening instruments is
critical for GT, LEP students. If initial screening instruments of Hispanic, bilingual
students are not inclusive of appropriate, referential, operational definitions or
characteristics of giftedness, then these students will continue to be denied access to
programs due to their inability to move beyond the screening phase (Irby & Lara-Alecio,
1996).
Teachers in the Process of Identification of Hispanic Bilingual Gifted Students
Teachers of bilingual and gifted education must become more aware of the
characteristics of the Hispanic gifted student and must be advocates for them, by
educating administrators, bilingual and mainstream teachers, and parents. It is imperative
that we remember that the exclusion of this Hispanic group of underidentified and
underserved children in programs for the gifted has three main implications. First, it
sends a negative message to the underrepresented population who is included in district
programs. It implies that they are somehow less able than those in other populations.
Opinions such as "there are just no gifted minorities" or "minority children are in need of
academic remediation, particularly those who are limited English proficient" are common
even among the teachers (Davis & Rimm, 1989). Second, the very act of exclusion is
contradictory to the American principles of egalitarianism (Gintis, 1988). The task of
providing equitable service for the gifted is made more difficult by the lack of uniformity
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted
Screening Instrument
5
in objective identification procedures and in appropriate needs-based curriculum services.
Uniformity does not preclude the use of a multi-dimensional approach to the
identification of giftedness. When reviewing evaluations of programs for the gifted it has
been determined that in many cases there is little or not match between the programmatic
services being provided and the districts' plan of identification (Irby, Henderson, &
Berry, 1992). Third, practitioners must learn how to alter identification procedures and
programmatic services to respond to the characteristics of the specific population that
they are serving. Curriculum and instruction cannot be discussed, developed, or
delivered in isolation to the definition of giftedness and identification of the particular
ethnic group being served.
“Screening In” Hispanic Bilingual Students Using the HBGSI
In our research (Irby & Lara-Alecio, 1995), 11 clusters of attributes of potentially
gifted Hispanic, bilingual elementary students have been identified and used as the
baseline in the development of the Hispanic Bilingual Gifted Screening Instrument
(HBGSI). It is important that we recognize that this fundamental research does not make
comparisons among other populations, minority or majority. Our belief is that to
compare one ethnic group of gifted students to another ethnic group of gifted students is
competitive, ethnically-biased research. Therefore, our research is focused only within
the Hispanic ethnic group. Based on this fact, it is not surprising that many of the
generally held stereotypical beliefs about the Hispanic ethnic group are dispelled,
particularly among the identified and potentially gifted Hispanic students due to the fact
that they are not compared to the mainstream population.
What then are the defining characteristics of Hispanic bilingual gifted students?
After much consideration, reading, and working with Hispanic bilingual students and
their teachers, we broadly borrowed from Renzulli’s (1976) basic definition of giftedness
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted
Screening Instrument
6
and expanded it to the Hispanic bilingual gifted student as “one who has above average
intelligence (IQ), task commitment, and creativity that is situated within socio-culturallinguistic characteristics (Lara-Alecio & Irby, 1993). This definition is depicted in Figure
1.
___________
Insert Figure 1 about here
__________
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted Screening Instrument
Considering this general definition, we present a new construct of the Hispanic,
bilingual, gifted student through the HBGSI with 78 characteristics. This instrument
began with 90 items as a product of an extensive review of the literature on gifted
Hispanics, Hispanic familial/sociological/linguistic characteristics, Hispanic elementary
children, and diverse gifted populations, including minority, rural, and urban. Over 400
characteristics were found in the literature that related to one or more of the above listed
classifications. As the 400 characteristics were qualitatively coded and categorized, they
were reduced to 90 characteristics determined to be usable for the initial questionnaire.
All items were constructed as positive characteristics, even though several of the
characteristics found in the literature were negative ones. Thus, the 90 item questionnaire
was constructed in a five-point Likert scale. These questionnaires were administered to
bilingual teachers and results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and
agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis. Results showed 78 of the items grouped into
eleven clusters with alpha coefficients ranging between .62 to .91 using Cronbach’s
Alpha Coefficient formula (Irby & Lara-Alecio, 1996). Further study has indicated that
the 78 items within the 11 clusters are significantly correlated to a test of nonverbal
intelligence at p<.05 (Irby & Lara-Alecio, 1999). Additionally, the HBGSI has been
determined significantly effective at p<.0001 in discriminating between students whose
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted
Screening Instrument
7
teachers would refer to gifted education testing and those they would not (Irby,
Hernandez, Torres, & Gonzalez, 1997). The instrument currently can be employed with
grades K-4. An adapted instrument is being studied for the use of early identification at
the PK level.
Eleven Clusters of the HBGSI
The eleven clusters and their main meanings are presented as follows: Cluster 1- Social
and Academic Language, Cluster 2- Cultural Sensitivity, Cluster 3- Familial, Cluster 4Motivation for Learning, Cluster 5- Collaboration, Cluster 6- Imagery, Cluster 7Achievement, Cluster 8- Support, Cluster 9- Creative Performance, Cluster 10- ProblemSolving, and Cluster 11- Locus of Control. Each cluster will be described separately.
Social and Academic Language. The first cluster deals with the four modes of
language, reading, speaking, listening, and writing, in the native language. The position
of the bilingual teacher is to assess the degree to which the student expresses a propensity
toward the four modes of native language.
Cultural Sensitivity. The second cluster is related to the expression of appreciation
toward the Hispanic culture and language. Additionally, this cluster reveals an openness
toward those who embrace their culture and language no matter what nationality. This
cluster assays the degree of ties to the oral tradition and history of the native culture. The
teacher would observe this cultural sensitivity cluster through conversations, class
presentations, and/or community participation.
Familial. This cluster is characterized by the fact that the student has strong
interpersonal relationships among family members, has participative parents, has strong
maternal/paternal roles models, and respect for authority. This cluster also assesses the
degree of emotional support from the family. The bilingual teacher observes the
indicators within this cluster student conversation, parent-teacher conferences,
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted
Screening Instrument
8
observations of students with siblings, observations of students with adults, and home
visits.
Motivation for Learning. The fourth cluster typifies the way in which the students
value education as a way to improve status, sustain their motivation to succeed, and have
a genuine desire for learning. Bilingual teachers may assess this through classroom
observation over time.
Collaboration. The fifth cluster focuses one the student’s abilities to lead and
work with others in a cooperative manner. Under this cluster gifted students also portray
leadership qualities in relation to working with the peer group. Bilingual teachers may
observe this through cooperative learning groups, and playground, classroom, and
community activities.
Imagery. The sixth cluster, like the first, is aligned with the verbal precocity of
the child. Bilingual teachers would look for exhibitions of students’ imagination in
storytelling, orally or written, to determine the degree to which the child meets success
within this cluster.
Achievement. The seventh cluster is characterized by many of the same
achievement indicators as the mainstream population with the distinctiveness that the
bilingual gifted student uses stored knowledge to solve problems through the use of
his/her native or through the target language, and reasons through a personal cultural
perspective. Completion of assignments are also determined by the student’s own
timetable. Bilingual teachers may observe the achievement cluster indicators through
classroom activities.
Support. The eighth cluster addresses support provided by the teacher in the
areas of assessment and language development. One item in this cluster deals with
students’ preference of alternative assessment techniques over standardized tests. This
item relates back to Hispanic bilingual students’ preference for use of their own time
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted
Screening Instrument
9
framework to complete tasks and to the fact that standardized tests tend to characterize
the mainstream population and positivist approaches to learning. Teachers need to be
aware of the need of support by their students over time within their classrooms.
Creative Performance. The ninth cluster focuses on indicators that deal with the
students’ creative productivity in the arts. Teachers may observe this through planned
activities in the arts within the classroom or schoolwide. Additionally, the teacher must
observe the degree to which creativity is sparked through the student working within a
group.
Problem Solving.
Cluster 10 deals with actions in solving problems, as well as
cognitive functions of problem solving. The indicators within this cluster deal with
individualistic versus group problem solving. Teachers may observe these indicators
through extracurricular activities, problem solving games or competitions, and through
science activities. Again in this cluster, the students’ own timeframe should be taken into
account when observing problem solving within a task.
Locus of Control. The final cluster is representative of an internal locus of
control. Bilingual teachers may observe the level of effort that students demonstrate in
completing tasks. Perseverance for intellectual tasks may also be observed. Cooperative
natures rather than competitive ones may also be observed. In general, this cluster calls
for the teacher to observe the degree to which the student appears to be in control of
his/her own destiny.
Table 1 depicts each of the clusters with accompanying critical cultural
components to consider as we identify gifted bilingual Hispanic children.
___________
Insert Table 1 about here
__________
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted
Screening Instrument
10
How to Use the HBGSI
Generally, in a gifted education program one finds three phases in the
identification process: I) nomination or referral, II) assessment, III) recommendation for
placement. The HBGSI is to be used in Phase 1 of the identification process as a referral
instrument which would move the student to Phase II, assessment. It is the intent of the
instrument to provide bilingual teachers with a structure to make better referrals for
assessment. It is important that bilingual teachers conducting this initial assessment of
the potentially gifted child understand the characteristics for each cluster as well as how
to apply the score which measures the extent to which students possess those
characteristics. The items should be based on direct observation of behavior because the
results will be far more valuable than if they were based on inference.
Bilingual teachers are key to the identification of Hispanic gifted children. First,
the teacher is generally perceived by Hispanic families as the authority figure and
responsible for the education of their children. Second, the judgment of teachers, when
combined with training in gifted characteristics, increases the likelihood that students will
not be overlooked for referral and subsequent assessment. Third, the referral process
may increase the bilingual teachers’ interest in gifted education and their awareness of
gifted children and their educational needs (Martinson, 1974).
The HBGSI provides promise as a referral instrument in the process of acquiring
more equitable services to the Hispanic bilingual gifted student. This instrument as a
product of extensive research presents attributes that are relevant to Hispanic bilingual
students and accounts for factors that are not used on traditional tests. The HBGSI is the
product of an extensive review of literature, the contribution of hundreds of bilingual
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted
Screening Instrument
11
teachers working with many gifted Hispanic children, empirical studies, and the noncompromising situation of the researchers to keep the studies and the instrument
grounded within the referential cultural milieu.
References
Barkan, J.H. & Bernal, E.M. (1991). Gifted education for bilingual and limited
English proficient students. Gifted Child Quarterly. 35.3,144-147.
Bermudez, A.B. & Rakow, S.J. (1990). Analyzing teachers' perceptions of
identification procedures for gifted and talented Hispanic limited English proficient
(LEP) students at-risk. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students.
7. 21-33.
Bermudez, A., & Rakow, S. (1993). Examining identification and instruction
practices for gifted and talented limited English proficient students. In L.M. Malave
(Ed.). Annual Conference Journal. Proceedings of the National Association for
Bilingual Education Conference, Tucson, AZ, 1990 and Washington, D.C., 1991 (pp. 99114).
Bernal, E. (1974). Special problems and procedures for identifying minority
students. Paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children Conference on
Exceptional Bilingual Children, New Orleans, LA.
Center for Demographic and Socioeconomic Research and Education (1996).
A Texas challenged: Population projections for a changing state. College Station, TX:
Department of Rural Sociology, Texas A & M University.
Clark, B. (1992). Growing up gifted (4th edition). New York: Macmillan.
Cohen, L. M. (1990). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented minority
language students. [On-line], Available:
http :IM'vvw.ed. govidatabasesIER IC_DigestsIe~21 485. html.
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted
Screening Instrument
12
Cohen, L.M. (1988). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented minority
language students: Issues and practices. Silver Spring, MD: National Clearinghouse for
Bilingual Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 309 592).
Colangelo, N. & Davis, G.A. (Eds.). (1991). Handbook of gifted education.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Davis, G.A. & Rimm, S.B. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Davis, G.A. & Rimm, S.B. (1989). Education of the gifted and talented (revised
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Day, J.C. (1993). Population projections of the United States by age. sex. race.
and Hispanic origin: 1993 to 2050. (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population
Reports, P2~1 104). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Gintis, H. (1988). Education, personal development, and human dignity. In H.
Holtz et al (Eds.). Education and the American dream: Conservatives, liberals & radicals
debate the future of education. Greenwood: Bergin & Garrey.
Gonzalez, V., & Yawkey, T. (1993). The assessment of culturally and
linguistically different students: Celebrating change. Education Horizons. 41-49.
Harris, C.R. (1991). Identifying and serving the gifted new immigrant Teaching
Exceptional Children. 23.4, 26-30.
Harris, D.M. & Weismantel, J. (1991). Bilingual gifted and talented students. In
Ambert, A.N. (Ed.), Bilingual education and English as a second language: A research
handbook. 1988-1990. New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Irby, B.J., Henderson, D., & Berry, K. (1992). State of gifted education in Texas.
An unpublished manuscript submitted to the Texas Association of Gifted and Talented
for a Grants in Excellence project. Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University.
Irby, B.J., Hernandez, L., Torres, D., & Gonzales, C. (1997). The correlation
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted
Screening Instrument
13
between teacher perceptions of giftedness and the Hispanic bilingual screening
instrument. Unpublished manuscript.
Irby, B.J., & Lara-Alecio, R. (1996). Attributes of Hispanic gifted bilingual
students as perceived by bilingual educators in Texas. SABE Journal. 11. 120-142.
LaFontaine, H. (1987). At-Risk children and youth – The extra educational
challenge of limited proficient students. Paper presented to the Council of Chief State
School Officers, Washington, D.C.
Lara-Alecio, R., & Irby, B.J. (March, 1993). Identifying the bilingual gifted.
Paper presented to the 22nd National Association of Bilingual Education Annual
Conference, Houston, TX.
Martinson, R.A. (1974). The identification of the gifted and talented. An
instructional syllabus for the National Summer Leadership Training Institute on the
Education of the Gifted and the Talented. Office of the Ventura County Superintendent
of Schools: Ventura, CA.
Marquez, J.A., Bermudez, A.B., & Rakow1 S.J. (1992). Incorporating community
perceptions in the identification of gifted and talented Hispanic students. The Journal of
Educational Issues of Language Minority Students. 10.117-127.
McKenzie, J.A. (1986). The influence of identification practices3 race, and SES
on the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly. 30.93-95.
Melesky, T.J. (1985). Identifying and providing for the Hispanic gifted child.
NABE Journal. 9.43-56.
Ortiz, V.Z. & Gonzalez, A. (1989). Validation of a short form of the WISC-R
with accelerated and gifted Hispanic students. Gifted Child Quarterly. 33.4,152-155.
Ortiz, V. & Volloff, W. (1987). Identification of gifted and accelerated Hispanic
students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 11(1). 45-53.
Renzulli, J.S. (1976). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted
Screening Instrument
14
defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly. 20 (3). 303-36.
Sawyer, C.B. (1993). Identifying gifted and talented students with limited English
proficiency. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, 1993).
Tamaoke, K., Saklofske, D.H., & Ide, M. (1993). The noriverbal reasoning ability
of Japanese children measured by Naglieri's (1985) Matrix Analogies Test-Short Form.
Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient. 36.53-60.
United States Department of Education. (1995). National household education
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted
Screening Instrument
15
Figure 1. Broad Definition of Hispanic LEP Gifted Students
Above
Average
I.Q.
Creativity
Task
Commitment
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted
Screening Instrument
16
Table 1. Clusters and Accompanying Critical Cultural Components
Cluster
Critical Cultural Component
Social and Academic Language
Native language propensity is observed as
critical in this cluster.
Cultural Sensitivity
Culture is addressed in the screening
instrument; this aspect is often lacking
among other traditional screening
instruments.
Familial
Critical to this cluster is the consideration
of the relevancy of family structures within
the Hispanic culture and among the gifted,
Hispanic bilingual students.
This cluster includes an indicator that is not
a typical mainstream gifted trait in that
Hispanic gifted bilingual students tend to
conform and respect authority.
Motivation for Learning
Traditional mainstream characteristics for
motivation in school are observed among
the Hispanic, bilingual gifted students.
Collaboration
Conforming behavior is observed in this
cluster through the avoidance of conflict
and sensitivity to others’ needs.
Imagery
Cultural storytelling, oral and written, are
observed in this cluster.
Achievement
Many of the attributes are observed in
mainstream gifted students with the
exception that the native language also
impacts the positive achievement of the
students.
Reasoning is in relation to personal social
context or cultural perspective.
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted
Screening Instrument
17
Task completion is methodical and
unhurried and is not to be confused with a
lack of organization or interest.
Support
Continued support is needed in target
language acquisition.
Creative Performance
Creativity may be exhibited in group
settings, as well as individually.
Problem Solving
Students are global learners who complete
and solve problems in a patient, nonhurried, yet effective and accurate manner.
Locus of Control
Hispanic bilingual gifted students exhibit
an internal locus of control, antithetical to
the perception that Hispanics are fatalistic
and tend to view destiny in life as
something beyond their own control.