X hits on this document

Word document

SCREENING AND IDENTIFYING GIFTED/TALENTED - page 10 / 18

55 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

10 / 18

superior responses in all groups at the targeted age range, between 10 years old to adult.

Agreement among several sets of judges with varying degrees of experience with children’s drawings has remained consistently high (.935)!  Most of the judges had no experience with assessing children’s drawings but indicate a very high degree of agreement that raises serious questions about the mythology that judging children’s art works is always idiosyncratic or subjective. This points out how much agreement art teachers really share when they carefully assess children’s art works.   

Findings and Discussion

In Table 1, results are shown for a multiple correlation of most of the variables discussed in the previous paragraphs. Subjects were all participants in the IU Summer Arts Institute in 1986, 1987, and 1988. That the test results were significantly correlated with teacher's ratings in a consistent pattern every year that such data has been collected is an important finding. It demonstrates it is possible to evaluate and categorize drawing abilities into several levels of performance and to identify students with superior abilities with this test instrument.

Teachers who worked for the Institute were selected through a process of application, portfolios, and interviews with a director of the Institute. They were always faculty members in the School of Fine Arts who were chosen because they represented studio expertise of a kind talented students should be exposed to and with which they should be offered opportunities to work. Partly as a result of this selection process, the teachers had no awareness of the drawing test and were not aware that it was administered to their students. Their own assessments of student performance were not collected until the last day of the Institute after they have had a great many opportunities to assess their students'

Document info
Document views55
Page views55
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 06:58:50 UTC 2016
Pages18
Paragraphs214
Words4423

Comments