CHAPTER II

This chapter presents about the different views, perspective and insights of authors and

researchers that helped our study. In addition, it comprises local and foreign literatures and the

summary of its importance in our study.

1.1 Review Related Literature

Identification of students for gifted programs continues to be widely discussed and debated

along with the definition of giftedness.

Local Literature

Evans de Bernard (2014) states one can argue that racial and philological background can

hinder opportunities that directly affect the achievement of American minority students, and

Filipino students who came from a disadvantaged lower socioeconomic class also hindered in a

the same way.

Alvin Vista (2014) there is a widespread regional variance on poverty occurrence and

socioeconomic status (SES) in the Philippines (National Statistical Coordination Board, 2000). In

a similar context there’s a relationship between school proceeds and the accomplishment of a

particular child.
 Davis and Rimm (2014) Proclaimed that there is a need for basic academic skill so that the

achievement test would be of success and those children who are under the scarcity line, is diverse

linguistically and culturally might not have enough chances to improve these skills and might

perform poorly on endeavors.

Wong-Fernandez and Bustos-Orosa (2011) Accordingly, he asserts that although it is

manifest that the use of psychometric testing and educational assessment tools, are establish to be

inadequate and constraining. There are inconsistencies between the predominant considerations of

giftedness which includes ability in several domains.

(National Statistical Coordination Board, 2000), gives a repercussion that academic

attainment would differ largely across schools with wide dissimilarity in financial funds, especially

if the country is poor. It simply indicates that, where there is insufficiency in the distribution of

the proceeds to the regions greater regional variation in school expenditures would cause a great

possibility of not equal academic achievement in the whole country. Accordingly, in accumulating

views on the full extent of regional differences in the distribution of the proceeds, the normal

deficiency ranges from five (5) poorest provinces and exceeds 10 times of the top five (5)

provinces. It was anticipated that there is a total importance in the achievement breach among all

the provinces in contrast of the proceed scale. )

Foreign Literature

Gaesser (2015) Moreover, many educational policies inaugurate that, in order to implement

effective identification and intervention processes, a non-negotiable criterion is to evaluate the

student’s intellectual capacity by means of standardized tests. Also S. Acar, S. Sen and N. Cayirdag

(2016) stated that current approaches to gifted identification suggest collecting multiple sources of

evidence. Some gifted identification guidelines allow for the interchangeable use of performance

and non-performance identification methods, however interchangeable use of the instruments

(replacing for another) entails high regularity. This meta-analytic review scrutinized the reliability

of using performance and nonperformance identification methods by examining.

In Sumida’s (2010) research, in which he discuss that some people show a bias toward a

particular skill and strong aptitude in a specific field. To test this notion, Sumida also developed a

checklist to help identify science giftedness among Japanese students. This instrument was used

because it is specific to science giftedness and because, the checklist was designed to characterize

and classify different traits of science giftedness from an Eastern perspective. Sternberg (2007)

also advocates that we adapt a broader view and cultural approach of giftedness in every culture

and society. In this study, we address primarily the diversity of gifted students in terms of school

programs, and inclusivity in terms of gender and economic status. Maker (2005) assert the need

for an emerging paradigm that seeks to distinguish and perceive of giftedness as having multiple

forms and she suggested the use of a field-oriented approach that is developmental in nature,

process oriented, based on performance, and collaborative at all levels.

 Clark (2009) depicts that the underachieving gifted students as those who show exceptional

performance on a measure of intelligence but who do not perform as well as expected for children

of the same age on school-related tasks.

Moltzen (2004) highlighted that diverse school has their own characterization of giftedness

and the set of features will be determined and be said to indicate as a gifted behavior. Lovett and

Lewandowski (2006) believes that the broader approach to assessment is important, since the

responsibility of detecting high-ability students often falls to schools, which commonly only pay

attention to the more traditional signals related to high-ability, such as high levels of academic

achievement. Evaluation and intervention recommendations come from teachers in most cases. In

line with this, Larroder and Ogawa (2013) said that as a result, the decision to nominate a student

is generally reliant on teachers. There can be considerable bias at this crucial stage unless the

teachers or any proposers are well qualified in both gifted and talented identification tactics and

diverse education. Also Renzulli (2015) stated that, most teachers do not have a vast knowledge

in the identification of high-ability students. This may lead to slip-ups during the assessment

process.

Renzulli (2004) pointed out that giftedness is defined or conceptualized should be the

theoretical rationale underlying an identification process. The basis must be the basis for how

instruments are selected and used in identification. He also said that the problem with the current

identification approach is its appearance of being multi-criteria when it is actually restrictive to a

broader range of criteria. The approach fails to account for the society’s diversity. Renzulli (2004)

has a view in giftedness that it is more of a behavior, rather than personalities.

 Han and Marvin (2002) they investigated the rigidity between domain specificity and

domain generality and they suggested that we should identify the person’s creativity in specific

domains. In giftedness studies, showing creativity and giftedness are often used interchangeably,

which holds true in the context of this study.

Innamorato (2000) concerns about the flexibility, inclusivity, and utility of holistic

elements in an identification scheme for the science gifted.

Innamorato (2000) advises the use of various identification tools is to cover a wide range of

abilities to label as the science gifted, which he calls a “flexible model of assessment”. Giftedness

designates the possession and use of untrained and spontaneously expressed natural abilities

(called aptitudes or gifts) in at least one ability domain to a degree that places a child among the

top 10% of his or her age peers.