Distinguish Myth Quiz Analysis

448 Words2 Pages

There are numerous misconceptions of gifted learners and also teaching gifted learners. After completion of the Distinguishing Myth quiz and scoring a 62 percent, I realized that I could distinguish the difference between a myth and a truth about a gifted student.
According to the Distinguish Myth Quiz, Students who are gifted and talented should be given experiences involving a variety of appropriate acceleration-based options. Several years ago, my son as a first grader, qualified for gifted and was recommended to advance to the second grade. Initially, he was thriving as a second grader until his classwork became overwhelming. His teacher believed the myth about a gifted student. She assumed that he did not need any help and when help …show more content…

It affected his self-esteem and made him have a negative outlook on being labeled as gifted. I scored both of the following statements, Acceleration options such as early entrance, grade skipping, early exit, and telescoping tend to be harmful for gifted and talented students and Gifted students have lower self-esteem than non-gifted students as a reality on my quiz. Once reading the myth justification, I recognize now that it was important to consider the social and psychological adjustment of each student for whom such options are being considered as well as cognitive capabilities in making the optimal match to the student's needs (Rogers, 1991). In the conclusion, both teachers only considered his intellectual ability not the social and psychological adjustment. Furthermore, as a parent, I considered it all, but his teacher had already mentioned to him before my discussion was final on his advancement. I definitely become a proponent for the advancement when he exhibited undesirable behavior due to boredom. Once reading Identifying and Nurturing the Gifted Poor, I believed that my son would have profited from looping. In an ideal setting, the teacher would work with gifted students over a period of two or three years. (Slocumb & Payne,