Wednesday, July 25, 2018

Underrepresented Learners and Excellence Gaps

It was very evident to me a long time ago that my peers and I retained information and learned in completely different ways and at completely different speeds. The articles discussed give insight into why this phenomena occurs through the use of aptitude tests and ultimately revealing excellence gaps.

In "An Aptitude Perspective on Talent: Implications for Identification of Academically Gifted Minority Students," it talks about the four different aspects of academic success in aptitude tests which are: prior achievement in the domain, the ability to reason in the symbol systems used to communicate new knowledge in that domain, interest in the domain, and persistence in the type of learning environments offered for the attainment of expertise in the domain. This is a very wordy definition of what academic success consists through the use of aptitude tests. Before getting into the depths of who underrepresented learners are, breaking down the definition of academic success based on aptitude tests would be most beneficial to steer this discussion. 

The first element: "prior achievement in the domain." If an individual has been successful in a certain situation or domain, it seems like a no-brainer that they will go into a next similar situation with the readiness to learn and perform well again. They have the confidence in themselves and believability that it is possible to accomplish. To put this into a more real-life situation that is academically-based, say one student is more advanced in a math class, and not so advanced in a science class. If this student failed the last science test, when the next science tests rolls around they are not going to be as confident in themselves and their ability as a peer who aced the last test is. This element of an aptitude test makes sense. Prior achievement in a particular situation or domain will always give those individuals a step up from peers who have not had prior achievement in the same domain.
Some individuals are great test takers. Other individuals get anxiety when it comes to taking tests.
This plays a huge role that I don't think is taken into account with aptitude tests.

The second element: "the ability to reason in the symbol systems used to communicate new knowledge in that domain." My interpretation on this element refers back to being a natural learner, or gifted individual. The complete opposite of what we are trying to define, underrepresented learners. Through experience and possibly even obtaining achievement in a domain, an individual will pick up on the symbol systems used for that domain to communicate ideas, thoughts, processes in that domain. To help with interpretation of this element, I'll use a real-life experience. If you have had previous achievement in a domain, you more than likely had a way of figuring out that math problem. If a peer is struggling with a similar problem after you've had success figuring one out, you'll share insight to him/her on how you found the answer - therefore communicating new knowledge in the domain. 

The third element: "interest in the domain." I can speak from personal experience that different interests is the biggest determinant in my opinion. I have completely different interests academically than some of my closest friends and family have. Going back to my example of the student who is more advanced in math than in science. 

This raises the question - does the student excel in math because he/she has had prior achievement in that domain, or does the student excel in math because he/she has interest in the subject? Or is it a combination of both elements? Do you have an interest in something because you have had success in that domain before? Possibly. I believe it is a combination of both. But I do not think this happens simultaneously. I think that you either have had success in a domain which then in turn you grew a liking to the domain, or you grew a liking to the domain which in turn resulted in success. To prove my belief on this, I have another personal experience story to share. When I was young, my dad made me go out for wrestling. Right away I hated it. As time passed, I found myself to have success in the sport which then grew my interests. To continue to learn new moves, etc. to gain that achievement the next time the situation came around. 

The fourth element: "persistence in the type of learning environments offered for the attainment of expertise in the domain." I feel that each element of the aptitude tests build upon one another. Once an individual finds an academic domain they have succeeded in, can relate to the domain through communication, and find it interesting, of course they are going to want to become an expert in that specific domain. For example, an individual has found the major they find interesting and desirable in college. Now, they strive to become an expert in that field in hopes of finding the best job/career with the best pay, benefits, etc. To become an expert at a specific job requires constant learning and growth.
Becoming an expert in the field means constantly learning new things about the domain.

This brings us back to the initial question - who are underrepresented learners? After analysis of the processes of aptitude tests that researchers base academic success on, I would agree that identification of talent will be seen through aptitude tests. So, does that mean that underrepresented learners are individuals who need constant help and attention in the classroom? I don't think so. I think that underrepresented learners are individuals who may not have a strong suit in every single domain academically, but have a knack for one or two domains. When I think of gifted individuals, I think that they are gifted in every domain. 

Now since a difference in gifted individuals and underrepresented learners has made evident, moves us to the topic of excellence gaps. The difference in between these two groups of individuals is not called an excellence gap, but rather an achievement gap. Excellence gaps are "differences in scores at the advanced level only" (Hardesty, McWilliams, & Plucker, 2014). 

The first thought that came to my mind when realizing that excellence gaps are based solely on advanced students only is - why should we be worrying about individuals that are already excelling in a domain? Shouldn't we be focusing on the achievement gap instead, the individuals who are struggling every day in the classroom? But then after researching the topic, I think that we should care about excellence gaps just as much because the excellence gaps are due to much larger issues - poverty, negative peer pressure, and discrimination. All three of these issues can cause major problems in today's school systems, and in the individual's personal life as well. If an individual is getting bullied because of their wealth, getting negative peer pressure because they care about their academics, or made fun of because of their race can only lead to bad things for the advanced students. 

No comments:

Post a Comment