Preventing Talent Loss

Preventing Talent Loss

Preventing Talent Loss provides a comprehensive model of giftedness and talent for all educators including teachers, counselors, and administrators. By presenting a summary of theory-driven, evidence-based knowledge, Hong and Milgram offer innovative and practical solutions for meeting the challenge of coping with talent loss. This monumental book distinguishes the important difference between expert talent and creative talent. While other books focus on how to improve the process of identifying the gifted and talented, Preventing Talent Loss provides educators with the means to individualize their curriculum and instruction in regular classrooms. Eunsook Hong is Professor of the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). Roberta M. Milgram is Professor, Ariel University Center of Samaria, Israel, and Professor Emeritus, Tel Aviv University, Israel.

Preventing Talent Loss

Eunsook Hong Roberta M. Milgram

First published 2008 by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 Simultaneously published in the UK by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2011. To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk. © 2008 Taylor & Francis All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Hong, Eunsook. Preventing talent loss / Eunsook Hong, Roberta M. Milgram. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Gifted children–Education. 2. Creative ability. 3. Academic achievement. I. Milgram, Roberta M. II. Title. LC3993.2.H66 2008 371.95–dc22 2007034954 ISBN 0-203-93148-3 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 10: 0–8058–5712–5(hbk) ISBN 10: 0–8058–5713–3(pbk) ISBN 10: 0–203–93148–3(ebk) ISBN 13: 978–0-8058–5712–2(hbk) ISBN 13: 978–0-8058–5713–9(pbk) ISBN 13: 978–0–203–93148–6(ebk)

For Lonnie Rowell and Noach (Norman) Milgram, in gratitude for their support, patience, and insight

Contents

Preface Part 1

Understanding Talent Loss 1

Preventing Talent Loss: a major challenge facing educators and parents Talent loss Sources of talent loss

2

A New Direction in Conceptualization: a comprehensive model of giftedness and talent Characteristics of a good model A comprehensive model of giftedness and talent

Part 2

xi

1 3 4 5 11 12 13

Cognitive Abilities and Talent Development

21

3

23 23

Analytical-Thinking Ability and Talent Development Domain-general and domain-specific analytical-thinking ability

viii  •  Contents

4

Relationship between analytical-thinking ability and creativity Instruments used to measure analytical-thinking ability Preventing talent loss

24 26 32

Creative-Thinking Ability and Talent Development Domain-general versus domain-specific creative-thinking ability Relationship between domain-general and domain-specific creative thinking Relationship between creative thinking abilities and creative talent Relationship between creative-thinking and analytical-thinking abilities Instruments used to measure creative-thinking ability Preventing talent loss

35

Part 3

Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development 5

Self-regulation, Motivation, Learning Style, and Talent Development Self-regulated learning Motivational attributes Learning styles and preferences Preventing talent loss

6

Affective and Intrapersonal Attributes and Talent Development Complexity and uniqueness of affective and intrapersonal characteristics Affect: emotion and anxiety Intrapersonal characteristics Preventing talent loss

7

Biological Attributes and Talent Development Genetics and talent development Sex and age: academic, motivational, and emotional characteristics Preventing talent loss

35 37 38 38 40 43

47 49 49 52 56 59 65 66 67 72 76 79 80 83 89

Contents  •  ix Part 4

Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development

91

8

Schools: part of the problem of talent loss or part of the solution? Assessment and identification Differentiation of curriculum and instruction Special topics Preventing talent loss

93 94 99 108 110

9

School Personnel and Climate Teachers Counselors Preventing talent loss

113 114 116 120

10

Family, Mentors, and Diversity The role of family in talent development The role of mentors in talent development Socio-cultural background and cultural diversity Preventing talent loss

123 123 127 131 134

Part 5

Becoming Talented

149

11

Technology for Preventing Talent Loss The role of computers: then and now Technology as a tool Technology and learning environment Preventing talent loss

137 138 139 144 147

12

Becoming Talented: expert talent and creative talent Expert talent and creative talent: similarities and differences Expert talent and creative talent in children and adults Developmental stages of expert and creative talents Preventing talent loss

151 153 159 161 164

Epilogue Foundational characteristics and attributes for talent development and talent loss Talent development: a continuous process for all individuals

169 170 171

x  •  Contents Improving identification and selection processes to reduce talent loss Teaching strategies designed to prevent talent loss: differentiation of curriculum and individualization of instruction for all learners Technology-integrated curriculum and instruction Teacher training: preservice and in-service Financial support – redefining priorities A modest proposal

172 172 172 173 173

References Subject index Author index

175 213 227

171

Preface

We have been conducting research and teaching courses on topics of giftedness and creativity for many years. On the basis of this experience, we reached the conclusion that talent loss is one of the major challenges facing parents and educators today. The goals of this book are to contribute to a broad understanding of talent, to illustrate how talent is lost, and to suggest ways to meet the challenge of preventing talent loss. The book consists of 12 chapters and an epilogue and is divided into five parts.

Part 1: Understanding Talent Loss Part 1 includes two chapters. In the first chapter, talent loss is defined, its sources specified, and the goals of the book are presented. In the second, a new comprehensive model of giftedness and talent conceptualized to prevent talent loss is presented and the rationale for the model and its components are illustrated. Many factors are involved in preventing talent loss (e.g., theoretical foundation, identification, programs, individual characteristics). However, the way giftedness is conceptualized influences the process of identification of the gifted and determines the special educational opportunities provided for them. Accordingly, we give a high priority to a new model of giftedness that focuses on preventing talent loss.

xii  •  Preface

Part 2: Cognitive Abilities and Talent Development Part 2 includes two chapters on cognitive abilities, the major component of giftedness and talent. Chapter 3 discusses analytical-thinking ability and Chapter 4 creative-thinking ability. In each chapter, domain generality and domain specificity of cognitive abilities are clearly distinguished and the constructs are defined theoretically and operationally.

Part 3: Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development Part 3 is divided into three chapters. In Chapter 5, the metacognitive and motivational aspects of self-regulated learning and learning style preferences are discussed. Understanding how these personal–psychological characteristics affect talent loss can prepare educators and parents to provide support and assistance that can contribute to the development of desirable learner characterisitics, increase learning and prevent talent loss. Chapter 6 is devoted to illustrate how affect and personality traits, both positive, such as independence and responsibility, and negative, such as stress and anxiety, affect talent development and loss. We devote Chapter 6 to one topic to which much attention has been given in the literature of giftedness, that is, the effects of sex/gender and age, and one to which little attention is given, that is, the effects of genetics on talent. Interactions among these components are discussed with emphasis on their effects on talent loss.

Part 4: Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development Four chapters are included in Part 4. In Chapter 8 we discuss whether school is part of the problem of talent loss or part of the solution. We summarize and compare the various approaches to identification and the special education services offered by school systems. In Chapter 9 we discuss the roles of teachers and counselors in developing talent and preventing talent loss. In Chapter 10 the critical role of surroundings in talent development is highlighted, including the general socio-cultural setting, the specific family environment, and special influences such as mentors. Chapter 11 presents the historical background and recent advancement of computer technologies as an educational tool, emphasizes the advantages and problems that technology has brought to the field of talent development, and focuses on the major contribution that technology can make to preventing talent loss.

Preface  •  xiii

Part 5: Becoming Talented In Chapter 12, we present the two different types of talent (expert talent and creative talent) and explain the similarities and differences between the two postulated in the new model. This distinction represents an innovative conceptualization of talent. Understanding talent in this way can not only help identify and develop each type but can also help prevent the loss of talent that is the inevitable consequence of lack of this understanding. Books on giftedness and talent have appeared in the past few decades. Many of them focus on programs and some on theories of giftedness. Although some implications for talent loss have been drawn in these books, none have focused specifically on preventing talent loss. Studies have indicated that the majority of gifted children spend most of their time in regular classrooms, and the majority of these children do not receive proper education to help them realize their potential. This book will propose some solutions to this challenge. The book also directs the attention to the education of all children, focusing on technology-integrated curriculum and instruction that can be used for all levels of learners. The content of the book is comprehensive in that all characteristics and factors that contribute to talent development are covered in the effort to illustrate the need for understanding what shapes, helps, or prevents talent development in all individuals. Thus, the book is commendable for educators and parents as well as researchers and undergraduate and graduate students in special education, elementary and secondary education, and educational psychology. Essentially, the book will be of interest to individuals who are interested in talent development, giftedness, creativity, and gifted education. We thank the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for support of a sabbatical leave year for the senior author. Eunsook Hong, the senior author, offers her appreciation to Roberta Milgram, who has been a colleague and friend for many years. Our collaborations throughout the years made this book possible. Special thanks go to her husband, Lonnie Rowell, for his love, patience, and support. Roberta Milgram wants to mention three people. She is grateful to her colleague, Eunsook Hong, for sharing her deep wisdom and understanding of all aspects of the development of talent and the challenge of preparing this book. She expresses her deep gratitude to her husband, Noach (Norman) Milgram, for his endless friendship, patience, and support. Finally, whenever she sees the title of this book, she always thinks of her “beautiful boy,” her grandson, Dashiell Ari Knapp, who was taken from us by leukemia at age 17 – a genuine talent loss.

part

1

Understanding Talent Loss

chapter

1

Preventing Talent Loss A major challenge facing educators and parents

We recently picked up a thin volume called Silences by Tillie Olsen (1989). The talented author herself is a high school dropout and an example of talent almost silenced. She presents many moving examples of creative writing talent almost silenced. She dedicated her book to the silenced and the almost silenced as follows: For our silenced people, century after century .€.€. refused respect, recognition; lost For those of us, (few yet in number, for the way is punishing) who begin to emerge into more flowered and rewarded use of our selves in ways denied to them; and by our achievement bearing witness to what was (and still is) being lost, silenced. We call these silences talent loss and have chosen to designate this topic as the major focus of this book. Optimists, it is said, define problems that arise in their lives as challenges and believe that most challenges can be met by applying their own abilities to meeting these challenges in a disciplined and focused manner. We consider talent loss to be one of the major challenges facing parents and educators today. The goals of this book are to contribute

4  •  Understanding Talent Loss to a broad understanding of talent, to identify the process by which talent is lost, and to suggest ways to meet the challenge of preventing talent loss. We hope that this book will contribute to creating the opportunity for more of the silenced to be heard.

Talent loss Talent may be defined as extraordinary achievement in a specific domain. If we use this stringent definition, then talent in children and adolescents is a very rare phenomenon. What we observe in some at an early age is the potential for extraordinary achievement in a specific domain. We must be careful not to confuse potential with realized talent. Extraordinary achievement includes accomplishments in the aesthetic domains such as music, art, dance, and drama and also social, political, military, and moral leadership. It includes talent in business endeavors and extraordinary achievement in the realm of education. Societies that do not make every effort to assure that the potential talents of young people are utilized are losing their most valuable natural resource – human capital. The identification and enhancement of potential talents is not to be considered a luxury item when society sets its programming and funding priorities. Talent loss is the failure of individuals to realize the potential talents that they demonstrated in their early years. To realize potential talents means to actualize them by generating real-world products or performances of high quality. Table 1.1 presents four possible outcomes of talent loss or talent realization in adults as a function of identification of potential in youth. Although the talent development trajectory of individuals varies widely – some accomplishing an extraordinary talented achievement in youth – we present the four outcomes in terms of the youth–adult relationship because of its educational utility and practicality. Some potentially talented children are successfully identified by parents and schools and realize their potential as evidenced by positive contributions that bring them personal satisfaction and enrich the societies in which they live. Some succeed in actualizing their potential talent despite the fact that Table 1.1╇ Talent loss: identification and realization of potential Identification of potential talent in youth Realization of talent Not realized in adult Realized

Not identified

Identified

Talent loss

Talent loss

Talent realized

Talent realized

Preventing Talent Loss  •  5 their potential was not recognized when they were young. It is likely that this group of individuals have motivation and personality traits (e.g., independent, autonomous, goal-oriented) that propel their talent development without environmental support. Some individuals were actually designated when they were young as potentially talented by school systems, were considered gifted by their parents, yet for a wide variety of reasons never realized their potential. These people may well have experienced enrichment efforts by schools and communities, all to no avail. Some of the complex reasons that might explain this kind of talent loss are suggested in this book. Finally, some individuals were potentially talented as children, were never identified as such, never received special education, and failed to realize their potential talent in any way. The theoretical model presented in this book applies to all four groups, those who actualize their potential talent and those who do not. We will, however, give special attention to talent loss, that is, potentially talented young people, either identified or not identified as such, who do not realize their potential.

Sources of talent loss Cognitive abilities, personal–psychological attributes, and environmental– social factors work interactively in their influence on talent development. These components influence individuals’ talent development in ways that vary widely. Individuals have different strengths and weaknesses in these components. Some people, for example, are influenced greatly by their cognitive abilities, others by strong family support. Educators and parents can influence the process of talent development and help reduce talent loss. One of the goals of this book is to encourage the adoption of changes that will reduce talent loss. We urge that changes adopted be accompanied by research designed to yield reliable information on the relative efficacy of each change in reducing talent loss. Underestimation of the extent of the phenomenon The extent of talent loss is vastly underestimated (Tannenbaum, 1983). One reason for this phenomenon is that stories of highly talented people who overcome all difficulties and succeed in actualizing their potential are much more likely to receive attention in the media than the statistics of actual talent loss. The list of successful and productive gifted adults whose talents were almost lost is legendary. The eminent scientist, Albert Einstein, according to the apocryphal story, failed mathematics in elementary school. Steve Wozniak, the developer of the first Apple home computer, was a high school dropout. Bill Gates, the president of Microsoft, the largest producer of computer software

6  •  Understanding Talent Loss in the world, dropped out of Harvard. Boris Yeltsin, the former Russian leader, was expelled from high school for showing leadership in adolescence. He stood up at a school assembly and incited his fellow high school students to rebel against the tyrannical principal. There is a danger in these happyending stories. They confirm the popular prejudice that gifted children will realize their talents without educational intervention. This, however, is not the situation. Many talented youngsters fail to realize their potential abilities. Underestimation of the extent of talent loss means that we are not recognizing talent loss as the serious problem that it represents for our society and our world. If we do not define it as a problem, it is unlikely that we will give it the attention required to develop solutions. Narrow conceptualizations of giftedness The narrow conceptualizations of giftedness that dominated the field for many years are another major reason for talent loss. One could use the landmark work of Lewis Terman (Terman, 1925; Terman & Oden, 1947, 1959) to define three stages which provided the basis for our current understanding of giftedness, that is, pre-Terman, Terman, and post-Terman. In the preTerman stage there were strong negative attitudes and a strong popular bias against “geniuses.” Many people believed that “early ripe, early rot,” that is, high-IQ children were physically weak and prone to problems of social and psychological adjustment. Terman’s work represented a milestone in the development of our understanding of giftedness. He was a psychologist at Stanford University who developed the Stanford–Binet intelligence test for use in the United States and conducted a major longitudinal research study of what he called genius. He launched his study in 1921 and followed over 1,000 research participants with Stanford–Binet IQs of above 135 for more than six decades. The results of the landmark study are reported in a set of five volumes (Terman, 1925; Terman & Oden, 1947, 1959) and in numerous articles published subsequently (e.g., Friedman, Tucker, Schwartz, Tomlinson-Keasey, Martin, Wingard, & Giqui, 1995; Tomlinson-Keasey, Warren, & Elliot, 1986). Terman was the first major researcher to investigate the phenomenon of giftedness, and his work contributed a large amount of information on the characteristics of high-IQ-type gifted children. Terman’s work replaced previously widely held prejudices with facts. His pioneering work provided a large proportion of the information on gifted learners that was available for many years. However, because of the narrow conceptualization of giftedness that guided his work, Terman’s research led to much talent loss.

Preventing Talent Loss  •  7 The findings of the Terman study and the methodology of comparing children defined as gifted in terms of high IQ with lower-IQ children dominated the field for many years. This was unfortunate because the Terman research was characterized by two problems, one theoretical and one methodological. The theoretical problem was the limited definition of giftedness, used by Terman. Although his pioneering research yielded much knowledge about high-IQ giftedness, it impeded the expansion of the conceptualization of giftedness and talent for many years. The methodological problem was even more serious. The research participants of the Terman study were first selected on the basis of teacher recommendations and only in subsequent stages was additional information on these research participants gathered. In other words, the Stanford–Binet IQ test was administered to children only if their teachers considered them intelligent. The problems created by using teacher recommendations as a first step in the identification process are discussed later in Chapter 8. This is often referred to as the “fatal flaw” in the Terman research and has led many to question whether findings based upon this non-random and nonrepresentative sample yielded a valid portrait of even the high-IQ gifted. The post-Terman era started in the 1950s and it is marked by the end of the domination of the unidimensional conceptualization of giftedness and the development of multidimensional theories of the phenomenon that continues until the present time. Guilford (1950) delivered a presidential address at the American Psychological Association that had enormous impact on the definition and assessment of giftedness. Guilford’s (1950, 1956, 1967) Structure of Intellect model defined multiple cognitive aptitudes, including divergent or “creative” thinking, that led to the abandonment of the idea that tests of general intelligence could be used to identify all gifted children. Thus, Guilford’s conceptual framework expanded the definition of giftedness to include creativity and educators began to speak of the gifted and talented. Unfortunately, for two decades researchers focused on efforts to define and to assess creative thinking as distinct from intelligence (Wallach, 1970) instead of examining the more important question of how to use the concept of creative thinking to expand our understanding and enhancement of giftedness and to prevent talent loss. Here again there was a fatal flaw in the application of the conceptualization of creative thinking in the work of Torrance (1962), Guilford (1967) and Wallach and Kogan (1965) that actually contributed to the phenomenon of talent loss. Scores on their measures of general creative thinking were frequently considered indices of real-world creativity. In other words, the test scores were confounded with real-world creative behavior. The scores on tests designed to be predictors of creative behavior were used as criteria. For example, in empirical studies of personality characteristics of

8  •  Understanding Talent Loss creative people, scores on creative-thinking tests are frequently used as the criterion index of creativity. In the chapters that follow, we will adopt a clear distinction between scores on tests of analytical and creative thinking and the real-world behaviors that reflect these test scores. Potentially talented young people are unidentified The most basic overall explanation for talent loss is probably that young people with high potential talent are unidentified. One important reason for the failure to recognize potential abilities in children and youth that later emerge as remarkable life accomplishment in adults is the difference between what we call remarkable accomplishment in children and in adults. In children, general intellectual ability is frequently considered the major criterion for giftedness. It is assumed to be an indicator of remarkable attainments to come. Children, however, are not expected to generate actual high-quality products in their youth, some protégés notwithstanding. In adults, talent is manifested in a product or performance that reflects not only focused cognitive ability, interest, and effort but also training, practice, and experience. Adults are not “generally” talented, they are specifically talented in something – music, mathematics, languages. In adults talent is realized in a product (a musical score, a scientific breakthrough). Talent loss is affected by this difference between the definition of giftedness in children and in adults because the identification and selection procedures used in most school systems are based on measures of IQ or standardized tests. Children whose potential talent is unconventional, that is, different from the abilities measured by school grades and IQ tests, may not be identified as gifted and not given the opportunities that might help them develop their potential talent. They may be systematically excluded and not provided with special educational experiences that could enhance their potential talent and prevent it from being lost. Individual children’s personal characteristics and backgrounds are ignored in identification and selection of potential talents This practice of not considering what students bring to the learning environment other than cognitive abilities is widespread in gifted education. Without understanding children’s background, how can one understand what they think, how they think, what they do or do not value, and why they behave in a certain manner? What is important to individual children, what are they interested in, what are their aspirations? What culture do they come from, what is their family like, what kind of friends do they associate with? What are their preferred learning styles and motivation levels and are they

Preventing Talent Loss  •  9 self-regulating while studying? These are important questions that need to be considered before assigning students to instructional programs. In this book, we present personal–psychological attributes and environmental–social factors that influence talent development. Understanding these key attributes and considering them seriously can help educators and parents contribute to preventing talent loss. Lack of instruments or lack of use of proper instruments to assess different types and levels of giftedness and talent As early as 1972, Marland, who was then Assistant Secretary for Education in the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, proposed a multifaceted definition that, in addition to high intelligence, included creativity, leadership, and abilities in the performing and visual arts. Marland’s (1972) definition was adopted by the United States Office of Education, and enacted into law by the Congress of the United States in the Gifted and Talented Children’s Act of 1978. This legislation represented an important educational advance because it defined giftedness broadly rather than in terms of IQ alone, and justified the provision of services to gifted children with a wide variety of abilities and potential talents. Research findings encouraged school authorities to search for better screening instruments. There is little evidence that children identified as potentially gifted on the basis of IQ and/or achievement test scores invariably reach the highest occupational levels, achieve outstanding vocational success, or provide professional and community leadership (McClelland, 1973; Milgram & Hong, 1994; Tannenbaum, 1983; Wallach & Wing, 1969). McClelland (1973) summarized convincing evidence that intelligence test scores, when examined separately from educational achievement, did not directly predict occupational success and other important life outcomes. He suggested that tests that assess the competencies involved in the life outcome that we are trying to predict would have better predictive validity. These developments provided the impetus to school authorities to search for instruments that would successfully identify potentially gifted children. The key problem is the difficulty in finding or developing reliable, valid, and practical tests desired by school systems to identify the vast array of component abilities postulated in the newer formulations and required by law. The wide gap between the expanding view of what constitutes potential giftedness in children and the actual selection processes represents a major challenge to those responsible for gifted education. In recent decades, various new instruments have been proposed and made available to the public. However, despite much urging from researchers and authorities on gifted education, evidence of systematic use of new assessment approaches by educators is not

10  •  Understanding Talent Loss to be found. In this book, we provide information on various assessment tools that educators may apply in identification and selection of potentially gifted and talented children. Potentially talented young people are underserved The multifaceted definition cited above, which was proposed by Marland (1972) and adopted by the United States Office of Education, firmly established gifted learners as “exceptional,” that is, children whose physical, intellectual, or socio-emotional development differs significantly from the norm and who require special education, that is, services or activities in addition to or in place of those generally offered by the school. Most states in the U.S. enacted legislation, or published regulations or guidelines based, for the most part, upon the U.S. Office of Education definition of giftedness. The exact nature of the services or activities to be provided for gifted learners was not specified by law, but was left instead to the discretion of school administrators and school boards. Accordingly, a wide variety of administrative arrangements were developed to provide special education for gifted and talented learners. Alternative administrative arrangements used in the education of the gifted and implications for talent loss are discussed in Chapter 8. One reason why many potentially talented young people are underserved is because it is virtually impossible to provide the many different programs that would meet the needs of gifted children with wide variations of types and levels of potential talents. As only a small proportion of potentially gifted youngsters can benefit from special programs outside of the school, these children would best be served by mainstreaming or providing special education for the gifted within the regular classroom (Milgram, 1989; VanTassel-Baska, 1995). In Chapter 11 we will explain how the use of technology, as broadly defined, within the regular classroom can better serve the individual needs of each potentially gifted learner, thus decreasing the possibility of talent loss. To sum up, as researchers and educators, the challenge that we face is to identify potential talent and to prevent talent loss. The reasons that explain talent loss are intertwined. Inadequate conceptualization leads to the use of procedures to identify and enhance talent that are unsuccessful. It is easier to curse the darkness than to light a candle. Many are the books that focus on what is wrong – we call that cursing the darkness. In the chapters that follow, we intend to change that emphasis and to focus on what we can do to prevent talent loss, that is, to light a candle. Let us return for a moment to the opening lines of this chapter. Our goal in this volume is to try to understand silenced talent and the process by which the talented are silenced (the punishing way described by Tillie Olsen), in the hope that the work before you will help in a small way to give the opportunity for more of the silenced to be heard.

chapter

2

A New Direction in Conceptualization

A comprehensive model of giftedness and talent In the last chapter we stated that (a) the reduction of talent loss is an enormous challenge to educators and (b) a major goal of this book is to contribute to a broad understanding of talent loss and to its prevention. One reason for talent loss is lack of a basic understanding of potential talent, factors affecting talent development, and different types of realized talent. Lack of knowledge has led to faulty identification of potential talent and to ineffective programs designed to develop talents. Although there has been considerable theoretical advancement in the field of gifted education in recent years, the programs of gifted education have not caught up with these advancements. Some educators have become more knowledgeable and effective in enhancing talent development (e.g., Buchana & Woerner, 2002). Unfortunately, others are unable or unwilling to apply their knowledge to the actual implementation of changes in gifted education (see VanTassel-Baska, 2006). In this chapter we present a comprehensive model of giftedness and talent conceptualized to prevent talent loss. The specific goal of the theoretical model is to provide parents, teachers, counselors, and educators with knowledge and understanding in a form that they will be more likely to use to improve gifted education and to prevent talent loss. The more general goal is to encourage lay and professional people to use the model to

12  •  Understanding Talent Loss provide a large proportion of our children and adolescents, gifted and nongifted, with the learning opportunities to realize their potential talent. In the first section of this chapter we list the characteristics of a good model. In the second section, we present our model of giftedness and talent.

Characteristics of a good model Why list the characteristics of a good theoretical model of talent development and talent loss? Many lay and professional people do not appreciate the value of theory in general, and the application of specific theories to their lives and work in particular. Accordingly, we present here the basic definitions and characteristics of a good model. A theoretical model is a simplified representation of a phenomenon. A good model of giftedness and talent provides a better understanding of the phenomenon and a plausible explanation for its development. In education we use models to describe, predict, and improve the teaching–learning process. The concepts of talent development presented in our model provide the conceptual basis required for experimental and nonexperimental investigations. One might say that a model is good (a) when all components of the model and the model as a whole describe the phenomenon of talent development as accurately as possible; and (b) when the model permits modification and amplification over time to generate better explanations and better programs in the field to enhance talent development. A good model of talent development has five major characteristics. 1 A good model is broad in scope in that it is composed of an integrated set of component constructs that explain talent development and talent loss. It acknowledges and reflects a wide range of potential and realized talent (e.g., Marland, 1972; Milgram, 1989, 1991; Renzulli, 1986; Tannenbaum, 1983). The model presented here is in direct contrast to narrow-scope theories that focus on a single dimension, such as cognitive processes (e.g., Cattell, 1971; Guilford, 1959) or aspects of personality (e.g., Helson & Crutchfield, 1971; Piechowski, 1991). The model postulates differential and interactive effects of the various components on talent development, that is, cognitive abilities, personal–psychological attributes, and environmental–social factors. 2 A good model represents a simplified conceptualization of a complex phenomenon and, in the present instance, describes giftedness and talent with as few constructs as possible. A good model provides a succinct explanation of what talent is and what affects its development and realization.

A New Direction in Conceptualization  •  13 3 A good model conceptualizes a wide range of talent manifestation. The model acknowledges that individuals have a different amount and pattern of resources with reference to their cognitive abilities, personal attributes, and the various settings in which these abilities and attributes are nurtured. The model proposes that, due to these differences, individuals differ in the pace and degree in which they develop their potential talent and manifest their realized talent. Some gifted and talented children and youth may develop their potential talent to the fullest, manifesting a profound level of talent, whereas others may not be able to do so. The model postulates that talent development is an on-going process, a process of “becoming.” The model is applicable to all individuals, not just to those with high abilities. 4 A good model builds upon and integrates past and present empirical findings generated by extant theories. The new model presented here is not to be considered a final statement on giftedness and talent. Models change as a function of evidence that supports them as well as evidence that mandates change. A good model generates theoretical and applied research and warrants continuous validation and improvement. 5 A good model is practical. As Kurt Lewin (1951) once said, “There is nothing so practical as a good theory” (p. 169). A good model provides a framework for program implementation that is as practical as possible. Effective implementations are based on good theoretical models. Poor models are not only ineffective but also waste time, creative energy, and funds. A model for preventing talent loss is good only if it helps bring to the field of gifted education new ideas to prevent talent loss.

A comprehensive model of giftedness and talent Theories of giftedness and talent: background and brief history At first, giftedness was defined largely on the basis of general intellectual ability. Research on giftedness began with the effort to understand and assess intelligence. Intelligence has been used widely for identification of students who need special education services. Intelligence has been and is a major component of models and programs of gifted education. The seminal work of Terman (1925) on intelligence and giftedness was described in detail in Chapter 1. Different theories of intelligence have been postulated over the years. The unitary view of intelligence postulates that a single general factor (“g” or general intelligence) accounts for most of our mental ability. This postulation has been highly influential in the conceptualization of giftedness (Jensen, 1998a, 1998b; Spearman, 1927). According to Spearman, a person

14  •  Understanding Talent Loss who is grossly deficient in general intelligence would probably not be gifted in any specific domain. The Talent Search program initiated at Johns Hopkins University is an example of a talent development approach that is largely based on this conception of intelligence (Stanley, 1980; Stanley & Benbow, 1981). Thorndike (1927) proposed that intelligence is the sum of specific abilities such as abstract ability, mechanical ability, and social ability. By contrast, Thurstone (1938) contended that there is no general factor in intelligence and regarded intelligence as several primary mental abilities in various areas such as word fluency, verb meaning, number, associative memory, reasoning, space, and perceptual speed. Other earlier theories include Fluid and Crystallized Intelligences (Cattell, 1971) and Structure of Intellect (Guilford, 1959, 1967, 1988). Fluid intelligence is a non-learned trait and can be measured by culture-free intelligence tests (e.g., ability to see relations and patterns). Crystallized intelligence is learned knowledge and measured by achievement tests. Cattell postulates that fluid intelligence is necessary for crystallized intelligence, basically proposing that general intelligence is the foundation for high crystallized intelligence. Guilford hypothesized that human intellect is composed of many intellectual abilities classified on the basis of the material (or content) processed, the processes (or operations) performed with the content, and the forms (or products) of processed information. Since these earlier efforts to understanding intelligence, other scholars have proposed various perspectives on intellectual development including Piagetian, neoPiagetian, cognitive, and contextual perspectives (see Gardner, Kornhaber, & Wake, 1996; Sternberg & Berg, 1992). Educators and researchers in the field of giftedness recognized that intelligence is only one component of giftedness and talent and that a more comprehensive theoretical framework is needed in order to ground their research and practice in gifted education and to advance our understanding of giftedness and talent. Despite the recognition of the need for theory development specific to giftedness and talent by such pioneer thinkers as Ward (1961), Guilford (1967), and Gowan (1972, 1974), it was not until the 1980s that multidimensional conceptualizations of human abilities and giftedness were proposed. Examples of such endeavors include Theory of Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1983), Triarchic Theory of Intelligence (Sternberg, 1988), Successful Intelligence (Sternberg, 1996), and Investment Theory of Creativity (Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). Other postulations include various viewpoints from microlevels of organic structure and neurobiology (neuronal dynamics, brain structure) to macrolevels of broad political, cultural, and economic context (see Ambrose, 2005). Several edited volumes appeared summarizing the better known theories (Cohen & Ambrose, 1993; Horowitz & O’Brien, 1985a; Runco & Albert, 1990;

A New Direction in Conceptualization  •  15 Sternberg & Davidson, 1986). Theories of giftedness postulated the specific abilities, attributes, and factors that purportedly explain the development of giftedness and talent. Some theories focus on single aspects of development of gifted individuals (e.g., personality). Other formulations are broader in scope and include recognition of the role of environment, experience, and personality in the realization of potential talent. Recent formulations of giftedness propose that (a) both nature and nurture contribute to the realization of gifted potential, creativity, and productivity; and (b) giftedness should be assessed with a wide variety of measures that include indices of personal and environmental elements (e.g., Feldhusen, 1995a; Gagné, 1991, 2005; Piirto, 1999; Renzulli, 1986; Renzulli & Reis, 1985; Sternberg, 2004). In summary, conceptions of giftedness range from a narrow g factor view to more multidimensional views. How giftedness is conceptualized has direct and immense impact on who will be identified as having gifted potential, who will receive special services, and who will have opportunities for talent development. In the next section, we propose a new comprehensive model that postulates a different view of giftedness and talent and the factors that influence talent development. Rationale and the model Theoretical rationale The basic view that led to the development of a new model of giftedness and talent is that the development of talent is based upon the complex relationships between individuals and their environments. An individual’s talent is to be understood in terms of opportunities for action that the environment affords to individuals who have an intention to learn (Gibson, 1986). If individuals do not have an interest or intention to act on the opportunities that the environment affords, then learning would not occur. Thus, particular behaviors become noticed as developing, competent, or talented, when the environment affords and the learner recognizes the possibilities for learning and action (Turvey & Shaw, 1995). The impact of heredity versus environment has been the most discussed issue in understanding ability, intelligence, expertise, giftedness, and talent (see Dai & Coleman, 2005). The formulation presented here reflects the view that nature and nurture interact to produce developmental outcomes, an assertion partly brought by behavioral genetics research and bioecological theory by Ceci (1996; Papierno, Ceci, Makel, & Williams, 2005). Further, nurture compensates nature and vice versa. Although we support the conception that individuals are biologically predisposed to obtain certain information in certain preferred ways and intuitions (Carey & Gelman, 1995), we also support

16  •  Understanding Talent Loss the assertion that biological predispositions (e.g., human brain) are influenced by environment, culture, and social context.

na

The new model The Comprehensive Model of Giftedness and Talent (CMGT), as presented in Figure 2.1, is a broad, multidimensional, formulation of giftedness and talent. Two types of manifested talent, one labeled expert talent and the other creative talent, are the major components of this conceptualization of giftedness. These two talents, the culminating manifestation of individuals’ talent development, are discussed in Chapter 12. Either talent is developed based on the three contextual components (outer circle in Figure 1.1) – cognitive abilities, personal–psychological attributes, and environmental–social factors – which are foundations for realizing potential talent. An individual who might have creative potential might demonstrate good analytical-thinking ability and excellent creative-thinking ability. In addition, this individual Comprehensive Model and of Giftedness and Talent (Hong & Milgram, mightAbe highly motivated have fully supportive parents who 2007) recognize

Figure 2.1╇ A comprehensive model of giftedness and talent.

A New Direction in Conceptualization  •  17 his/her potential. This individual might have a good chance to demonstrate a creative talent in a domain of his/her interest. The combinations of various factors in the three contextual components are complex and the degree of trait or environment support varies widely (e.g., from highly motivated to not motivated; from participating in special programs to dropping out of high school). The level-of-talent dimension (minimal to profound) represents the continuum of talent development and implies that talent development is a continuous process. Individuals can realize a level of talent that is higher than their current level of talent. These levels are depicted as triangular in shape, hierarchically ordered by degree of difficulty of attainment, with the pointed area indicating the highest accomplishment. The shape also highlights the fact that the higher the level, the fewer the number of people in society who achieve it. The level of talent represents talent manifestations that are qualitatively different. The concept of level or continuum of talent development does not appear in other conceptualizations of giftedness. The inclusion of level in this model underscores our contention that talent development is dynamic instead of static, with the degree of talent manifestation changing as individuals work toward excellence to their fullest. The rate of development is determined by the individuals’ self-awareness of their potential, by their motivation to seek excellence, by deliberate practice, and through environmental supports. Educators should acknowledge that students continue to develop and learn and that, while not all students exhibit a profound level of talent, all should have the opportunities to develop their potential and to achieve as high a level of talent actualization as they possibly can. A practical value of the model is its application in identifying gifted and talented students and in selecting candidates for special programs. Schools require psychometrically based operational definitions of levels for identification and selection procedures. The model postulates that talent manifestation may be categorized into several discrete levels. For example, one might decide to apply four levels, such as minimal, mild, moderate, and profound levels, for the purpose of curriculum development in the school district. As most children and adolescents identified as gifted and talent in schools manifest their talent at minimal to mild levels and a small proportion exhibit moderate to profound levels of talent, the level of talent is an important distinction to consider. The level of talent development is affected by an individual’s cognitive abilities and personal–psychological attributes as well as by environmental– social factors depicted in Figure 2.1. The overlapping influences of these three contextual components are presented in Figure 2.2. This figure represents the interactive influence of the individual’s resources, i.e., cognitive abilities,

18  •  Understanding Talent Loss

Cognitive abilities

Personalcognitive

Socialcognitive

Talent development Personal/ psychological attributes

Psychosocial

nitive

Environmental/ social factors

Figure 2.2╇ Context of talent development. Context of Talent Development (Hong & Milgram, 2007)

personal–psychological attributes and environmental–social factors, on talent development. This interaction, unique to each individual, accounts for individual differences in the development of talent. Although cognitive abilities are personal resources, we separated them from personal–psychological attributes, because they play a fundamental role in human learning and development. The concept of level also applies to the three contextual components that affect talent development. Cognitive abilities of the candidates for gifted programs may be distinguished in levels for identification purposes. Some educators have demonstrated their effort to distinguish profoundly gifted learners from other levels, although mostly based on intellectual ability (e.g., Gross, 2000). Livne (2002; Milgram & Livne, 2005) reported a theoretical and empirical example of four levels (low to profound) distinguished in academic and creative mathematics in high school students. Other attributes such as task commitment and self-efficacy (personal attributes) and family support (environmental factors) may be distinguished by levels in efforts to individualize special programs for particular students.

A New Direction in Conceptualization  •  19 The Comprehensive Model of Giftedness and Talent was developed in an effort to clarify the diverse components that affect talent development, to help improve practices in gifted education that foster talent development, and to contribute to the reduction of talent loss. In Chapters 3 and 4, we present the two cognitive abilities that are fundamental to talent development: analyticalthinking and creative-thinking abilities. These two represent processing abilities that are required for talent development and are distinct conceptually and operationally from personal–psychological attributes and environmental– social factors. The personal–psychological attributes that influence the realization of expert talent and creative talent are discussed in Chapter 5 (motivational and metacognitive attributes), Chapter 6 (affective attributes), and Chapter 7 (biological attributes). The environmental–social factors are presented in Chapter 8 (school and special programs), Chapter 9 (school personnel and climate), Chapter 10 (family, mentor, and socio-cultural aspects), and Chapter 11 (technology for talent development). Suggested throughout the model description in the following chapters is our contention that individuals’ motivation and/or other personal attributes (e.g., personality, goals) and environment (e.g., school, teacher, family, culture) as well as cognitive abilities play important roles in developing talent (e.g., Amabile, 1983; Feldhusen, 1995b).

part

2

Cognitive Abilities and Talent Development

chapter

3

Analytical-Thinking Ability and Talent Development

In the preceding chapter we presented a comprehensive model of giftedness and talent in which analytical-thinking and creative-thinking abilities were postulated as the two basic component constructs of cognitive abilities in giftedness and talent. In this chapter we will discuss analytical-thinking abilities and in the next chapter creative-thinking abilities. Analyticalthinking ability is defined as the ability to think abstractly and to solve problems logically and systematically. It includes analyzing, comparing, choosing, contrasting, evaluating, judging, inducing, deducing, and inferring. Sternberg and Grigorenko (2000) consider critical-thinking ability as part of analytical ability. In examining this construct, it is necessary to distinguish between domain-general and domain-specific analytical-thinking ability.

Domain-general and domain-specific analytical-thinking ability Domain-general analytical-thinking ability is the cognitive ability referred to as general intellectual ability or general intelligence. It is measured by performance on intelligence tests or other measures of general cognitive ability. Performance on intelligence tests has been reported as IQ scores. Domain-general analytical-thinking ability is an essential ability for

24  •  Cognitive Abilities and Talent Development information processing and is involved in such diverse activities as problem solving, creative activities, performing arts, and sports. It is involved in any human activity that goes beyond a simple reflex. The development and realization of potential talent depends upon many factors such as environmental and personal attributes, but cognitive abilities are fundamental to talent development. Many different types of abilities are discussed in the field of giftedness, but intellectual ability or intelligence continues to be the major focus in school. Children high in general intelligence are sometimes considered “school smart.” Domain-specific analytical-thinking ability is analytical aptitude that is specific to a particular domain (e.g., academic disciplines). It is intellectual ability in a given area, such as mathematics, foreign language, music, or science. These abilities in children and adolescents are often, but not invariably, expressed in superior academic performance in school subjects as reflected in specific school grades and achievement tests. Domain-specific analytical-thinking ability is the best predictor of performance in school subjects (Sattler, 1988). For example, a person with high analytical ability in mathematics analyzes and solves mathematical problems skillfully, demonstrating outstanding computational ability based on deep knowledge and understanding of mathematical principles and concepts. Analyticalthinking ability in art is reflected in aesthetic appreciation through critical analysis of the technical aspect of art work. These abilities may produce products that are highly competent, but not necessarily creative or original. Renzulli (1986) was not off the mark when he called students with high specific analytical-thinking ability “schoolhouse gifted.” Researchers have found a moderate correlation between domaingeneral and domain-specific analytical thinking (Hong & Milgram, 1996; Tannenbaum, 1983). Individuals high in the former tend to be successful in school. One reason for this phenomenon is the bi-directionality of the relationship between intelligence and schooling (Worrell & Schaefer, 2004). Learning in school raises IQ scores and IQ contributes to better performance in school work (Ceci, 1991; Ceci & Williams, 1997).

Relationship between analytical-thinking ability and creativity Intelligence and creativity are different cognitive abilities, but they are related. There is a weak to moderate correlation between IQ and creativity scores for people with IQ scores up to about 120. Above 120, the relationship disappears, indicating that IQ is not necessarily related to creativity (Baer & Kaufman, 2005). On the other hand, some researchers have concluded that high

Analytical-Thinking Ability and Talent Development  •  25 intelligence is a requisite trait for high-level creative talent (Cox, 1926; Davis, 1997; Simonton, 1988a; Walberg & Herbig, 1991). Simonton (1988a) contends that intelligence fills the brain with images, sounds, phrases, and abstract concepts, and that this filler gives the highly intelligent person a greater chance of forming the novel combinations of ideas, images, and symbols that become a masterpiece. Ward, Saunders, and Dodd (1999) also reason that cognitive abilities used by academically gifted children and creatively gifted children overlap. This overlap explains the high correlations sometimes found between the measure of intelligence or achievement and creative-thinking ability. While there is a consensus that some kind of analytical ability is a necessary condition for the development of creative talent in a specific domain, there is disagreement as to which kind of analytical ability. Renzulli (1978) and Tannenbaum (1983) think in terms of domain-general analytical thinking. Other investigators, however, assert that domain-specific analytical thinking is highly related to domain-specific creative talent, whereas the relationship between general analytical thinking and domain-specific creative talent is weak (Hong & Milgram, 1996). Heid (1983) and Livne and Milgram (2006) have shown that while mathematically gifted children have high intelligence, they are not necessarily highly creative in mathematics. Yager (1989) was able to demonstrate that these relationships are a function of the measures used. He noted that the introduction of exemplary science programs to American high schools resulted in a major change in the distribution of school grades among these students. Learners characterized by high general intelligence used to receive high grades in high school science courses because the requirements for achieving those grades were highly similar to the requirements of most IQ tests. With the modification of science courses to include the requirement for experimentation and innovative thinking (Yager, 1989), many of these learners no longer received high grades. Piirto (1998) reports findings that could support both arguments when she analyzed the biographical and autobiographical essays and reference works of women who became successful creative writers. These women were highly intelligent: many graduated with honors from prestigious colleges, and were given scholarships and fellowships to pursue their academic careers; others were qualified to attend highly competitive schools by virtue of their high school achievements; and still others had risen from humble backgrounds by way of their academic talents. One could argue that analytical thinking was a necessary condition for the development of their creative talent. On the other hand, one could contend that it took a unique combination of domain-general and domain-specific analytical-thinking abilities as well as creative-thinking ability to achieve what these women achieved. Personal and environmental factors, to be discussed in later chapters, also contribute to the development and realization of talent such as these women exhibited.

26  •  Cognitive Abilities and Talent Development To sum up, conflicting evidence exists regarding the relationship between analytical thinking and creativity. The relationship between the two constructs has been rather murky due to the fact that in the past the construct “creativity” was neither conceptually nor empirically clearly defined. The relationship becomes more understandable when creativity is conceptualized clearly by distinguishing creative talent from creative-thinking abilities, which also are distinguished as domain general and domain specific. In subsequent chapters, we distinguish between domain-general and domain-specific creativethinking abilities and specify the role of each in the development of creative talent.

Instruments used to measure analytical-thinking ability Even though educators understand that identification of potential talent should not be limited to intelligence and achievement test scores, they continue to rely heavily on measures of analytical thinking, especially IQ tests and standardized achievement tests, for identification and placement of students in special programs. These measures should be used in conjunction with others that are discussed in subsequent chapters of this book. We have summarized below examples of some of the commonly used instruments that have been used to measure analytical-thinking abilities. Readers interested in using any of the instruments listed are encouraged to consult the original publications. We complete this section by describing examples of a number of non-traditional assessment approaches. Measures for domain-general analytical-thinking ability Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Third Edition (WISC–III, Wechsler, 1991) and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth Edition (WISC–IV, Wechsler, 2003). The WISC-III and WISC-IV are the most widely used psychometric instruments assessing children’s intellectual ability (Donders, 1996; Winner, 2000). The WISC-III and WISC-IV are individual tests and do not require reading or writing. In WISC-III, verbal subtests are oral questions without time limits except for Arithmetic. Performance subtests are non-verbal problems. These subtests are timed and some items allow bonus points for speedy work. Verbal IQ is computed based on Information, Similarities, Arithmetic, Vocabulary, and Comprehension subtests; Verbal Comprehension Factor is based on Information, Similarities, Vocabulary, and Comprehension subtests; and Freedom from Distractibility Factor includes Arithmetic and

Analytical-Thinking Ability and Talent Development  •  27 Digit Span. Performance (non-verbal) IQ is computed on the subtest scores in Picture Completion, Coding, Picture Arrangement, Block Design, and Object Assembly; Perceptual Organization (non-verbal) Factor is based on Picture Completion, Picture Arrangement, Block Design, and Object Assembly subtests; Processing Speed Factor is computed using Coding and Symbol Search. The Full Scale IQ is based on the 10 subtests included in the Verbal and Performance IQ scales. The more recent WISC–IV is used to assess general thinking and reasoning skills and has been normed for use with children of ages 6 years to 16 years and 11 months. This test yields a full-scale IQ and four index scores. These are Verbal Comprehension (based on Similarities, Vocabulary, and Comprehension), Perceptual Reasoning (based on Matrix Reasoning, Block Design, and Picture Concepts), Working Memory (based on Letter–Number Sequencing and Digit-Span), and Processing Speed (based on Symbol Search and Coding). A new Wechsler non-verbal scale (Wechsler Non-Verbal Scale of Ability: WNV) was published in 2006 (Wechsler & Naglieri, 2006). A closing comment about the Wechsler scales is appropriate. One should not rely on the full-scale IQ score, which represents general intelligence, without attention to its components. Sweetland, Reina, and Tatti (2006) found that, among intellectually gifted children, each child has a distinct pattern of cognitive strengths, high in some factors and low in others. They found that (a) the verbal scores of their participants were typically higher than the performance scores; and (b) performance scores were only average or slightly above average, with different patterns showing across participants. Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM; Raven, 1990) The RPM is another frequently used measure of intelligence. The RPM includes three forms: the Standard Progressive Matrices test (SPM), the Colored Progressive Matrices test (CPM), and the Advanced Progressive Matrices test (APM). The SPM was developed in 1938 and measures a general range of ability. The CPM was introduced in 1947 and was developed for young children and mentally challenged adults (Anastasi, 1982; Matthews, 1988). The APM, introduced in 1947, was developed for individuals with higher intellectual ability. The APM has been used for identification of gifted and talented students. The test is group-administered and assesses non-verbal abstract reasoning; an overall matrix is provided and examinees select one of six or eight pattern pieces that would fit into the overall matrix. The APM consists of 12 exercise items and 36 main items. Problems are arranged sequentially in order of progressive difficulty (Raven, Court, and Raven, 1983a, 1983b). Since the initial development of the RPM in 1938, it has been used around the world (Buros, 1978; Raven & Court, 1989). Recently, national U.S. norms

28  •  Cognitive Abilities and Talent Development and local U.S. school district norms have been published for the Colored and Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1990). The RPM has been used as an alternate or supplementary measure for the identification of gifted and talent students, who do not perform well on traditional measures (Matthews, 1988). Naglieri Non-verbal Ability Tests (NNAT; Naglieri, 1997, 2003) The NNAT is a recently developed non-verbal measure. Students are presented with a pattern formed by shapes organized into a colorful design and instructed to choose an answer that completes the pattern in these figural matrices and then to move on to more difficult patterns. There are two versions of the NNAT – the multilevel form (NNAT-MLF; Naglieri, 1997) and the individual form (NNAT-I; Naglieri, 2003). Each form provides non-verbal evaluation of general ability for children aged 5–17 years. The NNAT-MLF (Naglieri, 1997) is a group-administered test comprising seven levels. Each level contains 38 non-verbal test items specifically designed for brief and accurate evaluation of a child’s ability. Naglieri contends that these instruments are appropriate for students from many cultural and linguistic backgrounds because the content of the test is nonverbal, instructions are brief, and the test questions can be solved using only the information presented in each diagram. Word knowledge, mathematics, and reading skills are not involved in the NNAT; instead the items are figural matrices. The student must first see the patterns formed by shapes organized into colorful designs and then choose an answer that completes the pattern. According to Naglieri, this method of measuring ability without involving questions with verbal, math, or reading skills, and with minimal motor requirements, allows a fair evaluation of ability for children from different cultural and linguistic groups and for those with motor or communication problems. Emphasis is placed on fair assessment of children from diverse populations (i.e., regardless of race or ethnicity, or whether socially or economically disadvantaged, illiterate or semiliterate, bilingual). Naglieri and Ford (2003) reported that the NNAT identified similar numbers of minority children as gifted from a national sample of approximately 20,000 students in grades K-12 who were similar to the U.S. population on several demographic variables. They suggested that the NNAT may be useful as part of a procedure to identify students of diverse backgrounds for gifted education services. By contrast, Mills and Tissot (1995) found large differences in the mean scores of ethnic groups and low correlations of NNAT with scores on the Advanced Progressive Matrices test (APM: Raven, Court, & Raven, 1983b). The findings cited above indicate that caution is required when selecting instruments to assess intelligence or general intellectual ability for the purposes of identification and selection for gifted programs. It would be wise

Analytical-Thinking Ability and Talent Development  •  29 to consider studies that compared various instruments. For example, different measures select different children for gifted education (e.g., RPM versus WISC) and some instruments select proportionally more students from various ethnic backgrounds (e.g., NNAT versus RPM versus WISC) (Lohman, 2005b; Naglieri & Ford, 2003). Another example that highlights the caution required in interpreting results of the different tests available is a study in which verbally advanced children were identified as gifted by both RPM and WISC. However, students identified as gifted by the RPM alone were average or below average in school achievement. This might indicate low motivation in these students and suggests that they have a higher risk of not doing well in a gifted program (Saccuzzo, Johnson and Guertin, 1994). Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (STAT; Sternberg, 1993, cited in Sternberg, Castejón and Prieto, 2001) The STAT consists of 12 subtests, four subtests each measuring analytical, creative, and practical abilities. Each subtest yields scores for three content areas: verbal, quantitative, and figural. Thus, for analytical abilities, analyticalverbal, analytical-quantitative, and analytical-figural scores are computed. Six corresponding scores are yielded, three each for the quantitative and figural content areas. The test is suitable for group administration, and is intended for use with individuals from kindergarten through college age, and with adults. Measures for domain-specific analytical-thinking ability Standardized test scores and school grades Domain-specific analytical-thinking ability is frequently measured by standardized achievement tests or school grades. A high test score or a high grade in a domain (e.g., literature, mathematics) indicates a high degree of readiness to perform well in that particular domain, increasing the possibility of excelling and developing expertise in the particular domain in the future. Certain information-processing abilities are more applicable in certain domains. For example, analytical thinking in mathematics problemsolving includes identifying and understanding a given problem, organizing information and representing the problem, selecting and using strategies, and evaluating the solution process. On the other hand, analytical-thinking abilities required in learning to play football as a quarterback would be different from those required in mathematical problem solving. To throw a ball to a proper receiver, for example, the player needs to analyze, judge, compare, choose, and evaluate, and then actual throwing would occur after the basic cognitive thinking process had taken place. With more practice, this thinking would not require much time; the footballer would have stored many position patterns, thus thinking could become just a matter of pattern recognition and pattern matching. This process is required for acquiring expertise in the

30  •  Cognitive Abilities and Talent Development particular domain. We will discuss more about expertise, analytical thinking, and deliberate practice in Chapter 12. Lohman (2005a) cites four aptitudes as particularly important for predicting academic excellence in a specific domain – prior achievement in the domain, the ability to reason in the symbol system used to communicate knowledge in the particular domain, interest in the domain, and persistence in the type of learning environments offered for the attainment of expertise in the domain. Lohman (2005b) further asserts that for both minority and non-minority students, verbal and quantitative reasoning abilities are better predictors of academic success than non-verbal, figural reasoning abilities. Non-verbal test scores showed low correlation with academic achievement (Mills & Tissot, 1995). Naglieri and Ford (2005) strongly disagree with Lohman’s conclusions and claim that an emphasis on verbal and quantitative reasoning abilities in the process of identification of intellectually gifted children would result in the exclusion of some gifted children who for reasons that have nothing to do with their intellectual ability happen to have poor academic skills. Non-traditional measures Domain-specific analytical-thinking abilities may be measured with non-traditional assessment approaches. Such approaches are especially useful if the goal is to assess students who are currently underidentified and underrepresented because they do not perform well on standardized achievement tests or classroom tests. Such students are frequently from special racial groups (e.g., Ford, Tyson, & Howard, 2000; Tonemah, 1987), students with limited ability to speak English, children who are of low socio-economic background, or children who live in a confined geographic area such as a rural area, an inner city, or on reservations (Aamidor, 1995). It is important for teachers to recognize students with high potential for success in a certain domain so that they can help provide programs and services designed to develop the potential. Teachers’ observations of individual students exhibiting superior analytical-thinking skills may be recorded to determine if the individuals’ thinking patterns are consistent over time. A portfolio prepared for these students would provide evidence of possible future excellence in the domain. Research has shown that teachers’ rating scales based on actual observable behaviors are fairly accurate (Borland, 1978; Renzulli, Hartman, & Callahan, 1971). Worrell and Schaefer (2004) provide a few scales that focus on students’ behaviors. These scales include measures for intellectual as well as other domains of potential talent. 1 The Gifted Evaluation Scale (GES; McCarney, 1987; GES-2, McCarney & Anderson, 1998). This is a 48-item normative teacher rating scale that can be used to identify potentially talented students in five domains: Intellectual, Specific Academic Aptitude, Leadership Ability, Creativity, and Visual and Performing Arts.

Analytical-Thinking Ability and Talent Development  •  31 2 The Scale for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS; Renzulli, Tyson, & Howard, 1971; Renzulli, Smith, White, Callahan, Hartman, & Westberg, 2002). The most recent version of this scale, the SRBCSS-R2 (Renzulli, Smith, White, Callahan, Hartman, & Westberg, 2002), consists of 38 items divided into four subscales: Learning, Creativity, Leadership, and Motivation. 3 The Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scales (GATES; Gillian, Carpenter, & Christenson, 1996). This is a 50-item scale for the identification of the potential talent in five domains: Intellectual Ability, Academic Skills, Creativity, Leadership, and Artistic Talent. 4 The Learning Behaviors Scale (LBS; McDermott, Green, Francis, & Stott, 1999). This 29-item teacher-rating instrument was developed to assess the learning behaviors of students in the classroom setting. It is particularly useful for assessing the learning behaviors of students who are not performing well academically. The LBS scores were found to discriminate between students identified as both gifted and talented and those not so identified even though they were also characterized by high IQ (McDermott, 1999; Worrell & Schaefer, 2004). For a thorough description and critique of the instruments cited above that focus on teachers ratings, see Worrell and Schaefer (2004). Think-aloud methods to understand analytical-thinking process When the goal is to examine thinking processes and cognitive structures of individual students, one can use think-aloud protocols. This method involves students thinking aloud while they are performing a specific task (e.g., math problem-solving, reading comprehension). Students are asked to say what they are thinking, feeling, and doing, as they are performing the task. The thinkaloud sessions are often audio and/or video taped for in-depth analyses. When mathematics problem-solving processes were analyzed by this method, Hon, Sas, Sas, Speer, Pullabhota, and Richardson (2005) found that most of the students followed the steps such as understanding, representing, and solving the problem, followed by generating solutions. However, individual students differed in how they went about each step. For example, high achievers planned for solution strategies and monitored the progress, whereas low achievers tended not to use such strategies. Low achievers spent much less effort to understand the problem and did not represent the problem correctly. The students’ problem-solving procedures revealed through the think-aloud protocol help understand students’ analytical-thinking processes. The thinkaloud session allows us to observe why and how students approach problems and how their approach leads them to engage in particular problem-solving behaviors. It is a challenge for classroom instructors to implement think-aloud problem-solving sessions to understand students’ analytical-thinking ability

32  •  Cognitive Abilities and Talent Development in a domain. It is more difficult to develop instructional strategies to be used for individual students according to the findings from think-aloud protocols. However, the benefits that will accrue from occasional use of this practice would be great, especially for those students who are not properly identified as gifted through standardized tests and grades.

Preventing talent loss Improve procedures for identification of potential talent A major source of talent loss is the exclusion of minority and other underidentified groups of children who do not perform well on intelligence tests, standardized achievement tests, or classroom tests. These include students from certain racial groups, immigrant children with limited ability to speak English, children of low socio-economic background, or children who live in geographic areas that limit their experiential opportunities. The information provided in this chapter is designed to provide educators with information and suggestions that will improve the procedures used to identify analytical thinking in all children, but it is of special use with underidentified children. Utilizing approaches to identify potential talent such as teacher observation scales and portfolios along with standard achievement test scores and school grades in particular domains can reduce substantially the number of gifted children who are not identified by traditional tests. Readers should keep in mind that portfolios and other subjective measures, unfortunately, lack high levels of objectivity, reliability, and predictive validity (Saccuzzo, Johnson, & Guertin, 1994). Given the fact that traditional tests are more objective than subjective measures, Saccuzzo, Johnson, and Guertin (1994) recommended that when using traditional standardized tests for the identification of gifted potential, local-ethnic norms may be used in “creative ways.” Understand students’ implicit theory of intelligence Some students believe that ability or intelligence is fixed (entity theory) whereas others believe that ability is malleable and changeable (incremental theory) (Dweck, 2000). These theories that students implicitly form are related to other educational constructs such as attribution theory (e.g., Hong, Chiu, & Dweck, 1999; Stipek & Gralinski, 1996). While both entity and incremental theorists recognize the importance of ability in task performance, students who hold an incremental theory also stress effort. When these students are faced with unsatisfactory performance, they put forth more effort to improve. On the other hand, students who hold an entity theory are more concerned with demonstrating their ability or avoiding revealing their lack of ability

Analytical-Thinking Ability and Talent Development  •  33 and attribute their failure to lack of ability rather than effort (Hong, Chiu, & Dweck, 1999). Gifted students tend to hold an incremental view of ability (Feldhusen & Dai, 1997). However, in another study (Kurtz & Weinert, 1989), gifted children attributed academic success to ability more than effort, and average children tended to attribute their success to effort rather than ability. These findings may not be contradictory because some gifted children may conclude from comparing their own effort and success with that of average children on routine school subjects that they have more ability than average children. On the other hand, with school subjects that are manifestly difficult, the relationship of theory to behavior may change. Children – gifted or not gifted – who espouse malleability will try harder than before, while children who espouse a fixed view of intelligence will simply give up, become selfdegrading and depressed, feel helpless, blame themselves, and not make the effort required for improvement. Parents, teachers, and counselors should make concerted efforts to understand students’ implicit theory of intelligence and help them understand the nature of intelligence and adopt the view that intelligence is amenable to change. Help students understand what test scores mean and the importance of sustained effort Educators and parents should also help students understand that their IQ or other cognitive ability test scores indicate current intellectual ability, and that is not what really matters. What does matter is the sustained effort to be made by students to actualize their potential in their areas of interest. Only through sustained effort will students come to realize that they can meet immediate goals and eventually ultimate goals. Provide individualized and differentiated special education for talent development Sustained effort is admirable but it is not enough. Students who show potential for high levels of accomplishment should be provided with education that is both differentiated and individualized. Students need different levels of challenges continuously to improve their intellectual capacities. Once they reach the level of challenge represented by a certain educational goal, another level of challenge should be provided. Students should also be helped to find their own challenges. Without such provision, we can predict more talent loss than talent development. More information on curriculum and instructional differentiation is presented in Chapter 8.

34  •  Cognitive Abilities and Talent Development Use teaching strategies to develop analytical-thinking ability Teachers can help students develop their analytical-thinking abilities by using strategies designed to develop problem-solving skills. Have students define what the problem is; encourage students to ask questions; gather and organize information necessary to represent the problem before they attempt to solve the problem; strategize problem-solving sequence by planning the sequence and selecting proper strategies; when solving the problem, check if the strategies selected are successful; and evaluate the strength and weakness of the solution. Examples of these teaching strategies can be found in Sternberg and Grigorenko (2000). These are generalized problem-solving strategies. However, they can be adopted for any particular domain to increase domainspecific analytical-thinking ability.

chapter

4

Creative-Thinking Ability and Talent Development

Creative-thinking ability is the cognitive ability to generate ideas that are unusual and of high quality. Creative thinkers discover or produce ideas that are imaginative, clever, elegant, or surprising (Guilford, 1967; Mednick, 1962). They perceive and define problems differently and notice things that others ignore (Wallach, 1970). They store and retrieve information differently as well. As a consequence of these basic differences, they produce unique and imaginative solutions. Torrance (1962) alluded to some of these abilities when he defined creative thinking as “the process of sensing gaps or disturbing missing elements; forming ideas or hypotheses concerning them; testing these hypotheses; and communicating the results; possibly modifying and retesting the hypotheses.” (p. 16). Creative-thinking abilities are essential for the development of creative talent. Numerous studies have shown positive relationships between creative-thinking ability and creative accomplishment (e.g., Hong & Milgram, 1996; Livne & Milgram, 2006; Milgram & Livne, 2006; Okuda, Runco, & Berger, 1991).

Domain-general versus domain-specific creative-thinking ability Until recently, creativity was considered domain general, that is to say that creative-thinking ability can be applied across domain and individuals scoring

36  •  Cognitive Abilities and Talent Development high on general creative-thinking ability would be able to generate original ideas in a wide variety of domains. In fact, the very term, creative thinking, is used to refer to domain-general creativity (Wallach, 1970). Recently, scholars have produced evidence to the contrary, that is, that creative thinking is domain or content specific (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Baer, 1998). In a recent volume, Kaufman and Baer (2005) presented an authoritative summary of the controversy that surrounds this issue. In our model of giftedness and talent, we distinguish between domaingeneral and domain-specific creative-thinking abilities and postulate the relationship between the two. We have developed reliable and valid instruments to measure these two types of creative-thinking abilities. Studies conducted using these instruments and others have provided considerable empirical support for the postulated relationship between domain-general and domain-specific creative-thinking abilities. We summarize the evidence that confirms two dimensions of creative-thinking abilities, the relationship of each to analytic thinking, and the influence of the two on the development of creative talent. Creative thinking as domain-general cognitive ability The view of domain generality of creative thinking has been supported by evidence of (a) the predictive power of tests of creative thinking (e.g., Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, 1974, 1999) on subsequent creative achievement (e.g., Cramond, 1994a; Torrance, 1981) and (b) the reliability and validity of self and other ratings (e.g., teachers) of an individual’s general creativity (e.g., Creative Personality Scale) (e.g., Plucker, 1999a). Chen, Himsel, Kasof, Greenberger, and Dmitrieva (2006) provide evidence of domain generality of creative thinking by examining three different domains (mathematics, artistic, and verbal) and demonstrating a high-order factor (creativity) and its relationship to three lower-order factors representing the three domains. Based on internal consistencies, model fit, and factor loadings, they concluded that creative thinking is domain general. However, the same evidence also supports domain specificity as the factor structure they tested included three distinct domain-specific factors. Creative thinking as domain-specific cognitive ability Whereas domain-general creative-thinking ability is typically measured by ideational fluency-based tests of divergent thinking (e.g., Torrance, 1974), domain-specific creative-thinking ability is measured by instruments assessing ideational fluency in a specific domain such as engineering (e.g., Claphan, Cowdery, King, & Montang 2005). For example, when creative

Creative-Thinking Ability and Talent Development  •  37 thinking is applied to mathematics, the person thinks mathematically and asks or generates unusual questions or solutions in mathematical terms. In science, it is the ability to generate hypotheses in science, that is, to think like a scientist instead of just acquiring an increasing knowledge base in a specific area of science. Artists process information using their artistic thinking skills in the process of producing art products or developing artistic performance. Baer (1993, 1996) goes even further in contending that creativity is “task” specific within a domain. Baer asserts that training in creative thinking does not enhance creative performance on different tasks within a given domain to the same degree. Plucker and Runco (1998) disagree and attribute these findings to methodological artifacts. The methods used by researchers to assess creative thinking favor task specificity, and subsequent findings are a direct function of this task specificity. However, they do support both domain generality and specificity of creative thinking (e.g., Okuda, Runco, & Berger 1991; Plucker & Beghetto, 2004).

Relationship between domain-general and domain-specific creative thinking The relationship between domain-general and domain-specific creativethinking abilities was investigated in a series of studies and is summarized later in this chapter. Instruments were developed to measure ideational fluency of real-life creative problem-solving in a wide variety of domains (i.e., domainspecific creative-thinking abilities). The findings demonstrated that domaingeneral creative thinking was strongly associated with original or unique solutions in social leadership and successful social interaction in children and adolescents across a wide age range from preschool to high school and across Arab and Israeli elementary school-age children. General creative thinking had a strong correlation with the ability to solve academic and personal problems (domain specific) among students with various backgrounds (Arab, Israeli, and Ethiopian students, students with learning disabilities, hearingimpaired students). The strong predictor–criterion relationship was evidenced across different life areas and ages (children, adolescents, and adults). Young mothers, working mothers, and women students in their first pregnancy with a high score in general creative-thinking ability were all found to be better able to meet the daily problematic challenges of their lives (indicated by their problemsolving in particular areas). The same relationships were found for Ethiopian immigrants to Israel, salesmen, managers in an R & D company, and men and women in the armed forces. The magnitude of the relationship between general creative-thinking ability and original problem-solving in a relevant

38  •  Cognitive Abilities and Talent Development sphere of their lives was moderate to high, ranging from .40 to .91 with the median of .59 in the 24 studies. A moderate correlation (r€=€.57) was found between general creative-thinking ability and the ability to generate creative solutions to mathematical problems that are regarded as highly similar to the other real-life problem-solving tasks reported above (Livne & Milgram, 2006; Milgram & Livne, 2005). Taken together, the findings reported above clearly demonstrated that domain-general creative-thinking ability has a strong relationship with domain-specific creative thinking and that these are important abilities in real-life problem-solving in many domains across a wide age range.

Relationship between creative thinking abilities and creative talent Previous research indicated that divergent thinking tests can predict creative performance. Both concurrent and longitudinal studies that used criteria such as ratings of creative products and/or creative achievements supported this conclusion (Cramond, 1994a; Hong, Milgram, & Gorsky, 1995; Milgram & Hong, 1994; Plucker, 1999b; Torrance, 1972, 1981). However, in other studies, the relationships were only weak to moderate (Amabile, 1983; Hong & Milgram, 1996). In addition, earlier studies provided conflicting findings. In an extensive review of the literature, Barron and Harrington (1981) cited 70 studies in which a positive relationship was reported between measures of ideational fluency and real-world indices of creative behavior. However, Wallach (1985) summarized the results of a number of studies indicating that general creative thinking is not related to any significant degree to specific real-world creative performance. Other studies show that domain-specific creative-thinking abilities are more strongly correlated with creative talent than domain-general creativethinking ability (Okuda, Runco, & Berger, 1991), even after the effects of intelligence and expertise were controlled (Mumford, Marks, Connelly, Zaccaro, & Johnson, 1998; Vincent, Decker, & Mumford, 2002). For example, divergent thinking tests developed for specific occupations, such as military leaders, predicted leadership behaviors, career progress, and achievement (Mumford, Marks, Connelly, Zaccaro, & Johnson, 1998).

Relationship between creative-thinking and analyticalthinking abilities In the previous chapter, we discussed the relationship between analyticalthinking ability and creativity, with a caveat that earlier studies did not clarify whether creativity represented domain-general or domain-specific creative-

Creative-Thinking Ability and Talent Development  •  39 thinking ability or creative thinking or creative talent. We hope that discussion in this chapter so far has clarified these relationships. The creative-thinking processes involve both analytical- and creativethinking abilities and as such are the essential abilities for developing talent in any domain. For instance, if students do not possess well-developed analyticalthinking ability, they will not be able to judge (analyze and evaluate) whether creative ideas generated during the process of ideational fluency are useful solutions for the problem at hand. The pioneer theorists who provided the theoretical base for all future research in creativity understood this principle very well. In his landmark Structure of Intellect model, Guilford (1956, 1967) not only distinguished between convergent and divergent thinking in problem-solving but also postulated the evaluation of quality of the ideas as essential in both processes. The intricate integration between analytical and creative thinking that is required to produce expert talent and creative talent (see Chapter 12) was not specifically dealt with in prior theories. Systematic research is required to investigate the nuances of this relationship. The kind of research we are discussing will lead to a deep understanding of the process of talent development and highlight ways to prevent talent loss. Let us use music as an example of analytical- and creative-thinking abilities integrated in their influence on talent development. Most creative musicians learn to read music scores using their analytical-thinking abilities. Other factors (e.g., strong interest, aesthetic appreciation, sensory motor skills, family support) also facilitate the development of the creative talent. However, these other factors do not diminish the role of analytical-thinking abilities required to understand music (Shuter-Dyson, 1999) and they are of little consequence if superior analytical and creative thinking are not present. Studies indicate that creative- and analytical-thinking abilities are related, yet empirically distinguishable (Hong & Milgram, 1996; Wallach, 1970, 1971). In Hong and Milgram’s study (1996), domain-general creative-thinking ability showed a weak to moderate relationship with domain-general analyticalthinking ability and with domain-specific analytical-thinking ability in literature. These findings support the contention that analytical thinking is an important part of the creative-thinking process. Domain differences in the use of analytical thinking and creative thinking are found during the creative process. For example, science-oriented students report more analytical thinking during the insight stage than art-oriented students, and differences vary according to the time period of the creative process (Feist, 1991). The presence of high intelligence in young children may be a strong clue for identifying high creative potential. Conversely, creatively gifted people may excel in the analytical-thinking processes of problem definition, selective encoding, selective combination, and selective comparison skills. In addition, gifted children who have high analytical-thinking abilities score higher

40  •  Cognitive Abilities and Talent Development than their non-gifted peers on problem-finding behavior and on a variety of processes involved in the creative-thinking process such as idea generation, insight tasks, divergent thinking, and the process of selective combination (e.g., Runco & Nemiro, 1993; Shore, 1986).

Instruments used to measure creative-thinking ability It is difficult to measure demonstrated talent. It is even more difficult to measure potential, not yet realized, talents. Some measures of domaingeneral creative-thinking ability have been developed and are widely used. By contrast, measures of domain-specific creative-thinking abilities are only currently emerging. In assessing potential creative talent, we must always bear in mind that we are measuring indicators of creative potential. Exactly how and to what extent children actually exhibit and ultimately realize their creative potential depends on the complex interaction of the factors cited in the Comprehensive Model of Giftedness and Talent described in Chapter 2. Creative thinking or divergent thinking is not synonymous with creative achievement. Tests of general divergent thinking ability may estimate potential for creative performance, but do not guarantee creative talent. These tests must not be used as a criterion of creative ability (Hong & Milgram, 1991). With these caveats in mind, we proceed in this section to discuss measures of domain-general and domain-specific creative-thinking abilities. Measures of domain-general creative-thinking ability Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1974) The TTCT was initially published in 1966 and revised in 1999 (Torrance, 1999). The TTCT is a standardized, paper and pencil measure that is typically group administered. It consists of two forms – one verbal and one figural. Each form comes in two equivalent versions (A and B). The verbal form (“Thinking creatively with words”) comprises seven subtests: Asking, Guessing Causes, Guessing Consequences, Product Improvement, Unusual Uses, Unusual Questions, and Just Suppose. The figural form (“Thinking creatively with pictures”) consists of three subtests: Picture Construction, Picture Completion, and Parallel Lines/Circles. The verbal and figural forms take about 45 and 30 minutes to complete, respectively. The cognitive abilities assessed by the TTCT are ideational fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. Fluency is based on the number of relevant responses an individual can generate. Flexibility is based on the number of different categories an individual’s responses can be sorted into.

Creative-Thinking Ability and Talent Development  •  41 Originality refers to uncommon responses. Elaboration refers to the ability to elaborate or add details to an idea. Reasonable reliability and adequate evidence of validity has been reported for the TTCT, thus justifying its use in research applications (e.g., Treffinger, 1985). Some investigators have reported inter-rater reliability greater than .90 (e.g., Sweetland & Keyser, 1991). Torrance also demonstrated predictive validity of the TTCT in several longitudinal studies. For example, TTCT data collected during high school showed significant relationships to creative accomplishments and occupational choices 12 years later (Torrance, 1972). A 22-year follow-up study of TTCT scores obtained during elementary school showed significant relationships with high school and post-high school creative accomplishments, and with ratings of quality of creative accomplishments and aspirations (Torrance, 1981). Tel Aviv Creativity Test (TACT; Milgram & Milgram, 1976) This instrument was developed based on the work of Guilford (1950, 1956, 1967), Torrance (1962), Mednick (1962), and Wallach and Kogan (1965). It measures creative thinking defined as a cognitive process of problem-solving by means of which original solutions of high quality are generated. Original is defined as unusual, that is, statistically infrequent. High quality is defined as productive, valuable, or worthwhile. Creative-thinking ability was defined operationally in terms of ideational fluency. The test assesses the ability to generate a large number of unusual, high-quality responses to a stimulus. The test has been translated into six languages and used over the years in Israel and other parts of the world (Milgram, Dunn, & Price, 1993) with research participants ranging from children aged 3 years (Moran, Milgram, Sawyers, & Fu, 1983; Milgram, Moran, Sawyers, & Fu, 1987) to adults across a wide age range (Milgram & Hong, 1994; Milgram & Livne, 2006). Scores for quantity and quality of response are computed for each research participant by means of a two-stage process. Each test response is first scored as either popular or unusual, the latter a response given by less than 5% of the participants in the research study being conducted. Second, three scores are computed: (a) quantity or the number of popular responses, (b) quality or the number of unusual/original/creative responses, and (c) total number of discrete popular and original responses. Consistent findings confirmed the strong relationship between non-overlapping scores of quality and quantity (Hong & Milgram, 1991; Milgram & Rabkin, 1980). Accordingly, ideational fluency was used as the single index of creative-thinking ability in many subsequent studies. The TACT has shown evidence of long-term predictive validity with measures of adult accomplishment (Milgram & Hong, 1994).

42  •  Cognitive Abilities and Talent Development Structure of the Intellect Learning Abilities Test: Evaluation, Leadership, and Creative Thinking (SOI: ELCT; Meeker, 1985) The SOI: ELCT is based on Guilford’s (1967) Structure of Intellect model of intelligence. It measures nine cognitive activities connected with creativity, all of them involving divergent thinking applied to three content areas: symbolic, figural, and semantic. Each content area is examined in three subtests (units, relations, and transformations). Each subtest yields scores on fluency, flexibility, and originality. Factor analytic studies indicate the construct validity and inter-rater reliabilities to be very high (Cropley, 2000). Scores of this test correlate well with those of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Guillory & Kher-Durlabhji, 1995). Measures for domain-specific creative-thinking ability The development of measures of domain-specific creative-thinking ability requires collaboration between test developers and people with expert and/or creative talent in the particular domain. Most of the domain-specific creativethinking tests are not standardized due to the newness of this approach, and there is a need to develop specific tasks to measure domain-specific creative thinking in specific situations. We present some examples of tests designed to assess domain-specific creative-thinking ability. Readers who are interested in using certain tests are encouraged to review the relevant literature. Creative Real-Life Problem-Solving (RLPS; Milgram, 2004) The RLPS was developed to measure creative-thinking ability in various domain-specific problem-solving situations. Each RLPS measure represents a particular domain and consisted of a minimum of four items involving reallife problem-solving. Each item describes a problem situation that frequently arises in the specific domain under investigation. In each instance the test items represent the world of experience of the research participants. For example, one set of items describe problems of social interaction of elementary school-age children, another mathematical problems that have more than one possible answer. Items on this instrument can consist of problems faced by teachers at different levels, or problems faced by victims of terror or natural disaster. Participants are asked to generate as many solutions as they can to each real-life problem presented. Three scores are computed for each research participant – quantity, quality, and total number of discrete responses – as defined earlier for scoring quantity and quality of general creative thinking. Owens Creativity Test (OCT; Owens, 1960) This test is developed to assess mechanical ideation. The OCT consists of two subtests: the Power Source Apparatus test and the Applications of Mechanisms

Creative-Thinking Ability and Talent Development  •  43 test. The Power Source Apparatus test asks test takers to generate as many solutions as possible (divergent thinking) to a series of mechanical problems (domain specific). Test takers are presented with diagrams of mechanical movements, and are asked to draw various ways of producing each of these movements. This subtest produces two scores: the total number of solutions and the number of workable solutions. The second subtest, the Application of Mechanisms test, asks test takers to generate as many ideas as possible for the use of a series of mechanical devices. Test takers are provided with a picture of a device and are asked to report responses in writing. One score is produced by this subtest – the total number of ideas. The OCT had acceptable levels of reliability and validity when applied to engineers in mechanically related jobs (Owens, 1969). Real-World Divergent Thinking Test (Okuda, Runco, & Berger, 1991) Okuda and colleagues (1991) developed this test based on their postulation that responses from real-world discovered problems would be the best predictors of creative activity and accomplishment in the real world. The score from this test is used as predictor of real-world creative achievement. The predictor score is the number of ideas generated in response to real-world “discovered” problems presented. Discovered problems are those which allow the children to “define” a problem before they generate ideas. Scores on this test contributed to the prediction of creative activity and accomplishment above and beyond the prediction reported for more typical divergent thinking tasks. The criterion measure used in their study was a self-report checklist of real-world creative activity filled in by each research participant. However, other authentic criterion measures can be used if one desires to examine the relationship (e.g., ratings of actual creative performance or products). Chand and Runco (1993) extended the work of Okuda and colleagues (1991) allowing examinees to select one of the problems they had themselves thought of and then think of solutions to it. Chand and Runco (1993) argued that the discovered problem tests were best viewed as problem generation tests, and they suggested that allowing examinees to select one of their own problems allows intrinsically motivated performances. This is important because intrinsic motivation seems to maximize creative thinking (Amabile, 1990; Hennessey, 1989). For more creativity-related measures, see Fishkin and Johnson (1998); they emphasized that in order to identify children with the potential to be creatively productive adults, it is important to consider information derived from multiple sources.

44  •  Cognitive Abilities and Talent Development

Preventing talent loss Although the identification of students with potential or demonstrated talent in the non-cognitive domain has been included in federally legislated definitions of giftedness or talent since 1972 (Marland, 1972), talent identification has focused mainly on students with high general intelligence as measured by IQ and achievement test scores. For example, Haroutounian (1993, 1995) found that only 15 of 1,200 locations included specific procedures for identification of talent in the performing arts. We list a few pointers for identifying potential creative talents in an effort to reduce talent loss. Understand creative potential and creativity Identifying creative potential can be difficult and prone to error because of the inherent complexity of the task. Davis (1989, 1992) illustrated a few dimensions of this complexity, which can afflict identification of creative potential. We list a few of them, recognizing that these might help prevent talent loss. 1 Creativity involves logical and analytical thinking as well as irrational and unrestrained fantasy. 2 Many aspects must combine to orient students toward creative thinking. Examples are cognitive and non-cognitive traits such as intellectual abilities, attitudes, personality traits, motivation, opportunities, and experiences. There are different levels or degrees of creative manifestation in childhood and adolescence. All should be recognized and assisted for full development. Both small-scale creative insights such as a child’s poem and large-scale creative productivities such as high school play production are signs of creative talent. 3 Creative talent may be attained through lengthy hard work and planning. It also happens in sudden inspirations and insights. 4 Individuals can be creative in any part of their personal, educational, and professional lives. Creative personality for identifying creative potential Although this chapter emphasizes creative-thinking ability, the personality characteristics of creative persons must also be taken into consideration in order to recognize and to help develop their creative potential. Creative individuals are more likely to be: aware of their own creativity (values originality), original (imaginative, flexible), independent (self-confident, individualistic), risktaking, energetic (enthusiastic, excitable, impulsive), curious (questioning), humorous (playful), attracted to complexity (asymmetry, novelty), artistic, open-minded, need alone time, and intuitive (perceptive) (Davis, 1992).

Creative-Thinking Ability and Talent Development  •  45 Use multiple sources to identify potential creative talent Several different types of measures may be used, including divergent thinking tests; product assessments; teacher, parent, peer, and self-rating; personality and interest assessments; and in-school and out-of-school activities. Develop student profiles based on these resources. Creativity training and programs Provide creativity training to increase both domain-general creative thinking and domain-specific creative-thinking ability in the domain of interest and creative potential. Include critical thinking and evaluative thinking in creativity training (Baer & Kaufman, 2005) as there are important aspects of analytical thinking required during the creative process. Enrichment and other types of differentiated programs should be provided for children with creative potential. Individuals with different types and levels of creative potential require differentiated enrichment programs. They require different levels of challenge as they gradually develop their capacity to realize their potential in their area of creative interest. Praise creative effort, not the person Restrain from saying “you are a creative person.” Praising specific efforts that students put in to generate creative ideas and products will further motivate them in such endeavors. Help them build confidence that they can develop creative capacity. That is, help them become self-efficacious by providing a challenging environment that provides successful experiences in creative endeavor. Don’t make quick judgments Refrain from making critical evaluations on children’s creative efforts and ideas; rather make an effort to appreciate them. Young children generate creative ideas routinely, but as they grow older, their natural creativity diminishes as they are forced or encouraged to conform to rules in family, classrooms, and society. Think how we can encourage creative thinking. Make the effort to be creative It is important that teachers make efforts to be creative thinkers themselves. Creative teachers are likely to recognize and foster creative students and to develop innovative instructional techniques that reflect new concepts in teaching.

46  •  Cognitive Abilities and Talent Development Theory into practice A major positive impact on the phenomenon of talent loss would occur if the role of creative thinking in the educational process were understood and steps taken to adjust curriculum and instruction. We cite a pioneering effort of Livne, Livne, and Wright (2006), researchers at the University of Utah who recognize the importance of the distinction between academic and creative abilities in mathematics and have instituted a unique program of instruction based upon this understanding. Their program involves the development of computerized units designed to teach mathematics to high school students preparing for university study (http://ruready.utah.edu/RUReady/front/index. jsp). Similar efforts should be made in other subject matter areas to prevent talent loss.

part

3

Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development

chapter

5

Self-regulation, Motivation, Learning Style, and Talent Development

In the previous two chapters, we discussed cognitive abilities, one of the three major components that affect talent development. In the present chapter, we turn to personal–psychological attributes that have significant effects on learning and development. There is a paucity of research on selfregulation and motivation specifically geared to individuals with potential talent. However, overall findings with high versus low achievers indicate that understanding and attending to these constructs is crucial in preventing talent loss. The chapter is divided into four sections: (a) self-regulated learning, (b) motivational attributes, (c) learning styles and preferences, and (d) summary recommendations to prevent talent loss.

Self-regulated learning Learning occurs when students’ cognitive abilities, social values, beliefs, affect, and learning strategies are properly aligned with their study practices and behaviors. Various theoretical perspectives have been proposed to describe how students become responsible learners by regulating their own learning (e.g., Bandura, 1977, 1986; Borkowski, 1996; Zimmerman, 1990). Self-regulated learners use diverse metacognitive strategies that include planning learning

50  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development activities, monitoring learning processes, and deciding which cognitive strategies and learning environments to use and when to use them (Pintrich, Wolters, & Baxter, 2000). Self-regulated students view many learning tasks as important, interesting, and useful (Pintrich 2000; Wigfield, 1994). As a consequence they become motivated to regulate their efforts, to persist when they encounter difficulty, and to complete these tasks (Corno, 2001; Wolters, 2003). When students are motivated toward a task (e.g., intrinsic value), they tend to use cognitive and metacognitive strategies to learn (Boekaerts, 1997; Schunk, 2001). Thus, students who acquire self-regulatory skills become more independent learners and assume responsibility for their own learning. There are different theories and perspectives of self-regulated learning, but consideration of metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral dimensions in self-regulated learning is common. Bandura (1993) asserts that self-directed learning requires motivation as well as cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Zimmerman (1990) in his social-cognitive theory posits that a student’s use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies enhances self-efficacy, which in turn provides the motivational basis for further self-regulation during learning. Motivation is essential for self-regulated learning. Both intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy have positive effects on academic self-regulation (Garcia & Pintrich, 1991). In the next two subsections, we present the two important aspects of self-regulated learning – metacognition and motivation. Metacognition Metacognition entails conscious awareness and monitoring of one’s own learning processes through activities such as planning or goal setting, monitoring, self-evaluation, and selecting appropriate strategies to achieve the goal (e.g., Flavell, 1979; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988). If students’ self-monitoring process is inadequate, progress in learning or performance is restricted because they are not able to recognize the need for adjustments to their learning behaviors. The monitoring process not only applies to actions being taken but also includes conditions under which learning occurs as well as the outcomes of the process (Zimmerman & Paulsen, 1995). Self-regulated learners plan strategies before they attempt to solve problems. Low- and high-achieving students use different planning strategies for solving problems. For example, when solving an arithmetic problem, low achievers tend to base their solution plan on the numbers and keywords that they select from the problem (Hegarty, Mayer, & Monk, 1995). On the other hand, high achievers construct a model of the situation described in the problem and base their solution plan on that model. These models are kept in working memory and used to monitor the solution process. Students who plan test strategies before tests and/or during tests perform better than those who do not (Kitsantas, 2002).

Self-regulation, Motivation, Learning Style, and Talent Development  •  51 Self-monitoring strategies allow learners to keep track of learning processes and help plan subsequent steps. A basic form of self-awareness involved in problem-solving tasks is awareness of knowing what you know and what you do not know (Brown, 1978). Students who use monitoring strategies determine if they recognize the problem, whether they understand what is to be found, whether they are following a successful strategy that leads to a solution, and, if not, what to do about it, and whether their answer makes sense (Baker & Brown, 1984). Self-regulated learners select, use, and adjust strategies when involved in various tasks (Margolis & McCabe, 2004; Winne, 2001). When facing a complicated test item, some students break it down into manageable parts and number each part so they can check quickly to make sure they have answered all the parts (Kesselman-Turkel & Peterson, 2003). For certain hard questions, some students work backwards to find the answer. Strategies such as recopying problems to represent the problem in an easier format (e.g., drawing a picture) are also helpful to some students in solving test items (Carter, Wehby, & Hughes, 2005). Effects of metacognition in achievement Use of metacognitive strategies helps students learn and perform better. High-achieving students use these strategies more often than low achievers (Hong, O’Neil, & Feldon, 2005; Kitsantas, 2002). Gifted students, compared with non-gifted students, tend to be more strategic (Montague & Applegate, 1993; Shore & Dover, 1987), are more likely to have conscious control over the solution process (Shore & Carey, 1984), use more strategies for organizing and transforming information (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990), use learning strategies more effectively, transfer these strategies to novel tasks when trained to do so (Risemberg & Zimmerman, 1992), and use more rereading, inferring, analyzing, predicting, and evaluating strategies (Fehrenbach, 1991). When creatively talented students in mathematics were compared with academically gifted or non-gifted students, creatively talented students used more self-regulated strategies (Hong & Aqui, 2004). Giftedness is often associated with greater knowledge of strategies, quicker problem-solving, and the ability to use strategies more appropriately. Gifted and average-ability children differ in their patterns of strategy development and use; gifted children take more time to plan and execute their strategies and make better use of information learned from mistakes (Steiner, 2006). Students who use metacognitive strategies not only achieve their goals better than those who do not (Obach, 2003; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997, 1999), they also select and use effective study strategies (Hong, Sas, & Sas, 2006; Sundre & Kitsantas, 2004). For example, high achievers might use rehearsal strategies for tasks that involve memorization, but they utilize elaboration strategies for tasks that require understanding (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986).

52  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development While high achievers use both surface and deep strategies, they use deep strategies more frequently than low achievers (Holschuh, 2000). Metacognitive training Students with high self-regulatory traits tend to get involved in self-regulatory activities in various learning situations. However, levels of self-regulatory activities that students apply are different across subject matter areas, indicating that self-regulation is also situation specific (Hong, 1998b). This suggests that self-regulation is malleable and trainable. Metacognitive training helps increase students’ knowledge of metacognition, helps them use strategies flexibly, and increases learning (e.g., Jausovec, 1994). Evidence indicates that students who receive lessons on self-regulation use more planning strategies, improve their scores on tasks, and display more interest than the students who do not receive such lessons (Azevedo & Cromley, 2004). College students also benefit from training; Butler (1998) provided tutoring sessions to students with learning disabilities and found that these sessions improved their perceived self-efficacy and task performance and increased metacognition about the tasks and use of sophisticated learning strategies.

Motivational attributes Various theories have been advanced to understand how motivation affects learning and creativity. In general, self-regulated learners are highly motivated to learn. They view learning tasks as valuable, useful, or interesting (e.g., Pintrich, 2000; Wigfield, 1994) and display high self-efficacy and extraordinary effort and persistence during learning and problem solving (Zimmerman, 1990). High achievers also have a tendency to be mastery goal oriented (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). In this section we discuss task value, selfefficacy, and achievement goals as motivational characteristics related to learning, achievement and creativity. Achievement value and task value Achievement value or task value is an essential motivational mediator of selfregulatory behaviors such as effort and persistence. Achievement values are “the incentives or purposes that individuals have for succeeding on a given task” (Wigfield, 1994, p. 102). The value that individuals place on the outcome and their perceived probability of success determine how much effort they will apply to complete the task successfully. The motivating potential of anticipating outcomes is largely determined by the subjective value that the person places on the attainment (Bandura, 1997). People may put forth effort when they value the outcome, even when they believe that their probability of success is quite low.

Self-regulation, Motivation, Learning Style, and Talent Development  •  53 Task value is the motivational belief of students that the task (e.g., homework) is important and useful (utility value) or interesting and enjoyable (intrinsic value) (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). Tasks that are valued, especially those intrinsically valued, are related to high levels of learning and achievement (Greene, DeBacker, Ravindran, & Krows, 1999; Hong & Aqui, 2004). Low achievers, in general, value their school work less than do high achievers (Hong, Peng, & Rowell 2006; Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005). A similar pattern is revealed with regard to tests and test-taking. Students’ perceptions of the importance or usefulness of tests are significantly related to students’ test-taking motivation and test performance (Wolf & Smith, 1995). Whether test utility value has an effect on test performance is of interest in the test-intensive society. Students who hold stronger test utility value report having regulated their motivation by putting forth effort and being persistent while preparing for tests. Moreover, they use metacognitive strategies more than those who hold weaker test value (Hong & Peng, 2006). Whether the motivation is intrinsic or extrinsic makes a difference. Intrinsically motivated individuals are curious about, interested in, and enjoy the tasks in which they are engaged. By contrast, extrinsically motivated individuals engage in tasks with the goal of seeking rewards such as money, praise, or high grades. Intrinsic motivation influences perceived competence, and competence, in turn, influences academic achievement (Goldberg & Cornell, 1998). Gifted students tend to be more intrinsically motivated and seek challenges more than their non-gifted peers (Dai, Moon, & Feldhusen, 1998). Creatively talented people are intrinsically motivated. They exhibit high interest and enjoyment in what they choose to do (Amabile, 1996; Winner, 1996a). Intrinsic motivation has been viewed as beneficial to creativity whereas extrinsic motivation has been considered detrimental (Amabile, 1983, 1990). However, extrinsic motivators (e.g., awards) can be used as additional incentives if sufficient intrinsic motivation already exists (Hennessey, Amabile, & Martinage, 1989). Gagné (1995) asserts that motivation plays a crucial role in initiating the process of talent development, guiding it, and sustaining it through obstacles, boredom, and occasional failure. Self-efficacy and its relationship to effort and persistence Self-efficacy beliefs contribute to motivation in determining “the goals people set for themselves, how much effort they expend, how long they persevere in the face of difficulties, and their resilience to failures” (Bandura, 1993, p. 131). High achievers report having higher self-efficacy whereas low achievers and underachievers are often described as being more anxious and less self-

54  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development efficacious (Risemberg & Zimmerman, 1992). Low achievers tend to set lower academic goals, to lack persistence, and to engage in maladaptive academic behaviors (Borkowski & Thorpe, 1994). Self-regulatory skills become insignificant if students do not utilize the skills in a persistent manner in the face of difficulties, distractions, and stress. How individuals attribute the success or failure of their actions influences motivation and performance (Weiner, 1994). These attributions have an effect largely through the mediational role of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Schunk, 1991). Students who are confident of their ability intensify their efforts when failure occurs and persist until they succeed (Pajares, 1996). Students with high self-efficacy attribute failure to insufficient effort or deficient knowledge that can be acquired (Bandura, 1993). Gifted students perceive themselves as more competent than non-gifted students, and they are also less likely to attribute failure to lack of ability and think that school success depends on their effort rather than ability or luck (Chen, 1996). However, other studies (e.g., Kurtz & Weinert, 1989) found the opposite trend; gifted children attributed academic success to high ability while average children attributed success to effort. These conflicting findings may reflect situation-specific attributional beliefs in gifted children (e.g., task difficulty, domain specificity). Adolescents academically or creatively talented in mathematics reported being more self-efficacious than their non-gifted peers (Hong & Aqui, 2004). Further, both types of talented students in mathematics perceived themselves as highly able in math (e.g., “I have a mathematical mind”), valued their math class (e.g., “it is important for me to learn the course material in this math class”), and were confident in mathematics (e.g., “I expect to do well in this math class”). Motivation to study hard for tests as evidenced by effort and persistence has a positive effect on test performance (Hong & Peng, 2006; Wise & DeMars, 2005). Achievement goals: goal orientation and goal setting Goals provide the framework within which a person interprets and responds to events and result in a unique pattern of cognition, behavior, and affect (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Achievement goal theorists construe motivation in education with reference to the qualitative goal orientations adopted by students as they engage in learning activities (Brophy, 2005). Two types of goal orientations have been discussed widely – mastery/ learning goal orientation and performance goal orientations. Goal orientation is also described in terms of “approach” (i.e., a person is motivated by the desire to approach success) or “avoidance” (i.e., a person is motivated by the desire to avoid failure) (e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 2001).

Self-regulation, Motivation, Learning Style, and Talent Development  •  55 Students with learning goal orientations define success as learning or mastering something new and focus on increasing their levels of competence by acquiring knowledge or skills (Midgley & Urdan, 1995). Students with performance-approach orientations want to demonstrate their ability relative to others by outperforming them and publicly displaying their task-relevant knowledge or skills. Students with performance-avoidance orientation focus more on not being seen as incompetent compared with their peers. Performance-avoidance orientation is presumed to develop as a result of fear of failure (Speirs-Neumeister & Finch, 2006). Some theorists assert that performance goals (approach or avoidance) have detrimental effects on learning and achievement (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). However, others found that although performance-avoidance goals negatively predicted academic efficacy and strategy use, performance-approach goals emerged as a positive predictor of these outcomes (Middleton & Midgley, 1997). In general, students who adopt a learning or mastery goal orientation increase perceptions of selfefficacy and use effective learning strategies (Ames & Archer 1988; Middleton & Midgley, 1997). When gifted students adopt performance goals and are motivated to outperform others, it may result in unprofitable achievement-related behaviors such as avoiding challenging tasks. Although some researchers (e.g., Ziegler, Heller, & Broome, 1996) observe no difference in goal orientation between the gifted and non-gifted students, others (e.g., Ainley, 1993; Schunk & Swartz, 1993) find that gifted students score high on mastery goal orientations as well as performance goal orientations. Students’ implicit theory of ability is related to goal orientation. Students holding incremental theory of ability (i.e., ability is malleable) predominantly adopt learning goals focusing on developing their ability, view effort as a positive thing, attribute their failure to low ability less frequently, and report strategy use to increase effort and persistence instead of effort withdrawal (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Molden & Dweck, 2006). Goal specificity may be important for promoting effort. When people are asked to do their best (instead of giving them a specific goal), they tend not to do so. Locke and Latham (2002) suggest that this is because do-your-best goals have no external referent, thus allowing a wide range of acceptable performance levels. Individuals with high self-efficacy tend to set higher goals and commit themselves to assigned goals, use better strategies to attain the goals, and respond more positively to negative feedback than do individuals with low self-efficacy (Locke & Latham, 1990). One can assign goals or allow individuals to set the goals. When individuals are allowed to set the goals, the goals might be perceived as more important to them because they, in part, are self-assigned. This assertion, however, is

56  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development supported only partially. Whereas some studies supported this theory (Erez, 1986), other studies did not find a difference between the other-assigned and self-assigned goals (e.g., Latham & Marshall, 1982). Whether or not students value the goal may have something to do with the conflicting findings, along with other attributes such as perception of the person assigning the goals. To summarize what has been said thus far, the following variables are likely to increase self-confidence, self-efficacy, expenditure of effort and persistence, and as a consequence, lead to high achievement: (a) high value versus low value attached to task or performance; (b) intrinsic over extrinsic motivation; (c) high over low self-efficacy; (d) a mastery/learning goal over performance goal; (e) an approach or success-seeking orientation over a failure-avoidance orientation; (f) goal specificity over goal generality and vagueness; and (g) an incremental theory of ability over an entity theory. There are other important psychological variables that are not discussed in this volume. For example, beliefs about learning (e.g., epistemological beliefs) are important to understand as they influence how students intake and process information and are related to creative behavior. Understanding the relationships of these variables to learning and creative behavior would help students, educators, and parents prevent possible loss of academic or creative talent.

Learning styles and preferences Learning styles also contribute to individual differences in learning and achievement and to the degree of talent realization or talent loss. Learning style refers to the specific set of conditions favorable for an individual to concentrate on a given task and to absorb, process, and retain new or difficult information and skills. Learning style develops as a consequence of hereditary factors, previous learning experiences, and the demands of the present environment (Kolb, 1976). As a result of these variables, most people develop preferred learning styles. There is some disagreement about the stability of learning styles over time. Davidman (1981), Hong and Suh (1995), and Reid (1987) found that learning styles – even though relatively stable – change in individuals over time due to biological and psycho-social maturation, cultural changes, and the introduction of new environmental stimuli. Others contend that learning styles remain constant, regardless of changes in the learning environment or in the subject matter being taught (Kalous, 1990; Restak, 1979). Learning styles in the classroom Some learning style proponents have demonstrated that students achieve better and demonstrate higher motivation to learn if they are taught, at least

Self-regulation, Motivation, Learning Style, and Talent Development  •  57 initially, in a manner that is consistent with their learning style (e.g., Dunn & Dunn, 1993). Accordingly, if students are to have the best opportunity to learn, it becomes important to identify students’ learning styles and to develop instructional strategies congruent with these styles. This approach recommends that teachers adapt instructions and/or adjust the learning environment, rather than retraining students to adopt new learning styles. It emphasizes the importance of creating a variety of learning environments, multiple resources, variable instructional methodologies, and flexible teaching to accommodate individual differences in learning style (Keefe, 1982). This level of individualized instruction is not easily achieved. Another approach acknowledges students’ individual differences in learning style preferences, but stresses the need of students to adapt on many occasions to an imposed learning environment (DeBello, 1990; Hong & Milgram, 2000). That is, although students may prefer to use their own learning style, they should be encouraged to use others if the learning environment or task instructions demand otherwise. Under these circumstances, initial learning may not be as efficient as when students use their preferred learning style, but encouragement of this adjustment will lead them to expand their repertoire of learning styles. This approach emphasizes matching instruction to individual preferences when learning involves new and difficult materials and supplementing students’ preferences with varied instructional strategies and materials so as to make them more capable of modifying their learning style when necessary. Zhang (2002) distinguishes two kinds of thinking style that underlie the various learning styles – a holistic thinking style and the more traditional analytic thinking style. He found that creative and complex thinking and learning styles are related to a holistic mode of thinking, whereas the conforming and simplistic thinking styles are related to the analytic mode. Sternberg and Grigorenko (1993) acknowledge the importance of learning style in gifted education. They state that decisions about identification, instruction, and programming for gifted students need to take into account not only the abilities of the students but also their styles of thinking and learning. Group differences in learning styles of gifted and regular students have been found (e.g., Hong & Milgram, 2000; Milgram, Dunn, & Price 1993). We provide a few examples. 1 Academically gifted, when compared with regular, students are more teacher motivated, do not need to move about the classroom as much while learning, and prefer to learn visually. This pattern of preferences is consonant with the kinds of attitudes that lead to successful performance in most conventional classrooms. 2 Creative thinkers (i.e., high in general ideational fluency) differ from their low-creative-thinking age peers in tactile and kinesthetic learning

58  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development styles, suggesting that they profit from active involvement in experiential learning as well as from the opportunity to explore and handle a wide variety of materials as they learn. 3 Creative thinkers prefer less structure in their school tasks, a situation that would allow them to define, interpret, and work on the tasks in more than one way; they also prefer an informal learning environment, possibly with carpets, soft furniture, and the like. On the other hand, they are less persistent and less comfortable in the presence of authority figures than the low-creative-thinking group. These findings substantiate some widespread views about creative-thinking children. Homework learning style Studies on homework learning style complement studies on learning style in the classroom (Hong, 2001a; Hong & Lee, 2000). Research findings include: 1 High achievers are more self-motivated and motivated by their parents and teachers than their age peers. These differences are not surprising in that high achievers are distinguished from low achievers by scores on tests given in the classroom that reflect the receptiveness of gifted students to these sources of motivation. While high teacher-rated achievement was more closely associated with high scores on the teacher-motivated element, the self-perception of work accomplishment at home was more positive in those students who were highly motivated by parents as well as teachers. 2 When compared with low achievers, high achievers are more persistent, organize their homework in an order of their choosing, and prefer specific instructions. They prefer to do homework alone, in a brightly lit room. Low achievers tend to prefer to eat or drink or move about while doing homework more so than high achievers. There were no differences between high and low achievers on preferred or actual perceptual sensitivity (i.e., auditory, visual, tactile, kinesthetic). Caveat. One should keep in mind that learning styles of individuals within each group vary widely. If educators or parents wish to use learning style information for accommodating instructional environment to individual learners, it is important to gain information about the particular child’s learning style. That is, individual differences in learning styles are more important than the findings on group differences; the latter give only the baseline understanding, which could be helpful when individual treatment cannot be rendered and group-based considerations are the only option.

Self-regulation, Motivation, Learning Style, and Talent Development  •  59 Adaptive instruction or adaptive learners Earlier we illustrated different instructional approaches based on learning styles. As might be expected, students’ learning preferences are not always honored in the classroom or at home. There are many students who do not do their homework according to their individual learning style preferences (Hong & Lee, 2000; Hong & Milgram, 1999). Some of the disparity between preferred and actual styles of learning can be remedied by parents with simple accommodations. For example, parents may provide more light or allow their children to dim the light, have some background music, or permit their children to move around while doing homework, if they prefer to study that way. Not surprisingly, students’ achievement scores and parental awareness of their children’s learning style are positively related. Likewise, a narrow gap between preferred and actual learning styles is related to high achievement. Interestingly, the preferred–actual disparity was not found in children of high creative-thinking ability (Ohayon, 1999). They were apparently able to find ways to persuade their parents to accede to their preferences or to find other ways to have their preferences met. Creative thinkers, by definition, are able to generate more unusual and high-quality solutions to a wide variety of problems that occur in life. How they handled the circumstances in which they did their homework is another example of their skill in problem-solving. That each child has his or her own learning preferences is no longer a subject for debate. There is disagreement, however, whether efforts should be made to change or expand students’ learning preferences to conform to classroom instructions, or to adapt instructions to match students’ preferred modes of learning. Some educators or parents may disagree as to how to treat these learning differences in classrooms and in home learning situations, but all appreciate the impact of these differences on effective learning.

Preventing talent loss Students who show academic promise do not always fulfill this promise, and they experience a sense of frustration, as do their teachers and parents. Gifted and talented achievers and underachievers differ in their self-regulated learning, motivation, and valuation as well as in their attitudes toward school and teachers (McCoach & Siegle, 2003). Understanding self-regulated learning and motivation theories provides us with some of the recommended practices that can promote student achievement. Student knowledge of cognitive and metacognitive strategies is helpful, and this knowledge is a necessary condition for fulfilling promise; however, it is not enough. Underachieving students need to be motivated to use this knowledge. To prevent talent loss, educators need to go beyond teaching content material and to attend to students’ self-

60  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development regulation and motivation level. Recommendations relevant to these topics are presented below. Self-regulated learning for preventing talent loss Provide self-regulatory strategy instructions and encourage students to use them Although gifted achievers utilize self-regulatory learning strategies more frequently than regular and gifted underachievers, some do not use them and others fail to use them consistently (Carr, Alexander, & Schwanenflugel, 1996). All students can be trained to understand and use self-regulatory strategies as well as to transfer these strategies to novel tasks or situations (Risemberg & Zimmerman, 1992). From elementary to college student level, it is evident that students can learn to use metacognitive strategies. Metacognitive awareness helps students recognize what they know and what they do not know, and metacognitive strategies help them use planning, self-monitoring, and selfevaluating processes for all learning purposes. Combine various strategies Metacognitive training enhances performance on solving problems that require analytic thinking for solution better than it facilitates solving open problems calling for creativity (Jausovec, 1994). If we intend to enable students to enhance their creative-thinking ability, it becomes necessary to include other types of instructions such as brainstorming or problem-finding exercises along with metacognitive training (Shore & Dover, 1987) (see Chapter 12 for creativity training). Use high-order strategies for teaching and learning Strategies that involve understanding are used by high achievers more often than by low achievers (Sundre & Kitsantas, 2004). Some surface strategies, such as simply repeating reading or reviewing notes without relating or connecting information to already learned material, are not sufficient. Rote rehearsal does not guarantee learning or subsequent retention (Mayer, 1996). Examples of effective strategies include self-quizzing, organizing, elaborating, taking notes, comparing class notes with textbook, and transcribing notes (e.g., Holschuh, 2000; Kitsantas, 2002). Learning activities that do not contain some of these strategies may not lead to higher achievement. Develop curriculum materials with embedded self-regulated learning strategies To encourage learners to use self-regulated learning strategies, curriculum and instructions should be designed to combine metacognitive and motivational strategies and content material; for example, students are asked to answer questions that activate their use of strategies. Although there are some

Self-regulation, Motivation, Learning Style, and Talent Development  •  61 textbooks that provide such questions for similar purposes, a more effective way to develop such instructional materials can be achieved by utilizing technologies (see Chapter 11). Develop learner-based metacognitive instruction Gifted underachievers or gifted students with learning disabilities have special needs and may require more assistance in acquiring self-regulated learning strategies than others. Although gifted students with learning disabilities monitor their reading, use evaluation, paraphrase, and metacognitive strategies, many do not acquire proficiency in these strategies (McGuire & Yewchuk, 1996). An early childhood metacognition program for gifted underachievers might include teacher and peer modeling of self-regulatory strategies such as think-aloud, behavioral demonstration, and prompting steps to follow to complete tasks efficiently (Manning, Glasner, & Smith, 1996). Individualize instruction according to the individual needs as often as possible It is a challenge for teachers to provide individualized instruction. However, different kinds of students (e.g., gifted achievers and underachievers, gifted with learning disabilities, regular achievers, and underachievers) require different instructional content, delivery, and strategy. Some individualized instructional approaches have demonstrated positive effect. A process-based instruction program (Ashman, Wright, & Conway, 1994) that was developed for enhancing the metacognitive skills of academically gifted students in mainstream classrooms can also be adapted to students with diverse abilities. This type of teaching approach enables teachers to individualize instruction by involving all students in developing plans for curriculum and learning activities. Environmental management Self-regulated students select, structure, and create environments that optimize learning (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2000; Zimmerman, 1990). These students adjust their thinking and/or behavior to adjust better to the learning environment in which they learn, function, perform, or to change the learning environment to meet their learning and performance requirements. Some students require a quiet environment in order to do their homework; accordingly they may turn off the television, move away from it, or go to the library. Other students require background music as a filter (i.e., background noise filters task-irrelevant thinking) during their academic study. Something as simple as having a good breakfast on the day of a test is a good strategy for many students (King, 2000). Creative learners might have additional requirements in finding an optimizing environment. In short, selecting an optimizing environment is an important self-regulated learning strategy for success in school or in any human endeavor.

62  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development Teacher training Teachers undoubtedly practice self-regulation, but they may be unaware of it and unable to transmit these strategies to their students. All teachers will profit from workshops in this area and some will require special training if they are to introduce a self-regulated learning program into their students’ curriculum. Enhancing motivation for preventing talent loss Motivate before teaching When students lack interest and motivation in a given lesson or assignment (“I am bored”; “I hope to get by”), they will not apply effective self-regulatory strategies that are within their repertoire (Hong, Sas, & Sas, 2006). To promote student engagement in strategy application, one may address motivational concerns such as effort, value, interest, self-efficacy, and/or goal-setting. Many teachers do not do so because of their concern that the scheduled curriculum must be covered, even if most of the students are not listening. If teachers do not understand motivational issues in general and the motivational problems of individual students, and make no effort to deal with them, their efforts to instruct will be wasted and student learning will not meet anyone’s expectation, not the teachers’, the students’, or their parents’. Motivate underachieving students by helping them experience success Many motivational characteristics exacerbate students’ learning problems (Borkowski & Thorpe, 1994). Underachieving students have low self-efficacy about their academic performance, are anxious, have fear of failure, do not make the effort to learn, or give up easily when facing difficulties. Even though they know that they have to try harder, many do not regulate themselves to put forth the needed effort. If teachers provide assignments that match current ability level, these students will enjoy a rare experience of success that will raise their immediate expectations of success and ultimately their long-term aspirations. If teachers help students set proper short-term goals, high enough to challenge and not too high to cause failure, students will expend more effort to achieve these goals. When students make an effort to face challenges, teachers should focus as much on the effort as on the result, and praise both. Pay attention to task or achievement value before teaching content Even when students have self-regulated learning skills, they will not make an effort to learn if they do not value learning, in general, or the specific course material, in particular. Educators are in a position to inspire students to value education, to value acquisition of knowledge and the means to acquire knowledge, and to value doing well on achievement tests. On a day-to-day

Self-regulation, Motivation, Learning Style, and Talent Development  •  63 basis, it is the responsibility of the teacher to relate the course material to the valued concerns and interests of their students. Sometimes students do not see the value because of the way the material is being presented, but alert and creative teachers are able to bridge the gap. Help students set goals and develop a sense of self-efficacy Students should be encouraged to work to achieve specific goals with predetermined levels, not simply to “do their best.” When students achieve a predetermined level of a specific goal, they will “raise the bar” and try to achieve a higher level. The development of self-efficacy is based on a succession of successes and expectations of further successes. Teachers are in an ideal position to foster students’ self-efficacy about their school-relevant abilities. Provide an environment where creativity can thrive Students are intrinsically motivated to pursue activities that are moderately novel, interesting, and optimally challenging. When tasks are too difficult, students become anxious or frustrated; when they are too easy, students become bored (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Teachers should try to create a classroom environment that fosters intrinsic motivation by providing students with opportunities to engage in interesting, personally relevant, and challenging activities. Several principles are relevant to enhancing creativity in students: (a) encourage them to be proud of their effort and good work rather than reward them with material gifts and gratuities; (b) minimize the number of competitive situations in which their work is compared with that of others; (c) encourage them to practice self-regulation in the course of a project on which they are working; (d) provide latitude for choice of project and how to go about and do the project; (e) convey to them that you appreciate and value highly creative efforts and products; (f) show them by personal examples that you personally are an intrinsically motivated adult who enjoys thinking creatively; (g) give them opportunities for free play with diverse materials; and (h) allow them to engage in fantasy and flights of imagination in order to stimulate rich imagery and spatial abilities (e.g., Hennessey & Amabile, 1987; Lubart, 1994). Understand students’ implicit theories about ability If students hold an entity theory about human abilities (ability is fixed), they are likely to settle for their current level of achievement despite evidence or the possibility that the level could be far higher. They will tell themselves that they are not smart enough to do better and will be reluctant to contradict self-fulfilling expectations of failure if they try. Conversely, if they come to believe that they can do better if they make more effort in an expeditious manner, they will be inspired to increase their goals and try to achieve newly set goals. Holding to the entity belief is detrimental even for gifted students who attribute their current success to their high ability; when challenged in

64  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development the future to excel under more competitive circumstances than before, these students may choose not to make the effort required. Recognize learning styles and utilize them to maximize learning Understand and accommodate individual differences Teachers must understand learning styles and preferences and help students identify their learning styles and understand the practical implications of these styles. By the same token, teachers should recognize their own learning and teaching styles and the implications for their personal and professional lives. Teachers are called upon to create a learning environment that accommodates the learning preferences of the majority of students and to find ways to help the minority whose learning styles do not match. Help students attain favorable learning style Some students show signs of potential for academic excellence but do not realize their potential due to their tendency to work impulsively and without reflection. When impulsivity becomes habitual, it becomes an obstacle for meeting achievement goals. This happens because students cannot use their full intellectual resources to bear on a problem due to their tendency to jump to conclusions. Sternberg and Grigorenko (2000) suggest that teachers encourage students to control their impulses by rewarding them when they do exercise control. Teachers can ask students to reflect before they come up with solutions or ideas. Seek assistance when needed One way to encourage passive learners to become engaged in learning activities is to provide an environment in which help-seeking is viewed as constructive and is encouraged. As shown by some of the high achievers, seeking assistance from more knowledgeable others might be an effective strategy that passive learners may adopt (e.g., Kitsantas, 2002). Adaptive helpseeking (Newman, 2002) can prevent possible failure, maintain engagement, and lead to autonomous and successful learning.

chapter

6

Affective and Intrapersonal Attributes and Talent Development

In the previous chapter we discussed motivational, cognitive and metacognitive, and learning style aspects of the personal–psychological component of the Comprehensive Model of Giftedness and Talent in an effort to inform readers how they differ among individuals and what can be done to reduce talent loss by attending to those aspects. The topic of this chapter is the affective attributes of personal–psychological components. We discuss how various affective characteristics differ among children and how they affect talent development. We hope that understanding these relationships will enable readers to become partners in the solution to talent loss. We selected several important affect and intrapersonal constructs to present in this chapter. Some of them are emotion related such as mood, stress, and anxiety; others are attitude related; and still others deal with personality traits that influence the make-up of talent, such as independence, responsibility, commitment, tolerance, conformity, and risk-taking. We conclude this chapter with several suggestions for preventing talent loss focusing on these affective constructs.

66  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development

Complexity and uniqueness of affective and intrapersonal characteristics In an effort to understand how giftedness might contribute to life adjustment, Neihart (1999a) reviewed the literature and offered two contrasting views. Giftedness can be viewed as (a) enhancing resiliency in individuals or (b) increasing vulnerability. The first perspective assumes that gifted children are able to understand themselves and others due to their high intellectual capacities, and are, therefore, able to cope better with stress, conflict, and developmental challenges than their non-gifted peers. Numerous studies support this view that gifted children as a group are better adjusted than are children of average ability (Baker, 1995; Nail, 1998). However, some studies indicate that the gifted advantage applies to certain academic domains but not to all academic domains or non-academic domains (Little, 2005; Schneider, 1987). Some gifted individuals such as gifted underachievers or highly creative people are prone to maladjustment (Bruns, 1992; Kwan, 1992). They have higher rates of depression, manic–depressive disorder, or suicide. This phenomenon is more pronounced among creative individuals who have achieved eminence (Jamison, 1993; Richards, 1989; Rothenberg, 1990). This contradiction may be understood if we consider a number of reservations: (a) there are demographic differences between studies of gifted and non-gifted groups and between different types of giftedness (e.g., creatively or intellectually gifted); (b) there are differences of domain (art versus science) from which the gifted are selected for research; (c) there are differences between studies in the criteria by which these groups were constituted; (d) a few maladjusted individuals may be found within gifted groups that tower above comparison groups in overall mental health; (e) maladjustment in gifted individuals draws inordinate attention in the popular press, while similar emotional difficulties among non-gifted people are ignored; and (f) any one person, gifted or non-gifted, possesses positive as well as negative personal traits and either can be used to support pre-existing stereotypical bias about gifted children and adults. Differences of affective characteristics found across domains as well as within a domain attest to these contradictory phenomena. Piirto’s (1998) study on successful female creative writers provides a good example of contradicting personality attributes. As a group, these creative writers were independent, courageous, risk-taking, resilient, frank, introverted, empathetic, humorous, intuitive, and perceptive. On the other hand, some of them were depressed, alienated and marginalized, envious, and self-destructive. Thus, giftedness appears to introduce some uniformity as well as variability in the developmental trajectory of individuals due to the complex and unique characteristics and traits that individuals bring to the developmental equation.

Affective and Intrapersonal Attributes and Talent Development  •  67

Affect: emotion and anxiety Emotion, mood, and stress Research in psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience has demonstrated that emotion is central and essential for human endeavors including learning, memory, motivation, and psychological and physical health (Lewis & Haviland-Jones, 2004). In their review of the role of emotion in human learning, Pekrun, Elliot, and Maier (2006) note that emotion influences learning and performance by changing brain dopamine levels, affecting longterm memory, inducting and sustaining student interest in learning material, and facilitating or impeding students’ self-regulation in learning and performance (Krapp, 2005; Pekrun, Titz, Goetz, & Perry 2002). Moreover, emotion has an impact on learning by directing attention and the use of cognitive resources, and by triggering different models of information processing and problem-solving (Meinhardt & Pekrun, 2003). Whereas some emotions have a positive effect on learning, others, such as boredom, shame, and anxiety, have a negative effect (e.g., Hong, 2001b; Turner & Schallert, 2001). However, an emotional trait (e.g., despair) could have a positive effect on certain talent development (e.g., creative talent) for some individuals but not for others depending how these people handle such emotion during the developmental years (e.g., Simonton, 1992). Intellectually gifted children may experience unevenness in various aspects of human development (Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002). Their intellectual development may well exceed their socio-emotional maturity, and such asynchronous development can cause intra- and interpersonal difficulties. Gifted adolescents, for example, may struggle more with issues of autonomy, independence, intensity, self-perception, and social acceptance than their non-gifted peers (Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002; Solow, 1995). Creative characteristics add additional uniqueness to the developmental equation. Reciprocal influences between emotion and creativity have been discussed in the literature, including the effect of emotion on creativity, the link between emotion-centered psychopathology and creative work, the role of individualized emotions in forming creative associations, and affect produced as a result of creative effort (Wolfe, 1985). Getz and Lubart (1998) and Lubart and Getz (1997) identify ways in which the relationship between emotion and creativity may be conceived: 1 Experiencing and expressing emotions stimulates creativity and can be a resource for creative work. Creative work is often viewed as a means of expressing one’s idiosyncratic emotions and affective response to the world.

68  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development 2 Emotional experience or mood may place the individual in a heightened mental state that influences creativity. People put in a mildly positive emotional state interpret stimuli in novel ways or generate novel solutions to complex problems. A negative or strongly positive emotional state, however, could have a negative influence on creativity, problem-solving, making judgments, or divergent thinking. Negative mood could also have a facilitating effect on problem-finding and -solving and making judgments. These findings indicate the intricate and complex interactions between creative personalities and environmental stimuli (Feist, 1994; Getz & Lubart, 1998; Isen, 1987; Russ, 1993). 3 Emotion may stimulate specific concepts or images. Affective experiences become attached to concepts or images representing objects, people, and events in memory. Emotional states provide an associative bridge between cognitively remote concepts representing objects, persons, or events in memory. Russ (1993) suggested that access to affect-laden thoughts may contribute to divergent thinking and free association. 4 Emotions may accompany or be a consequence of creative work (Feist, 1994). The emotion resulting from one step may spark or mediate a following step in a dynamic multistep creative process. Likewise, creative work elicits emotional responses in various forms during and after the production/performance stages. People with eminent creative talents reported needing time to be by themselves when they were children (Ochse, 1990; Olszewski-Kublius, 2000), probably because aloneness gave them the opportunity to read, practice, or acquire skills in the area in which they were interested in producing creative work (Winner, 1996b). Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, and Whaen (1993) also underscore the importance of aloneness during the adolescent formative years. In many areas of creativity, reading in childhood is an important characteristic of creative individuals as it provides the necessary knowledge base from which their creativity emerges (Simonton, 1994). People with creative talent are often withdrawn even when they are with others and often make deliberate attempts to seek solitude (Ochse, 1990). The inclination of gifted and/or creative children to seek solitude can be a source of concern for parents who believe that one should make friends. Concerned parents may berate their children for being alone and pressure them unduly to spend time with others. Balance is important in this aspect, as with other life aspects, and parents should allow these children to follow their own inclinations. Highly creative individuals also seek tension from asynchrony, discordance, and risk taking. These situations provide the kinds of tension that creative individuals are comfortable with (Feldman, 1994; Gardner, 1994). Situations

Affective and Intrapersonal Attributes and Talent Development  •  69 that provoke high levels of anxiety and tension may even be preferable to these individuals (Gardner, 1994); they seek the pleasure that results from the reduction of tension or the anticipated reduction of tension. These proclivities, like being alone, may disturb parents, teachers, and counselors, as well as age peers, and introduce unwarranted tension, self-devaluation and alienation in their interpersonal development. Although concerns that gifted and creative children are predisposed to emotional instability were voiced by respected authorities decades ago (Jung, 1954; Lombroso, 1891), these assertions were based on anecdotal evidence at best. When these children’s social and emotional adjustment levels were assessed and compared with those of their age peers, gifted children scored more positively (Lehman & Erdwins, 1981) and reportedly exhibited fewer behavioral problems (Ludwig & Cullinan, 1984). These contradicting assertions may be challenged because children with behavioral problems might have been screened out of the gifted programs. Stress caused by environmental factors (e.g., tasks, situations, or people) has a detrimental effect on cognitive function. In stressful situations, more mental effort is required to process information. It is difficult to sustain concentration on the task at hand when surrounding situations are perceived as unfavorable or threatening. For example, when students need to make a choice among many alternatives under stressful situations, they do not adequately evaluate all possible choices before responding, and the frequency of incorrect responses vary with the magnitude of stress (Keinan, 1987). This conclusion, based on isolated stressful episodes of short duration and limited impact, does not exclude the possibility that comprehensive stressful episodes of long-term duration and strong impact may have other effects. The short- and long-term effects of stressful life circumstances and environments during childhood on the development of creative talent have been discussed. The following adverse circumstances during childhood create stressful conditions: parental loss, parental conflict, parental neglect, strict discipline, rejection by parents or other children, overprotection, loneliness, loss of a cherished sibling, insecurity due to poverty, or physical disabilities or deformities. Such experiences might impair children’s cognitive and psychological–emotional development and prevent them from realizing potential they might otherwise have reached in adult life. At the same time the same experiences may have positive consequences for some children (Albert, 1993; Ochse, 1990; Olszewski-Kublius, 2000). A disruptive environment in childhood compels some children to seek out and find a pursuit, environment, and level of tension that are consistent with a potential talent in their behavioral repertoire (Gardner, 1994). They might seek self-sufficiency and independence or withdraw and isolate themselves from people. These circumstances can be

70  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development motivators for creative development for some children (Olszewski-Kublius, 2000), especially when they maximally exploit the freedom gained from the isolation and divert their energies to the development of creative potential (Simonton, 1992). Anxiety Depression and anxiety are indicators of socio-emotional maladjustment. In general, students identified as gifted in school have lower anxiety and depression than average students (e.g., Bracken & Brown, 2006). Accordingly, one might conclude that gifted students are reasonably well adjusted. However, other studies on anxiety report different results. When gifted students are also perfectionists, their fixation on making mistakes limits their work behaviors and achievement (Schuler, 2000). This fixation results in a constant state of anxiety, creating a vicious cycle with negative impact on their psychological health. Competitiveness also provokes anxiety in gifted children. Gifted adolescents in regular classes report lower test anxiety, higher academic self-concept, and more positive perceptions of their giftedness, than do gifted students in homogeneous gifted classes (Zeidner & Schleyer, 1999). This finding is not surprising. When gifted students compare themselves with fellow students, the comparison is far more anxiety provoking in a classroom filled with other gifted students than in a heterogeneous classroom. However, the gifted students in homogeneous classes are more satisfied with school environment than those in regular classes. The question of which factor (anxiety versus attitude toward school) has a stronger impact on life achievement is worthy of investigation, especially in longitudinal studies. Gifted underachievers, compared with other groups of students, are more anxious or depressed (Clark, 1992; Mandel & Marcus, 1988; Van Boxtel & Mönks, 1992). Some report no difference in anxiety between gifted and nongifted groups (e.g., Nail, 1998) and between highly versus moderately gifted students (Norman, Ramsey, Martray, & Roberts, 1999). In performing arts, performance anxiety is of concern. During talent development, many children become handicapped by performance anxiety and need support from their teachers or professional people outside of school in order to cope with it (Fehm & Schmidt, 2006). Performance anxiety persists in some individuals even after they become highly accomplished performers. Many educators and parents of gifted children are concerned that children who go through accelerated programs will become anxious and insecure. A study that examined the effect of early acceleration of students in mathematics on anxiety indicated that acceleration does not have a negative effect and the

Affective and Intrapersonal Attributes and Talent Development  •  71 pattern of anxiety rate was similar between accelerated and non-accelerated students (Ma, 2003). Most studies on anxiety in children are related to testing situations. Test anxiety is a major block to children’s optimal test performance and can lead to failure in school. As can be expected, test anxiety is adversely related to test performance (e.g., Cassady & Johnson, 2002; Hong, 2001b). Students with high test anxiety tend to avoid difficult items and are not persistent when facing difficulties (Hill & Wigfield, 1984). Students who have performance-avoidance goal orientation tend to have high test anxiety (Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Sideridis, 2005). However, students with mastery goal orientation also show significant test anxiety (Linnenbrink, 2005). In factorial studies of test anxiety, different components of test anxiety were extracted. Among others, the worry versus emotionality distinction (Liebert & Morris, 1967) and their differential effects on performance have been discussed widely (e.g., Benson & Tippets, 1990; Zeidner & Nevo, 1992). Worry refers to cognitive concern about test-taking and performance, such as negative expectations, preoccupation with performance, and potential consequences. Emotionality refers to perceived physiological reactions, that is, autonomic arousal and somatic reactions to testing situations such as nervousness and tension (Liebert & Morris, 1967; Morris, Davis, & Hutchings, 1981). While worry and emotionality are strongly correlated due to the testing situations that contain elements related to the arousal of each, worry is the anxiety component that has shown a consistent and strong inverse relationship with performance, whereas emotionality has a weak inverse or no relationship with performance (e.g., Kim & Rocklin, 1994; O’Neil & Abedi, 1992; Zeidner & Nevo, 1992). The cognitive-attentional view of test anxiety (Wine, 1980) may explain the negative role of worry in performance. Highly anxious individuals pay more attention to task-irrelevant cues than task-relevant cues, and their performance suffers due to this division of attention (Sarason, 1988). Anxiety could impede talent development, especially when it interacts with other traits (e.g., stress). Anxiety-provoking environments can be detrimental to individuals who suffer from anxiety. Students who are high in trait test anxiety tend to be highly anxious in various testing situations. However, different subject matter areas have differential effects on the level of test anxiety. In addition, individual students’ manifestations of test anxiety change across time even within the same subject matter (Hong, 1998c). These findings indicate that test anxiety is treatable even for those students with high trait test anxiety. Treatments such as relaxation therapy (Hembree, 1988), systematic desensitization (Kennedy & Doepke, 1999), and cognitiveattentional training (Wine, 1980) have proven effective in reducing anxiety.

72  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development

Intrapersonal characteristics Attitude Understanding students’ attitude toward school is important because this affects learning and creative behavior in class. To make matters worse, the relationship of attitude toward school with learning and achievement is reciprocal. Students who do well in school tend to be interested in learning and have positive attitudes toward school. The positive attitude toward school, in turn, helps them to learn and achieve better. Studies have shown that underachievers tend to show more negative attitudes toward school or have more problems with teachers and school personnel than high achievers (Bruns, 1992; Diaz, 1998; Ford, 1996). Gifted underachievers tend to be aggressive, resentful, hostile, or rebellious (Diaz, 1998; Emerick, 1992; Rimm, 1995). High-ability male dropouts tended to be more assertive, independent, rebellious, cheerful, expressive, frank, and talkative than a comparable group of males who did not drop out (Lajoie & Shore, 1981). School pressures for conformity, rather than a lack of interest in school, might influence dropout. This has important implications for teachers and counselors; it is their responsibility to understand the potential causes of dropout and to use this understanding to prevent dropout by adjusting the school environment as required. A student may drop out for reasons that cannot be handled by school personnel; however, providing a safe and welcoming environment for these students would be one way to prevent dropout and potential talent loss. When their creative needs are not met, creative students are at risk of becoming underachievers. The behaviors often observed in creative underachievers are rebellion or disruption. Creative underachievers resent excessive rules and regulations in class, tend to challenge and question teachers, sometimes indiscreetly, and fail to follow directions (Whitmore, 1980). Inattentive behaviors are another characteristic of creatively gifted students. This tendency of students with creative potential causes some confusion for educators in determining whether the behavior is related to creativity, attention deficit disorder, or both (Hartnett, Nelson, & Rinn, 2004; Reis & McCoach, 2002). Consequently, these students tend to be placed in a situation where they become alienated from teachers and/or peers, which, in turn, influences subsequent behaviors such as withdrawal and isolation, lack of interest in school, or dropout. Because many teachers prefer students who are highly intellectual rather than highly creative (Cropley, 2006), educational needs for creative children may not be met in classrooms. Not surprisingly, other variables mediate the effect of attitudes toward school on academic achievement. Student attitude toward school affects

Affective and Intrapersonal Attributes and Talent Development  •  73 achievement motivation, which in turn affects academic achievement. Attitudes toward school are related to parental involvement (Clemons, 2006). It is important to understand these and other affective and motivational variables as they work collaboratively. With more understanding, school personnel and parents will be better equipped to help students develop positive attitudes toward school and to prevent potential talents from being lost. Independence, responsibility, and conformity Independence and sense of responsibility contribute to achievement. There are various teaching strategies and programs that can be used to foster independence and responsibility in students when it is absent. For example, teachers can provide students with opportunities to select their own assignments or other learning activities. One way to foster students’ responsibility is to encourage them to initiate their own learning and selfevaluate outcomes. Gifted learners tend to be autonomous learners or prefer autonomous learning (Chan, 2001). High-ability students who perceive themselves as lacking autonomy exhibit more negative affect and withdrawal behaviors than students who are highly autonomous (Miserandino, 1996). In an exemplary program that fosters autonomy, independence, and responsibility (e.g., Mulcahy, 1991), students were given the responsibility for determining what strategies are appropriate and how to generate, implement, and evaluate the strategies to maximize problem-solving. The effectiveness of such programs was demonstrated in a 3-year longitudinal study with gifted as well as regular students and students with learning disabilities (Miserandino, 1996). Students can also develop their sense of responsibility and independence through community service. The experiences gained through these activities provide gifted students with opportunities to grow academically, intellectually, personally, creatively, and socially. Terry (2001) indicates that through their participation in this type of project, civic awareness is developed as well as the students’ sense of responsibility toward their community and each other. Students learn to work cooperatively and creatively in these settings. These experiences will help students of all levels become more attentive to social and global issues, and eventually help them become leaders in their field of interest. Conformity implies compliance, acquiescence, or obedience. Conformists focus on how they are perceived by others. As might be expected, highly creative individuals have difficulties with conformity. In response to conformist pressures, non-conformity can become a drive in highly creative individuals whose thought processes can lead to exploring concepts and methods that diverge greatly from the norm (Whitmore, 1980). Teachers, especially the

74  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development conformists, may feel annoyed or threatened by highly creative students when they express their creative ideas. Some consider creative students insistent, aggressive, or disruptive of the normal flow of class. Students’ creative ideas are too often ignored, discouraged, or even punished (Cropley, 2006). With repeated reactions based upon conformity from people in their environment, children’s creativity will likely be suppressed and their behaviors may turn negative. Other elements of conformity that have a negative impact on creativity are abundant. Examples include gender role expectation. A strong relationship has been found between androgyny and creativity (Hittner & Daniels, 2002; Norlander, Erixon, & Archer, 2000). Some children give up their creativity to preserve their masculinity or femininity (Torrance, 1960, 1962). Non-assertiveness or shyness may be related to creatively gifted students not being recognized in the classroom (Whitmore, 1980). These children could become excessively conforming, lack confidence in their own thinking, and acquire low self-esteem. These findings indicate that talent loss can happen unwittingly. Commitment and tolerance In the three-ring conception, Renzulli (2002) includes three important traits as necessary for individuals to succeed: above-average ability, task commitment, and creativity. These traits work interactively and no one trait is more important than the others. Renzulli defines task commitment as capacity for high levels of interest; hard work and determination in a particular area; selfconfidence and drive to achieve; ability to identify significant problems within an area of study; and setting high standards for one’s work. Task commitment, supportive parents and teachers, and high self-esteem are important contributing factors to children’s achievement (Lee-Corbin & Denicolo, 1998). Task commitment is also an important characteristic of resilient people, along with desire to learn, reflectiveness, maturity, and self-understanding (Bland, Sowa, & Callahan, 1994). Feldhusen (1995a) suggests that young people need to commit themselves to developing their potential talent. They should make a long-range commitment by identifying personal and career goals and striving to accomplish these goals. Providing challenging tasks is important for encouraging commitment. Although gifted achievers, compared with other groups of students, put forth more efforts by investing more time and committing themselves to getting the task done, if goals or tasks are not challenging, these students will likely lose their interest in the work and talent loss may be more likely. Torrance (1993) describes as “Beyonders” individuals who demonstrate outstanding creative achievement. In a 30-year follow-up study of creative

Affective and Intrapersonal Attributes and Talent Development  •  75 achievement he presented the top 10 characteristics that identify Beyonders: (1) delight in deep thinking, (2) tolerance of mistakes, (3) love of one’s work, (4) clear purpose, (5) enjoying one’s work, (6) feeling comfortable as a minority of one, (7) being different, (8) not being well-rounded, (9) sense of mission, and (10) courage to be creative. Tolerance was listed as the second entity that identified creative achievers. Acknowledging and accepting mistakes is difficult for many people, but when individuals tolerate mistakes, learn from mistakes, and commit to work, positive outcomes are more likely than not. Waldrop (1990) suggests “affective education” be provided for creative young children having conflict with teachers and peers due to high energy levels, low tolerance, sensitivity, and perfectionism. Waldrop outlines three levels to focus on in affective education: (1) the routine activities of the student’s encounter with the school environment; (2) the blending of affective and cognitive objectives in the curriculum; and (3) the pursuit of affective goals independent of the curriculum. Understanding these characteristics and providing affective education for students having difficulties in school will help students stay on a proper developmental trajectory. Risk-taking Taking risks means taking chances, trying new approaches when the consequences or outcomes are not predictable. Neihart (1999b) asserts that risk-taking is an important skill for gifted children to acquire; inability to take risks may compromise their potential to be highly successful or creative. Gifted children, especially those who adopt performance goal orientation, are likely not to take on the risk of challenging tasks when they are not sure they will win against their peers. Some gifted students define success as getting a high grade; these students will likely choose easy work over challenging work that might require higher-order thinking and creativity to secure the high grade, thus closing down opportunities for in-depth learning. Creativity and risk-taking are closely related. Creative risk-takers are not only tolerant of uncertainty of consequences, but also risk other elements that induce creative thinking and creative production. They elicit and release psychological and emotional conflicts from childhood in their creative endeavor or take risks challenging conventions and status quo (Maddi, 1975). Highly creative individuals, compared with highly intellectual ones, are more curious and enjoy risks. Wickes and Ward (2006) found that gifted students perceive risk-taking as an important component of their own creativity and also observed that beliefs about risk-taking and creative behaviors are positively related. These findings encourage us to suggest that instructions for healthy risk-taking would be

76  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development beneficial to gifted children. Neihart (1999b) provides six steps to systematic risk-taking: (1) understand the benefits of systematic risk-taking; (2) selfassess initial risk-taking categories; (3) identify personal needs; (4) determine a risk to take; (5) take the risk; and (6) process the risk experience. The outcomes of risk-taking experiences can be increased confidence about one’s ability to take on a challenge, increased sense of control in life, enhanced skills for managing anxiety and fear of failure, increased opportunities to practice important decision-making, and increased motivation to develop the habit of taking planned risks (Bland, Sowa, & Callahan, 1994; Neihart, 1999b). Willingness to take risks is an important element in producing novelty items. Work places and communities often provide opportunities for risk-taking but if individuals do not take the opportunity, there will be less creative productivity even if they are highly intellectual and knowledgeable. One should also assess and determine when to stop if there seems to be no end in sight and when to pack up and move on, otherwise, risk-taking combined with stubbornness will likely lead to destruction. Education to increase healthy risk-taking contributes to talent development.

Preventing talent loss Feldhusen (1995a) states that the development of human talents is a process carried out not only in schools but also in many places and under diverse circumstances. Parents, teachers, and society all have some responsibility in the process. Nevertheless, and most important, it is a responsibility of the gifted and talented students to recognize and nurture their own potential talents. The current chapter has dealt with various affective and intrapersonal characteristics related to giftedness, creativity, talent development, and talent loss. The impact of affect on human development is pervasive. Children who are maladjusted and do not have surrounding environments that support and lead them in the right direction are those in danger of talent loss. We provide a few suggestions to help educators and parents recognize and understand the importance of these characteristics in the developmental process and prepare to assist children who are in need of help in these domains. Recognize affective characteristics of creative children and support their talent development Creative students tend to annoy teachers, expressing various experimental ideas that seem wild and which challenge the status quo. Negative reactions received by creative students from teachers and at times from their peers and parents are not unusual. Parents and teachers, who see creative behaviors as

Affective and Intrapersonal Attributes and Talent Development  •  77 inconvenient or as management problems, may respond to them by harsh discipline or punishment that discourages creativity in children. Peer pressure is not to be taken lightly either. Teachers who themselves have a creative attitude toward life tend to understand students’ creative behaviors, are able to foster creativity, and help children realize their potential. Teachers and parents should make an effort to learn about creativity. Wittingly or unwittingly, they might cause cognitive and psychological damages to creative students instead of supporting talent development. Recognize and provide support to isolated students Isolation or loneliness is sometimes a problem for both intellectually and creatively gifted students. Providing opportunities for these children to be with peers who are of a similar level of intellectual capacity or creative inclination is something teachers and counselors can do. Gifted students can be bullied or ridiculed in some classrooms. Teachers should strive to prevent these deleterious behaviors from happening and help create a culture in which all individuals are accepted. Creative students may need extra help. Because they tend to produce unique and noble ideas, which at times are viewed as strange, finding someone who would be tolerant or interested in listening to them may not be an easy task. High school students are also keen to maintain their images; thus, they might give up producing and pursuing creative ideas at the expense of fulfilling their desire to belong. The astute and judicious evaluation of the behaviors of these children by teachers can create an environment in which the talent of these children can thrive rather than be lost. Various approaches to increase independence in students The following classroom activities might increase student independence and autonomy. Help students: select their own topics for assignments or projects; select their own class activities; establish their own goals in a self-selected interest area (e.g., for individual projects); plan and manage their project independently; correct their own mistakes; answer questions on their own before solutions are given; set up their own rules for various functions (e.g., projects, activities); work both by themselves and cooperatively; and selfevaluate their own performance. Help students initiate and commit to work Students with intellectual and creative potential can thrive only when they use their abilities. Those who seek safe paths to get high grades or to belong to a group of friends who are not interested in challenging themselves to pursue their interests might lose opportunities to develop their talent. Teachers

78  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development and parents may help students who are afraid to fail in a number of ways: allow children to make errors and do not punish them with low grades or withdrawing privileges as long as they put effort into the work; help build confidence by rewarding ideas and effort; give another chance to learn from mistakes and to present improved work or behaviors. Make efforts to assure that assigned goals or tasks are challenging. It is difficult for gifted students to maintain their commitment if tasks are too easy and require no effort. Help students increase tolerance of their own mistakes Although highly intelligent and creative individuals tend to come up with brilliant or creative ideas, some have very little tolerance for error and sometimes they give up when they find a little mistake. Some students do not commit to projects out of fear of failure, thus risking talent loss. Teachers and parents should present a model of tolerant behaviors by showing tolerance for children’s mistakes and sharing their experiences of failure and success. Provide positive feedback for effort and progress and give opportunities to adjust the process when needed and to experience success of completion. Learn to tolerate ambiguity and to take risk Creative ideas sometimes come suddenly but sometimes slowly, little by little. Inability to tolerate uncertainty will lead individuals to jump to quick conclusions without using time to reflect their intellectual or creative ability. At the beginning of the creative process, things may look uncertain, unpromising, or unsure, but one needs to tolerate the uncertainty and try until ideas begin to improve. When students take risks, ask unusual questions, or present a creative idea, do be careful not to inadvertently dismiss the question. Take sensible risks and take responsibility for actions taken Almost all individuals encounter challenges in their lives. When they take the challenges and overcome them, they become sensible, highly successful risk-takers. Provide challenges for students by creating an environment that requires risk-taking (e.g., finding challenging problems and trying to solve them). When the outcome does not meet the expectation, evaluate and make a decision whether to continue with some adjustment or decide to change the course of action all together. It is important for the gifted to understand that commitment and perseverance are important virtues but that the ability to determine when to continue, change direction, or take a new challenge is also an important human quality.

chapter

7

Biological Attributes and Talent Development

In this chapter, we discuss the relationship of the biological attributes – heredity, sex, and age – to talent development. The effects of cognitive abilities and sex/gender on talent development have received considerable attention in the professional literature of educational psychology and gifted education over the years. By the same token, the relative importance of genetic endowment and environment in human development, labeled by Francis Galton (1874) as the nature–nurture issue, has been debated since the early nineteenth century. Because technological developments make it possible to examine biological processes more closely, their effects are a topic of growing interest in many fields including giftedness, talent, and creativity (e.g., Delisle, 2003). Although the gifted field no longer subscribes to the “either nature or nurture” conceptualization (Feldhusen, 1994), the degree of impact of the two and their role in talent development model is still discussed (e.g., Gagné, 2005). Simonton’s (1999) seminal article “Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic model” and a recent special issue on the nature–nurture issue in giftedness by Dai and Coleman (2005) are good examples that highlight the continuing controversy on this issue among researchers in giftedness and talent.

80  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development

Genetics and talent development Heredity On the basis of data on physical sizes of human heads and family backgrounds of eminent people, Galton argued for the prevailing impact of nature over nurture on the development of eminence (Galton, 1883). Nowadays, advanced brain scanning devices such as positron emission tomography (PET) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can measure not only the brain size and structure but also how the brain functions in reaction to various stimuli. In the brain of gifted, precocious individuals, there seems to be an unique cortical substrate that mediates their superior intellectual abilities (O’Boyle, & Gill, 1998). Delisle (2003) reported a correlation between brain size and IQ of .45, supporting Galton’s age-old observations. However, the moderate correlation also means that there are determinants of talent development other than heredity. Delisle (2003) cited other evidence of the impact of nature on giftedness such as event-related perceptions (ERPs) as a measure of speech perception; auditory ERPs recorded within 36 hours of birth can predict the reading performance of children 8 years later (Molfese & Molfese, 1997). Studies of adoptive children and identical twins reared apart have consistently shown the impact of nature on human development. Identical twins reared in separate environments tend to become more similar with age, and adoptive children reared separately resemble their biological siblings whom they have never met (Plomin, 1990; Scarr & McCartney, 1983). Gottfredson (2003) demonstrated that the impact of nature on intelligence increases with age, from 20 percent in infancy, to 60 percent by adolescence, to 80 percent by adulthood. Also, the quantitative trait loci associated with gifted-level general intelligence (“g” factor) is traceable in human chromosomes (Chorney, Seese, Owen, Daniels, McGuffin, Tompson, Detterman, Benbow, Lubinski, Eley, & Plomin, 1998). This evidence seems to support the view that the impact of nature on talent development is not debatable. Genetic factors determine potential strengths in individuals (e.g., intelligence, sensory–motor) and talent emerges as a result of supporting environmental experiences and personal–psychological attributes (motivation, affects, styles). Still remaining is the question of how the gifted potential in children can best be supported by an environment that will help them develop their potential. Impact of heredity on talent development We hear about child geniuses from time to time. Some maintain their genius and grow up to be successful. The violinist Sarah Chang began her violin studies at

Biological Attributes and Talent Development  •  81 age 4 and trained in the Juilliard School of Music. She played violin at concerts as a child and matured into a gifted violinist as an adult. On the other hand, we hear of prodigies who did not continue to perform at a high level as adults. What could be the cause of this talent loss? The family environment in which the potentially gifted child grew up may not have recognized the talent; or the family could not support the child due to financial difficulties. The family may even have interfered with talent development. The promising youngster may have decided not to continue developing the potential, possibly because of the arduous practice that is required for such development or because other activities seemed more interesting. Sometimes the opportunity to develop talent comes only once; at other times, there are continuing possibilities. Many who dropped out of the rigorous training required to realize talent potential disappeared from the public eye. However, their inherited talent is not lost. It is just not fully developed and becomes mediocre. According to Simonton (1999), such talent loss can result from genetically controlled development. Examples could be a child who has potential talent but is also endowed with a gene that causes Asperger’s disorder, attention deficit disorder, or another genetic disorder. According to Wikimedia (n.d.), a genetic disorder (or hereditary disease) is a condition caused by abnormal expression of one or more genes resulting in a clinical phenotype (e.g., Down syndrome, Huntington’s disease). Genetic disorders may be complex or polygenic, that is, disorders of this type are likely associated with the effects of multiple genes in combination with lifestyle and environmental factors (e.g., autism, diabetes). Although complex disorders tend to run in families, they do not have a clear-cut pattern of inheritance. Genetic diseases such as those cited above interfere with education and affect talent development. Most affected are those potential talents in areas that require systematic and intense training and practice such as gymnastics or music. Illness may not have as grave an effect in other areas such as science. Stephen Hawking, well known in the fields of cosmology and quantum gravity, fell ill when he was attending university. Symptoms of the disorder (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) appeared and the final diagnosis was made when he was 21. He is now almost completely paralyzed, talking through a computer system attached to his wheelchair and his glasses. Throughout his 40-year career, he has been extremely productive, representing a genius talent in spite of a disorder. Gagné (1995, 2005) differentiates between gifts and talents and asserts that the starting point of the developmental process is represented by natural abilities in various domains. These abilities appear spontaneously during the early years of children’s development and show individual differences without any clear evidence of any systematic learning, training, or practice.

82  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development Gagné acknowledges the genetic origin of these abilities, at least in part, as well as in other traits such as temperamental dispositions. These hereditary predispositions and acquired styles of behavior (e.g., attitudes and personal characteristics) have a positive impact on talent development by supporting or stimulating development, or a negative impact by slowing down or even blocking development. Psychometric instruments measuring interests, values, or personality used to establish profiles of accomplished individuals (e.g., Cattell & Butcher, 1968; Eysenck, Nias, & Cox, 1982) have provided some evidence of genetic linkages in these scales defining the profiles (e.g., Eysenck, 1995, cited in Simonton, 1999). Interactive influences of heredity and environment How and by how much these endowed abilities and predispositions affect talent development is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. However, it is plausible that some individuals may have considerable advantages for developing talent. Explaining the emergenic model of talent development, Simonton (1999) argues that the impact of innate factors may be correspondingly determined as a whole rather than as isolated parts. If one component is lacking, the talent may not emerge. For example, former United States president Bill Clinton has traits such as verbal ability, assertiveness, attractiveness, and selfconfidence, which are important leadership characteristics. If he lacked, say, self-confidence, he might have not risen to the presidency. Explaining the epigenetic model, Simonton (1999) maintains that traits may have a genetic foundation, but it does not mean that the traits appear simultaneously. Rather many traits take years to emerge. The examples of the impact of nature on intellectual ability given earlier (i.e., increased impact with age) (e.g., McGue, Bouchard, Iacono, & Lykken, 1993) are a consequence of the epigenetic progression shown even after the impact of environment has increased when one becomes older. Even the differential timing of the developmental events often has a genetic component (Bouchard, 1995; Plomin, 1986). Heredity determines individual differences to some extent, affecting not only the final manifestation of an attribute but also the developmental trajectory by which that attribute emerges, especially during the transition from early to middle childhood (Fulker, Cherny, & Cardon, 1993). In summary, the evidence from various types of data (psychometric, neurological) on the impact of genetics on giftedness and talent indicates that heredity plays an important role in the production of talent. On the other hand, evidence also suggests the strong impact of environment on talent development. Whereas some aspects of biology are difficult to change, others are more malleable to environmental influences (Ericsson, Nandagonal, & Roring, 2005). For example, a musician’s brain adapts and changes structurally and functionally with his or her cognitive development (Schlaug, 2001).

Biological Attributes and Talent Development  •  83 The average height of a nation’s children changes through environmental intervention (children of a new generation in a country may eat better or more food), although it would take decades to see the noticeable change. Thus, nature and nurture work together in their contribution to talent development. To optimize talent development, we must understand more about biological and environmental requirements in each domain. Understanding biology for improving teaching and learning Various efforts have already taken place. For instance, based on research findings in cognitive neuroscience and work on the involvement of the right and left cerebral brain hemispheres during information processing, O’Boyle and Gill (1998) suggest what might work for teaching gifted students. The utilization of classroom techniques that appeal to a gifted learning style may be a good way to intervene in classroom instruction. For example, information about the specialized contributions of the right and left hemispheres to skill acquisitions can be utilized when preparing instruction for gifted students. With advanced technology (see Chapter 11) and further neuroscientific research, it might not be too long before we see how reading or mathematics can be taught more effectively by understanding brain function. As educators, we are aware that the learning environment affects human development. High-quality instruction with an appropriate level of content along with skillful delivery and classroom management contributes to learning and development. It is, however, also important to understand that there are individuals with special strengths and weaknesses, and it is the teacher’s responsibility to identify and place learners in the type and level of instruction that is most beneficial for them. More research is still needed to provide accurate and succinct lists of qualities and manifestations of potential talent in each domain for teachers to use in their classrooms. We look forward to research and practical information becoming available from behavioral genetics, ecological genetics, neurosciences, psychology, and gifted education to help reach this goal.

Sex and age: academic, motivational, and emotional characteristics Most research and literature that have examined sex differences have used the words sex and gender interchangeably. The two words are usually not distinguished to implicate the biological and social connotation of sex and gender, respectively. Thus, this section includes gender or sex differences and age differences in comparing high and low achievers or gifted and averageability students. Many of these differences are results of interaction effects between environmental and biological influences. Even if we discuss group

84  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development differences (i.e., gender and age level differences), readers are again reminded that a great many individual differences exist within each gender and each age level. We discuss gender/sex and age differences in three areas – academic, motivational, and emotional characteristics. Academic characteristics Gender differences exist in various education variables. The differences may be partly attributable to social or gender-role stereotypes (e.g., math is for boys; girls are good at language arts), prolonging gender differences in educational outcomes. Although the gap in academic achievement test scores across gender has been decreasing in the regular student population, the gender gap still exists among the top 10 to 20 percent of high performers (Callahan & Reis, 1996). Males are better at quantitatively oriented subject matters and females choose subjects that are considered less challenging such as language arts (Callahan & Reis, 1996; Lubinski, Benbow, & Sanders, 1993). Gifted females are more influenced by social pressures than gifted males in their choice of subject matter, are exposed to fewer adult role models, and receive much less early practice in sciences (Heller & Ziegler, 1996). Girls often think that they must decide between academic subjects and what is valued socially (Noble & Smyth, 1995). Females identified as gifted fail to actualize their potential because they hide their high ability in order to socialize with their peers. This is often a priority for many adolescent females (Bilsker, Schiedel, & Marcia, 1988). Teachers and parents make little effort to change the situation, possibly because they do not expect girls to excel, particularly in mathematics and the sciences (Siegel & Shaughnessy, 1991). Parents interact with and treat young children differently based on gender (Bem, 1981; Markus & Oyseman, 1989). Parents appear to favor and support young boys’ interest and attitude toward science and mathematics (Kahle, 1990), possibly encouraging and providing more opportunities for the formation of interest and aptitudes in those subjects (e.g., sending boys to math camps more so than girls). Evidence of the negative impact of parental and teacher expectations and attitudes toward children, as well as media influences on females’ development has been provided even in recent years (e.g., Noble, Subbotnik, & Arnold, 1999; Pipher, 1994; Wilgosh, 2001). Thus, corrective actions are needed to change these practices. Among underachieving youngsters there are more academically gifted girls than boys (Nolden & Sedlacek, 1997; Reis & Dobyns, 1991). Although about half of the students at the elementary level identified as highly able are girls (Noble, 1987), by junior high school, the number of girls so identified declines (Dunne & Rose, 1989; Sadker & Sadker, 1994). The differences in attitudes toward science, participation in science, and science-related experiences are

Biological Attributes and Talent Development  •  85 noticeably different between high-ability females and high-ability males, favoring males (Farenga & Joyce, 1998, 2000). Not surprisingly, when the intended majors of college-bound seniors were examined in 1998, males were three to four times more likely to pursue a degree in physical science, computer science, mathematics or engineering than females, while females selected health professions or biological sciences more than males. This trend continued in 2005 and 2006, although females took more advanced mathematics courses in high school (algebra, geometry, trigonometry, precalculus, AP/Honors courses) than males. Male students still scored higher in SAT mathematics, and the intended college majors in mathematics, physical sciences, engineering, and computer sciences showed a wide gender gap, with males showing higher percentages than females (College Board, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c). The cultural gender effects on attitudes toward sciences effectively excluded gifted females from colleges and academic opportunities (Kerr, 2000). On the other hand, the results of analyses across hundreds of studies have shown that gender differences in mathematics and language abilities are “so small as to be virtually non-existent for all practical purposes” (Golombok & Fivush, 1994, p. 177); the measurable sex differences in aptitude are due to “a complex interaction between small biological differences and larger gender differences in socialization experiences” (p. 176). In mathematics specifically, research findings on gender differences at the elementary and secondary levels vary widely, from a significant gender difference favoring males (Cahan & Ganor, 1995; Seegers & Boekaerts, 1996) to no significant difference (Caporrimo, 1990; Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990; Senk & Usiskin, 1983). At the college level, some studies have shown a lack of significant relationship between gender and mathematical ability (Cooper & Robinson, 1989; Hong & Karstensson, 2002). In an international review of research on gender differences in math and sciences, Heller and Ziegler (1996) failed to find any reliable evidence that girls are inherently less able than boys. As discussed above, however, adolescents generally select courses that follow gender stereotypes, with males generally preferring mathematics and science, even if there is no sizable sex differences in their aptitude (Wilson, Stocking, & Goldsten, 1994). In reviewing teachers’ instructional behaviors (Siegle & Powell, 2004), it has been observed that teachers spend more time interacting with male students and face males more often when talking to the class (Mann, 1994; Sadker & Sadker, 1994). Teachers give male students more detailed instructions than they do females (Olivers & Rosenthal, 1992). By contrast, Siegle and Powell (2004) found that teachers did not differ in their ratings of mathematics and reading across gender, suggesting that the emphasis on equal opportunity regardless of gender may be starting to show its impact.

86  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development We hope that researchers continue to make efforts to understand why gender stereotypes persist in perception of academic behaviors, what specific approaches are effective in removing stereotypes, and how to implement more effective approaches to narrow the gap in the current decade. Motivational characteristics Gender differences in motivation change with age. At the elementary school level, gender differences are not found in motivation and perceived selfconfidence (Vallerand, Gagné, Senécal, & Pelletier, 1994). In junior high school, females in general report higher motivation than males (TallentRunnels, Olivárez, Lotven, Walsh, Gray, & Irons, 1994). In high schools, males report stronger self-efficacy than females in mathematics (Junge & Dretzke, 1995; Malpass, O’Neil, & Hocevar, 1999), whereas females report stronger self-efficacy expectations in areas that involve stereotypical female activities. Academically gifted females, compared with academically gifted male students, report expending more effort on general tasks (e.g., working as hard as possible on all tasks) as well as on mathematics (e.g., putting forth best efforts when solving mathematics problems) (Hong & Aqui, 2004). These studies indicate that gender differences in motivation can be complex depending on the type of giftedness (creatively or analytically gifted). The gender difference found among academically gifted students indicates a tendency of female adolescents to meticulously examine their work even when they achieve highly in school mathematics. On the other hand, male high achievers might believe that they can do well in school mathematics without exerting much effort. Interestingly, however, both male and female “creatively” talented students (measured by out-of-school activities and accomplishment) reported high levels of effort in general as well as in mathematics, possibly because out-of-school activities are chosen based on their own interest and require a higher level of commitment and sustained effort to excel (Hong & Aqui, 2004). Studies examining gender differences in self-regulation are relatively few. Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) observed that females demonstrate greater use of monitoring, environmental structuring, goal setting, and planning, but at the same time report lower self-efficacy than males. Females also demonstrate a significantly stronger mastery orientation, although no difference is found for performance orientation (Ablard & Lipschultz, 1998). Further, females’ overall measure of self-regulated learning is higher than that of males, and females utilize strategies that optimize the immediate environment and personal regulation. Gender differences are observed in valuing certain subject matter areas. Research findings have been consistent in most areas except for mathematics. Male students believe sports to be more useful and important than do females,

Biological Attributes and Talent Development  •  87 whereas females believe to be reading and instrumental music are more useful and important than do males (Wigfield, Eccles, Yoon, Harold, Arbreton, Freedman-Doan, & Blumenfeld, 1997). Females have higher interest in learning language than do males (Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993; Watt, 2004). Findings on mathematics vary, however. In some studies male and female students are similar in their ratings of either intrinsic or utility value regarding mathematics (e.g., Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993). In other studies, males report higher intrinsic value in mathematics (Siann, Lightbody, Stocks, & Walsh, 1996; Watt, 2004) or score higher on utility value than do female students (Forgasz, 1995). Overall, females in general seem to use more self-regulated approaches in learning and espouse more desirable goal orientation than males. One would expect that these desirable traits would translate into academic outcome. However, gender discrepancies in achievement and aspiration do not support female superiority and, in fact, males are still favored in sciences. This partly indicates that there are other significant factors that influence female students’ thinking that impedes their performance. Social expectation and gender-role socialization may explain some of these results. Why is females’ self-efficacy low even when they are mastery-learning oriented? Teachers and parents should help deter the influence of stereotypes. Age differences are found in motivational regulation, showing declines in older students. Effort attributions for academic achievement decrease in the middle level over grades 5 through 8 (Moely, Obach, Cassell, & Tonglet, 1995). Persistence level also declines from grade 5 to grade 8 in homework (Hong & Milgram, 2000). When self-regulation and motivation in homework were studied in Chinese students, the overall perceived self-regulation in homework declined from middle school to high school (Hong, Peng, & Rowell, 2006). Older Chinese students perceived homework as less useful, enjoyed it less, expended less effort, persisted less when they encountered homework difficulties, and perceived that they engaged in planning and self-checking less than did younger students. These findings replicate previous research that found a similar pattern of declines in valuing school work in general (e.g., Lepper, Sethi, Dialdin, Drake, 1997; Wigfield, Eccles, Yoon, Harold, Arbreton, Freedman-Doan, & Blumenfeld, 1997). This negative trend is also manifested in students’ motivation about tests. Older students value testing less than younger students, and older students disagree more than younger students that test scores differentiate good students from poor students (Paris, Lawton, & Turner, 1991). In addition, more older than younger students believe that test results do not have immediate or remote consequences and perceive tests as less valid or less important (Hong & Peng, 2006; Urdan & Davis, 1998). The decline of motivation with age is of serious concern, especially as the trend seems to be prevalent across nations. Educators need to take a hard look

88  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development at the education system. Is it time to undergo another education reform? What might be able to actually change this trend? Although these questions have no immediate answers, we must all be aware and beware of these problems and seek strong leadership that can lead the effort to make changes in education of all children and eventually to prevent talent loss. Emotional characteristics The importance of self-esteem for adolescent females cannot be overemphasized. Girls, especially white and Hispanic females, exhibit a precipitous drop in self-esteem between elementary and high school. While male adolescents also show a decline, it is not nearly as dramatic (American Association of University Women, 1991). Gifted girls’ perceived confidence declines progressively from elementary grades through high school, especially those who suffer from perfectionism as they grow older. This, in turn, affects their emotions negatively, with some gifted female students showing symptoms such as depression and anxiety (Kline & Short, 1991a). Gender differences in test anxiety persist, with females in general reporting higher anxiety than males (Benson, Bandatos, & Hutchinson, 1994; Lussier, 1996). In a study of high school science students, males reported similar levels of worry and emotionality, whereas females demonstrated disproportionately high levels of worry anxiety (Williams, 1996). When gifted students were compared with non-gifted students, gifted males were less worried than gifted females (Malpass, O’Neil, & Hocevar, 1999). Gifted males show a different trajectory in their social and emotional development than gifted females. In their early schooling years, they are likely to have lower self-perception in academic competence than gifted females (Kline & Short, 1991b). Most males might have been raised to be aggressive and self-reliant at home. The predominance of female teachers, especially those who demand conformity and obedience from students, may be the reason for males having lower self-perceptions. In junior high school, female students report higher self-perceptions in general than males (TallentRunnels, Olivárez, Lotven, Walsh, Gray, & Irons 1994). Kline and Short (1991b) indicated that hopelessness and discouragement among male students peak at junior high school age, and the pattern changes in high school, when they focus on career choice. In general, girls – gifted and non-gifted – show more emotional difficulties. Males, on the other hand, seem to improve later in their school years, even in those areas in which they started with difficulties (e.g., self-esteem). The same questions that we had about academic and motivational characteristics above still remain: why are females having more difficulties than males in school? The academic, motivational, and emotional factors that cause problems

Biological Attributes and Talent Development  •  89 experienced by many female students, might come from common sources. Continued research is needed to determine these sources. Educators and parents should be aware and make efforts to improve these difficulties.

Preventing talent loss Some educators will not see the discussion about nature–nurture as useful because one cannot do much about heredity. However, knowledge about the influence of the nature–nurture interaction on talent development is helpful, and educators and teachers should acquire it and use it in educating youngsters. Gender differences are pervasive, although there are signs of the gap narrowing in some areas. The trend of age differences, especially in the decline of motivation, is troubling. Here are some suggestions for preventing talent loss. Continue researching and understanding the effects of the nature–nurture relationship on human development Talent development occurs in a complex manner. Researchers should continuously study which biological and environmental factors are most influential in the development of talent in various domains. As Simonton (1999) asserts, a complete picture of talent development demands that the effects of nature be integrated with the effects of nurture. Educators and parents should pay attention to new information for continuous understanding of the inner workings of these influences and utilize the knowledge in helping children in school and at home to maximize their development. Focus on environmental support for talent development Gaining knowledge of the nature–nurture phenomenon is useful; however, until research and technology together produce easy-to-use curricular materials, educators must focus more on effective nurturing. Providing a nurturing educational environment and using effective educational strategies should be high priority for educators and parents in order to foster potential talents. Keep in mind that biological studies (e.g., neuroscience) provide tangible facts that could be helpful for understanding gifted behaviors and making the required accommodations to foster the development of gifted children. Help female students and find role models for them Teachers and parents should be aware that gifted female students who are interested in sciences may be pressured socially by their female peers not to

90  •  Personal–Psychological Attributes and Talent Development pursue this interest. When this phenomenon is detected, teachers and parents should encourage gifted girls to pursue the sciences by linking them to a mentor. Female science teachers may serve as role models. Alter stereotypes The gender gap in science and mathematics persisits in gifted students. Teachers and parents should make efforts to maintain vigilance to assure that perceptions and expectations determined by gender do not become a factor influencing the career choice of gifted girls. Unless adults alter stereotypes, it would be difficult to prevent loss of female talents in sciences. There are other Madame Marie Curies out there. Monitor teaching behavior Teachers should be more self-aware about their classroom behaviors (e.g., spending more time interacting with boys). Although there may be good reasons for this trend, for example boys tend to be more disruptive in class and thus need more attention, teachers need to monitor their unintended biases and treat both boys and girls fairly, giving equitable learning opportunities. Be aware of pattern of gender differences As shown in studies of motivation, gender differences are not consistent across different types of giftedness. Although female academically gifted high school students generally put forth more efforts than gifted males, creatively gifted males’ effort levels are higher than academically gifted students. This is evidence that differences exist between academically and creatively talented students. Teachers should make efforts to adjust their teaching strategies to gender differences in motivation in various types of gifted children. Decline of motivation across age Students’ motivation for school tasks has been shown to decline in older students. This negative trend seems to be ubiquitous across countries. Educators and parents should understand what it means for students to go through the school system having lower interest and seeing less value in learning over time. Curriculum and instruction, school and classroom climate, peer relationships in and out of school, family background, media, social expectations, and other factors might affect this trend of declining motivation. Educators and parents should tackle this problem and do their best to raise the motivation of children in school.

part 4

Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development

chapter

8

Schools

Part of the problem of talent loss or part of the solution?

The Comprehensive Model of Giftedness and Talent postulates the school experience to be one of the major environmental factors that influence the development and degree of realization of potential expert and creative talents. Schools could and should play a major role in preventing talent loss. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that regular schools succeed either in identifying potential giftedness and talent or in contributing to its realization. When interviewed after having achieved eminence in their fields, very few gifted adults mentioned their schools and teachers as important influences in the development of their giftedness (Bloom, 1985). Highly intellectually gifted young people, selected from the entire population of high school seniors in Israel for a special program, were asked about their experience in special education programs during their elementary or high school years. Surprisingly, only half of these people had been identified as gifted in their early school years (Gabbay, 1998; Milgram & Hong, 1999a). This finding highlights the problematic approaches used to identify gifted potential for participation in the special programs offered by schools. Very recently, VanTassel-Baska (2006) reported the results of seven gifted program evaluation studies conducted in 20 different school districts. She suggests that the field of gifted education may be vulnerable to losing

94  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development its infrastructure at local levels if enhanced program development in key areas does not occur over the next few years. Attention to various areas of program development including identification, curriculum, program design, staff development, parental involvement, and special counseling needs is called for. Assessment and evaluation are required to improve the quality of gifted programs. Knowledge exists about effective approaches and programs; however, its value ultimately depends upon whether or not this knowledge is used properly in schools. The goal of this chapter is to bring evidence-based information on each of these important topics in a concentrated form to those who can use it to improve gifted education.

Assessment and identification The policies and procedures used for identification of gifted students are fundamentally important in gifted education because they reflect the school’s definition of “what” giftedness is and “who” receives special services. The transition from unidimensional (Terman, 1925) to multidimensional conceptualizations of giftedness (e.g., Marland, 1972; Renzulli, 1986) has had some impact on the field of gifted education. There has been a shift in policy from identifying youngsters with high intellectual ability to discovering and providing special education opportunities to young people with a wide variety of specific talents. Two special issues of Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education (1995, Volume 18, No. 2, and 2000, Volume 22, No. 2), the first edited by Feldhusen (1995b) and the second by Milgram (2000), were devoted entirely to talent development as the new direction in gifted education. These issues gave recognized national and international authorities in the field the opportunity to support this view. One would have expected this policy change to have resulted in program changes by now. Unfortunately, the reality observed in schools is far from what we hoped. Procedures currently used for identification of gifted and talented students In this section we summarize the procedures most frequently used for the identification of students with potential talents. In the next section we will suggest alternative approaches that might improve these procedures. Issues related to using cognitive ability tests One reason for the failure of schools to identify potentially talented learners may be the heavy emphasis on IQ scores and grades to reflect school achievement that most school districts use in the process of screening and selecting participants for special educational programs. This emphasis continues despite continual findings over the years that attest to the

Schools  •  95 limitations of such an approach. IQ-based scores or other cognitive ability tests provide information about the individual’s analytical-thinking abilities. Although this is very valuable information, when used by itself, it is not the best identification tool for assessing multidimensional talent potential (e.g., leadership; performing arts). Issues related to using standardized achievement tests School achievement is frequently assessed by grades on classroom performance or standardized achievement test scores (e.g., the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, the California Achievement Tests, the Terra Nova). The major problem in using one of these standardized tests in the identification process is that scores may have low validity because they do not reflect what students learned in the classroom. As with cognitive ability tests, standardized tests are heavily verbally loaded. Heavy reliance on standardized test scores as the initial screening instrument in the identification procedure will effectively eliminate many potentially gifted and talented learners. Such a procedure might well exclude students from rural, inner-city, or economically disadvantaged backgrounds, minority students, and those who are culturally and ethnically different from the mainstream gifted population (Aamidor, 2005; Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006; VanTassel-Baska, 1995). Issues related to teacher nomination Teacher nomination is another frequently used identification tool (Coleman & Gallagher, 1995) along with standardized tests. Teacher nomination has been criticized because it is used frequently as a gateway to overcome before consideration for additional testing and selection for gifted programs (Miller, 2005). Teachers’ implicit theory of giftedness might prevent them from identifying students who are potentially gifted. For example, teachers may have a bias against certain behaviors often characteristic of students with creative potential (e.g., challenging status quo, unusual questions). Some studies of teacher nomination of gifted students have yielded the finding that the accuracy of identification is poor (Ashman & Vukelich, 1983). Problematic aspects of teacher nominations identified are: nominations are determined primarily by students’ performance in class, class attendance, or conformity to teachers’ demands and expectations in the classroom (Hadaway & Marek-Schroer, 1992); nomination pays little attention to creativity, leadership, and motor skills (Hunsaker, Finley, & Frank, 1997); and classroom teachers are more inclined than gifted specialists to focus on student weaknesses, rather than student strengths (Siegle & Powell, 2004). On the other hand, some studies support the value of teacher nominations. Gagné (1994) found that teacher nominations were as effective as most other sources of information. According to Worrell and Schaefer (2004), the inaccuracy

96  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development of teacher nomination was due to the way it was calculated. That is, many of the rating scales used were not based on actual student behavior. Instead, teachers were required to make inferences about what gifted students are like. When teachers are provided with specific criteria, with clearly spelled out characteristics to be used for nomination, the nominations became more accurate (Kolo, 1999). Teachers should be encouraged to use multiple sources for their nominations and to go beyond standardized test scores and course grades. They could use student portfolios (Renzulli & Reis, 1998; Reyes, Fletcher, & Paez, 1996), observation forms (Passow & Frasier, 1996), and information about student background (e.g., socio-economic status, diversity) in the nomination process. Recommended procedures for identification of gifted and talented students: use of multiple identification measures A number of instruments that assess analytical- and creative-thinking abilities were presented in Chapters 3 and 4. The selection process should begin by using these basic tools, but this should not be the end of the process. Those charged with the responsibility of creating batteries designed to identify potentially gifted and talented children to participate in gifted programs should study available instruments carefully. Then they should select the instruments that provide the best possibility of valid and reliable identification and selection of students who will benefit most from the specific programs being offered. It is not a “one-size-fits-all” operation. The characteristics of the student population plus those of the programs being offered determine the selection of the tools most likely to produce the desired successful identification and selection. Performance and product evaluation The potential problems cited above in using test scores have resulted in calls to use multiple identification tools (e.g., Maker, 1996). Reis (2004) stated that fair identification systems use “multiple assessment measures that respect diversity, accommodate students who develop at different rates, and identify potential as well as demonstrated talent” (p. xii). Potential in creative talent in youth can be assessed by evaluating actual creative performance and products. The evaluation may involve rating scales or checklists relevant to particular domains (e.g., visual arts, performing arts, technology, or leadership) as screening procedures, perhaps by classroom teachers. For example, in efforts to identify potential talent in art, specialized assessment may include assessments by artists or artists/teachers who have expertise in recognizing potential talent in the domain (e.g., Haroutounian, 1995; Uszler, 1992). Haroutounian (1995)

Schools  •  97 suggests that the assessment should include observation of students over a period of time in order to view developing work. Observation by a team of two or three observers is recommended, including at least one art specialist who is acquainted with the purpose and process of talent identification (e.g., ArtsConnection, 1992). A portfolio that contains a student profile is especially useful for identifying students with creative potential. The folio may contain questionnaires, checklists, rating scales, and evidence of performances and products including prizes and awards. The information may be collected from students themselves, teachers, counselors, parents, peers, specialists, and/or mentors. Haensly (1999) suggested that when observing competence in young children, observational methods that extract more information than test scores are better tools for identification. Observation of children in their natural settings in their encounters with peers and significant caregivers, engaged with the objects and events occurring there, would be more accurate than test scores. Activities and accomplishment inventory (AAI; Milgram & Hong, 2002) The AAI assesses the current activities and accomplishment in talent domains and predicts future creative talent (Hong, Milgram, & Whiston, 1993; Milgram & Hong, 1994). Current activities and accomplishment in children and adolescents may represent the beginning stage of creative talent manifestation, thus likely showing mild or moderate level of talent. When the AAI is used in adults, the results would present the accomplishment and realized talent at the time. The AAI should be used in conjunction with other authentic measures; the results found from the AAI assessment could be used to screen candidates for subsequent authentic assessments. The AAI is based upon the earlier work of Milgram (1983, 1990) and has been used in forms adjusted for age with children as young as 7 (Hong, Milgram, & Gorsky, 1995), adolescents who represent a wide range of intellectual abilities (Milgram & Hong, 1994), and highly intellectually gifted young adults (Milgram, Hong, Shavit, & Peled, 1997). These inventories are self-report measures of activities and accomplishments in various specific domains. The activities in which gifted and talented children and youth engage are often highly intellectual in nature and are done to satisfy their own curiosity and interests, rather than to achieve high grades or to satisfy the needs of teachers and parents. We define two distinct categories of leisure activities, non-challenging and challenging. The former are non-intellectual (e.g., watching TV) out-of-school activities. They are passive, repetitive, require little involvement or effort from the person, and are an end in and of themselves. Challenging leisure activities, by contrast, are unusual and of high quality. They are intrinsically motivated, intellectual, and creative endeavors

98  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development (e.g., computer programming, conducting scientific experiments, composing music, writing poetry, organizing peers to advocate social change) that may lead to accomplishments in a specific domain in young people. Challenging leisure activities are pursued actively and enthusiastically, and generally require serious involvement and effort. They are more likely to be stimulating than relaxing. The enjoyment experienced while pursuing challenging leisure activities is viewed not as an end in and of itself, but rather as a means to an end. Challenging leisure activities lead to creative accomplishment, that is, to the generation of unusual and high-quality products in a specific domain. Nonchallenging activities do not. The tenacious pursuit of challenging activities in a specific domain as a child or adolescent may be a good predictor of realworld creative accomplishments in that domain as an adult. Children who spend many hours reading, practicing an instrument, painting, or working in their “laboratories” reflect not only intellectual abilities but task commitment, and other cognitive and personal–social attributes that strongly determine life outcomes. One might argue that leisure activities outside school are more stable and valid indicators of potential talent than IQ scores and school grades. Over the years studies have provided moderate to strong evidence of the construct validity of AAI scores (Hong & Milgram, 1996; Hong, Whiston, & Milgram, 1993). Two longitudinal studies provided evidence of the predictive validity of this instrument – an 18-year follow-up of the students of an entire senior class characterized by a wide range of intellectual abilities (Hong, Milgram, & Whiston, 1993; Milgram & Hong, 1994) and a 13-year follow-up (Milgram, Hong, Shavit, & Peled, 1997) of highly intellectually gifted young people selected from the entire student population of Israel. Both studies demonstrated the efficacy of out-of-school activities and accomplishments as predictors of career choice and accomplishment. In both studies the results demonstrated that the performance of creative leisure activities in adolescence was a better predictor of career choice and accomplishment later in life than intelligence or school grades. Furthermore, there was evidence of a match between the domain of adolescent leisure activities and the domain of adult occupational choice. This match was found in 45 percent of the intellectually gifted who participated in these longitudinal studies. In addition, in both studies, when activities and career choice domains were matched, career achievement was higher than when it was not. Other identification tools Bracken and Brown (2006) propose that the Clinical Assessment of Behavior (CAB; Bracken & Keith, 2004) is another tool that can be used to identify students for gifted and talented programs. This behavior rating scale can be

Schools  •  99 completed by teachers and/or parents for children across a wide range of ages (2 to 18 years), for exceptional children such as those with attention deficit disorder, autistism, mental retardation, and learning disabilities, as well as potentially gifted and talented children. They reported that the gifted and talented have better overall adjustment than non-gifted students as indicated by teacher ratings on the CAB, total scale score (CAB Behavioral Index), and other subscales (e.g., anxiety, depression). Bracken and Brown (2006) assert that the CAB may be useful not only for identifying the gifted and talented, but to better investigate the social and emotional needs of identified students. Some researchers in gifted education stress the importance of including personality characteristics such as motivation and commitment in the identification process (Gottfried & Gottfried, 1996; Renzulli, 1986). Ackerman (1997) proposed that, for gifted adolescents, Dabrowski’s (1964, 1972) overexcitabilities, particularly psychomotor, emotional, and intellectual overexcitabilities, should be considered in the identification process. Lee and Olszewski-Kubilius (2006) recommend parent nomination as a feasible alternative to standardized achievement tests for talented students, especially for those who are not native English speakers or those who would not be identified as gifted using traditional identification tools.

Differentiation of curriculum and instruction One important reason why school districts fail to contribute to the realization of the potential talents in youngsters has to do with the administrative arrangements used to provide special educational programs for them. In the 1970s a multidimensional definition of giftedness was adopted by the United States Office of Education (Marland, 1972). It included children and youth who give evidence of high performance capability in a wide variety of intellectual and creative areas. This definition firmly established gifted learners as similar to the other exceptional learners such as the partially sighted, blind, deaf, learning-disabled, and retarded. In order to maximize their potential achievement in school, they, like other exceptional children, require special education, that is, services or activities in addition to or in place of those generally offered by the school. Despite this lofty goal, the large majority of gifted and talented students across the nation spend all but 2 or 3 hours per week in regular classrooms and do not receive special education services (e.g., Cox, Daniel, & Boston, 1985; Torrance & Sisk, 2001). The recent educational reform movement stressing equity in education has resulted in a reduction in the number of pullout or resource room programs for gifted students, and these youngsters spend even more hours in regular classrooms (Gallagher, 1997). One of the many problems these students

100  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development face is the lack of challenge in the work they are assigned in the classroom (Archambault, Westberg, Brown, Hallmark, Zhang, & Emmons, 1993). In order to meet the widely different needs of gifted and talented students in regular classrooms, the curriculum and instruction needs to be differentiated. Differentiated curriculum Curriculum differentiation means that what is learned in school is modified or tailored to match the specific type and level of cognitive abilities and the unique pattern of abilities of the individual gifted child. In real-world terms this means that, although the gifted learner is learning in a group situation, the material that he/she learns is modified specifically for a particular type and level of abilities. For the most part, gifted learners do not require that the curriculum be adapted for them individually in all school subjects. Most will profit from learning the same curriculum materials as the other learners in the class for most subjects. However, if the curriculum is modified to reflect the specific area and level of ability and interest of the gifted learner, the chances are that his or her achievement will be better than without such modification. It is also reasonable to assume that such differentiation of curriculum will result in stronger motivation to learn and more positive attitudes toward the learning process. Learners may be gifted in specific academic or creative domains. For example, a learner may be gifted in mathematics or in foreign languages but not in other academic subjects. Similarly, a learner’s creative abilities may focus in drama, art, business, or political leadership. A learner may differ from the norm of his/her class not only in kind of specific ability but also in the level at which the giftedness obtains. Despite the recognition by most educators of the desirability of differentiation of curriculum in terms of individual type and level of ability, the implementation of such differentiation remains largely in the realm of an “impossible dream.” The considerable development of technology has made it possible for students and teachers to have access to curriculum materials and resources (see Chapter 11). Television, computers, use of the Internet for distance learning, access to libraries, and email are only examples of how technology can be used to differentiate curriculum. Individualization Individualization of instruction means that the school experience is customized in terms of the unique personal–psychological needs and preferences of the individual gifted child. Teaching strategies can be modified and individualized in terms of the interests and preferences of each learner. In addition, the pace

Schools  •  101 as well as the amount of feedback that the learner receives can all be adjusted for the individual through the use of technology. Individualized programs can be provided via the Internet, compact disk, and a host of other means (e.g., distance education). We have devoted Chapter 11 to describing in detail how technology can be used to develop a wide variety of teaching materials and strategies to individualize instruction. Teaching gifted and talented learners in regular classrooms Although the effects of providing differentiated education to the gifted in the regular classroom have been shown to be positive (e.g., Barnett & Durden, 1993; Gentry & Owen, 1999), modification and differentiation of instructional activities in general classrooms have not been practiced as widely as in specialized gifted programs (e.g., Archambault, Westberg, Brown, Hallmark, Zang, & Emmons, 1993). With many gifted and talented students being educated in regular classrooms, a focus on appropriate instructional practices that go beyond the typical enrichment approach employed in the past is required (Torrance & Sisk, 2001). Regular classrooms: current situation Regular classroom teachers do not find it feasible to modify the curriculum and instructional practices to accommodate the needs of gifted and talented students in their classes (Schumm & Vaughn, 1991). Teachers very infrequently use higher-order thinking questions with these students in their classrooms (Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Slavin, 1993). Although teachers may be willing to provide encouragement and support for the gifted and talented in their classrooms, they are less willing to make specific modifications to their teaching strategies, to use differentiated curricular materials, or to provide a classroom environment specifically adjusted to meet the needs of mainstreamed gifted students. That is, the majority of gifted learners in regular classrooms do not receive challenging material, challenging work, or advanced instruction (Reis, Gubbins, Briggs, Schreiber, Richards, Jacobs, Eckert, & Renzulli, 2004). Even well-meaning teachers find it difficult to organize special experiences for gifted students because they often lack the training, resources, time, and administrative support required to adjust and enrich the regular classroom experience of gifted and talented learners (Gallagher, 1997). Suggested solutions As pullout programs decrease in number, more gifted and talented students are served in regular classrooms. VanTassel-Baska (1995) advocates a more inclusive approach to talent development (an integrated curriculum approach) and the provision of curriculum for all learners at appropriate levels of

102  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development challenge so that talent may be discerned and encouraged from a broader range of students in the classroom. She contends that as an integrated curriculum represents a total curriculum package in an area of learning rather than an add-on curriculum, it provides the needed differentiation within traditional areas of learning for which schools are accountable. She further stresses that this approach is related to a shift of emphasis in the field from the focus on the individual gifted learner to the process of collective talent development for all learners. The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1998) was originally designed for academically gifted students; however, it is currently used to develop gifts and talents of a much wider pool of students. The Total Talent Portfolio, one of the schoolwide enrichment model components, focuses attention on student interests and learning-style preferences. The model can be applied in the regular classroom. It can be combined with enrichment, subject area acceleration, and curriculum compacting and can be used to challenge gifted students in regular classrooms. Enrichment experiences provide gifted students with opportunities to investigate topics of interest in much greater detail than is possible through the standard curriculum. Subject-matter acceleration provides gifted students with learning experiences usually provided to older children (e.g., Gallagher & Gallagher, 1994). Curriculum compacting is an approach for compressing instruction into short time periods and thus speeding up the pace of instruction (Reis & Renzulli, 1992). These approaches have been documented as beneficial to high-ability students, for example enhanced self-esteem, increased decisionmaking skills, and positive academic effects (Bailey, 1992; Renzulli & Reis, 1985; Winebrenner, 2003). Parents also reported positive views on enrichment programs (e.g., Olszewski-Kubilius & Lee, 2004). Need for teacher training As the effectiveness of teaching gifted and talented learners within the framework of regular classrooms is entirely dependent upon regular classroom teachers, the teachers must have in-service training. The need for training has been stressed (VanTassel-Baska, 1995; Westberg. Archambault, Dobyns, & Slavin, 1993). Teacher-consultants (e.g., gifted-education teachers) should be available to cooperate with the regular classroom teacher in meeting the challenge presented by gifted learners in their classrooms. Furthermore, curriculum materials designed for use with gifted students in the classroom must be prepared and made available to the teachers. Reanalysis of the data on grouping (Kulik & Kulik, 1992) indicates that when the curriculum is modified for gifted students, the positive effects of ability grouping for instruction become more prominent. The advantage of ability grouping is greater in homogeneous classes (pullout) than in regular

Schools  •  103 classrooms (e.g., Hong, Greene, & Higgins, 2006). Thus, in-service training should include learning how to use grouping judiciously. It should also include acquiring an understanding of the value of carefully planned teaching strategies and clear goals in the mainstreamed class. Ebmeier, Dyche, Taylor, and Hall (1985) studied the impact of an in-service program in which regular classroom teachers were trained to use curriculum materials with gifted students. The results indicated that the gifted students taught by regular teachers achieved similar cognitive gains to those students taught by gifted specialists. Conclusions Teaching gifted and talented children in regular classrooms has a number of unique advantages that should be considered: 1 As gifted children are rarely gifted equally in all subjects, individualization of instruction offers special education exactly where it is required. This approach can provide for the needs of gifted and talented learners of all types, levels, and ages. Technology can be used to provide an early and an equal opportunity to systematically develop interests, abilities, and talents that diverge from the norm. 2 The methods and materials used by teachers to enrich and/or accelerate the education of children by providing a differentiated curriculum and individualized learning experiences are immediately beneficial to other children in the classroom. The teacher who learns how to individualize instruction for the fast learner is at the same time learning how to best deal with the problems of the slow learner. Teachers cannot be expected to develop the differentiated curriculum materials required to serve the needs of learners who differ widely in type and level of abilities and interests. It must become a major goal of state educational authorities to fund the development of the required materials and to provide the avenues to make them available to regular classroom teachers. Needless to say, it is the vast development in technology that must be harnessed in order to serve the needs of learners with the full range of abilities. 3 Some gifted children are underserved because of where they live. More special education is being provided for children who live in the large urban areas than for those who live in rural areas. Here again, the use of technology to make it feasible to differentiate curriculum and instruction to meet the needs of isolated learners in regular classrooms is one method of redressing this imbalance in opportunities.

104  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development Special replacement programs for gifted and talented children: during the school day Most states in the United States have enacted legislation or published regulations and guidelines designed to provide special education for gifted learners. The exact nature of the services to be provided was not specified by law, but was left, instead, to be decided by local school administrators and school boards. This resulted in the development of a wide variety of alternative programs, with teachers, counselors, and administrators left with the task of selecting the program options that would be offered in their area. No one program option is obviously the most desirable and an individual approach should be used to determine how best to meet the needs of a particular gifted child. In the pages that follow we will summarize the program options that are most frequently offered in school systems. This section is meant to be a source of information to parents and educators who may not be familiar with the large number of alternative educational programs that already exist in gifted education. Special programs offered in and out of school use various instructional approaches. The special education offered to gifted students in any one of the administrative arrangements summarized below may include enrichment, accelerated or advanced instruction, curriculum compacting, or an interdisciplinary approach. For example, acceleration, which provides gifted students with learning experiences usually provided to older children, fast-paced instruction where academic-year courses are condensed into shorter time periods, or advanced placement courses, offering students the opportunity to learn courses that can lead to college credits, might be used more in one setting than in another. However, in principle there is no connection between curriculum, teaching strategies, and any particular administrative arrangement. The administrative arrangements listed below are designed to provide special education for gifted and talented children during the regular school day. These programs replace, for time periods that can range from 1 hour to a full day, the teaching–learning experience of the regular classroom with experiences designed specifically to meet the special needs that result from giftedness. Differentiation of curriculum and individualization of instruction in the regular classroom This option was described in detail in the previous section of this chapter. The regular classroom teacher, in some instances supplemented by advice and support from a teacher with special training in individualized instruction

Schools  •  105 for the gifted, provides for the individual needs of gifted children within the setting of the regular classroom. Special classes: pullout programs Gifted students receive most of their instruction in heterogeneous classrooms and are “pulled out” to study with other gifted children in a special class for a portion of the school day or week. The children may meet with the special education teacher in resource rooms in their own school building, where they are provided with individual and/or small-group instruction, or they may travel by bus to the part-time special class held in a central location. Children may spend from 1 hour to a full day each week in the pullout class. Teachers of these part-time special classes are expected to encourage students to work independently at their own pace and apply hands-on activities and those requiring higher-order thinking processes. These teachers were indeed found to be more enthusiastic about the content they were teaching than were teachers of the regular classroom (Hertzog, 2003; Hong, Greene, & Higgins, 2006). Although teachers of the gifted are expected to incorporate accelerated content and problem-centered curricula more than those of regular students, Avery, VanTassel-Baska, and O’Neil (1997) observed few differences with regards to curricular and instructional strategies. Special classes This is sometimes referred to as the satellite school-within-a-school approach. One or more classes within a regular school are designated for the exclusive purpose of providing special education for children of high intellectual ability and scholastic achievement. These classes are generally full-time at the elementary-school level and similar to special schools in philosophy and practice. They are generally characterized by selective admissions based mainly upon high intelligence test scores and grades. The degree of participation of gifted students with the regular school varies from almost total to nearly none, with the norm being participation in social events and non-academic subjects. At the secondary school level, special classes are frequently offered on a parttime basis. For example, advanced placement and fast-paced classes would fall into this category. Full-time special schools An entire school is designated for the exclusive purpose of providing special education for children of high intellectual ability and scholastic achievement. These schools are usually characterized by selective admissions based mainly

106  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development upon high intelligence, standardized achievement test scores, and grades. Some full-time special schools allow for continuous progression and/or are non-graded. Gifted learners advance as they master curriculum content and skills, and frequently traditional age-grade labels are not used. Full-time specialized school These schools are often referred to as magnet schools. They are designed to offer special opportunities for enrichment and/or acceleration to children of high ability in a specific academic discipline (e.g., mathematics, science, computing) or with special talents (e.g., music, drama, art). These are special, often single-purpose, schools characterized by selective admissions based upon specific criteria. Full- and part-time special schools: residential An entire residential school is designated for the exclusive purpose of providing special education for gifted and/or talented children. This is most commonly found on university campuses during the summer. Home schooling Home schooling has been used by families with gifted children. Rivero (2002) suggests that home schooling environments for gifted learners can be creative, progressive, and self-directed. Reasons for home schooling cited by parents include: schools are unable or unwilling to meet the intellectual needs of highly able or asynchronous learners; some children require a smaller and more comfortable environment in which to develop social and emotional skills; home-based education can address the needs of the whole child and integrate the child’s individual learning style, pace, and rhythm into the curriculum; for exceptional and profoundly gifted children, home schooling is a last resort after families’ other available schooling options have been exhausted without success (Rivero, 2002). Kearney (2005) warns that although home schooling is an excellent alternative for many gifted children, not every parent should consider home schooling for a gifted child. Special supplementary programs for gifted and talented children: outside school and in addition to the school day We next present a summary of special out-of-school programs designed to provide for talent development in a given domain. Special out-of-school programs include weekend and summer programs (either university based

Schools  •  107 or community based) for various subject matters (e.g., mathematics camp, summer intensive physics course), mentoring programs, study-abroad programs, contests and competitions, distance-learning programs, and internship programs (Olszewski-Kublius & Limburg-Weber, 2002). These programs can constitute supportive environments created by peers, teachers, and mentors (Feldman, 1986; VanTassel-Baska, 1995). It is important that gifted individuals be exposed to various opportunities such as those described below. Many eminent adults reported that competition was available for them and it helped them develop their talent (Bloom, 1985). Supplementary educational services such as Saturday or weekend programs or summer programs can foster talent development by providing needed academic challenge (Feldhusen, 1997; Goldstein & Wagner, 1993; Olszewski-Kubilius & Lee, 2004; Renzulli, 1987a; VanTassel-Baska, 1988). Special out-of-school programs can not only enhance gifted students’ selfconfidence, motivation to achieve, and personal responsibility for learning, but also provide social networks that gifted children can benefit from (e.g., instrumental assistance, emotional support, and guidance) (OlszewskiKubilus & Grant, 1996; Olszewski-Kubilus, Grant, & Seibert, 1994). Some of the special out-of-school programs that might offer these opportunities are listed below. Concurrent or dual university enrollment Students who are profoundly gifted in a specific academic discipline, perhaps mathematics or science or a foreign language, are offered the opportunity for radical acceleration in that discipline by means of enrollment in one or more university courses. This system is referred to as dual or concurrent because the students are enrolled in the university part-time while still enrolled full-time in a regular or special class setting. Classes sponsored by universities These are classes offered during afternoon, weekend, summer, or vacation periods. They are designed to provide the opportunity for enrichment and/or acceleration for children of high intellectual ability or scholastic achievement, and/or for children of high ability in a specific academic discipline (e.g., mathematics, science, computing). Classes in public settings Similar to the special classes described above, these classes are also offered during, afternoon, weekend, summer, or vacation periods. Classes are designed

108  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development to provide the opportunity for enrichment and/or acceleration for children of high intellectual ability or scholastic achievement, and/or for children of high ability in a specific discipline. These classes often meet in public schools or other municipal facilities and are under the administrative responsibility of the local school district or the municipality. Internships and mentor programs This is a system of providing practical career and real-world experience in a setting outside the classroom. Internships are domain-specific, careeroriented apprentice experiences in which the learner has the opportunity to receive guidance and supervision as he/she performs specific learning tasks. Mentorship, by contrast, is a more general relationship between a young learner and a wise and trusted friend. It also involves real-world career experience, but may not be limited to specific tasks, subject matter, or situations. The mentor–mentee relationship is more generalized and pervasive. The mentor– intern approach has been cited as particularly promising by Cox, Daniel and Boston (1985). Many highly gifted adults have attributed great importance to mentor influences (Albert & Runco, 1986, 1987; Bloom, 1985; Cox, Daniel, & Boston, 1985). Nevertheless, very little use has actually been made of the approach with the gifted. One of the main reasons the approach, seen as so promising, is actually rarely used in practice is the administrative difficulty of implementing mentor programs. The special contribution of mentor programs to helping disadvantaged or underachieving gifted youngsters realize their potential abilities is discussed in the next chapter.

Special topics Topics relevant for school-related issues in gifted education not included in this chapter are numerous. We include two important issues in this section: gifted with learning disabilities and ability grouping. Gifted with learning disabilities Special populations among the gifted students such as gifted with learning disabilities or gifted with attention deficit disorder require special services that may be provided either within or outside the regular classroom. Dole (2000) states that gifted learners with learning disabilities may have ability in one or more areas, either realized or potential, but also experience specific academic problems as a result of underlying processing deficits. These children also have a paradoxical combination of abilities (Tannenbaum & Baldwin, 1983). For example, they are able to synthesize difficult information or understand

Schools  •  109 complex mathematics concepts while they may be unable to master basic skills, such as spelling simple words or doing basic computations (Silverman, 1989). Often these children receive remediation for basic skills, but not advanced instruction for their giftedness. It is recommended that their identified potential strengths should be developed along with effort to alleviate the effects of their academic deficits (West, 1991). Nielsen and Mortorff-Albert (1989) found that when these learners focused on their strengths, their self-concept scores closely resembled the scores of gifted students. Howard (1994) recommended some instructional strategies that can be used with this population: use of computer technology, mnemonic techniques, graphic organizers, the integrative strategy instruction model, and seminar instruction. Ability grouping Although grouping is something that can be used in any of the approaches discussed in this chapter (except for individualized instruction), due to the controversy surrounding grouping practices, we provide a few research findings. Grouping practices have been controversial as to the relative advantages of grouping gifted and talented students homogeneously or heterogeneously (mixed ability) for learning and achievement (Benbow & Stanley, 1996; Feldhusen & Moon, 1992; Kulik & Kulik, 1997). Mixed-ability grouping provides gifted students with an environment that benefits their social development. Regular students also benefit from the mental stimulation and increased motivation to learn that comes from the association with highability students (Oakes, 1985; Slavin, 1987). There are socialization benefits to both groups from the heterogeneous learning group arrangement (Robinson, 1990; Silverman, 1993a). By contrast, some investigators view homogeneous grouping as providing gifted students with academic, social, and emotional benefits (Feldhusen & Moon, 1992; Kulik & Kulik, 1997). Advocates of homogeneous grouping claim that gifted children must be given opportunities to learn with their intellectual peers to share the benefits of their knowledge (e.g., Davis & Rimm, 1994). Negative experiences in heterogeneous classrooms (e.g., teasing and bullying) can be detrimental to gifted students (Gross, 1989; Moon, Nelson, & Piercy, 1993). Lack of academic challenge can lead them to boredom (Baker, Bridger, & Evans, 1998). Negative experiences such as those mentioned can lead them to feel frustrated, isolated, or depressed (Clasen & Clasen, 1995; Silverman, 1993a). Students’ perceptions of the two types of grouping resulted in mixed findings (Adams-Byers, Whilsell, & Moon, 2004). Students perceived

110  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development homogeneous grouping more positively with respect to academic outcomes (e.g., learn more in the more challenging environment), had mixed feelings about which setting better met their social needs (e.g., enjoyed helping less able students), and valued both having similar peers in homogeneous classes and the social diversity of heterogeneous classes. A few performance goaloriented gifted students preferred heterogeneous classes because they were easier and enabled them to attain a high class ranking with little work. Studies on cooperative learning yielded similar findings with the two grouping types discussed above. The concerns have been that gifted students are likely to feel that the curriculum used in cooperative learning is not challenging enough for them, whereas others contend that cooperative learning environments will help them develop higher self-esteem by being team leaders (e.g., Elmore & Zenus, 1994). Attitudes of gifted students toward school subjects were most positive when cooperative learning was used sparingly (Ramsay & Richards, 1997).

Preventing talent loss We believe that all individuals, young and old, have the ability to learn and actualize their potential. People with high intellectual ability, or with other unique strengths, can develop their potential. How high one can achieve is determined by one’s cognitive abilities and various personal–psychological attributes, along with supportive environment. Unfortunately, high-ability students are often considered as not having any difficulties in developing their gifts and are thought to have capacities to help themselves in all aspects of their lives. However, one can observe and read the pervasive literature of underachievement and of once-promising youngsters with high creative ability being stifled in classrooms. By providing a supportive environment that identifies individual students’ strengths and by placing them in a proper learning environment, schools can help prevent talent loss. Know each child’s strength and entry knowledge and skill level All individuals, including gifted learners, have different strengths in different areas. Flexibility in placing each student in special services, in the provision of curricular materials, and on providing proper levels of challenge will help students remain involved and interested in learning and schooling. On-going assessments of knowledge and skills of gifted individuals are essential for establishing the current status and learning rates for proper instruction. Assessment of interest in subject matter and in life would help educators determine which areas the particular students should pursue to

Schools  •  111 acquire in-depth knowledge. Without assessment at the individual level, one would not be able to set goals. The success rate of any endeavor will increase if teachers understand the individual students’ entry-level knowledge and skills in the domain and are flexible in preparing instructions utilizing various strategies (e.g., flexible grouping). Provide differentiated instruction If schools and districts do not support the differentiation of curriculum and of instruction, it is difficult, if not impossible, for teachers to implement these strategies. Some schools provide multi-age classes based on students’ intellectual abilities. Other schools may focus on individualizing instruction within the regular classroom for students with different levels of strengths. Although teachers may develop their own instructional materials for their classroom teaching, teachers should be provided with proper curricular and instructional materials at the district level. Teacher training is required for gifted education Preservice and in-service teacher training is essential for providing regular classroom teachers with the skills and knowledge required for equipping them for the task of providing special education for gifted and talented learners. Use multiple assessments for identification For identification of the gifted for special services, multiple assessment measures and tools should be utilized to identify different types of potential talents. Difficulties with some types of assessment measures have been discussed (e.g., cognitive ability tests), especially for identifying economically disadvantaged and limited English speakers. Reis (2004) suggests that in the final decision for selecting the gifted for special services, it is the thoughtful judgment of knowledgeable professionals, not cutoff scores, that should guide selection decision. This behooves educators to be knowledgeable about human potential and giftedness and talent. Without proper identification, potential talents will not see the light and talent loss is predictable. Challenging out-of-school activities are essential for talent development Exposure to various activities, programs, and competitions is an avenue for developing potential. Out-of-school activities and accomplishments have been an excellent predictor for future attainment. Thus, teachers, counselors, and parents may encourage students to get involved in challenging activities in the area of their interest to help them develop their potential talent.

chapter

9

School Personnel and Climate

The school and classroom environments are the chief psychological determinants of academic learning and they have a powerful impact on the social and emotional development of learners as well. Students’ perceptions about their classes affect not only their interest and engagement in learning subject matter but also acquisition of essential social skills. School and classroom environments that are friendly and warm as well as challenging will produce learners who are interested in learning, responsible, and respectful of both school personnel and their age peers. This situation bodes well for the future for all students; one can expect that students educated in these environments will become healthy and productive citizens in the future. School environments that are operated by school personnel who are controlling and demand conformity might stifle students’ independence, creativity, and socio-emotional growth. School personnel have a tendency to think that gifted children will succeed without special attention or opportunities. This is not so, and when their needs are not met in school, the result may be boredom, behavioral problems, or disconnection from school (Pfeiffer & Stocking, 2000).

114  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development

Teachers Teachers’ knowledge and beliefs Teachers’ knowledge and beliefs play an important role in their teaching (Borko & Putnam, 1996). Teachers’ own past school experiences are most influential in determining their beliefs and behaviors. When preservice teachers were asked how they would teach a word problem and why they prefer that approach, many of them responded that they teach certain ways because that’s how they were taught to solve word problems. Although some preservice teachers showed conceptual changes after the instruction they received in the course, the findings, in general, indicate that most teachers have implicit theories of teaching and learning and of how students should behave at school even before they begin teaching (Hong, 1998a). Teachers are encouraged to examine their beliefs periodically to understand whether their beliefs and practices match effective instructional theories and approaches and to modify them as necessary. Teachers’ beliefs about learning and gifted learners determine whether teachers can successfully provide learning opportunities to gifted learners. Classroom teachers need to believe that students learn at different rates and possess different types and degrees of abilities, interests, and styles of learning. VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh (2005) stated that teachers who do not have these basic assumptions about student learning may not see the need to differentiate. Teachers’ beliefs about their role should be in line with current learning theories. Teachers of both gifted and regular students need to believe that students can learn independently or in groups without teachers’ direct instruction. Although teachers engage in direct instruction, they should be capable facilitators of learning, encouraging students to be independent, responsible, self-regulated learners. Teachers’ lack of subject knowledge is a critical issue. It is difficult to imagine a teacher teaching mathematics without the necessary knowledge and problem-solving skills of basic mathematics (Hong, 1995a). Although teacher knowledge is important for all students, it becomes critical for teachers working with gifted students due to the precocity of such learners in subject matter content and their superior thinking abilities. Without proper levels of knowledge and skills, teachers working with gifted students cannot provide differentiated curriculum and instruction. Teachers who lack knowledge of the specific subject matter required by gifted students in their class may expand their knowledge base through professional development. If professional development is not readily available, a more immediate solution to this challenge would be to seek assistance from content specialists in the school district, or help gifted students find content mentors (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005).

School Personnel and Climate  •  115 Teachers’ attitude toward creative students and creative instruction Many investigators found that teachers prefer intellectually gifted children who are low in creativity to those who are highly creative and unconventional (e.g., Davis & Rimm, 1994; Rudowicz, 2003). Teachers see creative children as a source of interference and disruption (Scott, 1999). Moreover, energetic and unconventional students may be mistakenly identified as having attention deficit hyperactivity disorder by teachers who desire conformity (Cramond, 1994b). Gifted underachievers are particularly sensitive to teachers who are critical, rigid, officious, and unsympathetic (Fine, 1967; McCoach & Siegle, 2003). Observations of elementary school teachers’ classroom instruction indicated that the majority of teachers do not implement any strategies that foster student creativity, especially in classrooms with high proportions of minority and low-performing students (Schacter, Thum, & Zifkin, 2006). In advocating an innovation-friendly climate in the classroom, Cropley (2006) contends that the climate affects what group members (e.g., peers) regard as normal, how much and what kind of deviation from the normal (novelty) they will tolerate, and what rewards or sanctions they impose on those who introduce novelty (e.g., punishment or reward, ridicule or respect, encouragement or discouragement, high or low status of intellectual). The creativity-facilitating classroom climate involves a general feeling that creative thinkers are respected, students would tolerate new ideas, conformity is not imposed, and diversity in ideas will be encouraged and appreciated. Further, students in this climate are provided with choices, different ideas are accepted, self-confidence is enhanced, and students’ strengths and interests are emphasized (de Souza Fleith, 2000). Stein and Poole (1997) challenge teachers to question their teaching practices and views concerning student learning. They recommend that teachers create the environment to meet gifted individuals’ interests and needs, design curriculum to ensure open-ended activities, and utilize real-life contexts for assessing and reporting learning outcomes. Treffinger (1995) also stresses the importance of establishing a constructive environment for creativity and productivity. In schools with such a climate, both disciplined engagement and creative energy are valued and evident, and students’ accomplishments and success will not be judged by test scores only. Runco (1986) and Runco and Okuda (1991) reported that originality of both gifted and non-gifted students improved after they received explicit instructions to increase creative thinking. Even a simple “be creative” instruction increased performance in creative problem-solving (e.g., Chen, Himsel, Kasof, Greenberger, & Dmitrieva, 2006). By the same token, creativity training techniques are found to increase creative thinking in university students (Cheung, Roskams, & Fisher, 2006). Teacher educators and

116  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development prospective teachers generally value creativity. In light of these findings, one wonders why the topic of creativity is not part of the curriculum in teacher education. Unfortunately, however, efforts to promote the understanding and enhancement of creativity as an important addition to teacher education programs have not been successful (Fasko, 2001). Storm and Storm (2002) recommend teacher training in creativity as a method of schools enhancing creative behavior in students. Teacher attitudes toward highly creative students are influenced by the training they receive and their understanding of creativity. By the same token, training reportedly reduces sex role stereotyping (Murphy, Jenkins-Friedman, & Tollefson, 1984). Teachers with a background in gifted education responded differently to gifted students (Hanninen, 1988). This was attributed to exposure to knowledge of creativity and giftedness as part of their teacher training. In addition, such training helps teachers be more open to creative students as well as allows themselves to learn to be creative.

Counselors Little attention has been devoted to counseling potentially talented children and adolescents when the broad and inclusive definition of talent as presented in this book is adopted. Many people think it unnecessary to consider the counseling needs of gifted children and youth at all. In light of the enormous needs of children disadvantaged in a variety of ways it seems quite unjust to devote effort and budget to counseling the gifted. It is believed by many that these fortunate children excel in school, grow up with few adjustment problems, and achieve academic and vocational success as adults quite naturally. The major goal of this book has been to demonstrate that this is simply not so and that talent loss is a major challenge for parents and educators. Children with potential talents do not automatically realize them as adults. Although estimates among authorities vary as to what proportion of children identified as IQ-based gifted do not realize their potential gifts when they become adults, there is agreement that failure to actualize one’s abilities is a significant problem (Marland, 1972; Tannenbaum, 1983). The estimates, as distressing as they are, are a minimal estimate of the scope of the problem of talent loss. Many highly gifted and talented learners whose abilities are not reflected in IQ scores are unidentified during their school years, are not included in the estimates, and they are even less likely to actualize their potential. This section is devoted to counseling potentially talented children and adolescents. These learners share the same basic guidance needs as other children. They require ongoing developmental guidance and counseling in order to fully realize their abilities. In addition, they differ in the type and level

School Personnel and Climate  •  117 of their analytical and creative cognitive abilities as well as in their personal– psychological and environmental–social characteristics. Accordingly, they require differentiated guidance and personalized counseling. There is a gap between the need for counseling services and research about counseling potentially talented individuals, on the one hand, and the limited availability of such services and knowledge, on the other (Myers & Pace, 1986; Yoo & Moon, 2006). Such services and knowledge could make a major contribution to preventing talent loss. Cognitive–academic needs Counselor involvement in student academic development has often focused on interventions with students whose personal and/or social difficulties interfere with their capacities to perform well academically. At the middle school and high school levels, counselor involvement with course scheduling and testing, both strongly identified with the academic development domain, often constitute a significant portion of counselors’ workload. More recently, however, school counselors have been challenged to broaden their perspectives regarding contributions in the academic development domain (Roels, 1998; Sink & Stroh, 2003). Classroom guidance and individual or small-group counseling activities focused on assisting students to acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed for successful completion of schoolwork can be a relevant component of school counselors’ involvement in student academic development. Specific academic problems that frequently arise with various types of learners (gifted, regular, or students with learning disabilities) can be helped by school counselors. For example, when students are identified by classroom teachers as having chronic homework problems for various reasons, school counselors can provide individual or group counseling to help these students overcome the difficulties (Rowell & Hong, 2002). Gifted learners require knowledge about themselves and about their academic and career opportunities. They require complete and accurate information about options currently available within the school system. Moreover, details about the specific requirements for admission to higher education institutions and positive versus negative features of universities and vocations that they might consider in the future, would be particularly useful. These learners need to understand the overall nature of giftedness and talent in terms of the model of giftedness and talent presented in this book. In addition, they need specific information about their own unique combination of abilities and the implications of these distinctive strengths for academic, personal, and career development.

118  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development Social–emotional needs Guidance should be directed to helping gifted children become aware of their special abilities, feelings, attitudes, values, and interactions with their family, age peers, teachers, and other adults. Gifted students need school counselors who are trained in the social and emotional needs of gifted students and whose schedules reserve time for meeting with these students singly or in small groups to discuss issues unique to their exceptionalities (Adams-Byers, Whitsell, & Moon, 2004). Some personality characteristics that are common to some gifted students, such as perfectionism, sensitivity, intensity, or idealism (Silverman, 1993b; Sowa, McIntire, May, & Bland, 1994), may create difficult situations in traditional school settings. Accordingly, gifted students may develop unique socio-emotional needs and can benefit from differentiated counseling that addresses those needs (Robinson, Reis, Neihart, & Moon, 2002). Bullying (e.g., name-calling, teasing about appearance) is of concern for gifted students in school (Peterson & Ray, 2006). School counselors as well as gifted education and regular classroom teachers should be alert to this kind of bullying, attempt to prevent it, and respond to it when it occurs. Careful scheduling of courses for gifted students is needed so they have opportunities to interact with their intellectual peers as well as students in regular classrooms. In addition, when appropriate, providing classroom teachers with information on the traits and needs of gifted and talented students would be beneficial (Adams-Byers, Whitsell, & Moon, 2004). Yoo and Moon (2006) provided a review of the literature on the characteristics of gifted children that was designed specifically for the use of counselors. Readers are encouraged to read Yoo and Moon (2006) for in-depth understanding and references for further reading. We offer some of the major points of their review. Early childhood One of the distinguishing traits of gifted children in the preschool years is precocious language acquisition, greater self-awareness, and being more socially advanced than their peers. They have cooperative play patterns, select older playmates, and seek the companionship of adults. Giftedness in the early years promotes social–emotional adjustment. However, it also creates differences from peers that can create social–emotional problems in the preschool years. Preadolescence Academic achievement and positive peer relationships can begin to conflict with each other in this period. Some gifted preadolescents adopt egodefense mechanisms and performance goal orientation, and others begin to suppress or hide their giftedness and creativity and become underachievers.

School Personnel and Climate  •  119 Gifted preadolescents indicate that they can be hurt by classmates who tease them for being smart, are confused by their abilities, are distressed by high expectations of self and others, and are bored and distracted most of the time in school. They need specialized counseling services to provide them with better understanding of themselves and help them cope with their stressors. By contrast, some researchers report that gifted elementary students have fewer behavior problems than their less gifted peers. They are as well or better adjusted than their age-level peers but may suffer social–emotional distress when placed in inappropriate school environments. Adolescence There are two conflicting views. First, gifted individuals are better adjusted than the less gifted. Cognitive capacities such as adaptive-thinking skills enable them to cope with stressors better, and academically gifted adolescents have fewer emotional problems or maladjustments and higher self-confidence than less gifted adolescents. On the other hand, others find gifted adolescents to be more vulnerable, to face greater risk of socio-emotional problems, and to have higher anxiety levels. Academically gifted adolescents tend to exhibit perfectionism more than their non-gifted peers. Some gifted adolescents exaggerate their similarities to their non-gifted peers in an effort to increase social acceptance in school. The findings of Yoo and Moon (2006) on parental views of counseling needs indicate that for all age groups, parents perceive their child’s greatest counseling need to be educational planning. For children older than six, parents add psycho-social concerns as important counseling needs. For adolescents, career planning is foremost in parents’ view. This list does not include the difficulties that creative students encounter (see above). Whereas school counselors should be aware of these common attributes, unique characteristics of individuals should be assessed, as each child has unique needs for counseling services. Career counseling needs Greene (2003) lists the importance of career counseling in the process of career development. High school and college programs for gifted students, however, focus mainly on addressing their academic needs (Gladieux & Swail, 2000; Peterson, 2000). According to Greene (2003), career counseling helps students reflect about self and choices, restructure their beliefs, and deepen their personalities to answer the “Who am I?” question. Transition and change over time play prominent roles in career development and should also be emphasized in career counseling for gifted and talented students. Although multipotentiality is cited as a primary concern for the gifted and talented in career planning (Clark, 1992; Perrone, 1997), little empirical

120  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development research supports this view. Milgram and Hong (1999b) found that gifted students are more unipotential than multipotential. Achter, Benbow, and Lubinski (1997) also indicated that only 5 percent of the gifted students among their research participants reported multipotentiality. The problem facing gifted students in their career planning may not be multipotentiality, but the lack of decision-making skills (Berger, 1989). Students who work with career counselors, take career exploration courses, and discuss future plans with significant adults are much more likely to identify clear career directions (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). To sum up, counselors need to be aware that many parents of gifted children think that their children need differentiated, professional guidance from counselors with training in working with gifted children, especially in the areas of educational assessment, career counseling, and relationships with peers and family. School counselors are encouraged to seek training to skillfully manage these topics. Adolescents may be a particularly important age group to target for both career counseling and individual/family counseling focused on socio-emotional concerns, such as pressure to meet expectations, a sense of being different, perfectionism, hypersensitivity, low self-esteem, and depression. For gifted students at risk, especially for low-income and culturally diverse youth, Kitano and Lewis (2005) suggest a comprehensive counseling approach. The comprehensive counseling may focus on: enhancing the quality of interactions among various people such as teachers, counselors, parents, relatives, or peers; encouraging a sense of self-efficacy and optimism; validating students’ experiences with bias; and supporting pride in heritage. Students who may possess coping strategies from their past experiences should be provided with the opportunity to share them with other students at risk. Schools need more counseling personnel who are trained in school and guidance counseling as well as career counseling, and this should be assigned high priority.

Preventing talent loss School personnel – teachers, principals, and counselors – can prevent talent loss by creating a warm, supportive, and creative environment in school and classrooms. This should begin with increasing their knowledge about the nature of giftedness and talent and having compassion to help individuals realize their potential.

School Personnel and Climate  •  121 Understand the child It is important to understand the educational system and gifted education programs discussed in this chapter because this will help parents and educators provide an encouraging environment for learners. However, it is more important to understand the personality of each child than to describe changes of programs and organization (Lewin, 1951). Without this basic approach we will not be able to provide the right learning environment for her/him. Climate for learning and creativity It is essential that schools provide the right climate for learning. The leader of the school, the principal, along with school personnel, can play an extremely important role in creating an environment in which high achievement and creativity are valued. Effective principals perceive that they have a passion for work, are independent, set goals and complete them, are original and flexible in problem-solving, and are highly able and motivated (Goertz, 2000). Helping develop these traits in leadership training is critical for improving the quality of schools and students. Need for special understanding of gifted subpopulation Various reasons for academic underachievement exist. Motivation and ability can be thought of immediately. However, other physical and emotional issues might be reasons for students not showing interest and being unable to engage in learning. Gifted students with various disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, vision or hearing impairment, emotional difficulties) contribute to academic underachievement (Moon & Hall, 1998). McCoach and Siegle (2003) recommend that school personnel should screen an underachieving gifted student for a wide variety of physical, mental, or emotional problems before treating the student’s scholastic difficulties as the primary focus. Once educators rule out these problems, they can explore the role that students’ perceptions, attitudes, and motivation play in underachievement. Dole (2000) cited the particular counseling needs for gifted students with learning disabilities. Self-knowledge of strengths and weaknesses is essential for this population. Self-knowledge and selfacceptance help these students not only to develop realistic goals but also to persevere towards fulfilling them (Gerber, Ginsberg, & Reiff, 1992; Miller & Fritz, 1998).

122  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development Promote creativity Students with creative potential seem to encounter more challenges in classrooms due to the characteristic personal attributes associated with being creative. Teachers should continually examine their teaching behaviors to determine whether they are promoting or stifling creativity in children by evaluating both their own ability for creative thinking and, more importantly, their attitude toward creative-thinking behaviors in others. Rejskind (2000) and de Souza Fleith (2000) list a few teaching activities that enhance students’ creativity: (a) ask questions that stimulate creativity; provocative open-ended questions require creative thinking; (b) have students identify or create problems; problem-finding is an important aspect of the creative process; (c) help students develop creativity by allowing time for creativity and rewarding creative effort, ideas, and products; (d) restrain judgment, unnecessary competition, restricted choice, and pressure for conformity; (e) teach creative problem-solving and guide students to apply the skills; studies have shown positive effects of instruction and training in creativity; (f) support the psychological and socio-emotional aspects of creativity; and (h) create classroom and school climates in which novel ideas and creative behaviors are welcome. References for more in-depth reading can be found in de Souza Fleith (2000) and Rejskind (2000) as well as in previous chapters of this book.

chapter

10

Family, Mentors, and Diversity

Environment provides the physical and social conditions that help or hinder an individual’s learning and development. It provides conditions which activate or block creative thinking. Talent emerges when cognitive, personal– psychological, and environmental–social components work together in harmony. In this chapter, we discuss the influence of family, mentors, socioeconomic status, and ethnic background on talent development.

The role of family in talent development The characteristics, composition, and dynamics of the family create a unique environment that has a profound effect on the development of each individual. Much learning takes place within the family setting before a child ever starts school and it continues long after a person is no longer in school. Parents and other family members function as social support networks to provide children with safe space where they can receive unconditional support. Not all families function as a positive influence. Some parents recognize their children’s strengths and support them to the fullest, but other parents, wittingly or unwittingly, limit or even prevent potential talent from developing. Families without sufficient resources may not be able to provide optimal support for talent development, even if they are willing to do so.

124  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development Parents of gifted children are typically more committed than other parents to help with the development of their children’s abilities and potential talents (Bloom, 1985; Terman, 1925). They tend to devote more time to providing a stimulating home environment. They are likely to interact with their children by talking and listening to them, to provide language-rich environments, and to read to them. They more frequently engage children in stimulating, playful, and child-centered interactions that promote high-level thinking than do other parents (Dicicco, 1996; Moss, 1990; Robinson, Lanzi, Weinberg, Ramey, & Ramey, 2002). Family support for cognitive and socio-emotional development of the gifted A nurturing family environment, positive parenting attitudes and beliefs, and parental awareness of children’s preferred style of learning are related to high achievement in schools (Hong & Lee, 2003; Okagaki & Frensch, 1998; Robinson et al., 2000). While mothers of gifted children are more likely to encourage the use of metacognitive strategies, mothers of average-ability children provide more direct solutions and talk more about children’s behavior not related to the task (Moss & Strayer, 1990). However, parents of both gifted and non-gifted girls tend to make little effort to change their perception or expectation that girls cannot excel in hard sciences and mathematics (Jacob & Weisz, 1994; Sadker & Sadker, 1994). When parents become aware that their girls are interested in sciences, they should encourage them to pursue this interest. They should also beware of their gifted girls being pressured socially by their peers not to pursue their interest in science. Parents, along with teachers or counselors, may find a mentor who can help the gifted girl develop her potential in science. Parents of gifted children who provide a supportive environment contribute to the positive emotional and social development of their children. They place high value on mutually supportive relationships and encourage open expression of thoughts and feelings among family members (Cornell & Grossberg, 1987). Higher self-esteem and self-control and lower anxiety in gifted children are related to high levels of cohesiveness and expressiveness and a low level of conflict in the family (Dwairy, 2004). Even parents of gifted children from relatively low-income families demonstrate more supportive child-rearing practices than other low-income families (Robinson et al 2000). Parents of the gifted emphasize respect for their children and encourage their independence (Karnes & Shwedel, 1987). By contrast, Solow (1995) pointed out that many of these parents did not know how to respond to their gifted children’s behavior because they lack a framework for understanding the developmental issues that affect gifted children.

Family, Mentors, and Diversity  •  125 Families of academically versus creatively gifted children Differences exist between the families of academically and of creatively gifted children. Academically gifted children tend to come from cohesive, child-centered families in which strong bonds exist between parents and children, whereas creatively talented children are more likely to come from families where there are tense family relationships, often characterized by unconventional parenting and socialization practices (Olszewski-Kublius, 2000). Surprisingly enough, adverse childhood experiences such as parent loss or poverty can have a positive effect on the development of creative talent. This depends on the investment of creative energy designed to help overcome the effects of the adversity (Simonton, 1999). Parents of highly intelligent children focus on visible qualities such as proper manner, studiousness, and cleanliness, whereas parents of highly creative children focus on qualities such as the child’s openness to experience, values, interests, and enthusiasm (Getzels & Jackson, 1961). The differences in family interaction also reflect the domain in which talent is manifested. For example, creative writers reported having family environments that were far from idyllic but rather unconventional (Piirto, 1998). By contrast, high achievers in the sciences report having remarkably stable and satisfying family situations (Rogers, 1998). In short, characteristics of family environment are manifested differently for each individual. Families have differential effects on the development of different types and levels of talent. These differential effects are the result of the interaction of the child’s abilities, temperament, and personal attributes with various environmental factors. Providing balanced support is probably most useful to the development of gifted children. Parents may maintain support and bonding with children but should also be careful not to become over involved in children’s lives, to give them emotional space, and to allow them to experience and cope with challenges (Pfeiffer & Stocking, 2000; Olszewski-Kublius, 2002). Sibling relationship in families with gifted children Academically gifted students tend to come from families with somewhat fewer siblings and more socio-economic resources, parental time, and educational and psychological resources (Bloom, 1985; Moon, Jurich, & Feldhusen, 1998). The presence of a gifted child, however, can be a potential source of conflicts within the family (Moon, Juric, & Feldhusen, 1998). Gifted children may play a controlling and authoritative role in the family system (Hackney, 1981). They may elicit feelings of inadequacy in the siblings and parents, particularly when

126  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development the parents feel that they themselves are not gifted (Colangelo & Dettmann, 1983; Silverman, 1993c). The relationships between gifted and non-gifted siblings are sometimes a source of difficulty in families. Research has shown inconsistent findings. Peterson (1977) observed increased competitiveness and sibling rivalry in families with a gifted child. Although Cornell and Grossberg (1986) did not find personality adjustment problems among siblings of children attending gifted programs, they observed the potential for adjustment problems in a subgroup of siblings who were perceived as less gifted by their mothers. In regard to self-esteem and self-worth of the siblings, having a gifted sibling in the family does not appear to affect the non-gifted siblings negatively (Li & Adamson, 1995). Another study reported a similar but slightly different result; gifted students were significantly high in academic self-concept but not in general self-esteem (Colangelo & Brower, 1987). Grenier (1985) found gifted children to be more competitive than their non-gifted siblings and that competition inhibited cooperation among siblings. However, Li and Adamson (1995) did not find a difference between these children in competitive or cooperative style of learning. These findings indicate that other family dynamics, particularly parental intervention, influence the interactions of gifted and non-gifted siblings and determine the degree of conflict among them. Parent role in homework One important role for parents of unquestioned significance is their involvement in homework. When students perceive that homework completion will help produce successful learning, they will likely value homework more and be more fully engaged in the task than when they do not. The goals of homework assignments are to enhance and support academic learning and to contribute to the development of academic skills and attributes such as time management and responsibility (e.g., Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001; Warton, 2001; Xu, 2005). Home learning, by means of homework, is affected by factors that are unique to each student. Home environment, family, and friends shape learning conditions under which students engage in homework (e.g., Hong & Milgram, 2000). Homework environment affects homework completion and quality. Parents should realize that accommodating the homework preference styles of their children is worthwhile. It contributes to the academic quality of the homework assignments themselves and it improves their children’s attitudes toward homework and school. Positive homework experiences have been shown to be positively related not only to achievement but also to students’ feelings of self-

Family, Mentors, and Diversity  •  127 efficacy in the use of learning processes (e.g., organizing, monitoring) as well as to students’ perceived responsibility for academic outcomes (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005). Unfortunately, older students value homework less than younger students (Hong, Peng, & Rowell, 2006). This trend is seen in homework attitude toward most school subject matters and across countries. Parents can play a significant role in helping their children complete homework by providing an environment where children can be productive and creative.

The role of mentors in talent development A dictionary definition of mentor is a wise and trusted counselor or teacher or an influential senior sponsor or supporter (dictionary.com, n.d.). The term also came from Greek mythology; in the Odyssey, mentor, a loyal adviser, was entrusted with the care and education of Telemachus. Mentor in gifted education means a respected teacher, counselor, or a person well known in a domain due to high accomplishments (e.g., a creator or an expert), who provides intellectual, motivational, and emotional counsel to another individual. The mentor, ordinarily an adult, acts as a role model to a learner, younger mentee or protégé. Mentor role In the development of potential talent, mentors can play a critical role (Feldman, 1986; Bloom, 1985). There have been some empirical retrospective studies on mentoring, with people reporting positive mentoring experiences (Kaufman, Harrel, Milam, Wolverton, & Miller, 1986; Runions, 1980; Torrance, 1984). There has been some theoretical development in trying to understand and explain the phenomenon of mentoring as well. On the basis of autobiographical material reported by gifted adults who actually realized their potential and interviews with teachers of the gifted, Walters and Gardner (1992) distinguished two types of mentor relationships: focal and crystalizing. Focal relationships are outside the family and slow-developing, and continue over a long period of time. This relationship focuses on the interpersonal and emotional side of the mentor–mentee relationship. The mentor provides encouragement and positive regard, and perhaps gives advice about career choice and development. This style of mentorship is more common in the humanities, art, and music. Crystalizing mentor relationships are more focused, time-limited, and domain specific. This kind of interpersonal experience may happen quickly yet make a lasting impression. This style of mentorship is more commonly found in the sciences and mathematics.

128  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development Grantham (2004) cites three types of mentoring programs – academic mentoring, career mentoring, and personal development mentoring – which support youth especially during times of personal, psychological, or social stress and provide guidelines for decision-making. For example, when classroom instructions and other resources cannot meet the needs of gifted children, mentors provide an excellent way to fulfill the needs. By means of independent study experiences, mentors can provide guidance to individual gifted children on research skills, product development, and public presentation of products. Students who receive tutoring by mentors report long-term benefits such as career exploration, growth of work skills, real-life learning, and improved selfesteem (Davalos & Haensly, 1997). The literature is replete with success stories on how mentors have played an important and valuable role in encouraging and developing interests and talents (e.g., Scobee & Nash, 1983; Torrance, 1984). Mentors can: 1 discover and develop the strengths and interests of the mentee; 2 set high but realistic academic and career goals for mentees and guide in the process of realizing these goals; 3 explore in depth the process of gaining knowledge or skills in the areas of interest; 4 stimulate and challenge intellectual and creative curiosity; 5 experience with the mentee various activities and learning opportunities; 6 initiate and be autonomous and independent by offering such opportunities as they work on projects; 7 build good work habits by being a role model exhibiting enthusiasm, task commitment, attitudes toward work, and professionalism; 8 support mentees’ academic needs by helping plan and supply resources for school projects; 9 support mentees’ emotional needs and help increase self-esteem when needed; 10 help mentees become aware and balance emotions (e.g., heightened sensitivity, perfectionism); 11 increase mentees’ ability to have relationships with and learn from other professional adults; 12 help mentees cope with relationship problems occurring at home, with peers, and at school (e.g., feeling of isolation and inadequacy); 13 help mentees focus on producing tangible products or performance and present them at competitions or at exhibitions to help develop a sense of accomplishment;

Family, Mentors, and Diversity  •  129 14 help mentees be creative by encouraging them to take risks by initiating projects (e.g., creating a new model of any kind in their areas of interest such as mathematical model, architectural model, auditioning for performance, writing a poem); 15 be a model of wisdom by encouraging the mentee to think of important aspects of life and to help others (neighbors, country, and world). Mentoring special groups of gifted learners: the disadvantaged, underachievers, gifted girls, and the highly creative Several subpopulations of gifted students have special needs of mentorship. Hébert and Olenchak (2000) proposed that disadvantaged, minority, or underachieving gifted young people are less likely to reflect socio-economic characteristics similar to those of potential mentors. Mentors are a significant element of the lives of economically disadvantaged youngsters, inspiring, encouraging, and facilitating achievement in and out of school (e.g., Torrance, Goff, & Satterfield, 1998). African-American students often choose not to participate in gifted programs, which may be one of the reasons for their underrepresentation in gifted education (Ford, 1996). Based on the perspective that the choice not to participate in gifted programs is often based on the influence of negative peer pressures and psychological issues (e.g., racial identity becoming an issue), Grantham (2004) developed a participation motivation model with the potentially powerful influence of mentorship as a viable retention strategy. Hébert and Olenchak (2000) addressed the need for mentors for gifted underachievers, especially males. Mentors’ open-minded and non-judgmental characteristics, consistent and personalized social/emotional support and advocacy, and strength- and interest-based strategies for intervention are critical for reversing underachievement in gifted children. The influence of mentors on this population is effective regardless of the age and socioeconomic background of the students. The value of mentorship for gifted females (Casey & Short, 2000) is evident especially in sciences (Lewis, 1991) (see Chapter 7 for gender difference in science). Gifted females have lower career aspirations than gifted males, especially in sciences (Kerr, 1985), and they tend to decline even further during college and after graduation (Berger, 1989). Challenging learning pace, individualized instruction, and mentoring are among the effective strategies that accomplished women cite as significant in their lives and especially in their career development (Kerr, 1991). For creative students who do not adjust well in school, counselors, teachers, and parents should try to find a mentor or become a mentor to assist these

130  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development individuals to overcome hardship, learn to tolerate and adjust to or find another environment where their creativity can be released and academic learning can take place. Finding a mentor who can guide and develop creative talent is a crucial step that can contribute greatly to the realization of creative potential. Creative individuals need creative mentors to help them find the balance between creativity and conformity, so that creativity is not suppressed as they learn to adjust to the environment in order to succeed in school. Neither excessive conformity nor excessive non-conformity helps realize creativity (Van Hook & Tegano, 2002). Teachers or other mentors can prevent non-conforming gifted students from withdrawing or from becoming rebellious. The mentor can guide cognitive and affective development of creative individuals by, for example, validating thinking style, providing emotional support, and helping to find career direction (Ambrose, Allen, & Huntley, 1994). It has been observed that highly creative teachers tend to have highly achieving creative students whereas less creative teachers tend to have underachieving creative students (Kirschenbaum, 1989). The advantage of having a highly creative teacher as a mentor for a creatively gifted student is obvious. However, the disadvantage of a teacher serving as a mentor for a child in his/her own classroom is equally obvious. Finding a mentor Shaughnessy and Neely (1991) address personality issues relevant to the mentoring process for gifted children, underlining the importance of matching temperament and intellectual style of mentor and mentee. A successful mentoring relationship can occur when a mentor and mentee are open to mutual caring, contributions, and benefits both mentor and mentee (Treffinger, 2003). Success in mentorship also depends on the close mentor– mentee match in gender, social class, ethnicity, experiential background, values, and attitudes (Arnold & Subotnik, 1995). The closer the match, the more likely the mentee will find the status and lifestyle of the profession attractive and the more the mentor will be interested in this young person. Finding a mentor is a challenging task. In formal mentoring programs, the mentee is matched with a mentor through a structured program with personalized goals (Floyd, 1993). Various websites provide information on mentors or mentoring information (e.g., www.BigBrothersBigSisters.org; www.mentoring.org; www.mentors.ca/findamentor). Youngsters should consult with their parents, teachers, or counselors when they make a decision on the person with whom they may want to establish a mentor–mentee relationship. Simonton (1997) indicates that mentors can have a detrimental

Family, Mentors, and Diversity  •  131 effect on talent growth if they try to make a replica of themselves in a mentee and that having multiple mentors rather than relying on just one mentor is usually more beneficial to the growing individual. We think that mentoring can make a major contribution in helping potentially talented learners actualize their potential. We are convinced that mentoring is probably particularly effective with the profoundly gifted and with potentially talented children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Much research is required before mentoring can be effectively used to prevent talent loss.

Socio-cultural background and cultural diversity To understand individuals, one needs to understand the cultural background (e.g., peers, society, nation) in which they grew up, including ethnic and socioeconomic background. On the basis of their perceptions and experiences, individuals develop unique schemata. These schemata determine how one perceives and understands one’s surroundings and interprets experiences. Thus, understanding an individual’s background is a crucial step for providing proper education for the person. In this section we focus on the impact of cultural and socio-economic diversity on talent development. Influence of culture in talent development An individual’s development depends on the surrounding culture. When a student from a regular class joins a gifted class, one can expect changes in this student. Changes in his or her surroundings will bring changes in this individual’s schema and their cognitive, motivational, social, and emotional behaviors. When a person joins a gang, one may expect changes in this individual. The impact of surrounding culture is pervasive in shaping an individual. Whether an individual is viewed as gifted or not, or successful or not, is defined within the socio-cultural context to which he/she belongs. What is valuable in one group or culture does not hold the same value in other cultures. An expert in a certain domain that is considered important in the United States may not be respected as an expert in another society because the same domain is not valued there. A child whose creative potential is valued in one family can be viewed as disruptive and disorderly in another. How students view learning and achievement is influenced by the values and norms that students, teachers, and parents hold for achievement in their culture. For example, the amount of concern and assistance children receive from their parents varies across cultures. Chinese parents show higher levels

132  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development of interest in student achievement than western parents (Dandy & Nettelbeck, 2002) and provide more help with their children’s homework than U.S. and Japanese parents (Chen & Stevenson, 1989). When the society values school achievement and test scores, it creates an environment in which students are likely to view achievement and performance on tests as useful or valuable (Hong & Peng, 2006). Cultural environment also influences creative productivity. Cultural environments differ in the degree to which they promote the generation of creative ideas, products, and performances. In a multicultural society, creative individuals are exposed to diverse cultures with different sources, approaches, and views to inspire their creativity. This cultural diversity influences how creative talent is expressed. Socio-economic and ethnic background and talent development In a multicultural society like the United States, the goal is to provide equal educational opportunities to people from various backgrounds. In reality, however, the majority of students participating in gifted and talented programs continue to represent the majority culture (Reis, 2004). Underrepresentation of culturally diverse or economically disadvantaged students in gifted education has been observed since Terman (1925) and not enough progress has been made. Borland, Schnur, and Wight (2000) see underrepresentation of economically disadvantaged children and adolescents in programs for gifted students, especially those from racial and ethnic minority groups, as one of the most troubling issues confronting educators of gifted students. Natriello, McDill, and Pallas (1990) go even further and list five key indicators associated with poor school performance in these students: (a) being Black or Latino, (b) living in poverty, (c) living in a single-parent family, (d) having a poorly educated mother, and (e) having limited English proficiency. Students coming from one or more of these backgrounds do not have supportive learning environments that provide intellectual and social supports and additional services. Peer culture also has an impact on the education of youngsters. Gifted African-American students are often pressured by their peers not to do well academically (Huff, Houskamp, Watkins, Stanton, & Tavegia, 2005) or they risk being accused of acting “white” (Ford, 1994a). A number of effective strategies to lessen these difficulties are provided. Focus on curriculum and instruction instead of on identification One of the difficulties of teacher nomination as an identification tool for special services for gifted students is that teachers might have negative expectations toward minority and immigrant children and lack awareness

Family, Mentors, and Diversity  •  133 and understanding of culturally valued behaviors (Bernal, 2000; Ford, 1998) that are not so highly valued in the majority culture. Swanson (2006) suggests that the focus of gifted education should be on curriculum and instruction. With this approach, teachers use materials and instructions typically reserved for gifted and high-achieving students with all of their students. When this approach was advocated, changes in teaching behavior occurred and both minority and low-income students benefited from advanced curricular and instructional strategies that challenged them (Swanson, 2006). Gallagher (2005) encouraged teachers to organize instruction to fit cultural differences. Teachers may continue to set the same curriculum goals for all children but they may need to modify the presentation of the material to fit the needs of different children (e.g., using multimodal presentation and problem-based learning approaches). Focus on retention following identification Ford (1994b) proposed that educators focus on more than simply identifying and recruiting diverse students into gifted education. Retention strategies should follow recruitment. The use of mentoring seems to show promise for retaining African-American students in gifted programs (Grantham, 2004). Moore, Ford, and Milner (2005) recommended to school personnel that the following retention strategies would benefit African-American gifted students: (a) collect data to document and learn from their recruitment and retention efforts; (b) closely monitor the academic progress; (c) build student–teacher relationships and peer relationships based on caring, trust, and positive regard; (d) create learning environments that are culturally responsive; (e) utilize individual and group counseling; (f) get parents and other family members involved in the educational process; and (g) make serious efforts to eliminate stereotypical thinking that attributes low learning ability to diverse students, as minority students underachieve in situations where such stereotypical thinking provokes anxiety, distraction, or maladaptive strategies (Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995). These recommendations apply well to all ethnically diverse students. Help develop coping strategies In their study of coping strategies of diverse students, Kitano and Lewis (2005) observe that culture influences how youth understand and cope with adversity. African-American students use a variety of coping strategies (Plummer & Slane, 1996) such as emotion-focused and problem-focused coping strategies (e.g., modifying the stressor or changing the situation). For people of color, connectivity (social ties, belief systems, community supports, connection to a community) constitutes a primary contributor to resilience (DudleyGrant, Comas-Diaz, Todd-Bazemore, & Hueston, 2004). Latino and African-

134  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development American adolescents are more likely to seek spiritual support than their white peers. In general, gifted students across ethnic groups are more likely to use working hard and achieving as coping strategies than seeking help, reducing tension, or ignoring problems (Frydenberg, 1997; Plucker, 1998). Kitano and Lewis (2005) reviewed the literature on the topic and summarized the attributes of high-achieving women from diverse backgrounds. Some attributes are common across ethnic groups (e.g., persistence) and others appear culturally related. We list some of the strategies they found: (a) African-American women’s strategies for coping with discrimination include monitoring the environment and using their observations, finding alternative paths, actively ignoring or managing racism, affirming oneself, and having a clear sense of cultural identity; (b) AsianAmerican women (primarily of Japanese or Chinese descent) commonly describe receiving positive recognition for school achievement, working hard and persisting, being flexible (e.g., changing oneself or one’s job), and assimilating as ways of coping; (c) high-achieving Latinas engage in selfassessing and planning, taking action, using individual achievement as a vehicle for contributing to family and community, and challenging and confronting dishonesty or injustice; and (d) White women focus on thinking through problems, taking responsibility and action, consciously making good choices, persisting, and networking. To sum up, we believe that educators can make a difference in helping underrepresented gifted minority students. It has been observed that cultural, social, or environmental changes make a difference in children. For example, changes in children’s learning styles occurred within an ethnic group as a result of changes in social and educational environments (Hong & Suh, 1995). After an intervention with African-American college students designed to influence them to adopt an incremental theory of ability, these students valued their academic work more, engaged more with work, and increased their achievement (Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002). These examples show that learners are malleable and educators can make a difference. We hope that the information presented here will help introduce changes that will make a difference in the education of all students.

Preventing talent loss In this chapter we have dealt with the influence of parents and mentors on the development of giftedness and talent. We discussed the effects of low socioeconomic status and cultural diversity on the realization of potential gifted and creative abilities. We close this chapter with a list of suggestions based upon the information presented that might help parents and educators to reduce talent loss.

Family, Mentors, and Diversity  •  135 Provide stimulating home environment Parents can affect their children’s talent development by providing a stimulating and safe environment, encouraging open expression, and promoting the use of higher-level thinking skills. It is important to remember that there are different types of gifted children (intellectually/academically versus creatively gifted) and that they may require different environments for nurturing their potential. For example, creative potential in children may be best nurtured in an environment where playful activities, freedom, and fun are abundant (Amabile, 1996; McGreevy, 1992), and home libraries and various hobbies are available (Simonton, 1988b). It is hard for parents who firmly believe, for example, that a quiet environment is good for learning to understand that their children can play music while doing homework and still learn quite successfully. Parents’ need for self-awareness Effective use of specific strategies recommended in this book can help; however, parental attitudes, beliefs, and concerns about their children also have significant effects on talent development. Keep in mind that parents who are not aware of their own belief system or attitudes may not be able to keep them in check in order to determine whether changes in themselves are necessary for helping children realize their potential. When in doubt, follow good strategies employed by successful parents Some parents seem to be skillful and highly effective in creating environments that support children’s emotional and social development. However, it is also evident that some parents of gifted children are puzzled about their children’s behavior and are not able to provide proper support for academic and socioemotional growth. The positive behaviors that we described above might be a good place to start to try different ways of adjusting the home environment for optimal development. Focus on strengths It should be remembered that individuals come with different strengths and weaknesses, including their own pattern of cognitive abilities, personality characteristics, and environmental context that influence talent development. There is no one correct answer that fits all children. Look for strengths of children and help them nurture and develop their strengths by understanding their surroundings and personal attributes.

136  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development Help children with creative potential to adjust at school Various helpful roles that mentors can play are listed above. Torrance (1962) suggested that the goal of mentorship and guidance is not to promote individuality or creativity but to encourage a healthy balance of conformity, individuality, and creativity. Creative children face challenges in school and home, where conformity is expected. Keep in mind that non-conformity for its own sake is not sufficient for creativity (Amabile, 1989). Thus, mentoring children to find the correct balance would increase the chances that their potential talent will be realized. You are a role model whether you realize it or not Children learn from adults. Parents and teachers continually present models of behavior for their children whether they realize it or not. Common sense tells us that parents who model diligence or creative thoughts are likely influencing their children in the corresponding area. Whether parents are aware of their influence on children is another issue. We encourage parents to exercise selfregulation, monitoring and evaluating their beliefs, thoughts, and behaviors periodically, and to make efforts to improve or change whatever strategies are necessary to help children realize their potential. Monitor mentorship Be cautious when linking a child with a mentor. Keep track of the child’s progress, and when a change of mentor is necessary for any reasons (e.g., a person with more advanced knowledge is required), take immediate action. Multiple mentors for a child have also been encouraged. Poverty and human development Let us not forget the enormous effect that poverty has on human development. Some children are privileged and have multiple opportunities for success, whereas others born into poor families may not have much chance to even become aware of their potential, let alone realize it. We do not have an answer to this problem. But communities and well-meaning people in every society can provide support to individuals and groups of individuals to alleviate this problem. In the meantime, those who are close to potentially gifted and talented children – teachers, counselors, school administrators, and parents – should be attentive and watchful for those individuals who, with a little assistance, can thrive. Let us be mindful and find opportunities for all.

chapter

11

Technology for Preventing Talent Loss

Technology has changed the way we study, work, retrieve, and share information. Computers, televisions, handhelds, scanners, CDs, and DVDs as well as the Internet, World Wide Web, email, telecommunication, and listservs symbolize unlimited possibilities of how technology can change our lives. Educators, researchers, and instructional designers and developers have already taken steps to apply technologies to education in order to increase student participation, interest, motivation, and learning. Students and teachers now have access to vast knowledge bases and curricula resources through the Internet. For example, with a few key words on the search engine Google, students can find help for their homework in various subjects. Schools also provide websites for students and parents. The content of websites and the ways they are used have become increasingly sophisticated. Posted information provided at the site has become more meaningful and helpful and many sites are built to be able to receive input from students and parents as well. New Internet tools show up with the blink of an eye and it is hard for educators with full-time responsibilities to keep current and follow the new developments. Our goal in this chapter is not to summarize the computer tools available for instruction in particular domains. This information is available from

138  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development many sources (e.g., Wolfe, 2006). In this chapter, we present the historical background of computer technology as an educational tool, highlight the potential problems that accompany the many advantages that technology offers, and examine the literature of technology-based education from the viewpoint of the principles of educational psychology. Finally, we discuss the role of technology in preventing talent loss.

The role of computers: then and now The role of computers in education has changed greatly in the last two or three decades. At the beginning, computers were used to provide students with opportunities for drill and practice and simple simulations. Teachers also used computers for the administrative management of classroom instruction. Programming languages were taught in colleges and in some high schools. Ideas of individualized instruction began to emerge in the early 1980s (e.g., Dover, 1983), but these ideas were not developed fully for use in education. Evaluation of educational software became a topic among educators, likely due to underuse, misuse, or abuse of computers as an educational tool. Software for drill and practice persisted, and some educators advocated software productions that require students to use higher-order thinking (e.g., Beasley, 1985). With the advancement of artificial intelligence in computer sciences, various attempts were made to develop intelligent systems. Intelligent tutoring systems such as Buggy for mathematics tutoring appeared (Brown & Burton, 1978). Since that time the field of education has not seen much progress in developing intelligent systems using artificial intelligence for application to education. Computers and their peripherals began to be used mainly to search for information. CD-ROMs (compact disks with read-only memory) containing vast amounts of knowledge, such as encyclopedias and research databases in libraries, gained popularity and began to be widely available for individual use. Hypertext and hypermedia allowed learning to become more interactive, and other technology tools such as telecommunications, interactive video and TV, and video projection systems began to be used for improved interaction among people physically far apart. Computers became routine educational tools for simple tasks such as word-processing or spread-sheets and began to be used routinely by most people. Advanced instructional design theories emerged (e.g., Reigeluth, 1999) and new paradigms were applied in the design and production of educational software. Distance learning became a major delivery system in education at universities and many course websites were made available to high school

Technology for Preventing Talent Loss  •  139 students. Commercially produced delivery systems became available for easy application in course management and instructional presentation. The Internet continued to gain popularity as a tool of information acquisition and next-generation Internet tools show up continually. The current Internet generation is characterized by improved search engines and easier access to better organized information such as dictionaries and encyclopedias. Expert knowledge and opinions are available with a few clicks. People of all generations, especially youngsters, began using the Web for personal communication and publication of their own thoughts, stories, and creative products. Blog, YouTube, MySpace, Facebook and a host of other Internet tools and sites are devoted to such purposes. Blogs are usergenerated Websites where entries of personal information are made in journal style. YouTube is a video-sharing website to which users upload, share, and view the video clips posted by others. MySpace and Facebook are networking websites to which users submit personal profiles, photos, and videos. These Web tools and sites attracted media attention because of their popularity as well as because of the problems they generate for unwitting users, especially children with no proper boundaries and supervision. These technology tools, however, can be used for various educational purposes such as project sharing and other creative purposes. The Internet and computer technologies offer boundless possibilities. How to incorporate these technologies into the process of educating children is the challenge educators now face. Many educational researchers have already begun to cope with the questions of what, why, how, and for whom.

Technology as a tool The advancement of technology has removed some of the curricular as well as geographical barriers that have impeded students’ learning and development. Technology can provide an independent learning environment and tools for learning. We propose that not only gifted children, but all students, can benefit from the use of technology and well-designed curriculum and instruction to match learners’ interests and readiness. The concept of a more inclusive approach to talent development by using an integrated curriculum for all learners at appropriate levels of challenge has been proposed (e.g., Renzulli & Reis, 1998; VanTassel-Baska, 1995). The use of technology makes this curriculum-for-all concept feasible and attainable. It would take time, effort, and enormous resources to develop technology-integrated materials for all subject matter areas, but this will never happen if one does not take the first step. In this section, we discuss ways that technologies can be utilized in human learning and development.

140  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development Technology as a cognitive tool Individual researchers and university-based research teams have been developing programs by applying various learning theories and pedagogical approaches to their computer-based or Internet-based educational programs. Technology-integrated learning tools, such as Inquiry Island software (White & Frederiksen, 2005), are good examples of the products of such endeavors. This software shows how metacognitive knowledge, learning through inquiry, and technologies can be incorporated to foster student engagement in collaborative inquiry and reflective learning. Hypermedia technology can be used as cognitive tools to provide necessary scaffolding to support student learning by assessing student readiness and delivering appropriate instructional materials. This technology allows access to learning materials through various windows, buttons, and links that provide supplementary information (e.g., additional help text, graphics, audio, video clips). In this environment, teachers can facilitate and monitor individual students’ learning instead of lecturing to the class. Liu (2004) used this technology in a problem-based learning (PBL) environment with sixth graders. Liu found that the PBL environment where scaffolding was provided was beneficial to both gifted and non-gifted students, regardless of gender, as well as to English language learners and students with learning disabilities. She attributed the success of the program to the enriched presentation of the knowledge base and the effective delivery of cognitive tools through hypermedia technology that provided scaffolding to all students in the classroom. Simple word processors can be an important cognitive tool in the learning process. Students can focus on the ideas, stories, conceptualizations, or projects rather than on the tidiness of writing or drawing. That is, this technology provides a safe environment for students to practice applications and transfer their learning. Promoting self-regulation and motivation in technology-integrated learning environment As discussed in Chapter 5, self-regulated learners succeed in learning better than their peers who do not engage in self-regulation. The effects of self-regulated learning (metacognition, motivation, and strategy selection and use) have been supported by empirical evidence in traditional learning environments. Continued research is needed with technology-integrated instruction to determine whether instructional designs that incorporate strategies for promoting students’ self-regulated learning are as effective or perhaps even more effective in student learning. How technology can

Technology for Preventing Talent Loss  •  141 enhance student motivation to learn should be examined by looking into the interactions between learner and instructor, between learner and technology interface, and among learners. Aspects of these interactions contribute to or impede enhancement of motivation and attitude toward learning. The effects of technology application on achievement should be examined and research findings should be implemented in the design and development of technologyintegrated curriculum and instruction. Some students who have knowledge of self-regulatory skills do not apply them in learning. Thus, it is important that students be given explicit opportunities to apply their self-regulated strategies when learning (Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, 1996). Technology-integrated instructional materials can be designed to activate students’ self-regulation. These materials can provide timely feedback, acknowledging that students used self-regulatory skills, and adjust and scaffold content and strategy for subsequent screen display. The good news is that numerous researchers have launched studies that examine various aspects of self-regulated learning theory in technology-integrated instruction. Some are investigating the students’ perceptions and others are examining the effect of Web-based tools on self-regulated learning. Dabbagh and Kitsantas (2005) found that different categories of Web-based pedagogical tools (WBPT) (e.g., collaborative and communication tools, content creation and delivery tools) support different self-regulated learning processes (e.g., self-monitoring) and that the tools are highly effective in activating the use of self-regulatory skills necessary to support specific types of learning tasks. Students who demonstrate positive attitudes and adequate self-efficacy about the Internet are more inclined to view the Internet as a functional technology. Students who perceive the Internet as a leisure tool demonstrate communicative self-efficacy compared with those who use the Internet as a functional technology (Peng, Tsai, & Wu, 2006). Students report using various self-regulatory strategies, planning, organizing, monitoring, help-seeking, and record keeping in a Web-based technology course (Whipp & Chiarelli, 2004). In addition, those who succeed in managing the technical and social environment of the course also perceive themselves as having high motivation, expressing their interest, self-efficacy, and goal orientation. How goal-setting affects self-regulated learning was examined in a Web-based course (Azevedo, Ragan, Cromley, & Pritchett, 2003). When teacher-set goals and learner-generated subgoals in instructional conditions were compared in their effects on self-regulation, students in the latter condition were significantly better at regulating their learning by planning and monitoring their learning and by creating subgoals, activating prior knowledge, and engaging in adaptive help-seeking. These findings indicate that learner control afforded by a technology-integrated learning environment enhances self-regulated learning and motivation.

142  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development It has also been observed that learners have difficulties deploying selfregulatory skills while learning about complex topics in technologyintegrated learning environments (e.g., complex science topics in hypermedia environment). Azevedo (2005) illustrates how self-regulated learning can be used as a guiding theoretical framework to examine learning with hypermedia and proposed several methods for facilitating students’ self-regulated learning of complex and challenging science topics. Readers interested in self-regulated learning in technology environments are strongly encouraged to read Azevedo and other research articles before launching the development effort. Technology as a tool for creative thinking and creative production Various software products are now available that are designed to meet the needs of learners who aspire to be musicians, graphic designers, and so on. Many talents in various areas are being discovered through the Web. Stories are published in blogs; and a guitarist plays extraordinary music in YouTube. Educators are using technology tools to increase teaching effectiveness. For example, physical education teachers are using video technology to create game-like practice situations for use during physical education instruction at the secondary school level (Fiorentino & Castelli, 2005). School-based programs exist for students who are interested in learning about making music by using technology for technology-enhanced music performance, improvisation, composition, analysis, and notation (Simoni, 2003). Technology for knowledge acquisition The Internet is a useful cognitive tool for finding and organizing information relevant to the student whose goal is acquiring and accumulating knowledge. Assistance from teachers and other adults may need to be provided to learn effective navigation through the Internet space, searching for the needed information, and not being distracted by information overload or glitzy websites. Thoughtfully designed instructional material may include instruction regarding the use of computer-based learning materials and help students self-regulate their learning. Students need to know how to gather, analyze, evaluate, and organize large amounts of information. In addition, they should be able to download information – verbal, images, video clips – and synthesize information for presentation or for storing in memory for later use. The Internet made it possible for anybody from anywhere to access vast amounts of knowledge at any time, as long as they have a computer with a connection to the Internet. At the same time, the Internet made fast processing possible. One does not need to go to the library to find reading material that is needed. The Internet provides numerous links that can be traced, thus allowing

Technology for Preventing Talent Loss  •  143 learners to absorb a large amount of information quickly. This convenience is not without difficulties. Information overload happens quickly. Discretion and good instruction for wise navigation must be exercised. Critical thinking in the use of technology Earlier we mentioned briefly the problems that may arise from using or providing personal information at websites and recommended judicious and sensible use of information. Although the vast information provided by Internet websites is valuable, there is no quality control of the information. Children tend to believe what they read and see. It is crucial that students become critical users of the Web. The stories about predators on the Web are persistent and insidious. These stories indicate that it is important to teach children to be critical thinkers when it comes to the Web. Siegle (2004) provided a few suggestions for educators who want to help their students develop critical thinking: (a) from an early age, students must be trained to develop a healthy skepticism about information; (b) learn where to look or which links seem to be useful to navigate; and (c) know when to search further to gain necessary information and when to stop looking for more information. Socio-emotional development with technology The advent of computers and Internet access caused some educators and parents to become concerned about these isolated and isolating activities. However, students maintain social lives through the Internet, using chat rooms or emails, along with their handheld phones. Individual students may seek mentors and communicate with mentors through email, which provides convenience and accessibility. Projects that require group collaboration encourage the use of technology in different ways. Team members may first work separately while sharing their ideas through email or chat rooms. Additionally, they can meet and complete projects using technologies. Students are often quick learners of how technology works. Thus, parent– child social relationships may be improved by having children show parents what they know about technology. Jones and Issroff’s (2005) work on affective issues in learning technologies in collaborative contexts, online communities, and the development of social and communication skills are worth in-depth reading. Other technology tools for learning Today’s children are “connected” through the Internet, cell phone with digital camera, and other handheld devices. To these children technology

144  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development is an integral part of society (Johnson, 2005). Educators and instructional designers must consider this in the design of curriculum and instructional materials. For example, a palm handheld computer with appropriate software has an impact on motivation, developing thinking and problem-solving skills, and collaboration (Klopfer & Yoon, 2005). The digital camera increases student learning of process skills in biology (Tatar & Robinson, 2003). One should consider how these and other devices (e.g., video games, iTV, iPod) can be used for instruction. Priority should be given to the development of technologies with additional features to facilitate use by visually and hearing impaired individuals and others who require special adjustments in order to use the equipment.

Technology and learning environment Owing to the mobility and flexibility of personal computers and the ease of connection to the World Wide Web, especially with mobile technology, individuals can use technology in and out of schools and classrooms, and anywhere in the world. In classrooms, teachers can utilize technology as an instructional tool and outside the classroom learners can learn through technology in a variety of ways. Technology in the classroom With the advent of the age of technology and the wide availability of computers, teachers can prepare interdisciplinary and project-based learning materials for instruction. The instructional materials prepared by teachers or purchased through the school district can be utilized for individualized instruction. Although technology makes this possible, it depends on the teachers’ mastery of the specialized skills required for using technology in teaching. Once they become skilled in using technology-based approaches and materials in their classrooms, teachers may engage in their frontal teaching activities less but more effectively and become facilitators of student learning by observing and guiding the individual students’ learning progress. Students benefit from technology-based instruction because they can learn at their own pace and can learn topics that are of special interest to them in depth. This is, of course, possible only if the administrative and physical requirements as well as educational materials required by technology-based instruction are provided. In such settings teachers come to view student learning differently. They are encouraged to develop new instructional strategies through the integration of teaching materials with technology. The learning theories they learned in their teacher education training (e.g., scaffolding, zone of proximal

Technology for Preventing Talent Loss  •  145 development, higher-order learning, constructivism, experiential learning) can more easily be implemented than when technology was not available. Technology at home and anywhere Because of easy access to the Internet and the vast amount of information available from various websites, formal education can be conducted outside the classroom. Distance learning has become a major instructional delivery system, especially at the university level. High school students, especially high-ability students, take Advanced Placement (AP) courses or courses designed specifically for gifted students through distance-learning programs. Online learning sources for the gifted are available on the Internet (e.g., http:// www.hoagiesgifted.com). Olszewski-Kubilius and Lee (2004) observe in gifted students that the major reasons for enrolling in the distance education programs are students’ interests in the subject areas and the desire for enriching their knowledge and accelerating the pace at which they can acquire knowledge on topics of interest. Another reason is the unavailability of the specific courses in their schools. These students expressed satisfaction with the quality of communications with instructors and classmates. On the other hand, the lack of interactions with teachers was a source of dissatisfaction for some students (Olszewski-Kubilius & Lee, 2004). The accessibility to the Internet from anywhere in the world creates opportunities for students to complete courses from any location. Increasingly, universities are converting their regular courses into online courses. Students who evaluate these courses positively cite the convenience of deciding when they learn and the pace of learning, as well as the possibility of learning at home or anywhere they happen to be. Owing to the rapid proliferation of Web courses, the quality of courses is a concern. Instruments to assess the quality of Web-based instruction have been developed for quality control and improvement of instruction. Sites are evaluated by examining the appearance and structure of Web pages, hyperlinks and navigation, technical issues, class procedures and expectations, content delivery, quality of communication, and the presence of instructor and peers (e.g., Stewart, Hong, & Strudler, 2004). Vonderwell and Zachariah (2005) observed that effective online learning requires a shared understanding of learning goals in a learning community. Instructors need to monitor student participation and patterns of participation, identify student needs, and scaffold learning, accordingly. Rural schools can benefit greatly from technology-integrated education. Online material and activities and other technologies previously cited have provided the means to surmount many barriers to delivering services and can alleviate the isolation of rural schools. This is especially important in that it

146  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development creates the opportunity for gifted students who live in rural areas to broaden their experiences. Technology enables them to learn material at a higher level, in greater depth, and at a faster rate than is available in their regular school (Belcastro, 2002). Curriculum development with technology An increasing number of gifted educators believe that improvement in curriculum rather than in identification is what is needed to meet the challenges facing gifted education (e.g., Little, 2001; Renzulli & Reis, 1998). So far, the implementation of this understanding has been rare and the success of this approach remains to be demonstrated. This emphasis on curriculum will be made possible by the incorporation of technology with curriculum development. Experts in various domains cooperate with educators in those domains to develop curriculum to serve the needs of all students. Gifted, average, and low achievers will benefit from the new curriculum created with all students in mind, where each student proceeds at his/her own pace as far as they can go. Development of differentiated curriculum materials requires collaboration among content experts, educators of students of various ages and ability levels, technology experts, teacher educators, and measurement experts. It will take a strong commitment and endurance from all parties. School districts must support initiatives to develop and implement new curricula in many subject matter areas. The process must include pilot studies designed to assess the quality and validity of the new programs from the beginning. Continual evaluation of the new programs is necessary because it provides the information required to revise and improve the programs. Funding requests should be made for hiring experts and providing release time to educators to be part of this endeavor. State Departments of Education should assist in initiatives or encourage school districts to undertake such endeavors by providing funding opportunities or sponsoring university consortia for gathering ideas. National-level support for the new direction is highly desirable, and educators should communicate with the people in positions of leadership at the national level in the U.S. Department of Education. As discussed in Chapter 8, gifted students spend their instruction time mostly in the regular classroom. Most classroom teachers do not differentiate instruction for gifted students for various reasons. Some do not know how; others may know how but do not have the materials or equipment to use to do it. In addition, they do not usually have the assistance required to manage students with various levels of abilities and characteristics. Teachers cannot be expected to create the curriculum required to provide individualized

Technology for Preventing Talent Loss  •  147 instruction for students in their classroom. Large sums of money must be provided in school budgets to support the development of such curriculum materials and auxiliary staff. One little mentioned but significant factor that works against the differentiation of curriculum and the individualization of instruction is the pressure that teachers feel because they are held accountable for student achievement scores. This “accountability” leads teachers to teach within the minimum requirements in order to raise the average test scores that are reported to their district and state education offices. In this climate, it is a tall order to ask teachers to individualize instruction for each student. High-quality curriculum and instruction has been a focus for gifted students. We agree that this is a worthy goal but believe that all learners deserve to receive good instruction and opportunities to develop their abilities. We believe that all teachers should facilitate student learning and help each student realize his/her potential. This will lead to less talent loss and increase the number of capable individuals contributing to society.

Preventing talent loss The Internet has redefined education. Technology-integrated learning environments are changing our concepts about learning and instructional practices. The roles of teachers and students are now viewed differently. Educators have long discussed the need to differentiate curriculum and instruction according to the needs of individual learners. Other concepts that appear in the literature of education include learner-centered, learner control, teachers as facilitators, scaffolding, and a host of other educational constructs that bode well for bringing improvement to education. The advent of technology in the service of education provides the tools needed to implement the educational programs and procedures that are recommended based upon recent developments in educational theory. It is likely that the future will bring increased use of technology in schools and homes. We discuss a few concerns related to technology use and talent loss. Provide proper assistance Technology and tools per se do not improve learning. Simply providing technology in the classroom and home does not ensure that learning will take place. Educators should provide guidance on the way to use technology most effectively and how the vast information available from the World Wide Web can be enlisted in the service of reaching learning goals.

148  •  Environmental–Social Factors and Talent Development Think of both strengths and weaknesses of new technologies Although this chapter discussed the many advantages that technologies bring to learning, attention should be given to weaknesses and disadvantages as well. The very advantages of the vast amount of knowledge that the Internet can provide can cause difficulties to slow readers. For example, a problembased learning environment that requires reading a large amount of material just to understand the problem under discussion can cause high anxiety in weak students. The many hyperlinks in the hypermedia can cause similar problems. Students can easily get lost in hyperspace and the learning process can become scattered and learning goals not achieved. Moreover, it is always a matter of concern that proper boundaries and supervision be in place by adults in order to prevent predators from invading the lives of children. Provide opportunities for all students Economically disadvantaged students may lack access to technology at home. This might cause lack of confidence in full participation in the technologyintegrated instruction in school. These students might require extra attention and instruction before and during learning sessions. Providing time for additional experience might help them compensate for the loss of opportunities to work with technology at home. Assess the entry-level knowledge and skills Youngsters nowadays have access to technologies outside the classroom. Some students may acquire a remarkable proficiency in some technologies and software use. Although this sounds positive, it creates the situation in which learning rates of individual students are vastly different. Thus, to individualize instruction properly, students’ entry knowledge and skills of technology use should be assessed and applied before delivering actual instruction. Develop technology-integrated curriculum sooner rather than later We hope that educators at the national, state, and local level will realize the prime importance of curriculum development with technology and will support and fund the endeavor enthusiastically. The sooner the teachers and parents have high-quality curricular materials, the less the talent loss. This enterprise requires collaboration among the various people charged with the responsibility of providing educational services to students. Teacher educators, experts in subject matters and technology, educators, parents, and politicians who have influence in funding projects, should develop partnerships and cooperate in developing technology-integrated curricula to be used in the schools with all children and to train teachers with the skills and experience required to implement this curriculum effectively.

part

5

Becoming Talented

chapter

12

Becoming Talented

Expert talent and creative talent

In previous chapters, we discussed the Comprehensive Model of Giftedness and Talent and the three components that influence talent development. Cognitive abilities, personal–psychological attributes, and environmental–social factors all have direct, indirect, and interactive effects on talent development. In this chapter, we discuss manifested or realized talent and focus on the two types of talent – expert talent and creative talent – that are postulated in the model. Although the two types of talents possess many similar attributes, it is important to call attention to the subtle differences. Understanding the similarities and differences between the two types of talents may lead researchers to consider underresearched factors that account for the differences in talent development. Educators can benefit from understanding the two types as well so that they can provide for the unique needs of each.

Expert talent and creative talent: similarities and differences People with expert talent are recognized as having highly specialized in-depth knowledge, techniques, and skills in a particular domain. These people are called upon to solve problems and to make key decisions in that domain. In today’s society, expert talents are highly valued. For example, professional

152  •  Becoming Talented firms exist that offer expert talents with specialized expertise (Teece, 2003). Expertise is acquired through education, training, and practice. In-depth knowledge in the domain and intense training and practice will lead to becoming a top notch expert, who possesses a profound level of expert talent. Initially, the learning process that results in expert talent includes declarative learning, which requires analytical-thinking processes. Later, skills, mastered through training and practice, gradually become proceduralized and eventually some components of skills are automated. For example, musicians and athletes go through an inordinate amount of repeated practice to acquire expertise in their fields. Medical students take years of education and internship, starting with acquiring declarative knowledge (know-what or content knowledge) and then learning by doing, acquiring procedural knowledge (know-how). Individuals learning to play musical instruments begin their journey by reading musical scores analytically at first, and with intense practice playing an instrument becomes procedural as their techniques develop. Athletes and dancers gain the factual knowledge required in their domains declaratively as a first step. They continue to practice by thinking about plans, steps, positions, and techniques analytically as they prepare to perform until they master the skills and techniques required. In fact, mental processes such as these are a better predictor of athletes’ performance than physical attributes. More successful athletes analyze cues, make better decisions and anticipate consequences of their actions better than their less-skilled counterparts (Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich, & Hoffman, 2006). People with creative talent are similar to those with expert talent in that they too have acquired highly specialized in-depth knowledge, techniques, and skills in a particular domain through extensive practice. However, the major difference between the two types of talent is that creative talent is evidenced in the production of original, unique, and valuable products or performances in a particular domain. In medicine, creative doctors may continually think of potentially better medical treatments instead of just using the current practice skillfully. Creative musicians try new ways of playing their instruments to expand their already skillful presentation. Similarly, creative artists in both the fine and performing arts strive constantly to produce or perform their artistic work in unique and original ways. Creative scientists contribute new knowledge by adding new insights to what is already known. Just as expert talent develops over many years, so does creative talent. Needless to say, the course of development of both expert and creative talent is influenced by intricate interactions of cognitive abilities, personal– psychological attributes, and environmental–social factors, with varying degrees of impact on talent realization. This chapter focuses on major

Becoming Talented  •  153 attributes that influence the development of the two types of talents and those that distinguish them. Expert talent does not necessarily facilitate creative performance and production nor is creative talent a requirement for performance that reflects expert talent. On the other hand, both talents require training, practice, and experience. The breadth and depth of the person’s training, practice, and experience determine the level of expert and/or creative talent attained. Some experts reach the profound level of talent, demonstrating a profound level of expertise in their domain. Some experts’ talent level is mild, indicating that they are still honing their skills and acquiring and accumulating their knowledge and skills. Children who are interested in a particular domain, engage in challenging activities, and perform or produce products, are beginning to develop their talent, but their level of talent is best considered minimal. These examples on level apply equally to creative talent. The range of realization of each talent is presented in the Comprehensive Model of Giftedness and Talent as minimal to profound. How society views and values manifested talent contributes to the determination of whether a person’s expert or creative talent is viewed as profound and highly valuable to society or as not particularly valuable. Both expert talent and creative talent are defined by performance in a specific field of pursuit (e.g., scientists, mathematicians, artists, musicians, sportsmen, leaders, etc.). Most youngsters with potential talents do not develop into talented people in multiple areas. Except for geniuses, talent is defined differently for children and adults. Youngsters mostly demonstrate potential talent, whereas in adults talent is defined as manifested talent that can be evaluated by authentic assessment procedures and that represents standards of excellence of performance recognized in a particular domain or field of endeavor in the society. With proper resources, experiences, and support, a youngster’s talent will be realized and manifested in later years, some very early and others late in their lives. Different people reach different levels of talent ranging from minimal to profound. Some youngsters with potential for higher levels do not develop beyond the minimal level and represent talent loss. Relationship between cognitive abilities and talent development Talents of both types may utilize both analytical- and creative-thinking abilities in varying degrees and at different times in the lifetime process of development from potential to actual talent. Some scholars on creativity (e.g., Lubart, 1994) contend that domain-specific intellectual abilities are an important component of creativity. The relationship of domain-specific

154  •  Becoming Talented creative talent (e.g., literature, mathematics) to domain-specific intellectual ability (school grades in these subject matter domains) was significantly higher than to domain-general analytical intellectual ability (Hong & Milgram, 1996; Livne & Milgram, 2006). To illustrate how analytical- and creative-thinking processes are both used in the performance of expert and/or creative talent, perhaps with different emphasis at different times in the process, consider this scenario of the problemsolving process. When there is an awareness of a need for a new product or a deficiency in the current state of knowledge, the process of problem-solving is activated. We use problem representation and strategy selection to illustrate the thinking processes involved in the two types of talents. The ability to develop problem representations includes both analyticaland creative-thinking processes. Developing a problem representation requires analytical thinking to gather, analyze, and organize information, and to determine proper entities to represent the problems. Creative-thinking individuals will not only seek or develop a high-quality problem representation but they will also develop multiple representations. The same concept and procedure applies to the strategy selection process involved in problem-solving. Those who think of multiple strategies are applying both analytical-thinking ability (e.g., analyze whether a strategy is proper for finding solutions) as well as creative-thinking ability (e.g., select or generate more than one strategy to accomplish the task). This example using the problem-solving process illustrates a major difference between expert talent and creative talent, a difference that is not an either–or distinction but rather a difference of emphasis. Although both the expert talent and the creative talent use both thinking processes, the creative talent would have a stronger inclination to generate more than one representation, and to develop different strategies and multiple solution paths than the expert talent. That is, the creative talent would utilize creativethinking abilities more so than the expert talent. The problem-solving process employed by creatively talented people may take more time and even appear to some to waste valuable time. However, the result of this process may be an unusual and high-quality solution of the kind that emerges only through creative thinking. The expert talent, by contrast, would have a stronger inclination to limit their solution processes to identifying one good solution, although they might compare two or three different approaches (creative thinking). It is not simple for analytically talented individuals (expert talent), who are inclined to analyze and evaluate a single idea before considering additional ideas, to adopt the process of generating many ideas and solution paths. However, their attention to defining a single problem and finding a correct solution will

Becoming Talented  •  155 likely lead them to finding answers of very high quality in a speedy and correct manner. In the following section, we discuss essential components of expert and creative talents. Essential components of expert and creative talent Need for a vast knowledge base A major factor in expert performance is the person’s knowledge base in long-term memory that is well organized, structured, and accessible (e.g., Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981; Larkin, McDermott, Simon, & Simon, 1980). Knowledge structure and representation have been studied by examining mental models (Hong & O’Neil, 1992; Jih & Reeves, 1992; Rouse & Morris, 1986) or schemata (Rumelhart, 1980). The amount, organization, and accessibility of knowledge are interrelated and it is impossible to consider one without also taking account of the others (Rabinowitz & Glaser, 1985). People who exhibit expert talent in their performance have easy and fast access to relevant information and are able to view problem situations in qualitatively distinct ways. Some investigators have suggested that the superior performance of experts can be explained in terms of their better-organized, superior domain knowledge (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981; Richman, Gobet, Staszewski, & Simon, 1996). Expert performance is also characterized by pattern matching, rapid retrieval, and application of previously acquired schematic solution procedures from the expert’s knowledge base, which includes both declarative and procedural knowledge. For experts, activating and retrieving knowledge are often automatic, taking no time at all to retrieve the necessary knowledge for processing information. For example, expert chess players show substantially better recall for chess position than novices, indicating that the number of familiar patterns of pieces held in memory by chess experts is much larger than in the case of novices (Gobet & Simon, 1995). An extensive and deep knowledge is essential in all thinking processes including creative processes (Amabile, 1996; Feldhusen, 2002). Lubart (1994) contended that knowledge is necessary to make an informed, creative contribution to a field. Extensive knowledge in a field will prevent an individual from wasting time and effort to generate already available creative ideas or creative products. Many years of knowledge acquisition probably precede the production of high-level creative masterworks in a domain (Hayes, 1989). Information processing and strategies used to create new ideas operate on knowledge. Mumford (1998) maintains that it is through the acquisition and application of implicit, association structures and explicit, analogical structures in a knowledge domain that creative thought becomes possible.

156  •  Becoming Talented Lubart (1994) offers reasons why knowledge is important for creativity: (a) it is difficult to recognize problems or to understand the nature of these problems without knowledge; (b) knowledge helps a person to notice and make use of chance occurrences as a source of ideas, and (c) knowledge helps a person to produce high-quality work. Acquisition of knowledge is an essential component for the development of both expert talent and creative talent. In talent development, the extent of knowledge to be acquired, how it is acquired and structured by learners, and how it is presented to learners by educators in various subject matter areas are significant topics in planning education for talent development. One of the common characteristics that Rogers (1998) found in the creative Caltech graduates she interviewed was mastery of domain knowledge. Graduates who had creative products all exhibited an immense knowledge base in the domain of specialization. In physics, both those considered experts and high-performing eleventh graders referred to prior knowledge more than did average-level students (Coleman & Shore, 1991). The importance of an extensive knowledge base is also noted for individuals who need to select and use proper learning strategies, even for young children in fifth and sixth grades (Hong, 1995b; Wood, Willoughby, & Hewitt, 1993). On the other hand, well-structured knowledge can be detrimental to developing creative talent. The organized declarative knowledge and automated retrieval of knowledge may prevent creative, flexible thinking from occurring (Schank, 1988). The very automatation and vast knowledge that is essential for expert talent can result in experts becoming rigid or opinionated. Lubart (1994), citing the findings from 192 eminent creators, showed an inverted-U relationship between years of formal education and creativity. Too much education can stifle new ideas, but the exact turning point probably depends on the domain (Simonton, 1984). If individuals aspire to be creative and to produce novel ideas and products after acquiring expertise, they should keep this aspect in mind to prevent “knowing too much and too well” from becoming an obstacle to developing creative talent. Need for deliberate practice As indicated earlier, both types of talents are the result of hard work and a long period of training and practice. Ericsson (2006) contends that it is the experience of deliberate practice, not innate talent, which affects individual differences in the acquisition of expert performance. Deliberate practice accounts for the changes in the structure of mechanisms that mediate the superior performance of expert talent. Most children get involved in some particular activities more intensely than others because they find the particular activity interesting and that interest

Becoming Talented  •  157 activates their intrinsic motivation, curiosity, and enjoyment. This propensity will help or direct them to experience more activities in the area of their interest by exposing themselves to other opportunities such as training and competitions. Once they begin their activities in certain areas, with continued interest and environmental support, these individuals continue to carry out deliberate practice, strengthening weak areas and still continuing practice to master the requisite skills. We concur with Ericsson that any individual can become an expert with good training and practice. However, the speed of talent development, and the extent and level they can accomplish (e.g., moderate or profound level), will differ widely reflecting individual differences in propensity toward the area of training. Individuals who are tone-deaf will find it difficult to succeed in the field of music, even with hours and hours of practice. Winner (1996a) argues that individual differences in innate ability exist and that high levels of talent include a motivational component. Those individuals with high potential talent would be expected to pursue their domains of interests eagerly, to focus their attention on activities in the domain and to practice for hours. Other personal attributes (e.g., motivational tendencies, cognitive styles, personality traits, interests and values) and family as well as socio-cultural environment (e.g., opportunities for experiences, training, and practice) are all related to natural proclivity and capacity of the individual and all influence talent development (Freeman, 1998; Horowitz & O’Brien, 1985b; Simonton, 1999). In some domains of creative work (e.g., opera composition, creative writing, sciences), over-training in a specialty might have negative effect on creativity, whereas cross-training, which provides versatility, could have a more positive effect (Simonton, 2000). However, the relationship between versatility training and creative products, when examined in scholars and philosophers, did not receive support. How deliberate training can be harmful for creative work and to what extent depends on the domain. Essential components for creative talent Creative-thinking ability as a predictor of creative talent In Chapter 4 we discussed the difference between domain-general and domain-specific creative-thinking abilities and their differential impact on creative performance. The predictive validity of domain-general creativethinking ability (divergent thinking) has been demonstrated. Both concurrent and longitudinal studies that used varied criteria such as ratings of creative products and creative achievements supported this conclusion (Cramond, 1994a; Milgram & Hong, 1994; Plucker, 1999b; Torrance, 1981). By the same token, strong predictive ability has been demonstrated for domain-specific

158  •  Becoming Talented creative-thinking ability (Mumford, Marks, Connelly, Zaccaro, & Johnson, 1998; Okuda, Runco, & Berger, 1991) (see Chapter 4 for details of these studies). On the basis of these findings it is reasonable to conclude that both domaingeneral and domain-specific creative-thinking abilities are good indicators of future creative talent, along with other factors discussed in this book. Creative personality Creativity research findings provide evidence that there are certain personality characteristics that are essential to the development of creative talent. Feist (1998) found that creative people are more open to new experiences, less conventional, less conscientious, and more self-confident, self-accepting, driven, ambitious, dominant, hostile, and impulsive. In addition, personality traits of highly creative people tend to be stable across time, especially independence and autonomy. Any change that might occur tends to decrease with age. Personality differences between people more versus less creatively talented in the fields of science and art have been reported (Feist, 1998). Creative scientists were found to be more aesthetically oriented, ambitious, confident, deviant, dominant, expressive, flexible, intelligent, and open to new experiences than their less creative peers. Although extraversion also distinguished between the two groups of talents in science, the effect of predictive power of extraversion diminished in older scientists. In addition, creative scientists were more tolerant, open-minded, self-accepting, outgoing, confident, ambitious, and persistent than their less creative counterparts. Artists, compared with non-artists, were less cautious, conscientious, controlled, orderly, and reliable; more aesthetic, creative, curious, imaginative, open to experience, sensitive, and original; and less conventional, rigid, and socialized. As artists got older they become more conventional, less open, and radical. The artists were also conflicted, impulsive, non-conformist, ruledoubting, skeptical, fiercely independent, and not concerned with obligations or duties. Artists tend to seek change, are easily bored, and see themselves as talented and worthy people. They could be hostile, independent, open to experience, sensitive, radical, intelligent, non-conforming, and characterized by low impulsivity (i.e., prudent, sober, serious). They are also more aggressive, cold, egocentric, impulsive, antisocial, creative, and tough-minded than most people. There is an abundance of findings that indicate artistically creative individuals to be non-conforming, independent, hostile, aloof, cold, and introverted, compared with the scientifically creative, who are reported to be dominant, arrogant, hostile, self-confident, autonomous, and introverted. Creative individuals in both art and science domains seem to be asocial,

Becoming Talented  •  159 indicating that they need to be alone when involved in creative production. In addition, both artists and creative scientists are open and flexible in their cognitive styles and highly motivated. As one can see, there are some common personality characteristics in creatively talented people across the fields of science and art. One can also find that, even within one domain, the findings about personality characteristics of creative persons are sometimes in conflict (impulsive and not impulsive in artistically talented). It is likely that within a field such as art, creative artists across different specialties or even within one specialty (e.g., fine art, performing art) might exhibit different personality traits. Creative insights Creative insights and inspiration are an important part of the creative process. Dietrich (2004), in an effort to understand creativity based on functional neuroanatomy, proposed that there are different types of creative insights, each mediated by a distinctive neural circuit. For example, when creativity is the result of deliberate control, as opposed to spontaneous generation, the prefrontal cortex instigates the creative process. Both spontaneous and deliberate processing modes can guide neural computation in structures that contribute emotional content and in structures that provide cognitive analysis, yielding different types of creativity. Collins (2005) observed in music composition that although creative process includes a generative process of problem proliferation and successive solution implementation, there are moments of creative insight related to problem restructuring. Collins also found that some creative insights overlap in time with others, indicating an element of parallelism in creative thinking.

Expert talent and creative talent in children and adults Many children identified as intellectually gifted in school do not manifest either expert or creative talent as adults (Terman, 1925; Subotnik & Steiner, 1994). Although environmental conditions are the most likely explanation for this discontinuity (Olszewski-Kublius, 2000), it is also possible that the child identified as intellectually gifted at a young age may lack the high-level creativethinking abilities required to reach the highest levels of realization of expert and creative talent. As intellectual ability is an important component element for creativity, and domain-specific intellectual ability and domain-specific creative talent are highly related, children who are identified as gifted through traditional aptitude and achievement tests or school grades have an advantage for discovering and actualizing their creative potential. However, there are certainly no guarantees that this will happen because of the complexity in the process of the development of expert and creative talent.

160  •  Becoming Talented For example, children interested in art begin to develop their talent by applying analytical- and creative-thinking abilities to process information. With disciplined practice in perceptual discrimination, metaperception, creative interpretation, and dynamic performance (see Haroutounian, 1995), they develop their talent in the specific art areas of their interest. At this stage, intellectually gifted children might have an advantage for understanding procedures involved in these areas more quickly or more easily than children with lower intellectual capacity. With appropriate practice and training, they become expert and master the fine or gross motor skills required in the art domain (e.g., technical abilities). Those who have creative proclivity and supportive environments that foster creativity may develop creative talent, expressing creative ideas in their artistic performance or products that go beyond mastering technical abilities. Out-of-school activities as a harbinger of expert and creative talent in adults The realization of potential creative talent requires time to incubate and develop as a result of life experiences. It is, therefore, more fully manifested in adults, but may be in evidence long before adulthood. One way to identify specific talent in children before these abilities become fully realized in one’s vocation is by examining leisure-time, out-of-school activities and accomplishments. The activities that gifted children engage in are often highly intellectual in nature, and moreover done to satisfy their own curiosity and interests, rather than to achieve high grades and satisfy the needs of teachers and parents. In his seminal research, Holland (1961) contended that high school students who currently are creatively talented in art or science could have been identified by assessing their history of challenging creative activities, suggesting that past creative achievements are the single best predictor of future creative achievement. Wallach and Wing (1969) added that nonacademic accomplishments should be examined and credited when searching for talented students. Furthermore, longitudinal studies provide impressive evidence of the predictive validity of out-of-school leisure activities, indicated by strong correlations between activities in various domains and career choice and accomplishment in corresponding domains (e.g., Hong, Milgram, & Whiston, 1993; Milgram & Hong, 1994; Milgram, Hong, Shavit, & Peled, 1997). In rare instances, a child may present expert or creative talent by demonstrating high-level performance in a specific domain at a very young age. More frequently though, young people give signals of potential for performance that would be considered expert or creative talent in a specific domain by demonstrating strong interest and activities in that domain.

Becoming Talented  •  161 For example, a strong relationship was found between the performance of challenging, out-of-school activities in the specific domains of art, drama, social leadership, and dance and the authentic assessment of performance in the corresponding domain (Milgram, 2003). These findings may indicate that out-of-school activities are an early indicator of creative talent. The findings also indicate that out-of-school accomplishments in youth are the manifestation of talent, although it is likely at a low level of talent range. The relationship between creative potential and manifested creativity extends to highly accomplished and creative, eminent individuals. The single most powerful predictor of creative eminence is the number of creative products that an individual has contributed to the domain (Albert, 1975; Simonton, 1997). This positive association holds for both aesthetic (Simonton, 1977, 1991a) and scientific (Simonton, 1991b) creativity. On the basis of these findings it is reasonable to conclude that out-of-school activities are good indicators of future talents, expert and creative, and out-of-school accomplishments represent the beginning of talent manifestation. It is important to remember that there are other assessments and indicators of talent development as discussed throughout this book.

Developmental stages of expert and creative talents Interactions of cognitive abilities, personal attributes, and environmental cues and inputs affect the developmental path of each individual. Children with high creative proclivity will experience their lives quite differently than children without creative inclination (see Chapter 6). Individuals with extremely high intellectual capacity or individuals with other types of genius might differ in their approach to learning and invoke unusual responses from people around them. All individuals take different paths to develop their strengths and end at different places, some profoundly accomplished and some only reaching halfway to their original goals. The field (e.g., sciences or arts), domain (literature, fine arts, performing arts), or content (poetry or novel) also add variability to the developmental process. Nevertheless, researchers still find some common or typical developmental courses taken among many people who have achieved high accomplishments in their fields. In this section, we will present some well-known descriptions of the stages of talent development. One was designed with what we have defined as expert talent in mind and the other three apply to creative talent. In view of our postulation of the relationship between the two types of talent, descriptions by Bloom (1985), Wallas (1926), Osborn (1953, 1957, 1963, 1967), Parnes (1966, 1967, 1988), and Treffinger and his colleagues (Treffinger, Isaksen, & Dorval, 2003) are relevant to understanding talent development and preventing talent loss.

162  •  Becoming Talented Stages of talent development Bloom (1985) conducted pioneering research on the stages of talent development. He identified a uniform progression through several stages for the development of distinguished performers in several different domains. The work was about elite performers, which would be considered expert talent in our model. The stages of talent development were obtained based on interviews with elite performers and their parents and teachers. The following presents conclusions about the stages that typical elite performers experience throughout the talent development process. 1 They are typically exposed to the domain initially under playful conditions as children. 2 After some time, they become interested in a specific domain and often show promise, compared with other children in the same local environment. 3 Parents arrange for instruction by a teacher or coach who is skilled in working with children. 4 During the coaching stage, parents help the children establish regular practice habits and provide enthusiastic support and encouragement in response to improvements in performance. 5 With further increases in quality of performance, better-qualified teachers and coaches are sought and the amount of daily practice is typically slowly increased. 6 At some point, normally in the early or mid-teens, future elite performers make a major commitment toward reaching the top level in their domain. This is often associated with seeking out a master teacher and optimal training conditions, which sometimes require the family to move to a different geographical location. 7 When expert performers seek to attain eminent achievements, the individuals have already mastered most of what their teachers or coaches would ordinarily teach them. 8 At this stage, some of these individuals begin to search for their own creative contribution to the domain. Creative process Models for creative problem-solving have appeared and some organizations offer training in creative problem-solving. We present Wallas’s model (Wallas, 1926), the Osborn–Parnes’ creative problem-solving model (Parnes, 1966, 1988), and Treffinger and colleagues’ creative problem-solving model (Treffinger, Isaksen, & Dorval, 2003).

Becoming Talented  •  163 Four stages of the creative process (Wallas, 1926) Creative process refers to thought processes and actions involved in creative production. Wallas described this process as consisting of four stages, i.e., preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. The creative process is not a linear process; individuals may move forward and backward through the stages of the creative process. 1 Preparation. This stage involves problem finding and analysis, gathering information, collecting materials, and preliminary work on the problem identified. As indicated earlier, knowledge is important for creative work; that is, the more knowledgeable individuals are, the greater the possibility that they can generate new ideas. However, as we pointed out earlier, deep knowledge can also constitute a barrier to creative thinking. 2 Incubation. This is the stage where the unconsciousness processes and intuition are at work. Good ideas come when individuals are away from the problem. According to Lubart (1994), incubation may involve: (a) active processing similar to conscious work; (b) slow, automatic spreading of memory activation; (c) passive forgetting of superficial details or previous attempts at solving the problem; or (d) associative play between problem elements. 3 Illumination. A good idea suddenly surfaces to one’s consciousness. The “Aha” moments represent illumination with the flash of a new idea. Most of us have experienced this moment while taking a bath or falling asleep in bed after a long incubation period. Some of the ideas come after we thought we had forgotten the problem altogether. 4 Verification. At this stage, the creative idea is evaluated. Some ideas are further developed following verification and some ideas are discarded because they come to be considered not workable or not valuable. Individuals determined to pursue the original idea will return to previous stages to continue the creative process. Creative process for problem-solving (Parnes, 1966, 1988) The Osborn–Parnes model of creative problem-solving is the basis for a program aimed at enhancing the ability of people to develop creative solutions to identified problems. The approach has been widely accepted in business and education. Those who offer training based upon this model are convinced that the training increases the likelihood of generating novel and useful solutions. Creative problem-solving encourages divergent (e.g., brainstorming) as well as convergent thinking. The Osborn–Parnes model includes six stages: messfinding, fact-finding, problem-finding, idea-finding, solution-finding, and acceptance-finding (Parnes, 1966, 1988). We provide brief descriptions for each stage below.

164  •  Becoming Talented 1 Mess-finding. Even though individuals sense that there is a problem or problems to be solved, the situation may be an undefined “mess.” People begin to be aware that there is something that needs attention. 2 Fact-finding. Brainstorming, free association, and divergent thinking processes are used to find facts and to identify existing data related to the problem situation. Individuals and group members define and describe the problem and use the facts and data identified as a resource for generating ideas and questions. Questions are evaluated and prioritized according to their relevance to the situation. 3 Problem-finding. Again, brainstorming, free association, and divergent thinking processes are used. But this time, the focus is toward finding and describing problem statements, directing attention to “how to solve the problem” rather than “here is the problem.” For example, instead of “the school district has not allocated funds for .€.€. ,” members are encouraged to change their thinking toward “how and where can we find funds or alternative solutions to overcome the problem of lack of funds.” 4 Idea-finding. Brainstorming and creativity are best seen at this stage. Ideas are not only suggested as before, but they are synthesized, adapted, or improved. 5 Solution-finding. The possible solutions are determined and prioritized. Criteria for solution selection are determined on the basis of importance, usefulness, practicality, or other situation-specific criteria. Based on the selection criteria, the ideas are evaluated and the best solutions are determined. 6 Acceptance-finding. At this stage, members of the group plan possible strategies for implementing solutions, decide who will fill the roles of team leader or leaders and team members, set responsibilities, establish feedback procedures, and distribute information about the procedures among team members and leaders. Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Version 6.1TM (Treffinger, Isaksen, & Dorval, 2003) Treffinger and his associates extended the Osborn–Parnes model and revised it a few times to reach the current version (Version 6.1). This program guides individuals in using creative and critical thinking skills on an individual basis or in a group, helps them understand challenges and opportunities, generate ideas, and develop effective plans for solving problems and managing changes. The CPS Version 6.1TM includes four main components consisting of eight stages altogether: (a) understanding the challenge – constructing opportunities, exploring data, framing problems; (b) generating ideas; (c)

Becoming Talented  •  165 preparing for action – developing solutions and building acceptance; and (d) planning your approach – appraising tasks and designing process.

Preventing talent loss The goal of this book is to contribute to preventing talent loss. We have tried in each chapter to indicate how the concepts discussed contribute to this goal. In this chapter, our goal was to clarify the two types of talent – expert and creative. We stressed that talent development is an ongoing process and that although talent can be manifested in youngsters (most likely at a low level), high levels of talent are usually exhibited in adults. Expert talent and creative talent as reflected in real-world products or performance, especially at the highest levels, represent a unique integration of the influences of cognitive abilities, personal–psychological attributes, and the environment on talent development. We discussed the similarities and differences between expert and creative talent and the important attributes and characteristics of each. Although there is no age limit on initiating or shifting the domain of interest for developing and realizing talents, talent development is usually initiated and processed when people are young. Thus, early discovery and support for youth who show potential for developing expert or creative talent, as well as discovering youth with hidden potential, is important in preventing talent loss. In this section, we provide a few suggestions that are relevant to identifying, developing, and enhancing expert and creative talents. Knowledge is important for developing both expert talent and creative talent A broad and deep knowledge base in a particular domain is essential for expert performance as well as for generating new ideas. To develop knowledge structure helpful for creativity: (a) teachers should help students develop basic concepts by clearly articulating principles or features of concepts in the teaching process and by using multiple examples of the concepts; (b) learners should actively, instead of passively, engage in learning by applying learned concepts in various situations; and (c) more complex knowledge structures (e.g., mental models) are necessary as well as basic concepts for creative thinking (Mumford, 1998). Help students build an organized and easily accessible, in-depth, content knowledge base by presenting information using concept maps, diagrams, and flowcharts, or by using other information organization methods. Using proper modalities of presentation may help increase ability

166  •  Becoming Talented to view problems from different angles or points of view (Koren, Klavir, & Gorodetsky, 2005). Provide appropriate materials for various levels and types of learners Most children identified as potentially gifted are intellectually curious, have the ability to learn rapidly, understand complex concepts, and are motivated to learn. Educators should provide curriculum materials that match the domains of interest and the levels of abilities of these potentially gifted learners. We have discussed several times throughout this book that children with creative potential tend to encounter difficulties in classrooms. In order to prevent talent loss, educators should make efforts to discover, understand, and nurture such students. Help with technology use Although technology has been revolutionizing the education of all children, one of the concerns technology generates is the possible absence of wellstructured bodies of knowledge in students as a result of exposure to multimedia representations in the digital information environment (Birkerts, 1995; Koren, Klavir, & Gorodetsky, 2005; Stoll, 1995). With teachers’ wellorganized presentation of instructional materials and proper instructions about navigation approaches to accessing and processing the vast knowledge on the Internet, technology will enhance students’ knowledge acquisition and representation. Know the two sides of knowledge in creativity Recall that well-structured, in-depth knowledge can be detrimental to developing creative talent. Accumulating knowledge is generally very helpful for developing expert as well as creative talent. However, sometimes the very process of accumulating knowledge can limit creativity and make students become less flexible and original in their thinking. Awareness of this aspect is helpful at any stage of creative talent development. Help students spend more time understanding and representing problems Experts have been found to generate a complex representation of situations, where information about the context is integrated with knowledge to allow selection, evaluation, checking, and reasoning about alternative actions (Ericsson, 1996). Expert problem solvers devote more time to representing

Becoming Talented  •  167 and organizing information and spend less time solving the problem. The representation of a problem in highly intelligent children extends beyond the information given. This representation process prepares them to include relevant information and to exclude irrelevant information (Shore & Kanevsky, 1993). Help students learn to monitor what they know Knowledge monitoring is an important component of learning. Students who accurately know what they know and do not know do better in school (Tobias, Everson, & Laitusis, 1999). Educators should not only facilitate learning by delivering knowledge content, but also help students monitor their knowledge. Creativity can and should be fostered Daniel Pink (2005), in his book A Whole New Mind, contends that we are entering an era in which creativity is becoming increasingly critical. Creativity is viewed as a solution for advancing and succeeding in competitive global markets. There are various training programs and models for developing creativity, some of which have been cited in this book. Parents and teachers can make efforts to provide creative, stimulating environments at home and in classrooms and to find mentors and role models for potential creative talent (Lubart, 1994). People can search for ways to foster their own creativity and that of others around them (books and websites) and seek training in creative problem-solving (Treffinger, Isaksen, & Dorval, 2003). Creativity has been rather neglected at the expense of increasing achievement at school and at home. It is about time that we gave full, extended attention to creativity and to preventing the loss of creative talent.

Epilogue

Books and articles on giftedness and talent have discussed conceptions of giftedness and creativity, identification, curriculum, and programs for gifted and talented students, and various attributes and issues related to giftedness. In this book we chose to focus on talent loss and presented a systematic summary of the accumulated knowledge that applies to this specific problem. This book also presents a new comprehensive model of giftedness and talent that includes component attributes, illustrated throughout the chapters, that are the foundation for the culminating outcome – the development of expert and creative talent. To our knowledge, this is the first book on giftedness and talent that clearly distinguishes the two types of talent – expert talent and creative talent. Both kinds of talent represent extraordinary achievement in specific domains. What is usually seen in children and youth is potential talent rather than actual, manifested talent, although some youngsters begin to show their talent early. When hearing the word talent, many people think of accomplishments in the aesthetic domains such as music, art, dance, and drama. Our definition of talent is much broader. It includes extraordinary intellectual achievements in all domains of human endeavor – for example, in science, the arts, literature, mathematics, medicine, engineering, and

170  •  Epilogue technology. Talent is found in social, political, military, moral, and religious leadership and in business endeavors as well as in education. The identification and enhancement of potential talent is not a luxury item of low priority to society. If efforts are not made to assure that the potential talents of young people are utilized, society will continue to lose its most valuable natural resource, the human capital, which might have solved its most pressing problems and produced extraordinary contributions in all realms of human endeavor. To direct readers’ attention to “preventing talent loss,” chapters concluded with a section directed to teachers, counselors, and parents suggesting how the concepts presented in the chapter can be translated into practical applications and used to prevent talent loss in families and educational settings of all kinds. In the next section, we summarize what we consider to be the conceptual and practical ramifications of the conceptualization of talent development and talent loss as we have presented it.

Foundational characteristics and attributes for talent development and talent loss With the optimal combination of resources for talent development – cognitive abilities, personal attributes, and environmental resources – individuals may realize their gifted potential, manifesting their talent either with expertise (expert talent) or with creative accomplishment (creative talent). Two empirically distinguishable kinds of cognitive abilities, analytical-thinking ability and creative-thinking ability, are major foundations for developing talent. Both expert talent and creative talent utilize domain-general and domain-specific analytical and creative thinking, although how they are utilized is quantitatively and qualitatively different (see Chapter 12 and Chapters 3 and 4). That is, the realization of either type of talent requires both analytical and creative abilities. To attain the highest or profound level of expert talent, both analytical and creative cognitive abilities must be high in the individual, but the former ability will likely be the dominant characteristic. With creative talent at the profound level, the opposite pattern of cognitive abilities may be seen. Personal–psychological attributes such as motivation, self-regulatory behavior, learning style, affect, and biological attributes are also major attributes to talent development or talent loss (see Chapters 5 though 7). Most of these characteristics are malleable, some more difficult to change than others and some more influential than others to particular individuals. With proper understanding of these attributes, educators and parents would be able to find the influential attributes of each child and provide the opportunity to develop desired attributes to prevent talent loss.

Epilogue  •  171 Environmental–social factors such as school and classroom, curriculum and instruction, delivery system, school personnel, family, mentors, socioeconomic, and technology all have impacts on talent development or talent loss (see Chapters 8 through 11). Some individuals are fortunate enough to be brought up in optimal circumstances and have less difficulty realizing their potential talent. However, there are many youngsters who encounter numerous difficulties in and out of school and are not provided with a favorable environment. These adverse conditions may result in talent loss. Talent realization occurs when all these components work in harmony. Comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of talent development will help educators and parents position themselves to help youngsters develop their potential. All individuals have certain proclivity, personality, and potential. Throughout the book, we have discussed those components influencing talent development, highlighting what educators and parents can do to prevent talent loss.

Talent development: a continuous process for all individuals We regard all children as potentially talented. All have the potential and merit the opportunity to generate real-world products or performances of different kinds and at different levels of quality. It is the responsibility of society to identify and enhance potential talent in all children. This does not mean that all should reach the profound level of talent or receive the same kind of education. To the contrary, in a democratic society all children and youth should receive the education that they require because of their unique cognitive and personal–social characteristics. This recommendation has been made many times before, without effective implementation. The rapid development of educational technology makes the implementation of such programs possible and practicable. It is rare for an individual to realize his or her full potential in any given domain. We recognize and honor those who do, but most people do not. All children and youth can move to higher levels of talent if given the appropriate opportunities. How they go about doing this and the pace at which they develop their talents differs from person to person. Not only children and youth but also adults may realize potential talent that was dormant for many years because of a wide variety of reasons at a later stage of life.

Improving identification and selection processes to reduce talent loss Schools should reconsider their definitions of giftedness and their policies of identification and selection. We call for wider identification procedures

172  •  Epilogue that go far beyond the emphasis on IQ scores, even as an initial screening approach. Individual children’s personal–psychological characteristics and backgrounds are either ignored or given scant attention in the identification and selection of potential talent in most school districts. We listed and gave detail on the many instruments available that can be used in school systems to search for potential talents and to assess many of the abilities, attributes, and factors that influence talent development. We strongly recommend that school districts use a package with a wide variety of instruments and procedures for identification.

Teaching strategies designed to prevent talent loss: differentiation of curriculum and individualization of instruction for all learners We have made the bold assertion that all children are potentially talented. We further contend that the needs of all children can be met only if the curriculum is differentiated and instruction individualized in regular classrooms in terms of the pattern of abilities and preferences presented by each child. Instruction should include helping students be more self-regulated and motivated. While this recommendation is not new, current technological developments make it more feasible than ever before.

Technology-integrated curriculum and instruction Recent advances in technology create unlimited possibilities for adjusting learning environment for all learners. Providing differentiated instructional materials for gifted learners in the regular classroom was a lofty goal with almost no chance of implementation before the advent of technology-integrated instruction. Technology today and tomorrow can make this goal attainable. Future advance in the use of technology in education can take place when experts from various sectors work in harmony and make concerted efforts to produce curricula materials that are possible for classroom teachers to utilize.

Teacher training: preservice and in-service If changes are to take place that will affect the education of all children, it is imperative that teachers acquire a better understanding of giftedness and talent. Part of the teacher’s task is to ascertain the potential talents and current levels of demonstrated talent of each child and to implement an individualized plan for each child. Teachers should have a good understanding regarding what characteristics, attributes, and factors contribute to human learning and

Epilogue  •  173 development – the topics dealt with throughout the chapters of this book. Particularly relevant to teachers in the era of rapid development of technology is how to prepare them to utilize ever-changing technologies in their classroom instruction. Many teachers and even those responsible for the professional training of teachers may have minimal knowledge of the concepts and use of technologyintegrated instruction. Although some teacher educators and researchers began to develop and examine technology-integrated instructional materials, the advancement of usable instructional materials in classrooms is in the infancy stage compared with the advancement of available technologies. Again, concerted efforts to develop technology-integrated instructional materials are required at the local, state, and national levels.

Financial support – redefining priorities Many leaders who influence policy decisions in education consider support of special education for the gifted and talented a luxury. This notion is possibly based on their observation of a few highly publicized, talented individuals who realized their potential without such support or based on their beliefs that gifted children can realize their potential without support. Leaders with these views often consider financial support for the education of the gifted as being provided at the expense of disadvantaged groups who are more entitled to the financial support of their communities. One important advantage of the implications and applications of the suggestions that we have presented is that these “elitist” arguments that resulted in so much talent loss in the past are no longer relevant.

A modest proposal In concluding this epilogue and the book, we would like to offer what will seem to many to be a revolutionary suggestion that is not viable but others will understand that the ideas have promise to be a practical and effective solution for talent loss. We have suggested that all children have potential and that all children can advance and actualize their potential talents. We have suggested the use of technology-integrated education to make this happen. This recommendation in fact eliminates the need for complex processes of identification and selection. We no longer need expensive special education programs of all kinds. We suggest that technology-based special education be offered at all levels, for all domains, and for children of all ages in all schools. The policy that we are recommending is open-admission. Any child who chooses to explore potential talent in any subject matter would be encouraged to do so. However, the standards for advancement and continuing in the program

174  •  Epilogue would be uniformly high. This drastic change in policy requires change in the allocation of funds. As this recommendation cannot be implemented without curricular materials reasonably ready to be utilized, we strongly suggest that funds are re-allocated for material development for all children of different levels. When necessary materials are developed and ready to be used, huge sums would no longer go to identification, selection, transportation, and special school settings of all kinds. These funds would be invested further in creating technology-based materials for various disciplines, preferably using interdisciplinary approaches. This is, admittedly, a difficult task but entirely possible in today’s world. As indicated earlier, a key factor in determining whether this proposal would yield results has to do with concerted efforts among experts such as teacher educators, instructional designers, technology experts, measurement experts, teachers, and policy-makers. Unless the efforts are supported by funds, it will be a while until we see any instructional materials that are ready to be utilized in classrooms. If this approach is adopted, the direction and focus of teacher-training will see changes. Technology is advancing at a rapid pace, but the education community is slow to utilize technology. Teachers and teacher educators must provide the direction to advance technology use in education. Such leadership can play a significant role in implementing our modest proposal. It is our hope that the readers of this book will take action, each in his/her own way, to meet the challenge of preventing talent loss.

References

Aamidor, S (2005, April). Follow up program for identification and intervention for rural, low-income gifted students. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Ablard, K. E., & Lipschultz, R. E. (1998). Self-regulated learning in high-achieving students: Relations to advanced reasoning, achievement goals, and gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 94–101. Achter, J. A., Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (1997). Rethinking multipotentiality among intellectually gifted: A critical review and recommendations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 5–15. Ackerman, C. M. (1997). Identifying gifted adolescents using personality characteristics: Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities. Roeper Review, 19, 229–236. Adams-Byers, J., Whitsell, S. S., & Moon, S. M. (2004). Gifted students’ perceptions of the academic and social/emotional effects of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 7–20. Ainley, M. D. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning multidimensional assessment of their relationship with strategy use and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 395–405. Albert, R. S. (1975). Toward a behavioral definition of genius. American Psychologist, 30, 140–151. Albert, R. S. (Ed.). (1993). Genius and eminence: The social psychology of creativity and exceptional achievement. New York: Pergamon.

176  •  References Albert, R.S., & Runco, M.A. (1986). The achievement of eminence: A model based on a longitudinal study of exceptionally gifted boys and their families. In R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 323–357). New York: Cambridge University Press. Albert, R.S., & Runco, M.A. (1987). The possible different personality dispositions of scientists and non-scientists. In D. Jackson & J. P. Rushton (Eds), Scientific excellence: Origins and assessments (pp. 67–97). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative: Nurturing a lifetime of creativity. Williston, VT: Crown House Publishing Limited. Amabile, T. M. (1990). Within you, without you: A social psychology of creativity and beyond. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds), Theory of creativity (pp. 61–91). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc. Ambrose, D. (2005). Interdisciplinary expansion of conceptual foundations: Insights from beyond our field. Roeper Review, 27, 137–143. Ambrose, D., Allen, J. & Huntley, S. (1994). Mentorship of the highly creative. Roeper Review, 17, 131–134. American Association of University Women. (1991). Shortchanging girls, shortchanging America. Washington, DC: AAUW. Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267. Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological Testing (5th Ed.). New York: Macmillan. Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Zhang, W., & Emmons, C. L. (1993). Classroom practices used with gifted third and fourth students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 103–119. Arnold, K., & Subotnik, R. (1995). Mentoring the gifted: A differentiated model. Educational Horizons, 73, 118–123. Aronson, J. Fried, C., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113–125. ArtsConnection (1992). Talent beyond words: Identifying and developing talent through music and dance in economically disadvantaged, bilingual, and handicapped children. Report submitted to the United States Department of Education Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Program. Brooklyn, NY: Author. Ashman, A. F., Wright, S. K., Conway, R. N. F. (1994). Developing the metacognitive skills of academically gifted students in mainstream classrooms. Roeper Review, 16, 198–204. Ashman, S. S., & Vukelich, C. (1983). The effect of different types of nomination forms on teachers’ identification of gifted children. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 518–527. Avery, L., VanTassel-Baska, J., & O’Neil, B. (1997). Making evaluation work: One school district’s experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(4), 124–133. Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40, 199–209.

References  •  177 Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523–535. Azevedo, R., Ragan, S., Cromley, J. C., & Pritchett, S. (2003, April). Do different goalsetting conditions facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning of complex science topics with riverweb? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking training. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 183–187. Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173–177. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The Amusement Part Theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27, 158–163. Bailey, L. (1992). Compacting curriculum through pretesting. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24, 55–56. Baker, J. A. (1995). Depression and suicidal ideation among academically talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 218–223. Baker, J. A., Bridger, R., & Evans, K. (1998). Models of underachievement among gifted preadolescents: The role of personal, family, and school factors. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 5–15. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds), The handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social–cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Barnett, L., & Durden, W. (1993). Education patterns of academically talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 161–168. Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476. Beasley, W. A. (1985). The role of microcomputers in the education of the gifted. Roeper Review, 7, 156–159. Belcastro, F. P. (2002). Electronic technology and its use with rural gifted students. Roeper Review, 25, 14–16. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364. Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How “equity” can lead to inequity for high-potential students. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 2, 249–292. Benson, J., Bandalos, D., & Hutchinson, S. (1994). Modeling test and anxiety among men and women. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 7, 131–148.

178  •  References Benson, J., & Tippets, E. (1990). Confirmatory factor analysis of the test anxiety inventory. In C. Spielberger & R. Dias-Guererro (Eds), Cross cultural anxiety (Vol. 4, pp. 149–156). New York: Hemisphere/Taylor & Francis. Berger, S. L. (1989). College planning for gifted students. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children. Bernal, E. M. (2000). The quintessential features of gifted education as seen from a multicultural perspective, In G. B. Esquivel & J. C. Houtz (Eds), Creativity and giftedness in culturally diverse students (pp. 159–191). Cresskill, NJ: Harrington Press. Bilsker, D., Schiedel, D., & Marcia, J. (1988). Sex differences in identity status. Sex Roles, 18, 231–236. Birkerts, S. (1995). The Gutenberg elegies. New York: Ballantine. Bland, L. C., Sowa, C. J., & Callahan, C. M. (1994). An overview of resilience in gifted children. Roeper Review, 17, 77–80. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine. Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161–186. Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Macmillan. Borkowski, J. G. (1996). Metacognition: Theory or chapter heading? Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 391–402. Borkowski, J. G., & Thorpe, P. K. (1994). Self-regulation and motivation: A lifespan perspective. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational implications (pp. 45–74). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Borland, J. (1978). Teacher identification of the gifted: A new look. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2, 22–32. Borland, J. H., Schnur, R., & Wright, L. (2000). Economically disadvantaged students in a school for the academically gifted: A postpositivist inquiry into individual and family adjustment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 13–32. Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1995). Longitudinal studies of personality and intelligence: A behavior genetic and evolutionary psychology perspective. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 81–106). New York: Plenum. Bracken, B. A., & Brown, E. F. (2006). Behavioral identification of gifted and talented students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 112–122. Bracken, B. A., & Keith, L. K. (2004). Clinical Assessment of Behavior. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Brophy, J. (2005). Goal theorists should move on from performance goals. Educational Psychologist, 40, 167–276. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glasser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (4th edn., pp. 77–165). Glaser Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, J. S., & Burton, R. R. (1978). Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathematical skills. Cognitive Science, 2, 155–191.

References  •  179 Bruns, J. H. (1992). They can but they don’t. New York: Viking Penguin. Buchana, N., & Woerner, B. (2002). Meeting the needs of gifted learners through innovative high school programs. Roeper Review, 24, 213–219. Buros, E. (1978). The Eighth Mental Measurements Yearbook (Vol. I), Highland Park, NJ: The Gryphon Press. Butler, D. L. (1998). The strategic content learning approach to promoting selfregulated learning: A report of three studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 682–697. Cahan, S., & Ganor, Y. (1995). Cognitive gender differences among Israeli children. Sex Roles, 32, 469–484. Callahan, C. M., & Reis, S. M. (1996). Gifted girls, remarkable women. In K. D. Arnold, K. D. Noble, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds), Remarkable women: Perspectives on females’ talent development (pp. 171–192). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Caporrimo, R. (1990, August). Gender, confidence, math: why aren’t the girls “where the boys are?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston. Carey, S., & Gelman, R. (Eds). (1995). The epigenesist of mind: Essays on biology and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Carr, M., Alexander, J., Schwanenflugel, P. (1996). Where gifted children do and do not excel on metacognitive tasks. Roeper Review, 18, 212–217. Carter, E. W., Wehby, J., & Hughes, C. (2005). Preparing adolescents with highincidence disabilities for high-stakes testing with strategy instruction. Preventing School Failure, 49, 55–62. Casey, K. M. A., & Short, B. M. (2000). Mentor’s contributions to gifted adolescents’ affective, social, and vocational development. Roeper Review, 22, 227–230. Cassady, J. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 270–295. Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Cattell, R. B., & Butcher, H. J. (1968). The prediction of achievement and creativity. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. Ceci, S. J. (1991). How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive components? A reassessment of the evidence. Developmental Psychology, 27, 703–722. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (1997). Schooling, intelligence, and income. American Psychologist, 52, 1051–1058. Chan, D. W. (2001). Learning styles of gifted and nongifted secondary students in Hong Kong. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 35–44. Chand, I., & Runco, M. A. (1993). Problem finding skills as components in the creative process. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 155–162. Chen, C., Himsel, A., Kasof, J., Greenberger, E., & Dmitrieva, J. (2006). Boundless creativity: Evidence for the domain generality of individual differences in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 179–199. Chen, C., & Stevenson, H. W. (1989). Homework: A cross-cultural examination. Child Development, 60, 551–561.

180  •  References Chen, L. K. S. (1996). Motivational orientations and metacognitive abilities of intellectually gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 184–194. Cheung, C., Roskams, T., & Fisher, D. (2006). Enhancement of creativity through a one-semester course in university. Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 1–25. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152. Chickering, A., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd edn.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chorney, M. J., Chorney, K., Seese, N., Owen, M. J., Daniels, J., McGuffin, P., Tompson, L. A., Detterman, D. K., Benbow, C., Lubinski, D., Eley, T., Plomin, R. (1998). A quantitative trait locus associated with cognitive ability in children. Psychological Science, 9, 159–166. Claphan, M. M., Cowdery, E. M., King, K. E., & Montang, M. A. (2005). Predicting work activities with divergent thinking tests: A longitudinal study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 149–167. Clark, B. (1992). Growing up gifted (4th edn.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Clasen, D. R., & Clasen, R. E. (1995). Underachievement of highly able students and the peer society. Gifted and Talented International, 10, 67–76. Clemons, T. L. (2006). Underachieving gifted students: A social cognitive model. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Virginia, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66, 3208. Cohen, L. M., & Ambrose, D. C. (1993). Theories and practices for differentiated education for the gifted and talented. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. Oxford: Pergamon. Colangelo, N., & Brower, P. (1987). Gifted youngsters and their siblings: Long-term impact of labeling on their academic and personal self-concepts. Roeper Review, 10, 101–103. Colangelo, N., & Dettmann, D. F. (1983). A review of research on parents and families of gifted children. Exceptional Children, 5, 20–27. Coleman, M. R., & Gallagher, J. J. (1995). State identification policies: Gifted students from special populations. Roeper Review, 17, 268–275. Coleman, E. B., & Shore, B. (1991). Problem-solving processes of high and average performers in physics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 366–379. College Board. (2007a). 1998 college-bound seniors: National report. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from: http://www.collegeboard.com/about/news_info/cbsenior/ yr1998/nat/cbs1998.html College Board. (2007b). 2004 college-bound seniors: A profile of SAT program testtakers. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from: http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_ downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2006/national-report.pdf College Board. (2007c). 2005 college-bound seniors: Total group profile report. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from: http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/ news_info/cbsenior/yr2004/2004_CBSNR_total_group.pdf Collins, D. (2005). A synthesis process model of creative thinking in music composition. Psychology of Music, 33, 193–216.

References  •  181 Cooper, S. E., & Robinson, D. A. (1989). The influence of gender and anxiety on mathematics performance. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 459–461. Cornell, D. G., & Grossberg, I. N. (1986). Siblings of children in gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9, 253–264. Cornell, D. G., & Grossberg, I. W. (1987). Family environment and personality adjustment in gifted program children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 59–64. Corno, L. (2001). Volitional aspects of self-regulated learning. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd edn., pp. 191–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cox, C. M. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses: Vol. 2. Genetic studies of genius. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. O. (1985). Educating able learners: Programs and promising practices. Austin: University of Texas Press. Cramond, B. (1994a). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: From design through establishment of predictive validity. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 229–254). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cramond, B. (1994b). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and creativity: What is the connection? Journal of Creative Behavior, 28, 193–210. Cropley, A. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity tests worth using? Roeper Review, 23, 72–79. Cropley, A. (2006). Creativity: A social approach. Roeper Review, 28, 125–130. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Using web-based pedagogical tools as scaffolds for self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 33, 513–540. Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston: Little Brown. Dabrowski, K. (1972). Psychoneurosis is not an illness. London: Gryf. Dai, D. Y., & Coleman, L. J. (Eds). (2005). Nature, nurture, and the development of exceptional competence [Special issue]. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28 (3/4). Dai, D. Y., Moon, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Achievement motivation and gifted students: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 45–63. Dandy, J., & Nettelbeck, T. (2002). The relationship between IQ, homework, aspirations and academic achievement for Chinese, Vietnamese and Anglo-Celtic Australian school children. Educational Psychology, 22, 267–276. Davalos, R. A., & Haensly, P. A. (1997). After the dust has settled: Youth reflect on their high school mentored research experience. Roeper Review, 19, 204–208. Davidman, L. (1981). Learning style: The myth, the panacea, the wisdom. Phi Delta Kappa, 62(9), 641–645. Davis, G. A. (1989). Testing for creative potential. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 257–274. Davis, G. A. (1992). Creativity is forever (3rd edn.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Davis, G. A. (1997). Identifying creative students and measuring creativity. In N. Colangelo and G. A. Davis (Eds), Handbook of gifted education (2nd edn., pp. 269– 281). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

182  •  References Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. (1994). Education of the gifted and talented (3rd edn.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. DeBello, T. C. (1990). Comparison of eleven major learning styles models: Variables, appropriate populations, validity of instrumentation, and the research behind them. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 6, 203–222. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Selfdetermination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109–134. Delisle, J. (2003). To be or to do: Is a gifted child born or developed? Roeper Review, 26, 12–13. Diaz, E. I. (1998). Perceived factors influencing the academic underachievement of talented students of Puerto Rican descent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 105–122. Dicicco, J. (1996). Nature merged with nurture: Unique nurturing environments. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 19 (6), 44–47. Dictionary.com (n.d.). mentor. Dictionary.com Unabridged (Vol. 1.1). Retrieved December 20, 2006, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mentor. Dietrich, A. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11 (6), 1011–1026. Dole, S. (2000). The implications of the risk and resilience literature for gifted students with learning disabilities, Roeper Review, 23, 91–96. Donders, J. (1996). Cluster subtypes in the WISC-III standardization sample: Analysis of factor index scores. Psychological Assessment, 8, 312–318. Dover, A. (1983). Computers and the gifted: Past, present, and future. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27, 81–85. Dudley-Grant, G. R., Comas-Diaz, L., Todd-Bazemore, B., & Hueston, J. D. (2004). Fostering resilience in response to terrorism: For psychologists working with people of color. APA Task Force on Resilience in Response to Terrorism. Retrieved February 10, 2007 from: http://www.apa.org/psychologists/pdfs/peopleofcolor.pdf Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles: Practical approaches for Grades 7–12. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Dunne, F., & Rose, T. (1989). Gender equity for anew generation: Teacher education can make a difference. Contemporary Education, 6, 29–31. Dwairy, M. (2004). Parenting styles and mental health of Arab gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 275–286. Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Florence, KY: Psychology Press. Dweck, C. S. & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. Ebmeier, H., Dyche, B., Taylor, P. (1985). An empirical comparison of two program models for elementary gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 15–19. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumenfeld, P. B. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self and task-perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830–847. Elliott, E. S. & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12. Elliott, E. S. & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.

References  •  183 Elmore, R. F., & Zenus, V. (1994). Enhancing social-emotional development of middle school gifted students. Roeper Review, 16, 182–185. Emerick, L. J. (1992). Academic underachievement among the gifted: Students’ perceptions of factors that reverse the pattern. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 140–146. Epstein, J. L., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than minutes: Teachers’ roles in designing homework. Educational Psychologist, 36 (3), 181–193. Erez, M. (1986). The congruence of goal-setting strategies with socio-cultural values and its effect on performance. Journal of Management, 12, 585–592. Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts, sciences, sports, and games (pp. 1–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (pp. 683–703). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffman, R. R. (Eds) (2006). The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A., Nandagopal, K., Roring, R. W. (2005). Giftedness viewed from the expert-performance perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 287–311. Eysenck, H. J. (1995.) Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eysenck, H. J., Nias, D. K., & Cox, D. N. (1982). Spot and personality. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 4, 1–56. Farenga, S. J., & Joyce, B. A. (1998). Science-related attitudes and science course selection: A study of high-ability boys and girls. Roeper Review, 20, 247–251. Farenga, S. J., & Joyce, B. A. (2000). Young girls in science: Academic ability, perceptions and future participation n science. Roeper Review, 22, 261–262. Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 317–327. Fehm, L., & Schmidt, K. (2006). Performance anxiety in gifted adolescent musicians. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20, 98–109. Fehrenbach, C. R. (1991). Gifted/Average readers: Do they use the same reading strategies? Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(3), 125–127. Feist, G. J. (1991). Synthetic and analytic thought: Similarities and differences among art and science students. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 145–155. Feist, G. J. (1994). The affective consequences of artistic and scientific problem solving. Cognition and Emotion, 8, 489–502. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 2, 290–309. Feldman, D. H. (1986). Nature’s gambit. New York: Teachers College Press. Feldman, D. H. (1994). Creativity: Dreams, insights, and transformations. In D. H. Feldman, M. Csikszentmihalyi, & H. Gardner (Eds) Changing the world. A framework for the study of creativity (pp. 85–102). Westport, CT: Praeger.

184  •  References Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Talent identification and development in education (TIDE). Gifted Education International, 10, 10–15. Feldhusen, J. F. (1995a). Talent development: The new direction in gifted education. Roeper Review, 18, 92. Feldhusen, J. F. (Ed.) (1995b). Talent development [Special Issue]. Roeper review, 18 (2). Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). Secondary services, opportunities, and activities for talented youth. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds), Handbook of gifted education (2nd edn., pp. 189–197). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Feldhusen, J. F. (2002). Creativity: The knowledge base and children. High Ability Studies, 13, 179–183. Feldhusen, J. F., & Dai, D. Y. (1997). Gifted students’ attitudes and perceptions of the gifted label, special programs, and peer relations. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 15–20. Feldhusen, J. F., & Moon, S. M. (1992). Grouping fitted students: Issues and concerns. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65, 63–67. Fine, B. (1967). Underachievers: How they can be helped. New York: E. P. Dutton & Company. Fiorentino, L. H., & Castelli, D. (2005). Creating a virtual gymnasium. Journal of Physical Education Recreation and Dance, 76(4), 16. Fishkin, A. S., & Johnson, A. S. (1998). Who is creative? Identifying children’s creative abilities. Roeper Review, 21, 40–46. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitivedevelopmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. Floyd, N. (1993). Mentoring (Education Research Consumer Guide, Number 7). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N. ED 363 678). Ford, D. Y. (1994a). Nurturing resilience in gifted black youth. Roeper Review, 17, 80–85. Ford, D. Y. (1994b). The recruitment and retention of African-American students in gifted education program: Implications and recommendations (Research Monograph No. 9406). Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students. New York: Teachers College Press. Ford, D. Y. (1998). The Underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. Journal of Special Education, 32, 4–14. Ford, D. Y., Tyson, C. A., & Howard, T. C. (2000). Multicultural literature and gifted Black students: Promoting self-understanding, awareness, and pride. Roeper Review, 22, 235–240. Forgasz, H. J. (1995). Gender and the relationship between affective beliefs and perceptions of Grade 7 mathematics classroom learning environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28, 219–239. Freeman, J. (1998). Inborn talent exists. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 415.

References  •  185 Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Schwartz, J. E., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Martin, L. R., Wingard, D. L., & Criqui, M. H. (1995). Psychosocial and behavioral predictors of longevity: The aging and death of the “Termites.” American Psychologist, 50, 69–78. Frydenberg, E. (1997). Adolescent coping: Theoretical and research perspectives. New York: Routledge. Fulker, D. W., Cherny, S. S., & Cardon, L. R. (1993). Continuity and change in cognitive development. In R. Plomin & G. E. McClearn (Eds), Nature, nurture, and psychology (pp. 77–97). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gabbay, R. (1998). Participation in special education programs by intellectually gifted adolescents as predictors of their life accomplishments as young adults: A longitudinal study. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, School of Education, Ramat Aviv, Israel (in Hebrew). Gagné, F. (1991). Toward a differentiated model of giftedness and talent. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds), Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 65–80). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gagné, F. (1994). Are teachers really poor talent detectors? Comments on Pegnato and Birch’s (1959) study of the effectiveness and efficiency of various identification techniques. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 124–126. Gagné, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18, 103–111. Gagné, F. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd edn., pp. 98–119). New York: Cambridge University Press. Gallagher, J. J. (1997). Issues in the education of gifted students. In N. Colangelo & D. A. Davis (Eds), Handbook of gifted education (2nd edn., pp. 10–23). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Gallagher, J. J. (2005). The role of race in gifted education. Roeper Review, 27, 135. Gallagher, J. J., & Gallagher, S. (1994). Teaching the gifted child. (4th edn.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Galton, F. (1874). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. London: Macmillan. Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development. London: Macmillan. Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1991, April). Student motivation and self-regulated learning: A LISREL model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1994). The fruits of asynchrony: A psychological examination of creativity. In D. H. Feldman, M. Csikszentmihalyi, & H. Gardner (Eds) Changing the world. A framework for the study of creativity (pp. 47–68). Westport, CT: Praeger. Gardner, H., Kornhaber, M. L., & Wake, W. K, (Eds). (1996). Intelligence: Multiple perspectives. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.

186  •  References Gentry, M., & Owen, S. V. (1999). An investigation of the effects of total school flexible cluster grouping on identification, achievement, and classroom practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 224–243. Gerber, P. J., Ginsberg, R. J., & Reiff, H. B. (1992). Identifying alterable patterns in employment success in highly successful adults with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 475–487. Getz, I., & Lubart, T. I. (1998). The emotional resonance model of creativity: Theoretical and practical extensions. In S. W. Russ (Ed.), Affect, creative experience, and psychological adjustment (pp. 41–56). Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel. Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1961). Family environment and cognitive style: A study of the sources of highly intelligent and of highly creative adolescents. American Sociological Review, 26(3), 351–359. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (Original work published in 1979.) Gillian, J. E., Carpenter, B. O., & Christenson, J. R. (1996). Gifted and talented evaluation scales. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Gladieux, L., & Swail, W. (2000). Beyond access: Improving the odds of college success. Phi Delta Kappan, 181(9), 688–692. Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1995). Role of presentation time in recall of game and random positions (Tech. Rep. C.I.P. 524). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Psychology. Goertz, J. (2000). Creativity: An essential component for effective leadership in today’s schools. Roeper Review, 22, 158–162. Goldberg, M. D., & Cornell, D. G. (1998). The influence of intrinsic motivation and selfconcept on academic achievement in second- and third-grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 179–205. Goldstein, D., & Wagner, H. (1993). After-school programs, competitions, school Olympics, and summer programs. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & H. Passow (Eds), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 593–604). New York: Pergamon. Golombok, S., & Fivush, R. (1994). Gender development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). The science and politics of intelligence in gifted education. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds), The handbook of gifted education (3rd edn., pp. 24–40). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (1996). A longitudinal study of academic intrinsic motivation in intellectually gifted children: Childhood through early adolescence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 179–183. Gowan, J. C. (1972). The development of the creative individual. San Diego, CA: R. Knapp. Gowan, J. C. (1974). The development of the psychedelic individual. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation. Grantham, T. (2004). Multicultural mentoring to increase black male representation in gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 232–245. Greene, B. A., DeBacker, T. K., Ravindran, B., & Krows, A. J. (1999). Goals, values, and beliefs as predictors of achievement and effort in high school mathematics classes. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 40, 421–458.

References  •  187 Greene, M. J. (2003). Gifted adrift? Career counseling of the gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 25, 66–72. Grenier, M. E. (1985). Gifted children and other siblings. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 164–167. Gross, M. U. M. (1989). The pursuit of excellence or the search for intimacy? The forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth. Roeper Review, 11, 189–194. Gross, M. U. M. (2000). Exceptionally and profoundly gifted students: An underserved population. Originally published in Understanding Our Gifted. Retrieved December 20, 2006, from http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/underserved.htm. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454. Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267–293. Guilford, J. P. (1959). Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist, 14, 469–479. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Guilford, J. P. (1988). Some changes in the Structure-of-Intellect model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1–4. Guillory, M., & Kher-Durlabhji, N. (1995, November). Performance on the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking and the Structure of Intellect – Learning Abilities Tests: Is there a relationship? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Biloxi, MS. Hackney, H. (1981). The gifted child, the family, and the school. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 51–54. Hadaway, N., & Marek-Schroer, M. F. (1992). Multidimensional assessment of the gifted minority student. Roeper Review, 15, 73–77. Haensly, P. A. (1999). The role of cognitive style in transforming preschoolers’ gifted potential. Roeper Review, 21, 271–280. Hanninen, G. E. (1988). A study of teacher training in gifted education. Roeper Review, 10, 139–144. Haroutounian, J. (1993). Identification of the musically talented student: The assessment of musical potential and musical performance. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter, Winter, 12–13. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Haroutounian, J. (1995). Talent identification and development in the arts: An artistic/ educational dialogue. Roeper Review, 18, 112–117. Hartnett, D. N., Nelson, J. M., & Rinn, A. N. (2004). Gifted or ADHD? The possibilities of misdiagnosis. Roeper Review, 26, 73–77. Hayes, J. R. (1989). The complete problem solver (2nd edn.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hébert, T., & Olenchak, F. R. (2000). Mentors for gifted underachieving males: Developing potential and realizing promise. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 196–207. Hegarty, M., Mayer, R. E., & Monk, C. A. (1995). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: A comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 18–32. Heid, M. K. (1983). Characteristics and special needs of the gifted student in mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 76, 221–227. Heller, K. A., & Ziegler, A. (1996). Gender differences in mathematics and natural sciences: Can attributional retraining improve the performance of gifted females? Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 200–210.

188  •  References Helson, R. & Crutchfield, R. S. (1971). Women mathematicians and the creative personality. Creative achievements, 32, 210–220. Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research. 58, 7–77. Hennessey, B. (1989). The effect of extrinsic constraint on children’s creativity while using a computer. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 151–158. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1987). Creativity and learning. Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M., Martinage, M. (1989). Immunizing children against the negative effects of reward. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 212–227. Hertzog, N. B. (2003). Impact of gifted programs from the students’ perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 131–143. Hill, K. & Wigfield, A. (1984). Test anxiety: A major educational problem and what can be done about it. Elementary School Journal, 85, 105–126. Hittner, J. B., & Daniels, J. R. (2002). Gender-role orientation, creative accomplishments and cognitive styles. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, 62–75. Holland, J. L. (1961). Creative and academic performance among talented adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 136–147. Holschuh, J. P. (2000). Do as I say not as I do: high, average and low performing students’ strategy use in biology. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 31, 94–108. Hong, E. (1995a, April). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of teaching word problem solving: The effect of methods instruction. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. Hong, E. (1995b). Mental models in word problem solving: A comparison between American and Korean sixth-grade students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 123–142. Hong, E. (1998a). Korean and US preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions about teaching word problem solving. Journal of Education for Teaching, 24, 165–175. Hong, E. (1998b). Differential stability of state and trait self-regulation in academic performance. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 148–158. Hong, E. (1998c). Differential stability of individual differences in state and trait test anxiety. Learning and Individual Differences, 10, 51–69. Hong, E. (2001a). Homework style, homework environment, and academic achievement. Learning Environments Research, 4, 7–23. Hong, E. (2001b). Test anxiety, perceived test difficulty, and test performance: Temporal patterns of their effects. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 431–447. Hong, E., & Aqui, Y. (2004). Cognitive and motivational characteristics of adolescents gifted in mathematics: Comparisons among students with different types of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 191–201. Hong, E., Greene, M. T., & Higgins, K. (2006). Instructional practices of teachers in general education classrooms and gifted resource rooms: Development and validation of the instructional practice questionnaire. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 91–103. Hong, E., & Karstensson, L. (2002). Antecedents of state test anxiety. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 348–367.

References  •  189 Hong, E., & Lee, K. (2000). Preferred homework style and homework environment in high- versus low-achieving Chinese students. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 20 (2), 125–137. Hong, E., & Lee, K. (2003). Parental awareness of their children’s homework motivation and preference and its relationship to achievement. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 11, 231–249. Hong, E., & Milgram, R. M. (1991). Original thinking in preschool children: A validation of ideational fluency measures. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 253–260. Hong, E., & Milgram, R. M. (1996). The structure of giftedness: The domain of literature as an exemplar. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 31–40. Hong, E., & Milgram, R. M. (1999). Preferred and actual homework style: A crosscultural examination. Educational Research, 41, 251–265. Hong, E., & Milgram, R. M. (2000). Homework: Motivation and learning preference. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Hong, E., Milgram, R. M., & Gorsky, C. (1995). Original thinking as a predictor of creative performance in young children. Roeper Review, 18, 147–149. Hong, E., Milgram, R. M., & Whiston, S. C. (1993). Leisure activities in adolescents as a predictor of occupational choice in young adults. Journal of Career Development, 19, 221–229. Hong, E., & O’Neil, H. F., Jr. (1992). Instructional strategies to help learners build relevant mental models in inferential statistics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 150–159. Hong, E., O’Neil, H. F., & Feldon, D. (2005). Gender effects on mathematics achievement: Mediating role of state and trait self-regulation. In A. M. Gallagher & J. C. Kaufman (Eds), Gender Differences in Mathematics (pp. 264–293). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hong, E., & Peng, Y. (2006, April). Do student beliefs about tests affect tests performance? Mediating role of motivation and metacognition in test preparation. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Hong, E., Peng, Y., & Rowell, L. L. (2006, August). Age, Gender, Achievement-level Differences in Students’ Perceived Homework Self-Regulation. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA. Hong, E., Sas, M., & Sas, J. C. (2006). Test-preparation and test-taking strategies of high and low achievers in mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 144–155. Hong, E. Sas, J. C., Sas, M., Speer, W. R., Pullabhota, S., & Richardson, W. (2005, April). A protocol-analytic study of mental representations and processes in mathematical problem solving: Instructional implications. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Hong, E., & Suh, B. K. (1995). An analysis of change in Korean-American and Korean students’ learning styles. Psychological Reports, 76, 691–699. Hong, E., Whiston, S. C., & Milgram, R. M. (1993). Leisure activities in career guidance for gifted and talented adolescents: A validation study of the Tel-Aviv activities inventory. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 65–68. Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 588–599.

190  •  References Horowitz, F. D., & O’Brien, M. (Eds). (1985a). The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Horowitz, F. D., & O’Brien, M. (1985b). Epilogue: Perspectives on research and development. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien (Eds), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 437–454). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Howard, J. B. (1994). Addressing needs through strengths: Five instructional practices for use with gifted/learning disabled students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5, 23–34. Huff, R. E., Houskamp, B. M., Watkins, A. V., Stanton, M., & Tavegia, B. (2005). The experiences of parents of gifted African American children: A phenomenological study. Roeper Review, 27, 215–221. Hunsaker, S. L., Finley, V. S., & Frank, E. L. (1997). An analysis of teacher nominations and student performance in gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 19–24. Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139–155. Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes and social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 203–253). New York: Academy Press. Jacob, J. E., & Weisz, V. (1994). Gender stereotypes: Implications for gifted education. Roeper Review, 16, 152–155. Jamison, K. R. (1993). Touched with fire: Manic-depressive illness and the artistic temperament. New York: Free Press. Jausovec, N. (1994). Can giftedness be taught? Roeper Review, 16(3), 210–214. Jensen, A. R. (1998a). The g factor and the design of education, In R. J. Sternberg & W. M. Williams (Eds), Intelligence, instruction, and assessment: Theory into practice (pp. 111–131). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Jensen, A. R. (1998b). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger. Jih, H. J., & Reeves, T. C. (1992). Mental models: A research focus for interactive learning systems. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 40, 39–53. Johnson, D. (2005). A vision for the net generation media center: Media matters. Learning and Leading with Technology, 33(2), 25–26. Jones, A., & Issroff, K. (2005). Learning technologies: affective and social issues in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 44, 395–408. Jung, C. G. (1954). The gifted child. In H. Read, M. Fordham, & G. Adler (Eds), The collected work of C. G. Jung (17). New York: Pantheon Books. Junge, M. D., & Dretzke, B. J. (1995). Mathematical self-efficacy gender differences in gifted/talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 22–28. Kahle, J. B. (1990). Why girls don’t know. In M. B. Rowe (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher: The process of knowing (Vol. 6, pp. 55–67). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association. Kalous, T. D. (1990). Helping college students change their learning styles. Journal of College and Adult Reading and Learning, 1(1), 54–63.

References  •  191 Karnes, M. B., & Shwedel, A. (1987). Differences in attitudes and practices between fathers of young gifted and fathers of young nongifted children: A pilot study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 79–82. Kaufman, F. A., Harrel, G., Milam, C. P., Woolverton, N., & Miller, J. (1986). The nature role and influence of mentors in the lives of gifted adults. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 576–578. Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (Eds). (2005) Creativity across domains: faces of the muse. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kearney, K. (2005, Fall). Gifted homeschoolers. Talent, 5–6. Keefe, J. W. (1982). Assessing student learning styles. In Keefe, J. W. (Ed.), Student learning styles and brain behavior (pp. 1–18). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Keinan, G. (1987). Decision making under stress: Scanning of alternatives under controllable and uncontrollable threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 639–644. Kennedy, D. V., & Doepke, K. J. (1999). Multicomponent treatment of a test anxious college student. Education and Treatment of Children, 22, 203–217. Kerr, B. A. (1985). Smart girls, gifted women. Columbus, OH: Ohio Psychology Publishing. Kerr, B. A. (1991). Education gifted girls. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 402–415). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kerr, B. A. (2000). Guiding gifted girls and young women. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 649–657). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kesselman-Turkel, J., & Peterson, F. (2003). Test-taking strategies. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Kim, S. H., Rocklin, T. (1994). The temporal patterns of worry and emotionality and their differential effects on test performance. Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, 7, 117–130. King, R. (2000). Test success in the brain compatible classroom. Retrieved May 9, 2006 from www.teachers.net/archive/mi020200.html. Kirschenbaum, R. J. (1989). Understanding the creative activity of students. St. Louis, MO: Creative Learning Press. Kitano, M. K., & Lewis, R. B. (2005). Resilience and coping: Implications for gifted children and youth at risk. Roeper Review, 27, 200–205. Kitsantas, A. (2002). Test preparation and performance: A self-regulatory analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 101–113. Kline, B. E., & Short, E. B. (1991a). Changes in emotional resilience: Gifted adolescent females. Roeper Review, 13, 118–121. Kline, B. E., & Short, E. B. (1991b). Changes in emotional resilience: Gifted adolescent boys. Roeper Review, 13, 184–187. Klopfer, E., & Yoon, S. (2005). Using palm technology in participatory simulations of complex systems: A new take on ubiquitous and accessible mobile computing. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 285–295. Kolb, D. A. (1976). Learning Style Inventory: Technical manual. Boston, MA: McBer.

192  •  References Kolo, I. A. (1999). The effectiveness of Nigerian vs. United States Teacher Checklists and Inventories for nominating potentially gifted Nigerian preschoolers. Roeper Review, 21, 179–183. Koren, Y., Klavir, R., & Gorodetsky, M. (2005). Students’ multi-modal representations of scientific knowledge and creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 193–215. Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15, 381–395. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73–77. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1997). Ability grouping. In N. Colangeo & G. A. Davis (Eds), Handbook of gifted education (2nd edn., pp. 230–242). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kurtz, B. E., & Weinert, F. E. (1989). Metamemory, memory performance, and causal attributions in gifted and average children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48(1), 45–61. Kwan, P. C. F. (1992). On a pedestal: Effects of intellectual-giftedness and some implications for programmed planning. Educational Psychology, 12, 37–62. Lajoie, S. P., & Shore, B. M. (1981). Three myths? The over-representation of the gifted among dropouts, delinquents, and suicides. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 138–143. Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D., & Simon, H. (1980). Models of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317–348. Latham, G. P. & Marshall, H. A. (1982). The effects of self-set, participatively set, and assigned goals on the performance of government employees. Personnel Psychology, 35, 399–404. Lee-Corbin, H, & Denicolo, P. (1998). Portraits of the able child: Highlights of case study research. High Abilities Studies, 9, 207–218. Lee, S., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2006b). Comparisons between talent search students qualifying via scores on standardized tests and via parent nomination. Roeper Review, 28, 157–166. Lehman, E. B., & Erdwins, C. J. (1981). The social and emotional adjustment of young, intellectually-gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 134–137. Lepper, M., Sethi, S., Dialdin, D., & Drake, M. (1997). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A developmental perspective. In S. Luthsr, J. Burack, D. Cicchetti, & J. Weisz (Eds), Developmental psychopathology: Perspectives on adjustment, risk, and disorder (pp. 23–50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 184–196. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science; selected theoretical papers. In D. Cartwright (Ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Lewis, D. J. (1991). Mathematics and women: The undergraduate school and pipeline. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 38(7), 721–723. Lewis, M., & Haviland-Jones, J. M. (Eds). (2004). Handbook of emotions (2nd edn.). New York: Guilford. Li, A. K. F., & Adamson, G. (1995). Causal attributions of siblings of gifted secondary school students for science, mathematics, and English performance. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 6, 229–232.

References  •  193 Liebert, R. M., & Morris, L. W. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: A distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20, 975–978. Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: The use of multiple goal contexts to promote students’ motivation and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 197–213. Little, C. (2005). A closer look at gifted children with disabilities. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), Teaching gifted students with disabilities (pp. 17–36). Waco, TX: Prufrock. Little, C. A. (2001). Probabilities and possibilities: The future of gifted education. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12, 166–169. Liu, M. (2004). Examining the performance and attitudes of sixth graders during their use of a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 357–379. Livne, N. L. (2002). Giftedness in mathematics as a bi-dimensional phenomenon and levels of creative ability in mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Israel. Livne, N. L., Livne, O. E., & Wight, C. A. (2006, August 23). RUReady.net: A college readiness learning and self-assessment program in mathematics. RUReady. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from http://ruready.net Livne, N. L., & Milgram, R. M. (2006). Academic versus creative abilities in mathematics: Two components of the same construct? Creativity Research Journal, 18, 199–212. Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year Odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. Lohman, D. F. (2005a). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying academically gifted students: An aptitude perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 111–138. Lohman, D. F. (2005b). Review of Naglieri and Ford (2003): Does the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test identify equal proportions of high-scoring White, Black, and Hispanic students? Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 19–28. Lombroso, C. (1891). The man of genius. London: Scott. Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and problem solving (pp. 289–332). New York: Academic Press. Lubart, T. I., & Getz, I. (1997). Emotion, metaphor, and the creative process. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 285–301. Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Sanders, C. E. (1993). Reconceptualizing gender differences in achievement among the gifted, In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 693–707). Oxford: Pergamon. Ludwig, G., & Cullinan, D. (1984). Behavior problems of gifted and nongifted elementary school girls and boys. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 37–39. Lussier, G. (1996). Sex and mathematical background as predictors of anxiety and selfefficacy in mathematics. Psychological Reports, 79, 827–833. Ma, X. (2003). Effects of early acceleration of students in mathematics on attitudes toward mathematics and mathematics anxiety. Teachers College Record, 103, 438–464.

194  •  References McCarney, S. B. (1987). The Gifted Evaluation Scale: Technical manual. Columbia, MO: Hawthorne Educational Services. McCarney, S. B., & Anderson, P. D. (1998). The Gifted Evaluation Scale: Technical manual (2nd edn.). Columbia, MO: Hawthorne Educational Services. McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for “intelligence.” American Psychologist, 28, 1–14. McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 144–154. McDermott, P. A. (1999). National scales of differential learning behaviors among American children and adolescents. School Psychology Review, 28, 280–291. McDermott, P. A., Green, L. F., Francis, J. M., & Stott, D. H. (1999). Learning behaviors scale. Philadelphia, PA: Edumetric and Clinical Science. McGreevy, A. (1992). All in the golden afternoon: The early life of Lewis Carroll. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 6–10. McGue, M., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Iacono, W. G., & Lykken, D. T. (1993). Behavioral genetics of cognitive ability: A life-span perspective. In R. Plomin & G. E. McClearn (Eds), Nature, nurture, and psychology (pp. 59–76). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McGuire, K. L., & Yewchuk, C. R. (1996). Use of metacognitive reading strategies by gifted learning disabled students: An exploratory study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(3), 293–314. Maddi, S. R. (1975). The strenuousness of the creative life. In I. Taylor & J. W. Getzels (Eds), Perspectives in creativity. Chicago, IL: Adline. Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 41–50. Malpass, J. R., O’Neil, H. F., Jr., & Hocevar, D. (1999). Self-regulation, goal orientation, self-efficacy, worry, and high-stakes math achievement for mathematically gifted high school students. Roeper Review, 21, 281–188. Margolis, H., & McCabe, P. P. (2004). Resolving struggling readers’ homework difficulties: A social cognitive perspective. Reading Psychology, 25, 225–260. Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Mandel, H. P., & Marcus, S. I. (1988). Psychology of underachievement. New York: Wiley and Sons. Mann, J. (1994). The difference: Growing up female in America. New York: Warner Books. Manning, B. H., Glasner, S., & Smith, E. R. (1996). The self-regulated aspect of metacognition: A component of gifted education. Roeper Review, 18, 217–223. Markus, H., & Oyseman, D. (1989). Gender and thought: The role of the self-concept. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds), Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag. Matthews, D. (1988). Raven’s Matrices in the identification of giftedness. Roeper Review, 10, 159–162. Mayer, R. E. (1996). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59, 43–64.

References  •  195 Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232. Meeker, M. (1985). Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Meinhardt, J., & Pekrun, R. (2003). Attentional resource allocation to emotional events: An ERP study. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 477–500. Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710–718. Midgley, C. & Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students’ use of selfhandicapping strategies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 389–411. Milgram, R. M. (Ed.). (1989) Teaching gifted and talented learners in regular classrooms. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Milgram, R. M. (Ed.). (1991) Counseling gifted and talented children: A guide for teachers, counselors, and parents. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Milgram, R. M. (Ed.). (2000). Talent Identification and Development: An International Perspective [Special issue]. Roeper Review: A Journal of Gifted Education, 22(2). Milgram, R. M. (2003). Challenging out-of school activities as predictor of creative accomplishments in art, drama, dance, and social leadership, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 305–315. Milgram, R. M. (2004). Real-Life Problem-Solving. College of Judea & Samaria, Department of Behavioral Sciences, Ariel, Israel (Hebrew). Milgram, R. M., Dunn, R., & Price, G. E. (Eds). (1993). Teaching gifted and talented learners for learning style: An international perspective. New York: Praeger. Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (1994). Creative thinking and creative performance in adolescents as predictors of creative attainments in adults: A follow-up study after 18 years. In R. Subotnik & K. Arnold (Eds), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 212–228). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Milgram, R. M., Hong, E. (1999a). Creative out-of-school activities in intellectually gifted adolescents as predictors of their life accomplishments as young adults: A longitudinal study. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 77–87. Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (1999b). Multipotential abilities and vocational interests in gifted adolescents: Fact or fiction? International Journal of Psychology, 34, 81–93. Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (2002). Activities and Accomplishment Inventory: Math (AAI: Math). Tel-Aviv University, School of Education, Ramat-Aviv, Israel and University of Nevada, Las Vegas, College of Education. Milgram, R. M., Hong, E., Shavit, Y. W. & Peled, R. (1997). Out-of-school activities in gifted adolescents as a predictor of vocational choice and work accomplishment in young adults. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 8, 111–120. Milgram, R. M., & Livne, N. L. (2005). Creativity as a general and a domain-specific ability: The domain of mathematics as an exemplar. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp.187–204). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Milgram, R. M., & Livne, N. L. (2006). Research on creativity in Israel: A chronicle of theoretical and empirical development. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds),

196  •  References The International Handbook of Creativity (pp. 307–336). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Milgram, R. M., & Milgram, N. A. (1976). Creative thinking and creative performance in Israeli children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 255–259. Milgram, R. M., Moran, J. D. III, Sawyers, J. K., & Fu, V. (1987). Original thinking in Israeli preschool children. School Psychology International, 8, 54–58. Milgram, R. M., & Rabkin, L. (1980). A developmental test of Mednick’s associative hierarchies of original thinking. Developmental Psychology, 16, 157–158. Miller, E. M. (2005). Studying the meaning of giftedness: Inspiration from the field of cognitive psychology. Roeper Review, 27, 172–177. Miller, M., & Fritz, M. F. (1998). A demonstration of resilience. Intervention in School & Clinic, 3 (5), 265–272. Mills, C., & Tissot, S. L. (1995). Identifying academic potential in students from under-represented populations: Is using the Ravens Progressive Matrices a good idea? Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 209–217. Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 203–214. Moely, B. E., Obach, M. S., Cassell, K. R., & Tonglet, J. P. (1995, March). Cross-sectional and longitudinal assessments of changes in motivational beliefs of elementary and middle school children. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN. Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychologist, 61, 192–203. Molfese, D. L., & Molfese, V. J. (1997). Discrimination of language skills at five years of age using event-related potentials recorded at birth. Developmental Neuropsychology, 13, 135–156. Montague, M., & Applegate, B. (1993). Middle School Students’ Mathematical Problem Solving: An Analysis of Think-Aloud Protocols. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 19–32. Moon, S. M., & Hall, A. S. (1998). Family therapy with intellectually and creatively gifted children. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 24, 59–80. Moon, S. M., Jurich, J. A., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Families of gifted children: Cradles of development. In R. C. Friedman & K. B. Rogers (Eds), Talent in context: Historical and social perspectives on giftedness (pp. 81–99). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Moon, S. M., Nelson, T. S., & Piercy, F. P. (1993). Family therapy with a highly gifted adolescent. Journal of Family Psychology, 4(3), 1–16. Moore, J. L. III, Ford, D. Y., & Milner, H. R. (2005). Recruitment is not enough: Retaining African American students in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 51–67. Moran, J. D., Milgram, R. M., Sawyers, J. K. & Fu, V. R. (1983). Original thinking in preschool children. Child Development, 54, 921–926.

References  •  197 Morris, L. W., Davis, M. A., & Hutchings, C. H. (1981). Cognitive and emotional components of anxiety: Literature review and a revised worry-emotionality scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 541–555. Moss, E. (1990). Social interaction and metacognitive development in gifted preschoolers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 16–20. Moss, E., & Strayer, F. F. (1990). Interactive problem-solving of gifted and non-gifted preschoolers with their mothers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 13, 177–97. Mulcahy, R. F. (1991). Developing autonomous learners. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 37, 385–397. Mumford, M. D. (1998). Creative thought: Structure, components, and educational implications. Roeper Review, 21, 14–19. Mumford, M. D., Marks, M. A., Connelly, M. S., Zaccaro, S. J., & Johnson, J. F. (1998). Domain-based scoring of divergent thinking tests: Validation evidence in an occupational sample. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 151–163. Murphy, D., Jenkins-Friedman, R., & Tollefson, N. (1984). A new criterion for the ‘ideal’ child? Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 31–36. Myers, R., & Pace, T. M. (1986). Counseling gifted and talented students: Historical perspectives and contemporary issues. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 548–551. Naglieri, J. A. (1997). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp. Naglieri, J. A. (2003). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test – Individual Form. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp. Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Addressing under-represented gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 155–160. Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2005). Increasing minority children’s participation in gifted classes using the NNAT: A response to Lohman. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 29–36. Nail, J. M. (1998). The emotional adjustment of gifted adolescents: A global and multidimensional perspective. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 58(10-B), 5688. Natriello, G., McDill, E. L., Pallas, A. M. (1990). Schooling disadvantaged children: Racing against catastrophe. New York: Teachers College Press. Neihart, M. (1999a). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22, 10–17. Neihart, M. (1999b). Systematic risk-taking. Roeper Review, 21, 289–292. Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (Eds) (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock. Nielsen, M. E., & Mortorff-Albert, S. (1989). The effects of special education service on the self-concept and school attitude of learning disabled/gifted students. Roeper Review, 12, 29–36. Newman, R. S. (2002). How self-regulated learners cope with academic difficulty: The role of adaptive help seeking. Theory Into Practice, 41, 133–138.

198  •  References Noble, K. D. (1987). The dilemma of the gifted woman. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 367–378. Noble, K. D., & Smyth, R. K. (1995). Keeping their talents alive: Young women’s assessment of radical, post-secondary acceleration. Roeper Review, 18, 49–55. Noble, K. D., Subotnik, R. F., & Arnold, K. D. (1999). To thine own self be true: A new model of female talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 140–149. Nolden, D., & Sedlacek, W. D. (1997). Gender differences in attitudes, skills, and behaviors among academically talented university freshmen. Roeper Review, 21, 106–109. Norlander, T., Erixon, A., & Archer, T. (2000). Psychological androgyny and creativity: Dynamics of gender-role and personality traits. Social Behavior and Personality, 28, 423–436. Norman, A. D., Ramsay, S. G. Martray, C. R., & Roberts, J. L. (1999). Relationship between levels of giftedness and psychosocial adjustment. Roeper Review, 22, 5–9. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Obach, M. S. (2003). A longitudinal-sequential study of perceived academic competence and motivational beliefs for learning among children in middle school. Educational Psychology, 23, 323–328. O’Boyle, M. W., & Gill, H. S. (1998). On the relevance of research findings in cognitive neuroscience to educational practice. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 397–409. Ochse, R. (1990). Before the gates of excellence: The determinants of creative genius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ohayon, Y. (1999). Preferred and actual homework motivation and preference in high and low creative thinking children. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel. Okagaki, L., & Frensch, P. A. (1998). Parenting and children’s school achievement: A multiethnic perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 123–144. Okuda, S. M., Runco, M. A., & Berger, D. E. (1991). Creativity and the finding and solving of real work problems. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 45–53. Olivers, R. A., & Rosenthal, N. (1992). Gender equity band classroom experience: A review of the research. New York: Queens College. Olsen, T. (1989). Silences. Bantam, Doubleday, Dell [reprinted from Delacorte, NY, 1978] Olszewski-Kublius, P. (2000). The transition from childhood giftedness to adult creative productiveness: Psychological characteristics and social supports. Roeper Review, 23, 65–71. Olszewski-Kublius, P. (2002). Parenting practices that promote talent development, creativity, and optimal adjustment. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 205–212). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Olszewski-Kubilus, P., & Grant, B. (1996). Academically talented women and mathematics: The role of special programs and support from others on acceleration, achievement, and aspirations. In K. Arnold, K. D. Noble, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds), Remarkable women (pp. 281–294). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

References  •  199 Olszewski-Kubilus, P, Grant, B., & Seibert, C. (1994). Social support systems and the disadvantaged gifted: A framework for developing programs and services. Roeper Review, 17, 20–25. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Lee, S. (2004). Parent perceptions of the effects of the Saturday enrichment program on gifted students’ talent development. Roeper Review, 26, 156–165. Olszewski-Kublius, P., & Limburg-Weber, L. (2002). Designs for excellence: A guide to educational program options for academically talented middle and secondary school students. Evanston, IL: The Center for Talent Development, Northwestern University. O’Neil, H. F., & Abedi, J. (1992). Japanese children’s trait and state worry and emotionality in a high-stakes testing environment. Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, 5, 253–267. Osborn, A. F. (1953, 1957, 1963, 1967). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Owens, W. A. (1960). The Owens Creativity Test. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Owens, W. A. (1969). Cognitive, non-cognitive, and environmental correlations of mechanical ingenuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 199–208. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578. Papierno, Ceci, Makel, & Williams, (2005). The nature and nurture of talent: A bioecological perspective on the ontogeny of exceptional abilities. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 312–332. Paris, S. G., Lawton, T. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). A developmental perspective on standardized achievement testing. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 12–20. Parnes, S. J. (1966). Manual for institutes and program. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press. Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative behavior guidebook. New York: Scribners. Parnes, S. J. (1988). Visioning. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press. Passow, A. H., & Frasier, M. M. (1996). Toward improving identification of talent potential among minority and disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 18, 198–202. Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2006). Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 583–597. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91–106. Peng, H., Tsai, C., & Wu, Y. (2006). University students’ self-efficacy and their attitudes toward the Internet: The role of students’ perceptions of the Internet. Educational Studies, 32, 73–86. Perrone, P. A. (1997). Gifted individuals’ career development. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds), Handbook of Gifted Education (2nd edn., pp. 398–407). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

200  •  References Peterson, J. S. (1977). The heterogeneously gifted family. Gifted Child Quarterly, 21, 396–411. Peterson, J. S. (2000). Preparing for college – Beyond the getting-in part. Gifted Child Today, 2, 36–41. Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006). Bullying and the gifted: Victims, perpetrators, prevalence, and effects. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 148–168. Pfeiffer, S. I., & Stocking, V. B. (2000). Vulnerabilities of academically gifted students. Special Services in the Schools, 16(1/2), 83–93. Piechowski, M. M. (1991). Emotional development and emotional giftedness. In N. Colangelo and G. Davis (Eds), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 285–306). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Piirto, J. (1998). Theses in the lives of successful contemporary U.S. women creative writers. Roeper Review, 21, 60–70. Piirto, J. (1999). Talented children and adults: Their development and education (2nd edn.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind: Moving from the information age to the conceptual age. New York: Riverhead Books. Pintrich, P. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452–502). San Diego, CA: Academic. Pintrich, P., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and selfregulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Pipher, M. (1994). Revising Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. New York: Ballantine Books. Plomin, R (1986). Development, genetics, and psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Plomin, R. (1990). The role of inheritance in behavior. Science, 248, 183–188. Plucker, J. A. (1998). Gender, race, and grade differences in gifted adolescents’ coping strategies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 423–436. Plucker, J. A. (1999a). Reanalysis of student responses to creativity checklists: Evidence of content generality. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 136–137. Plucker, J. A. (1999b). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalysis of Torrance’s (1958 to present) longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 103–114. Plucker, J. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenk, & J. L. Singer (Eds), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153–167). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Plucker, J. A., & Runco, M. A. (1998). The death of creativity measurement has been greatly exaggerated: Current issues, recent advances, and future directions in creativity assessment. Roeper Review, 21, 36–39. Plummer, D. L., Slane, S. (1996). Patterns of coping in racially stressful situations. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 302–315. Rabinowitz, M., & & Glaser, R. (1985). Cognitive structure and process in highly competent performance. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien (Eds), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 75–98). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

References  •  201 Ramsay, S. G., & Richards, H. C. (1997). Cooperative learning environments: Effects on academic Attitudes of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 160–168. Raven, J. (1990). Raven manual research supplement 3: American and international norms – neuropsychological uses. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press. Raven, J., & Court. J. H. (1989). Raven manual research supplement 4: Normative, reliability and validity studies. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press. Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1983a). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and vocabulary scales. section 3: Standard Progressive Matrices. London: H. K. Lewis. Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1983b). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and vocabulary scales, section 4: Advanced Progressive Matrices, sets I and II. London: H. K. Lewis. Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 87–111. Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.) (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Reis, S. M. (2004). Series introduction. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Definitions and conceptions of giftedness (pp. ix–xxi). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Reis, S. M., & Dobyns, S. M. (1991). An annotated bibliography of non-fictional books and curricular materials to encourage gifted females. Roper Review, 13, 129–134. Reis, S. M., Gubbins, E. J., Briggs, C. J., Schreiber, F. J., Richards, S., Jacobs, J. K., Eckert, R. D., & Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Reading instruction for talented readers: Case studies documenting few opportunities for continuous progress. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 315–338. Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2002). Underachievement in gifted and talented students with special needs. Exceptionality, 10, 113–125. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992). Using curriculum compacting to challenge the above-average. Educational Leadership, 50, 51–57. Rejskind, G. (2000). TAG teachers: Only the creative need apply. Roeper Review, 22, 153–157. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–261. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Renzulli, J. S. (1987a). The positive side of pull-out programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 245–254. Renzulli, J. S. (1987b). The difference is what makes differentiation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 265–266. Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Emerging conceptions of giftedness: Building a bridge to the new century. Exceptionality, 10, 67–75. Renzulli, J. S., Hartman, R. K., Callahan, C. M. (1971). Scale for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students. Exceptional Children, 38, 243–248. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1998). Talent development through curriculum differentiation. NASSP Bulletin, 82(595), 61–64.

202  •  References Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., Hartman, R. K., & Westberg, K. L. (2002). Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students – Revised edition. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Restak, R. (1979). One picture is worth a thousand words? Not necessarily! The Modern Language Journal, 60(4), 160–168. Reyes, E. I., Fletcher, R., & Paez, D. (1996). Developing local multidimensional screening procedures for identifying giftedness among Mexican-American border population. Roeper Review, 18, 208–211. Richards, R. (1989). Compelling evidence for increased rates of affective disorder among eminent creative persons. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 30, 272–273. Richman, H. B., Gobet, F., Staszewski, J. J., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Perceptual and memory processes in the acquisition of expert performance: The EPAM model. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts, sciences, sports, and games (pp. 167–188). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rimm, S. (1995). Why bright kids get poor grades and what you can do about it. New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks. Risemberg, R., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1992). Self-regulated learning in gifted students, Roeper Review, 15, 98–101. Rivero, L. (2002). Progressive digressions: Home schooling for self-actualization. Roeper Review, 24, 197–202. Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9–27. Robinson, N. M., Lanzi, R. G., Weinberg, R. A., Ramey, S. L., & Ramey, C. T. (2002b). Family factors associated with high academic competence in former head start children at third grade. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 278–290. Robinson, N. M., Reis, S. M., Neihart, M., & Moon, S. M. (2002a). Social and emotional issues facing gifted and talented students: What have we learned and what should we do now? In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 267– 288). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Roels, C. (1998). Learning styles and school counseling. In J. M. Allen (Ed.), School counseling: New perspectives and practices (pp. 21–24). Greensboro, NC: ERIC/ CASS. Rogers, K. B. (1998). The class of ë43 at CIT: A case study of adult creative productivity. Roeper Review, 21, 71–76. Rothenberg, A. (1990). Creativity and madness: New findings and old stereotypes. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rouse, W. B., & Morris, N. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 349–363. Rowell, L. L., & Hong, E. (2002). The role of school counselors in homework intervention. Professional School Counseling, 5, 285–291. Rudowicz, E. (2003). Creativity and Culture: a two way interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 273–190. Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. Brewer (Eds), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

References  •  203 Runco, M. A. (1986). Maximal performance on divergent thinking tests by gifted, talented, and nongifted children. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 308–315. Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (Eds). (1990). Theories of creativity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Runco, M. A., & Nemiro, J. (1993). Problem finding, creativity and giftedness. Roeper Review, 16, 235–241. Runco, M. A., & Okuda, S. M. (1991). The instructional enhancement of the flexibility and originality scores of divergent thinking tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 435–441. Runions, T. (1980). The mentor academy program: Educating the gifted and talented for the 80’s. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24, 152–157. Russ, S. W. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in the creative process. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). How America’s schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Sarason, I. G. (1988). Anxiety, self-preoccupation and attention. Anxiety Research, 1, 3–8. Sattler, J. M. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd edn.), San Diego, CA: J. M. Sattler Publisher. Saccuzzo, D. P., Johnson, N. E., & Guertin, T. L. (1994). Identifying underrepresented disadvantaged gifted and talented children: A multifaceted approach. Volumes 1 and 2. (Contract No. R206A00569). San Diego State University, CA: Department of Education, Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 368 095) Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype–environment effects. Child Development, 54, 424–435. Schacter, J., Thum, Y. M., & Zifkin, D. (2006). How much does creative teaching enhance elementary school students’ achievement? Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 47–72. Schank, R. C. (1988). Creativity as a mechanical process. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 220–238). New York: Cambridge University Press. Schlaug, G. (2001). The brain of musicians: A model for functional and structural adaptation. In R. J. Zatorre & I. Peretz (Eds), The biological foundations of music (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences) (Vol. 930, pp. 281–299). New York: New York Academy of Sciences. Schneider, B. H. (1987). The gifted child in peer group perspective. New York: SpringerVerlag. Schuler, P. A. (2000). Perfectionism and the gifted adolescent. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 183–196. Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General classroom teachers’ perspectives. Remedial and Special Education 12(4), 18–25. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207–231. Schunk, D. (2001). Social-cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd edn., pp. 125–151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

204  •  References Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Writing strategy instruction with gifted students: Effects of goals and feedback on self-efficacy and skills. Roeper Review, 15, 225–230. Scobee, J., & Nash, W. R. (1983). A survey of highly successful space scientists concerning education for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27, 147–151. Scott, C. L. (1999). Teachers’ biases toward creative children. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 321–328. Seegers, G., & Boekaerts, M. (1996). Gender-related differences in self-referenced cognitions in relation to mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 215–240. Senk, S., & Usiskin, Z. (1983). Geometry proof writing: A new view of sex differences in mathematics ability. American Journal of Education, 91, 187–201. Shaughnessy, M. F., & Neely, R. (1991). Mentoring gifted children and prodigies: Personological concerns. Gifted Education International, 7, 129–32. Shore, B. M. (1986). Cognition and giftedness: New research directions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 24–27. Shore, B. M., & Carey, S. M. (1984). Verbal ability and spatial task. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 59(1), 255–259. Shore, B. M., & Dover, A. C. (1987). Metacognition, intelligence and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 37–39. Shore, B. M., & Kanevsky, L. (1993). Thinking processes: Being and becoming. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 133–147). Oxford: Pergamon. Shuter-Dyson, R. (1999). Musical ability. In D. Deutsh (Ed.), The psychology of music (pp. 627–651). New York: Academic Press. Siann, G., Lightbody, P., Stocks, R., & Walsh, D. (1996). Motivation and attribution at secondary school: The role of ethnic group and gender. Gender and Education, 8, 261–274. Sideridis, G. D. (2005). On the origins of helpless behaviour of students with learning disabilities: Avoidance motivation? International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 497–517. Siegel, J., & Shaughnessy, M. F. (1991). Gifted females can be supported in mat and science: A proposal for mentoring in secondary schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 344 381). Siegle, D. (2004). The merging of literacy and technology in the 21st century: A bonus for gifted education. Technology. Gifted Child Today, 27(2), 32–35. Siegle, D., & Powell, T. (2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 21–29. Silverman, L. K. (1989). Invisible gifts, invisible handicaps. Roeper Review, 18, 37–42. Silverman, L. K. (1993a). Social development, leadership, and gender issues. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 291–327). Denver: Love. Silverman, L. K. (1993b). A developmental model for counseling the gifted. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 51–75). Denver: Love. Silverman, L. K. (1993c). Counseling families. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 151–178). Denver: Love.

References  •  205 Simoni, M. (2003). Project Lovelace: Unprecedented opportunities for music education. Organised Sound, 8(1), 57–60. Simonton, D. K. (1977). Eminence, creativity, and geographic marginality: A recursive structural equation model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 805–816. Simonton, D. K. (1984). Artistic creativity and interpersonal relationships across and within generations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1273–1286. Simonton, D. K. (1988a). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simonton, D. K. (1988b). Creativity, leadership and chance. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 386–426). New York: Cambridge University Press. Simonton, D. K. (1991a). Emergence and realization of genius: The lives and works of 120 classical composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 829–840. Simonton, D. K. (1991b). Career landmarks in science: Individual differences and interdisciplinary contrasts. Developmental Psychology, 27, 119–130. Simonton, D. K. (1992). The child, parents, the adults: On getting genius from giftedness. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, and D. L. Ambrose (Eds), Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 278–297). New York: Trillium. Simonton, D. K. (1994). Genius and giftedness: Parallels and discrepancies. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, and D. L. Ambrose (Eds), Talent development volume II: Proceedings from the 1993 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp 39–82). Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press. Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic model. Psychological Review, 106, 435–457. Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creative development as acquired expertise: Theoretical issues and an empirical test. Developmental Review, 20, 283–318. Sink, C. A., & Stroh, H. R. (2003). Raising achievement test scores of early elementary school students through comprehensive school counseling programs. Professional School Counseling, 6, 350–364. Slavin, R. E. (1987). Grouping for instruction: Equity and effectiveness. Equity & Excellence, 23, 31–36. Solow, R. E. (1995). Parents’ reasoning about the social and emotional development of their intellectually gifted children. Roeper Review, 18, 142–146. de Souza Fleith, D. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment. Roeper Review, 22, 148–153. Sowa, C. J., McIntire, J., May, K. M., & Bland, L. (1994). Social and emotional adjustment themes across gifted children. Roeper Review, 17, 95–98. Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man: Their nature and measurement. New York: Macmillan. Speirs-Neumeister, K. L., & Finch, H. (2006). Perfectionism in high-ability students: Relationship precursors and influences on achievement motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 238–251.

206  •  References Stanley, J. C. (1980). On educating the gifted. Educational Researcher, 9(3), 8–12. Stanley, J. C., & Benbow, C. P. (1981). Using the SAT to find intellectually talented seventh graders. College Board Review, 122, 2–7, 26–27. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 797–811. Stein, G., & Poole, P. (1997). Meeting the interests and needs of gifted children: A strategy for teaching and learning. Early Child Development and Care, 130, 13–19. Steiner, H. H. (2006). A microgenetic analysis of strategic variability in gifted and average-ability children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 62–74. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking. Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (Level H). Unpublished test. Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York: Simon & Schuster. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2004). Definitions and conceptions of giftedness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Berg, C. (Eds). (1992). Intellectual development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., Castejón, J. L., & Prieto, M. D. (2001). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities test in three international samples: An empirical test of the triarchic theory of intelligence. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(1), 1–16. Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds). (1986). Conceptions of Giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1993). Thinking styles and the gifted. Roeper Review, 16, 122–130. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000). Teaching for successful intelligence: To increase student learning and achievement. Arlington Heights, IL: Skyight Training and Publishing Inc. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press. Stewart, I., Hong, E., & Strudler, N. (2004). Development and validation of an instrument for student evaluation of Web-based instruction. American Journal of Distance Education, 18, 131–150. Stipek, D., & Gralinski, J. H. (1996). Children’s beliefs about intelligence and school performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 397–407. Stoll, C. (1995). Silicon snake oil: Second thoughts on the information highway. New York: Doubleday. Storm, R. D., & Storm, P. S. (2002). Changing the rules: education for creative thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, 183–200. Subotnik, R. F., & Steiner, C. (1994). Adult manifestations of adolescent talent in science: A longitudinal study of Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners. In

References  •  207 R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 52–76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Sundre, D. L., & Kitsantas, A. (2004). An exploration of the psychology of the examinee: Can examinee self-regulation and test-taking motivation predict consequential and non-consequential test performance? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 6–26. Swanson, J. D. (2006). Breaking through assumptions about low-income, minority gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 11–25. Sweetland, J. D., Reina, J. M., & Tatti, A. G. (2006). WISC-III verbal/performance discrepancies among a sample of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 7–10. Sweetland, R. C., & Keyser, D. J. (1991). A comprehensive reference for assessment in psychology, education and business. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Olivárez, A., Lotven, A. C. C., Walsh, S. K., Gray, A., & Irons, T. R. (1994). A comparison of learning and study strategies of gifted and average-ability junior high students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 143–160. Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan. Tannenbaum, A. J., & Baldwin, L. J. (1983). Giftedness and learning disability: A paradoxical combination, In L. H. Fox, L. Brody, & D. Tobin (Eds), Learningdisabled gifted children: Identification and programming (pp. 11–36). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Tatar, D., & Robinson, M. (2003). Use of the digital camera to increase student interest and learning in high school biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(2), 89–95. Teece, D. J. (2003). Expert talent and the design of (professional services) firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 895–916. Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 4. The gifted child grows up: Twenty-five years follow-up of a superior group. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 5. The gifted group at mid-life: Thirty-five years follow-up of the superior child. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Terry, A. W. (2001). A case study of community action service learning on young, gifted adolescents and their community. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 3058. Thorndike, E. L. (1927). The measurement of intelligence. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press. Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tobias, S., Everson, H. T., & Laitusis, V. (1999, April). Towards a performance based measure of metacognitive knowledge monitoring: relationships with self-reports and behavior ratings. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

208  •  References Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Warren, L. W. & Elliott, J. E. (1986). Suicide among gifted women: A prospective study, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 123–130. Tonemah, S. (1987). Assessing American Indian gifted and talented students’ abilities. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 181–194. Torrance, E. P. (1960). Creativity: Second Minnesota Conference on Gifted Children. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota. Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Torrance, E. P. (1972). Predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 236–253. Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Test Service, Inc. Torrance, E. P. (1981). Predicting the creativity of elementary school children (1958–80) and the teacher who “made a difference.” Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 55–62. Torrance, E.P. (1984). Mentor relationships: How they aid creative achievement, endure, change, and die. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited. Torrance, E. P. (1993). The beyonders in a thirty year longitudinal study of creative achievement. Roeper Review, 15, 131–135. Torrance, E. P. (1999). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: Norms and technical manual. Beaconville, IL: Scholastic Testing Services. Torrance, E. P., Goff, K., & Satterfield, N. B. (1998). Multicultural mentoring of the gifted and talented. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Torrance, E.P., & Sisk, D.A. (2001). Gifted and talented children in the regular classroom. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press. Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. In J. Mitchell (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1633–1634). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Treffinger, D. J. (1995). School improvement, talent development, and creativity. Roeper Review, 18, 93–97. Treffinger, D. J. (2003). The role of mentoring in talent development. In K. W. McCluskey & A. M. Mays (Eds), Mentoring for talent development (pp. 1–11). Sioux Falls, SD: Reclaiming Youth International. Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Dorval, B. (2003). Creative problem solving (CPS version 6.1TM): A contemporary framework for managing change. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning, Inc. and Creative Problem Solving Groups, Inc. Turner, J. E., & Schallert, D. L. (2001). Expectancy-value relationships of shame reactions and shame resiliency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 320–329. Turvey, M. T., & Shaw, R. E. (1995). Toward an ecological physics and a physical psychology. In R. L. Solso & D. W. Massaro (Eds), The science of the mind: 2001 and beyond (pp. 144–169). New York: Oxford University Press. Urdan, T., & Davis, H. (1998, February). Differences by race and grade level in motivation for taking standardized achievement tests. Paper presented at the Bi-annual Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, San Diego, CA. Uszler, M. (1992). Musical giftedness. American Music Teacher, 41 (4), 20–21, 69–73. Vallerand, Gagné, Senécal, & Pelletier. (1994). A comparison of the school intrinsic motivation and perceived competence of gifted and regular students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 172–175.

References  •  209 Van Boxtel, H. W., & Mönks, F. J. (1992). General, social, and academic self-concepts of gifted adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 169–186. Van Hook, C. W., & Tegano, D. W. (2002). The relationship between creativity and conformity among preschool children. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, 1–16. VanTassel-Baska, J. (Ed.). (1988). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1995). The development of talent through curriculum. Roeper Review, 18, 98–102. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2006). A content analysis of evaluation findings across 20 gifted programs: A clarion call for enhanced gifted program development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 199–215. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and Possibilities for Serving Gifted Learners in the Regular Classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44, 211–217. Vincent, A. S., Decker, B. P., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). Divergent thinking, intelligence, and expertise: A test of alternative models. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 163–178. Vonderwell, S., & Zachariah, S. (2005). Factors that influence participation in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 213–230. Walberg, H. J., & Herbig, M. P. (1991). Developing talent, creativity, and eminence. In N. Colangeo & G. A. Davis (Eds), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 245–255). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Waldrop, P. B. (1990). A structure for affective education for young gifted children. Early Child Development and Care, 63, 119–129. Wallach, M. A. (1970). Creativity. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (pp.1273–1365). New York: Wiley. Wallach, M. A. (1971). The intelligence/creativity distinction. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Wallach, M. A. (1985). Creativity testing and giftedness. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien (Eds), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 99–123). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Wallach, M. A., & Wing, C. W., Jr. (1969). The talented student: A validation of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Hartcourt. Walters, J., & Gardner, H. (1992). The crystallizing experience: Discovering an intellectual gift. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius and eminence (2nd edn., pp. 135–155). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. Ward, T. B., Saunders, K. L., & Dodds, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition in gifted adolescents. Roeper Review, 21, 260–266. Ward, V. S. (1961). Educating the gifted: An axiomatic approach. Columbus, OH: Charles C. Merrill. Warton, P. M. (2001). The forgotten voices in homework: Views of students. Educational Psychologist, 36, 155–165.

210  •  References Watt, H. M. G. (2004). Development of adolescents’ self-perceptions, values, and task perceptions according to gender and domain in 7th- through 11th-grade Australian students. Child Development, 75, 1556–1574. Wechsler, D. (1991). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Third edition (WISC-III). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (2003). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D., & Naglieri, J. A. (2006). Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment. Weiner, B. (1994). Ability versus effort revisited: The moral determinants of achievement evaluation and achievement as a moral system. Educational Psychologist, 29, 163–172. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan. West, T. G. (1991). In the mind’s eye: Visual thinkers, gifted people with learning difficulties, computer images, and the ironies of creativity. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Slavin, T. J. (1993). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120–146. Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a Web-based course: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 5–22. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40, 211–223. Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Wickes, K. N. S., & Ward, T. B. (2006). Measuring gifted adolescents’ implicit theories of creativity. Roeper Review, 28, 131–139. Wigfield, A. (1994). The role of children’s achievement values in the self-regulation of their learning outcomes. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 101–124). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task value: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265–310. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. J. A., FreedmanDoan, C., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Change in children’s competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A 3-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451–469. Wilgosh, L. (2001). Enhancing gifts and talents of women and girls. High Ability Studies, 12, 45–59. Wikimedia (n.d.). Genetic disorder. Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia. Retrieved December 20, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder Williams, J. E. (1996). Gender-related worry and emotionality test anxiety for highachieving students. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 159–162.

References  •  211 Wilson, J. S., Stocking, V. B., & D. Goldsten (1994). Gender differences in motivations for course selection: Academically talented students in an intensive summer program. Sex Roles, 3, 349–367. Wine, J. D. (1980). Cognitive-attentional theory of test anxiety. In I. G. Sarason. (Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research, and application (pp. 349–385). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Winebrenner, S. (2003). Teaching strategies for twice-exceptional students. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 131–133. Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 153–189). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Winner, E. (1996a). The rage to master: The decisive role of talent in the visual arts. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts, science, sports, and games (pp. 271–302). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Winner, E. (1996b). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books. Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist, 55, 155–169. Wise, S. L., & DeMars, C. E. (2005). Low examinee effort in low-stakes assessment: Problems and potential solutions. Educational Assessment, 10, 1–17. Wolf, L. F., & Smith, J. K. (1995). The consequence of consequence: Motivation, anxiety, and test performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 227–242. Wolfe, C. R. (2006). Learning and teaching on the World Wide Web. New York: Academic press. Wolfe, T. (1985). The story of a novel. In B. Ghiselin (Ed.), The creative process: A symposium (pp. 192–193). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (Original work published 1936) Wolters, C. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 189–205. Wood, E., Willoughby, T, & Hewitt, K. L. (1993). Reflections on “assessing the impact of elaborative strategy instruction relative to spontaneous strategy use in high achievers.” Exceptionality: A Research Journal, 4, 113–116. Worrell, F. C., & Schaefer, B. A. (2004). Reliability and validity of learning behaviors scale (LBS) scores with academically talented students: A comparative perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 287–308. Xu, J. (2005). Purposes for doing homework reported by middle and high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 46–55. Yager, R. E. (1989). Teaching science to gifted science students. In R. M. Milgram (Ed.), Teaching gifted and talented learners in regular classrooms (pp. 223–248). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Yoo, J., & Moon, S. M. (2006). Counseling needs of gifted students: An analysis of intake forms at a university-based counseling center. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 52–61. Zeidner, M., & Nevo, B. (1992). Test anxiety in examinees in a college admission testing situation: Incidence, dimensionality, and cognitive correlates. In H. M. van der Ploeg, R. Schwarzer, & C. D. Spielberger (Series Eds.), & K. A. Hagtvet &

212  •  References T. B. Johnsen (Vol. Eds.), Advances in test anxiety research (Vol. 7, pp. 288–303). Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Zeidner, M., & Schleyer, E. J. (1999). The effects of educational context on individual difference variables, self-perceptions of giftedness, and school attitudes in gifted adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 687–703. Zhang, L. (2002). Thinking styles: Their relationships with modes of thinking and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 22, 331–348. Ziegler, A., Heller, K., & Broome, P. (1996). Motivational preconditions for gifted girls and highly gifted girls in physics. High Ability Studies, 7, 129–143. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: The emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 173–201. Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 29–36. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 241–250. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Homework practices and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-efficacy and perceived responsibility beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 397–417. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284–290. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51–59. Zimmerman, B. J., & Paulsen, A. S. (1995). Self-monitoring during collegiate studying: An invaluable tool for academic self-regulation. In P. Pintrich (Ed.), New directions in college teaching and learning: Understanding self-regulated learning (Vol. 63, pp. 13–27). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Subject index

ability: cognitive ability tests 94–5; creative-thinking ability, predictor of talent 157–8; goal orientation and implicit theory of 55; grouping in schools by 109–10; incremental view of 33, 55; Naglieri Non-verbal Ability Tests (NNAT) 28–9; as predictor of talent 157–8; students’ implicit theories about ability, understanding of 63–4; talent development and 23–34, 35–46; see also domaingeneral ability; domain-specific ability academic characteristics, age and gender differences 84–6 academic excellence, prediction of 30 academic mentoring 128–9 academically gifted children 125 acceleration of subject matter 102, 104 acceptance-finding in creative problem solving 164 achievement: effects of metacognition in 51–2; extraordinary achievement 4, 169; goals for 54–6; motivation

for 72–3; value of 52–3; value of, attention to 62–3 Activities and Accomplishment Inventory (AAI) 97–8 adaptive learners 59 adjustment of strategies: for potentially creative students 136; in selfregulated learning 51 administrative arrangements for gifted learning 104–8 adolescent children, social-emotional needs of 119 adoptive children, studies of 80 adult talent 153 affective and intrapersonal characteristics: achievement motivation 72–3; affective characteristics, recognition of 76–7; affective education 75; aggressiveness 72; aloneness 68; anxiety 67; anxiety-provoking environments 71; assertiveness 72; asynchronicity, tension from 68–9; attitude 72–3; behavioral problems 69; “beyonders”

214  •  Subject index 74–5; boredom 67; commitment 74–5; commitment, initiation of work and 77–8; competitiveness 70; complexity and uniqueness of 66; confidence 76; conformity 73–4; creative achievement, characteristics of 74–5; creative needs, meeting of 72; creativity, emotion and 67–8; depression 70; differences across domains 66; discordance, tension from 68–9; emotional instability 69; environmental stress 69; expressiveness 72; frankness 72; hostility 72; images 68; inattentive behaviors 72; independence 72, 73; independence, fostering of 77; insecurity, anxiousness and 70–1; isolated students, recognition and support for 77; long-term stress 69; mood, emotion and 67–70; multistep creative process 68; performance anxiety 70; rebelliousness 72; resentfulness 72; responsibility 73; responsibility for actions taken 78; risk-taking 68–9, 75–6; risk taking, encouragement of sense in 78; shame 67; short-term stress 69; solitude 68; stress, emotion and 67–70; talent development 65–78; talent loss, prevention of 76–8; talkativeness 72; task commitment 74; test anxiety 71; tolerance of mistakes 74–5, 78; unevenness in development 67; withdrawal 68 age differences: academic characteristics 84–6; emotional characteristics 88–9; motivational characteristics 86–8; motivational decline 90; stereotypes, alteration of 90; talent development 83–9 aggressiveness 72 aloneness 68 American Association of University Women 88 American Psychological Association 7 analytical-thinking 170; ability, incremental view of 33; creativethinking and 38–40; creativity and 24–6; domain-general ability 23–4, 25, 26–9, 39; domain-specific ability 24, 25, 29–32; expert talent

and 152, 153; Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scales (GATES) 31; Gifted Evaluation Scale (GES) 30; identification of potential talent, procedures for 32; incremental view of ability 33; intelligence, students’ implicit theory of 32–3; Learning Behaviors Scale (LBS) 31; learning styles and preferences 57; mathematics problem-solving processes 31; measurement of 26–32; Naglieri Non-verbal Ability Tests (NNAT) 28–9; non-traditional measures 30–1; potential talent, procedures for development of 32; process of 154; Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM) 27–8; Scale for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS) 31; school grades 29–30; special education for talent development 33; standardized test scores and school grades 29–30; Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (STAT) 29; sustained effort, importance of 33; talent development, special education for 33; talent development, thinking ability and 23–34; talent loss, prevention of 32–4; teachers’ recognition of 30; teaching strategies for 34; test scores, meaning of 33; think-aloud methods for understanding process of 31–2; Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) 26–7 anxiety: affective and intrapersonal characteristics 67; anxiety-provoking environments 71; talent development 70–1; test anxiety 71 artistic creativity 158–9 ArtsConnection 97 assertiveness 72 assessment: identification and 94–9; instruments, lack of 9–10; talent levels and types, assessment deficiencies 9–10 assistance, seeking of 64 asynchronicity, tension from 68–9 attitude 72–3 background characteristics, neglect of 8–9

Subject index  •  215 becoming talented: acceptance-finding in creative problem solving 164; acquisition of knowledge 156; adult talent 153; artistic creativity 158–9; childhood talent 153; children, creative talent in 159–60; cognitive abilities and talent development 153–5; creative insights 159; creative personality 158; creative problemsolving (CPS) 162, 163–4; creative problem-solving (CPS), version 6.1TM 164–5; creative process 162–4; creative talent 152–3, 156, 159–60, 165, 169–70; creative talent, developmental stages 161–5; creative talent, essential components 157–9; creative talent, out-of-school programs and 160–1; creativethinking ability, predictor of talent 157–8; declarative knowledge 156; deliberate practice, need for 156–7; domain-specific intellectual abilities 153–4; expert talent 151–2, 159–60, 165, 169–70; expert talent, developmental stages 161–5; expert talent, essential components 155–7; expert talent, out-of-school programs and 160–1; fact-finding in creative problem solving 164; fostering creativity 167; idea-finding in creative problem solving 164; illumination stage, creative process 163; incubation stage, creative process 163; information, organization of 166–7; knowledge, importance of 165–6; knowledge, knowing both sides of 166; knowledge base, need for 155–6; materials, appropriateness of 166; mess-finding in creative problem solving 164; monitoring knowledge 167; neural computation 159; Osborn–Parnes model of creative problem solving 163–4; out-ofschool programs 160–1; performance and talent 153, 154; personality characteristics 158–9; preparation stage, creative process 163; problemfinding in creative problem solving 164; problem representations, development of 154; problemsolving process 154–5; problems,

understanding and representing 154, 166–7; scientific creativity 158–9; solution-finding in creative problem solving 164; talent development, cognitive abilities and 153–5; talent development, progression of 162; talent development, stages of 162; talent loss, prevention of 165–7; technology use, importance of help with 166; verification stage, creative process 163 behavioral problems 69, 113 biological attributes and talent development 79–90 boredom 53, 67, 109, 113 brain function, measurement of 80 career-development counseling 117, 119–20 career mentoring 128–9 Chang, Sarah 80–1 childhood talent 153, 159–60 classroom guidance 117 classroom styles 56–8 classrooms, teaching gifted learners in 101–3, 104–5 Clinical Assessment of Behavior (CAB) 98–9 cognitive abilities: cognitive ability tests 94–5; cognitive-academic needs 117; development of, support for 124; giftedness and 17–19; talent development and 24, 153–5 cognitive neuroscience 83 commitment 74–5; initiation of work and 77–8 competitiveness 70; between siblings 125–6 Comprehensive Model of Giftedness and Talent (CMGT) 16–19, 40, 65, 93, 151, 153 concurrent university enrollment 107 confidence 76 conformity 73–4 contests and competitions 107 cooperative learning 110 coping strategies, development of 133–4 counseling: career-development counseling 117, 119–20; comprehensive counseling approach, need for 120; counselors in schools

216  •  Subject index 116–20; parental views on counseling 119; small-group counseling 117 course scheduling 118 creative personality: becoming talented 158; creative-thinking 44 creative problem-solving (CPS) 162, 163–4; version 6.1TM 164–5 Creative Real-Life-Problem-Solving (RLPS) 42 creative talent 16–17, 152–3, 156, 159–60, 165, 169–70; creative-thinking and 38; developmental stages 161–5; essential components 157–9; out-ofschool programs and 160–1 creative-thinking 38, 170; ability and talent development 35–46; ability as predictor of talent 157–8; analyticalthinking and 38–40; creative effort, praising of 45; creative personality 44; Creative Real-Life-ProblemSolving (RLPS) 42; creative talent and 38; creatively gifted children 125; creativity and creative potential, understanding both 44; creativity training and programs 45; curriculum adjustment for 46; definition of 35; domain-general ability 35–7, 37–8, 40–2; domainspecific ability 36–7, 37–8, 42–3; elaboration 41; expert talent and 153–4; flexibility 40; fluency 40, 41; ideational fluency 41; identification of creative potential 44, 45; individual creativity 44; intelligence and 39–40; judgment and appreciation 45; measurement of 40–3; multiple sources, use in identification of talent 45; musical creativity 39; orientation towards 44; originality 41; Owens Creativity Test (OCT) 42–3; potential, identification of creative potential 44, 45; predictor–criterion relationship 37–8; process of 154; Real-World Divergent Thinking Test 43; Structure and Intellect model (Guilford) 39; Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test: Evaluation, Leadership, and Creative Thinking (SOI:ELCT) 42; talent loss, prevention of 44–6; task-specificity of 37; teachers and creative effort 45;

Tel Aviv Creativity Test (TACT) 41; Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) 40–1 creativity: analytical-thinking and 24–6; constructive environments for 115; creative accomplishment and leisure activities 98; creative achievement, characteristics of 74–5; creative insights 159; creative potential and, understanding both 44; creative process 162–4; creativity-facilitation in schools 115; emotion and 67–8; enhancement of 63; environmental provision and 63; meeting of creative needs 72; praise for creative effort 45; productivity and cultural environment 132; promotion in schools 122; stimulation of creativity 122; training and programs 45 cultural differences, instruction and 133 cultural diversity 131–4 cultural influence in talent development 131–2 culturally valued behaviors, understanding of 133 curriculum: adjustment for creativethinking 46; compacting of 102; differentiation of 100, 103, 104–5, 172; differentiation of, instruction and 99–108, 111; embedded strategies in curriculum materials 60–1; implementation of differentiated curriculum 100; and instruction, focus on 132–3; integrated curriculum approach to talent development 101–2; materials in self-regulated learning 60–1; modification for gifted learners 101–2, 102–3 declarative knowledge 156 definitions: creative-thinking 35; mentor 127; talent loss 4–5, 10; US Office of Education definition of giftedness 9, 10, 99 deliberate practice 156–7 depression 70 disadvantaged students, mentoring of 129 discordance, tension from 68–9 distance-learning programs 107

Subject index  •  217 domain-general ability: in analyticalthinking 23–4, 25, 26–9, 39; in creative-thinking 35–7, 37–8, 40–2 domain-specific ability 153–4; in analytical-thinking 24, 25, 29–32; in creative-thinking 36–7, 37–8, 42–3 dual university enrollment 107 educational equity movement 99–100 effort and self-efficacy 53–4 Einstein, Albert 5 elaboration 41 emergenetic model in genetics 82 emotion: age and gender differences and emotional characteristics 88–9; emotional instability 69; talent development and 67–70 enrichment experiences 102, 103 entry knowledge 110–1 environment: giftedness, factors in 18–19; heredity vs. 15–16; importance of 113; for learning and creativity 121; management of 61, 63; social factors and 171; stress through 69; support for talent development 89 epigenetic model in genetics 82 ethnic background, talent development and 132–4 evaluation: of behaviors 77; of educational software 138; Evaluation, Leadership and Creative Thinking (ELCT) 42; Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scale (GATES) 31; Gifted Evaluation Scale (GES) 30; of new developments 146; non-verbal evaluation 28–9; performance and product in schools 96–7; program evaluation studies 93–4; of quality of ideas 39; self-devaluation 69; selfevaluation 50 event-related perceptions (ERPs) 80 experience of success, motivation through 62 expert talent 16, 151–2, 159–60, 165, 169–70; analytical-thinking and 152, 153; creative-thinking and 153–4; developmental stages 161–5; essential components 155–7; out-of-school programs and 160–1 expressiveness 72 extrinsic motivation 53

fact-finding in creative problem solving 164 failure, attribution of 54 family and talent loss prevention: academically gifted children 125; cognitive development, support for 124; competitiveness between siblings 125–6; creatively gifted children 125; family dynamics 123–4; family environments, individuality in 125; home environment, stimulation within 135; homework, parent role in 126–7; languagerichness 124; parental commitment 124; parents’ need for self awareness 135; positivity 123; respect for independence 124; role in talent development 123–7; role models 136; self-awareness, parents’ need for 135; sibling relationships 125–6; socioemotional development, support for 124; strategies for successful parenting, following on 135; strengths, focus on 135; supportive environment, provision of 124; talent loss, prevention of 134–6 financial support, prioritization of 173 flexibility in creative-thinking 40 fluency in creative-thinking 40, 41 Fluid and Crystallized Intelligences (Cattell) 14 frankness 72 full-time special schools 105–6 Gates, Bill 5 gender: gifted girls, mentoring of 129–30 gender differences: academic characteristics 84–6; emotional characteristics 88–9; motivational characteristics 86–8; pattern of, awareness of 90; role models for female students 89–90; stereotypes, alteration of 90; talent development 83–9; talent development and 83–9 genetics: adoptive children, studies of 80; brain function, measurement of 80; cognitive neuroscience 83; emergenetic model 82; epigenetic model 82; event-related perceptions (ERPs) 80; genetic disorders 81; gifted-level intelligence 80;

218  •  Subject index giftedness, genetic impact on 82–3; heredity 80–3; identical twins reared separately, studies of 80; interactive influences of heredity and environment 82–3; natural abilities, genetic origin of 81–2; nature, impact on talent development 80; talent development and 80–3; teaching and learning, understanding biology for improvement of 83 Gifted and Talented Children’s Act (1978) 9 Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scales (GATES) 31 gifted education: advancements in field 11–12; characteristics of model for 12–13; gifted program evaluation studies 93–4; gifted subpopulation, need for special understanding of 121; gifted with learning disabilities 108–9; high-order strategies for teaching and learning 60; highly creative students, mentoring of 130 Gifted Evaluation Scale (GES) 30 giftedness: administrative arrangements for gifted learning 104–8; assessment deficiencies 9–10; characteristics of good model 12–13; cognitive abilities and 17–19; comprehensive model 13–19; Comprehensive Model of Giftedness and Talent (CMGT) 16–19, 40, 65, 93, 151, 153; creatively gifted children 125; current procedures for identification of 94–6; environment vs. heredity 15–16; environmental factors 18–19; Fluid and Crystallized Intelligences (Cattell) 14; genetic impact on 82–3; gifted education, advancements in field 11–12; gifted education, characteristics of model for 12–13; gifted-level intelligence 80; heredity vs. environment 15–16; intelligence and 14–15; Investment Theory of Creativity (Sternberg) 14; narrowness of conceptualizations 6–8; personal attributes and 18–19; psychosocial factors 18–19; rationale and model 15–19; selection for special programs 17–18; social factors 18–19; special programs, underserving

of 10; strategic knowledge and 51; Successful Intelligence (Sternberg) 14; Terman’s work on 6–7; theoretical rationale for model 15–16; theories of, background and history 13–15; Theory of Multiple Intelligences (Gardner) 14; Triarchic Theory of Intelligence (Sternberg) 14; US multidimensional definition of 99; US Office of Education definition 9, 10; see also becoming talented; talent; talent development goal orientation 54–6 goal setting, self-efficacy and 63 goal specificity 55–6 grouping practices in schools 109–10 heredity 80–3; environment vs. 15–16; impact on talent development 80–2 holistic thinking 57 home environment, stimulation within 135 home schooling 106 homework: parental role in 126–7; styles for 58 homogenous grouping 109–10 hostility 72 human development, poverty and 136 idea-finding in creative problem solving 164 idealism in schools 118 ideational fluency 41 identical twins reared separately, studies of 80 identification: of analytical potential 32; of creative potential 44, 45; of giftedness 94–9, 111; multiple sources, use in identification of talent 45; of potential abilities, talent loss and 4–5, 8, 10; processes, talent loss and 171–2; recommended procedures for identification of giftedness 96–9 illumination stage, creative process 163 images 68 in-service teacher training 172–3 inattentive behaviors 72 inclusive approach to talent development 101–2 incremental view of ability 33 incubation stage, creative process 163

Subject index  •  219 independence 72, 73; fostering of 77; respect for 124 individual creativity 44 individual differences, accommodation to 64 individual styles, variations in 58 individualization: of instruction in selfregulated learning 61; schools and talent loss prevention 100–1, 103, 104–5; talent development and 172 informal learning 58 information: for gifted learners 117; organization of 166–7 insecurity, anxiousness and 70–1 intelligence: creative-thinking and 39–40; gifted-level intelligence 80; giftedness and 14–15; students’ implicit theory of 32–3 intensity 118 internship programs 107, 108 intrapersonal characteristics: in talent development 72–6; see also affective and intrapersonal characteristics intrinsic motivation 53; fostering of 63 Investment Theory of Creativity (Sternberg) 14 IQ (Intelligence Quotient) 9, 23–4, 31, 33, 44, 80, 94, 98, 116, 172; creativity scores and 24–6; Stanford–Binet IQs 6–8; verbal IQ 26–7 isolated students, recognition and support for 77 kinesthetic learning 57–8 knowledge: entry knowledge 110–11; importance of 165–6; knowing both sides of 166; knowledge base, need for 155–6; monitoring knowledge 167 language-richness 124 learner-based metacognitive instruction 61 Learning Behaviors Scale (LBS) 31 learning disabilities, gifted with 108–9 learning strategies, alignment of 49–50 learning styles and preferences 56–9; adaptive learners 59; analyticthinking 57; assistance, seeking of 64; classroom styles 56–8; favorable learning styles, adoption of 64; group differences in 57–8; holistic thinking

57; homework styles 58; individual differences, accommodation to 64; individual styles, variations in 58; informal learning 58; kinesthetic learning 57–8; persistence, achievement and 58; preferred and actual styles, disparities in 59; selfmotivation, achievement and 58; stability of styles 56; tactile learning 57–8; talent development 56–9; talent loss, prevention of 64; visual learning 57 learning tasks, importance in selfregulated learning 50 leisure activities 97–8 levels-of-talent dimension 17–18 long-term stress 69 materials, appropriateness of 166 mathematics problem-solving processes 31 measurement of: analytical-thinking 26–32; creative-thinking 40–3 mentors and talent loss prevention: academic mentoring 128–9; career mentoring 128–9; definition of mentor 127; disadvantaged students, mentoring of 129; finding a mentor 130–1; gifted girls, mentoring of 129–30; highly creative students, mentoring of 130; matching mentors 130–1; mentor relationships 127–9; mentor role 127–9; mentoring programs 107, 109, 128–9; monitoring mentorship 136; personal development mentoring 128–9; role in talent development 127–31; role models 136; special groups, mentoring of 129–30; talent development, mentors role in 127–9; talent loss, prevention of 134–6; underachievers, mentoring of 129; value of mentoring 128–30 mess-finding in creative problem solving 164 metacognition: effects of metacognition in achievement 51–2; learner-based metacognitive instruction 61; selfregulated learning 50–2; training in metacognition 52 mood, emotion and 67–70

220  •  Subject index motivational attributes: ability, incremental theory of 55; achievement goals 54–6; achievement value 52–3; achievement value, attention to 62–3; adoption of performance goals 55; challenging activities, provision of 63; creativity, enhancement of 63; creativity, environmental provision and 63; effort and self-efficacy 53–4; experience of success, motivation through 62; extrinsic motivation 53; failure, attribution of 54; goal orientation 54–6; goal setting, self-efficacy and 63; goal specificity 55–6; implicit theory of ability, goal orientation and 55; intrinsic motivation 53; intrinsic motivation, fostering of 63; motivation before teaching 62; performance orientations 55; persistence and self-efficacy 53–4; self-efficacy 53–4; self-efficacy, goal setting and development of 63; setting goals 54–6; students’ implicit theories about ability, understanding of 63–4; success, attribution of 54; success, definition of 55; success, motivation through experience of 62; talent development 52–6; talent loss, prevention of 62–4; task value 52–3; task value, attention to 62–3; teaching, motivation before 62; teaching content, value and 62–3; tests and test-taking 53 motivational characteristics: age and gender differences 86–8; decline with age 90 multiple assessments, use of 111 multiple sources, use in identification of talent 45 multipotentiality 119–20 multistep creative process 68 musical creativity 39 Naglieri Non-verbal Ability Tests (NNAT) 28–9 natural abilities, genetic origin of 81–2 nature, impact on talent development 80 nature–nurture issue 79, 80, 89 neural computation 159

Odyssey (Homer) 127 open-admission, proposal for 173–4 orientation towards creative-thinking 44 originality in creative-thinking 41 originality in teaching 115–16 Osborn–Parnes model of creative problem solving 163–4 out-of-school programs: becoming talented 160–1; talent loss prevention 106–7, 111 outcomes of talent loss 4–5 Owens Creativity Test (OCT) 42–3 parental commitment 124 parental nomination 99 parental self awareness 135 parental views on counseling 119 part-time special classes 105 peer culture 132 perfectionism 118 performance: goals, adoption of 55; orientations 55; performance anxiety 70; and product evaluation in schools 96–7; talent and 153, 154 persistence: achievement and 58; selfefficacy and 53–4 personal attributes and giftedness 18–19 personal characteristics, neglect of 8–9 personal development mentoring 128–9 personal-psychological attributes 170 personality characteristics 99, 118, 158–9 positivity 123 potential: identification of creative potential 44, 45; procedures for development of 32; realization and talent loss 4–5; underserving of 10 poverty and human development 136 preadolescent children: social-emotional needs of 118–19; specialized counseling services for 119 predictor–criterion relationship 37–8 preparation stage, creative process 163 preschool children, social-emotional needs of 118 preservice teacher training 172–3 problem-finding in creative problem solving 164 problem representations, development of 154, 166–7 problem-solving process 154–5 psycho-social factors in giftedness 18–19

Subject index  •  221 public settings, classes in 107–8 pullout programs 105 Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM) 27–8 Real-World Divergent Thinking Test 43 rebelliousness 72 regular classrooms, teaching gifted learners in 101–3, 104–5 resentfulness 72 residential special schools 106 responsibility: for actions taken 78; affective and intrapersonal characteristics 73 retention, focus on 133 risk-taking: affective and intrapersonal characteristics 68–9, 75–6; encouragement of sense in 78 Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education 94 roles: of family and talent loss prevention 123–7; of mentors and talent loss prevention 127–31; models for female students 89–90; role models 136 Scale for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS) 31 schools and talent loss prevention: ability grouping 109–10; acceleration of subject matter 102, 104; Activities and Accomplishment Inventory (AAI) 97–8; adjustment for potentially creative students 136; administrative arrangements for gifted learning 104–8; adolescent children, social-emotional needs of 119; assessment and identification 94–9; career-development counseling 117, 119–20; classroom guidance 117; climate for learning and creativity 121; Clinical Assessment of Behavior (CAB) 98–9; cognitive ability tests 94–5; cognitive-academic needs 117; comprehensive counseling approach, need for 120; concurrent university enrollment 107; constructive environments for creativity 115; contests and competitions 107; cooperative learning 110; counselors

116–20; course scheduling 118; creative accomplishment and leisure activities 98; creativity-facilitation 115; creativity promotion 122; current procedures for identification of giftedness 94–6; curriculum compacting 102; curriculum differentiation and instruction 99–108; curriculum modification for gifted learners 101–2, 102–3; differentiated curriculum 100, 103, 104–5; differentiated instruction, provision of 111; distance-learning programs 107; dual university enrollment 107; educational equity movement 99–100; enrichment experiences 102, 103; entry knowledge 110–11; environment, importance of 113; environment for learning and creativity 121; evaluation of performance and product 96–7; full-time special schools 105–6; gifted program evaluation studies 93–4; gifted subpopulation, need for special understanding of 121; gifted with learning disabilities 108–9; giftedness, US multidimensional definition of 99; grouping practices 109–10; home schooling 106; homogenous grouping 109–10; idealism 118; identification of giftedness 94–9, 111; implementation of differentiated curriculum 100; inclusive approach to talent development 101–2; individualization 100–1, 103, 104–5; information for gifted learners 117; integrated curriculum approach to talent development 101–2; intensity 118; internship programs 107, 108; learning disabilities, gifted with 108–9; leisure activities 97–8; mentoring programs 107, 108; multiple assessments, use of 111; multipotentiality 119–20; originality in teaching 115–16; out-of-school programs 106–7, 111; parent nomination 99; parental views on counseling 119; part-time special classes 105; perfectionism 118;

222  •  Subject index performance and product evaluation 96–7; personality characteristics 99, 118; personnel and climate 113–22; portfolio and student profile 97; preadolescent children, social-emotional needs of 118–19; preadolescent children, specialized counseling services for 119; preschool children, social-emotional needs of 118; problematic approaches 93–4; product evaluation 96–7; public settings, classes in 107–8; pullout programs 105; recommended procedures for identification of giftedness 96–9; regular classrooms, teaching gifted learners in 101–3, 104–5; residential special schools 106; school experience, major factor 93; school grades and analyticalthinking 29–30; Schoolwide Enrichment Model 102; sensitivity 118; skill levels 110–11; small-group counseling 117; social-emotional needs 118–20; special classes 105; special replacement programs 104; special topics 108–10; specialized schools, full-time 106; standardized achievement tests 95; stimulation of creativity 122; strategies for fostering creativity 115; strengths, knowledge of individuals’ 110–11; study-abroad programs 107; summer programs for gifted learners 107; supplementary programs for gifted learning 106–7; talent development, integrated curriculum approach to 101–2; talent loss, prevention of 110–11, 120–2; teacher accuracy in identification of giftedness 95–6; teacher nomination 95–6, 132–3; teacher sources for nomination 96; teacher training, need for 102–3, 111; teachers 114–16; teachers, methods and materials used by 103; teachers’ attitude towards creative students and instruction 115–16; teachers’ knowledge and beliefs 114; teachers’ subject knowledge 114; teaching, creativity training for 116; teaching, originality in 115–16; teaching gifted learners in

regular classrooms 101–3, 104–5; test scores, problems of 94–5; Total Talent Portfolio 102; underserving of gifted children 103; understanding children 121; university sponsored classes 107; validity of AAI scoring 98; verbal loading of tests 94–5; weekend programs for gifted learners 107 Schoolwide Enrichment Model 102 scientific creativity 158–9 selection: of potential talents 8–9; processes and talent loss 171–2; for special programs 17–18; of strategies in self-regulated learning 51 self-awareness, parents’ need for 135 self-efficacy 53–4; goal setting and development of 63 self-monitoring 51 self-motivation, achievement and 58 self-regulated learning: achievement, effects of metacognition in 51–2; adjustment of strategies 51; combination of strategies 60; curriculum materials 60–1; effectiveness of strategies 51–2; embedded strategies in curriculum materials 60–1; environmental management 61, 63; giftedness, strategic knowledge and 51; highorder strategies for teaching and learning 60; individualization of instruction 61; learner-based metacognitive instruction 61; learning strategies, alignment of 49–50; learning tasks, importance of 50; metacognition 50–2; planning strategies 50; selection of strategies 51; self-monitoring 51; self-regulatory strategy instructions, use of 60; talent development 49–52; talent loss, prevention of 60–2; teacher training for 62; teaching, individualization of instruction 61; teaching and learning, high-order strategies for 60; training in metacognition 52 sensitivity 118 setting goals 54–6 sex differences: academic characteristics 84–6; emotional characteristics 88–9; motivational characteristics

Subject index  •  223 86–8; role models for female students 89–90; stereotypes, alteration of 90; talent development and 83–9 shame 67 short-term stress 69 sibling relationships 125–6 silences and talent loss 3–4 Silences (Olsen, T.) 3 skill levels 110–11 small-group counseling 117 social-emotional development, support for 124 social-emotional needs 118–20 social factors in giftedness 18–19 socio-cultural background 131–4; coping strategies, development of 133–4; creative productivity and cultural environment 132; cultural differences, instruction tailored towards 133; culturally valued behaviors, understanding of 133; culture, influence in talent development 131–2; curriculum and instruction, focus on 132–3; ethnic background, talent development and 132–4; human development, poverty and 136; peer culture 132; poverty and human development 136; retention, focus on 133; socioeconomic background, talent development and 132–4; talent development, ethnic background and 132–4; talent development, influence of culture in 131–2 solitude 68 solution-finding in creative problem solving 164 sources of talent loss 5–10 special classes 105 special education for talent development 33 special groups, mentoring of 129–30 special programs, underserving of 10 special replacement programs 104 specialized schools, full-time 106 standardized achievement tests 95 standardized test scores and school grades 29–30 stereotypes 90 Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (STAT) 29

stimulation of creativity 122 strategies: adjustment of strategies 51, 136; coping strategies, development of 133–4; embedded strategies in curriculum materials 60–1; for fostering creativity 115; high-order strategies for teaching and learning 60; learning strategies, alignment of 49–50; selection of strategies in selfregulated learning 51; for successful parenting, following on 135; teaching strategies for analytical-thinking 34; teaching strategies for prevention of talent loss 172 strengths: focus on 135; knowledge of individuals’ 110–11 stress, emotion and 67–70 Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test: Evaluation, Leadership, and Creative Thinking (SOI:ELCT) 42 Structure of Intellect model (Guilford) 7, 14, 39, 42 study-abroad programs 107 success: attribution of 54; definition of 55; experience of success, motivation through 62; motivation through experience of 62 Successful Intelligence (Sternberg) 14 summer programs for gifted learners 107 supplementary programs for gifted learners 106–7 supportive environment, provision of 124 sustained effort, importance of 33 tactile learning 57–8 talent: characteristics of good model 12–13; comprehensive model 13–19; Comprehensive Model of Giftedness and Talent (CMGT) 16–19, 40, 65, 93, 151, 153; contextual components 16–17; creative talent 16–17; expert talent 16; levels-of-talent dimension 17–18; rationale and model 15–19; theoretical rationale for model 15–16; theories of, background and history 13–15; see also becoming talented; giftedness talent development 5; academic characteristics 84–6; academic excellence, prediction of 30; affective

224  •  Subject index and intrapersonal characteristics 65–78; age differences 83–9; analytical-thinking ability and 23–34; anxiety 70–1; biological attributes and 79–90; characteristics of model for 12–13; cognitive abilities and 24, 153–5; contextual components 18–19; continuity in 171; continuum of 17–18; creative-thinking ability and 35–46; curriculum differentiation 172; emotion 67–70; emotional characteristics 88–9; environmental support for 89; and ethnic background 132–4; financial support, prioritization of 173; foundational characteristics 170–1; gender differences 83–9; genetics and 80–3; heredity, impact on 80–2; in-service teacher training 172–3; individualization 172; influence of culture in 131–2; integrated curriculum approach to 101–2; intrapersonal characteristics 72–6; learning styles and preferences 56–9; mentor’s role in 127–9; motivational attributes 52–6; motivational characteristics 86–8; nature, impact on 80; nature–nurture issue 79, 80, 89; open-admission, proposal for 173–4; preservice teacher training 172–3; progression of 162; realization of talent 170–1; self-regulated learning 49–52; sex and gender differences 83–9; and socio-economic background 132–4; special education for 33; stages of 162; talent loss, prevention of 59–64, 76–8, 89–90; teacher training, need for 172–3; technology-integrated curriculum and instruction 172, 173; see also becoming talented talent loss: assessment instruments, lack of 9–10; background characteristics, neglect of 8–9; definition of 4–5, 10; foundational characteristics 170–1; giftedness, assessment deficiencies 9–10; giftedness, narrowness of conceptualizations 6–8; identification of potential 4–5, 8, 10; identification processes 171–2; outcomes of 4–5;

personal characteristics, neglect of 8–9; pioneering research 6–8; potential, realization of 4–5; potential, underserving of 10; potential, unidentification of 8; selection of potential talents 8–9; selection processes 171–2; silences and 3–4; sources of 5–10; Structure of Intellect model (Guilford) 7, 14, 39, 42; talent levels and types, assessment deficiencies 9–10; teaching strategies for prevention of 172; unconventional nature of potential talent 8; underestimation of 5–6; underserving of potential 10 talent loss, prevention of: affective and intrapersonal characteristics 76–8; analytical-thinking 32–4; becoming talented 165–7; creativethinking 44–6; family and talent loss prevention 134–6; learning styles and preferences 64; mentors and talent loss prevention 134–6; motivational attributes 62–4; schools and talent loss prevention 110–11, 120–2; self-regulated learning 60–2; talent development and 59–64, 76–8, 89–90 Talent Search (Johns Hopkins University) 14 talkativeness 72 task commitment 74 task-specificity in creative-thinking 37 task value: attention to 62–3; motivational attributes and 52–3 teacher training: creativity training 116; need for 102–3, 111, 172–3; for selfregulated learning 62 teachers: accuracy in identification of giftedness 95–6; analytical-thinking, recognition of 30; attitude towards creative students and instruction 115–16; and creative effort 45; knowledge and beliefs of 114; methods and materials used by 103; nomination by 95–6, 132–3; schools and talent loss prevention 114–16; sources for nomination 96; subject knowledge of 114 teaching: content, value and 62–3; gifted learners in regular classrooms 101–3, 104–5; individualization

Subject index  •  225 of instruction 61; and learning, high-order strategies for 60; and learning, understanding biology for improvement of 83; motivation before 62; originality in 115–16; strategies for analytical-thinking 34; strategies for prevention of talent loss 172 technology and talent loss prevention 137–48; artificial intelligence 138; assistance, provision of appropriate 147; changes brought about by 137–8; classroom technologies 144–5; communicative self-efficacy 141; computers, role of 138–9; continual evaluation 146; creative thinking and production 142; critical thinking 143; curriculum development with technology 146–7; curriculum-for-all 139; differentiated curriculum 146; distance learning 138–9; educational software 138; entry-level knowledge and skills, assessment of 148; expert knowledge 139; Facebook 139; goalsetting and self-regulation 141; handheld computers 143–4; homebased technologies 145–6; hypertext and hypermedia 138, 140, 145; individualization 146–7; information searches 138; instructional design theories 138–9; Internet 139, 141, 142–3, 143–4, 145, 147; knowledge acquisition 142–3; and learning environment 144–7; mobile technologies 145–6; motivation and self-regulation 140–1; MySpace 139; new technologies, strengths and weaknesses of 148; opportunities for all, provision of 148; problembased learning (PBL) 140; selfregulated learning 140–2; socioemotional development 143; talent loss, prevention of 147–8; teacher accountability 147; technology as cognitive tool 140; technology as integral with society 143–4; technology-integrated curriculum, development of 148; technologyintegrated learning 140–2, 145–6, 172, 173; as tool 139–44; use of

technology, importance of help with 166; Web-based pedagogical tools (WBPT) 141; Web tools 139; websites 137; word processing 140; YouTube 139 Tel Aviv Creativity Test (TACT) 41 Telemachus 127 test anxiety 71 test scores: meaning of 33; problems of 94–5 tests and test-taking 53 theories: of giftedness, background and history 13–15; of giftedness, theoretical rationale for model 15–16; students’ implicit theories about ability 55; students’ implicit theories about ability, understanding of 63–4; students’ implicit theories about intelligence 32, 33; of talent, background and history 13–15; of talent, theoretical rationale for model 15–16; teachers’ implicit theories about giftedness 55 Theory of Multiple Intelligences (Gardner) 14 think-aloud methods 31–2 tolerance of mistakes 74–5, 78 Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) 40–1 Total Talent Portfolio 102 training: in metacognition 52; see also teacher training Triarchic Theory of Intelligence (Sternberg) 14 unconventional nature of potential talent 8 underachievers, mentoring of 129 underestimation of talent loss 5–6 underserving: of gifted children 103; of potential 10 university sponsored classes 107 US Office of Education definition of giftedness 9, 10, 99 validity of AAI scoring 98 value of mentoring 128–30 verbal loading of tests 94–5 verification stage, creative process 163 visual learning 57

226  •  Subject index Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) 26–7 weekend programs for gifted learners 107

A Whole New Mind (Pink, D.) 167 withdrawal 68 Yeltsin, Boris 6

Author index

Aamidor, S. 30, 95 Abedi, J. 71 Ablard, K.E. 86 Achter, J.A. 120 Ackerman, C.M. 99 Adams-Byers, J. 109–10, 118 Adamson, G. 126 Ainley, M.D. 55 Albert, R.S. 14, 69, 108, 161 Alexander, J. 60 Allen, J. 130 Amabile, T.M. 19, 36, 38, 43, 53, 63, 135, 136, 155 Ambrose, D.C. 14, 130 Ames, C. 55 Anastasi, A. 27 Anderson, P.D. 30 Applegate, B. 51 Aqui, Y. 51, 53, 54, 86 Arbreton, A.J.A. 87 Archambault, F.X. 100, 101, 102 Archer, J 55 Archer, T. 74 Arnold, K. 84, 130

Aronson, J. 133, 134 Ashman, A.F. 61 Ashman, S.S. 95 Avery, L. 105 Azevedo, R. 52, 141, 142 Baer, J. 24, 36, 37, 45 Bailey, L. 102 Baker, J.A. 66, 109 Baker, L. 51 Baldwin, L.J. 108 Bandatos, D. 88 Bandura, A. 49, 50, 52, 53, 54 Barnett, L. 101 Barron, F. 38 Baxter, G. 50 Beasley, W.A. 138 Beghetto, R.A. 37 Belcastro, F.P. 146 Bem, S.L. 84 Benbow, C.P. 14, 80, 84, 109, 120 Benson, J. 71, 88 Berg, C. 14 Berger, S.L. 35, 37, 38, 43, 120, 129, 158

228  •  Author index Bernal, E.M. 133 Bilsker, D. 84 Birkerts, S. 166 Bland, L.C. 74, 76, 118 Bloom, B.S. 93, 107, 108, 124, 125, 127, 161, 162 Blumenfeld, P.B. 87 Blumenfeld, P.C. 87 Boekaerts, M. 50, 85 Bonner, S. 141 Borko, H. 114 Borkowski, J.G. 49, 54, 62 Borland, J.H. 30, 132 Boston, B.O. 99, 108 Bouchard, T.J., Jr. 82 Bracken, B.A. 70, 98–9, 99 Bridger, R. 109 Briggs, C.J. 101 Broome, P. 55 Brophy, J. 54 Brower, P. 126 Brown, A.L. 51 Brown, E.F. 70, 98, 99 Brown, J.S. 138 Brown, S.W. 100, 101 Bruns, J.H. 66, 72 Buchana, N. 11 Buros, E. 27 Burton, R.R. 138 Butcher, H.J. 82 Butler, D.L. 52 Cahan, S. 85 Callahan, C.M. 30, 31, 74, 76, 84 Caporrimo, R. 85 Cardon, L.R. 82 Carey, S.M. 15, 51 Carpenter, B.O. 31 Carr, M. 60 Carter, E.W. 51 Casey, K.M.A. 129 Cassady, J.C. 71 Cassell, K.R. 87 Castelli, D. 142 Cattell, R.B. 12, 14, 82 Ceci, S.J. 15, 24 Chan, D.W. 73 Chand, I. 43 Charness, N. 152 Chen, C. 36, 115, 132 Chen, L.K.S. 54

Cherny, S.S. 82 Cheung, C. 115 Chi, M.T.H. 155 Chiarelli, S. 141 Chickering, A. 120 Chiu, C. 32, 33 Chorney, M.J. 80 Christenson, J.R. 31 Claphan, M.M. 36 Clark, B. 70, 119 Clasen, D.R. 109 Clasen, R.E. 109 Clemons, T.L. 73 Cohen, L.M. 14 Colangelo, N. 126 Coleman, E.B. 156 Coleman, L.J. 15, 79 Coleman, M.R. 95 Collins, D. 159 Comas-Diaz, L. 133 Connelly, M.S. 38, 158 Conway, R.N.F. 61 Cooper, S.E. 85 Cornell, D.G. 53, 124, 126 Corno, L. 50 Corpus, J.H. 53 Court, J.H. 27, 28 Cowdery, E.M. 36 Cox, C.M. 25 Cox, D.N.. 82 Cox, J. 99, 108 Cramond, B. 36, 38, 115, 157 Cromley, J.G. 52, 141 Cropley, A. 42, 72, 74, 115 Crutchfield, R.S. 12 Csikszentmihalyi, M. 68 Cullinan, D. 69 Dabbagh, N. 141 Dabrowski, K. 99 Dai, D.Y. 15, 33, 53, 79 Dandy, J. 132 Daniel, N. 99, 108 Daniels, J.R. 74, 80 Davalos, R.A. 128 Davidman, L. 56 Davidson, J.E. 15 Davis, G.A. 25, 44, 109, 115 Davis, H. 87 Davis, M.A. 71 DeBacker, T.K. 53

Author index  •  229 DeBello, T.C. 57 Deci, E.L. 63 Decker, B.P. 38 Delisle, J. 79, 80 DeMars, C.E. 54 Denicolo, P. 74 Detterman, D.F. 80 Dettmann, D.F. 126 Dialdin, D. 87 Diaz, E.I. 72 Dicicco, J. 124 Dietrich, A. 159 Dmitrieva, J. 36, 115 Dobyns, S.M. 84, 101, 102 Dodd, R.A. 25 Doepke, K.J. 71 Dole, S. 108, 121 Donders, J. 26 Dorval, B. 161, 162, 164–5, 167 Dover, A.C. 51, 60, 138 Drake, M. 87 Dretzke, B.J. 86 Dudley-Grant, G.R. 133 Dunn, K. 57 Dunn, R. 57 Dunne, F. 84 Durden, W. 101 Dwairy, M. 124 Dweck, C.S. 32, 33, 52, 54, 55 Dyche, B. 103 Ebmeier, H. 103 Eccles, J.S. 53, 87 Eckert, R.D. 101 Eley, T. 80 Elliot, A.J. 67 Elliot, E.S. 54 Elliot, J.E. 6 Elmore, R.F. 110 Emerick, L.J. 72 Emmons, C.L. 100, 101 Epstein, J.L. 126 Erdwins, C.J. 69 Erez, M. 56 Ericsson, K.A. 82, 152, 156–7, 166 Erixon, A. 74 Evans, K. 109 Everson, H.T. 167 Eysenck, H.J. 82 Farenga, S.J. 85

Fasko, D. 116 Fehm, L. 70 Fehrenbach, C.R. 51 Feist, G.J. 39, 68, 158 Feldhusen, J.F. 15, 19, 33, 53, 74, 76, 79, 94, 107, 109, 125, 155 Feldman, D.H. 68, 107, 127 Feldon, D. 51 Feltovich, P. 152, 155 Fennema, E. 85 Finch, H. 55 Fine, B. 115 Finley, V.S. 95 Fiorentino, L.H. 142 Fisher, D. 115 Fishkin, A.S. 43 Fivush, R. 85 Flavell, J.H. 50 Fletcher, R. 96 Floyd, N. 130 Ford, D.Y. 28, 29, 30, 72, 129, 132, 133 Forgasz, H.J. 87 Francis, J.M. 31 Frank, E.L. 95 Frasier, M.M. 96 Fredriksen, J. 140 Freedman-Doan, C. 87 Freeman, J. 157 Frensch, P.A. 124 Fried, C. 134 Friedman, H.S. 6 Fritz, M.F. 121 Frydenberg, E. 134 Fu, V.R. 41 Fulker, D.W. 82 Gabbay, R. 93 Gagné, F. 15, 53, 79, 81–2, 86, 95 Gallagher, J.J. 95, 99, 101, 102, 133 Gallagher, S. 102 Galton, Francis 79, 80 Ganor, Y. 85 Garcia, T. 50 Gardner, H. 14, 68, 69, 127 Gelman, R. 15 Gentry, M. 101 Gerber, P.J. 121 Getz, I. 67, 68 Getzels, J.W. 125 Gibson, J.J. 15 Gill, H.S. 80, 83

230  •  Author index Gillian, J.E. 31 Ginsberg, R.J. 121 Gladieux, L. 119 Glaser, R. 155 Glasner, S. 61 Gobet, F. 155 Goertz, J. 121 Goetz, T. 67 Goff, K. 129 Goldberg, M.D. 53 Goldstein, D. 107 Goldsten, D. 85 Golombok, S. 85 Good, C. 134 Gorodetsky, M. 166 Gorsky, C. 38, 97 Gottfredson, L.S. 80 Gottfried, A.E. 99 Gottfried, A.W. 99 Gowan, J.C. 14 Gralinski, J.H. 32 Grant, B. 107 Grantham, T. 128, 129, 133 Gray, A. 86, 88 Green, L.F. 31 Greenberger, E. 36, 115 Greene, B.A. 53 Greene, M.J. 119 Greene, M.T. 103, 105 Grenier, M.E. 126 Grigorenko, E.L. 23, 34, 57, 61, 64 Gross, M.U.M. 18, 109 Grossberg, I.N. 126 Grossberg, I.W. 124 Gubbins, E.J. 101 Guertin, T.L. 29, 32 Guilford, J.P. 7, 12, 14, 35, 39, 41, 42 Guillory, M. 42 Hackney, H. 125 Hadaway, N. 95 Haensly, P.A. 97, 128 Hall, A.S. 103, 121 Hallmark, B.W. 100, 101 Hanninen, G.E. 116 Harold, R.D. 87 Haroutounian, J. 44, 96, 160 Harrel, G. 127 Harrington, D.M. 38 Hartman, R.K. 30, 31 Hartnett, D.N. 72

Haviland-Jones, J.M. 67 Hawking, Stephen 81 Hayes, J.R. 155 Hébert, T. 129 Hegarty, M. 50 Heid, M.K. 25 Heller, K.A. 55, 84, 85 Helson, R. 12 Hembree, R. 71 Hennessey, B.A. 43, 53, 63 Herbig, M.P. 25 Hertzog, N.B. 105 Hewitt, K.L. 156 Higgins, K. 103, 105 Hill, K. 71 Himsel, A. 36, 115 Hittner, J.B. 74 Hocevar, D. 86, 88 Hoffman, R.R. 152 Holland, J.L. 160 Holschuh, J.P. 52, 60 Hong, Eunsook 9, 24, 25, 31, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 67, 71, 85, 86, 87, 93, 97–8, 98, 103, 105, 114, 117, 120, 124, 126, 127, 132, 134, 145, 154, 155, 156, 157, 160 Hong, Y. 32, 33 Horowitz, F.D. 14, 157 Houskamp, B.M. 132 Howard, J.B. 109 Howard, T.C. 30 Hueston, J.D. 133 Huff, R.E. 132 Hughes, C. 51 Hunsaker, S.L. 95 Huntley, S. 130 Hutchings, C.H. 71 Hutchinson, S. 88 Hyde, J.S. 85 Iacono, W.G. 82 Irons, T.R. 86, 88 Isaksen, S.G. 161, 162, 164–5, 167 Isen, A.M. 68 Issroff, K. 143 Iyengar, S.S. 53 Jackson, P.W. 125 Jacob, J.E. 124 Jacobs, J.K. 101 Jamison, K.R. 66

Author index  •  231 Jausovec, N. 52, 60 Jenkins-Friedman, R. 116 Jensen, A.R. 13 Jih, H.J. 155 Johnson, A.S. 43 Johnson, D. 144 Johnson, J.F. 38, 158 Johnson, N.E. 29, 32 Johnson, R.E. 71 Jones, A. 143 Joyce, B.A. 85 Jung, C.G. 69 Junge, M.D. 86 Juric, J.A. 125 Kahle, J.B. 84 Kalous, T.D. 56 Kanevsky, L. 167 Karnes, M.B. 124 Karstensson, L. 85 Kasof, J. 36, 115 Kaufman, F.A. 127 Kaufman, J.C. 24, 36, 45 Kearney, K. 106 Keefe, J.W. 57 Keinan, G. 69 Keith, L.K. 98–9 Kennedy, D.V. 71 Kerr, B.A. 85, 129 Kesselman-Turkel, J. 51 Keyser, D.J. 41 Kher-Durlabhji, N. 42 Kim, S.H. 71 King, K.E. 36 King, R. 61 Kirschenbaum, R.J. 130 Kitano, M.K. 120, 133, 134 Kitsantas, A. 50, 51, 60, 64, 127, 141 Klavir, R. 166 Kline, B.E. 88 Klopfer, E. 144 Kogan, N. 7, 41 Kolb, D.A. 56 Kolo, I.A. 96 Koren, Y. 166 Kornhaber, M.L. 14 Kovach, R. 141 Krapp, A. 67 Krows, A.J. 53 Kulik, C.C. 102, 109 Kulik, J.A. 102, 109

Kurtz, B.E. 33, 54 Kwan, P.C.F. 66 Laitusis, V. 167 Lajoie, S.P. 72 Lamon, S.J. 85 Lanzi, R.G. 124 Larkin, J. 155 Latham, G.P. 55, 56 Lawton, T.A. 87 Lee, K. 58, 59, 124 Lee, S. 95, 99, 102, 107, 145 Lee-Corbin, H. 74 Leggett, E.L. 52, 54, 55 Lehman, E.B. 69 Lepper, M.R. 53, 87 Lewin, Kurt 13, 121 Lewis, D.J. 129 Lewis, M. 67 Lewis, R.B. 120, 133, 134 Li, A.K.F. 126 Liebert, R.M. 71 Lightbody, P. 87 Limburg-Weber, L. 107 Linnenbrink, E.A. 71 Lipschultz, R.E. 86 Little, C.A. 66, 146 Liu, M. 140 Livne, N.L. 18, 25, 35, 38, 41, 46, 154 Livne, O.E. 46 Locke, E.A. 55 Lohman, D.F. 29, 30 Lombroso, C. 69 Lotven, A.C.C. 86, 88 Lubart, T.I. 14, 63, 67, 68, 153, 155, 156, 163, 167 Lubinski, D. 80, 84, 120 Ludwig, G. 69 Lussier, G. 88 Lykken, D.T. 82 Ma, X. 71 McCabe, P.P. 51 McCarney, S.B. 30 McCartney, K. 80 McClelland, D.C. 9 McCoach, D.B. 59, 72, 115, 121 McDermott, P.A. 31, 155 McDill, E.L. 132 McGreevy, A. 135 McGregor, H. 54

232  •  Author index McGue, M. 82 McGuffin, P. 80 McGuire, K.L. 61 McIntire, J. 118 Maddi, S.R. 75 Maier, M.A. 67 Makel, M.C. 15 Maker, C.J. 96 Malpass, J.R. 86, 88 Mandel, H.P. 70 Mann, J. 85 Manning, B.H. 61 Marcia, J. 84 Marcus, S.I. 70 Marek-Schroer, M.F. 95 Margolis, H. 51 Marks, M.A. 38, 158 Markus, H. 84 Marland, S.P., Jr. 9, 10, 12, 44, 94, 99, 116 Marshall, H.A. 56 Martinage, M. 53 Martinez-Pons, M. 50, 51, 86 Martray, C.R. 70 Matthews, D. 27, 28 May, K.M. 118 Mayer, R.E. 50, 51, 60 Mednick, S.A. 35, 41 Meinhardt, J. 67 Middleton, M.J. 55, 71 Midgley, C. 55, 71 Milam, C.P. 127 Milgram, N.A. 41 Milgram, Roberta M. 9, 10, 12, 18, 24, 25, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 57, 59, 87, 93, 94, 97–8, 98, 120, 126, 154, 157, 160, 161 Miller, E.M. 95 Miller, J. 127 Miller, M. 121 Mills, C. 28, 30 Milner, H.R. 133 Miserandino, M. 73 Moely, B.E. 87 Molden, D.C. 55 Molfese, D.L. 80 Molfese, V.J. 80 Monk, C.A. 50 Mönks, F.J. 70 Montague, M. 51 Montang, M.A. 36

Moon, S.M. 53, 67, 109–10, 117, 118, 119, 121, 125 Moore, J.L. 133 Moran, J.D. 41 Morris, L.W. 71 Morris, N.M. 155 Mortorff-Albert, S. 109 Moss, E. 124 Mulcahy, R.F. 73 Mumford, M.D. 38, 155, 158, 165 Murphy, D. 116 Myers, R. 117 Naglieri, J.A. 27, 28, 29, 30 Nail, J.M. 66, 70 Nandagonal, K. 82 Nash, W.R. 128 Natriello, G. 132 Neely, R. 130 Neihart, M. 66, 67, 75, 76, 118 Nelson, J.M. 72 Nelson, T.S. 109 Nemiro, J. 40 Nettelbeck, T. 132 Nevo, B. 71 Newman, R.S. 64 Nias, D.K. 82 Nielsen, M.E. 109 Noble, K.D. 84 Nolden, D. 84 Norlander, T. 74 Norman, A.D. 70 Oakes, J. 109 Obach, M.S. 51, 87 O’Boyle, M.W. 80, 83 O’Brien, M. 14, 157 Ochse, R. 68, 69 Oden, M.H. 6 Ohayon, Y. 59 Okagaki, L. 124 Okuda, S.M. 35, 37, 38, 43, 115, 158 Olenchak, F.R. 129 Olivárez, A. 86, 88 Olivers, R.A. 85 Olsen, Tillie 3, 10 Olszewski-Kubilius, P. 68, 69, 70, 95, 99, 102, 107, 125, 145, 159 O’Neil, B. 86, 88, 105 O’Neil, H.F. 51, 71, 155

Author index  •  233 Osborn, A.F. 161 Owen, M.J. 80 Owen, S.V. 101 Owens, W.A. 42–3 Oyserman, D. 84 Pace, T.M. 117 Paez, D. 96 Pajares, F. 54 Pallas, A.M. 132 Papierno, C. 15 Paris, S.G. 87 Parnes, S.J. 161, 162, 163–4 Passow, A.H. 96 Paulsen, A.S. 50 Pekrun, R. 67 Peled, R. 97, 98, 160 Pelletier, L.G. 86 Peng, H. 141 Peng, Y. 53, 54, 87, 127, 132 Perrone, P.A. 119 Perry, R.P. 67 Peterson, F. 51 Peterson, J.S. 118, 119, 126 Pfeiffer, S.L. 113, 125 Piechowski, M.M. 12 Piercy, F.P. 109 Piirto, J. 15, 25, 66, 125 Pink, Daniel 167 Pintrich, P.R. 50, 52 Pipher, M. 84 Plomin, R. 80, 82 Plucker, J.A. 36, 37, 38, 134, 157 Plummer, D.L. 133 Poole, P. 115 Powell, T. 85, 95 Price, G.E. 57 Pritchett, S. 141 Pullabhota, S. 31 Putnam, R.T. 114 Rabinowitz, M. 155 Rabkin, L. 41 Ragan, S. 141 Ramey, C.T. 124 Ramey, S.L. 124 Ramsay, S.G. 70, 110 Rathunde, K. 68 Raven, J.C. 27, 28 Ravindran, B. 53

Ray, K.E. 118 Reeves, T.C. 155 Reid, J.M. 56 Reiff, H.B. 121 Reigeluth, C.M. 138 Reina, J.M. 27 Reis, S.M. 15, 67, 72, 84, 96, 101, 102, 111, 118, 132, 139, 146 Reisser, L. 120 Rejskind, G. 122 Renzulli, J.S. 12, 15, 24, 25, 30, 31, 74, 94, 96, 99, 101, 102, 107, 139, 146 Restak, R. 56 Reyes, E.I. 96 Richards, H.C. 101, 110 Richards, R. 66 Richardson, W. 31 Richman, H.B. 155 Rimm, S. 72, 109, 115 Rinn, A.N. 72 Risemberg, R. 51, 54, 60 Rivero, L. 106 Roberts, J.L. 70 Robinson, A. 109 Robinson, D.A. 85 Robinson, M. 144 Robinson, N.M. 67, 118, 124 Rocklin, T. 71 Roels, C. 117 Rogers, K.B. 125, 156 Roring, R.W. 82 Rose, T. 84 Rosenthal, N. 85 Roskams, T. 115 Rothenberg, A. 66 Rouse, W.B. 155 Rowell, L.L. 53, 87, 117, 127 Rudowicz, E. 115 Rumelhart, D.E. 155 Runco, M.A. 14, 35, 37, 38, 40, 43, 108, 115, 158 Runions, T. 127 Russ, S.W. 68 Ryan, R.M. 63 Saccuzzo, D.P. 29, 32 Sadker, D. 84, 85, 124 Sadker, M. 84, 85, 124 Sanders, C.E. 84 Sarason, I.G. 71

234  •  Author index Sas, J.C. 31, 51, 62 Sas, M. 31, 51, 62 Satterfield, N.B. 129 Sattler, J.M. 24 Saunders, K.L. 25 Sawyers, J.K. 41 Scarr, S. 80 Schacter, J. 115 Schaefer, B.A. 24, 30, 31, 95 Schallert, D.L. 67 Schank, R.C. 156 Schiedel, D. 84 Schlaug, G. 82 Schleyer, E.J. 70 Schmidt, K. 70 Schneider, B.H. 66 Schnur, R. 132 Schreiber, F.J. 101 Schuler, P.A. 70 Schumm, J.S. 101 Schunk, D.H. 50, 54, 55 Schwanenflugel, P. 60 Schwartz, J.E. 6 Scobee, J. 128 Scott, C.L. 115 Sedlacek, W.D. 84 Seegers, G. 85 Seese, N. 80 Seibert, C. 107 Senécal, C.B. 86 Senk, S. 85 Sethi, s. 87 Shaughnessy, M.F. 84, 130 Shavit, Y.W. 97, 98, 160 Shaw, R.E. 15 Shore, B.M. 40, 51, 60, 72, 156, 167 Short, B.M. 129 Short, E.B. 88 Shuter-Dyson, R. 39 Shwedel, A. 124 Siann, G. 87 Sideridis, G.D. 71 Siegel, J. 84 Siegle, D. 59, 85, 95, 115, 121, 143 Silverman, L.K. 109, 118 Simon, H.A. 155 Simoni, M. 142 Simonton, D.K. 25, 67, 68, 70, 79, 81, 82, 89, 125, 130–1, 135, 156, 157, 161 Sink, C.A. 117 Sisk, D.A. 99, 101

Slane, S. 133 Slavin, R.E. 101, 102, 109 Smith, E.R. 61 Smith, J.K. 53 Smith, L.H. 31 Smyth, R.K. 84 Solow, R.E. 67, 124 de Souza Fleith, D. 115, 122 Sowa, C.J. 74, 76, 118 Spearman, C. 13–14 Speer, W.R. 31 Speirs-Neurneister, K.L. 55 Stambaugh, T. 114 Stanley, J.C. 14, 109 Stanton, M. 132 Staszewski, J.J. 155 Steele, C.M. 133 Stein, G. 115 Steiner, C. 159 Steiner, H.H. 51 Sternberg, R.J. 14, 15, 23, 34, 57, 61, 64 Stevenson, H.W. 132 Stewart, I. 145 Stipek, D. 32 Stocking, V.B. 85, 113, 125 Stocks, R. 87 Stoll, C. 166 Storm, P.S. 116 Storm, R.D. 116 Stott, D.H. 31 Strayer, F.F. 124 Stroh, H.R. 117 Strudler, N. 145 Subotnik, R.F. 84, 130, 159 Suh, B.K. 56, 134 Sundre, D.L. 51, 60 Swail, W. 119 Swanson, J.D. 133 Swartz, C.W. 55 Sweetland, J.D. 27 Sweetland, R.C. 41 Tallent-Runnels, M.K. 86, 88 Tannenbaum, A.J. 5, 9, 12, 24, 25, 108, 116 Tatar, D. 144 Tatti, A.G. 27 Tavegia, B. 132 Taylor, P. 103 Teece, D.J. 152 Tegano, D.W. 130

Author index  •  235 Terman, Lewis M. 6–7, 13, 94, 124, 132, 159 Terry, A.W. 73 Thorndike, E.L. 14 Thorpe, P.K. 54, 62 Thum, Y.M. 115 Thurstone, L.L. 14 Tippets, E. 71 Tissot, S.L. 28, 30 Titz, W. 67 Tobias, S. 167 Todd-Bazemore, B. 133 Tollefson, N. 116 Tomlinson-Keasey, C. 6 Tompson, L.A. 80 Tonemah, S. 30 Tonglet, J.P. 87 Torrance, E.P. 7, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 74–5, 99, 101, 127, 128, 129, 157 Treffinger, D.J. 41, 115, 130, 161, 162, 164–5, 167 Tsai, C. 141 Tucker, J.S. 6 Turner, J.C. 87 Turner, J.E. 67 Turvey, M.T. 15 Tyson, C.A. 30 Urdan, T. 55, 87 Usiskin, Z. 85 Uszler, M. 96 Vallerand, R.J. 86 Van Boxtel, H.W. 70 Van Hook, C.W. 130 Van Voorhis, F.L. 126 VanTassel-Baska, J. 10, 11, 93–4, 95, 101–2, 105, 107, 114, 139 Vaughn, S. 101 Vincent, A.S. 38 Vondervell, S. 145 Vukelich, C. 95 Wagner, H. 107 Wake, W.K. 14 Walberg, H.J. 25 Waldrop, P.B. 75 Wallach, M.A. 7, 9, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 160 Wallas, G. 161, 162, 163 Walsh, D. 87 Walsh, S.K. 86, 88

Walters, J. 127 Ward, T.B. 25, 75 Ward, V.S. 14 Warren, L.W. 6 Warton, P.M. 126 Watkins, A.V. 132 Watt, H.M.G. 87 Wechsler, D. 26–7, 27 Wehby, J. 51 Weinberg, R.A. 124 Weiner, B. 54 Weinert, F.E. 33, 54 Weinstein, C.E. 51 Weisz, V. 124 West, T.G. 109 Westberg, K.L. 31, 100, 101, 102 Whalen, S. 68 Whipp, J.L. 141 Whiston, S.C. 97, 98, 160 White, B. 31, 140 Whitmore, J.R. 72, 73, 74 Whitsell, S.S. 109–10, 118 Wickes, K.N.S. 75 Wigfield, A. 50, 52, 53, 71, 87 Wight, C.A. 132 Wilgosh, L. 84 Williams, J.E. 88 Williams, W.M. 15, 24 Willoughby, T. 156 Wilson, J.S. 85 Wine, J.D. 71 Winebrenner, S. 102 Wing, C.W., Jr. 9, 160 Winne, P.H. 51 Winner, E. 26, 53, 68, 157 Wise, S.L. 54 Woerner, B. 11 Wolf, L.F. 53 Wolfe, C.R. 138 Wolfe, T. 67 Wolters, C. 50 Wolverton, N. 127 Wood, E. 156 Worrell, F.C. 24, 30, 31, 95 Wozniak, Steve 5 Wright, C.A. 46 Wright, S.K. 61 Wu, Y. 141 Xu, J. 126

236  •  Author index Yager, R.E. 25 Yewchuk, C.R. 61 Yoo, J. 117, 118, 119 Yoon, S. 87, 144 Zaccaro, S.J. 38, 158 Zachariah, S. 145

Zeidner, M. 70, 71 Zenus, V. 110 Zhang, L. 57, 100, 101 Ziegler, A. 55, 84, 85 Zifkin, D. 115 Zimmerman, B.J. 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 60, 61, 86, 127, 141