International Handbook on Giftedness

International Handbook on Giftedness

Larisa V. Shavinina (Ed.)

International Handbook on Giftedness Part One

Editor Larisa V. Shavinina Universit´e du Qu´ebec en Outaouais D´epartement des sciences administratives Pavillon Lucien-Brault 101, rue Saint-Jean-Bosco Case postale 1250, succursale Hull Gatineau, Qu´ebec, J8X 3X7, Canada [email protected]

ISBN: 978-1-4020-6161-5

e-ISBN: 978-1-4020-6162-2

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 Library of Congress Control Number: 2008934140 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

c 

Printed on acid-free paper 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 springer.com

This handbook is dedicated to Professor Marina A. Kholodnaya, whose own research on giftedness provided the foundation for my research and shaped my vision of the field, and to my wonderful sons Alexander and Denis.

Preface

If you publish . . . you are trying to create something that is original, that stands out from the crowd. . . Above all, you want to create something you are proud of. . . Richard Branson (2002, p. 57). After the publication of my bestselling International Handbook on Innovation, publishers from around the world began to invite me to work on new books with them. When Springer invited me to prepare the International Handbook on Giftedness, I was on a maternity leave with my 3-months-old and my 5-year-old was just starting school. I, however, had wanted to prepare such a Handbook for a long time and was waiting for just the right moment to dive right into such an endeavor. The time had come and I agreed to prepare a Handbook that would expose readers to new views, great discoveries, and significant advancements of scientific knowledge, exactly as Richard Feynman advised (see his opening quote at the beginning of the introductory chapter). I have always been convinced of the paramount significance of the topic of giftedness and gifted education to the world as a whole. There is no doubt that gifted individuals were, are, and will be extremely important to society. One way to understand the history of human civilization is via inventions and discoveries of the gifted. All human cultural development builds on the amazing technological, scientific, educational, and moral achievements of the human mind. Today, people increasingly realize that gifted and talented individuals are even more important than in the past. Thus, industrial competition is increasingly harsh and organizations of all types must continuously bring new products and services to the global market. To survive, companies need creative and talented employees whose novel ideas are to a certain extent a necessity for the companies’ continued existence and future success. Consequently, modern society desperately requires highly able citizens who can produce innovative solutions to current challenges and contribute new ideas that promote the development and growth of markets for novel products or services. The gifted thus remain an extremely important source of innovation and renewal worldwide. Also, everyone knows that contemporary society has many unsolved problems, including demographic, medical, environmental, political, economic, moral, and social problems. Accordingly, modern society is characterized by a strong need for highly able minds that can productively solve these numerous problems and make appropriate social decisions. In short, intellectually creative citizens are guarantees of political stability, economic growth, scientific and cultural enrichment, psychological health, and the general prosperity of any society in the 21st century. vii

viii

The future will therefore be synonymous with talent, since it will need an extremely high saturation of gifted people in all areas of human endeavor. Despite the evident importance of gifted individuals in any society and many written books, the phenomenon of giftedness is far from being well understood. Because of this, the proposed handbook on giftedness will be a valuable contribution aimed at the advanced understanding of giftedness and its development. This is therefore an exceptionally timely endeavor. As the introductory chapter indicates, my vision for this Handbook was indeed different from any previous publication. From the very beginning of the project I considered that the major goal of the Handbook should be to significantly advance the field of giftedness research and gifted education by analyzing the latest developments in the existing areas and by presenting innovative, emerging trends. As the editor of this important Handbook, I tried to be as objective as possible in my selection of contributing authors and topics to be covered. My purpose was to present the field of giftedness research and gifted education as it is today: with all its different points of views, agreements, and disagreements, which, I am convinced, are essential for further progress of our field. It does not mean at all that I like or dislike certain chapters. My position as a research is reflected in my chapters in this volume. My editorial efforts were governed by a maximal objectivity aimed at unprecedented advancement of research on giftedness and gifted education. The reason why I have been wishing to create this Handbook for a long time is that previous publications in the area did not cover all facets of giftedness and gifted education and did not present some emerging trends in research and practice. In short, it was impossible to find any handbook that would cover all possible aspects of high ability and that would provide clear answers to issues raised by scholars and practitioners alike. I hence came to believe that the time was ripe for an International Handbook on Giftedness—a volume that would comprehensively cover all facets of giftedness and thus would help guide research and practice during next decades and, therefore, would advance the field. All in all, I tried to create the Handbook “that is original, that stands out from the crowd,” a volume that every contributing author and myself “are proud of,” exactly as Richard Branson recommended. It is important to note that the conventional understanding of handbook—as a compendium of review chapters suggesting a guide to practice—seems to be very restricted in the context of the area of giftedness and gifted education. The “handbook” title suggests a guide to practice only in cases where the body of knowledge is understood to be complete and more or less unchanging. For example, “Handbook of Mathematical Formulae,” or “Handbook of Motorcycle Repair.” However, the study of giftedness is a body of knowledge under dynamic theoretical development. For instance, for the very first time this Handbook introduces many new types of giftedness that have not been discussed in previous publications (see my introductory chapter for a detailed description of its novelty and originality). Due to this very reason, I prefer to use “the International Handbook on Giftedness” instead of “the International Handbook of Giftedness.” I hope readers will find the present chapters lively and provocative, stimulating greater interest in giftedness and gifted education. The Handbook covers a wide range of topics in giftedness. Specifically, it offers a broad analysis of what giftedness is, how it is developed, assessed, and affects individuals, groups, organizations, societies, and the world as a whole, as well as what new trends in gifted education are and what successful pedagogical practices exist today. The Handbook will therefore serve as an authoritative resource on all

Preface

Preface

ix

aspects of theory, research, and practice of giftedness and gifted education. I hope that readers of this Handbook will view it as serving that function. The target international audience for the Handbook is broad and includes a wide range of specialists—both researchers and practitioners, as well as policy makers— in the areas of giftedness, gifted education, psychology, education, arts, economics, management and business science. Non-specialists will also be interested readers of this Handbook (e.g., parents of gifted and talented children) and it will be useful in a wide range of undergraduate and graduate courses. Because the coverage of the Handbook is broad enough, it can be read as a reference on an as-needed basis for those who would like information about a particular topic, or from cover to cover either as a sourcebook or as a textbook in a course dealing with giftedness and/or gifted education. In short, anyone interested in knowing the wide range of issues regarding giftedness and gifted education will want to read this Handbook. The Handbook hopes to accomplish at least four things for readers. First, the reader will obtain comprehensive expert insight into the latest research and practice in the field of giftedness. Indeed, the world’s leading specialists agreed to contribute to this Handbook. Second, the Handbook will present many facets of giftedness, which were not discussed in previously published handbooks. This breadth of coverage will allow the reader to acquire a comprehensive and panoramic picture of the nature of giftedness and gifted education within a single Handbook. Third, the reader will develop an accurate sense of what spurs gifted and talented individuals toward their extraordinary achievements and exceptional performances. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the reader will be able to apply the ideas and findings presented in the Handbook to critically consider how best to foster personal abilities and talents. I wanted to do almost impossible with this Handbook: to cover every facet of the field of giftedness as it is today. As readers will proceed from one chapter to another, they will see that ultimately this became possible. I am very proud of the final product: the Handbook is indeed exceptional in many ways (this issue will be addressed in the introduction). There are many people to thank for helping this Handbook come to fruition. Most important are the authors: I thank them very much for their willingness to undertake the difficult and challenging task of contributing chapters. I am particularly grateful to Professor Marina A. Kholodnaya, my former Ph.D. supervisor, who to a great extent ‘made’ me a researcher, developing my perception of great scientific problems. She continually inspires me to undertake innovative endeavors. I am especially grateful to my research assistants—Marianna Medvid, Jeanette Gallina, and David Lefebvre— for their successful handling of numerous duties on this outstanding project in addition to their regular jobs and university assignments. They were simply excellent during many months of the preparation of the Handbook: I could not do it better myself. I am also grateful to my editors at Springer—Bernadette Ohmer, Maria Jonckheere, Astrid Noordermeer, and Bernadette Deelen—who provided just the right blend of freedom, encouragement, patience, and guidance needed for successful completion of this great project. Special thanks to Tamara Welschot at Springer who initiated this project. I also wish to acknowledge my debt of gratitude to my parents, Anna Shavinina and Vladimir Shavinin, who aroused a passionate intellectual curiosity and love for challenges in me. Finally, I owe my biggest debt of gratitude to my husband, Evgueni Ponomarev, and our 8-year-old and 3-year-old sons, Alexander and Denis, respectively. In countless ways, Evgueni has been a true colleague, critic, manager, and

x

Preface

friend throughout a few years of the project. He provided the moral, financial, and technical support, and—more importantly—with the time I needed to complete this project. He did so by performing a number of great tasks, from cooking and administering PC problems when I worked at nights, to assuming the lion’s share (and the lioness’s, too) of child care for our Alexander and particularly for Denis, who was born just before the beginning of this project. Very simply, this is his Handbook, too. I especially wish to thank Alexander and Denis, whose entry into the world taught me more about giftedness, gifted education, and the need to develop their versatile abilities especially when they are at those unique sensitive periods, than have any other events in my life. They were patient with me and curiously asked “when do you eventually finish this Handbook?” I sincerely hope that educational systems of all societies around the world, as well as parents and other caregivers, will be able to develop unique gifts and talents of each child on the Earth. Larisa V. Shavinina

Contents

Part I Introduction 1 Understanding Giftedness: Introduction or on the Importance of Seeing Differently . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Larisa V. Shavinina Part II The Nature of Giftedness 2 The History of Giftedness Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Heidrun Stoeger 3 Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 David Yun Dai 4 Contemporary Models of Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Janet E. Davidson 5 A Feminine Perspective of Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Linda Kreger Silverman and Nancy B. Miller 6 An Expert Performance Approach to the Study of Giftedness . . . . . . . . 129 K. Anders Ericsson, Kiruthiga Nandagopal and Roy W. Roring 7 Debating Giftedness: Pronat vs. Antinat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Franc¸oys Gagn´e 8 The Arbitrary Nature of Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Nancy B. Hertzog 9 Gifted and Thriving: A Deeper Understanding of Meaning of GT . . . . . 215 Michael F. Sayler 10 A Unique Type of Representation is the Essence of Giftedness: Towards a Cognitive-Developmental Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Larisa V. Shavinina

xi

xii

Part III The Neuropsychology of Giftedness 11 Neuropsychological Characteristics of Academic and Creative Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 John G. Geake 12 The Neural Plasticity of Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 M. Layne Kalbfleisch 13 Working Memory, the Cognitive Functions of the Cerebellum and the Child Prodigy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Larry R. Vandervert Part IV Developmental and Cognitive Foundations of Giftedness 14 Developmental Trajectories of Giftedness in Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 Christoph Perleth and Annett Wilde 15 Highly Gifted Young People: Development from Childhood to Adulthood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Miraca U.M. Gross 16 Talent Development Across the Lifespan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 Roger Moltzen 17 Creative Cognition in Gifted Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 Katherine N. Saunders Wickes and Thomas B. Ward 18 A Metacognitive Portrait of Gifted Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397 Marion A. Barfurth, Krista C. Ritchie, Julie A. Irving and Bruce M. Shore Part V Personality of the Gifted, Individual Differences, and Gender-Related Issues 19 Personality Qualities That Help or Hinder Gifted and Talented Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421 Reva Friedman-Nimz and Olha Skyba 20 Emotional Life and Psychotherapy of the Gifted in Light of Dabrowski’s Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 P. Susan Jackson, Vicky F. Moyle and Michael M. Piechowski 21 On Individual Differences in Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467 Andrzej Sekowski, Malgorzata Siekanska and Waldemar Klinkosz 22 A Theory of Talent Development in Women of Accomplishment . . . . . . 487 Sally M. Reis and Erin E. Sullivan

Contents

Contents

xiii

Part VI Twice-Exceptional Gifted Individuals and Suicide-Related Issues 23 Twice Exceptional: Multiple Pathways to Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507 Judy L. Lupart and Royal E. Toy 24 Gifted Learners Who Drop Out: Prevalence and Prevention . . . . . . . . . 527 Michael S. Matthews 25 Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students: Theory, Factors, and Cultural Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537 Laurie A. Hyatt and Tracy L. Cross Part VII Types of Giftedness 26 In Search of Emotional–Social Giftedness: A Potentially Viable and Valuable Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559 Reuven Bar-On and Jacobus G. (Kobus) Maree 27 The Two Pioneers of Research on Creative Giftedness: Calvin W. Taylor and E. Paul Torrance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571 Kyung Hee Kim 28 Creative Giftedness: Beginnings, Developments, and Future Promises . 585 James C. Kaufman, Scott B. Kaufman, Ronald A. Beghetto, Sarah A. Burgess and Roland S. Persson 29 Imaginary Worldplay as an Indicator of Creative Giftedness . . . . . . . . . 599 Michele Root-Bernstein 30 Development of Gifted Motivation: Longitudinal Research and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 Adele Eskeles Gottfried and Allen W. Gottfried 31 Leadership Giftedness: Is It Innate or Can It Be Developed? . . . . . . . . . 633 Karen B. Rogers Part VIII Domain-Specific and Multiple Giftedness 32 Scientific Talent: The Case of Nobel Laureates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649 Larisa V. Shavinina 33 Understanding Mathematical Giftedness: Integrating Self, Action Repertoires and the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671 Shane N. Phillipson and Rosemary Callingham 34 Cinema Talent: Individual and Collective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 699 Dean Keith Simonton

xiv

35 Reading, Writing, and Raising the Bar: Exploring Gifts and Talents in Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713 Rachel Schnur and Sarah G. Marmor 36 The Elusive Muse: Understanding Musical Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727 Roland S. Persson 37 Giftedness and Talent in Sport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751 Jacques H.A. van Rossum 38 On Entrepreneurial Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 793 Larisa V. Shavinina 39 Ilk Hunting: Newbies, Cyberpunks, Coders and the Search for Elusive, Ego-Twisted, Talented Computer Hackers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809 Thomas E. Heinzen and Louis M. Picciano 40 What Makes a Gifted Educator? A Design for Development . . . . . . . . . . 825 Marion Porath 41 Understanding Managerial Talent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839 Larisa V. Shavinina and Marianna Medvid 42 Multiple Giftedness in Adults: The Case of Polymaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853 Robert Root-Bernstein Part IX Giftedness, Society, and Economy 43 Families of Gifted Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 Abraham Reichenberg and Erika Landau 44 Large-Scale Socioeconomic, Political, and Cultural Influences on Giftedness and Talent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885 Don Ambrose 45 Gifts, Talents, and Their Societal Repercussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905 Dean Keith Simonton 46 The Unwanted Gifted and Talented: A Sociobiological Perspective of the Societal Functions of Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913 Roland S. Persson 47 On Giftedness and Economy: The Impact of Talented Individuals on the Global Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925 Larisa V. Shavinina

Contents

Contents

xv

Part X Assessment and Identification of Giftedness 48 The Measurement of Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947 Linda Kreger Silverman 49 Identifying Academically Talented Students: Some General Principles, Two Specific Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971 David F. Lohman 50 The Johns Hopkins Talent Search Model for Identifying and Developing Exceptional Mathematical and Verbal Abilities . . . . . . . . . 999 Linda E. Brody 51 A New Approach to the Identification of Intellectually Gifted Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Larisa V. Shavinina Part XI Recent Advances in Gifted Education 52 New Developments in Gifted Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035 Gary A. Davis 53 The English Model of Gifted Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045 Deborah Eyre 54 Enhancing Creativity in Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061 Joyce VanTassel-Baska and Bronwyn MacFarlane 55 Acceleration: Meeting the Academic and Social Needs of Students . . . 1085 Nicholas Colangelo and Susan Assouline 56 Teaching for Wisdom in Public Schools to Promote Personal Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Michel Ferrari 57 DISCOVER/TASC : An Approach to Teaching and Learning That Is Inclusive Yet Maximises Opportunities for Differentiation According to Pupils’ Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 B. Wallace and C. J. Maker 58 Future Problem Solving in Gifted Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1143 Bonnie L. Cramond 59 Practical Intelligence and Wisdom in Gifted Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1157 Mary Anne Heng and Kai Yung (Brian) Tam 60 Recent Developments in Technology: Implications for Gifted Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1173 Michael C. Pyryt†

xvi

61 High Intellectual and Creative Educational Multimedia Technologies for the Gifted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1181 Larisa V. Shavinina 62 A Technology-Based Application of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model and High-End Learning Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1203 Joseph S. Renzulli and Sally M. Reis 63 The Iowa Online Advanced Placement Academy: Creating Access to Excellence for Gifted and Talented Rural Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1225 Clar M. Baldus, Susan G. Assouline, Laurie J. Croft and Nicholas Colangelo 64 On Bringing Interdisciplinary Ideas to Gifted Education . . . . . . . . . . . 1235 Bharath Sriraman and Bettina Dahl 65 Innovation Education for the Gifted: A New Direction in Gifted Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1257 Larisa V. Shavinina 66 Dual-Language Gifted Education and Its Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1269 Ernesto M. Bernal and Jaime H. Garc´ıa 67 Observed Trends and Needed Trends in Gifted Education . . . . . . . . . . 1285 Michael F. Shaughnessy and Roland S. Persson Part XII Policy Implications and Legal Issues in Gifted Education 68 United States Policy Development in Gifted Education: A Patchwork Quilt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1295 Joyce VanTassel-Baska 69 Identifying and Developing Talent in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): An Agenda for Research, Policy, and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1313 Rena Subotnik, Martin Orland, Kristin Rayhack, Julie Schuck, Ashley Edmiston, Janice Earle, Edward Crowe, Pat Johnson, Tom Carroll, Daniel Berch and Bruce Fuchs 70 Gifted Education and Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1327 Frances A. Karnes and Kristen R. Stephens Part XIII Giftedness Research and Gifted Education Around the World: Institutional and Regional Examples 71 Swimming in Deep Waters: 20 Years of Research About Early University Entrance at the University of Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1345 Kathleen D. Noble and Sarah A. Childers

Contents

Contents

xvii

72 How Do You Get to Carnegie Hall? Gifted Education in New York City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1365 Dona J. Matthews 73 London Gifted and Talented: A Case Study in High Challenge Urban Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1385 Ian Warwick 74 Giftedness and Diversity: Research and Education in Africa . . . . . . . . 1409 Jacobus Gideon (Kobus) Maree and Carol Noˆela van der Westhuizen 75 Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1427 Shane N. Phillipson, Jiannong Shi, Guofeng Zhang, Den-Mo Tsai, Chwee Geok Quek, Nobutaka Matsumura and Seokhee Cho 76 Gifted Education in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern Regions: History, Current Practices, New Directions, and Future Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1463 Taisir Subhi-Yamin 77 Gifted Education and Research on Giftedness in South America . . . . . 1491 Eunice M.L. Soriano de Alencar, Denise de Souza Fleith and Violeta Arancibia Part XIV Conclusions 78 Research on Giftedness in the 21st Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1509 Albert Ziegler Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1525 Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1529

About the Authors

Don Ambrose is Professor of Graduate Education and Coordinator of the Center for Innovative Instruction at Rider University in Lawrenceville, New Jersey, editor of the journal Roeper Review, and past chair of the Conceptual Foundations Division of the National Association for Gifted Children. His scholarship includes theoretical syntheses and philosophical analyses based on a wide-ranging, interdisciplinary search for theories, philosophical perspectives, and research findings that challenge, refine, and expand thinking about the development of creative intelligence. Violeta Arancibia, Ph.D., is Professor of Talent Education and Educational Psychology at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Catholic University of Chile. She is the Director of the Center of Studies and Development of Talent PENTAUC, Consultant for the World Bank and UNESCO. She was a visiting scholar at Harvard University, Nigmegen University, and at the PACE Center at Yale University. Susan G. Assouline is the Associate Director of the Belin-Blank Center and has an appointment as a Clinical Associate Professor in school psychology. She received her Ph.D. from The University of Iowa and was awarded a 2-year post-doctoral fellowship at the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) at Johns Hopkins University. She joined the Belin-Blank Center in 1990. Dr. Assouline is co-author (with Ann Lupkowski-Shoplik) of Developing Math Talent: A Guide for Educating Gifted and Advanced Learners in Math. As well, she is co-developer of the Iowa Acceleration Scale, a tool designed to guide educators and parents through decisions about grade-skipping students. In 2004, she co-authored, with Nicholas Colangelo and Miraca U. M. Gross, A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students. Currently, she is lead investigator on the Center’s study on twice-exceptional children and in 2005 she received the University of Iowa Board of Regents Staff Excellence Award. Clar M. Baldus is the administrator for Rural Schools (the Iowa Online Advanced Placement Academy), Inventiveness (Invent Iowa), and Visual Arts Programs at the Belin-Blank Center. In addition, she has an appointment as Adjunct Professor in the Department of Psychological and Quantitative Foundations in the University of Iowa College of Education. She earned her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology (with emphasis in visual/spatial abilities) at the University of Iowa. Her extensive teaching experience includes many years of working with students at the elementary, secondary, post-secondary, and professional development levels. Her teaching and xix

xx

research has been guided by her commitment to talent development, interest in creative processes, and passion for art. Since joining the Belin-Blank Center in 2000, her responsibilities also include gifted education presentations at various state and national conferences. In 2004 she received the Professional Achievement Alumni Award, Mount Mercy College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Marion A. Barfurth is an Assistant Professor in Technology and Learning at the University of Ottawa. She received her B.A. in Mathematics and Economics in 1980 from Concordia University. After working for 4 years as an economist, in 1987 she obtained her Masters in the Teaching of Mathematics also from Concordia University. Her research at that time was already rooted in emerging technologies and cognition. In 1996, Marion completed her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology at McGill University. Over the past 20 years Marion’s research has addressed the areas of computer-supported collaborative learning and the evaluation and research of innovative technologies for the professional development of teachers in a broad range of subject areas. Reuven Bar-On began working as a clinical psychologist in 1972. He earned his doctorate at Rhodes University in South Africa and currently holds a professorship at the University of Pretoria and an adjunct faculty appointment at the University of Texas Medical Branch where he directs research on emotional intelligence and lectures on the topic. Professor Bar-On is a world-renowned expert and pioneer in emotional intelligence and has been involved in defining, measuring, and applying this construct since 1980. The “Bar-On model of emotional intelligence” is described as one of three leading conceptualizations of this construct today. Dr. Bar-On coined the term “EQ” in 1985 and created four different measures of emotional intelligence including the EQ-i, EQ-i:YV, EQ-360, and EQ-interview. He has authored or co-authored over 30 publications, including three books, on various aspects of emotional intelligence. He also co-developed the first Internet-delivered training program designed to enhance emotional intelligence. Ronald A. Beghetto is an Associate Professor of Educational Studies at the University of Oregon. He received his Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from Indiana University. His program of research examines the schooling experience in relation to creativity, motivation, and teacher development. He received the 2008 Daniel E. Berlyne Award from Division 10 of the American Psychological Association and has also received numerous awards for teaching excellence, including the 2006 Ersted “Crystal Apple” Award from the University of Oregon. Daniel B. Berch is Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development at the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education. Previously, he served as Associate Chief of the Child Development and Behavior Branch at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, where in addition, he directed the Program in Mathematics and Science Cognition and Learning. Dr. Berch also spent a year as a Senior Research Associate at the U.S. Department of Education, advising the Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement on technical and policy matters. He has published articles on children’s numerical cognition and mathematical learning disabilities. Dr. Berch is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association’s Division of Experimental Psychology, a member of the

About the Authors

About the Authors

xxi

National Center for Learning Disabilities Professional Advisory Board, and served as an ex officio member of the U.S. Department of Education’s National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Ernesto M. Bernal received a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from the University of Texas. He has been a classroom teacher of the gifted, a school administrator in two private schools for the gifted, a researcher, and a professor and administrator in public institutions of higher education in the Southwest. Currently Dr. Bernal works as an educational consultant to school districts and has been an external evaluator to complex educational projects, including the dual-language gifted education program (a Javits project) in El Paso I.S.D., the AP Initiative project in Austin I.S.D., and most recently the AP Initiative project in the Arizona Department of Education. Linda E. Brody, Ph.D., is the Director of the Study of Exceptional Talent (SET) at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth (CTY). An outgrowth of Julian Stanley’s Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), SET serves students with exceptional mathematical and/or verbal abilities through its counseling and research efforts. In addition, SET publishes Imagine, a magazine for gifted students, and produces Cogito.org, a website for students with high abilities and interests in mathematics and the sciences. Linda also co-directs CTY’s Diagnostic and Counseling Center, which provides individual assessment and counseling and specializes in the needs of twice-exceptional students. Her research interests focus on special populations of gifted students including the highly gifted, gifted females, and twice-exceptional students. She has published several books and numerous book chapters and articles, presents regularly at professional conferences, and has taught graduate courses in gifted education at John Hopkins. Sarah Burgess is a graduate student at California State University at San Bernardino. She recently earned her B.S. in psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. Her current research interests include the relationship between classic decision-making models and current theories of creativity. Rosemary Callingham, Ph.D., is a senior lecturer in mathematics education at the University of New England, Australia. She has an extensive background in mathematics education, including teaching in middle-years classrooms, school mathematics curriculum design and implementation, and large-scale testing programs. She holds a Ph.D. in mathematics assessment and educational measurement. Her research interests include statistical literacy, mental computation, and assessment of mathematics using Rasch measurement techniques. In 2006 she was awarded a Cheung Kong Endeavour Fellowship, which she undertook at the Hong Kong Institute of Education. She is currently involved in several mathematics education research projects in different parts of Australia and Korea. Thomas G. Carroll is President of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. In that capacity he leads NCTAF’s efforts to improve teaching quality by empowering educators to transform their schools into 21st century learning organizations. He founded the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology, “PT3,” program, and created the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants Program at the U.S. Ed. He was the first Director of Technology Planning and Evaluation for

xxii

the E-Rate program. He served as Deputy Director of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, prior to which he was Director of the National Research Centers and Regional Laboratories program at the National Institute of Education (NIE). He holds a Ph.D. in Cultural Anthropology from SUNY, Buffalo, and taught as an Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Education at Clark University. He served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in community development in Lesotho from 1967 to 1969. Seokhee Cho is an Associate Professor at St. John’s University, New York. Dr. Cho got her B.A. and M.A. from Ewha Womans University, Korea, and Ph.D. from the University of Alberta, Canada. She established the Korean gifted education system during her service as the Director General of the National Research Center for Gifted Education at the Korean Educational Development Institute in 1987–2007. She served as the President of Asia Pacific Federation of the World Council for the Gifted and Talented (WCGTC) in 2004–2006. She is currently the Editor-in-Chief of the AP Journal of Gifted and Talented Education by the Asia Pacific Federation of WCGTC and the Journal of Gifted/Talented Education by the Korean Society for the Gifted. Dr. Cho’s contribution was recognized by the Korean National Merit of Civil Service in 2004, and by the Award for Recognition of the Excellence by the University of Alberta Alumni Association in 2006. Sarah A. Childers has a Master’s degree in Women Studies and is a doctoral student in Educational Psychology at the University of Washington (UW). She is the Assistant Director for the UW Academy for Young Scholars and had been the Graduate Research and Teaching Assistant for the Robinson Center for the preceding 2 years. Nicholas Colangelo is the Myron & Jacqueline Blank Professor of Gifted Education at The University of Iowa and Director of the Belin-Blank Center. He has edited two texts: New Voices in Counseling the Gifted (with Ronald Zaffrann) and Handbook of Gifted Education, Editions I, II, and III (with Gary Davis). He has authored A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students (with Susan Assouline and Miraca Gross). He has served on the editorial boards of major gifted and counseling journals. In 1991, he was presented with the Distinguished Scholar Award by the National Association for Gifted Children; in 1995, he received the Alumni Achievement Award presented by the School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison. In 2002, he received the President’s Award from the National Association for Gifted Children, and, in 2007, he was selected as the Association Editor for the National Association for Gifted Children. Bonnie L. Cramond, Ph.D., is a Professor and the Director of the Torrance Center for Creativity and Talent Development in the Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology at the University of Georgia. She is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Association for Gifted Children, former editor of the Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, on the review board for several other journals, a former schoolteacher, and a survivor of parenting two gifted and creative people. An international and national speaker, she has published numerous articles, a book on creativity research, and teaches classes on giftedness and creativity. She is particularly interested in the identification and nurturance of creativity, especially

About the Authors

About the Authors

xxiii

among students considered at risk because of their different way of thinking, such as those misdiagnosed with ADHD, emotional problems, or those who drop out. Laurie J. Croft is the administrator for professional development at the Belin-Blank Center. She earned her Ph.D. in Educational Leadership at the University of Tulsa, emphasizing gifted programming. Research interests include the conceptual foundations of gifted education and professional development for teachers of the gifted. Dr. Croft has made presentations at various state, national, and international conferences, and to parent groups, teachers, and school boards. As well, she has experience facilitating professional development in gifted education for educators from around the world. At the Belin-Blank Center, Dr. Croft is responsible for coordinating the comprehensive program of coursework in gifted education that enable educators to earn an endorsement in gifted education. She supervises practicum experiences for teachers of the gifted, develops new professional educational opportunities for teachers, including the annual Advanced Placement Teacher Training Institute in Iowa, and teaches courses in curriculum concepts and in program models in gifted education. Tracy L. Cross, Ph.D., is the George and Frances Ball Distinguished Professor of Gifted Studies, the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies, Research, and Assessment for Teachers College at Ball State University (BSU). For 9 years he served BSU as the Executive Director of the Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics and Humanities. Dr. Cross has published over 100 articles, book chapters, and columns, as well as co-authored textbooks Being Gifted in School: An Introduction to Development, Guidance and Teaching and On the Social and Emotional Lives of Gifted Kids. He is the editor of the Journal for the Education of the Gifted and editor emeritus of the Roeper Review, Gifted Child Quarterly, Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, Research Briefs, and others. He served as president of The Association for the Gifted of the Council for Exceptional Children, was on the Executive Committee and the Board of National Association for Gifted Children. Edward Crowe is senior adviser for higher education programs at the Carnegie Corporation of New York. One of his responsibilities there is to direct the program of technical assistance support for the Teachers for a New Era Program. Dr. Crowe also provides consulting services on teacher quality and K-16 policy issues for several other organizations and projects. He was the first director of the Title II Teacher Quality Enhancement Program for the U.S. Department of Education. In earlier work, Dr. Crowe acquired extensive experience in state higher education policy, with the Office of the President of the University of North Carolina system, as senior staff to the state higher education coordinating board in Arkansas. He was principal investigator of a statewide math and science education systemic initiative reform project funded by the National Science Foundation. Dr. Crowe is co-editor (with Rena Subotnik) of the forthcoming book series Levers of Change in Education. He is a graduate of Boston College and holds masters and doctoral degrees in political science from UNC-Chapel Hill. David Yun Dai is an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology, State University of New York at Albany. He received his Ph.D. in psychology from Purdue University and worked as a postdoctoral

xxiv

fellow at the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented at University of Connecticut. Dr. Dai was the recipient of the Early Scholar Award in 2006 from the National Association for Gifted Children. He has published two books and over 50 journal articles, book chapters, and reviews. Dr. Dai’s current research interests include the psychology of talent development and foundational issues regarding gifted education. He is also interested in developing a more functional perspective on intelligence and intellectual functioning that integrates cognition, motivation, and emotion. Janet E. Davidson, Ph.D., is Associate Professor and Chair of Psychology at Lewis & Clark College, where she won the Professor of the Year award in 1997. Her Ph.D. is from Yale University (1989). She does research on several aspects of giftedness, including the roles that insight and metacognitive skills play in problem solving performance. In 1988, she won a Mensa Education and Research Foundation Award for Excellence. She and Robert J. Sternberg have edited three books, Conceptions of giftedness (1986; 2005), The nature of insight (1995), and The psychology of problem solving (2003). Gary A. Davis, Ph.D., is Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, where he teaches courses in creativity and gifted education. He is author of numerous articles in the areas of creativity, moral education, and effective schooling, and of many books, including Education of the Gifted and Talented (with Sylvia Rimm), Handbook of Gifted Education (with Nick Colangelo), Creativity Is Forever, Psychology of Problem Solving, Training Creative Thinking, Creative Teaching of Values and Moral Thinking, and Effective Schools and Effective Teachers. He is a reviewer, consulting editor, and editorial board member for several creativity and gifted education journals. Janice Earle has been at the National Science Foundation since 1991. She currently serves as the Cluster Lead for the Knowledge Building Cluster in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) new Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL). The Knowledge Building Cluster includes the Research and Evaluation on Education in Science and Engineering (REESE) program, the Foundation’s primary education research program. Dr. Earle holds a Ph.D. in education policy from the University of Maryland. Ashley Edmiston is the Administrative Coordinator for the Center of Psychology in Schools and Education. She provides project-based support for the Center’s Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education along with its various task forces. Ashley also serves as Project Director for the Catalyst Project, a year long mentoring program in Chemistry and the Arts, housed in the Center for Gifted Education Policy. Ashley holds a B.S. in Psychological Science from the University of Westminster in London, UK. K. Anders Ericsson, Ph.D., is the Conradi Eminent Scholar and Professor of Psychology at Florida State University. After his Ph.D. in Sweden, he collaborated with Herbert A. Simon on verbal reports of thinking and wrote Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (1984). Currently he studies the cognitive structure of expert

About the Authors

About the Authors

xxv

performance in domains such as music, chess, and sports, and how expert performers attain their superior performance by acquiring complex cognitive mechanisms and physiological adaptations through extended deliberate practice. He edited Toward a General Theory of Expertise (1991), The Road to Excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (1996), Expert Performance in Sports (2001), and Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (2006). He is a Fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences of the American Psychological Association (Division 3) and the Association for Psychological Science. Deborah Eyre, Ph.D., is Vice President of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, the former Director of the UK government’s flagship National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, and Professor of Education at the University of Warwick. She has worked in gifted education for 28 years in various leadership roles. She now plays pivotal role in shaping national education policy in this field in England and internationally. She is particularly known for her book for teachers, Able Children in Ordinary Schools. Deborah holds academic positions at the University of Oxford, Oxford Brookes University, and Hong Kong Institute of Education. She serves on various national and international boards including the UK Teacher Development Agency, The National College for School Leadership, Inspiring Futures Foundation Centre for Talented Youth, Johns Hopkins University. Deborah is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Kyung Hee Kim, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education, the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. She obtained a Ph.D. in Gifted and Creative Education in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. Her research interests includes the nature of creativity (by comparing with intelligence, achievement, etc.), characteristics of creatively gifted students (and identifying creative students for gifted programs), assessment of creativity (including validity studies for creativity tests), and nurturance of creativity. Dr. Kim received awards for her outstanding research from Eastern Michigan University in 2007 and 2008; the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) in 2005; the American Creativity Association (ACA) in 2005; and the International Council of Psychologists (ICP) in 2004. Michel Ferrari, Ph.D., is Associate Professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. He is interested in conscious personal development, especially in ways to encourage optimal or exceptional, transformative development. He has edited books with Roger Taylor (Evolution, Epistemology and Science Education; in press, Taylor & Francis), Ljiljana Vuletic (Developmental Relations Between Mind, Brain, & Education: Essays in Honour of Robbie Case; in press, Springer), Georges Potworowski (Teaching for Wisdom; 2008, Springer), Larisa V. Shavinina (Beyond Knowledge; 2004, Erlbaum), and Robert Sternberg (Self-Awareness; 1998, Guilford). He is preparing a special issue of the History of the Human Sciences on the history of the science of consciousness. In terms of research, he is currently leading an international team studying personal wisdom in several countries around the world, including China, Ukraine, Pakistan, the United States, and Canada.

xxvi

Reva Friedman-Nimz, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Curriculum and Teaching at the University of Kansas, where she has been responsible for degree and graduate certificate programs in gifted child education for nearly 30 years. A former high school social studies teacher and elementary gifted program facilitator, she continues to work with bright youngsters and their families, and to collaborate with teachers K-12. Her most recent books are Talent in Context (edited with Karen B. Rogers) and Talents Unfolding (edited with Bruce M. Shore), both published by the American Psychological Association. She is Co-Chair of the National Association for Gifted Children’s Work Group on needs of Gifted/Talented Sexually Diverse Students. Her research interests center on the psychological factors that impact talent development, particularly self-perceptions and motivation, and on inclusive education models that emphasize students’ talents and strengths. She publishes and presents papers and workshops on these topics. Bruce A. Fuchs is currently the Director of the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Office of Science Education (OSE). He is responsible for monitoring a range of science education policy issues and providing advice to NIH leadership. Dr. Fuchs serves on the Education Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) and on working groups of the Department of Education’s Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC). He was a member of the K-12 education focus group for the National Academy of Science’s report Rising Above the Gathering Storm. (The Gathering Storm report led the President to propose the American Competitiveness Initiative during his 2006 State of the Union speech.) For a number of years Dr. Fuchs was the NIH representative to the Department of Education’s National Education Research Policy and Priorities Board (NERPPB). That experience led to his continuing interest in the debate over how to make educational research more effective. Franc¸oys Gagn´e, a French Canadian from Montr´eal, obtained his Ph.D. in Educational Psychology (1966) at l’Universit´e de Montr´eal. After devoting a decade to the study of student evaluations of teaching, Professor Gagn´e spent the rest of his career in the Department of Psychology at l’Universit´e du Qu´ebec a` Montr´eal (UQAM). He soon adopted giftedness as his field of study, a field in which he has published extensively on theoretical matters, peer identification, and motivational issues. He is better known for his Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), which has been endorsed by educational authorities in many countries. Dr. Gagn´e has won major awards in the field of gifted education, among them NAGC’s Distinguished Scholar Award (1996). Since retiring in 2001, Dr. Gagn´e has maintained international publishing and keynoting activities. Jaime H. Garc´ıa, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Texas at Brownsville. He received his Ph.D. at the University of Georgia where he also worked with the National Research Center for the Gifted and Talented. Dr. Garc´ıa has served on the Editorial Advisory Board of Roeper Review and has served on the Board of the National Association for Chicana and Chicano Studies as Regional Representative and Treasurer. His research interests include bilingual gifted education, the role of language and acculturation in creativity, and socio-cultural issues in schools. Currently, Dr. Garc´ıa is developing a photo-voice

About the Authors

About the Authors

xxvii

project to have children and youth in one of the most economically depressed communities of the United States document the strengths and needs of their neighborhood. John G. Geake, Ph.D., is Professor of Education, Westminster Institute of Education, and Academic Research Collaborator at the Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain, University of Oxford, UK. He leads the Institute’s research developments in gifted education and educational neuroscience. Dr. Geake’s research has examined the neuropsychology of musical and mathematical giftedness and talent. His current functional imaging research focuses on the neural foundations of high creative intelligence. Dr. Geake is founding convenor of the Oxford Cognitive Neuroscience Education Forum. He has presented keynote addresses to conferences in the UK, USA, Europe, Australia, and Asia, and has written hundreds of academic and professional publications. Before moving to Oxford, Dr. Geake was Head of the Gifted Development Unit, University of Melbourne, and Co-editor of the Australasian Journal of Gifted Education. In 2002 Dr. Geake was named Eminent Australian by the AAEGT. Adele Eskeles Gottfried, Ph.D., is Professor at the Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, California State University, Northridge (CSUN), and a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and the Center for Teaching and Learning at CSUN, recipient of the MENSA Award for Excellence in Research, and was Invited Speaker for the Esther Katz Rosen Annual Lecture at the 2001 Annual Meeting. She is the author of the Children’s Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (Psychological Assessment Resources), which is widely used in research and educational practice nationally and internationally, co-author of the book Academic Motivation and the Culture of School in Childhood and Adolescence (Oxford, 2008), and has published numerous books, chapters, and articles. She serves on the editorial boards of several scientific journals. Allen W. Gottfried, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology, California State University, Fullerton, and Director of the Fullerton Longitudinal Study. He is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, the Association for Psychological Science, and the Western Psychological Association. His research interests encompass home/family environment-development relations, the developmental course of giftedness, and longitudinal research. He is the author of numerous books and articles including Gifted IQ: Early Developmental Aspects (Plenum) and Temperament: Infancy Through Adolescence—The Fullerton Longitudinal Study (Kluwer). He has served on the editorial boards of many developmental journals. Miraca U. M. Gross, Ph.D., is Professor of Gifted Education and Director of the Gifted Education Research, Resource and Information Centre (GERRIC) at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Miraca has won six international research awards in the education and psychology of the gifted, the most recent being the 2005 Distinguished Scholar Award from the American National Association for Gifted Children. Her research interests in gifted education include ability grouping, acceleration, socio-affective development, and the highly gifted. She is a regular keynote and invited presenter at international educational conferences. She served

xxviii

on the Executive of the World Council for Gifted Education from 1995 to 1999. Recently, for the John Templeton Foundation of Pennsylvania, she co-authored a major international report on acceleration: A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students. In 2003 she was awarded the Sir Harold Wyndham Medal for service to Australia. Mary Anne Heng, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning at the Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice in the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Prior to her current position, she was Head of Early Childhood and Special Needs Education at the NIE. Her research interests are in the education of highly able learners, curriculum development and implementation, teacher education, and higher education. Thomas E. Heinzen, Ph.D., is a Professor of Psychology at the William Paterson State University of New Jersey, author of several books ranging from the collected poetry of the frail elderly (Many Things to Tell You, Seaburn) to a statistics textbook (Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, Worth). In addition to clinical and statistical consulting, he has published numerous journal articles and sponsored many student papers and presentations. Nancy B. Hertzog, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Special Education and the Director of University Primary School at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She has studied teachers’ implementation of the Project Approach in classrooms with both high-achieving and low-achieving children. She has been the Chair of the Early Childhood Division of the National Association for Gifted Children and served as Co-Chair of the Education Commission of the National Association for Gifted Children. Dr. Hertzog has written web-based curricular guides that detail project investigations of preschool, kindergarten, and first grade students that have won national recognition from the National Association for Gifted Children. She has published in the Journal of Curriculum Studies, Gifted Child Quarterly, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, Roeper Review, Teaching Exceptional Children, Early Childhood Research and Practice, and Young Exceptional Children. Laurie A. Hyatt, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Barton College in North Carolina. For 10 years, she maintained a private practice working with adolescents and adults as a Licensed Professional Counselor in Georgia. She is the author of the self-help book Tools for Living: Taking Control of Your Life (2001). Her doctoral dissertation, titled Suicide and the Gifted Adolescent: A Psychological Autopsy was a case study of a gifted adolescent female who took her life. She has presented her work at various conferences including the National Association for Gifted Children and Social and Emotional Needs of Gifted. Julie A. Irving is a doctoral candidate in the Counseling Psychology program at McGill University. She received her B.A. in psychology and M.A. in Counseling Psychology, both from McGill. She is currently working on her doctoral dissertation, funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council doctoral award. Her research explores the process mechanisms of engagement in a Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction program for physicians. The project aims to elucidate if and how

About the Authors

About the Authors

xxix

proposed processes including attention and meta-cognition enhance clinicians’ well-being, capacity to cope with stress, and clinical work with patients. Julie currently enjoys working as a research assistant in the department of Educational and Counseling Psychology with Dr. Shore’s High Ability Research Lab and as a student collaborator at McGill Programs in Whole Person Care in the Faculty of Medicine. P. Susan Jackson, Ph.D., is the Founder and Therapeutic Director of The Daimon Institute for the Highly Gifted in White Rock, British Columbia (BC), Canada. She is also the District Coordinator of Programs to Support Gifted and Talented Students in Langley, BC, Canada. She has extensive educational and mental health response background in all areas of gifted education. Her research interests and clinical experience focus on the mental health and development of highly and profoundly gifted learners. She is an internationally recognized speaker and consultant who specializes in advanced development and differential diagnosis for disintegrative states such as depression and anxiety. Sue has great interest in dual exceptionalities and advanced personality development. She has studied both Jung and Dabrowski extensively. Sue is a poet, a nature lover, and mother of two highly gifted children. M. Layne Kalbfleisch, Ph.D., has been the Pomata Term Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience at the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study and College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University since 2003. She is also adjunct faculty in the Department of Pediatrics at The George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences. Dually trained as an educational psychologist and cognitive neuroscientist, she examines the relationship between attention and reasoning across the lifespan and in special populations. Her laboratory, KIDLAB, has two transdisciplinary aims to (1) elucidate neural patterns of twice exceptionality (high-ability individuals with ADHD, dyslexia, high-functioning autism) using fMRI and (2) invent paradigms to make fMRI a more ecologically valid measure of behavior. She is also the Director of MRI Safety and Operations at GMU where she led the design, engineering, and building of George Mason’s MRI program and facility at the Krasnow Institute. Frances A. Karnes, Ph.D., is Professor of curriculum, instruction, and special education at The University of Southern Mississippi and Director of the Frances A. Karnes Center for Gifted Studies. She is widely known for her research, writing, innovative program developments, and service activities in gifted education and leadership training. She is the author or co-author of more than 200 articles and co-author of 42 books on gifted education and related areas. She is the former president of The Association for the Gifted, and is the founder and first president of the Mississippi Association for Gifted Children. Honors include an honorary doctor of education degree from her alma mater Quincy University and an award presented by the Mississippi Legislature for outstanding contributions to academic excellence in higher education. She has received the Power of One Award bestowed by the governor of Mississippi and was named one of 50 female business leaders by the Mississippi Business Journal. James C. Kaufman, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the California State University at San Bernardino, where he directs the Learning Research Institute. Dr. Kaufman’s research focuses on the nurturance, structure, and assessment of

xxx

creativity. Kaufman is the author or editor of 15 books either published or in press. These include Essentials of Creativity Assessment (with Jonathan Plucker and John Baer), International Handbook of Creativity (with Robert Sternberg), and Applied Intelligence (with Robert Sternberg and Elena Grigorenko). His research has been featured on CNN, NPR, The New York Times, and the BBC. Kaufman is a founding co-editor of the official journal for APA’s Division 10, Psychology, Aesthetics, and the Arts. He is also the Associate Editor of Journal of Creativity Behavior, the incoming editor of International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, and is the Series Editor of the “Psych 101” series from Springer Publishing. He received the 2003 Daniel E. Berlyne Award from APA’s Division 10. Scott B. Kaufman is a final year doctoral candidate in cognitive psychology at Yale University with an interest in the nature, measurement, evolution, and development of human abilities such as intelligence and creativity. In addition to publishing numerous articles in professional journals relating to intelligence, creativity, and giftedness, he is the co-editor of two books: Psychology of Creative Writing (with James Kaufman) and The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence (with Robert J. Sternberg). He holds undergraduate degrees in Psychology, Human Computer Interaction, and Music from Carnegie Mellon University, where he worked with the late Nobel laureate Herbert Simon. He also holds a Masters degree in Experimental Psychology from Cambridge University, where he studied under the tutelage of Nicholas Mackintosh after receiving the Gates Cambridge Scholarship. Waldemar Klinkosz, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Institute of Psychology at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland, and a member of the European Association of Personality Psychology. He conducts research in the area of the psychology of individual differences (i.e., achievement, abilities, personality, and motivation). He is interested in methodology of psychology and testing the psychometric properties of psychological tests translated at the Department of Psychology of Individual Differences. In 1998–2007, he co-operated with Prof. Dr. A. Angleitner, Chair of Psychology of Personality and Individual Differences at the University of Bielefeld, Germany. He has participated in comparative and inter-cultural studies coordinated by Prof. Dr. R. R. McCrae and by Dr. F. De Fruyt. He has published in Polish and foreign journals including Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Science, and Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness. Linda Kreger Silverman, Ph.D., is a licensed clinical and counseling psychologist, who has contributed over 300 publications to the field, including the textbooks, Counseling the Gifted & Talented, and Upside-Down Brilliance: The Visual-Spatial Learner. She founded and directs the Institute for the Study of Advanced Development, and its subsidiaries, the Gifted Development Center (www.gifteddevelopment.com), which has assessed over 5,400 children in the last 29 years, and Visual-Spatial Resource (www.visualspatial.org). For 9 years, she served on the faculty of the University of Denver in counseling psychology and gifted education. Co-Chair of America’s NAGC Task Force on Assessment, she also co-chaired the first symposium on assessment of the gifted in conjunction with the World Council for Gifted Children Conference. Advising major testing companies, she was a member of the expert Advisory Panel for the Stanford-Binet Intelligence

About the Authors

About the Authors

xxxi

Scale, Fifth Edition, and she has been instrumental in the development of extended norms for the WISC-IV. Erika Landau holds Ph.D. in Psychology and Art History. Her dissertation Psychology of Creativity, one of the first books on this topic in Europe and in Israel, was published in four editions in German and translated into five languages. In 1969 Dr. Landau founded and directs since then the Young Persons’ Institute for the Promotion of Creativity and Excellence (Y.P.I.P.C.E.), Technical College, Tel Aviv University. This Institute provides an enrichment program for gifted and talented children and youth (aged 5–15). Dr. Landau’s book The Courage to Be Gifted has been published in 10 languages throughout the world. She has been also working at the Institute for Psychotherapy and the Medical School of the Tel Aviv University. She works as a psychotherapist with adults as well. Dr. Landau is a prolific writer in her fields of interest: psychotherapy, creativity, giftedness, and excellence. David F. Lohman is Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Iowa. He was a Fulbright Fellow, a recipient of the University of Iowa Regents Award for Faculty Excellence, and of the Distinguished Scholar award from NAGC. He currently directs the Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration at the Belin-Blank Center. David is a fellow of the American Psychological Association and of the American Psychological Society, a member of the Committee on Tests and Assessments of the American Psychological Association, and Chair of the Design and Analysis Committee for the National Assessment of Educational Progress. His research has focused on the development psychological models ability constructs, particularly spatial and reasoning abilities. Since 1998, he has worked with Elizabeth Hagen on the Cognitive Abilities Test. Much of his recent research has concerned procedures for identifying academically gifted children, especially those who have historically been under-represented in programs for the gifted. Judy L. Lupart, Ph.D., is a Professor and Canada Research Chair in Special Education, beginning January 2003, in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Alberta. She has served as the Founding Director of the University of Calgary Centre for Gifted Education, and the Founding Editor of the journal Exceptionality Education Canada. Her research, publication, and teaching interests include inclusive education and school transformation; cognition, transfer, and educational applications; learning disabilities, giftedness, and at-risk learners; and girls, women, and achievement. She is currently involved in five major research projects on (1) gender differences in achievement, anticipated adult life-roles, and career choice and science, (2) first steps toward inclusive education in Ukraine, (3) inclusive education in a regional Alberta school district, (4) Alberta student assessment study, and (5) characteristics of effective teaching practices in inclusive classrooms. Bronwyn MacFarlane is a doctoral candidate at the College of William and Mary in the Educational Policy, Planning, and Leadership program with specializations in Gifted Education Administration and K-12 Administration. Her dissertation focuses on Advanced Placement World Language teacher perceptions of high-ability students and high-level instruction. She is the research assistant to the Executive Director of the Center for Gifted Education. An experienced teacher and instructional

xxxii

leader, she holds two masters degrees and multiple teaching certificates. Bronwyn received the 2007 William and Mary Excellence in Gifted Education Doctoral Award and the 2007–2008 P.E.O. Scholar Award, a $10,000 national prize for young scholars based on scholarly excellence, academic achievement, and worthwhile career goals to make a significant contribution in the scholar’s chosen field. She received the 2008 William and Mary School of Education Dean’s Award for Excellence at the doctoral level. In August 2008, Bronwyn will join the faculty of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock as an Assistant Professor of Gifted Education. C. June Maker, Ph.D., is Professor of Special Education at the University of Arizona where she coordinates graduate degrees at specialist and doctoral levels. She is principal investigator of the DISCOVER projects, and her current research centers on finding and developing the talents of underserved groups such as Native American, Hispanic American, African American, and Asian American students. She is well known internationally as a Consultant and has also specialized in topics such as gifted handicapped, gifted minority students, creativity, problem-solving, and assessment. Jacobus G. (Kobus) Maree is a Professor in the Faculty of Education and editor of Perspectives in Education and the SA Journal of Psychology. A triple doctorate, he is internationally recognized for his work in, e.g., career counselling. His research focuses on optimizing the achievement of learners and providing cost-effective career facilitation to all persons. As the author or co-author of more than 50 books and chapters in books and 100 articles (over the past 14 years) in accredited scholarly journals, and recipient of numerous awards for his research, he is frequently interviewed on radio and television. He was a finalist in the National Science and Technology Forum Awards in 2006. In 2007, he received the Exceptional Academic Achiever Award (UP) for a second term (2007–2009). Dr. Maree was elected as a member of the South African Academy for Science and Arts in 2003 and elected as a member of the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) in 2006. He is a C1-rated researcher (NRF). Sarah G. Marmor, Ph.D., received her undergraduate degree in English from Barnard College and her Masters degree in Teaching English from Teachers College, Columbia University. She holds New York State certifications in teaching secondary English and in gifted education. Dr. Marmor designed the middle school English curriculum at the Anderson Middle School, a gifted school in New York City where she taught for several years. She is currently teaching English and literature at the Adolph Schreiber Hebrew Academy in Rockland County, and is co-authoring a book on children’s literature with Dr. Rachel Schnur. Dona J. Matthews, Ph.D., has been teaching, writing, counseling, consulting, and conducting research on gifted development since 1985. From 2003 to 2007 she was Director of the Center for Gifted Studies and Education at Hunter College, University of New York, where she worked with New York City teachers on policies and practices relating to giftedness. Now in Toronto, she teaches at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and is working with families and schools on issues relating to gifted education. She is co-author of Being Smart About Gifted

About the Authors

About the Authors

xxxiii

Children: A Guidebook for Parents and Educators (2005). Current projects include The Development of Giftedness and Talent Across the Lifespan, co-edited with Frances Degen Horowitz and Rena Subotnik; The International Companion to Gifted Education, co-edited with Tom Balchin and Barry Hymer; upcoming books for parents and children with Joanne Foster; and a book with Felice Kaufmann on the first 5 years of Presidential Scholars. Michael S. Matthews, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He has taught courses in gifted education, creativity, and educational assessment. Dr. Matthews is the author of two books, Working with Gifted English Language Learners and Encouraging Your Child’s Science Talent: The Involved Parents’ Guide. Dr. Matthews received his Ph.D. from the University of Georgia in 2002. From 2003 to 2005, he held a postdoctoral appointment with the Talent Identification Program at Duke University. Dr. Matthews’ research interests relate to under-represented populations in gifted education, with particular attention to the influences of assessment, identification practice, and educational policy on differential representation. Associated areas of interest include science and math education, gifted education policy, and underachievement and dropping out among gifted learners. Dr. Matthews presents frequently at state and national conferences and writes regularly on gifted education topics. Nobutaka Matsumura, Ph.D., is a Professor of developmental psychology at Kansai University, Japan. His research interests include the education of the twice-exceptional students with both giftedness and learning difficulties. He is the author of the most comprehensive book on gifted education written in Japanese. Professor Matsumura was a visiting researcher in 1992–1993 and the recipient of a Fulbright Scholarship in 2003–2004 to work with Joseph Renzulli, director of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented at the University of Connecticut. Marianna Medvid, MPM, received her Master’s in Project Management from the Universit´e du Qu´ebec en Outaouais, Qu´ebec, and a B.Sc. from York University, Ontario, Canada. She is presently working as Project Manager at BioTalent Canada. Prior to her current position, Ms. Medvid worked with Dr. Larisa Shavinina, Universit´e du Qu´ebec en Outaouais, in the areas of entrepreneurial giftedness and managerial talent. She also worked in consulting sector, where she provided research and project management services to Canadian industry and government. Nancy B. Miller, Ph.D., is editor of Advanced Development, a journal on adult giftedness, and Adjunct Professor of Sociology and Criminology at the University of Denver. She has worked with Dr. Linda Silverman for the past 20 years and is currently involved in research and testing at the Gifted Development Center in Denver, Colorado, USA. For 5 years, she served as Executive Officer for Sociologists for Women in Society, an international organization aimed to improve the position of women in society. She has taught courses at both the graduate and undergraduate level at the University of Akron, where she was Visiting Professor of Sociology, Associate Director of the Center for Family Studies, and Fellow in the Institute for Life-Span Development and Gerontology. Her numerous publications focus on Dabrowski’s theory and emotional development, gender and giftedness, and women’s social support and adjustment to stressful life events.

xxxiv

Roger Moltzen is Deputy Dean of the School of Education at the University of Waikato in New Zealand. He is a former teacher and school principal whose research and teaching interests are in both gifted and inclusive education. His recent research has focused on talent development across the lifespan and in particular on what educators can learn from the life stories of eminent adults. In 2000 Roger chaired a New Zealand Government Ministerial Working Party in Gifted Education, and this committee’s recommendations led to the radical reform of gifted education in that country. In 2005 he was awarded the New Zealand Prime Minister’s Supreme Award for Tertiary Teaching Excellence. Vicky F. Moyle, MAT Indiana University, MA University of Colorado. Vicky is a Licensed Professional Counselor, Licensed Mental Health Counselor, and Instructor of Mathematics with nearly 20 years of teaching experience in Mathematics and Gifted Education. As a speaker, she has presented for numerous state, national, and international organizations including National Association for Gifted Children, Colorado Association for the Gifted and Talented, Hollingworth Association for the Highly Gifted, International Congress of the Institute for Positive Disintegration in Human Development, International Symposium on Dabrowski’s Theory; and has served on the Boards of Directors for SENG-Supporting Emotional Needs of the Gifted, Western Colorado Association for Gifted and Talented, and the Gifted Association of Missouri. She edited The Dabrowski Newsletter from 1999 to 2005. Kiruthiga Nandagopal, M.S., received her B.Sc. in psychology at MacMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. She is currently a doctoral student at Florida State University. Her main research interests are the development of expertise in academic and professional areas. Kathleen D. Noble, is Professor of Women Studies at the University of WashingtonSeattle and Professor of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences at the University of Washington-Bothell. From 2000–2008 she was the Halbert and Nancy Robinson Professor and the Director of the Robinson Center for Young Scholars at UW-Seattle. She is also a licensed psychologist. Professor Noble is the author of several books and research articles about the psychological development of highly capable women, spiritual intelligence, the ways in which talents and gifts shape female lives in ways that are distinct from males and the efficacy of early entrance to college and university. Her current research focuses on spirituality, resilience, and psychological health, and on the conditions under which university students’ beliefs about consciousness and reality change and expand. Pat Johnson is the Team Leader for the Mathematics and Science Partnership (MSP) program at the U.S. Department of Education. In 19 years with the Department, she has managed the Javits Gifted and Talented Students program, the Eisenhower Math and Science National programs, and the Fund for the Improvement of Education. Prior to joining the Education Department, she served as Associate Director of Project 2061, a part of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS); Director of Academic Programs with the Center for Talented Youth (CTY) at Johns Hopkins University; and as an education specialist with the Maine Department of Education. She received her undergraduate degree in anthropology

About the Authors

About the Authors

xxxv

from Beloit College, a Masters of Arts in Teaching in museum education from George Washington University, and a Masters in Education degree in education policy from Harvard University. Martin Orland is Director of Evaluation and Policy Research at WestEd where he leads the work of a nationwide staff of methodologists, research scientists, content experts, and evaluators to help address critical needs in the fields of education and human development. Previously, he spent 4 years as Director of the Center for Education, at the National Research Council, part of the National Academies, and 19 years as a Senior Official at the U.S. Department of Education including stints as Special Assistant to the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences, Associate Commissioner with the National Center for Education Statistics, and Deputy Director of the National Education Goals Panel. Dr. Orland received his Ph.D. from Syracuse University’s Maxwell School, and has taught Political Science at the Pennsylvania State University. He has authored several dozen articles, research papers, and government reports in the areas of education and children’s policy, finance, governance, and assessment. Christoph Perleth, Ph.D., studied Psychology and Mathematics at the LudwigMaximilians-University (LMU) in Munich, Germany. In 1986 he joined the Munich Giftedness Study (directed by Professor Kurt Heller) as a research assistant and later as a senior researcher. In 1992 he got his doctoral degree and worked as a research associate and lecturer in educational psychology at the Institute of Educational Psychology of the LMU. In 1998, he finished his habilitation procedure and was given the “venia legendi” in Psychology by the Faculty of Psychology and Education of the LMU. In 1999 he got a Chair for Educational and Special Psychology at the Rosa and David Katz Institute of Educational Psychology, University of Rostock, Germany. His research interests and main teaching topics are giftedness and intelligence, intellectual functioning, psychological diagnostics including test development and evaluation of fostering measures for gifted. Roland S. Persson, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of psychology. His research focuses widely on giftedness and talent but with an emphasis on social context and the gifted individual in society. Current aspects within this frame are equity issues (egalitarianism), gender, music behavior, gifted education and social perception. Former Editor-in-Chief of High Ability Studies, a member of World Council of Gifted and Talented Children and life-time honorary member of the European Council for High Ability. Shane N. Phillipson, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling and Learning Needs at the Hong Kong Institute of Education. His research interests include models of underachievement and conceptions of giftedness. Dr. Phillipson’s research has been published in High Ability Studies and Educational Psychology, and his edited books include Phillipson, S. N. (Ed.) (2007). Learning diversity in the Chinese classroom: Contexts and practice for students with special needs. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong University Press, and Phillipson, S. N., & McCann, M. (Eds.) (2007). Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives. Marwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

xxxvi

Louis M. Picciano, M.D., founded Essex Systems at the advent of the personal computer revolution and has enjoyed a unique perspective on the evolution/revolution in the application of information technologies to the pharmaceutical and other industries. He has extensive software development and consulting experience in pharmaceutical research, medical systems, and financial services. He has also served in a variety of managerial functions involving team building, recruitment, staff development, technical project management, and systems design and specification. He received his B.A. in Chemistry from Rutgers University and his M.D. from St. George’s University School of Medicine. His current work involves research and development in datamining techniques in genetics research targeting human health and diagnostics. Michael M. Piechowski, Ph.D., author of “Mellow Out,” They Say. If I Only Could: Intensities and Sensitivities of the Young and Bright, has collaborated with Kazimierz Dabrowski and has written extensively on developmental potential and emotional development of gifted youth as well as emotional and spiritual giftedness. He taught at the University of Alberta, Illinois, Northwestern, and Northland College. He is a contributor to the Handbook of Gifted Education, Encyclopedia of Creativity, and Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration. Since 2002 he has been involved with the Yunasa summer camp for highly gifted youth organized by the Institute for Educational Advancement, of which he is a Senior Fellow. He lives in Madison, Wisconsin. Marion Porath, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology, and Special Education in the Faculty of Education at The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. She earned her Ph.D. at the University of Toronto in 1988 where her studies combined special education and cognitive developmental psychology. She won a Killam Teaching Award in 1998. Her research interests include different forms of giftedness, young children’s social development, instructional applications of developmental theory, and problem-based learning. She has co-authored two books on problem-based learning in teacher education, one focused on special education and the other on educational psychology. Her current research focuses on gifted and gifted/learning disabled children’s and adolescents’ views of themselves as learners and their understanding of teaching and learning, the influence of gender on career choice, and the roles of intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies in pedagogy. Michael C. Pyryt was an Associate Professor in the Division of Applied Psychology, Faculty of Education, at the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. In 2000 he became the Director of the Centre for Gifted Education at the University of Calgary and was responsible for expanding the profile of gifted education and promoting the education of gifted children locally, provincially, nationally, and internationally. Professor Pyryt published extensively in the field of giftedness, held numerous professional memberships, and was involved in innumerable research projects. His research interests included conceptions of giftedness, gifted education, multivariate analysis, applied psychometrics, creativity, personal development and special education. Dr. Pyryt passed away on January 15th, 2008 upon his return from a trip to Australia.

About the Authors

About the Authors

xxxvii

Chwee Geok Quek, Ph.D., has been involved in gifted education in Singapore in different capacities. She began as a teacher in the Gifted Education Program and worked as a curriculum specialist before becoming an administrator. She served as assistant editor of Gifted and Talented International for 3 years. She received her Ph.D. from the College of William and Mary and is now a Senior Specialist in the Gifted Education Branch, Ministry of Education, Singapore. Kristin M. Rayhack is an M.A. candidate in International Affairs with a concentration in U.S. Foreign Policy in the School of International Service at American University. She was a policy intern at the Center for Psychology in Schools and Education at the American Psychological Association (APA) and co-authored various publications including a chapter on developing national policies for STEM programs for a NATO UNESCO book on developing science talent. Kristin received her B.A. in Russian and Psychology from the College of Arts and Sciences at Cornell University. Krista C. Ritchie is a Ph.D. (Educational Psychology) candidate at McGill University majoring in Applied Cognitive Science in the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology. She received her Bachelor of Arts with Honors in Psychology from Acadia University in 2002, and Master of Arts in Educational Psychology from McGill University in 2005. An SSHRC Canada Graduate Scholarship funds her dissertation work. She is exploring high school students’ learning experiences during the process of generating novel and authentic research questions in inquiry-driven classrooms. Her research incorporates social and emotional factors into the learning process and aims to broaden current models of complex problem solving. Other research interests include the assessment of learning outcomes and development of statistical reasoning in children and adolescents. Krista currently enjoys teaching a wide range of statistics to graduate and undergraduate students under the roles of laboratory instructor, tutor, and consultant. Abraham Reichenberg, Ph.D., is a neuropsychologist and epidemiologist. He graduated with Honors from the Department of Psychology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and then joined the faculty at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York where he was a Director of the Neuropsychology Laboratory at the Family Studies Research Center, Department of Psychiatry. Currently he is at the Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, UK. His research focuses on the study of normal and abnormal (both superior and inferior) cognitive development, and the impact of raising and growing an abnormally developing child. Sally M. Reis, Ph.D., is a Professor and the past Department Head of Educational Psychology at the University of Connecticut, where she also serves as a Principal Investigator for the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. She was a teacher for 15 years, 11 of which were spent working with gifted students on the elementary, junior high, and high school levels. She has authored or co-authored 15 books, and more than 200 articles and book chapters. She serves on several editorial boards, including the Gifted Child Quarterly, and is a past President of the National Association for Gifted Children. She recently was honored with the highest award in

xxxviii

her field, Distinguished Scholar of the National Association for Gifted Children, and named a Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor at The University of Connecticut. Joseph S. Renzulli, Ph.D., is a Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor at the University of Connecticut where he also serves as Director of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. In June 2003 he was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Laws Degree from McGill University in Montreal, Canada. His work has focused on the development of theories and research related to broadened conceptions of human potential, the identification and development of creativity and giftedness in young people, and on organizational models and curricular strategies for differentiated learning environments and total school improvement. A focus of his work has been on applying the pedagogy of gifted education to the improvement of learning for all students and using technology to promote high-end learning. Karen B. Rogers is Professor of Gifted Studies in the College of Applied Professional Studies at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota. She has just returned from a 3-year appointment as Director of Research for the Gifted Education Research, Resource and Information Centre at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. She is the author of several books, multiple book chapters, and over 100 journal articles and has made presentations throughout the world. She sits on the review boards of Gifted Child Quarterly, Journal for Education of the Gifted, Roeper Review and is an Associate Editor for Journal for Advanced Academics. She is currently on the Board of Directors of the National Association for Gifted Children and Chair of the American Educational Research Association Special Interest Group, Research on Intellectual Giftedness. Her work on leadership giftedness resulted from a multi-year study in which she was involved in Australia. Michele Root-Bernstein, Ph.D., studies the creative imagination and its processes common across the arts, humanities, and sciences. She is co-author with Robert Root-Bernstein of Sparks of Genius, the Thirteen Thinking Tools of the World’s Most Creative People (Houghton Mifflin, 1999). Together she and Robert lecture and consult on trans-disciplinary schooling for educational institutions and museums nationwide. Michele received a B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania in 1975 and a Ph.D. in history from Princeton University in 1981. She has written in a variety of disciplinary genres and has taught poetry and prose in elementary, secondary and university classrooms. As a Kennedy Center Teaching Artist, she continues to co-present a haiku/dance workshop for teachers and students of all ages. Currently an adjunct faculty member at Michigan State University, Michele works on a book-length study of worldplay for the general public called Inventing Imaginary Worlds: From Childhood Play to Adult Creativity. Robert Root-Bernstein, Ph.D., is a scientist, humanist, and artist at Michigan State University. He earned his B.A. in Biochemistry and Ph.D. in History of Science from Princeton University, combining the two as a post-doctoral fellow with Jonas Salk at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. A MacArthur Fellowship encouraged his multidisciplinary activities so that he now studies the evolution of metabolic control systems, autoimmune diseases, and the creative process in the sciences and arts. All of his work is informed by the concept of complementarity: to see all sides of a subject requires multiple, interactive viewpoints. He is currently Professor

About the Authors

About the Authors

xxxix

of Physiology at Michigan State University and is the author of several books, including Discovering (Harvard University Press, 1989) and, with his wife Michele Root-Bernstein, Sparks of Genius (Houghton Mifflin, 1999). Roy W. Roring, M.S., received his B.S. in computer science at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma. He is currently a doctoral student at Florida State University. His main research interests include prediction and development of expertise in domains of intellectual performance. Michael F. Sayler, Ph.D., developed and coordinates gifted education courses and masters and doctoral tracks in gifted education at the University of North Texas. He is the Associated Dean for Academic Affairs and Teacher Preparation and chairs the selection committee for the Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science. He received his Ph.D. in educational psychology from Purdue University in 1990. He developed some of the earliest online courses in gifted education and continues to offer programs to students worldwide. Dr. Sayler’s G/T expertise includes the study of life-long thriving for gifted. Thriving depends on talent development, relationship development, and spiritual development. He also specializes in successful parenting of gifted children and youth, early college entrance and other forms of acceleration and grouping, program planning and evaluation, identifying students, grouping arrangements, and measurement and research. Rachel Schnur, Ph.D., received her doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction from Columbia University’s Teachers College in New York City. Her educational history also includes degrees in counseling, psychology, and English, as well as New York State certifications in gifted education, elementary school education, special education, and administration and supervision. Dr. Schnur has published in the areas of giftedness and resiliency, minority gifted education, and literacy. She has been included in Who’s Who in American Colleges and Universities, and has co-authored a journal article that won the MENSA Award for Best Research Paper of the Year. Dr. Schnur is Director of Curriculum and Instruction at the ASHAR School in Rockland County, New York. She previously taught in private and public schools, and worked as a gifted education administrator for several years in the New York City public school system. Dr. Schnur is currently co-authoring a book about children’s literature. Julie Anne Schuck has been a Research Associate at the National Academies for over 5 years in the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Here she has worked on a number of different projects and workshops including those on improving undergraduate instruction in STEM, identifying and developing talent in STEM, assessing the research program of the National Institute of Justice, and understanding the technical and privacy dimensions of information for terrorism prevention. Prior to coming to the Academies, she was a Research Support Specialist at Cornell University where she conducted a study examining the under-representation of women in physics-based engineering majors. She holds a M.S. in Education from Cornell University and a B.S. in Engineering Physics from the University of California, San Diego. Andrzej Sekowski, Ph.D., is Professor, Head of the Department of Psychology of Individual Differences at the Catholic University of Lublin, Poland, Vice President

xl

of the Polish Psychological Society, Editor-in-Chief of Przeglad Psychologiczny [Polish Review of Psychology], and consulting editor of High Ability Studies. In 2000–2001 he obtained a scholarship of the Fulbright Foundation and conducted research at the Center for Psychology of Abilities, Competencies and Expertise at Yale University headed by Robert J. Sternberg. In 1993–1995 Dr. Sekowski was a Humboldt Foundation fellow at the University of Munich, Germany, where he co-operated with Professor Kurt A. Heller and his team. He was a member of the General Committee of the European Council for High Ability. Dr. Sekowski is the author of about 200 publications in international journals including Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Science, High Ability Studies, and Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness. Larisa V. Shavinina, Ph.D., is Professor at the Universite du Quebec en Outaouais, Canada. Her research interests focus on the nature of giftedness broadly defined, including the child prodigy phenomenon, scientific talent in the case of Nobel laureates, entrepreneurial giftedness, managerial talent, new assessment procedures for the identification of the gifted, and high intellectual and creative educational multimedia technologies (HICEMTs). Over the years Dr. Shavinina’s research has expanded to encompass innovation. Her bestselling International Handbook on Innovation, the first and only book of this type, that is considered the beginning of innovation science, is aimed at unifying the field of innovation, that is, at merging psychological, management, economic, and business perspectives together. She introduced innovation education as a new direction in gifted education. Innovation is also an important element in Dr. Shavinina’s research on giftedness and economy. Her publications have appeared in Gifted Child Quarterly, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, High Ability Studies, Review of General Psychology, New Ideas in Psychology, and others. She edited Silicon Valley North, and co-edited CyberEducation and Beyond Knowledge. Michael F. Shaughnessy, Ph.D., is Professor of Special Education at Eastern New Mexico University. He received his doctorate from the University of Nebraska and has done post-doctoral work at George Washington University. He has been a social studies teacher, guidance counselor, school psychologist and has published and presented on gifted education extensively over the past 20 years. He serves on the Editorial Board of Gifted Education International and several other journals and has co-edited several issues of that journal with Robert Sternberg and Sal Mendaglio. He has authored or edited or co-edited 10 books and several hundred papers, research reports, and interviews. Jiannong Shi is a Professor of psychology and serves as the Director of Center for Supernormal Children (Gifted and Talented Children in the Western), as well as the Director of the Division of Developmental and Educational Psychology at the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. In 1992, 2001, 2004, and 2006 he worked at University of Munich, Germany, University of Michigan, Yale University, USA, and University of Adelaide, Australia as a visiting scholar, respectively. Dr. Shi has been a speaker at WCGTC, APF, and other international conferences on giftedness and creativity in Australia, UK, Egypt, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Chile, Germany, and China including Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. He authored or co-authored Discovering Gifted Children and Developmental

About the Authors

About the Authors

xli

Psychology of Gifted Children and nine other books in the field of child development and education, as well as more than 100 journal articles and book chapters after 1990. Bruce M. Shore, Ph.D., is Professor of Educational Psychology at McGill University, Canada. He received his B.Sc. in 1965, teaching diploma in 1966, and M.A. in Education in 1967, all from McGill University. After 2 years as secondary school mathematics teacher, he obtained his Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from the University of Calgary in 1971. He was appointed to what is now the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology in 1970 and was Chair for 9 years. Dr. Shore is a licensed psychologist in Quebec, was President of the McGill Association of University Teachers in 2000–2001, and McGill’s Dean of Students from 2001 to 2006. From 1970 to 1991 he was a member of what is now the Teaching and Learning Services. His research addresses the cognitive abilities of exceptionally able students, the special qualities of inquiry-driven teaching and learning as an optimal learning environment, and the evaluation of outcomes of inquiry-based instruction. ´ Małgorzata Siekanska, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Institute of Psychology at the University School of Physical Education in Krak´ow, Poland, a member of the Polish Psychological Society, the Polish Creativity Association, and the Association of Applied Sport Psychology. She completed her M.A. and doctoral studies at the Catholic University of Lublin, Poland. She was a trainee at the Centre for the Study of Giftedness, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. She co-operates with the Department of Psychology of Individual Differences at the Catholic University of Lublin. She also worked at the Crisis Intervention Centre and the Foundation for Family Help, both based in Krak´ow, Poland. She is the author of publications on job satisfaction of the gifted, psychology of abilities and creativity, and sport psychology. Dean Keith Simonton, Ph.D., is Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Davis. His more than 350 publications examine various aspects of genius, creativity, leadership, talent, and aesthetics. Among his 10 books are Genius, Creativity, and Leadership (Harvard 1984), Why Presidents Succeed (Yale 1987), Greatness (Guilford 1994), Origins of Genius (Oxford 1999), Great Psychologists (American Psychological Association 2002), Creativity in Science (Cambridge 2004), and Genius 101 (Springer, forthcoming). His awards include the William James Book Award, the Sir Francis Galton Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Study of Creativity, the Rudolf Arnheim Award for Outstanding Contributions to Psychology and the Arts, the George A. Miller Outstanding Article Award, the Theoretical Innovation Prize in Personality and Social Psychology, the President’s Award from the National Association for Gifted Children, the Mensa Award for Excellence in Research, and the Robert S. Daniel Award for Four-Year College/University Teaching. Olha Skyba, M.S. in Educational Psychology, Purdue University, is a Ph.D. candidate in Curriculum and Teaching/Gifted Education at the University of Kansas. She is also a former teacher of English and Spanish languages with diploma in Linguistics from the Kiev State Linguistic University in Ukraine. Throughout her career she taught classes for education majors in traditional as well as online settings, designed and coordinated program evaluation projects, and supervised elementary and foreign

xlii

language student teachers. Her research interests focus on non-intellective factors that contribute to the development of talent, as well as innovative methods of teaching gifted and talented students, namely, emerging online technologies and programs that can meet their unique needs. In her free time, Olha enjoys learning foreign languages, playing piano, traveling, and experimenting with photography. Eunice M.L. Soriano de Alencar, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Education at the Catholic University of Bras´ılia, Brazil. She has served as President of the Brazilian Association for the Gifted at the Federal District, and Vice President of the Ibero-American Federation of the World Council for the Gifted and Talented. Over the last 30 years, she has carried out research projects and published several books and numerous articles, especially on giftedness and creativity. Among her books are Psychology and Education of the Gifted, Psychology of Creativity, How to Develop the Creative Potential, Managing Creativity, The Child in the Family and in Society, Creativity and the Education of the Gifted. She is on the editorial board of several journals in Brazil and abroad and is an honorary member of the Brazilian Council for Giftedness. Bettina Dahl Søndergaard, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Science at The University of Aarhus, Denmark. She previously was an Assistant Professor at the School of Education at Virginia Tech, USA, and also worked as a Senior Advisor at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology at the Norwegian Centre for Mathematics Education and (2000–2002, part-time) and as a Research Officer in the European Union education policy at the Department of Educational Studies, University of Oxford, UK. She has a Ph.D. in Mathematics Education (Roskilde University, Denmark), a M.Sc. in Educational Research Methodology (University of Oxford, UK), and a Cand.scient. (Danish B.Sc. +M.Sc.) in mathematics and social science (Aalborg University, Denmark). She is interested in gifted education. Denise de Souza Fleith, Ph.D., is a psychologist and an Associate Professor at the University of Brasilia in Brazil. She is the author of books and articles on creativity and giftedness, a delegate to the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children and a researcher of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. She received her Ph.D. in the education of gifted and talented from the University of Connecticut. Bharath Sriraman is an Associate Professor of Mathematics in the Faculty of Mathematical Sciences at The University of Montana, with a wide range of eclectic research interests including learning sciences, talent development, philosophy of mathematics and mathematics education, history and philosophy of science, theory of knowledge, Central/Southwest Asian studies, and mathematics education. Dr. Sriraman received his B.S. in mathematics from the University of Alaska and M.S. and Ph.D. in mathematics from the Northern Illinois University. He received the 2002 NAGC Outstanding Brief of the Year Award, was nominated for the 2006 and 2007 NAGC Early Career Scholar Award, and was recently named the 2007 Outstanding Early Scholar by the School Science and Mathematics Association. Dr. Sriraman is the founding editor of The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast and the Montana Mathematics Enthusiast-Monograph Series in Mathematics Education. He

About the Authors

About the Authors

xliii

has published over 150 journal articles, book chapters, reviews, and commentaries in his areas of interest. Kristen R. Stephens is an Assistant Professor of the practice in the Program in Education at Duke University. Prior to this appointment, Dr. Stephens served as the gifted education research specialist for the Duke University Talent Identification Program where she was Editor-in-Chief of the Duke Gifted Letter, an online newsletter for parents of gifted children (www.dukegiftedletter.com). Over the years, she has co-authored numerous books and co-edited the Practical Strategies Series in Gifted Education, a series comprised of 22 books on issues pertinent to gifted child education. Dr. Stephens serves on the board of directors for the North Carolina Association for Gifted and Talented and the American Association for Gifted Children. Heidrun Stoeger, Ph.D., is Professor at the University of Regensburg and the Chair of the School of Education. She has published a lot of books, chapters, and articles in the field of educational psychology. Currently she is the Editor-in-Chief of High Ability Studies. Her main research interests are educational training programmes, motivation, giftedness, and expertise. Taisir Subhi-Yamin is a Professor of gifted education. He has a B.Sc. in Physics, an M.A. in Special Education, and a Ph.D. in Gifted Education and e-learning from Lancaster University, UK. He is the recipient of academic prizes and fellowships from Jordan, England, and the USA including a Fulbright Award (1996). Dr. Yamin published 10 books, many articles, and book chapters, and developed a number of training packages to develop productive thinking skills. He is an active member of many academic institutions including the British Educational Research Association (BERA), ECHA, Bahrain Association for the Gifted and Talented, Jordanian Association of Physicists (President), the National Committee for Gifted Education, and the Qatari Centre for the Gifted and Talented (Founder). He is also the National Chancellor and a regional representative of the International Association of Educators for World Peace. He was a delegate of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children (WCGTC) for about 10 years. In 2002 he was elected a member of its executive committee and named an editor of Gifted and Talented International. Professor Yamin was involved in developing UAE project for the gifted in Ulm University, Germany. He established, in cooperation with Todd Lubart, the International Centre for Innovation in Education (ICIE-Paris). He is currently working in the Institut de Psychologie, Universit´e Paris Descartes, France. Rena F. Subotnik is Director of the Center for Gifted Education Policy at the American Psychological Association. The Center’s mission is to generate public awareness, advocacy, clinical applications, and cutting-edge research ideas that will enhance the achievement and performance of children and adolescents with special gifts and talents in all domains (including the academic disciplines, the performing arts, sports, and the professions). She is co-editor of Research Methodologies for Conducting Research on Giftedness (in press), Levers of Change (in press), Optimizing Student Success with the Other Three R’s (2006), The Scientific Basis of Educational Productivity (2005), The International Handbook of Research on Giftedness and Talent (2nd Edition) (2000), Remarkable Women: Perspectives on

xliv

Female Talent Development (1997), Beyond Terman: Contemporary Longitudinal Studies of Giftedness and Talent (1994), and the first author of Genius Revisited: High IQ Children Grown Up (1993). Erin E. Sullivan is a doctoral candidate in the University of Connecticut’s Educational Psychology program, with a concentration in gifted education and school psychology. Prior to returning to school, she worked as a writer and editor in Washington, DC. Research interests include the development of talented writers, social and emotional issues of gifted youth, and special needs of gifted students on the autism spectrum. Kai Yung (Brian) Tam, Ph.D., is Professor in the Institute of Education and Centre for Higher Education Development at Xiamen University, People’s Republic of China. Prior to his current position, Dr. Tam taught in the United States of America and Singapore. He has published in the various areas of special education, teacher education, and correctional education. Dr. Tam’s major research interests are in the education of culturally and linguistically diverse learners, correctional education, teacher education, and comparative higher education. Den-Mo Tsai, Ph.D., used to be a professor and the Chairman of the Department of Special Education, and the Dean of General Affairs at National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan. In Taiwan, he also used to be the president of Special Education Association. Dr. Tsai earned his doctorate at the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented at the University of Connecticut. Since 2005, he has been the current president of the World Council for Gifted & Talented Children. His term of presidency will be until July, 2009. Dr. Tsai is currently the President of National Taitung University, which is located in the eastern part of Taiwan and has 4,000 students. Den-Mo’s special pursuit is in gifted education and parenting. His publications include over 100 articles in Chinese and English journals and eight books in Chinese. Royal E. Toy is a doctoral student in the School of Special Education at the University of Northern Colorado. He received his M.A. in Special Education: Teaching the Gifted and Talented from the University of Northern Colorado. He has published one book about teaching young gifted children and has assisted in the authorship of two book chapters. He has presented nationally and at the state level on young gifted children, advocacy, communication, twice-exceptional students, and socio-emotional needs. His current research is on the characteristics of individuals who are gifted. His other research interests include early childhood, twice-exceptional, and under-represented populations in gifted education. Larry R. Vandervert, Ph.D., has published works in psychology, the neurosciences, innovation, giftedness, and science in general. Published titles include, “Understanding tomorrow’s mind: Advances in chaos theory, quantum theory, and consciousness in psychology” (1997), The Journal of Mind and Behavior [editor, special double issue]; “How working memory and the cerebellum collaborate to produce innovation and creativity” (2007), Creativity Research Journal; “Cognitive functions of the cerebellum explain how Ericsson’s deliberate practice produces giftedness” (2007), High Ability Studies. Dr. Vandervert (with Dr. Fred Abraham and Dr. Allan Combs)

About the Authors

About the Authors

xlv

founded the Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology and the Life Sciences in 1990 and served as its first president. He has been a Fellow of the American Psychological Association since 1992. Joyce Van Tassel-Baska, Ph.D., is the Jody and Layton Smith Professor of Education and Executive Director of the Center for Gifted Education at The College of William and Mary in Virginia where she has developed a graduate program and an R&D Center in gifted education. Formerly, she initiated and directed the Center for Talent Development at Northwestern University. She also served as the state director of gifted programs for Illinois, as regional director of a gifted service center in Chicago area, as coordinator of gifted programs for Toledo, Ohio public school system, and as a teacher of gifted high school students. Dr. Van Tassel-Baska has published widely including 25 books and over 500 refereed journal articles, book chapters, and scholarly reports. She is currently the co-principal investigator on two federally funded research grants: Project Athena, a Language Arts scaling-up study, and Project Clarion, a science concept attainment grant at K-3 grade levels. Belle Wallace, Ph.D., is currently President of the National Association for Able, Gifted and Talented Children, UK (NACE); Editor of Gifted Education International (UK: AB Academic Publishers); and a well-known national and international consultant for the development of Problem-Solving Curricula. She was formerly Co-Director of the Curriculum Development Unit (University of Natal, South Africa) and a member of the Executive Committee for the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children (WCGTC). Belle has published extensively in the field specializing in language and cognition. Her particular interest lies in the development of problem-solving curricula across the full range of human abilities. She has recently been elected a Fellow of the Royal Society for Arts (FRSA) for her services to education. Thomas B. Ward, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology at the University of Alabama. His research focuses on the nature of concepts, including how they are acquired, structured, combined, and used in creative and noncreative endeavors. Dr. Ward’s research examines the ways in which people apply existing knowledge to new situations, including tasks as diverse as imagining life on other planets and designing practical products. He has also conducted basic and applied studies concerned with increasing the creative potential of new ideas. Dr. Ward published numerous articles and chapters, as well as four books on creative cognition. He has also published broadly on categorization. Dr. Ward has served as Associate Editor of Memory & Cognition and currently serves as Executive Officer of the Cognitive Science Society and Editor of the Journal of Creative Behavior. Ian Warwick is Senior Director of London Gifted & Talented, the gifted and talented branch of London Challenge. Ian taught English, Politics, Psychology, and Media at Holland Park School – an inner city comprehensive – for 18 years, and was the G&T Coordinator for 9 years. In 2002, he wrote the vision document and assembled the consortium, which would form London Gifted & Talented. Ian’s chief areas of interest are urban education, disadvantaged and underachieving students, e-learning, professional development, and the issues surrounding BME and EAL education. Ian has published extensively in the field of education, with many articles

xlvi

and chapters in national and international educational journals. He has written worldwide collaborative research papers, and spoken at national and international conferences. He is a consultant editor for Gifted Education International, and has written e-learning and face-to-face modules for LGT and the National Strategies Lead Teacher Training and Guidance materials. Carol Noˆela van der Westhuizen, Ph.D., is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Education at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. Previously a prose and methodology specialist, she currently teaches research methodology and coordinates the undergraduate school-based teaching practice and internship. She is also involved in setting up student exchange partnerships for school-based experience with institutions in the Netherlands, Belgium, and the United States. Her research interests include teacher education, gifted education, institutional mergers, and visual aspects of works of prose and textbooks. Jacques H. A. van Rossum was originally educated as a developmental psychologist. He holds a Ph.D. in human movement sciences on a motor learning topic. For more than 30 years now he is in the Faculty of Human Movement Sciences at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, where he is mainly involved in teaching and research on talent development in athletics. For more than 10 years he also has been involved in investigating the development of talent in dance. In 2005 he finished the 8-year longitudinal study on the athletic careers of adolescent athletes. The project was financed by the Dutch National Olympic Committee and by the Dutch Ministry of Sport. He often lectures for coaches and/or athletes on various aspects of talent development, with special interest in topics such as coaching effectiveness, sport parents, and group dynamics. Katherine N. Saunders Wickes is an Instructor of Psychology at Blinn College. Her research has focused on creative development, implicit theories, and the ways in which concept formation impacts creativity. Dr. Wickes has also published several articles on the nature of creativity in the gifted and talented. Currently, she serves as an advisor to several student organizations, including Psi Beta, as well as working with students to develop research projects. Dr. Wickes also serves as a reviewer for several journals including Roeper Review. Annett Wilde, Ph.D., studied Psychology at the Free University of Berlin, Germany. In 2005 she received her doctoral degree at the University of Koblenz, Germany. From 2001 until 2006 she worked as a research assistant in social psychology at the University of Koblenz-Landau, Campus Koblenz, and from 2006 to 2007 as a Research Associate and Lecturer of Social Psychology at the Rosa and David Katz Institute of Educational Psychology at the University of Rostock. She now holds the post of a Research Associate and Lecturer of Psychology at the Institute of Educational Psychology at the University of Frankfurt. Her research interests cover mainly self-concept, gender roles and stereotypes, and sex segregation of the labor market. Guofeng Zhang is a Ph.D. student at the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. He will finish his dissertation in June 2008 and get his degree in Developmental Psychology. His major research interest is the development of creativity in children.

About the Authors

About the Authors

xlvii

Albert Ziegler, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and a Director of the Centre of Educational Sciences at the University of Ulm, Germany. He has published approx. 200 books, chapters, and articles in the field of educational and cognitive psychology. He is Director of the “State-wide Counselling and Research Centre for the Gifted”. His main research interests in the field of gifted education are the development of exceptional performances, motivational training programs, and knowledge acquisition.

International Handbook on Giftedness

Larisa V. Shavinina (Ed.)

International Handbook on Giftedness Part Two

Editor Larisa V. Shavinina Universit´e du Qu´ebec en Outaouais D´epartement des sciences administratives Pavillon Lucien-Brault 101, rue Saint-Jean-Bosco Case postale 1250, succursale Hull Gatineau, Qu´ebec, J8X 3X7, Canada [email protected]

ISBN: 978-1-4020-6161-5

e-ISBN: 978-1-4020-6162-2

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 Library of Congress Control Number: 2008934140 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

c 

Printed on acid-free paper 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 springer.com

This handbook is dedicated to Professor Marina A. Kholodnaya, whose own research on giftedness provided the foundation for my research and shaped my vision of the field, and to my wonderful sons Alexander and Denis.

Preface

If you publish . . . you are trying to create something that is original, that stands out from the crowd. . . Above all, you want to create something you are proud of. . . Richard Branson (2002, p. 57). After the publication of my bestselling International Handbook on Innovation, publishers from around the world began to invite me to work on new books with them. When Springer invited me to prepare the International Handbook on Giftedness, I was on a maternity leave with my 3-months-old and my 5-year-old was just starting school. I, however, had wanted to prepare such a Handbook for a long time and was waiting for just the right moment to dive right into such an endeavor. The time had come and I agreed to prepare a Handbook that would expose readers to new views, great discoveries, and significant advancements of scientific knowledge, exactly as Richard Feynman advised (see his opening quote at the beginning of the introductory chapter). I have always been convinced of the paramount significance of the topic of giftedness and gifted education to the world as a whole. There is no doubt that gifted individuals were, are, and will be extremely important to society. One way to understand the history of human civilization is via inventions and discoveries of the gifted. All human cultural development builds on the amazing technological, scientific, educational, and moral achievements of the human mind. Today, people increasingly realize that gifted and talented individuals are even more important than in the past. Thus, industrial competition is increasingly harsh and organizations of all types must continuously bring new products and services to the global market. To survive, companies need creative and talented employees whose novel ideas are to a certain extent a necessity for the companies’ continued existence and future success. Consequently, modern society desperately requires highly able citizens who can produce innovative solutions to current challenges and contribute new ideas that promote the development and growth of markets for novel products or services. The gifted thus remain an extremely important source of innovation and renewal worldwide. Also, everyone knows that contemporary society has many unsolved problems, including demographic, medical, environmental, political, economic, moral, and social problems. Accordingly, modern society is characterized by a strong need for highly able minds that can productively solve these numerous problems and make appropriate social decisions. In short, intellectually creative citizens are guarantees of political stability, economic growth, scientific and cultural enrichment, psychological health, and the general prosperity of any society in the 21st century. vii

viii

The future will therefore be synonymous with talent, since it will need an extremely high saturation of gifted people in all areas of human endeavor. Despite the evident importance of gifted individuals in any society and many written books, the phenomenon of giftedness is far from being well understood. Because of this, the proposed handbook on giftedness will be a valuable contribution aimed at the advanced understanding of giftedness and its development. This is therefore an exceptionally timely endeavor. As the introductory chapter indicates, my vision for this Handbook was indeed different from any previous publication. From the very beginning of the project I considered that the major goal of the Handbook should be to significantly advance the field of giftedness research and gifted education by analyzing the latest developments in the existing areas and by presenting innovative, emerging trends. As the editor of this important Handbook, I tried to be as objective as possible in my selection of contributing authors and topics to be covered. My purpose was to present the field of giftedness research and gifted education as it is today: with all its different points of views, agreements, and disagreements, which, I am convinced, are essential for further progress of our field. It does not mean at all that I like or dislike certain chapters. My position as a research is reflected in my chapters in this volume. My editorial efforts were governed by a maximal objectivity aimed at unprecedented advancement of research on giftedness and gifted education. The reason why I have been wishing to create this Handbook for a long time is that previous publications in the area did not cover all facets of giftedness and gifted education and did not present some emerging trends in research and practice. In short, it was impossible to find any handbook that would cover all possible aspects of high ability and that would provide clear answers to issues raised by scholars and practitioners alike. I hence came to believe that the time was ripe for an International Handbook on Giftedness—a volume that would comprehensively cover all facets of giftedness and thus would help guide research and practice during next decades and, therefore, would advance the field. All in all, I tried to create the Handbook “that is original, that stands out from the crowd,” a volume that every contributing author and myself “are proud of,” exactly as Richard Branson recommended. It is important to note that the conventional understanding of handbook—as a compendium of review chapters suggesting a guide to practice—seems to be very restricted in the context of the area of giftedness and gifted education. The “handbook” title suggests a guide to practice only in cases where the body of knowledge is understood to be complete and more or less unchanging. For example, “Handbook of Mathematical Formulae,” or “Handbook of Motorcycle Repair.” However, the study of giftedness is a body of knowledge under dynamic theoretical development. For instance, for the very first time this Handbook introduces many new types of giftedness that have not been discussed in previous publications (see my introductory chapter for a detailed description of its novelty and originality). Due to this very reason, I prefer to use “the International Handbook on Giftedness” instead of “the International Handbook of Giftedness.” I hope readers will find the present chapters lively and provocative, stimulating greater interest in giftedness and gifted education. The Handbook covers a wide range of topics in giftedness. Specifically, it offers a broad analysis of what giftedness is, how it is developed, assessed, and affects individuals, groups, organizations, societies, and the world as a whole, as well as what new trends in gifted education are and what successful pedagogical practices exist today. The Handbook will therefore serve as an authoritative resource on all

Preface

Preface

ix

aspects of theory, research, and practice of giftedness and gifted education. I hope that readers of this Handbook will view it as serving that function. The target international audience for the Handbook is broad and includes a wide range of specialists—both researchers and practitioners, as well as policy makers— in the areas of giftedness, gifted education, psychology, education, arts, economics, management and business science. Non-specialists will also be interested readers of this Handbook (e.g., parents of gifted and talented children) and it will be useful in a wide range of undergraduate and graduate courses. Because the coverage of the Handbook is broad enough, it can be read as a reference on an as-needed basis for those who would like information about a particular topic, or from cover to cover either as a sourcebook or as a textbook in a course dealing with giftedness and/or gifted education. In short, anyone interested in knowing the wide range of issues regarding giftedness and gifted education will want to read this Handbook. The Handbook hopes to accomplish at least four things for readers. First, the reader will obtain comprehensive expert insight into the latest research and practice in the field of giftedness. Indeed, the world’s leading specialists agreed to contribute to this Handbook. Second, the Handbook will present many facets of giftedness, which were not discussed in previously published handbooks. This breadth of coverage will allow the reader to acquire a comprehensive and panoramic picture of the nature of giftedness and gifted education within a single Handbook. Third, the reader will develop an accurate sense of what spurs gifted and talented individuals toward their extraordinary achievements and exceptional performances. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the reader will be able to apply the ideas and findings presented in the Handbook to critically consider how best to foster personal abilities and talents. I wanted to do almost impossible with this Handbook: to cover every facet of the field of giftedness as it is today. As readers will proceed from one chapter to another, they will see that ultimately this became possible. I am very proud of the final product: the Handbook is indeed exceptional in many ways (this issue will be addressed in the introduction). There are many people to thank for helping this Handbook come to fruition. Most important are the authors: I thank them very much for their willingness to undertake the difficult and challenging task of contributing chapters. I am particularly grateful to Professor Marina A. Kholodnaya, my former Ph.D. supervisor, who to a great extent ‘made’ me a researcher, developing my perception of great scientific problems. She continually inspires me to undertake innovative endeavors. I am especially grateful to my research assistants—Marianna Medvid, Jeanette Gallina, and David Lefebvre— for their successful handling of numerous duties on this outstanding project in addition to their regular jobs and university assignments. They were simply excellent during many months of the preparation of the Handbook: I could not do it better myself. I am also grateful to my editors at Springer—Bernadette Ohmer, Maria Jonckheere, Astrid Noordermeer, and Bernadette Deelen—who provided just the right blend of freedom, encouragement, patience, and guidance needed for successful completion of this great project. Special thanks to Tamara Welschot at Springer who initiated this project. I also wish to acknowledge my debt of gratitude to my parents, Anna Shavinina and Vladimir Shavinin, who aroused a passionate intellectual curiosity and love for challenges in me. Finally, I owe my biggest debt of gratitude to my husband, Evgueni Ponomarev, and our 8-year-old and 3-year-old sons, Alexander and Denis, respectively. In countless ways, Evgueni has been a true colleague, critic, manager, and

x

Preface

friend throughout a few years of the project. He provided the moral, financial, and technical support, and—more importantly—with the time I needed to complete this project. He did so by performing a number of great tasks, from cooking and administering PC problems when I worked at nights, to assuming the lion’s share (and the lioness’s, too) of child care for our Alexander and particularly for Denis, who was born just before the beginning of this project. Very simply, this is his Handbook, too. I especially wish to thank Alexander and Denis, whose entry into the world taught me more about giftedness, gifted education, and the need to develop their versatile abilities especially when they are at those unique sensitive periods, than have any other events in my life. They were patient with me and curiously asked “when do you eventually finish this Handbook?” I sincerely hope that educational systems of all societies around the world, as well as parents and other caregivers, will be able to develop unique gifts and talents of each child on the Earth. Larisa V. Shavinina

Contents

Part I Introduction 1 Understanding Giftedness: Introduction or on the Importance of Seeing Differently . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Larisa V. Shavinina Part II The Nature of Giftedness 2 The History of Giftedness Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Heidrun Stoeger 3 Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 David Yun Dai 4 Contemporary Models of Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Janet E. Davidson 5 A Feminine Perspective of Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Linda Kreger Silverman and Nancy B. Miller 6 An Expert Performance Approach to the Study of Giftedness . . . . . . . . 129 K. Anders Ericsson, Kiruthiga Nandagopal and Roy W. Roring 7 Debating Giftedness: Pronat vs. Antinat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Franc¸oys Gagn´e 8 The Arbitrary Nature of Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Nancy B. Hertzog 9 Gifted and Thriving: A Deeper Understanding of Meaning of GT . . . . . 215 Michael F. Sayler 10 A Unique Type of Representation is the Essence of Giftedness: Towards a Cognitive-Developmental Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Larisa V. Shavinina

xi

xii

Part III The Neuropsychology of Giftedness 11 Neuropsychological Characteristics of Academic and Creative Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 John G. Geake 12 The Neural Plasticity of Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 M. Layne Kalbfleisch 13 Working Memory, the Cognitive Functions of the Cerebellum and the Child Prodigy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Larry R. Vandervert Part IV Developmental and Cognitive Foundations of Giftedness 14 Developmental Trajectories of Giftedness in Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 Christoph Perleth and Annett Wilde 15 Highly Gifted Young People: Development from Childhood to Adulthood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Miraca U.M. Gross 16 Talent Development Across the Lifespan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 Roger Moltzen 17 Creative Cognition in Gifted Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 Katherine N. Saunders Wickes and Thomas B. Ward 18 A Metacognitive Portrait of Gifted Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397 Marion A. Barfurth, Krista C. Ritchie, Julie A. Irving and Bruce M. Shore Part V Personality of the Gifted, Individual Differences, and Gender-Related Issues 19 Personality Qualities That Help or Hinder Gifted and Talented Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421 Reva Friedman-Nimz and Olha Skyba 20 Emotional Life and Psychotherapy of the Gifted in Light of Dabrowski’s Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 P. Susan Jackson, Vicky F. Moyle and Michael M. Piechowski 21 On Individual Differences in Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467 Andrzej Sekowski, Malgorzata Siekanska and Waldemar Klinkosz 22 A Theory of Talent Development in Women of Accomplishment . . . . . . 487 Sally M. Reis and Erin E. Sullivan

Contents

Contents

xiii

Part VI Twice-Exceptional Gifted Individuals and Suicide-Related Issues 23 Twice Exceptional: Multiple Pathways to Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507 Judy L. Lupart and Royal E. Toy 24 Gifted Learners Who Drop Out: Prevalence and Prevention . . . . . . . . . 527 Michael S. Matthews 25 Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students: Theory, Factors, and Cultural Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537 Laurie A. Hyatt and Tracy L. Cross Part VII Types of Giftedness 26 In Search of Emotional–Social Giftedness: A Potentially Viable and Valuable Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559 Reuven Bar-On and Jacobus G. (Kobus) Maree 27 The Two Pioneers of Research on Creative Giftedness: Calvin W. Taylor and E. Paul Torrance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571 Kyung Hee Kim 28 Creative Giftedness: Beginnings, Developments, and Future Promises . 585 James C. Kaufman, Scott B. Kaufman, Ronald A. Beghetto, Sarah A. Burgess and Roland S. Persson 29 Imaginary Worldplay as an Indicator of Creative Giftedness . . . . . . . . . 599 Michele Root-Bernstein 30 Development of Gifted Motivation: Longitudinal Research and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 Adele Eskeles Gottfried and Allen W. Gottfried 31 Leadership Giftedness: Is It Innate or Can It Be Developed? . . . . . . . . . 633 Karen B. Rogers Part VIII Domain-Specific and Multiple Giftedness 32 Scientific Talent: The Case of Nobel Laureates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649 Larisa V. Shavinina 33 Understanding Mathematical Giftedness: Integrating Self, Action Repertoires and the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671 Shane N. Phillipson and Rosemary Callingham 34 Cinema Talent: Individual and Collective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 699 Dean Keith Simonton

xiv

35 Reading, Writing, and Raising the Bar: Exploring Gifts and Talents in Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713 Rachel Schnur and Sarah G. Marmor 36 The Elusive Muse: Understanding Musical Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727 Roland S. Persson 37 Giftedness and Talent in Sport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751 Jacques H.A. van Rossum 38 On Entrepreneurial Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 793 Larisa V. Shavinina 39 Ilk Hunting: Newbies, Cyberpunks, Coders and the Search for Elusive, Ego-Twisted, Talented Computer Hackers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809 Thomas E. Heinzen and Louis M. Picciano 40 What Makes a Gifted Educator? A Design for Development . . . . . . . . . . 825 Marion Porath 41 Understanding Managerial Talent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839 Larisa V. Shavinina and Marianna Medvid 42 Multiple Giftedness in Adults: The Case of Polymaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853 Robert Root-Bernstein Part IX Giftedness, Society, and Economy 43 Families of Gifted Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 Abraham Reichenberg and Erika Landau 44 Large-Scale Socioeconomic, Political, and Cultural Influences on Giftedness and Talent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885 Don Ambrose 45 Gifts, Talents, and Their Societal Repercussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905 Dean Keith Simonton 46 The Unwanted Gifted and Talented: A Sociobiological Perspective of the Societal Functions of Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913 Roland S. Persson 47 On Giftedness and Economy: The Impact of Talented Individuals on the Global Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925 Larisa V. Shavinina

Contents

Contents

xv

Part X Assessment and Identification of Giftedness 48 The Measurement of Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947 Linda Kreger Silverman 49 Identifying Academically Talented Students: Some General Principles, Two Specific Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971 David F. Lohman 50 The Johns Hopkins Talent Search Model for Identifying and Developing Exceptional Mathematical and Verbal Abilities . . . . . . . . . 999 Linda E. Brody 51 A New Approach to the Identification of Intellectually Gifted Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Larisa V. Shavinina Part XI Recent Advances in Gifted Education 52 New Developments in Gifted Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035 Gary A. Davis 53 The English Model of Gifted Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045 Deborah Eyre 54 Enhancing Creativity in Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061 Joyce VanTassel-Baska and Bronwyn MacFarlane 55 Acceleration: Meeting the Academic and Social Needs of Students . . . 1085 Nicholas Colangelo and Susan Assouline 56 Teaching for Wisdom in Public Schools to Promote Personal Giftedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 Michel Ferrari 57 DISCOVER/TASC : An Approach to Teaching and Learning That Is Inclusive Yet Maximises Opportunities for Differentiation According to Pupils’ Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113 B. Wallace and C. J. Maker 58 Future Problem Solving in Gifted Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1143 Bonnie L. Cramond 59 Practical Intelligence and Wisdom in Gifted Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1157 Mary Anne Heng and Kai Yung (Brian) Tam 60 Recent Developments in Technology: Implications for Gifted Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1173 Michael C. Pyryt†

xvi

61 High Intellectual and Creative Educational Multimedia Technologies for the Gifted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1181 Larisa V. Shavinina 62 A Technology-Based Application of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model and High-End Learning Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1203 Joseph S. Renzulli and Sally M. Reis 63 The Iowa Online Advanced Placement Academy: Creating Access to Excellence for Gifted and Talented Rural Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1225 Clar M. Baldus, Susan G. Assouline, Laurie J. Croft and Nicholas Colangelo 64 On Bringing Interdisciplinary Ideas to Gifted Education . . . . . . . . . . . 1235 Bharath Sriraman and Bettina Dahl 65 Innovation Education for the Gifted: A New Direction in Gifted Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1257 Larisa V. Shavinina 66 Dual-Language Gifted Education and Its Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1269 Ernesto M. Bernal and Jaime H. Garc´ıa 67 Observed Trends and Needed Trends in Gifted Education . . . . . . . . . . 1285 Michael F. Shaughnessy and Roland S. Persson Part XII Policy Implications and Legal Issues in Gifted Education 68 United States Policy Development in Gifted Education: A Patchwork Quilt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1295 Joyce VanTassel-Baska 69 Identifying and Developing Talent in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): An Agenda for Research, Policy, and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1313 Rena Subotnik, Martin Orland, Kristin Rayhack, Julie Schuck, Ashley Edmiston, Janice Earle, Edward Crowe, Pat Johnson, Tom Carroll, Daniel Berch and Bruce Fuchs 70 Gifted Education and Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1327 Frances A. Karnes and Kristen R. Stephens Part XIII Giftedness Research and Gifted Education Around the World: Institutional and Regional Examples 71 Swimming in Deep Waters: 20 Years of Research About Early University Entrance at the University of Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1345 Kathleen D. Noble and Sarah A. Childers

Contents

Contents

xvii

72 How Do You Get to Carnegie Hall? Gifted Education in New York City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1365 Dona J. Matthews 73 London Gifted and Talented: A Case Study in High Challenge Urban Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1385 Ian Warwick 74 Giftedness and Diversity: Research and Education in Africa . . . . . . . . 1409 Jacobus Gideon (Kobus) Maree and Carol Noˆela van der Westhuizen 75 Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1427 Shane N. Phillipson, Jiannong Shi, Guofeng Zhang, Den-Mo Tsai, Chwee Geok Quek, Nobutaka Matsumura and Seokhee Cho 76 Gifted Education in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern Regions: History, Current Practices, New Directions, and Future Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1463 Taisir Subhi-Yamin 77 Gifted Education and Research on Giftedness in South America . . . . . 1491 Eunice M.L. Soriano de Alencar, Denise de Souza Fleith and Violeta Arancibia Part XIV Conclusions 78 Research on Giftedness in the 21st Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1509 Albert Ziegler Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1525 Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1529

Part I

Introduction

Chapter 1

Understanding Giftedness: Introduction or on the Importance of Seeing Differently Larisa V. Shavinina

We have to find a new view of the world... If you can find any other view of the world which agrees over the entire range where things have already been observed, but disagrees somewhere else, you have made a great discovery. It is very nearly impossible, but not quite... Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate

Abstract This chapter provides a very general introduction to the handbook, thus creating a broad picture on what to expect in the chapters that follow. Specifically, the chapter presents a short overview of the multifaceted research on giftedness and advances in gifted education discussed in the chapters of this handbook. Its uniqueness and novelty are also described. The main contents of each chapter are summarized and approaches taken by chapter authors are briefly described. Keywords Giftedness · Gifted · Education · The nature of giftedness · Cognitive · Developmental · Social · Personality approaches to understanding giftedness Great discoveries are at the heart of any scientific advancement. As Feynman highlighted, great discoveries are nearly impossible, but not quite. . . if we are talking about the field of giftedness and see it differently. In order to make discoveries, the content of any handbook should be unique and new in many respects. This handbook is clearly distinctive from other handbooks in the area of high abilities and will prove to be original and novel in a number of ways. First, the handbook introduces fresh research on giftedness, which was not considered in Heller, Monks, Sternberg, and Subotnik (2000) and in Colangelo and David (2003) handbooks (e.g., musical talent, gifted L.V. Shavinina (B) Universit´e du Qu´ebec en Outaouais, Gatineau, Qu´ebec, Canada e-mail: [email protected]

learners who drop out, legal issues in gifted education, feminine perspective on giftedness, just to mention a few) and was not presented in other books and scholarly journals (e.g., happiness of the gifted and talented, entrepreneurial giftedness, multiple giftedness in adults, managerial talent, interdisciplinary ideas in gifted education, innovation education for the gifted), just to note a few. Second, the handbook presents new research directions in the area of giftedness, which was not considered in Heller et al. (2000) and in Colangelo and David (2003) handbooks, but was published in scholarly journals only in recent years (e.g., talent in cinema or new trends in the neuropsychology of giftedness). Third, the handbook presents recent developments in giftedness research and practice that took place after the publication of Heller et al. (2000) and Colangelo and David (2003) handbooks (e.g., recent advances in gifted education in megacities like New York and London, UK). Finally, the handbook analyzes latest advances in those directions of research and gifted education which were discussed in Heller et al. (2000) and Colangelo and David (2003) handbooks, but were significantly developed in recent years, that is, after the publication of those handbooks (e.g., online academies for the gifted). It is also interesting to note that some chapters belong to a few of the above-mentioned categories of the given handbook’s novelty and uniqueness (e.g., imaginary worldplay as an indicator of creative giftedness). Plus, Colangelo et al.’s report on acceleration is also a

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 1, 

3

4

new development in gifted education in general and in gifted education policy in particular. Taken together, all these facets of the uniqueness and novelty convincingly indicate that this new handbook is indeed a much needed endeavor. Therefore, my goal in bringing leading experts on high ability together in this handbook is to present a fully comprehensive picture of contemporary research on giftedness by integrating the recent diverse findings and to outline directions for further research, thus advancing the field. In choosing chapter authors, I was particularly interested in those new models, theories, and approaches, which they proposed. My deepest belief is that any handbook on any scientific topic should not only report the current findings in the field but also advance that field by presenting challenging new ideas. In one way or another, each chapter in the handbook adds something new to our existing edifice of knowledge about giftedness via unique analytical points of view of leading experts in the field who are responsible for much of the current research on high ability. This is one of the main merits of this handbook, which is international in scope, reflecting African, American, Asian, European, and global perspectives. The chapter authors take a number of different approaches, both empirical and theoretical, reflecting a variety of possible perspectives and research methods aimed at understanding giftedness. I will briefly mention these approaches below. The descriptions of each chapter are intentionally very short in order to entice readers to seek further detail contained within each chapter. The handbook is divided into 14 (XIV) parts. Part I comprises Chapter 1, Understanding Giftedness: Introduction or on the Importance of Seeing Differently, which sets the stage for understanding giftedness by providing a general introduction to the work. Parts II– XIII, consisting of 76 chapters, represent distinctive, although sometimes overlapping, approaches to understanding giftedness, gifted education, and a variety of related issues. Specifically, Part II of the handbook describes work aimed at the understanding the multifaceted nature of giftedness, its basic mechanisms, and its various facets. This part comprises nine chapters. Chapter 2, The History of Giftedness Research, by Heidrun Stoeger, presents a brief history of scientific study of giftedness. Heidrun’s task was especially difficult because she was explicitly asked not to discuss the concept of giftedness and not to analyze theories

L.V. Shavinina

of giftedness, because these are subjects of David Yun Dai’s and Janet Davidson’s chapters, respectively. In Chapter 3, Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness, David Yun Dai perfectly analyzes points of agreement and disagreement between various research trends currently existing in the field of giftedness. David concludes his deep analysis by calling for a more integrated understanding of giftedness due to its complexity and multidimensionality. Chapter 4, Contemporary Models of Giftedness, by Janet E. Davidson, reminds us that one of the powerful methods for understanding, identifying, and studying gifted individuals is through theory-based models. Janet thus reviews three types of contemporary models including hierarchical, neural efficiency, and complex systems. In Chapter 5, A Feminine Perspective on Giftedness, Linda Kreger Silverman and Nancy B. Miller propose a conceptual framework for understanding giftedness from a feminine perspective. Specifically, they address the issue of extreme importance for the field of giftedness, namely, how does giftedness develop differently in females so that it is less recognized? Chapter 6, An Expert-Performance Approach to the Study of Giftedness, by K. Anders Ericsson, Kiruthiga Nandagopal, and Roy W. Roring is the chapter where the authors present the expertise approach which explains how individuals can attain elite levels of performance. The bottom line is that extended training, that is, years and decades of daily deliberate practice, is behind giftedness. In Chapter 7, Debating Giftedness: Pronat vs. Antinat, Franc¸oys Gagn´e summarizes extensive scientific findings and concludes that natural abilities really exist (the Pronat position) and that recent attacks by researchers who deny their existence (the Antinat position) can be easily repelled empirically. This chapter perfectly addresses one of the most important issues in the area of giftedness, namely the genetic basis of high abilities. Chapter 8, The Arbitrary Nature of Giftedness by Nancy B. Hertzog, discusses five ways in which labeling and identifying children for gifted programs is an arbitrary decision. The proposed vision for the field of gifted education is to recognize and celebrate the diversity of children, as well as to develop and nurture the strengths of all students. In Chapter 9, Gifted and Thriving: A Deeper Understanding of Meaning of GT, Michael F. Sayler focuses

1

Understanding Giftedness

on happiness of the gifted and talented. According to the author, thriving begins with talent development but looks beyond high-level performance to deep satisfaction and what allows the gifted and talented to flourish across their life span. Chapter 10, A Unique Type of Representation Is the Essence of Giftedness: Towards a CognitiveDevelopmental Theory by Larisa V. Shavinina, presents a new theory that explains the fundamental nature of giftedness. In short, the essence of giftedness is related to the gifted’s unique, objective type of representations of everything that is going on around them. It means that gifted individuals see, understand, and interpret everything differently. Their unique intellectual picture of the world or their unique vision makes them the gifted. Part III of the handbook, The Neuropsychology of Giftedness, concentrates on neuroscientific aspects of research on high ability. This part contains three chapters. In Chapter 11, Neuropsychological Characteristics of Academic and Creative Giftedness, John G. Geake demonstrates that the brain of the gifted functions differently by reviewing evidence for such difference in neural function and structure that can account for high levels of cognitive abilities. Chapter 12, The Neural Plasticity of Giftedness by M. Layne Kalbfleisch, presents a general theory of giftedness according to which giftedness is a type of neural plasticity that manifests itself in specific states of mind of the gifted. In Chapter 13, Working Memory, the Cognitive Functions of the Cerebellum and the Child Prodigy, Larry R. Vandervert claims that amazing achievements of the gifted in general and child prodigies in particular are the result of domain-specific high attentional control learned beginning in infancy and modulated between the prefrontal cortex and the cerebellum. Part IV of the handbook, Developmental and Cognitive Foundations of Giftedness, introduces the developmental and cognitive bases of giftedness. It includes five chapters. Chapter 14, Developmental Trajectories of Giftedness in Children, by Christoph Perleth and Annett Wilde, is about a wide range of issues related to the development and identification of giftedness in children prior to elementary school age. To this end, the authors analyze various approaches explaining

5

how giftedness manifests itself in young age and how it can be identified in children. In Chapter 15, Highly Gifted Young People: Development from Childhood to Adulthood, Miraca U. M. Gross examines the development of highly gifted children and adolescents by analyzing their cognitive strategies, motivational orientation, conceptions and expectations of friendship, moral reasoning, and benefits of radical acceleration. Chapter 16, Talent Development Across the Lifespan by Roger Moltzen, uses a completely opposite approach than the two previous chapters in this part of the handbook. Specifically, the author employs retrospective strategy to investigate the process of talent development in the case of extraordinary individuals. For instance, the retrospective studies reveal that many eminent adults were perceived as anything but gifted in childhood. In Chapter 17, Creative Cognition in Gifted Youth, Katherine N. Saunders Wickes and Thomas B. Ward analyze cognitive processes that the gifted bring to bear on creative tasks. The authors particularly focus on retrieval of conceptual knowledge, abstraction, and transformation. Chapter 18, A Metagognitive Portrait of Gifted Learners, by Marion A. Barfurth, Krista C. Redden, Julie A. Irving, and Bruce M. Shore summarizes research on metacognition and giftedness. Specifically, it discusses how the gifted think and solve problems, introduces the concepts of flexibility and preference for complexity, offers suggestions for future research, as well as describes educational applications. Part V of the handbook, Personality of the Gifted, Individual Differences, and Gender-Related Issues, examines a wide range of issues related to personality variables of giftedness, individual differences, gender, and associated non-intellective qualities that play an important role in realizing extraordinary potential. It contains four chapters. Chapter 19, Personality Qualities That Help or Hinder Gifted and Talented Individuals, by Reva Friedman-Nimz and Olha Skyba, explores issues and identifies trends in research on personality variables as they are manifested in the context of the development of high ability. The authors analyze research on key personality qualities such as selfperception, self-evaluation, motivation, attribution, and intrapersonal intelligence and then recast it into four frames of reference for understanding personality

6

of the gifted: traits, processes, prediction, and development. In Chapter 20, Emotional Life and Psychotherapy of the Gifted in Light of Dabrowski’s Theory, P. Susan Jackson, Vicky F. Moyle, and Michael M. Piechowski examine the emotional sphere of the gifted from the viewpoint of Dabrowski’s theory, including emotional and spiritual giftedness, discuss psychotherapy for the gifted, and present two cases illustrating development through positive disintegration in the gifted. Chapter 21, On Individual Differences in Giftedness, by Andrzej Sekowski, Malgorzata Sieka´nska, and Waldemar Klinkosz, reviews a multifaceted set of issues related to individual differences and giftedness. Drawing on findings from psychology of individual differences, the authors describe levels of individual differences, their manifestations in particular fields of human activity, their social consequences, and future research trends. In Chapter 22, A Theory of Talent Development in Women of Accomplishment, Sally M. Reis and Erin E. Sullivan offer a new theory of female talent development that is based on research of highly accomplished women. They analyze spheres in which women express their talents, factors that may promote or inhibit the development of gifts, and gender differences in experiences that contribute to female success. Part VI of the handbook, Twice-Exceptional Gifted Individuals and Suicide-Related Issues, is about the phenomenon of twice-exceptionality and suicide among the gifted. This part includes three chapters. Chapter 23, Twice-Exceptional: Multiple Pathways to Success, by Judy Lupart and Royal Toy, explores the topic of twice-exceptionality and giftedness. It specifically considers various twice-exceptional subgroups such as gifted students with learning disability, intellectual disability and/or autism, Asperger’s syndrome, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and sensory impairment, as well as discusses main areas relating to meeting the full range of needs for twice-exceptional students including identification, curriculum, instruction, and teacher preparation. In Chapter 24, Gifted Learners Who Drop out: Prevalence and Prevention, Michael S. Matthews states that although relatively few gifted learners actually drop out of school, it is a serious problem for those students who leave high school without a diploma. The analysis of recent advances in this research direction suggests interventions for min-

L.V. Shavinina

imizing this problem among academically gifted learners. Chapter 25, Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students: Theory, Factors, and Cultural Expectations, by Laurie A. Hyatt and Tracy L. Cross, reviews in detail a multifaceted range of issues related to suicide among the gifted such as its incidence and causes, as well as possible vulnerability to suicide as a consequence of some social and emotional problems faced by gifted individuals. Part VII of the handbook, Types of Giftedness, examines the different types of giftedness. It consists of six chapters. Chapter 26, In Search of Emotional–Social Giftedness: A Potentially Viable and Valuable Concept, by Reuven Bar-On and Jacobus G. Maree, is devoted to two types of giftedness, namely emotional and social ones. The relationship between emotional– social intelligence and giftedness is examined based on the authors’ research in the field of emotional intelligence. In Chapter 27, The Two Pioneers of Research on Creative Giftedness: Calvin W. Taylor and E. Paul Torrance, Kyung Hee Kim reviews the contributions of these two famous researchers on high ability to the study of creative giftedness. Their theoretical and practical achievements are carefully analyzed. Chapter 28, Creative Giftedness: Beginnings, Developments, and Future Promises, by James C. Kaufman, Scott B. Kaufman, Ronald A. Beghetto, Sarah A. Burgess, and Roland S. Persson, considers research on the subject that took place in more recent years. Theoretical and practical aspects of the study of creative giftedness are discussed, especially its implications for the assessment of creative abilities. In Chapter 29, Imaginary Worldplay as an Indicator of Creative Giftedness, Michele Root-Bernstein explores in detail complex imaginary worldplay of gifted children that is a good predictor of great achievements in adulthood. The imaginary worldplay can be viewed both as a “learning laboratory” and an early apprenticeship in creativity for the gifted. Chapter 30, Development of Gifted Motivation: Longitudinal Research and Applications, by Adele Eskeles Gottfried and Allen W. Gottfried, proposes that gifted motivation is a special type of giftedness distinct from intellectual giftedness. It refers to people who are superior in their strivings and determination pertaining to a task at hand. The authors present theory

1

Understanding Giftedness

and empirical findings, as well as describe implications for education of the gifted and identification of gifted motivation. In Chapter 31, Leadership Giftedness: Is It Innate or Can It be Developed? Karen B. Rogers explains what makes leadership a special type of giftedness in terms of both outcomes and nurturance. She first of all reviews the literature on giftedness in leadership and then discusses research conducted to determine whether the innate characteristics and behaviors of leadership can be developed more fully through a leadership development program. Part VIII of the handbook, Domain-Specific and Multiple Giftedness, concentrates on domain-specific and multiple giftedness and it consists of 11 chapters. Chapter 32, Scientific Talent: The Case of Nobel Laureates, by Larisa V. Shavinina, is about the nature of giftedness in science. It specifically addresses the essence of scientific talent in the case of the most accomplished scientists, namely Nobel laureates. A great deal of the chapter focuses on Nobel laureates’ unique, objective types of representations and extracognitive abilities. In Chapter 33, Understanding Mathematical Giftedness: Integrating Self, Action Repertoires and the Environment, Shane N. Phillipson and Rosemary Callingham propose that being gifted in the domain of mathematics is best described by the Actiotope model of giftedness because of the clear interactive relationship between self (psychology, action repertoire, subjective action space, and goals), the external environment, and attainment of excellence. Chapter 34, Cinema Talent: Individual and Collective, by Dean Keith Simonton, shows that cinema is an unusual form of achievement in that it involves both (a) extensive collaborative effort and (b) considerable financial resources. The chapter examines a series of investigations aimed at understanding the operation of both these characteristics in large samples of awardwinning films. The empirical studies demonstrate that talents of screenwriters and directors are especially critical for film success. In Chapter 35, Reading, Writing, and Raising the Bar: Exploring Gifts and Talents in Literacy, Rachel Schnur and Sarah Marmor discuss a whole set of issues related to gifted and talented readers and writers. They explore the relationship between readings and writing in such children, suggest quality literature to encourage critical thinking, and provide a living model for gifted

7

students to write well, as well as stress the need for excellence in writing skills. Chapter 36, The Elusive Muse: Understanding Musical Giftedness, by Roland S. Persson, examines musical giftedness from different epistemological points of view, thus highlighting agreements and disagreements existing in its research. A conceptual model of musical giftedness is outlined; the issues of heredity and accumulated practice are discussed; and differences between the development of Western classical musicians and popular musicians are analyzed. In Chapter 37, Giftedness and Talent in Sport, Jacques H. A. van Rossum presents a thorough account of talent development in sports broadly defined. The author explores the characteristics of successful athletes, addresses the issue of the amount of practice necessary to reach a high level of performance, discusses the role of parents, coaches, peers, and team mates as significant others, as well as examines talent facilitators and talent inhibitors. Chapter 38, On Entrepreneurial Giftedness, by Larisa V. Shavinina, indicates that the phenomenon of entrepreneurial giftedness is terra incognita from a research viewpoint. The chapter introduces this concept and thus fills an apparent niche in research on high abilities. It explains the nature of entrepreneurial giftedness via analyzing its early manifestations, discussing its developmental trajectories, and considering microsocial factors that facilitate the emergence of gifted entrepreneurs. In Chapter 39, Ilk Hunting: Newbies, Cyber-Punks, Coders and the Search for Elusive, Ego-Twisted, Talented Computer Hackers, Thomas E. Heinzen and Louis M. Picciano analyze a relatively new type of giftedness, namely computer hacker talent. The authors show that apart from the dark side of their talent, hackers also (a) advance pure knowledge and demonstrate the applicability of a good theory; (b) clarify the ethical boundaries of creative giftedness; and (c) profoundly threaten the democratic process while providing protection against those threats. It is interesting to note that Bill Gates and other now famous leaders in computer industry were talented hackers in some points in the development of their successful careers. Chapter 40, What Makes a Gifted Educator? A Design for Development, by Marion Porath, is about gifted teachers. This is a teacher who is gifted in his or her ability to inspire and support truly meaningful

8

learning. The chapter reviews the existing literature on gifted teachers, presents students’ perspectives on meaningful teaching, and suggests directions for learning more about what makes a gifted teacher. Research on social giftedness forms the framework for the author’s analysis. In Chapter 41, Understanding Managerial Talent, Larisa V. Shavinina and Marianna Medvid discuss the existing findings explaining the nature of managerial talent. It describes the Gallup organization’s study of more than 80,000 great managers worldwide and presents a new theory of managerial talent aimed at understanding the fundamental essence of this phenomenon. The theory states that the managerial talent emerges at the intersection of unique vision, unusual creative and innovative abilities, highly developed intuition and wisdom-related skills, excellence-based performance, and entrepreneurial giftedness. Chapter 42, Multiple Giftedness in Adults: The Case of Polymaths, by Robert Root-Bernstein, challenges all facets of the specialization thesis, namely (a) specialization is a requirement for adult success, (b) skills and knowledge do not transfer across domains, and (c) the domain dependence of creativity makes general creativity impossible. The chapter describes individuals who have made contributions to multiple domains, discusses literature demonstrating polymathy among creative adults, and presents data from an ongoing study that supports this creativity–polymathy connection. Part IX of the handbook, Giftedness, Society, and Economy, brings to attention a set of diverse issues that emerge at the intersection of the topics of giftedness, society, and economy. For the very first time the major book in the field of giftedness highlights these issues. The part consists of five chapters. Chapter 43, Families of Gifted Children, by Abraham Reichenberg and Erika Landau, reviews current research findings on the important role of the family in the development of gifted children. Specifically, the authors demonstrate that children’s developmental trajectory of talent is considerably influenced by their family lifestyle, values, goals, and other environmental characteristics. Outlines for future research regarding the family impact on gifted children are also described. In Chapter 44, Large-Scale Socioeconomic, Political, and Cultural Influences on Giftedness and Talent, Don Ambrose’s analysis goes far beyond the influence of immediate micro-social contexts on the realization of potential high abilities. The author examines the ten-

L.V. Shavinina

uous growth of democracy in some regions and its pernicious erosion in others, increases in socioeconomic inequity within and between nations, and the effects of competing ideologies. He also discusses such cultural phenomena as changing value systems worldwide, cultural responses to globalization, and various religious and secular conceptions of the ideal civil society. Chapter 45, Gifts, Talents, and their Societal Repercussions, by Dean Keith Simonton, demonstrates societal benefits of adulthood achievements of today’s gifted children. The author found that a large proportion of the contributions to any domain come from a small number of contributors. Therefore, any societal failure to promote the development of potential of these productive elite can have consequences out of proportion to the whole world. In Chapter 46, The Unwanted Gifted and Talented: A Sociobiological Perspective of the Societal Functions of Giftedness, Roland S. Persson addresses such critical issues as (a) impossibility for some gifted individuals to develop their talents despite the fact that they live in an environment that has both the means and the possibility to facilitate such development; (b) overemphasis on a certain group of abilities in giftedness research, whereas the study of others is ignored; and (c) the unwanted gifted. The phenomena of stigmatizing and marginalizing gifted individuals are thus discussed. Chapter 47, On Giftedness and Economy: The Impact of Talented Individuals on the Global Economy, by Larisa V. Shavinina, states that the gifted are primarily responsible for innovations worldwide and innovations are at the heart of today’s economy. It means that the degree of societal interest in talented children, and societal investment in gifted education, will be ultimately reflected in the level of innovations in each particular society, that is, in its economic prosperity. This is why innovation is closely related to giftedness, and why giftedness is related to economy. Part X of the handbook, Assessment and Identification of Giftedness, focuses on the measurement of high abilities. It consists of four chapters. Chapter 48, The Measurement of Giftedness, by Linda Kreger Silverman, provides the most comprehensive account available today on how to identify the gifted. The author thoroughly analyzes Raven’s Progressive Matrices, Stanford-Binet scales, and Wechsler scales, which are viewed as the most widely used IQ tests in selecting gifted children worldwide.

1

Understanding Giftedness

She also examines an all-encompassing range of issues related to the appropriate assessment of giftedness, as well as recent advances in the assessment practice. In Chapter 49, Identifying Academically Talented Students: Some General Principles, Two Specific Procedures, David F. Lohman discusses the identification of academically talented children from the perspective of aptitude theory. Aptitude means the degree of readiness to learn and to perform well in a particular situation or domain. The aptitudes for academic success include (a) prior knowledge and skill in a domain, (b) the ability to reason in the symbol systems used to communicate new knowledge in that domain, (c) interest in the domain, and (d) persistence in the type of learning environments offered for the attainment of expertise in the domain. The chapter provides examples of procedures for combining ability test scores, achievement test scores, and teacher ratings in a principled way to assist in the identification of a talent pool. Chapter 50, The Johns Hopkins Talent Search Model for Identifying and Developing Exceptional Mathematical and Verbal Abilities, by Linda E. Brody, presents the Johns Hopkins Talent Search model, which was pioneered in the early 1970s by Julian Stanley and has now spread to many countries around the world. The chapter reviews the principles and practices of the talent search, as well as the programmatic strategies that have been created or identified to develop the talents of advanced learners. The results of over 30 years of research that have been conducted at Johns Hopkins and elsewhere that support these principles and practices are also discussed. In Chapter 51, A New Approach to the Identification of Intellectually Gifted Individuals, Larisa V. Shavinina offers a new perspective on the psychological assessment of intellectual abilities of the gifted based on the new cognitive-developmental theory of giftedness presented in this volume. The chapter focuses on the nine methodological and procedural principles, which form this approach. Examples of new intelligence tests are also presented. Part XI of the handbook, Recent Advances in Gifted Education, examines the latest progress in gifted education and consists of 16 chapters. Chapter 52, New Developments in Gifted Education, by Gary A. Davis, has its goal to provide a brief, general introduction to advances in gifted education that took place in recent years. The author compares today’s most important topics in gifted education with those of

9

about 25 years ago. He concluded that, with one exception, the central topics of gifted education are about the same these days as a quarter century ago. The one exception concerns the identification and teaching of gifted minority students. In Chapter 53, The English Model of Gifted Education, Deborah Eyre introduces a relatively new model for educating the gifted that has been in use in England for 10 years and now forms the basis of the comprehensive national program offered to pupils of all ages and in all government-funded schools. The chapter describes its educational characteristics and discusses the various elements of the model. A key strength of the English Model is that it uses elements from existing models of gifted education to create an approach that positions gifted education deeply within overall education policy and within wider social policy objectives. Chapter 54, Enhancing Creativity in Curriculum, by Joyce Van Tassel-Baska and Bronwyn MacFarlane, explores major ways that creativity can be infused effectively within a curriculum designed for the gifted. The authors highlight specific design approaches that may be employed to ensure that creative thinking and innovation have been embedded into educational opportunities for gifted learners. Examples of this curriculum are provided to illustrate various design motifs. Issues of implementation with respect to the use of technology, professional development, and school-based leadership are also addressed. Based on the highly acclaimed report Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004), Chapter 55, Acceleration: Meeting the Academic and Social Needs of Students, by Nicholas Colangelo and Susan Assouline, discusses the 20 most important points about acceleration, the 18 forms of acceleration, a treatment of the myths that surround the general issue of acceleration, as well as the research supporting the benefits of academic acceleration. A case study of the decision-making process, which remains difficult for parents and educators of the gifted, is also presented as an application of the information provided by the authors. Chapter 56, Teaching for Wisdom in Public Schools to Promote Personal Giftedness, by Michel Ferrari, views wisdom as giftedness in knowing yourself and how to live a successful and fulfilling life. This is a very old definition, broadly traceable to the Socratic philosophers, which recommended certain exercises

10

that students were encouraged to master, such as examining one’s life at the end of each day to determine in what one had been successful and in what unsuccessful. The author analyzes these exercises and examples of individuals who were gifted in them, as well as consider the implications of these practices for gifted education. In Chapter 57, DISCOVER/TASC: An Approach to Teaching and Learning That Is Inclusive yet Maximizes Opportunities for Differentiation According to Pupils’ Needs, Belle Wallace and C. June Maker present a powerful framework for curriculum development that accommodates the varying rates of pupil development. Although “intelligence” and “giftedness” may have a genetic base, they stress that these potentials are essentially developed and driven by the processes that are used in problem solving and that all learners are capable of improving their problem-solving processes across the 10 human abilities: emotional, social, spiritual, somatic, visual/spatial, auditory, mathematical/symbolic, linguistic, mechanical/technical, and scientific. Their joint work advocates an inclusive approach to the concept of giftedness. Chapter 58, Future Problem Solving in Gifted Education, by Bonnie L. Cramond, is about the growth of the Future Problem-Solving Program from its beginning by E. Paul Torrance at one high school in Athens, Georgia, USA, in 1974 to its 30th anniversary as an International Program with over 250,000 students around the world participating from grades 1 to 12, and to the present. The various components and rationale of the program are described with examples of problems and students’ innovative solutions. The chapter will end with a discussion of the benefits of this program for the students who participate as well as for the larger society, and an argument for widening its scope beyond gifted education will be made. I personally believe that the full potential of this program has not yet been realized, as well as its hidden tremendous impact on the whole world. This is why I invited Bonnie L. Cramond to contribute this chapter. In Chapter 59, Practical Intelligence and Wisdom in Gifted Education, Mary Anne Heng and Kai Yung (Brian) Tam present a broad conceptualization of practical intelligence that involves the notion of wisdom, highlight the role of experiential knowledge, reflection, and habits of virtue, and speak to a symbiotic relationship between self and the larger community. The issue of wisdom and democracy is discussed. The Evolv-

L.V. Shavinina

ing Self Model, with conceptual roots in the ideas of Confucius and Dewey, is proposed that helps the gifted seek self and serve communities, as well as suggests service learning as a powerful tool for the academic, social, and moral engagement for them. Chapter 60, Recent Developments in Technology: Implications for Gifted Education, by Michael C. Pyryt, analyzes how technological advances can impact the education of the gifted. The appropriate use of technology for educational assessment, programming, and evaluation is considered. Examples of programs that utilize technology to enhance the educational experiences of gifted and talented children are provided. The Pyryt Enrichment Matrix is introduced as a vehicle for examining the degree of curriculum differentiation that is occurring. In Chapter 61, High Intellectual and Creative Educational Multimedia Technologies for the Gifted, Larisa V. Shavinina presents high intellectual and creative educational multimedia technologies (HICEMTs) as one of the possible methods for gifted education in the near future. HICEMTs will constitute one of the innovative breakthroughs in science and technology of the twenty-first century and will lead to a new wave of innovations in psychology and education in general and gifted education in particular. HICEMTs appear at the intersection of many subdisciplines of psychology, including general, cognitive, developmental, educational, personality, media, cyber, and applied psychology, education, and multimedia. The general and specific natures of HICEMTs are described. The importance of HICEMTs is discussed from the point of view of educational, psychological, societal, economic, and technological perspectives. Chapter 62, A Technology Based Application of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model and High-End Learning Theory, by Joseph S. Renzulli and Sally M. Reis, focuses on an Internet-based enrichment program based on a high-end learning theory that focuses on the development of creative productivity through the application of knowledge rather than the mere acquisition and storage of knowledge. The program, called Renzulli Learning System (RLS) extends the pedagogy of the SEM to various forms of enrichment as well as first-hand investigative and creative endeavors. In Chapter 63, The Iowa Online Advanced Placement Academy: Creating Access to Excellence for Gifted and Talented Rural Students, Clar M. Baldus,

1

Understanding Giftedness

Susan G. Assouline, Laurie J. Croft, and Nicholas Colangelo concentrate on the Belin-Blank Center’s Iowa Online Advanced Placement Academy (IOAPA) that was initiated in 2001. The goal of this online academy is to provide access to a standard of excellence—AP courses and exams. The heart of the IOAPA program is the commitment to preparing students to succeed in AP. This is achieved by a combination of three educational programs. The chapter examines the success of these programs. Chapter 64, On Bringing Interdisciplinary Ideas to Gifted Education, by Bharath Sriraman and Bettina Dahl, reminds us that ideally education should nurture talent in the classroom and create well-rounded individuals akin to the great thinkers of the Renaissance. That is, individuals who are able to pursue multiple fields of research and appreciate both the aesthetic and the structural or scientific connections between mathematics, arts, and the sciences. The authors analyze an underaddressed aspect of giftedness, namely the role of interdisciplinary activities and problems to foster talent in and across the disciplines of mathematics, science, and humanities, increasingly important for emerging professions in the twenty-first century. In Chapter 65, Innovation Education for the Gifted: A New Direction in Gifted Education, Larisa V. Shavinina presents innovation education as a new direction in gifted education. In order to actualize and develop the unique talents of the gifted, we have to concentrate on innovation education. Innovation education refers to a wide range of educational interventions aimed at identifying, developing, and transforming child talent into adult innovation. That is, those societal actions aimed at preparing gifted children to become adult innovators. The chapter describes the main components of innovation education and discusses its importance for the economic prosperity of the whole world. Chapter 66, Dual-Language Gifted Education and Its Evaluation, by Ernesto M. Bernal and Jaime H. Garc´ıa, analyzes the two exceptionally important topics in gifted education: dual-language education and its program evaluation. It discusses such critical issues as accountability, especially for program improvement, and the research aspects of program implementation. Successful addressing of these issues leads to continuous curricular improvement for the gifted. In Chapter 67, Observed Trends and Needed Trends in Gifted Education, Michael F. Shaughnessy and Roland S. Persson review observed current trends in

11

gifted education as well as discuss tendencies that need to be developed. Based on interviews with a number of leading researchers and thinkers in the area of gifted education, the authors identify and consider the number of important issues for the future of gifted education. Part XII of the handbook, Policy Implications and Legal Issues in Gifted Education, is about latest progress in gifted education policy and legal aspects of gifted education. This part consists of three chapters. Chapter 68, United States Policy Development in Gifted Education: A Patchwork Quilt, by Joyce Van Tassel-Baska, examines gifted education policy in the United States. The chapter states that policy in gifted education remains a patchwork quilt of legislative and administrative rules and regulations, mostly at the state level. Although a federal definition exists with an accompanying modest funding package, the No Child Left Behind Act, focused on raising achievement for low-performing students, has driven out gifted education as a priority for federal attention. There is a variance of policies among all 50 states that causes national reform in gifted education to be less cohesive, comprehensive, and inclusive than it needs to be. In Chapter 69, Identifying and Developing Talent in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): An Agenda for Research, Policy, and Practice, Rena Subotnik, Martin Orland, Kristin Rayhack, Julie Schuck, Ashley Edmiston, Janice Earle, Edward Crowe, Pat Johnson, Tom Carroll, Daniel Berch, and Bruce Fuchs highlight the need to produce greater numbers of highly educated and innovative scientists, engineers, and mathematicians for securing a bright economic future for the United States. The authors discuss the current US approach to serving adolescents who are talented and interested in STEM, analyze the obstacles to meeting national goals, and offer solutions for consideration by the research, policy, and practice communities. Chapter 70, Gifted Education and Legal Issues, by Frances A. Karnes and Kristen R. Stephens, explores the legal processes (negotiation, mediation, due process, litigation) that parents of the gifted can utilize in seeking appropriate identification and services for their children. The efforts of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in resolving disputes pertaining to gifted learners are also discussed along with the role that legislation and court cases have had in policy development in gifted education.

12

Part XIII of the handbook, Giftedness Research and Gifted Education Around the World: Institutional and Regional Examples, provides an overview of the recent efforts made at both institutional and micro- and macro-regional levels aimed at studying, developing, and educating gifted children. My idea was to offer examples of best practices in the cases of one of the oldest research center, of two megacities—New York and London, UK,—as well as of whole countries and parts of the world. It should be emphasized that the goal of this part was not to cover absolutely all countries and regions. It provides only certain examples and consists of seven chapters. Chapter 71, Swimming in Deep Waters: Twenty Years of Research About Early University Entrance at the University of Washington, by Kathleen D. Noble and Sarah A. Childers, is about the Halbert and Nancy Robinson Center for Young Scholars (Robinson Center) at the University of Washington (UW) in Seattle, USA, and its role in giftedness research and practice. The chapter describes the Early Entrance Program initiated in 1977 that is about radical acceleration from secondary school to the university, as well as its sister program, the UW Academy for Young Scholars. In Chapter 72, How Do You Get to Carnegie Hall? Gifted Education in New York City, Dona J. Matthews opens a discussion of problems and possibilities in urban gifted education in the case of New York City (NYC). The author reviews diverse forces that are at play locally, including bottom-up and top-down political pressures, concerns about equity and social justice, media responses, and changing legislation and standards. Resulting changes in NYC educational practice are interpreted as a movement toward a mastery model of giftedness. Chapter 73, London Gifted & Talented: A Case Study in High Challenge Urban Education, by Ian Warwick, examines both London’s strengths and the challenges it faces in gifted education. It analyzes the role of London Gifted and Talented and London Challenge in realizing the potential of gifted and talented children by investigating some of the models for teaching and learning that these organizations developed and trialed across the UK capital by working with students, schools, and local authorities facing the most challenging circumstances. In Chapter 74, Giftedness and Diversity: Research and Education in Africa, Jacobus Gideon Maree and Carol Noˆela Van der Westhuizen, present a compre-

L.V. Shavinina

hensive review of gifted education in Africa. Focusing on significant advances in the field of giftedness that have informed the theory and practice of gifted education in the past decade, they argue that the challenge in sub-Saharan Africa is to extend the existing body of knowledge in gifted education to better understand giftedness in the context of third-world and developing countries. Chapter 75, Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia, by Shane N. Phillipson, Jiannong Shi, Guofeng Zhang, Den-Mo Tsai, Chwee Geok Quek, Nobutaka Matsumura, and Seokhee Cho, demonstrates that in spite of sharing a common cultural heritage, latest advances in giftedness research and gifted education in several countries and regions within East Asia show that each country and region is currently distinguished by different approaches to gifted education. However, the challenges facing many of these countries and regions are remarkably similar, such as misconceptions as to the role of gifted education within communities that are dominated by extensive and pervasive examination systems, and the limited roles of indigenous research in conceptions of giftedness and curriculum development. In Chapter 76, Gifted Education in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern Region: History, Current Practices, New Directions, and Future Trends, Taisir SubhiYamin discusses provisions available to gifted and talented children in the Arabian Gulf region and the Arabic countries in the Middle East. The author reviews varying cultures in the region, each with their own practices, terminology, and conceptions of exceptionality. Major issues in the area of the identification and development of giftedness and creativity are examined and new directions in gifted education are highlighted. These issues include gifts or talents as entities, the philosophy of gifted education, identification, programs, educational technology and the “digital world,” future research, and challenges that lie ahead. Chapter 77, Gifted Education and Research on Giftedness in South America, by Eunice M. L. Soriano de Alencar, Denise de Souza Fleith, and Violeta Arancibia, examines the state of giftedness research and gifted education in the South American countries. As these nations do not share the same cultural, linguistic, ideological, social, and economical backgrounds, there are differences in the terminology, practices, and policies implemented for the gifted in this continent. However, these countries are characterized by the same

1

Understanding Giftedness

scarcity of programs for training teachers and psychologists, shortage of financial support for implementing programs and services for the gifted, preference for enrichment educational strategies, and predominance of misconceptions among parents, educators, and administrators. Part XIV of the handbook, Conclusions, contains a single chapter, Research on Giftedness in the 21st Century, by Albert Ziegler, which serves to integrate the other chapters in the handbook. This chapter points out common as well as unique features of the various facets of giftedness research discussed in the chapters of the handbook and suggests directions in which future research, practice, and policy might lead us. Specifically, the author addresses the issues of (a) what giftedness research is all about; (b) whether present rationalizations for the existence of this field of research can remain justified; and (c) possible synergies with expertise research and innovation research in the future. The chapters of this handbook therefore demonstrate that giftedness is inherently multidimensional, multifaceted, interdisciplinary, personally demanding, socially consequential, cross-cultural, and frequently surprising. As a result, understanding the scientific principles that explain the nature of giftedness requires

13

a variety of research approaches. Authors presented a wide range of approaches to understanding the fundamental essence of giftedness and of educational options aimed at the development of the gifted. This handbook thus provides what is perhaps the most comprehensive account available of what giftedness is, how it is developed, how it is measured, how it is educated, and how it affects individuals, societies, and the world as a whole. And—what is probably the most important—the handbook launched many new research directions in the field of giftedness and gifted education that have not been discussed earlier. This handbook thus greatly advances giftedness research and gifted education worldwide by making a lot of great discoveries—exactly as Richard Feynman recommended.

References Colangelo, N., & David, G. (2003). The Handbook of Gifted Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Heller, K. A., Monks, F., Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. (2000). The International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

Part II

The Nature of Giftedness

Chapter 2

The History of Giftedness Research Heidrun Stoeger

Abstract Perceptions of giftedness have, over the course of history, developed from a theological through a metaphysical to an empirical approach. This chapter will offer an overview of the latter approach, which has guided giftedness research since the end of the 19th century. First, the historical development of the concept of intelligence and its significance for giftedness research will be delineated. This will be followed by a historical review of studies based on multi-dimensional models of giftedness and the expertise approach. Following a rendering of investigations on gene/environment interactions, a historical outline will focus on educational studies and studies on individual differences and subgroups of gifted students. As a conclusion, factors that had an influence on giftedness research over the course of history will be submitted for discussion, also addressing the significance of cultural differences and relevant research in this area. Keywords Multi-dimensional models of giftedness · Promotion of high ability · Cross-cultural research · Innovation

in the field of giftedness. As clearly shown in chapters by Davidson and by Dai (this volume), there has not been, and still is no uniform conception of giftedness. This makes it rather difficult to assemble an outline on the history of giftedness research. However, it is not only variations in the conception of giftedness which create problems; cultural differences must also be taken into consideration. The inception of giftedness research, as well as its nature, varies from culture to culture. In order to accord due justice to these aspects, various perceptions of giftedness held over the course of history will be contemplated, from a theological through a metaphysical to an empirical approach to the topic. This will be followed by a presentation of the essential areas of giftedness research, and an overview of research studies conducted in recent decades. Since this overview will make clear how strongly the selection of topics in these research studies were influenced by social and cultural issues, the subsequent section will review those factors which have shaped giftedness research over the course of time as well as the cultural differences and similarities in giftedness research.

The Progression from a Theological, Through a Metaphysical, to an Empirical Approach to Giftedness In a chapter on giftedness research one should first exIntroduction

plain what exactly is meant by the term giftedness, how perceptions of this term have changed over time, and Ziegler and Raul (2000), in accordance with the what effects these differentiations have had on research philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857), differentiate among three phases, or approaches, to giftedness over the course of modern history: (1) a theological H. Stoeger (B) phase, (2) a metaphysical phase, and (3) a scientific, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Bavaria, Germany or empirical, phase. In the first phase, giftedness is e-mail: [email protected] L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 2, 

17

18

considered to be a bestowal from a higher power. Gifted individuals were seen as supernatural beings. This approach is evident in several cultures (for an overview, see Phillipson & McCann, 2007). For example, both Plato in Greece and Confucius in China spoke of “heavenly children.” References taken from the Bible also reflect this line of thought: “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us” (Romans 12:6, King James Version). In this approach, not only are gifted persons considered to be supernatural beings but also discoveries and inventions were understood to be rediscoveries of previous creations of God (Grupp, Dominguez-Lacasa, & Friedrich-Nishio, 2002). In the second phase, the metaphysical phase, giftedness was more intensely associated with the individual. Giftedness and talent were regarded as individual aptitudes. For example, the philosopher Paracelcus used the term “talent” as early as the year 1537 in the sense of a mental aptitude (Passow, M¨onks, & Heller, 1993). Although gifted persons were no longer categorized as supernatural beings, several myths about gifted persons were commonly accepted. For instance, one believed that gifted persons died earlier (Stanley & Benbow, 1986; Wuttke, 1990). This was seen as a sort of poetic justice to compensate for the disproportionate distribution of aptitudes (Fels, 1999). Also, the characterization of a “crazed genius” was widely accepted at this time (Grinder, 1985; Bongartz, Kaisser, & Kluge, 1985; Feger, 1988; Urban & Sekowski, 1993). To some extent, similar myths about gifted persons are still common today. For example, despite a wide selection of findings to support the contrary, gifted students are to this day often characterized as being particularly problematic. The third phase embodies a controlled empirical approach. Since the dawn of the 20th century, the approach to giftedness has become increasingly influenced by scientific reasoning. The transition to this phase can primarily be accorded to scientific progresses in the field of psychology and the application of progressively sounder research methods. In the empirical phase, scientists began to measure talents and gifts, and understood them as the foundation for exceptional achievement. Prevalent during this phase was the simple equation of talents with a high level of intelligence. However, over the course of time, giftedness was increasingly identified with an interaction among various personality traits (for an

H. Stoeger

overview see Heller, M¨onks, Sternberg, & Subotnik, 2000; Sternberg & Davidson 2005). In alternative approaches, the significance of learning processes in the generation of exceptional achievements is subjected to investigation. A synopsis of these differing research areas is given in the following section.

Intelligence Research and its Significance for Giftedness Research From a historical perspective, one can say that Galton (1883), and somewhat later Binet and Simon (1916), set the empirical approach to giftedness in motion. Galton’s field of specialization was genetics, in particular the inheritance of intelligence and talents. A major accomplishment of his work is associated with the first attempts to refute the divergence theory (Galton, 1869, 1874; see also Cattel, 1903; Lombroso 1895; Nisbet, 1891; Yoder, 1894). This theory claimed that giftedness is correlated with negative physical and psychological traits and that exceptional achievement is associated with emotional imbalance. Similar to the metaphysical approach, this theory was based on the myth of a “crazed genius”. A further significant accomplishment attributed to Galton is his proposal that individual differences in intellectual abilities could and should be measured (Urban, 1981, 1982; Sternberg, 1993). The goal of measuring intelligence and logical thinking capacities was also being pursued by Binet, a French educational scientist and psychologist. The catalyst was a mandate, issued by the Parisian Ministry of Education, that children should only be admitted to schools for special education on the basis of medical and scholastic certification. Working together with the psychologist Theodore Simon, he developed the first intelligence test for children and adolescents between the ages of 3 and 15. The test was made up of exercises staggered according to age. A composite score was determined based on the number of exercises solved correctly; this score yielded the child’s “intelligence age”, or mental age. In order to interpret the results of the test, a reference was made to the differences between chronological age and mental age. Although the original intentions of Binet and Simon (1905) were to develop a selection process for intellectually challenged children to enable them access to special

2

The History of Giftedness Research

education, their test also had an enormous influence on giftedness research (see Silverman, this volume). For example, Terman later developed the Stanford Binet Test, which he applied in the identification of students for his longitudinal study (see below). Not only Binet’s work but also that of William Stern had great influence on the research conducted by Terman and others. Stern (1911) found fault in Binet’s concept of intelligence age. He criticized that the differences between intelligence age and chronological age had different levels of significance assigned to them at different stages of life. While an intellectual deficit of 2 years for a 10 year old would just about fall into the range of normalcy, it would signify an extremely low intelligence for a 4 year old. Stern therefore suggested forming a quotient out of intelligence age and chronological age (and then multiplying this by 100). This quotient features the benefit that advantages or deficits in achievement are directly comparable at individual age levels. For example, with this method, both a 4 year old with a mental age of 3 and a 12 year old with a mental age of 9 have intelligence quotients of 75. Wechsler (1939), the founding father of modern day intelligence quotients, voiced concern that the quotients being formed with Stern’s method were only legitimate as long as achievement improved linearly with age. As of a certain age, however, yearly growth begins to subside increasingly and reaches a plateau in early adulthood. For this reason, Wechsler broke the concept of mental age and normed his test for each age level. The point of origin for this line of thinking was the empirical finding that for every age bracket achievement is distributed around a mean value. This is fixed through a linear transformation at 100. Individual achievement can be expressed as the difference from the mean, which is relatively compared in accordance with an age-appropriate distribution. As of Wechsler’s work then, IQ is no longer technically a quotient, but rather a measure of deviation. Over the course of history, interest not only focused on intelligence and the measurement of the inter-individual differences of this trait, which at that point in time was equated with giftedness, but these tests were also employed to explore a number of other issues. A well-known study, in which giftedness was equated with high intelligence, is the longitudinal study conducted by Terman (Terman & Oden 1947, 1959). The study started in 1921 at Stanford University

19

in California and continues to this day. Inspired by Galton’s studies (M¨onks, 1981; Urban, 2004), Terman examined whether high intelligence – in accordance with the divergence hypothesis – actually did correlate with negative physical and psychological traits and whether exceptional achievement is related to emotional imbalance. Out of his sample of approximately 250,000 schoolchildren, approximately 1,500 were selected on the basis of an intelligence criteria (higher than 140 for children younger than 11 and higher than 132 for 14-year-old adolescents). A wide range of data was collected on the children in the survey, such as social background, whether they had relatives with outstanding intellect, vital statistics, medical examinations, scholastic achievement, educational paths, career choices and progress, scholastic and occupational interests, literary interests, and personality traits. The results of the Terman Study showed that gifted children by no means demonstrate the adverse traits assumed by the divergence hypothesis. On the contrary, in comparison to children with average intelligence, the children involved demonstrated better states of health, achieved better scholastically, demonstrated comparable or better play-time behavior, and showed, with a few exceptions (ca. 5% of the sample), more advantageous emotional, moral and character profiles. Also, the scholastic paths and career choices selected by the gifted children were assessed as being highly opportune. In addition to these aspects, a number of other issues were explored, for example, comparisons were made between highly successful and less successful test subjects with respect to a series of aspects. To this day, interesting publications based on the Terman data appear regularly, such as pieces on gender-related individual differences and mortality (Lippa, Martin, & Friedman, 2000). Subsequent to Terman, a series of quantitative investigations were conducted (Durr, 1960; Hildreth, 1938; Lovell & Shields, 1967). At first, they were closely bound to a tight conception of intelligence and produced similar results to those of Terman (Goldberg, 1959). It took time before individuals started to view the all-around positive depiction of gifted children and their development submitted by Terman with a more critical and sophisticated eye. One reason for this was a series of criticisms raised about Terman’s study, such as a pre-selection of participants via teacher nominations, the lack of a true control group, large time intervals between data collections, the

20

disproportionately small percentage of schoolchildren from the lower socio-economic strata, the relatively high standards of life and education enjoyed at that time in California in comparison to the rest of the United States, and the influence that labeling the participants as gifted may have had on their behavior and development of the subjects (Freeman & Urban, 1983; M¨onks, 1963; Urban, 2004). In addition to these critiques, the increasingly complex nature of the conception of giftedness contributed to modifications in the configuration of empirical research (see Theories of Intelligence below). Before this issue is raised, the concept of intelligence, which still plays a significant role in newer conceptions of giftedness, will be discussed.

Theories of Intelligence Despite more than 100 years of research in the area of intelligence, to this date there is still a general lack of agreement as to what one should include under the construct of intelligence, and how an optimal measurement of it could be taken. Two expert surveys, conducted in 1921 and 1986 (Sternberg & Berg, 1986), revealed substantial differences in and modifications to perspectives over time (see also S¨uß, 2003). In order to integrate these differing perspectives, Sternberg and Berg (1986) proposed a multi-leveled concept. In this concept, they differentiate among psychometric theories of intelligence, theories of information processing, and theories which focus predominantly on context. (1) On the behavioral level we find theories in the tradition of psychometric intelligence research. Here the focus is – as in the approaches described above – on the measurement of the products of intelligence. Standing in the foreground are answers to the question of whether intelligence is one single trait or if one must distinguish among several traits. It all comes down to structure theories on intelligence, which focus on the description and explication of individually differentiated abilities. The development of structure theories is strongly tied to the development of factor analysis. The theories and models primarily differ with respect to the number of abilities assumed and their relationships to one another. The differences among the models can, to some degree, be explained through differences in

H. Stoeger

the factor-analysis method applied (J¨ager, 1982; S¨uß, 2003). Five of these models will be briefly described in the following section. Spearman (1904) assumed in his “Two Factor Theory” that performances on intelligence tests can be explained by two components: a variance component, the so-called “general intelligence” (“g”), which is common across all test exercises, and a second component, which is specific to each exercise (“s”). Thurstone (1938) presented an alternative to this with his model of “primary mental abilities”. He developed a model, on the basis of a comprehensive battery of tests, with seven independent abilities. Since he was not able to empirically demonstrate that the seven mental abilities were indeed independent from one another, the model was modified to a hierarchical structure model. This stipulates, on the highest hierarchical level, a factor of “general intelligence” (“g”) and, on a second level seven correlated “specific individual abilities” (verbal comprehension, word fluency, number, space, memory, perceptual speed, induction and reasoning). The “Theory of Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence” developed by Horn and Cattell (1966) is considered to be among the most influential theories submitted to intelligence research. It is based on higher order factor analyses. Differentiations are made between fluid and crystallized intelligence. Fluid intelligence pertains to the basis processes of thought and other mental activities and is primarily determined through genetics. Crystallized intelligence is the ability to draw on the knowledge one has acquired to solve problems. Crystallized intelligence is culturally dependent. The “Berlin Structure Model” was developed by J¨ager (1982) to explain differences between rival structure models and to integrate these models into a collective model. Elaborate investigations led to an ability hierarchy. On the top hierarchical level is “general intelligence”, one level below this are seven very general ability constructs ordered along two facets (operations and content). A third hierarchical level results in 12 cells which can be interpreted as specific abilities (see also Guilford, 1967). Distinctive in the Berlin Intelligence Structure Model is the integration of creativity. The “Three Stratum Theory” by Carroll (1993) postulates – on the basis of wide-ranging analyses – likewise, a general intelligence on the highest hierarchical level, as well as eight factors on the second level

2

The History of Giftedness Research

(fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, general memory and learning, broad visual perception, broad auditory perception, broad retrieval ability, broad cognitive speediness, and processing speed) (for a more detailed description please see Silverman, this volume). In terms of psychometric theories of intelligence and the structure theories described above, over the course of time, enhancements and expansions to the theories became increasingly common. Examples here are the theory of “multiple intelligences” by Gardner (1983; for a more detailed description please refer to Davidson in this volume), the concept of “practical intelligence” by Sternberg and Wagner (1986; see also Heng et al., this volume), “operational intelligence” (D¨orner, 1986), “emotional intelligence” (Bar-On et al., this volume; Goleman, 1995), “typical intelligence” (Goff & Ackerman, 1992), and the “triarchic theory of successful intelligence” (Sternberg, 1999; for a more detailed description please refer to Davidson in this volume). (2) Since the 1970s, numerous attempts have been made to explain the materialization of feats of intelligence through theories of information processing. These approaches can be broken down into two categories. One approach attempts to explain differences in intelligence through elementary processes, such as quickness, accuracy and efficiency in reference to the fundamental processes of information management (e.g., Jensen, 1982; Neubauer, 1995; Pellegrino & Glaser, 1979; Sternberg, 1977, Vernon, 1987). In the other approach, the emphasis was placed on examining higher order cognitive processes such as working memory capacity (e.g., Kyllonen & Christal, 1990; S¨uß, Oberauer, Wittmann, Wilhelm, & Schulze, 2002), metacognitive processes (Ericsson & Delaney, 1999; Shore et al., this volume) and inhibition performance – in other words, processes which erase irrelevant information from the working memory (Hasher & Zacks, 1988; Hasher, Zacks, & May, 1999). (3) With respect to context, there are theories which accentuate the situational relativity of intelligence and place the dynamic nature of the interaction between person and environment in the foreground (Ceci, Ramey, & Ramey, 1990; Sternberg, 1984). In this category, theories describe intelligence as a dynamic process, while in other approaches intelligence is understood in terms of the capacity to adapt.

21

Empirical Investigations on the Stability and Malleability of Intelligence In addition to research on the construct of intelligence, the measurement of this construct, and individual differences in intelligence (for an overview please refer to S¨uß, 2003), over the course of the investigative history, one can also witness a great deal of research regarding the heredity of intelligence (for an overview please refer to Thompson & Plomin 1993, 2000; see also Gagne, this volume). The main thrust of research on this facet was directed toward genetic influences regarding general cognitive abilities. Furthermore, investigations sought to determine how stable intelligence is formed over the course of a lifespan. For some time it was assumed that children who were identified as highly intelligent, or gifted, at a young age would also be gifted later on; in other words, that intelligence is a relatively stable trait. More recent studies have shown, however, that intelligence is less stable than previously presumed (see McCall, Appelbaum, & Hogarty, 1973; Sattler, 1988; Schneider, Bullock, & Sodian, 1998; Shapiro et al., 1989; Willerman & Fiedler, 1974). However, intelligence – or at least how it is conceptualized in a psychometric approach – does not change over the course of a lifespan. Flynn (1984, 1998) demonstrated that the average (tested) intelligence increases from generation to generation. He was able to empirically demonstrate this for 20 countries. If one presumes that IQ tests can actually measure human intelligence, then the Flynn effect confronts us with a rather disconcerting phenomenon. In research literature, numerous explanatory approaches have been tested, such as test sophistication, nutrition, state of health, urbanization, and rising socio-economic status. However, all of these possible causes only partially explained this effect. Of more importance appears to be that the cognitive skills measured by the tests demonstrate a high level of concurrence with skills deemed important nowadays, related to abstract thinking, the ever increasing prevalence of computers and the increasing significance of visuals in culture. The Flynn effect remains to this day a subject of empirical studies. Current investigations include assessment of its validity for gifted individuals (Wasserman, 2007, see also Silverman, this volume). The construct of intelligence also plays a significant role in giftedness research today. However, additional

22

traits are also taken into consideration. Most certainly, a significant inducement was the relatively low predictive power of IQ scores for later performance excellence. A telling example here is delivered by Terman’s study. Although scholastic and occupational path developments among the participants were assessed as positive, very few members of the sample were truly able to produce outstanding achievements later in life (Howe, 1982; Samson, Grane, Weinstein, & Walberg, 1984; Sears, 1984), while two participants who later won the Nobel Prize were actually excluded from the original sample.

Multidimensional Models – An Expanded Perspective If one were to conduct a literature search, one would be sure to come up with a dizzying number of definitions and models of giftedness (for an overview please see Heller, M¨onks, Sternberg, & Subotnik, 2000; Sternberg & Davidson, 2005, see also Dai, this volume; Davidson, this volume). In most approaches, giftedness is still understood in terms of high intelligence. The cut-off point from where one can begin to speak of giftedness or talent varies widely from one theory to another, and the choice as to where this cut-off point is made is relatively indiscriminate. Often, outstanding performance will be incorporated into the conception (DeHaan & Havighurst, 1957; Heller, 1989; Marland, 1972; Tannenbaum, 1986). In some approaches this is so pronounced that true giftedness can only be identified among adults (Tannenbaum, 1986). Persons who do not exhaust their potential are often labeled underachievers (Butler-Por, 1993; Peters, GragerLoidl, & Supplee, 2000). Regardless of whether intelligence, cognitive abilities or achievement are included in the conception of giftedness, presently, multi-dimensional approaches to giftedness are highly favored (e.g., Gagn´e, 1985, 1993, 2004; Gardner, 1985; Heller & Hany, 1986; Renzulli, 1978, 1986; Sternberg, 1985, 1988, 1990 2003). In most cases, these multi-dimensional models also feature additional personality traits such as motivation, creativity, or wisdom. In some cases environmental conditions, such as socio-economic status, are also introduced (Gagne, this volume; Ziegler, 2005). The individual dimensions of giftedness have, over the course of time, come to form their own branches of

H. Stoeger

research. Examples are research devoted to creativity or social responsibility (for an overview, please refer to Runco, 2005; Davidson, this volume; Kaufman et al., this volume; van Tassel-Baska, this volume). Since definitions and models of giftedness are systematically addressed in other chapters of this volume, this chapter is limited to the relatively cursory review of the field. While the wealth of empirical studies on intelligence theories and the measurement of intelligence is virtually insurmountable, this is not the case for multidimensional models of giftedness. True, there are numerous publications dedicated to various conceptions of giftedness (for an overview refer to Heller et al., 2000; Sternberg & Davidson, 2005), however, several of them have not been subjected to adequate empirical examination. Heller (1993) and Heller & Schofield (2000) performed exhaustive literature researches, concerning topics frequently presented or addressed over the course of 12 years in conference proceedings of international conferences on giftedness and in the articles published in the six major journals in the area of giftedness. In these conference proceedings and articles less than 20% addressed basic research or the empirical examination of models. When data-based research was conducted concerning multi-dimensional models, it was predominantly concerned with either the exploration of individual traits that these models considered to be essential (e.g., creativity) or the questions of gifted education (Heller, 1993; Heller & Schofield, 2000). These questions are certainly of great importance from the perspective of practical application, but Heller and Schofield are also correct in their conclusion that “this may also suggest that there is still a lack of good quality basic research being undertaken in the area of giftedness per se. Indeed, without such basic research, the very nature of giftedness is still open to question” (Heller & Schofield, 2000, p. 134). This assumption is also reflected in the still contrary positions on how performance excellence is to be interpreted (see Schneider, 1993, 2000). According to the conceptions of giftedness described above, an influence is exerted by the general intellectual abilities and other traits (e.g., creativity, motivation) assessed in early childhood or adolescence – alone or in the presence of encouragement – on performance later in life. In this approach, a certain degree of (variable according to model) inherited qualities are presumed (see Gagne, this volume). An alternative, more recent approach hypothesizes that innate attributes are virtually insignificant for

2

The History of Giftedness Research

the generation of achievement excellence (Anderson, 1990; Ericsson & Crutcher, 1990; Ericsson, Roring & Nandagopal, 2007). Domain-specific training plays a prominent role in this approach.

A Change in Perspectives – Away from Traits, Toward Domain-Specific Training: The Expertise Approach One difference between the trait-oriented giftedness approaches and the expertise approach is the departure from a prospective approach to a retrospective approach (see Schneider, 1993, 2000). In trait-oriented giftedness approaches, such as in Terman’s study, children or adolescents are first identified as gifted, and then researchers determine whether these individuals actually attain achievement excellence later on in life. A large number of empirical studies have borne out that this is usually not the case (Howe, 1982; Samson et al., 1984; Sears, 1984). In the expertise approach, in contrast, a retrospective approach is engaged. Investigations are made with persons who have already been able to demonstrate outstanding achievement in a specific talent domain. In the beginning, the driving issue in these studies was also to determine whether these outstanding achievements can possibly be explained through particular cognitive abilities, like general intelligence, attention, or memory (Cox, 1926). Additional traits such as motivation or personality were also subjected to examination (Roe, 1952, 1953). Similar to the results of prospective studies, it could also be demonstrated that traits alone are not sufficient to explain the generation of achievement excellence (see Bloom, 1985; Roe, 1952, 1953). Later studies were performed with adult experts and novices. Groundbreaking work was executed with the chess studies conducted by De Groot (1946, 1978) and Simon & Gilmartin (1973). The game of chess is a highly suitable object for these types of investigations in that outstanding performance can be observed and graded under internationally standardized conditions (cf. the index developed by Elo, 1978). Various chess studies were able to substantiate memory differences between experts and novices (Chase & Simon, 1973; De Groot, 1952, 1953). These differences could only be shown in conjunction with recollections of meaningful chess positions, not for those consid-

23

ered to be meaningless, which indicated that the differences observed were not disparities in the visual shortterm memory. Soon afterward, it was shown that the phenomenon was not due to quantitative differences in memory performance, but rather qualitative differences (Chase & Simon, 1973; Ericsson & Staszewski, 1989). In the meantime, a wide range of studies were conducted in distinctive talent domains (for an overview see Ericsson, 2007; Ericsson et al., 2006; Ericsson et al., this volume). The most notable differences between novices and experts uncovered were that experts exhibit superior memory performance, but only in their talent domain, they show superior recall of domainrelated information as a function of the amount of knowledge in the domain, and furthermore, the speed of access to relevant knowledge is quicker, and they apply more sophisticated knowledge-based strategies. In order to explain the differences between novices and experts, various models have been developed and subjected to empirical examination (Ackerman, 1987, 1988; Anderson, 1982; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Roemer, 1993; Ericsson & Charness, 1994; Ericsson, 1996, 1998; Fitts & Posner, 1967). In all models, practice plays a crucial role in the acquisition of expertise. For various talent domains, it could be shown that about 10 years, or 10,000 hours of intense practice was needed before exceptional performances of international significance could be demonstrated (Chase & Simon, 1973; Krogius, 1976; Sonsniak, 1985). The pure number of practice sessions is, however, not alone sufficient in guaranteeing the attainment of performance excellence. Over the course of two studies, it was demonstrated that a specific type of engagement with the activity must take place, and expertise researchers refer to this active occupation with a subject as deliberate practice (e.g., Ericsson et al., 1993; Ericsson, 1996; Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996). Deliberate practice comprises practice activities that aim at maximizing improvement. Deliberate practice is conceived as highly structured activity which requires effort and is not inherently enjoyable. Because deliberate practice is very strenuous, expertise research has also examined the necessity of recovery times, as well as further attributes considered essential for the maintenance of deliberate practice, such as motivation or parental support. Although the expertise approach is considered to be a rival to giftedness research (Gagne, this volume; Schneider, 1993, 2000), a convergence of

24

multidimensional models of giftedness and the expertise approach can be, to some degree, ascertained (Ziegler & Heller, 2000; Ziegler & Stoeger, 2007). For instance, in their Munich Process Model of Giftedness, Ziegler & Perleth (1997) engineered a connection between giftedness research and expertise. In addition to favorable personality characteristics, people’s internal performance dispositions, and environmental features, this model also took an active-learning process into consideration (see also Gagn´e, 2004, 2007). In other giftedness models, for example the Actiotope Model of Giftedness (Ziegler, 2005; see also Davidson in this volume), which stands out by reason of its systemic approach, traits are no longer positioned in the foreground and are being replaced by actions and learning paths which lead to achievement excellence. Independent of whether theoretical models perceive traits and/or learning processes as the prerequisites for exceptional achievement, the support of gifted students and their environments has played, and continues to play, a consequential role (for more details see Davidson, this volume). While in traditional giftedness research the primary focus was, at first, on how the gifted in general can be best supported and encouraged, recently researchers have moved to other investigative topics including, for example, gifted females, gifted underachievers, the twice exceptional, and gifted dropouts (see Lupart et al., this volume; M. Matthews, this volume; Reis et al., this volume; Silverman et al., this volume).

Investigations Into Interactions Between Genetics and Environmental Factors, Educational Measures and Individual Differences Promotion of gifted individuals only proves to be meaningful when one acknowledges the role played by the environment in the development of giftedness. Francis Galton was among the first researchers to delve into the field of gene/environment interactions in conjunction with giftedness research. Inspired by the work produced by his cousin Charles Darwin, (1859), he began very early on to examine the possibilities inherent in the field of genetics. His well-known work “Hereditary Genius” (1969) is considered to be a forerunner for behavioral genetics. Although Galton’s

H. Stoeger

research methods are under criticism today (Thompson & Plomin, 1993), he was among the first to propose a gene/environment interaction for the development of giftedness. In later research literature – despite various debates (Ericsson, Roring & Nandagopal, 2007; Howe, Davidson, & Sloboda, 1998) – researchers work under the assumption that both genetics and environmental factors can be held responsible for explaining a certain degree of differences in abilities (see Gagn´e, this volume). This has been demonstrated in a large number of studies with adopted siblings and twins (for an overview, please refer to Simonton, 2005; Thompson & Plomin, 1993, 2000). While initial research was concerned with how large and how significant genetic influences are on the development of giftedness, gene/environment interactions were later of interest for the identification and education of gifted children. For instance, in the identification of giftedness in early childhood, hereditary/environmental relationships are sometimes placed under scrutiny (Taylor, Clayton, & Rowley, 2004). The foundation for such research is formed by a categorization of nature–nurture conditions. In accord with Scarr and McCartney (1983), Plomin (1994) describes three types of hereditary/environmental conditions: (1) Passive hereditary/environmental conditions occur when children share genetic material and environmental conditions with their family members. If one were to assume that giftedness is hereditary then it would be extremely likely that gifted children would have gifted parents, who in turn would provide their children with environments in which learning, reading, etc. would play a significant role. (2) One speaks of reactive hereditary/environmental conditions when the environment (e.g., day care providers) reacts to the talents demonstrated by a child, and provides him or her with learning opportunities if the child proves to be exceptionally curious, demonstrate high levels of interest, or find itself in a relatively advanced state of cognitive development. (3) Active hereditary/environmental conditions are present when gifted children actively mould their environment in accordance with their individual gifts. Expressions of this can be found, for example, in children who prefer play activities associated with a high learning content (spelling games, number games) or who seek out interactions with partners who are cognitively stimulating (older children, adults).In the identification of giftedness

2

The History of Giftedness Research

in early childhood, these hereditary/environmental conditions are more closely investigated (see Perleth, Lehwald, & Browder, 1993; Perleth, Schatz, & M¨onks, 2000; Stoeger, 2007). Although these gene/environment interactions play a similarly important role in the education of gifted individuals, empirical studies have, over the course of time, focused their investigations on the effectiveness of various types of educational measures. The history of research in this area is very broad (for an overview please refer to Colangelo & Davis, 1997; Dixon & Moon, 2006; M¨onks & Katzko, 2005; Tannenbaum, 1993, 2000). Leta Stetter Hollingworth is often referred to as the first giftedness researcher to empirically investigate gifted education. “. . . whereas Lewis Terman . . . deservedly gets credit for providing the United States its first major tool for objectively identifying intellectually talented individuals in order to study them further, Leta Hollingworth took the next important step to nurture them academically . . .” (Stanley, 1990, p. 34). Two of the educational studies Hollingworth conducted with gifted and profoundly gifted children were of extreme significance. In the year 1922 Hollingworth initiated, along with her colleagues at the Teacher College of the Columbia University in New York and the administrators and teachers of New York City Public School 165, a 3-year longitudinal study. The studies connected to this project formed the groundwork for the first textbook on gifted education Gifted Children: Their Nature and Nurture (Hollingworth, 1926). The Speyer School experiment (1936–1941) refers to an experimental school, composed of two so-called Terman classes (students with a median IQ of 145) and five socalled Binet classes (students with an IQ between 75 and 90). The children in these classes were partially instructed as a group, but all children learned at their own pace and in their own way. Field trips and curriculum units, which teachers, pupils, and advisors cooperatively developed, were also an integral part of this experimental school (for an overview, please refer to Klein, 2000). Investigations were conducted with both the gifted students and the students with lower IQs. The Guidance Laboratory of Teachers College tested the children and pursued individual case studies. In addition to rather clinically oriented case studies, such as those by Hollingworth or later Hauck & Freehill, (1972), a number of evaluation studies on scholastic promotional measures were conducted. The investigative objects included special schools (e.g.,

25

Hildreth, 1952; Wilson, 1953), special classes in regular schools (e.g., Barbe, 1955; Hall, 1956), giftedness programs (e.g., Drews, 1957, 1959; Ekstrom, 1961; Geuβ & Urban, 1982; Goldberg & Passow, 1962; Hoyle & Wilks, 1975; Martinson, 1960), as well as acceleration and enrichment (Justman, 1953; Elwell, 1958; Wall, 1960a, 1960b; Ripple, 1961; Klausmeier & Ripple, 1962). Furthermore, the characteristics of successful gifted-education teachers were the objects of relatively early empirical investigations (e.g., Bishop, 1975; Nelson & Cleland, 1971; Maker, 1975). Although publication numbers point out that within the research community interest in gifted education has fluctuated through the years (Urban, 2004), it has consistently been the main subject for giftedness research (Heller, 1993; Heller & Schofield, 2000). In addition to evaluation studies on specific educational measures, researchers also investigated learning processes, motivation, and work habits. With respect to learning processes, expertise research has been able to lay claim to important findings (Ericsson et al., 2006). Whereas this branch of research is founded on a solid empirical approach (Ericsson, Roring & Nandagopal, 2007), the quality of giftedness research is often the recipient of critical observations. “Research into the effectiveness of gifted programs is often criticized for its lack of scientific rigor, such as research design and adequately described control groups” (Phillipson, 2007, p. 4, see also Craven, Marsh, & Print, 2000). A meta-analysis of all empirically based articles published in 1997 and 1998 in five acclaimed giftedness journals by Ziegler and Raul (2000) showed that a control group existed in less than one quarter of the studies. Pyryt, (1988, 2005), Rogers, (1989) as well as Carter and Swanson, (1990), who also undertook content analyses of relevant journals found that practically oriented applied research dominated and that rather simple statistical analysis methods were used. Moreover, the effectiveness of the educational measures under analysis was also largely critically evaluated (Kulik & Kulik, 1992; Lipsey & Wilson, 1993; Vaughn, Feldhusen & Asher, 1991), particularly when, in addition to significant results, effect sizes were taken into consideration (see also Dixon, Gentry, Mathews, McCoach, & Worrell, 2005). Relatively soon, specific subgroups of gifted students moved into the focus of empirical research. For example, a wide range of studies on gifted minority groups and on differences concerning identification

26

and educational measures within these groups have been conducted (Drews, 1959; Ford, Moore, & Whiting, 2006; Gordon & Bridglall, 2005; Jenkins, 1948; Maker, 1996; Sumption & Luecking, 1960; VanTassel-Baska, Feng, Quek & Struck, 2004). Underachievement was also the subject of much early research, and to this day remains a significant investigative topic. In addition to the causes for underachievement, educational measures to counteract underachievement have been widely examined (e.g., Applbaum, 1961; Gowan, 1955, 1957; Kurtz & Svenson, 1951; Morgan, 1952; Owens & Johnson, 1949; Peters, Grager-Loidl, & Supplee, 2000; Shaw & McCuen, 1960; Uhlinger & Stephens, 1960). A further subgroup, which has been long represented in the research literature, is gifted girls and women (Jolly, 2005; Holahan, Sears, & Cronbach, 1995; Reis, 2003; Reis et al., this volume; Silverman, 1989, 1996; Silverman et al., this volume). Hollingworth was one of the first researchers to publish works on gender differences concerning giftedness (Hollingworth, 1914, 1916a, b, c). The Terman databank has been used in a number of studies on gender differences (for an overview refer to Jolly, 2005; Terman & Miles, 1936; Vialle, 1993). Investigations conducted over the past eight decades indicate that some improvements have been made in the circumstances facing gifted girls and women (Freeman, 2004; Jolly, 2005; Reis, 2006; Stoeger, 2004, 2007). For example, girls in many countries receive grades that are just as good as, and in some cases even better than, those received by boys, even in the natural sciences. Participation rates in the areas of mathematics, technology, and the natural sciences, both academically and in the distribution of leadership positions, have also sharply risen. However, the general situation of gifted girls and women in most countries is far from being comparable to that for boys and men. Certain gender role stereotypes, which make it difficult for women to fully realize their achievement potentials, are still dominant. In addition, different role expectations concerning selfconcepts and attributions can be found (OlszewskiKubilius & Turner, 2002), which consequently have detrimental effects on learning and achievement behaviors. Another subgroup of gifted students that received delayed attention in the area of giftedness research are the gifted handicapped (Karnes & Johnson, 1991; Lupart, 1992; Lupart et al., this volume; Yewchuk &

H. Stoeger

Lupart, 1993). Although history does take notice of various examples of the gifted disabled (Goertzel & Goertzel, 1962) and gifted persons with learning difficulties (Thompson, 1971), professional awareness of the gifted handicapped only increased in the 1970s (Gallagher, 1988; Whitmore, 1981). Starting at this point in time, the first organized conferences, councils, and increased efforts on the part of researchers dedicated to this group of gifted students emerged (for an overview please refer to Yewchuk & Lupart, 1993). These are only a few of the subgroups which have been of interest to giftedness researchers. However, a review of those factors which have had an influence on giftedness research over the course of history appears to be more meaningful than an exhaustive outline of all research topics. These factors differ from culture to culture. Before beginning to address cultural differences, the United States and Germany will be used as examples of how strongly giftedness research and the related investigative topics have been influenced by historical conditions.

Factors Which Have Influenced Giftedness Research over the Course of History “Does genius make history, or does history make the genius?” (Tannenbaum, 2000, p. 23). With this question Tannenbaum (2000) clearly pointed out that on one hand it is the spirit of the times, or zeitgeist, which has an influence on what one considers to be outstanding achievement, and on the other hand, creative and innovative achievements have often left lasting impressions on zeitgeist and history itself. Pressey (1964) denoted the increased occurrence of specific types of giftedness during specific historical periods (see also Tannenbaum, 1993, 2000). An example here would be the spouts of musical giftedness in Germany in earlier centuries. Pressey hereby illuminated the significance of social, political, and historical interest and requirement structures for the discovery and education of giftedness (see chapters included in the Giftedness, Society, and Economy part of this volume). Giftedness research has also been strongly influenced by changing social conditions over the course of history. In the following passages the historical developments in the

2

The History of Giftedness Research

United States and Germany will be used to illustrate this point. Over the course of the last century, research and education in the United States has fluctuated between egalitarianism and excellence. The highpoints of giftedness research were enjoyed at the end of the 1950s and in the early 1970s. In between these points in time, this topic was widely neglected. The center of research interest at this time was occupied by students with learning disabilities and those from adverse environmental conditions. The launching of Sputnik in 1957 by the Soviet Union unleashed the so-called Sputnik Shock, which led to a refocusing on excellence and giftedness research. During this period, research findings made by scientists who had been studying giftedness before the launching of Sputnik were also taken into consideration. Influential were, among others, works published by Terman and Passow. Passow in his “Talented Youth Project” examined a nationwide scale for the measurement of giftedness and programs developed to encourage and support gifted students. Approaches which had already been tested in individual city school systems, or on smaller groups, were now extended to encompass larger regions. Within the framework of this project, studies on ability grouping (Goldberg, Passow, Camm, & Neill, 1966), underachievement (Raph, Goldberg, & Passow, 1966), and the effectiveness of various special programs for the mathematically gifted (Goldberg et al., 1966) were also conducted. Passow and his coworkers compiled the research findings obtained in the field prior to the Sputnik Shock in a monograph (Passow, Goldberg, Tannenbaum, & French, 1955). In the 5 years following the launching of Sputnik, great efforts were undertaken to advance excellence in the United States. As a consequence of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, the identification of gifted students and programs in science, mathematics, and foreign languages were actively revitalized. These changes were reflected in an upsurge in empirical research (for an overview please see Tannenbaum, 1993, 2000). French (1959) even suggested that in the 3 years following the Sputnik Shock more articles were published on the topic of giftedness than in the preceding 30 years. The method of research employed and the domains taken into consideration were largely oriented to the needs of society with military interests standing in the foreground.

27

At the start of the 1960s, giftedness was still a relevant topic. It was expected that gifted persons would use their abilities for the good of society and that their potential would be exploited in order to raise the level of welfare. However, as interest in the Sputnik Shock started to abate, so did interest in giftedness programs and research. One must also take into account the societal reactions to transporting the first man to the moon in 1969 and political changes associated with the Vietnam War. General public attention was focused primarily on racial integration, civil rights, school integration, and compensatory education (Tannenbaum, 1993, 2000). Evidence was produced that minorities were not being fairly treated in identification processes or through ability groupings. During the 1960s the tide turned from a focus on excellence to a struggle with egalitarianism. In the 1970s, interest in gifted students began again to increase. However, “again, special education for the gifted was initiated for the sake of solving social problems rather than solely for the sake of those who need, or could benefit from, it” (Tannenbaum, 1993, p. 21). The reason for the establishment of numerous regional, local, and nationwide projects was frequent reports of ever-decreasing scholastic achievement levels, illegal drug usage, and vandalism in the inner cities. These problems resulted in a migration of large segments of the middle class to suburban districts and increased enrolments at private schools. The establishment of special enrichment programs was an attempt to reverse this trend. The Marland Report (Marland, 1971) had a particularly high influence at this time. It claimed that most gifted students were not being sufficiently supported or encouraged if they were being reached at all. Such a state of affairs could lead to serious impairment if appropriate interventions were not undertaken. As a consequence of the Marland Report, significant progress in gifted education took place (Harrington, Harrington, & Karns, 1991; Tannenbaum, 1993, 2000; Zettel, 1979). However, similar progress was not being reflected in giftedness research (Tannenbaum, 1993). Despite the relatively low number of research studies being conducted at that point in time, there are several which are worth pointing out, such as Julian Stanley’s, (1976)’s longitudinal study of mathematical precocity (see Brody, this volume), Halbert Robinson’s (1979), studies of cognitive development in the gifted, and the observations of the candidates in Terman’s study during their senior period of life (Sears, 1979; Sears,

28

1977). Starting in the 1980s, giftedness research has become the subject of a wide number of conferences and publications in the United States. However, this period of time is also witness to variations in interest in giftedness in general, as well as in other topics of research associated with giftedness such as creativity, motivation, perfectionism, and educational measures (Tannenbaum, 1993, 2000). Similar to the progression of events in the United States, social and political upheavals in Germany have had a deep impact on the education of and the research regarding gifted students. In Germany, one can differentiate among three phases in giftedness research (for an overview see Ziegler & Stoeger, 2007). The first phase of research enjoyed a climax at the beginning of the 20th century, the second phase was marked by a research standstill following the Second World War, and the third phase – a renewed interest in giftedness research – started in the mid-1970s. The most wellknown researcher of the first phase was William Stern (1871–1938), who is the founding father of differential psychology and the originator of the intelligence quotient (for an overview, please refer to Feger, 1991). One of Stern’s major fields of research was identification. He developed checklists, was concerned with quantitative test evaluation, test fairness, and the participation of teachers in the identification of gifted students. Similar to modern researchers (e.g., Gagn´e, 2004; Heller & Hany, 1986), Stern hypothesized a more or less innate performance disposition in the sense of a “general intelligence” and exceptional abilities in specific domains, which in combination with positive personality characteristics (interest, self-discipline, and social disposition) and favorable environmental conditions would lead to excellence. Stern made a case for special programs for the top 2% of students with highperformance dispositions and the 10% of students with exceptional abilities in specific domains. Stern’s work was far ahead of what was being done at that time in the United States. For instance, he was associating aspects of developmental psychology, creativity, and nonintellectual talents with high ability. It is also widely accepted that Terman was interested in Stern’s work, and incorporated it into his own studies (Seagoe, 1975). Petersen (1916) and Dienstbach (1925) are among the first researchers in Germany to have conducted studies on the education of gifted students. The laboratory school founded by Peterson in 1923 is character-

H. Stoeger

ized by modern approaches, such as the disbandment of the system of school classes, the implementation of pullout groups, and social learning (for a detailed description refer to M¨onks & Katzko, 2005). Dienstbach (1925) was the first to conduct directed research on underachievement. Research by these scientists came to a full stop as a result of the Nazi political takeover. With the Nazi regime came a collapse in interest in individual differences and giftedness research as it had been pursued to that point. The German nation was the center of all efforts, and an ideology of the masses was predominant. Giftedness research was limited to the training of the leadership elite for the national-socialist empire. So-called Napola Schools were founded, whose absolvents were to become leaders of the German state. The exclusionary approach to the ideas of giftedness and elite subsectors of the population practiced and disseminated during the Nazi period led to a universal renunciation of this subject matter following the end of the Second World War. Giftedness research was a taboo theme through the 1980s, and to this day researchers in this field have to contend with sporadic bouts of bias and prejudice. One example of such discernment was delivered in a statement made by the Minister of Education of the State of Hamburg during the opening speech given at the Sixth World Council for the Gifted and Talented in 1985 in Hamburg. After he had pointed out that gifted education was unnecessary, he said “We all know how this dance around the golden calf ended” (printed in the German periodical ZEIT, August, 12, 1985). As Germany was split into the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic, the Sputnik Shock initially led to a renewed awareness of gifted education. A particularly important topic at that time was the early encouragement of gifted children. However, young political activists in the late 1960s (referred to in Germany as 1968er’s) established a counter movement. The common assumption was that every person can become gifted (Roth, 1957). However, the empirical approach that was in practice at the start of the 20th century was lacking during this period. In the 1970s, the objective was to provide underprivileged students with equivalent opportunities. The word “gifted” was not to be found in any educational reference book or dictionary of psychological terms (Solzbacher, 2002). The German Democratic Republic had established state run special schools for the

2

The History of Giftedness Research

promotion of talents in the areas of athletics, music and later also mathematics, and the natural sciences. These were empirically monitored. It was not until the 1980s that one notes a revitalized upswing in giftedness research. Research then was primarily concerned with the identification and education of gifted students (Brix, 1988; Rahn, 1985, 1986). The 1980s also saw the commencement of two German longitudinal studies: at the University of Marburg (Rost, 1993, 2000a, b) and the University of Munich (Heller, 1990, 1992; Heller & Hany, 1986). A significant increase in empirical studies is chronicled as of this time, as well as progress in developing new conceptions of giftedness (for an overview, please refer to Ziegler & Stoeger, 2007). Similar to happenings in the United States and Germany, political and societal changes in other countries over the course of history have greatly influenced whether, or what types of, giftedness research was conducted. A new area of research, which has so far been the recipient of little attention, in conjunction with giftedness, is that of innovation. The International Handbook on Innovation (Shavinina, 2003) contains a number of contributions from giftedness and expertise researchers (e.g., Colangelo, Assouline, Croft, Baldus, & Ihrig, 2003; Renzulli, 2003; Reis & Renzulli, 2003; Scripp & Subotnik, 2003; Simonton, 2003; Sternberg, Pretz, & Kaufman, 2003), however, prior to this, giftedness research had displayed little interest in the area of innovation research – and vice versa. As a result of far reaching economic changes, the ever-increasing demands for innovation, and the meaningful role creativity plays in giftedness research, one would expect this mutual exclusion to come to an end in future years. A scientific subdiscipline, which will certainly inspire cooperative research, is that of entrepreneurship. This research field, which also investigates the personality characteristics of entrepreneurs, could well spawn a new area of expertise (Shavinina, 2006). It remains to be seen to what degree innovation and entrepreneurship will become objects of giftedness research in the next decades, and which countries will become specialists in this topical area. While the factors which have influenced giftedness research in the United States and Germany have been relatively similar, there are significant differences to be found between different cultures with respect to the type of giftedness research they pursue and the extent to which it is supported. In the next section

29

these cultural differences and their connotation for giftedness research are addressed.

Cultural Differences Several studies have demonstrated that conceptions of giftedness are strongly influenced by culture and vary widely among cultures (Hern´andez de Hahn, 2000; Moon & Rosselli, 2000; Stone, 2002). In this instance, the concept of intelligence is used as an example. While the abilities measured with intelligence tests are classified as adaptive in several cultures, adaptive skills in some other cultures are completely different. Sternberg and his coworkers (Sternberg, Nokes, Geissler, Prince, Okatcha, Bundy et al., 2001) found in a study in rural Kenya that all knowledge pertaining to natural herbal medicine is considered to be adaptive. This is easy to understand in a land where 95% of the population is affected by infections. However, it could be demonstrated that practical intelligence tests, which measure one’s understanding of natural herbal medicine, correlate negatively with scores on traditional tests of fluid and crystallized intelligence (Sternberg et al., 2001). In a study with Yup’ik Inuit it was shown that children from urban areas perform better on traditional intelligence tests than children from rural areas (Grigorenko, Meier, Mohatt, Ynez, & Sternberg, 2004). Children from rural areas, where hunting, gathering, and fishing are essential skills, performed better in practical tests with questions referring to objects and activities related to these skills. We must then address the question of to what extent identical processes and structures of intelligence are present in various cultures, and whether traditional tests can be meaningfully applied with other cultures. Sternberg, (2003, 2007) has proposed four possible models of how processes and structures that comprise intelligence and tests to measure intelligence can be viewed. Model I assumes identical processes and structures for all cultures, which consequently can be measured with the same tests. Model II assumes differential processes und structures among all cultures, which can, however, be assessed with the same tests. In Model III the processes and structures are classified as being comparable, they must, however, be assessed with different tests. In Model IV the processes and structures that comprise intelligence as well as the measurement

30

of these constructs are considered to be culturally variable. Sternberg (2007) is certainly correct in asserting that “whatever the advantages and disadvantages of the various models, I am quite sure Model I is inadequate. Yet it is the model most commonly used. A test is created in one culture, say, the United States. Then it is imported into another culture, often differing no more than in the translation of the words from one language to another. This wholesale importation fails to do justice to the cultural diversity we find around the world or even within a single country” (Sternberg, 2007, p. xvi). Cultural differences are not only being neglected with respect to intelligence constructs and measurements. These deficits also contaminate most conceptions of giftedness. The identification, education, and investigation of gifted students have been resolutely molded for decades by viewpoints and perspectives developed and advanced in Europe and the United States. The upshot here is that minorities have had to endure long periods of discrimination with respect to identification and educational measures (Borland & Wright, 2000), and cultural peculiarities in other countries were widely disregarded (Khaleefa, 1999; Zahng & Sternberg, 1998). In contrast to the preceding decades, cultural aspects have been enjoying more attention in recent years. For example, a book on conceptions of giftedness edited by Phillipson & McCann (2007) has been published, which focuses on sociocultural perspectives. It offers an overview of various cultures, their historical backgrounds, conceptions of giftedness, educational programs, and research findings over the course of history. Methodological aspects of cross-cultural research in the area of giftedness research are also relevant topics of current discussions (Campbell, Tirri, Rouhotie, & Walberg, 2004). Hope still remains that more consideration will be accorded to cultural influences in future investigative studies.

H. Stoeger

2003). Although intelligence still played an important role in most subsequent conceptions of giftedness, multi-dimensional conceptions of giftedness did prevail. These consider other personality traits such as motivation, creativity, or wisdom, in addition to intelligence (for an overview, please refer to Heller et al., 2000; Sternberg & Davidson, 2005). While early interest focused on characteristics within the person, consideration of environmental aspects soon followed (for an overview see Davidson, this volume). However, this did originate as a unilateral influence. It was assumed that gifted students who are provided with positive environmental conditions will be better able to exhaust their achievement potential. Newer approaches (Ziegler, 2005) pursue, in comparison, a systemic approach. For example, the Actiotope Model of Giftedness (see Ziegler, 2005; Davidson, this volume) assumes reciprocal exchanges of influence between the individual action components (action repertoire, subjective action space, goals, etc.) and the environment. This system-based perspective will have a great deal of influence on future conceptions of appropriate educational measures for gifted students and should be subjected to closer examination in the future. A system-based perspective would certainly also help to resolve the discord between giftedness and cultural influences. It is widely recognized that conceptions of giftedness are acutely dependent on culture (Hern´andez de Hahn, 2000; Phillipson & McCann, 2007; Moon & Rosselli, 2000; Stone, 2002) and one can also presume that conceptions of giftedness, and associated with them the identification and educational measures, have a joint influence on culture. Although, nowadays most countries have adopted one form of gifted education and research or another (Phillipson & McCann, 2007; Passow, 1993, 2000), in most cases these have been strongly shaped by American and European conceptions of giftedness (Phillipson, 2007). This neglect of cultural aspects has made an effective examination of mutual influences next to Conclusion impossible. In addition to a systemic approach and a deeper understanding of cultural aspects, future research should Giftedness research has a history of more than 100 place more significance on the methodological aspects years. With respect to conceptions of giftedness there have been several important developments through of giftedness research. While the field was groundthe decades. At first giftedness was equated with high breaking at the start of the 20th century, in recent intelligence and research activities focused on theories decades critics have increasingly voiced concern over of intelligence and methods of measuring intelligence the quality of giftedness research (Heller, 1993; Heller (for an overview please refer to Sternberg, 2004; S¨uß, & Schofield, 2000; Ziegler and Raul, 2000). An em-

2

The History of Giftedness Research

pirical clarification of the concept of giftedness would also be welcome. Over the course of the past century, hundreds of definitions and conceptions of giftedness have been introduced, however, only a slight fraction of these have been subjected to adequate empirical examination. One of the great challenges facing future generations of giftedness researchers is to determine which conceptions of giftedness have endurance. Here caution must be exercised to avoid a continued orientation on activities in the United States and Europe, but rather concerted efforts must be made to ensure that suitable models are developed for various cultures and are then empirically examined. In addition to those named above, there are certainly a number of other exciting topics available for future research. It would be interesting to know what new insights and research findings will be filling the pages of a chapter on the history of giftedness research in 100 years.

References Ackerman, P. L. (1987). Individual differences in skill learning: An integration of psychometric and information processing perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 3–27. Ackerman, P. L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: Cognitive abilities and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 288–318. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skills. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406. Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman. Applbaum, M. J. (1961). A special guidance program for gifted underachievers of the tenth grade. The Bulletin, 45, 20–33. Barbe, W. B. (1955). Evaluation of special classes for gifted children. Exceptional Children, 22, 60–62. Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). Sur la n´ecessit´e d’´etablir un diagnostic scientifique des e´ tats inf´erieurs de l’intelligence [Upon the necessity of establishing a scientific diagnosis of inferior states of intelligence]. L’Anne Psychologique, 11, 163–190. Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The intelligence of the feebleminded. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkens. Bishop, W. E. (1975). Characteristics of teachers judged successful by intellectually gifted, high achieving high school students. In W. B. Barbe & J. S. Renzulli (Eds.), Psychology and education of the gifted (pp. 449–459). New York: Irvington. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books. Bongartz, K., Kaisser, U., & Kluge, K. (1985). Die verborgene Kraft: Hochbegabung -Talentierung – Kreativit¨at. [The hidden strength: Giftedness – talent – creativity]. Berichte zur Erziehungstherapie und Eingliederungshilfe, 35, Schriftreihe des EREW Institutes Viesen. M¨unchen, Germany: Minerva.

31 Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (2000). Identifying and educating poor and underrepresented gifted students. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 587–594). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Brix, E. (1988). Mathematik und Begabung [Mathematics and giftedness]. Hamburg, Germany: Kr¨amer. Butler-Por, N. (1993). Underachieving gifted students. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 649–668). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Campbell, J. R. Tirri, K., Rouhotie, P., & Walberg, H. (2004). Cross-cultural research: Basic issues, dilemmas and strategies. Tampere, FL: Hame Polytechnic. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Carter, K. R., & Swanson, H. L. (1990). An analysis of the most frequently cited gifted journal articles since the Marland Report: Implications for research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 116–123. Cattel, J. (1903). A statistical study of eminent men. Popular Science Monthly, 56, 359–377. Ceci, S. J., Ramey, S. L., & Ramey, C. T. (1990). Framing intellectual assessment in terms of a person-process-context model. Educational Psychologist, 25, Special issue: Intelligence and intelligence testing, 269–291. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). The mind’s eyes in chess. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 215–281). New York: Academic Press. Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (1997). Handbook of gifted education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., Croft, L. J., Baldus, C. M., & Ihrig, D. (2003). Young inventors. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook of innovation (pp. 281–292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cox, C. M., (1926).Genetic studies of genius. Vol. II. The early mental traits of the three hundred geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., & Print, M. (2000). Selective Streamed and Mixed-Ability Programs for Gifted Students: Impact on Self-Concept, Motivation, and Achievement. Australian Journal of Education, 44, 51–75. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. London, UK: John Murray. De Groot, A. (1946). Het denken van den schaker [The thinking of chess players]. Amsterdam, NL: Noord-Hollandsche Uit. De Groot, A. (1978). Thought and choice and chess. The Hague, NL: Mouton. DeHaan, R. F., & Havighurst, R. J. (1957). Educating the gifted. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dienstbach, W. M. (1925). Zur F¨orderung der besonders begabten Volkssch¨uler [Fostering extraordinarily gifted students in public schools]. Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Diesterweg. Dixon, F. A., Gentry, M. L., Mathews, D. J., McCoach, D. B., & Worrell, F. C. (2005). Size does matter: To what extent and in what manner have researchers in gifted education reported effect sizes during the last decade? Symposium at the 87th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) in San Francisco, USA.

32 Dixon, F. A., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of secondary gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. D¨orner, D. (1986). Diagnostik der operativen Intelligenz [Diagnosis of operative intelligence]. Diagnostica, 32, 290–308. Drews, E. M. (1957). A four-year study of 150 gifted adolescents. Report presented to the American Psychological Association, December 1957. Printed in Goldberg, M. L. (1958). Recent research on the talented. Teachers College Record, 60, 150–163. Drews, E. M. (1959). The effectiveness of homogeneous and heterogeneous ability grouping in 9thgrade English classes with slow, average, and superior students Washington: Academic Press. Durr, W. K. (1960). Characteristics of gifted children: Ten years of research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 4, 75–79. Ekstrom, R. B. (1961). Experimental studies of homogeneous grouping: A critical review. School Review, 69, 216–226. Elo, A. E. (1978). The rating of chess players, past and present. New York: Arco. Elwell, C. (1958). Acceleration of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 2, 21–23. Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In. K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence – the acquisition of expert performance in the arts and science, sports and games (pp. 1–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ericsson, K. A. (1998). The scientific study of expert levels of performance: General implications for optimal learning and creativity: High Ability Studies, 9, 75–100. Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N. F., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffmann, R. R. (Eds.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A., & Crutcher, R. J. (1990). The nature of exceptional performance. In P. B. Baltes, D. L. Featherman, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (pp. 187–217). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ericsson, K. A., & Delaney, P. (1999). Long-term working memory as an alternative to capacity models of working memory in everyday skilled performance. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 257–297). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. Th., & Tesch-Roemer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptations on task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273–305. Ericsson, K. A., Roring, R. W., & Nandagopal, K. (2007). Giftedness and evidence for reproducibly superior performance: An account based on the expert-performance framework. High Ability Studies, 18, 3–57. Ericsson, K. A., & Staszewski, J. J. (1989). Skilled memory and expertise: Mechanisms of exceptional performance. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processiong: the impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 235–267). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Feger, B. (1988). Hochbegabung: Chancen und Probleme [Gifted: Chances and problems]. Bern, Switzerland: Hans Huber.

H. Stoeger Feger, B. (1991). William Sterns Bedeutung f¨ur die Hochbegabtenforschung [William Stern’s role in giftedness re¨ search]. In W. Deutsch (Ed.), Uber die verborgene Aktualit¨at von William Stern (pp. 93–108). Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Lang. Fels, C. (1999). Identifizierung und F¨orderung Hochbegabter in den Schulen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Identifying and fostering gifted students in Germany]. Stuttgart, Germany: Haupt. Fitts, P., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 29–51. Flynn, J. R. (1998). IQ gains over time: Toward finding the causes. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The rising curve: Long-term gains in IQ and related measures (pp. 25–66). Washington: American Psychological Association. Ford, D. Y., Moore, J. L., & Whiting, G. W. (2006). Eliminating deficit orientations: Creating classrooms and curricula for gifted students from diverse cultural backgrounds. In M. G. Constantine, & W. Derald, (Eds.), Addressing racism: Facilitating cultural competence in mental health and educational settings (pp. 173–193). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & sons. ¨ Freeman, J., & Urban, K. (1983). Uber Probleme des Identifizierens und Etikettierens von hochbegabten Kindern [Problems concerning the identifying and labeling of gifted children]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 30, 67–73. Freeman, J. (2004). Cultural influences on gifted gender achievement. High Ability Studies, 15, 7–23. French, J. L. (Ed.). (1959). Educating the gifted. A book of readings. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Gagn´e, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Re-examination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103–112. Gagn´e, F. (1993). Constructs and models pertaining to exceptional human abilities. In K. A. Heller, F. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 69–87). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Gagn´e, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15, 119–147. Gagn´e, F. (2007). Predictably, an unconvincing second attempt. High Ability Studies, 18, 67–69. Gallagher, J. J. (1988). National agenda for educating gifted students: Statement of priorities. Exceptional Children, 55, 107–114. Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. New York: MacMillan. Galton, F. (1874). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. London, UK: MacMillan. Galton, F. (1883). Inquiry into human faculty and its development. London, UK: MacMillan. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind. The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, M. G. (1962). Cradles of eminence. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: Assessment of typical intelligence engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 537–52.

2

The History of Giftedness Research

Goldberg, M. L. (1959). Recent research on the talented. Teachers College Record, 60, 150–163. Goldberg M. L., & Passow, A. H. (1962). The effects of ability grouping. Education, 82, 482–487. Goldberg, M. L., Passow, A. H., Camm, D. W., & Neill, R. D. (1966). A comparison of mathematics programs for able junior high school students (Project No. S-0381). Washington: Office of Education, Bureau of Research. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. Why it can matter more than IQ. London, UK: Bloomsbury. Gordon, E. W., & Bridglall, B. L. (2005). Nurturing talent in gifted students of color. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness. (pp. 120–146). New York: Cambridge University Press. Gowan, J. C. (1955). The underachieving gifted child – a problem for everyone. Exceptional Children, 21, 247–249. Gowan, J. C. (1957). Dynamics of the underachievement of gifted students. Exceptional Children, 24, 98–101. Grigorenko, E. L., Meier, E., Lipka, J., Mohatt, G., Ynez, E., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Academic and practical intelligence: A case study of the Yup’ik in Alaska. Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 183–207. Grinder, R. E. (1985). The gifted in our midst: By their divine deeds, neuroses, and mental test scores we have known them. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O’Brian (Eds.), The gifted and the talented: Developmental perspective (pp. 5–35). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Grupp, H., Dominguez-Lacasa, I., & Friedrich-Nishio, M. (2002). Das deutsche Innovationssystem seit der Reichsgr¨undung: Indikatoren einer nationalen Wissenschaftsund Technikgeschichte in unterschiedlichen Regierungs- und Gebietsstrukturen [The German innovation system since the foundation of the empire: Indicators of a national history of knowledge and technology in different governmental structures and domains]. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag. Guilford, J. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw Hill. Hall, T. (1956). Gifted children: The Cleveland story. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing Co. Harrington, J., Harrington, C., & Karns, E. (1991). The Marland report: Twenty years later. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 31–43. Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. (1988). Working memory, comprehension and aging: A review and a new view. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 193–225). New York: Academic Press. Hasher, L., Zacks, R., & May, C. (1999). Inhibitory control, circadian arousal, and age. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII (pp. 653–675). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hauck, B. B., & Freehill, M. F. (1972). The gifted – case studies. Dubuque, IA: Brown. Heller, K. A. (1989). Perspectives on the diagnosis of giftedness. German Journal of Psychology, 13, 140–159. Heller, K. A. (1990). Goals, methods and first results from the Munich Longitudinal Study of Giftedness in West Germany. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), Expanding Awareness of Creative Potentials Worldwide (pp. 538–543). New York: Trillium Press. Heller, K. A. (Ed.). (1992). Hochbegabung im Kindes- und Jugendalter. [High ability in childhood and adolescence]. G¨ottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

33 Heller, K. A. (1993). Structural tendencies and issues of research on giftedness and talent. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & H. A. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 49–67). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press. Heller, K. A., & Hany, E. (1986). Identification, development and achievement analysis of talented and gifted children in West Germany. In K. A. Heller & J. Feldhusen (Eds.), Identifying and nurturing the gifted (pp. 67–82). Toronto, Canada: Huber. Heller, K. A., M¨onks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.). (2000). International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Heller, K. A., & Schofield N. (2000). In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 123– 137). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Hern´andez de Hahn, E. L. (2000). Cross-cultural studies in gifted education. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 549–561). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Hildreth, G. H. (1938). Characteristics of young gifted children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 53, 287–311. Hildreth, G. H. (1952). Education of gifted children at Hunter College Elementary School. New York: Harper. Holahan, C. K., Sears, R. R., & Cronbach, L. J. (1995). The gifted group in later maturity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hollingworth, L. S. (1914). Variability as related to sex differences in achievement. A critique. The American Journal of Sociology, 19, 510–530. Hollingworth, L. S. (1916a). Sex Differences in mental tests. Psychological Bulletin, 13, 377–383. Hollingworth, L. S. (1916b). Social devices for impelling women to bare and rear children. The American Journal of Sociology, 22, 19–29. Hollingworth, L. S. (1916c). The vocational aptitudes of women. In H. L. Hollingworth (Ed.), Vocational psychology. New York: Appleton. Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children. Their nature and nurture. New York. Macmillan. Horn, J., & Cattell, R. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253–270. Howe, M. (1982). Biographical evidence and the development of outstanding individuals. American Psychologist, 37, 1071– 1081. Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. E., & Sloboda, J. A. (1998). Innate gifts and talents: Reality or myth? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 399–442. Hoyle, E., & Wilks, J. (1975). Gifted children and their education. London, UK: Department of Education and Science. J¨ager, A. (1982). Mehrmodale Klassifikation von Intelligenzleistungen. Experimentell kontrollierte Weiterentwicklung eines deskriptiven Intelligenzstrukturmodells [Multimodal classification of intelligence performances: Experimentally controlled development of a descriptive model of intelligence structure]. Diagnostica, 28, 195–226. Jenkins, M. D. (1948). The upper limit of ability among American Negroes. Science, 66, 399–401.

34 Jensen, A. (1982). The chronometry of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 255–310). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jolly, J. L. (2005). The women question: An historical overview of the education of gifted girls. In S. K. Johnsen & J. W. Kendrick (Eds.), Teaching and counseling gifted girls (pp. 3–8). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Justman, J. (1953). Personal and social adjustment of intellectually gifted accelerants and non-accelerants in Junior High Schools. School Review, 61, 468–478. Karnes, M. B., & Johnson, L. J. (1991). Gifted handicapped. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 428–437). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Khaleefa, O. (1999). Research on creativity, intelligence and giftedness: The case of the Arab world. Gifted and Talented International, 14, 21–29. Klausmeier, H. J., & Ripple, R. E. (1962). Effects of accelerating bright older pupils from second to fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 93–100. Klein, A. G. (2000). Fitting the school to the child: The mission of Leta Stetter Hollingworth, founder of gifted education. Roeper Review, 23, 97–103. Krogius, N. V. (1976) Psychology in chess. New York: RHM Press. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73–77. Kurtz, J. J., & Svenson, E. J. (1951). Factors related to overachievement and underachievment in school. School Review, 59, 472–480. Kyllonen, P., & Christal, R. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory capacity? Intelligence, 14, 389– 433. Lippa, R., Martin, L., & Friedman, H. (2000). Gender-related individual differences and mortality in the Terman longitudinal study: Is masculinity hazardous to your health? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1560–1570. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioural treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181–1209. Lombroso, C. (1895). The men of genius. London, UK: Scott. Lovell, K., & Shields, J. (1967). Some aspects of a study of the gifted child. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 37, 201–208. Lupart, J. L. (1992). The hidden gifted: Current state of knowledge and future research directions. In F. J. M¨onks & W. A. M. Peters (Eds.), Talent for the future: Social and personality development of gifted children (pp. 177–190). AssenMaastricht, NL: Van Gorcum. Maker, C. J. (1975). Training teachers for the gifted and talented: A comparison of models. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 41–50. Marland, S. P. (1971). Education of the gifted and talented (Vol. 2). Washington: Government Printing Office. Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the congress of the United States by the U. S. Com-

H. Stoeger missioner of Education. Washington: Government Printing Office. Martinson, R. A. (1960). The California study of programs for gifted pupils. Exceptional Children, 26, 339–343. McCall, R., Appelbaum, M. J., & Hogarty, P. (1973). Developmental changes in mental performance. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38, 1–84. M¨onks, F. J. (1963). Beitr¨age zur Begabtenforschung im Kindesund Jugendalter [Contributions to giftedness research in childhood and adolescence]. Archiv f¨ur die gesamte Psychologie, 115, 362–382. M¨onks, F. J. (1981). Entwicklungspsychologische Aspekte der Hochbegabtenforschung [Aspects of developmental psychology in giftedness research]. In W. Wieczerkowski & H. Wagner (Eds.), Das hochbegabte Kind (pp. 38–51). D¨usseldorf, Germany: Schwann. M¨onks, F. J., & Katzko, M. W. (2005). Giftedness and gifted education. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness. (2nd ed., pp. 187–200). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Moon, S. M., & Rosselli, H., C. (2000). Developing gifted programs. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 499–521). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Morgan, H. H. (1952). A psychometric comparison of achieving and non achieving college students of high ability. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16, 292–298. Nelson, J. B., & Cleland, D. L. (1971). The role of the teacher of gifted and creative children. In P. A. Witty (Ed.), Reading for the gifted and creative student. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Neubauer, A. (1995). Intelligenz und Geschwindigkeit der Informationsverarbeitung [Intelligence and speed of information processing]. New York: Springer. Nisbet, J. (1891). The insanity of genius, and the general inequality of human faculty, physiologically considered. London, UK: Ward & Downey. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Turner, D. (2002). Gender differences among elementary school-aged gifted students in achievement, perceptions of ability, and subject preference. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 233–268. Owens, W. A., & Johnson, W. C. (1949). Some measured personality traits of collegiate underachievers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 40, 41–46. Passow, A. H. (1993). National/State policies regarding education of the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 29–48). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Passow, A. H., Goldberg, M., Tannenbaum, A. J., & French, W. (1955). Planning for talented youth. Oxford, UK: Bureau of Publications. Passow, A. H., M¨onks, F., & Heller, K. A. (1993). Research and education of the gifted in the year 2000 and beyond. In K. A. Heller, F. M¨onks, & A. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 883–903). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Pellegrino, J., & Glaser, R. (1979). Cognitive correlates and components in the analysis of individual differences. Intelligence, 3, 187–214.

2

The History of Giftedness Research

Perleth, Ch., Lehwald, G., & Browder, C. S. (1993). Indicators of high ability in young children. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 283–310). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press. Perleth, Ch., Schatz, T., & M¨onks, F.J. (2000). Early indicators of high ability. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 297–316). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Peters, W. A. M., Grager-Loidl, H., & Supplee, P. (2000). Underachievement in gifted children and adolescents: Theory and practice. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Moenks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik, (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 609–621). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Petersen, P. (1916). Der Aufstieg der Begabten [Rise of the gifted]. Leipzig, Germany: Teubner. Phillipson, S. N. (2007). A framework for the study of sociocultural perspectives of giftedness. In S. N. Phillipson & M. McCann (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives (pp. 1–35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Phillipson, S. N., & McCann, M. (2007). Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Plomin, R. (1994). Nature, nurture, and social development. Social Development, 3, 37–53. Pressey, S. L. (1964). Concerning the nature and nurture of genius. In J. L. French (Ed.), Educating the gifted (pp. 11–23). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Wilson. Pyryt, M. C. (1988). The gifted child quarterly as database. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children in Orlando, FL, November 1988. Pyryt M. C. (2005). Quantitative research methods in giftedness research. Symposium at the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children in New Orleans, LA, August 2005. Rahn, H. (1985). Talente finden – Talente f¨ordern [Finding talents – Fostering talents]. G¨ottingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Rahn, H. (1986). Jugend forscht [Youth research]. G¨ottingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Raph, J. B., Goldberg, M. L., & Passow, A. H. (1966). Bright underachievers. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University. Reis, S. M. (2003). Gifted girls, twenty-five years later: Hopes realized and new challenges found. Roeper Review, 25, 154–157. Reis, S. M. (2006). Gender, Adolescence, and Giftedness. In Dixon, F. A., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 87–111). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Developing high potentials for innovation in young people through the school wide enrichment model. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook of innovation (pp. 333–346). New York: Elsevier Science. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (pp. 53–78). Cambridge, UK: University Press.

35 Renzulli, J. S. (2003). The Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness: Its implications for understanding the nature of innovation. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (pp. 79–96). Cambridge, UK: University Press. Ripple, R. E. (1961). A controlled experiment in acceleration from the second to the fourth grade. Gifted Child Quarterly, 5, 119–120. Robinson, H. B. (1979). Early identification and intervention. In. A. H. Passow (Ed.). The gifted and talented: Their education and development (pp. 138–154). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Roe, A. (1952). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd, Mead. Roe, A. (1953). A psychological study of eminent psychologists and anthropologists and a comparison with biological and physical scientists. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 67, 1–55. Rogers, K. B. (1989). A content analysis of the literature on giftedness. Journal of the Education of the Gifted, 13, 78–88. Rost, D. H. (Ed.). (1993). Lebensumweltanalyse hochbegabter Kinder. Das Marburger Hochbegabtenprojekt [Analysis of the environment of gifted children. The Marburg Giftedness Project]. G¨ottingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Rost, D. H. (2000a). Grundlage, Fragestellungen, Methode [Foundations, research questions and method]. In D. H. Rost (Ed.), Hochbegabte und hochleistende Jugendliche. Neue Ergebnisse aus dem Marburger Hochbegabtenprojekt (pp. 1– 91). M¨unster, Germany: Waxmann. Rost, D. H. (2000b). Hochbegabte und hochleistende Jugendliche. Neue Ergebnisse aus dem Marburger Hochbegabtenprojekt [Gifted and high achieving adolescents. New results of the Marburg Giftedness Project]. M¨unster, Germany: Waxmann. Roth, H. (1957). P¨adagogische Psychologie des Lehrens und Lernens [Educational psychology of teaching and learning]. Berlin, Germany: Schroedel. Runco, M. A. (2005). Creative giftdness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 295–311). New York: Cambridge University Press. Samson, G. E., Grane, M. E., Weinstein, T., & Walberg, H. J. (1984). Academic and occupational performance: A quantitative synthesis. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 311–321. Sattler, J. (1988). Assessment of children. San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler Publishers. Scarr S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of environment effects. Child Development, 54, 424–435. Schneider, W. (1993). Domain-specific knowledge and memory performance in children. Educational Psychology Review, 5, 257–273. Schneider, W. (2000). Lebenslanges Lernen aus der Sicht der (kognitiven) Entwicklungspsychologie [Lifelong learning from the perspective of cognitive developmental psychology]. In W. Lempert (Ed.), Lebenslanges Lernen im Beruf – seine Grundlegung im Kindes- und Jugendalter (pp. 76–89). Opladen, Germany: Leske + Budrich. Schneider, W., Bullock, M., & Sodian, B. (1998). Die Entwicklung des Denkens und der Intelligenzunterschiede zwischen Kindern [The development of thinking und intelligence

36 differences among children]. In F. Weinert (Ed.), Entwicklung im Kindesalter (pp. 53–75). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. Scripp, L., & Subotnik, R. F. (2003). Directions for innovation in music education: Integrating conceptions of musical giftedness into general educational practice and enhancing innovation on the part of musically gifted students. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook of innovation (pp. 485–512). New York: Elsevier Science. Seagoe, M. V. (1975). Terman and the gifted. Los Altos, CA: William Kaufman. Sears, P. S. (1979). The Terman studies of genius, 1922–1972. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and talented: Their education and development (pp. 75–96). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Sears, R. R. (1977). Sources of life satisfaction of the Terman gifted men. American Psychologist, 32, 119–128. Sears, R. R. (1984). The Terman Gifted Children Study. In S. A. Mednick, M. Harway, & K. M. Finello (Eds.), Handbook of longitudinal research (Vol. 1). New York: Praeger. Shapiro, B., Palmer, F., Antell, S., Bilker, S., Ross, A., & Capute, A. (1989). Giftedness. Can it be predicted in infancy? Clinical Pediatrics, 28, 205–209. Shavinina, L. V. (2003). The international handbook of innovation. New York: Elsevier Science. Shavinina, L. V. (2006). Micro-social factors in the development of entrepreneurial giftedness: The Case of Richard Branson. High Ability Studies, 17, 225–235. Shaw, M. C., & McCuen, J. T. (1960). The onset of academic underachievement in bright children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 103–108. Silverman, L. K. (1989). It all began with Leta Hollingworth: The story of giftedness in women. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 86–98. Silverman, L. K. (1996). Giftedness and gender in historical context. In K. D. Arnold, K. D. Noble, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 23–48). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Simon, H. A., & Gilmartin, K. (1973). A simulation of memory for chess positions. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 29–46. Simonton, D. K. (2003). Expertise, competence, and creative ability: The perplexing complexities. In. R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The psychology of abilities, competencies, and expertise (pp. 213–238). New York: Cambridge University Press. Simonton, D. K. (2005). Giftedness and genetics: The emergenic-epigenetic model and its implications. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 270–286. Sosniak, L. A. (1985). Learning to be a concert pianist. In B. S. Bloom (Ed.), Developing talent in young people (pp. 19–67). New York: Ballantine Books. Solzbacher, C. (2002). Keine Angst vor klugen Kindern. Geschichte und Hintergr¨unde der Diskussion um Hochbegabung in Deutschland [Don’t be afraid of smart children. History and background of the discussion about giftedness in Germany]. In C. Solzbacher & A. Heinbokel (Eds.), Hochbegabte in der Schule – Identifikation und F¨orderung. M¨unster, Germany: LIT-Verlag. Stanley, J. C. (1976). Study of mathematically precocious youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20, 246–283.

H. Stoeger Stanley, J. C. (1990). A toast October 19, 1989. Roeper Review, 12, 236. Stanley, J. C., & Benbow, C. (1986). Youths who reason exceptionally well mathematically. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (pp. 361–387). New York: Cambridge University Press. Stern, W. (1911). Intelligenzproblem und Schule [Intelligence problem and school]. Leipzig, Germany: Teubner. Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: A componential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sternberg, R.J. (1984). A contextualist view of the nature of intelligence. International Journal of Psychology, 19, 307–334. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The nature of creativity. Contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge: University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1990). What constitutes a ‘Good’ definition of giftedness? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 96–100. Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Procedures for identifying intellectual potential of the gifted: A perspective on alternative “Metaphors of the Mind”. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 185–208). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Handbook of intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity, synthesized. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2004). The international handbook of intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Why a cultural approach to giftedness? In S. N. Phillipson & M. McCann (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives (pp. 15–18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sternberg, R. J., & Berg, C. (1986). Quantitative integration. Definitions of intelligence: A comparison of the 1921 and 1986 symposia. In R. J. Sternberg & D. Detterman (Eds.), What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition (pp. 155–162). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Sternberg, R.J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (2005). Conceptions of giftedness. (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., Nokes, K., Geissler, P. W., Prince, R., Okatcha, F., Bundy, D. A., et al., (2001). The relationship between academic and practical intelligence: A case study in Kenya. Intelligence, 29, 401–418. Sternberg, R. J., Pretz, J. E., & Kaufman, J. C. (2003). In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook of innovation (pp. 158–169). New York: Elsevier Science. Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. (1986). Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world. New York: Cambridge University Press. Stoeger, H. (Ed.). (2004). Gifted females in mathematics, the natural sciences and technology. High Ability Studies, Special Issue, 15, 3–5. Stoeger, H. (2007). Berufskarrieren begabter Frauen [Career paths of gifted women]. In K. A. Heller & A. Ziegler (Eds.), Begabt sein in Deutschland. (pp. 265–293) Berlin, Germany: Logos.

2

The History of Giftedness Research

Stone, K. M. (2002). A cross-cultural comparison of the perceived traits of gifted behavior. Gifted and Talented International, 17, 61–75. Sumption, M. R., & Luecking, E. N. (1960). Education of the gifted. New York: Ronald. S¨uß, H. M. (2003). Intelligenztheorien [Intelligence theories]. In K. D. Kubinger & R. S. J¨ager (Eds.), Schl¨usselbegriffe der Psychologischen Diagnostik [Key concepts of psychological diagnostics] (pp. 217–223). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. S¨uß, H. M., Oberauer, K., Wittmann, W., Wilhelm, O., & Schulze, R. (2002). Working-memory capacity explains reasoning ability – and a little bit more.Intelligence, 30, 261–288. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Giftedness: A psychosocial approach. In R. J. Sterberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (pp. 21–52). New York: Cambridge University Press. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1993). History of Giftedness and “Gifted Education” in World Perspective. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook for research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 3–28). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Tannenbaum, A. J. (2000). A history of giftedness in school and society. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 23–53). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Taylor, L. C., Clayton, J. D., & Rowley, S. J. (2004). Academic socialization: Understanding parental influences on children’s school related development in the early years. Review of general psychology, 8, 163–178. Terman L. M., & Miles, C. C. (1936). Sex and personality: Studies in masculinity and femininity. New York: McGraw-Hill. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. (1947). Genetic studies of genius. Vol IV: The gifted child grows up. Twenty-five years followup of a superior group. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. (1959). Genetic studies of genius. Vol V: The gifted group at mid-life, thirtyfive years followup of the superior child. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Thompson, L. J. (1971). Language disabilities in men of eminence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4(1), 34–45. Thompson, L., & Plomin, R. (1993). Genetic influence on cognitive ability. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 103–113). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Thompson, L., & Plomin, R. (2000). Genetic tools for exploring individual differences in intelligence. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 141–267). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Thurstone, L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Uhlinger, C. A., & Stephens, M. A. (1960). Relation of achievement motivation to academic achievement in students of superior ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 259–266. Urban, K. K. (1981). Zur Geschichte der Hochbegabtenforschung [History of giftedness research]. In W. Wieczerkowski & H. Wagner (Eds.), Das hochbegabte Kind (pp. 15–37). D¨usseldorf, Germany: Schwann.

37 Urban, K. K.(1982). Vom Genie zu den Hochbegabten [From the genius to the gifted]. In K. K. Urban (Ed.), Hochbegabte Kinder: Psychologische, p¨adagogische, psychatrische und soziale Aspekte (pp. 17–31). Heidelberg, Germany: Schindele. Urban, K. K. (2004). Hochbegabung und St¨orungen der sozialen und emotionalen Entwicklung [Giftedness and disturbances in the social and emotional development]. In B. Gasteiger Klicpera, & H. Julius (Eds.), F¨orderschwerpunkt soziale und emotionale Entwicklung (pp. 112–134). G¨ottingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Urban, K. K., & Sekowski, A. (1993). Programs and practices for identifying and nurturing giftedness and talent in Europe. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 779–808). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A. X., Quek, C., & Struck, (2004). A study of educators’ and students’ perceptions of academic success for underrepresented populations identified for gifted programs. Psychology Science, 46, Special issue: Identification of gifted students, 363–378. Vaughn, V. L., Feldhusen, J. F., & Asher, J. W. (1991). Meatanalyses and review of research on pull-out programs in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 92–98. Vernon, P. (1987). Speed of information processing and general intelligence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Vialle, W. J. (1993). Current theories in intelligence and the practice of gifted education. Gifted Education International, 77, 11–14. Wall, B. D. (1960a). Highly intelligent children Part I: The psychology of the gifted. Educational Research, 2, 101–110. Wall, B. D. (1960b). Highly intelligent children Part II: The psychology of the gifted. Educational Research, 2, 207–217. Wasserman, J. D. (2007). The Flynn effect in gifted samples: Status as of 2007. Unpublished manuscript available online at http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/Whats New/Flynn.htm. Wechsler, D. (1939). The measurement of adult intelligence. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins. Whitmore, J. R. (1981). Gifted children with handicapping conditions: A new frontier. Exceptional Children, 48, 106–114. Willerman, L., & Fiedler, M. (1974). Infant performance and intellectual precocity. Child Development, 45, 483–486. Wilson, F. T. (1953). Some special ability test scores of gifted children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 32, 59–68. Wuttke, A. (1900). Der deutsche Volksaberglaube der Gegenwart. [The German superstition of the present] Berlin, Germany: Wiegandt & Grieben. Yewchuk, C. & Lupart, J. (1993). Gifted handicappes: A desultory duality. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 709–725). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Yoder, G. (1894). A study of the boyhood of great men. Pedagogical Seminary, 3, 134–152. Zahng, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). The pentagonal implicit theory of giftedness revisited: A cross-validation in Hon Kong. Roeper Review, 22, 149–153. Zettel, J. J. (1979). Gifted and talented education over a halfdecade of change. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 3, 14–37.

38 Ziegler, A. (2005). The Actiotope model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness. (pp. 411–436). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A., & Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 3–21). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Ziegler, A., & Perleth, C. (1997). Schafft es Sisyphos, den Stein den Berg hinaufzurollen? Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme der Diagnose- und F¨orderm¨oglichkeiten von Begabten in der beruflichen Erstaus- und Weiterbildung vor dem Hintergrund

H. Stoeger des M¨unchner Begabungsmodells [Will Sisyphos be able to roll the stone up the mountain? A critical examination of the status of diagnosis and fostering opportunities of the gifted in occupational training set against the Munich Talent Model]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 44, 152–163. Ziegler, A., & Raul T. D. (2000). A review of empirical studies on giftedness. High Ability Studies, 10, 113–137. Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (2007). The Germanic view of giftedness. In N. S. Phillipson & M. McCann (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives (65–98). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

Chapter 3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness David Yun Dai

Abstract The concept of giftedness has a unique history and its meanings need to be deciphered in a proper cultural context. In this chapter, I first discuss “giftedness” as used in natural language as well as scientific discourse. I then provide an overview of the intellectual history of the concept in terms of construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of “giftedness,” a change from what can be called essentialism to developmentalism. I argue that there are some essential tensions surrounding the concept of giftedness; they involve competing arguments and perspectives on the genesis and development of gifted behaviors and superior achievements. I then elaborate on these tensions and discuss possible ways of resolving and easing these tensions. I end the chapter by suggesting a dialogue between people of differing convictions that would allow us to delve deeper into the intricacies of the issues involved, and reach some degree of consensus as to the conceptual and empirical challenges we are facing. Keywords Giftedness and exceptional performance/ competence · Intelligence · Motivation · Talents and talent development · Expertise · Creativity · Nomothetic versus idiographic approaches · Reductionism versus emergentism Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold. . . (Borland, 2003, p. 105, quoting Yeats) Within the group, some individuals may be more traditionalistic, others more iconoclastic, and their contributions may differ accordingly. (Kuhn, 1977, pp. 227–228)

D.Y. Dai (B) State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction In a Dell computer catalog published in August 2006, a new model “prodigy” was presented prominently on the cover. Indeed, the advertiser claimed that it is “gifted.” Regardless of whether a computer model can be “truly gifted,” it reveals a cultural significance of the concept: Giftedness, at least in the Western world, is a commodity that sells well. By claiming that a computer model is gifted, it conveys an unwavering faith in its superiority over other brands or models. The same can be said about a gifted person. Sternberg (1995) summarized people’s intuitions or folk beliefs about what makes an individual “gifted” with a pentagonal implicit theory of giftedness. According to this theory, in order to be judged as gifted, a person needs to meet five criteria: (1) The Excellence Criterion, which states that “the individual is superior in some dimension or set of dimensions relative to peers” (2) The Rarity Criterion, which states that “an individual must possess a high level of an attribute that is rare relative to peers” (3) The Productivity Criterion, which states that “the dimension(s) along which the individual is evaluated as superior must lead to or potentially lead to productivity” (4) The Demonstrability Criterion, which states that “superiority of the individual on the dimension(s) which determine ‘giftedness’ must be demonstrable through one or more tests that are valid assessment” (5) The Value Criterion, which states that “the person must show superior performance in a dimension that is valued for that person by his or her society” (Sternberg, 1995, pp. 66–68)

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 3, 

39

40

If we interpret “test” broadly enough to include any task performance or manifest behavior, and “dimension” to include authentic domains of human activities as well as psychological constructs such as intelligence or creativity, this list of criteria appears to serve us well regarding whether the “gifted” label is warranted for the observed performance and the person who delivers the performance. In actuality, however, these criteria only nominally solve the problem of how “giftedness” is implicitly determined in our natural language. For example, even in scholarly discussion and educational practice, the term is used in somewhat arbitrary ways (see Hertzog, this volume). A notable practice is that different meanings are intended for the term: It can refer to either psychometrically defined abilities or academic achievement (Gallagher & Courtright, 1986); superior potential is implied when used to describe a child, and superior, eminent accomplishments when used to describe an adult (Mayer, 2005). However, do these two qualities necessarily implicate each other? To the extent that they have different underpinnings, the concept “gifted” lacks unity and identity in its referents and meanings, which makes intelligible and intelligent discourse on the nature of giftedness difficult. What further complicates the matter is the valueladen nature of the term: “gifted” is often preserved for superior performance in domains that enjoy cultural distinction and importance, be it IQ test scores or special talents of cultural value. Theoretically, a gifted burglar or computer hacker is perfectly conceivable (and probably constitutes an interesting gifted phenomenon in its own right; see Heinzen, this volume), but people rarely include them in the public discourse on giftedness. Thus, to promote giftedness is to promote a human value with respect to its instrumental or intrinsic importance, and this is behind the gifted education movement. There is a scientific turn in this endeavor: What we try to promote should be constrained by our knowledge through systematic, rigorous inquiry. Thus, the public discourse on giftedness has been historically shaped by multiple stakeholders with vested interests of the scientific, ethical, social-political, and pragmatic nature. This is a mixed blessing for the field. On the positive side, the field enjoys its cultural importance and practical significance, as the knowledge it produces has important policy and strategic implications and practical utilities. On the negative side, the discourse has become very murky to the point

D.Y. Dai

of compromising its own credibility as a source of veridical knowledge. Human language itself has contributed to the problem of communication. The term “gifted” can be used descriptively and explanatorily, and these two modes of expression have different meanings. Descriptive use of the term remains empirical; for example, “he is a gifted musician” can be just an observation, equivalent to saying that “he performed extremely well.” Explanatory use of the term, in contrast, implies a causal relationship; thus, “he is a gifted musician” may imply that he possesses a musical talent that leads to the excellent performance. The latter use involves some level of inference and abstraction beyond the observable. Interestingly, many adjectives suffer from the fate of reification. Thus, “intelligent” gradually gets hardened into “intelligence,” and “gifted” into “giftedness”; the descriptive becomes implicitly explanatory. Indeed, some scholars in the field call for an explicit use of the term as explanatory, with “gifted” referring to “natural abilities” and “talent” to systematically developed skills and competencies (e.g., Gagn´e, 2004, this volume). The ambiguities involved in the descriptive versus explanatory use of the term in our natural language cause much confusion. This is largely due to the fact that the word “gifted” is loaded with varied intended and unintended meanings (Robinson, 2005), and what is intended and what is not intended in a specific context is not always well articulated. It is easy to relapse from a reasoned argument into a leap of faith in our communication. Moreover, the use of giftedness as a causal agent (e.g., the phrase “because of one’s giftedness”) can be criticized as making a circular or tautological argument: To say that one’s giftedness gives rise to her gifted performance is just like saying that someone behaves aggressively because the person is aggressive or possesses aggression; no further insight can be gained about the aggressor (or the gifted). From a scientific point of view, the descriptive versus explanatory use of the term “gifted” translates into empirical and theoretical questions. Empirically, how do we know that a person is gifted? Which form of assessment is more valid and effective: formal testing or authentic tasks? Should we rely on statistics derived from standardized tests or more up-close clinical judgments? What are the most effective ways of investigating gifted phenomena: psychometric mapping of traits in the population or tracing unique individual history? Theoretically, how do we explicate the origins and

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

41

ontogeny of gifted behavior or performance? Should we see relevant phenomena as fundamentally reducible to a set of simple elements or as revealing a form of organized complexity that cannot be explained by simpler elements in isolation? Historically, three core dimensions have been used to define the substantive nature of giftedness, each constituting a broad, abstract concept itself, a latent construct that can be further scrutinized in terms of social and psychological underpinnings: intelligence, motivation, and creativity (see Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998). The order of these dimensions is not arbitrary. Intelligence (human abilities), psychometrically or otherwise defined, is arguably the most stable of the three, having more transferability in terms of enabling acquisition of new knowledge and skills (Messick, 1992). Motivation is considered more fluctuating and situational, depending on personal experiences and history as well as social contexts (Dai, Moon, & Feldhusen, 1998), though longitudinal stability of motivational patterns was also found (e.g., Gottfried, Gottfried, Cook, & Morris, 2005). Lastly, creativity takes a longer developmental trajectory to develop and likely integrates intelligence, motivation, and personality factors, and therefore the least stable and predictable of the three (Renzulli, 1986). The three concepts share a common characteristic with the concept of giftedness: they can refer to either potential (propensity or aptitude) or actual behavioral manifestation. However, the three-construct scheme is still a highly simplified roadmap to understanding giftedness, a first approximation. For the purpose of discussion, I follow the widely accepted convention of defining “gifted” as demonstrated excellence by age-appropriate standards, through authentic, exceptional performance or potential for excellence, demonstrated through aptitude tests, interviews, and clinical observations of behavior and performance (e.g., Marland, 1972; Mayer, 2005).

correction (including over-correction), to come back to a better sense of reality through negating, counterarguments, and resolution of conflicts of ideas. A concept tends to evolve in this way due to its internal tension, its failure to capture important aspects of what we sense as “truth” or “reality.” While this internal tension is essential, various historical circumstances influence the trajectory and timing of its changes. Therefore, by discussing construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of giftedness as a logically sequential event, I by no means imply that they happened in an exact chronological order and linear fashion, as they are actually intertwined and mutually stimulating events. As in the case of a volcano, the tension is always there; however, when it reaches the point of eruption depends on many circumstantial factors that crack the structural and functional stability of the system. By structuring these events in these three phases, I try to elucidate the larger context or zeitgeist, the underlying motivations, biases, and logic that seem coherent in (a) the construction of core values and beliefs concerning the concept of “giftedness,” (b) the deconstruction of this core, and (c) the reconstruction of new core values and belief systems around it.

Giftedness Constructed: Lewis Terman’s Legacy of Essentialism

Lewis Terman (1877–1956) was a man of his time, for better or for worse. Galton (1869) envisioned a society or nation where a more distinct role be conferred upon the intellectually superior to preserve its greatness. Inspired by Galton, among others, Terman launched the first large-scale study of gifted youths by introducing massive intelligence testing as a major tool for identifying the intellectually gifted. What characterizes Terman’s time is the following convictions and motivations, which Terman (1925) held for identifying the Construction, Deconstruction, and gifted: Reconstruction of Giftedness: A (1) Intelligence is a general human quality, and it Dialectical Evolution of a Concept is largely genetically determined. This is a Galtonian doctrine with connotations of Darwinism: Intelligence The intellectual history of a concept has its own logic. is a heritable biological trait through natural selection. It evolves and changes through human reflective con- Note that in Terman’s time, the memory of Gregor sciousness, sometimes conscience, as an adaptation to Mendel’s discovery of genetic inheritance in pea plants new conditions and demands (Toulmin, 1972). I use the was still fresh, further reinforcing this Galtonian conterm “dialectical” to denote a human tendency for self- viction.

42

(2) A hierarchy of intellectually superior, mediocre, inferior people can be established in the society. Herbert Spencer’s social Darwinism provided justification for the social strata or hierarchy during that historical period in the United States. A moral imperative, shared by Terman and many of his contemporaries, was to “better” the human race, eugenics being part of the solution. While Charles Goddard was working at the low end- how to reduce the negative effects of “the feebleminded” who could not tell right from wrong, Terman mainly worked on the high end, identifying and understanding the gifted (see Hall, 2003). (3) Intelligence as a general personal quality can be measured objectively with the newly invented intelligence test. Terman believed that, with the birth of the first intelligence test created by French psychologists Binet and Simon, the measurement technology was advanced enough to gauge levels and amounts of this essential quality. The gifted can be defined as top one percent of the population (roughly at or above IQ score of 140), as measured by the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale, a modified version of Binet and Simon’s test. It is almost bewildering in historical hindsight as to why Terman and his contemporaries had such confidence in testing and measuring such a complex, abstract human quality. Indeed, they did not even have an elaborated theory of intellectual performance and intelligence, besides its practical importance and potential applications. However, consider the confidence of Charles Spearman (1904) when he entitled his now classic article “ ‘General Intelligence,’ Objectively Determined and Measured” (p. 201). The spell of British empiricism in the American culture should not be underestimated. It entails a minimalist (and often reductionistic) assumption of how the real world operates (e.g., a deterministic world view, including how intellectual performance is determined), availability of effective measurement, and efficient mathematical maneuvering of data to find discernable patterns, all started by Galton. The faith in quantitative measurement at the time (even today) is illustrated best by Thorndike’s famous quote: “Whatever exists at all exists in some amount” (quoted in Mayer, 2003, p. 141). Underlying this conviction was the need for control in a Foucaultian sense, for good or ill, with measurement as its technology. It is not accidental that Binet had less intellectual impact on the thinking of Terman and Goddard, among their American contemporaries, other than contributing a

D.Y. Dai

crucial empirical tool: an intelligence test. Binet, a more nuanced Continental psychologist, was more intrigued by “idiographic complexity” (Brody, 2000, p. 19) of individual performance than mathematical certainty of the normal distribution of human traits like intelligence, which was the obsession of Spearman. Terman started what might be called an essentialist or realist tradition of defining and explaining gifted potential. Essentialism assumes that there is a unique essence or quality under any manifestation of behaviors seen as “gifted” or within a person so labeled. Intelligence is seen as a trait, a structural, enduring quality of the person; thus high-IQ children are seen as possessing this unique quality that sets them apart from their peers. In its most reductionistic form, giftedness is seen as a natural endowment and neurological advantage (see Geake, this volume). An indication of the movement toward an essentialist construal of giftedness is the change from use of the term as an adjective to as a noun; namely, the term “giftedness” started to hold an explanatory power. This is why Gagn´e (1999, 2004, this volume) insists that the term giftedness be differentiated from the term talent because such a causal structure and ordering of gifts and talents is important for an essentialist theory. Although there are many variations, the basic assumption of the essentialism is a unitary core of natural endowment that renders a handful of individuals “gifted,” and this essence has profound ramifications for their individuality, such as different levels of capacity, different ways of thinking, different social–emotional characteristics, different educational needs, and different developmental trajectories and pathways. The basic essentialist developmental model is how high level of “raw” intelligence or high abilities get “translated” through experience and efforts into specific forms of talent, competence, and expertise in some valued human activities.

Giftedness Deconstructed: Social and Scientific Disenchantment Even in his heyday, Terman’s advocacy for massive intelligence testing and for identifying gifted children was not going uncontested. In an early nature–nurture debate, many people voiced concerns that IQ testing threatened democracy and diminished the role of education (see Feldhusen, 2003 for a historical account).

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

Lippmann was among the early voices of criticism on intelligence testing; he questioned the scientific validity of IQ tests and consequently ethical implications of making IQ tests “a sort of last judgment of the child’s capacity” (Lippmann, 1976, p. 19; see Block & Dworkin, 1976, for the Terman versus Lippmann debate in 1920s). These voices were a prelude to contemporary criticisms of the gifted movement. More direct criticism of using IQ scores as a benchmark of giftedness was made by Getzels and Jackson (1965), who argued that highly creative children would be excluded when IQ was used as a main criterion for identification. However, they only attempted to modify the identification process and criteria, rather than rock the foundation of gifted education. There have been two movements that truly challenge the essentialist conceptions of giftedness. One was launched by social critics and the other by expertise researchers. Social critique of giftedness largely occurs in the context of gifted education in the United States. The very fact that identification of the gifted was associated with an implicit or explicit social stratification based on IQ reinforced the suspicion that the gifted education movement is a remnant of social elitism. Namely, what were identified as “gifted children” were actually a socially privileged class of children, thus perpetuating the preexisting social inequality (Margolin, 1994, 1996). Persistent efforts to deconstruct the concept of giftedness have been made by Borland (1997; 2003, 2005), largely from a social constructivist perspective. Borland’s main argument is that giftedness is conferred, rather than discovered: we invented it to serve a social purpose rather than discover it as an objective reality (Borland, 2003). From this point of view, Borland (2003) puts essentialist conceptions of giftedness into question:

43

late from this line of thinking that the fiction of general intelligence, the psychometric tests, even factor analytic tools, all conspired to maintain a certain kind of social order. By the same token, the gifted–non-gifted comparison research paradigm helps further perpetuate the bifurcation of the gifted and the non-gifted as two qualitatively different subpopulations. As if to prove Foucault’s point, there has been an undercurrent to break the hegemony of the public discourse on intelligence enjoyed by psychometricians. The most prominent examples are Gardner and Sternberg’s theories. Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences has, for good or ill, successfully pluralized the concept of intelligence. Sternberg (1996) not only differentiates analytic, creative, and practical intelligences, but also has shown that the concepts of intelligence and giftedness, which are often considered universal human qualities, are fundamentally culture bound, reflecting cultural values and belief systems (Sternberg, 2000, 2007). Thus, successful intelligence in different cultures may entail different kinds of human adaptation. Gardner and Sternberg’s theories have profoundly changed the way giftedness is conceptualized. But more importantly, their theoretical ideas have in effect promoted a more pluralistic value and a more liberal social order (e.g., compared to the conservative position expressed by Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). In addition to the support of new intelligence theories, the social constructivist critique of essentialist conceptions of giftedness also found an unexpected ally from the experimental tradition of cognitive psychology, which sees the world quiet differently than differential psychology (Cronbach, 1957). When dealing with issues of alleged gifts and talents, cognitive psychology is mainly concerned with the scientific validity of the claims regarding the existence and importance of native intelligence and natural talents. When “Are these two groups—the gifted and the rest—the disTerman defined the gifted as top 1% of the IQ districrete, discontinuous, structured wholes this crude taxonbution, there was no scientific justification as to why it omy implies? That is, is giftedness really its own thing, qualitatively different and apart from averageness or norcould not be top 3 or 10%. Thus, such a practice is of mality, making those who possess it markedly different, mere pragmatic consideration, rather than due to scidifferent in kind, from the rest of humanity?” (p. 111). entific necessity. Grinder (1985), among many scholIn short, Borland argued that the way we define gift- ars, argued that “[t]he psychology of individual differedness as an essential quality that sets some children ences in intellect, to the extent that its methodology has apart from the rest is scientifically unwarranted, and been dominated by mental tests, never was elevated to practically harmful (particularly for minority, under- the status of a science” (p. 27). While a few psychoprivileged students). Borland further resorted to Fou- metrically oriented researchers have attempted to decault’s argument that knowledge is not neutral but a velop a process account of individual differences in form of the technology of control. One might extrapo- intellectual performance by integrating psychometric

44

and experimental approaches (Hunt, 2006; see also Gustafsson & Undheim, 1996), cognitive researchers have attempted to show that essentialist beliefs about native intelligence and natural talents have no scientific basis (Ericsson et al., 2005, 2007; Howe, 1997; Howe, Davidson, & Sloboda, 1998), and that what used to be attributed to natural talent can now be explained more adequately as a result of years of domain experience and deliberate practice (Ericsson, 2006). These researchers look at contextual experiences for alternative explanations for exceptional competence (e.g., Ceci & Liker, 1986). Although evidence seems to cut both ways, they trust proximal variables (those that link to performance more directly) than distal variables, such as genetic differences. They are eager to outlaw the concept of natural ability or natural talent, very much like trying to dispel a superstition from the scientific parlance. The crisis is also brewing from within. Close scrutiny of the intelligence tests raises serious questions about the essentialist definition of giftedness. Stephen Jay Gould, a renowned biologist, joined the ranks of deconstructivists with his book entitled The Mismeasure of Man (1981). He particularly pointed out the gap between a measured quantity (IQ scores) and the theoretical construct “intelligence” the test is purported to measure. He argued that the whole enterprise of measuring human intelligence as a normative trait committed the error of reification. Intelligence seems to be too broad, abstract, and elusive a concept to be amenable to psychometric testing. At the face value, standard intelligence tests provide a composite score by sampling a variety of task performance (mostly an academic kind). This is an empirical approach to test development deliberately used by Binet to represent a wide variety of task conditions for the sake of enhancing its practical utility in educational settings. However, precisely because of the empirical approach, there is a level of arbitrariness as to what to include in such a test; in other words, the measurement is atheoretical. The paradox is that the broader range of tasks a test covers, the better its predictive power across situations (Gustafsson & Undheim, 1996), but the less psychologically meaningful the test becomes (Lohman & Rocklin, 1995). Other stories also came out of closet. The traditional IQ definition of “giftedness” is predicated on the assumption that IQ tests measure natural aptitude apart from achievement, and its correlation with achieve-

D.Y. Dai

ment reflects a cause–effect relationship. Now this assumption has been challenged (e.g., Lohman, 2006; Sternberg, 1999a). Theoretically, only by holding two persons’ experiences constant can one infer differing “natural aptitude” in a specific learning or performance context. Mental testing simply does not afford such a stringent controlled condition. New evidence shows that with low socio-economic samples, the heritability estimate of IQ was zero and the variation of IQ was largely due to environmental factors; the opposite was the case for high SES samples (Turkheimer, Haley, Waldron, D’Onofrio, & Gottesman, 2003). While the finding begs the question of whether SES variations contain a genetic component, the study does raise the issue of differential meanings of IQ scores at different levels of SES. Sternberg (1999a) argued that no causal priority can be established for intelligence measures over achievement measures. Abilities measured by intelligence tests are forms of developing expertise, subject to environmental influences, including education (Ceci & Williams, 1997). Such an argument blurs the traditional line between aptitude and achievement, a distinction crucial for an essentialist view of giftedness (Gagn´e, 2004, this volume). There is also emergent evidence that psychometrically defined intelligence is more differentiated at the high end of the spectrum (Hunt, 2006); that is, at the high end of the IQ distribution (i.e., those with gifted IQs), there are more discrepancies between subtest scores. Thus, two persons with the same high IQ scores have, more often than not, different cognitive profiles. One may still see them as equally “gifted” but it means different things to each person, another uncertainty to be reckoned with. Other problems with equating high IQ and giftedness include instrument dependency, stability of high IQ (e.g., the issue of regression to the mean; see Lohman & Korb, 2006), and different developmental schedules, such as early versus late bloomers. What appears to be objectively measured “natural abilities” turns out to depend on many factors, genetic, developmental, environmental, and technical (e.g., instrument dependency). Deconstruction of giftedness is in a sense to demystify the process of how “giftedness” is constructed, even how we created a fiction that came to be accepted over time as a reality in a Foucaultian fashion. On a positive note, deconstruction is a force of anti-reification and anti-essentialism. It has a potentially constructive impact on how we understand gift-

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

45

edness by forcing us to examine our deeply held, often taken-for-granted assumptions. It alerts us to a reality that is more complex and uncertain than we believe. It removes the guise of objective truth regarding intelligence, giftedness, and talent, and reveals possible subjectivity, biases, arbitrariness, even hidden social motivations involved in the construction of these “psychological realities.” In its radical form, however, deconstruction and anti-essentialism, represented by Foucault and Derrida, can also border on nihilism and cynicism: All forms of knowledge are nothing but devices of social control, of gaining economic advantages, or simply a language game. From this extreme point of view, the rationality of scientific endeavor is simply an illusion (see Phillips & Burbules, 2000). The temptation toward this direction should be resisted, in my opinion. On the other front, cognitive science has introduced a new level of rigor and a new set of criteria for judging claims about giftedness that are often based on intuitions and implicit assumptions, rather than solid scientific research and evidence. However, scientific adjudication of a possible role of genetically based individual differences for gifted behavior and performance (or the lack of thereof), when pushed to the extreme, can run the risk of radical positivism and environmentalism. After all, a cognitive science approach to giftedness, expertise, and creativity (e.g., Langley, Simon, Bradshaw, & Zytkow, 1987) has its own conceptual and methodological biases (e.g., a mechanical outlook on human functioning, emphasizing “computability,” the “reproducible,” and the “observable”; Ericsson et al., 2007). The challenge is clearly not to throw away evidence regarding individual differences accumulated by psychometric researchers in the past century, but to understand the discrepancies in the findings of different research traditions and theoretical persuasions (psychometric, cognitive, developmental, etc.), and how these discrepancies might be explained, even resolved, in light of the totality of evidence.

by many contemporary students of intelligence in general and giftedness in particular. For example, (1) Many scholars still believe that intelligence is a general, stable quality that has pervasive impact on one’s success in life (Gottfredson, 1997; cf. Neisser et al., 1996), although they may not accept the proposition that it is genetically determined, or that there is a distinct racial hierarchy regarding intelligence. (2) Many scholars still believe that IQ tests, despite their fallibility, provide the best measures around of this essential human quality, and high IQ is a good indicator of intellectual giftedness, predictive of long-term development and achievement (e.g., Gagn´e, 2004; Gallagher, 2000; Lubinski, 2004; Robinson, 2005), though they may differ in terms of whether a more conservative or liberal cutoffs should be used in identification of the gifted. (3) Many scholars still believe, along with Terman, that high intelligence is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for ultimate adult achievement and eminence; non-intellective and environmental catalysts play an important role (e.g., Gagn´e, 2004; Lubinski, 2004). However, dissatisfaction with the rigidity of IQbased definition of giftedness and the central doctrines of essentialism has also led people to search for alternative ways of thinking about giftedness. Back in the mid-20th century, Witty (1958) argued for a more inclusive definition of giftedness: “There are children whose outstanding potentialities in art, in writing, or in social leadership can be recognized largely by their performance. Hence, we have recommended that the definition of giftedness be expanded and that we consider any child gifted whose performance, in a potentially valuable line of human activity, is consistently remarkable (p. 62)”

In this new definition, not only were domains broadened to include artistic and social endeavors, but criteria for determining giftedness also shifted from test performance to authentic tasks (see also DeHaan, & Havighurst, 1957). Historical linkage is discernable between Witty’s definition and that offered by Marland’s (1972) report, which provided the first “offiGiftedness Reconstructed: From cial” definition of giftedness. Interestingly, the motivaEssentialism to Developmentalism tions driving this new approach to giftedness are pragmatic in nature. First, there was an increasing realizaTerman’s influence is still palpable today in terms of tion that “the gifted and talented come in a tremendous how we understand giftedness. Some of the basic es- variety of shapes, forms, and sizes” (Passow, 1981, p. sentialist tenets of Terman’s legacy are still accepted 8). Such diversity and heterogeneity simply defies the

46

Procrustean bed of IQ tests. Second, intelligence tests as selection/placement tools have little to say about how instruction can be differentiated for a selected group of children (Lohman & Rocklin, 1995). It can be argued that two pragmatic movements in educating the gifted prompted the reconstruction of giftedness. The first was the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) at Johns Hopkins University and subsequently the Talent Search model across the United States (Stanley, 1996; Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). A fortuitous event of trying to meet educational needs of a mathematically precocious child by a professor (Julian Stanley) eventually led to the establishment of the SMPY in 1971, and has proved to have historical importance in understanding and serving gifted children. This model bypassed the IQ criterion altogether and defined giftedness in terms of precocity, based on “out-of-level” testing, in an authentic domain of cultural importance. Epistemological and methodological significance lies in the fact that it starts with a genuine gifted phenomenon rather than a generalized assumption about giftedness based on IQ test performance. Years later, Keating, quoted by Stanley (1996), reflected on what SMPY brought to the field:

D.Y. Dai “Identification of the gifted and talented is related not only to systematic observation of and intelligent interpretation of observational data, but to the creation of the right kinds of opportunities which facilitate self-identification—identification by performance and product which results in the manifestation of gifted or talented behaviors.” (Passow, 1981, pp. 10)

The pragmatic concern over how to effectively identify gifted children for proper educational interventions has led to new understandings of giftedness as a dynamic rather than static phenomenon, as a functional state rather than a trait. In the same vein, Renzulli (1986) argued that “gifted behaviors take place in certain people (not all people), at certain times (not all the time), and under certain circumstances (not all circumstances)” (p. 76). Contrary to the standard image of high intelligence translated into real-life excellence or giftedness translated into talent, these efforts were charting a new way of defining giftedness as a more dynamic, contextual quality. In effect, this new approach to giftedness as an emergent, relational, changing property of person–environment interaction that grows and becomes more differentiated over time signals what can be called a developmentalist view of giftedness. However, as should be expected, the pragmatic approaches often fell short of articulating in depth what develop“[O]ne of the important principles advanced (in theory, mental changes occur and how they occur. After reresearch, and practice) by SMPY is a workable model of educating for individual development, as opposed to catviewing various proposed definitions, Siegler and Koegorically placement approaches that dominate most of tovsky (1986) suggested that an optimal approach to contemporary education. I think this is a potentially gentheory and research on giftedness is not to take a psyeralizable way of dealing with developmental diversity.” chometric, trait approach, but to focus on the develop(p. 232; see also Keating, in press) mental processes in an authentic performance context; The second movement was the development of enrich- that is, studying giftedness in the making. ment models for gifted education by Renzulli (1977) It was not until late 1980s and early 1990s that a sigand Passow (1981), among others. Just as the Talent nificant body of developmental research has accumuSearch model is an implicitly developmental model, lated to provide a solid foundation for explicit develRenzulli’s (1977) “triad model” also treats “giftedness” opmental conceptions of giftedness (e.g., Bloom, 1985; as a dynamic state: several qualities need to come to- Bamberger, 1986; Feldman, 1986; Gruber, 1981, 1986; gether to create a mesh. In his three-ring conception Lubinski & Benbow, 1992). There was a surge of talof giftedness, while high abilities are stable individ- ent development models in the same period (Feldual differences, task commitment and creativity are husen, 1992; Gagn´e, 1985; M¨onks & Mason, 1993; Pilargely developmental tasks and goals that education irto, 1994; Renzulli, 1994; Feldman, 1992). In general, should facilitate in children, rather than well-formed most developmentalists see giftedness not as a static traits prior to educational provision. By the same to- quality in the head but as a result of the confluence ken, Passow also challenged the standard two-step, of several forces, endogenous and exogenous, coming identification-differentiation approach. Instead, he sug- together in the right place at the right time. For exgested that prescribed enrichment be used as a vehicle ample, Simonton (1999, 2005) delineates a complex for identification as much as identification informs en- emergenic–epigenetic model. According to this model, richment. Thus: giftedness is relative to the nature of a given domain.

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

47

Whether gifted behaviors will emerge depend on (a) whether the domain involved is simple or complex, (b) whether the person in question has the right combination of genetic (trait) components vis-`a-vis the domain, (c) whether these functional components for the domain operate at an additive or multiplicative fashion, and (d) whether all the components relative to the domain come into place (i.e., developmentally matured) at the right time. In other words, what kind of giftedness will emerge is not prespecified or pre-ordained in biology but determined by a combination of multiple factors: person (biology), domain (culture), social context (relative advantages vis-`a-vis age peers), and developmental timing (epigenetic). The model also predicts that gifted behaviors can emerge and disappear, depending on individuals’ developmental timing and related population characteristics. Simonton’s model, however, still leans toward a biological explanation of giftedness, in terms of the right genetic-based traits coming together at the right time to give expression to a specific talent. Environmental factors still play a backstage role. In most developmentalist models, however, emergence of giftedness is typically described as an outcome of the confluence of environmental and personal factors, a co-incidence (Feldman, 1986). In that sense, no one knows what Bobby Fischer would have been up to if there were no chess around. Also, the traditional boundary of giftedness as within the head or skin is broken, as the emergence of gifted behaviors or performance can be due to the synergy of many individuals’ efforts, and the creative contributions can be socially distributed within a group of contributors (Sawyer, 2003). This kind of collective giftedness or excellence has received less attention than it deserves even to date. In its most distinct form, developmentalism has some core assumptions about the nature of giftedness that sets it apart from essentialism: (1) Giftedness as developmental diversity (as opposed to the essentialist core of giftedness). This assumption not only treats giftedness as a form of deviation in development, but also implies a variety of niche potentials and developmental pathways that do not share the same essential characteristics, cognitively or affectively. If one further factors environmental conditions and opportunities into the developmental diversity, phenotypic manifestations of giftedness are even more diverse (different domains, different social contexts, and different cultures). Many forms of giftedness

belong to what Feldman (1994) called non-universal development. Non-universal development has two important characteristics: first, it has unique individuality in development, a unique set of sensibilities and propensities; second, it only occurs under particular environmental conditions, and in the case of a culturally defined talent, with instructional and training provisions. Hence, other than denoting some form of excellence or potential for excellence (to use Sternberg’s excellence and rarity criteria), the concept of giftedness is not unitary and does not imply a set of shared core attributes. Such developmental pluralism is in sharp contrast to the essentialist doctrine that stipulates specific formulas for defining and measuring giftedness. (2) Giftedness as a developmental state (as opposed to giftedness as a static trait or a constellation of traits). Developmentalists tend to see giftedness not as a biologically constitutional, but rather, as a specific developmental and functional state vis-`a-vis adaptive challenges in a specific context, subject to further adaptive changes. Thus, giftedness is seen not as an attribute but as a critical state in some important aspects of development (Ziegler, 2005; Ziegler & Heller, 2000), or a point of advanced intellectual or artistic development (Coleman & Cross, 2005; Robinson, 2005; Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005). In contrast to a trait definition, what is seen as “gifted” is dynamic, contextual, and emergent: through interest and passion, through honing of advanced skills, and through maintaining a creative tension (Dai & Renzulli, 2008). The image of being gifted is no longer a set of static traits but a state of sustained mastery and transformation, and the eventual productive use of knowledge and skills in building one’s unique vision of world and life. (3) Giftedness as a process and product of structural and functional changes through differentiation and integration. A developmentalist model of giftedness cannot be content with the status of an implicit theory, making assumptions largely based on intuitions and convictions without explicating what develops and how it develops. Such specification can be as detailed as at a neural level, such as structural and functional adaptations occurring in the brain as a result of musical training (Schlaug, 2001). Various attempts have been made in the talent development research to specify what is an initial state and what is a developed state that evolved from the previous one (e.g., Bamberger, 1986; Bloom, 1985; Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993). The expertise research

48

has also made headway in making the developmental changes in mental structures and functions explicit (see Ericsson, 2006). (4) Giftedness as an interaction of affordances and effectivities. In contrast to a structural construal of giftedness, developmentalists tend to see giftedness as functional states that cannot be dissociated with functional contexts (Barab & Plucker, 2002). This is in line with the argument advanced by ecological psychology that environmental and social affordances are contingent on the individual’s readiness to perceive and act upon them (i.e., effectivities); conversely, the individual’s effectivities or abilities are induced and shaped by environmental and social affordances or opportunities. Many developmentalists attempt to specify the role of environmental conditions, in interaction or reciprocation with genetic dispositions, in a specific line of the development of exceptional performance and competence (Bloom, 1985; Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993; Papierno, Ceci, Makel, & Williams, 2005). For some, the task of finding exceptional individuals becomes that of finding exceptional conditions (Soniak, 2006), the right proximal processes (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994), and enabling and facilitative conditions (Keating, in press). (5) Giftedness as time-sensitive, task-specific performance (as opposed to an absolute state of being). Developmentalists have introduced the temporal dimension into the discourse and research on giftedness. They attempt to specify developmental timing, sensitive periods, and the age of peak performance in a given domain, to name a few, as significant developmental events that can have make-or-break effects on sustained engagement in a specific line of talent development (e.g., Ericsson, 2006; Shavinina, 1999; Simonton, 1999, 2005). Early manifestations of giftedness do not guarantee later success, as task environments at a higher level impose new demands and constraints. As a result, some stand out while others opt out. Being gifted has different meanings at different stages of talent development (Dai & Renzulli, 2008; Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005). (6) Giftedness as an immediate phenomenology (as opposed to an a priori assumption about the nature of giftedness). A major change from essentialism to developmentalism is an epistemological shift, from an a priori assumption of what constitutes giftedness to a focus on immediate phenomena of gifted behavior and performance in authentic functional contexts and

D.Y. Dai

how it develops. Therefore, the predictive validity of high IQ or other psychometric test scores and justification of their use for identification is no longer a research priority. Rather, understanding the phenomenology of how individuals achieve high-level expertise and creative productivity every step of the way becomes a focus in its own right. This epistemological shift has led to methodological innovations, such as retrospective interviews (e.g., Sosniak, 2006), biographical studies (Gardner, 1993; Gruber, 1981), experiential sampling (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993). The developing person as a whole becomes the focal point, instead of some isolated variables, measured in a decontextualized fashion. The focus is no longer abilitycentric, but integrating cognitive, affective, and motivational processes (e.g., Shavinina & Seeratan, 2004; Winner, 1996).

Essential Tensions I have thus far delineated a capsule history of the concept of giftedness in terms of construction of the core meaning of giftedness (essentialism) and reconstruction of the core (developmentalism), from monolithic to pluralistic, from static to dynamic, with deconstruction efforts mediating the process. I have also alluded to motivations and impetuses driving these changes, including deep epistemological changes (e.g., understandings of developmental principles), the increasing diversity of populations, a democratic imperative that demands equal opportunities for all, and scientific rigor brought in by various research traditions. Although the trend is unmistakably clear, the tensions and disagreements are far from resolved. On the contrary, coexistence of many competing ideas and conceptions is likely to be a normal state of the field for many years to come. It creates tensions and conflicts that call for solution (see Mayer, 2005, for a review). This is to be expected, as the giftedness research as a field has such a diverse group of stakeholders and diverse interests and concerns, and is yet to become a mature interdisciplinary field of studies. On the other hand, confronting those tensions and conflicts, and hopefully resolving some of them, also become important if the field is to develop a clear identity (or even a commonly accepted nomenclature) and a relatively coherent set of agendas for research.

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

49

Fortunately, it is possible that a meta-level discussion of different ideas provides some degree of coherence and commensurability to the seemingly incoherent and incommensurable ideas. In the following section, I attempt to provide such a framework in a fairminded manner, without being swayed by my own biases, which I readily admit. I base my discussion on an important premise: scientific inquiry involves creative interpretation of systematic observations regarding a class of objects or phenomena (often drawing inferences and conclusions from limited, often insufficient, evidence). This view is supported by Holton (1981), a scientific historian, who argued that science is more than impersonal, mechanical exercise of hypotheticaldeductive logic and inductive reasoning based on empirical evidence. There is a third force, a more subjective one: scientists’ ontological convictions about certain phenomena and commitments to pursuing along these lines of inquiry, what he dubbed themata. More formally, themata are thematic dimensions or continuities along which people place their ontological commitment and allegiance in a domain or about a class of phenomena. For example, Holton identified in Einstein’s belief systems a deep commitment to unity, continuity, logical parsimony, and necessity, and mathematical certainty (p. 15), which set him on a conflicting course with those thinking along the line of quantum mechanics, such as the probabilistic nature of quantum dynamics, discontinuity in measurement. Similarly, scholarly conceptions of giftedness represent a form of motivated reasoning of various persuasions on epistemic, ethic, political, or pragmatic grounds, constrained by logic and evidence (Kunda, 1990). Unlike Kuhn (1962), Holton (1981) believed that scientific advances are better characterized as evolutionary rather than revolutionary, continuous rather than discontinuous, as the notion of incommensurability implies. In other words, the Kuhnian notion of a wholesale Gestalt change or “paradigm shift” disguises the complexity of the issues involved (see also Toulmin, 1972, p. 128). Instead, Holton believed that “major scientific advance can be understood in terms of an evolutionary process that involves battles over only a few but by no means all of the recurrent themata” (p. 25). He further suggested that scientific advances may not hinge on consensus building, as Kuhn (1962) argued, but on “an enterprise whose saving pluralism resides in its many internal degrees of freedom” (Holton, 1981, p. 25).

In psychology, various themata roughly fall into two distinct philosophic traditions: scientism and humanism (Kimble, 1984). C. P. Snow (1967) treated them as two distinct cultures. Wherever the issue of conceptions of giftedness is concerned, at the first blush, there are scholars who have an ontological commitment that giftedness is by and large a neurological advantage vis-`a-vis specific or general functional and developmental contexts (e.g., Gagn´e, 2004; Geake, this volume). There are others who either remain agnostic in terms of biological origins of giftedness (e.g., Renzulli, 1999) or take more or less a developmental view (e.g., Feldhusen, 1992; Feldman, 2003; Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005). The reasons for this epistemic pluralism are multifaceted. First, psychology, like meteorology or medicine, is an inexact science. Psychologists and giftedness researchers/educators alike do not have a crystal ball in hand when identifying gifted potential and needs and predicting long-term outcomes. Second, gifted manifestations are diverse, and their etiologies and ontogenies are likely diverse as well. Therefore, diverse, sometimes competing, ontological commitments may serve their respective phenomena, constituencies, and stakeholders well, and thus complement each other (in this sense, a truly “saving pluralism” at a epistemic or pragmatic level). Third, our conceptual and methodological tools are more sophisticated than decades ago, which allow us to capture the complexity of the “gifted” phenomena in greater detail, and recognize the virtues and weaknesses of various perspectives and approaches in a more refined manner, rather than categorically accept or reject a theory or argument. In this sense, the field is truly evolutionary rather than revolutionary; the notion of gestalt-like “paradigm shift” may emphasize the discontinuity at the expense of obscuring the continuity of systematic efforts to understand “giftedness.” Scholars and researchers in the field tend to agree on some aspects of the nature of giftedness but disagree on others. Rather than tangled up with ideological battles, a more productive strategy is to turn ideological differences into more nuanced, tractable scholarly exchanges, which potentially lead to some degree of consensus and agreement. Although leaving “many internal degrees of freedom” (Holton, 1981, p. 25) may still be useful for a field that is still mapping its territory, it seems important to walk a fine line between hasty consensus seeking on the one hand and the anarchy of proliferations and conflations of ideas and models on

50

the other. One way of doing this is to identify a set of themata that seem to be the central issues of how we understand “giftedness,” and how we should cultivate this quality for the welfare of individuals involved and the society at large. A refined, scientific understanding entails addressing three canonical questions that unpack “giftedness” in terms of its constituents and underlying processes; various themata simply reflect some aspects of these fundamental questions: (1) The Nature–Nurture Question. Can gifted behavior or performance ultimately be traced to natural endowment, that is, individual differences in genetic and constitutional makeup and biological preparedness, cognitive as well as affective; and to what extent can it be explained by experience, effort, and contextual support, such as instruction and mentoring)? How do nature and nurture interactively contribute to the emergence of intelligent behavior, motivation, domain expertise, and creativity, and possibly ultimate eminent achievements? Moreover, the question also concerns whether those who have attained gifted performance or have potential for gifted performance are fundamentally different from the rest of the population in terms of how they perceive feel, think, learn, and develop, and consequently their educational needs. (See later discussion of the essential tensions of aptitude versus achievement, being versus doing/becoming, qualitative versus quantitative differences.) (2) The Range of Adaptation/Innovation Question. To what extent is gifted potential versatile in terms of its capability of adapting to a wide range of functional niches, and to what extent is gifted potential specific to a particular niche and/or is relatively canalized in its development, in terms of its range and direction of adaptation? In other words, should gifted behaviors be seen as a fundamentally domain-specific or domaingeneral phenomenon? This question can also be broken down to domain-generality-specificity of intelligence (human abilities), motivation, and creativity. Casting this question in the framework of the nature–nurture question, one may ask to what extent does the individual’s inner environment, through its brain mechanisms, selectively attends to, choose, and organizes environmental features in forming a unique developmental trajectory (a domain-specific view), or to what extent does the biology of brain organization show versatility, through its neural plasticity and cognitive flexibility, in response to environmental opportunities and

D.Y. Dai

challenges (a domain-general view)? (See later discussion of the essential tensions of domain-general versus domain-specific, expertise versus creativity.) (3) The Process/Development Question. What is the process of the development of gifted potential or exceptional competence (maturation, neural hard-wiring, deliberate practice, sustained interest, systematic inquiry, conceptual development and organization, development of expertise, etc.)? What is it that develops (sensitivities, mental representations, reasoning skills, dispositions, etc.)? These questions deepen the nature–nurture question by asking how do the person and the environment interact as proximal processes (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994), and how is nature (e.g., genetic expressions) contingent on nurture, and how does nature constrain nurture (see Dai & Coleman, 2005)? These “process” questions deepen the domain-generality-specificity question by elucidating in what exact manner domain-relevant resources are channeled into domain-specific development, and how various components are co-opted to produce what is manifested as gifted behavior or performance. Along this line of thinking, further questions can be asked. For instance, does timing of the onset of a specific line of talent development matter? Are there sensitive periods for a specific line of talent development? Are there distinct developmental stages or phases? At what age does performance peak (i.e., reaching its asymptote) for a specific domain? To what extent does cognitive aging constrain the creative performance and expressions? Although current debates focus more on the nature–nurture issue (see Dai & Coleman, 2005), one may argue that it is at this level of analysis that we can formulate truly explanatory theories, rather than merely descriptive theories and theoretical conjectures about causal structures and relationships underlying various gifted phenomena. Ultimately, the task of scientific understanding of giftedness is to demystify, rather than reify (and sometimes deify), giftedness. In the following section, I identify some of these themata, and provide an admittedly personal perspective on them for the sake of provoking more thoughts on inherent tensions, dilemmas, and conflicts underlying what I identify as the traditions of essentialism and developmentalism in the field. As one shall see, some of them are conceptual issues, others concerning values, and still others epistemic. I suggest that these themata constitute essential tensions revolving around the concept of giftedness, and that finding proper solutions

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

51

or at least easing these tensions would help achieve The problem. This controversy brings to the foresome degree of synthesis and move the field forward front the issue of whether the conceptual distinction (Table 3.1). we make between aptitude and achievement is still valid at an empirical level; namely, whether we can ascertain certain mental capacity as indeed an antecedent of, even a precondition for, actual excellence Aptitude Versus Achievement in a given domain. Most extant models, such as Gagn´e’s (2004) differentiated model and the Munich Scholars in the field differ in whether giftedness can Dynamic Ability–Achievement Model (Heller, Perbe better determined through testing of aptitude or pu- leth, & Lim, 2005), represent various mental abilities tative “potential,” or actual excellent achievement and as a precondition or prerequisite for later achievement, performance in an authentic context by age-appropriate implicitly or explicitly assuming a causal link between standards. The use of the aptitude (or ability) versus abilities and achievement. As these models have achievement criterion creates a tension regarding how been challenged by the expertise researchers (see giftedness manifests itself, and how we can best deter- Ericsson, 2006), conceptualizing mental capacity as a prerequisite for achieving domain excellence hinges on mine its presence, nature, and degree. Evidence of the tension. Since Galton, and particu- evidence of the predictive validity of measurements inlarly since the invention of mental testing, mental abili- volved (i.e., “productivity” criterion; Sternberg, 1995). ties have been thought as normally distributed within a Although the research findings are mixed and do not population; thus giftedness and mental retardation con- provide a clear-cut answer either way, there are several stitute two ends of the intelligence continuum. Deter- concerns over using aptitude measures as the sole mining giftedness by mental testing started with Ter- indicator of giftedness. They include the following: man, and still constitutes a mainstream perspective (a) aptitude tests are not fine-tuned to differential (e.g., Robinson, Zigler, & Gallagher, 2000). However, domain requirements, and therefore they are relatively as early as late 1950s, achievement or performance in poor predictors of domain-specific achievement an authentic domain or social context was proposed as (Lohman, 2005); (b) different domains likely have a major criterion for determined gifted potential (De- different threshold requirements (Simonton, 1999) Haan, & Havighurst, 1957; Witty, 1958). In several for mental abilities; (c) inferring a causal relationship major conceptions of giftedness, ambiguities were al- between measures of mental abilities and achievement most deliberately built into the definition to allow for could be problematic (Sternberg, 1999a), a commitboth psychometrically defined mental abilities, indi- ment of jangle fallacy, that is, labeling one as a test cating latent potential for excellence, and outstanding of intelligence and the other as a test of achievement domain-specific performance and achievement, indi- while the two tests have a large overlap in construct cating demonstrated excellence (e.g., Renzulli, 1978; representation (Kelley, 1927; see Lohman, 2006); Marland, 1972). There are several competing strate- and (d) exclusively using mental abilities as aptitude gies to resolve this tension. One calls for a sharp dis- measures neglects non-cognitive personal factors such tinction between natural abilities and achievement or as intrinsic motivation as high potential or aptitude for systematically developed competence; only the for- achievement (Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004; Dai, 2004). mer, measured by aptitude tests, warrants the label On the other side of the story, there are concerns over “gifted” (e.g., Gagn´e, 1999, 2004). Another approach using domain achievement as the main indicator of is to view only authentic performance or mastery as ev- giftedness. Using achievement and expert performance idence of giftedness and see measures of mental abil- as an indication of giftedness (i.e., demonstrated ities as unreliable, and often invalid indicators of gift- excellence), though authentic and free of some shaky edness (e.g., Ericsson et al., 2005; Matthews & Fos- assumptions about “latent capacity” (Ericsson et ter, 2006). Still another strategy simply treats all men- al., 2005, 2007), naturally biased in favor of those who tal abilities as developed competence or developing have the necessary experiential exposure, opportunity, expertise, therefore, enjoying no psychological prior- and technical and social support to get that far. It ity over achievement (e.g., Lohman, 2006; Sternberg, is conceivable that many individuals are “gifted” but lack such exposure, opportunity, and support to 1999a).

52

D.Y. Dai Table 3.1 A summary of eight tensions surrounding the concept of giftedness Thesis

Antithesis Aptitude versus achievement

Potential for excellence (i.e., giftedness) is best evidenced in performance conditions that can differentiate ability (aptitude) from achievement

We will never know whether a person is gifted unless the person demonstrates superior mastery of skills and knowledge in authentic domains or contexts Being versus doing/becoming

Giftedness is a structural property of the person in question, because what within the person ultimately explains gifted performance and behaviors

Giftedness is a functional state of person–environment transaction and interaction, and thus is relative to tasks and contexts involved, and subject to further change Domain-general versus domain specific

Giftedness is domain-specific, because Giftedness is not confined to any single each domain has its own unique set of domain, because abilities can be demands in terms of sensitivities, flexibly channeled and utilized in inclinations, and abilities multiple ways, depending on environmental circumstances and motivations Qualitative versus quantitative differences Giftedness individuals differ from their Gifted individuals are different from their average peers only in degree, because average peers in kind, because the they only show relative strengths and structural and functional organization advantages rather than absolute ones of their mind is different, and their developmental trajectories are unique Expertise versus creativity Creative productivity (innovation) should High-level expertise (proficiency) in a be the hallmark of giftedness and goal given domain should be the hallmark of of gifted education, because giftedness giftedness and goal of gifted education, is not about mastery of the already because only this form of excellence known, but exploring, discovering, and can be scientifically verified, and inventing the unknown educationally promoted Nomothetic versus idiographic Manifestations of gifted behaviors are diverse and unique phenomena, and have their own underlying logic, not subject to predetermined universal principles; therefore, the uniqueness of each manifestation needs to be closely examined Reductionism versus emergentism

Manifestations of gifted behaviors are subject to a set of universally valid laws and principles; therefore, we can determine who are gifted and how the gifted develop by applying these universal principles

The complexity of gifted manifestations reflects higher-order organizational principles in the organism and functional regularities, and shows emergent properties that cannot be reduced to lower-level individual components Excellence versus equity

The complexity of gifted manifestations can be explained by simpler components at a more basic level of analysis; higher-level phenomena can be causally reduced to lower-level structures and processes

Identifying and cultivating high potential for excellence is a society’s responsibility for the welfare of individuals as well as the society at large. Rewarding excellence reflects a cultural value that is important for democracy and civilization

Singling out the “gifted” for special treatment and unequal access to excellence perpetuates existing social inequality, and creates a new social “elite,” thus violating the democratic principle of equal rights and opportunity, and fair allocation of public resources

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

53

demonstrate their “latent capacities.” This empirical issue reflects an epistemological dilemma: teasing apart “natural ability” and developed skills and knowledge is almost impossible. One cannot demonstrate high-level “capacity” in academic or other domains without substantial experience, intentional learning, and practice (the same can be said about performance on IQ tests). However, to argue that the only things that matter are experience, learning, resources, and support also runs counter to a widely accepted notion that the ease of learning is a hallmark of giftedness (Gagn´e, 2004). Furthermore, the concept of “latent capacity” or potential, as long as it is not seen as “fixed”, still seems useful for several reasons. First, it is unrealistic to expect mature, full-blown gifted and talented achievements at a very young age, barring few cases of child prodigies (e.g., Feldman, 1986). Many times, signs of giftedness and early talent still need to be recognized through testing or observation outside a specific domain of interest. Second, one can make a distinction between content mastery (product) and mental structures and operations (process) leading to mastery; it is the latter that often underlies the concept of gifted potential and related individual differences (e.g., the ease of learning), so that we still can conceive of unrealized gifted potential or “gifted underachievement” as quite prevalent, rather than an oxymoron. Finally, at a pragmatic level, it allows for discretion and expert judgment of gifted behaviors and potential in informal settings (e.g., through conversations and anecdotal evidence), without strictly adhering to the domain excellence criterion. Solutions. A conservative solution is offered by Angoff (1988), who suggested that we shift the focus from nature–nurture debate to the issue of stability, malleability, and transferability in conceptualizing aptitude. According to him, while aptitude, like achievement, is a developed, rather than innate, quality, it differs from achievement in several important ways: (1) aptitude grows more slowly than achievement, the latter of which is likely a direct result of formal exposure to a specific content area; (2) aptitude tends to resist short-term interventions to hasten its growth, while achievement is more amenable or receptive to such interventions; (3) aptitude mainly concerns potential (e.g., rate of learning), and achievement provides a measure of how much is learned; (4) aptitude tests sample a wider range of behaviors than achievement tests, therefore indicative of a more generalizable

capability than achievement measures; (5) since aptitude does not particularly rely on formal schooling, evaluation of general intellectual functioning is made possible with aptitude tests regardless of school experience and achievement (thus, a school drop-out can theoretically still get high scores on IQ tests); (6) aptitude as a measure of potential is still useful, when the learner whose aptitude is being evaluated has not yet been exposed to the learning material (see also Cleary, Humphreys, Kendrick, and Wesman, 1975). Although many points of justification Angoff offered here for the distinction between aptitude and achievement are debatable (e.g., Ceci & Williams, 1997), to the extent that we still make a distinction between how individuals differ in their ease of learning and performance (process), and how much they gain as result of their efforts (product), the aptitude–achievement distinction is still warranted. In this regard, traditional aptitude tests can be criticized to some extent as focusing too much on how much one already knows (i.e., achievement), not on how apt one is to know something (aptitude); the latter can be better assessed through dynamic assessment (Kanevsky, 2000). In view of limitations of the traditional view of aptitude as a latent capacity, perceived by some scholars as a mysterious quality (e.g., Ericsson et al., 2005, 2007; Matthews & Foster, 2006), Snow (1992, 1994) offered an alternative view of aptitude as the readiness to deal with situational demands and benefit from situational opportunities. Instead of a wide-open promise or even a blank check, as it were, aptitude so defined is a highly circumscribed, proximal potential, sitting right at the person–situation interface, rather than solely referring to a personal trait, validated by its predictive validity. In other words, aptitude indicates the fitness to learn or perform well given a specific situation versus inapt to do so, in which case the term inaptitude is used. Such a situational definition of giftedness is close to domainspecific mastery models in a sense that it favors evidence of proximal mastery over generic aptitude measures (e.g., Matthews & Foster, 2006). It is different from domain mastery models in that aptitudes and inaptitudes are still seen as “proneness” or “propensity” rather than actual performance levels. From a more pragmatic viewpoint, Coleman and Cross (2005) offered a developmentalist solution: in childhood, giftedness may be defined as psychometrically or otherwise measured “potential,” but, as the child reaches adolescence, there should be

54

evidence that the alleged potential is substantiated by age-appropriate accomplishments in specific culturally valued areas of human endeavor. Their definition represents a compromise between aptitude (ability) and achievement. Mayer (2005) extended Coleman and Cross’s definition to include adult creative productivity by providing a life-span formula that defines giftedness as “an age-specific term that refers to potential for the beginning stage, achievement for the intermediate stage, and eminence for the advanced stage” (p. 439). We can roughly identify three major categories of conceptions of giftedness based on the aptitude– achievement tension: (a) person-centered conceptions (hence, the gifted child), which emphasize the centrality of aptitude as a latent potential; (b) domain-centered conceptions, which emphasize domain-specific manifestations as the sine qua non of giftedness for a given domain (thus, giftedness is relative to the domain in question and relative to levels and stages of talent development), and (c) culture-centered conceptions, which treat giftedness as involving an interaction of person, domain, and field, allowing for the role of multiple endogenous and exogenous factors, such as natural endowment, personal initiative, and social-contextual facilitation, but ultimately see gifted development and eminent accomplishments as socio-culturally mediated and conferred (Csikszentmihalyi & Robinson, 1986). Each type of conceptions makes slightly different ontological commitments as to the locus of giftedness, leading to the aptitude–achievement tension. In sum, while achievements in authentic human activities clearly provide the best evidence for human exceptional competencies, it appears that the concept of giftedness as high potential or aptitude is worth preserving for pragmatic as well as epistemological reasons. Working with human functioning means working under uncertainties. Just as equating giftedness with some aptitude measures risks losing their legitimacy as a proxy measure of “potential” for excellence, equating giftedness with high achievement also risks masking differential underpinnings (e.g., comparing one person who may have just overlearned the material and another who is able to achieve deeper insights into the problem through the material). Using eminence as a marker of giftedness has its own drawbacks. Eminence is often based on social prestige and reputation, and therefore may or may not reflect true excellence by objective professional stan-

D.Y. Dai

dards and scientifically credible evidence, unless social appeal is an inherent part of the criteria for excellence (e.g., arts, oration, social leadership). It is important, therefore, to use more rigorous criteria and procedures for judging the degrees and levels of excellence, rather than relying on procedures and criteria such as nomination or public accolades (Ericsson, 1996). Another reason that eminence may not be the best criterion is the chance factor. Two persons may be equally brilliant or may have equally contributed to a field, but only one has gained fame and social distinction because he or she happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Being Versus Doing/Becoming The use of aptitude versus achievement as a marker of giftedness is an empirical issue of how we know that some behavior or performance is so exceptional as to be worthy of the term “gifted,” indicating excellence or potential for excellence. The tension mainly concerns the “demonstrability” and “productivity” criteria (Sternberg, 1995). The issue of being versus doing/becoming goes deeper into the ontological issues of how the unusual manifestations of gifts and talents at various points of the life span come about. It is the nature–nurture issue underlying the aptitude–achievement tension. It is much easier to describe what can be seen as “gifted,” invoking the “excellence,” “rarity,” and “demonstrability” criteria (Sternberg, 1995) than explaining it. The task of explaining (not merely describing) “gifted” manifestations amounts to specifying mediating mechanisms and processes in the influx of a multitude of enabling and constraining forces, both endogenous and exogenous. It involves the mapping of complex structure–function, person–process–context, and functioning–development relationships. As it currently stands, most scholars make two competing theoretical or ontological commitments: either defining giftedness as a trait or a constellation of traits (i.e., as being), or defining giftedness as a functional, developing state, situated in action-in-context (i.e., as doing/becoming). Evidence of the tension. Historically, the issue of how giftedness comes about is simply explained as a matter of being (constitutional or developmentally calibrated individual differences), and falling into the area of differential psychology. Now this view is challenged

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

55

by developmentalists, as delineated earlier in this chapter. An instructive historical anecdote is a friendly altercation between Darwin and his cousin Galton. When Darwin argued that “excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only on zeal and hard work,” Galton rebutted that “character, including aptitude for hard work, is heritable like every other faculty” (quoted in Gould, 1981, p. 77). The contemporary form of this debate is manifested in several ways. In gifted education, it is the issue of emphasizing the unique traits of gifted children and advanced cognitive development (Delisle, 2003; Robinson et al., 2000) versus stressing a child’s active engagement in specific lines of talent development as a sine qua non of giftedness (Subotnik, 2003; Coleman & Cross, 2005). In the psychological research, there are firm believers that the ultimate answer to the mystery of giftedness lies in the brain structure and biological differences (Geake, this volume; Gershwind & Galaburda, 1987; Vandervert & Liu, this volume), and there are also staunch champions of gifted development as a personal enterprise and purposeful endeavor for a prolonged period of time (Ericsson, 1996; Ericsson et al., 2007; Gruber, 1986). The problem. The tension is part of a perennial debate on whether gifted behavior can be traced to its biological roots or reflects a more complex interplay of genetic and environmental forces, and most of all, the emergent role of personal agency in terms of reflective consciousness, decisions, and actions (Bidell & Fischer, 1997). This is the key difference between essentialism and developmentalism. Categorical or essentialist conceptions of giftedness are possible only when potential for excellence is defined as a fixed or at least enduring property of the person. On the other hand, if potential for higher levels of excellence fluctuates and depends on specific contexts and one’s actions, then one can achieve and maintain or sometimes lose a “gifted edge,” so to speak, but cannot possess it (Barab & Plucker, 2002; Ziegler, 2005). In a larger context of human development, it involves a basic conception of individual differences as static versus dynamic, trait versus state, born versus made. Similar debates occurred in other fields. For instance, in personality psychology, there was a prolonged debate on personality functioning as “having” (e.g., Big-Five) versus as “doing” (e.g., using constructs such as “personal strivings”), namely, whether we should characterize personality as stable structures (traits) or habitual patterns of behaviors, or as a set of cognitive and motivational

processes in social interaction that serve adaptive functions and undergo adaptive changes (Cantor, 1990). In language development, there are people who see language development as a biologically preordained process, only to be unfolded as an infant matures, and there are people who hold a functional perspective, namely, the process of “doing” (communicating with adults) helps assemble and organize many relevant linguistic and cognitive components and enables language development (see Tomasello & Slobin, 2004). However, from the being versus doing/becoming perspective, we can identify two types of developmentalism: one based on the metaphor of development as unfolding and the other on the metaphor of development as emergence, which I will discuss in a section on emergentism. According to the unfolding model or metaphor, giftedness is, to some extent, preordained, as in the case of an innate structure, or what Piaget (1972) called mental embryology, only to be unfolded with the facilitation of environmental conditions, such as opportunities to develop talents, and catalytic role of intrapersonal forces, such as motivation and personality traits (Gagn´e, 2004). The unfolding model can be seen as a modified version of essentialism. In a refined unfolding model, several psychometrically defined abilities are coalesced to create differential-developmental trajectories (e.g., Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). Such a model can be seen as combining both being and doing/becoming, since the essentialist definition of giftedness is retained within a developmental approach, though more complex and refined than more generic models of giftedness (e.g., intellectual giftedness or artistic giftedness). From a more general epistemological point of view, scholars who hold a “being” view of giftedness tend to hold an objectivist view of development. Like Terman’s longitudinal research, research models of unfolded giftedness have a distinct placement/prediction design, portraying gifted development in terms of an objective, long-term, probabilistic estimate of trajectories, pathways, and attainments (e.g., Heller et al., 2005; Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). In contrast, developmentalist models that stress sustained and extended mastery and transformation tend to provide a more intimate, micro-level, real-time account of the processes and mediating mechanisms leading to the next level of expertise or creativity (Fischer & Yan, 2002; Gruber, 1986). In other words, they are more inclined to delve into the subjective experiences

56

of the person in question (see Cross, 2003). Thus, the being–doing debate reveals an epistemological paradox or dilemma: should we assume an objective or subjective (i.e., intentional) stance when we approach human development? Should we make a subjective account by resorting to personal intentions (desires, beliefs, and aspirations) and efforts, or invoking “natural laws” and attribute the subjectivity as merely the nature’s trick, as Galton suggested when he argued with Darwin? To what extent can we see subjective experience and reflective consciousness as having a causal influence on our functioning and development? (See Searle, 2002; see also later discussion of selfhood by Edelman, 1995.) The being versus doing tension also connotes two differing beliefs regarding stability and change in gifted potential. Do we believe that gifted potential can fluctuate (even losing the “gifted” edge), depending on domain, social context, and time (Simonton, 2005)? If we agree that motivation is relatively a malleable quality relative to differences in mental abilities, then can focused efforts and deliberate practice compensate for the lack of high abilities (Schneider, 2000)? Or will such efforts be fundamentally constrained by natural capacity or “abilities,” depending on what domain is involved and what levels of excellence one is striving for? Ericsson (2006) argued that, except for few physical characteristics, such as height and body size, which are genetically determined and difficult to change, most human characteristics, physical or mental, can be enhanced and significantly modified through deliberate practice (see also Schlaug, 2001). Likewise, Gottfried et al. (2005) provide evidence supporting an equipotential view of giftedness; they showed that early manifestation of high intrinsic academic motivation predicts high academic achievement several years later, despite the fact that most of these highly motivated students did not have IQ scores in the “gifted” range by the traditional top 3% criterion. Different beliefs held by scholars resemble folk beliefs regarding whether human abilities are incremental or fixed (Dweck, 1999; Freeman, 2005). The paradox is that, while our biology may not be easily succumbed to our willful control, we can effect changes in ourselves, including developing knowledge, skills, and dispositions through self-initiated actions. From a scientific point of view, the current problem regarding the nature–nurture of giftedness is the lack of intermediate models, that is, models that connect

D.Y. Dai

and integrate being and doing/becoming. For example, Gagn´e’s (2004) model of how giftedness (i.e., natural endowment) gets “transformed” into systematically developed talents in culturally valued domains operates at a metaphorical level, thus not only impervious to scientific verification, but lacking in specification of fine-grained intermediate processes and levels. In other words, it is still an implicit, rather than explicit, theory (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986). In general, the field of giftedness research is deeply rooted in faculty psychology and the psychometric tradition (including mapping human abilities through the factor analytic technique; e.g., Carroll, 1993), and has limited communication with modern cognitive psychology that emphasizes the transformational power of knowledge representation in reasoning and problem solving (Ceci & Liker, 1986; Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981). Efforts to elucidate cognitive processes underlying individual differences in intellectual functioning have not met with much success (Lohman, 2001). Many potent personal factors, such as intellectual dispositions (Stanovich & West, 1997; Perkins & Ritchhart, 2004) and personal identity (Renzulli, 2002) have not been effectively integrated into the traditional ability-centric framework guiding conceptions of giftedness. The nurture part of giftedness, such as how deep conceptual learning and the development of expertise can be facilitated through instruction (Bonsangue & Drew, 1995, Schoenfeld, 1992; Wineburg, 1991), is often ignored altogether when giftedness is conceptualized as a property of the person involved. If the essence of intellectual giftedness lies, as Shavinina and Kholodnaja (1996) argued, in a unique type of cognitive representation(s) or intellectual or artistic visions of the world, we need to understand how this unique cognitive representation is developed in every step of the way; to what extent it reflects unique set of personal traits (i.e., being) and to what extent it reflects organization of intentions and search for the truth at a highly personal level (i.e., doing/becoming; e.g., Gruber, 1986). Solutions. Renzulli’s (1978) model provided an earlier compromise on the being–doing issue, combining both abilities and processes, but deliberately making status information (i.e., being, including prior performance and personal history) secondary compared to action information (i.e., doing/becoming, including dynamic assessment and clinical observations). His rationale is that while human abilities are quite stable

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

57

and work across situations, motivation (task commitment) and creative expressions are highly sensitive to contexts and developed over time. The three-ring conception is a pragmatic way of providing mediation between being and doing/becoming. However, his recent work (1999, 2005) seemed to give priority to doing/becoming rather than being. A viable answer to the nature–nurture challenge is to provide a differential-developmental theory (e.g., McCall, 1981) that not only accounts for the rarity (and different degrees of rarity; Tannenbaum, 1983) of advanced development and outstanding accomplishments, but explicates intermediate stages and processes, while avoiding the shortcomings of trait theories underlying the essentialist construal of giftedness. Conceptual and empirical work has been done in that direction (e.g., Bloom, 1985; Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993). More recent examples include, but not limited to, Subotnik and Jarvin (2005) concerning musical development; Ziegler’s (2005) Actiotope Model, which stresses the importance of continual expansion of action repertoires through actions; and Ceci’s (1996) bioecological model of development, which includes a differential provision (see Papierno et al., 2005). Snow’s (1992, 1994) approach, which treats aptitude as a person–situation interface, was also an attempt to provide a differential-developmental account that potentially can explain the rarity of gifted development without committing an error of reification, namely, resorting to faculty psychology with respect to gifted potential (see also Dai & Renzulli, 2008). In short, the tension between “being” accounts and “doing” accounts of giftedness can be reconciled by developing more circumscribed (and modest), mid-range theories (e.g., Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005), rather than grand theory of giftedness as most theorists of giftedness have seemed to aspire for. Such a theory would specify how an initial state of being (likely some type of sensitivities and propensities) triggers what one is doing (i.e., structure–functioning mapping) and how one’s doing contributes to a new state of being (i.e., becoming; Ackerman, 1999), in other words, how the initial structure enables functions and how the functioning helps bootstrap new, more complex structure. A metaphor of Neurath’s boat from the conceptual change literature (Carey, 1999) is relevant here: Building a boat in the midst of traveling in the water. It sounds paradoxical but reveals the dialectical nature of the nature–nurture and structure–function

interaction. Simonton’s (2005) emergenic–epigenetic model of giftedness, though biased in favor of genetics (i.e., being), provides a good theoretical framework guiding theorizing. In essence, he argues that a model of how giftedness comes about needs to consider four main factors: domain, person, context, and time. Note that domain comes first in his framework, as it imposes differential demands on the person, and have profound implications as to where a talent will emerge (context) and when it will emerge and grow or fail to emerge (developmental timing). It is the issue of domain that we now turn to.

Domain-General Versus Domain-Specific As there is no such a thing as domain-free achievement, the focus of this tension is (1) to what extent an individual’s potential is versatile in terms of its capability of learning different things and adapting to a wide range of functional niches with equal facility and (2) to what extent the potential is specific to a particular niche or class of activities, and if so, (3) to what extent cognitive structures and mechanisms attuned to a given domain are preordained or canalized in its development? Evidence of the tension. As discussed earlier, the changes in the field of psychology in general and giftedness in particular over the second half of the 20th century can be characterized as taking a domain-specific turn. Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences was but a most salient milestone of this movement. Rediscovery of domain knowledge in cognitive functioning is another (Chi et al., 1981). Although some theorists claimed that the tension has been resolved by factor-analytically derived hierarchical model of cognitive abilities, incorporating both domain-general and domain-specific abilities (e.g., Messick, 1992), the issue of domain-specificitygenerality of gifted potential is far from resolved, and the tension is still palpable. For example, while the talent development movement has been gaining more following, the traditional IQ-based “gifted child” approach still has many adherents (e.g., Gallagher, 2000; Robinson et al., 2000; see Morelock, 1996 for a review). The tension is also reflected in the creativity research. In an edited volume, Sternberg, Grigorenko, and Singer (2004) especially focused on whether processes and developmental patterns leading to

58

creative productivity are specific to a given domain or versatile across domains. Root-Bernstein (this volume) also tackles the issue of whether creative individuals tend to show versatility or be confined to a highly circumscribed area of human endeavor. The problem. Domain is a rather vague term, used in different ways depending on the context in which it is used. For the purpose of this discussion, we can roughly identify four kinds of domains: (a) evolutionor biology-based domains (Geary, 2005), which mainly concern competencies and skills that have evolutionary significance (e.g., providing survival and reproductive advantages) and are traceable to their evolutionary origins; (b) cognitive domains (Hirschfeld & Gelman, 1994), which concern inherent principles in information processing and specialized mechanisms for dealing with particular types of information; (c) ecologically and culturally defined domains (e.g., music, religion, mathematics); here a domain refers to an extant body of knowledge and practices, mediated by a particular symbol system, in any culturally sanctioned endeavor, with its characteristic social organization (i.e., field; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996); and (d) academic domains, which are more formally organized as disciplines of study. Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences is mainly concerned with the cognitive domains. It also implicates the biological substrates of mind, the basic architecture of the human brain/mind. Therefore, it is clearly more than a refutation of Spearman’s “g,” for it brought to the forefront a deeper issue of whether the human brain is an all-purpose information-processing device or instead consists of several highly specialized modules dedicated to processing specific types of information. Fodor’s notion of modularity clearly had an impact on Gardner’s theorizing. However, Fodor (1983) reserved a place for “central processes,” namely, those controlled, consciously accessible cognitive processes, such as strategy use, metacognitive control, particularly the formation of beliefs, all important for knowledge construction. Although domain-specific perceptions and intuitions (Fodor’s input systems) may play a role in learning a new task, general cognitive abilities may also significantly contribute to the ease of learning (Gagn´e, 2004; Robinson et al., 2000). To use Newell and Simon’s (1972) term, the use of weak methods (i.e., general heuristics) is likely when the learner is inexperienced with the task involved and strong methods (i.e., domain-specific cognitive models

D.Y. Dai

and devices) are not available. This is why Sternberg (1985) attempted to separate what one knows (i.e., acquired knowledge) and how one deals with novelty (i.e., fluid intelligence). This tension reveals the aptitude–achievement and being–doing–becoming tensions at another level: while what is achieved is always specific to a cognitive or culturally defined domain, how it is achieved may not. For example, in Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence, although experiential learning involves domain-specific experience (experiential subtheory), cognitive processes, particularly metacomponents, which are brought to bear upon this experience, are largely domain-general (componential subtheory). By the same token, expertise researchers generally view high-level domain expertise as valid evidence of exceptional competence. However, they tend to see the process of acquiring expertise and expert performance as involving identifiable domain-general or generalizable mechanisms, such as deliberate practice and metacognitive control (e.g., Ericsson, 1996, 2006). At the cognitive level, the tension reflects the content–process conundrum that has not been resolved in psychology to date; that is, to what extent processing is separate from content representation. It affects how we understand gifted cognition. For example, there have been research efforts to pin down metacognition as a key difference between the gifted and “non-gifted.” However, Ceci (2003) shows that metacognition is constrained by domain knowledge, thus not a domain-free cognitive process. For another, reasoning abilities are often seen as a marker of intellectual giftedness, yet Lohman (2006) pointed out that the process of reasoning is always sensitive to content and thus “pure” reasoning abilities are hard to find in reality (let alone measure). Two types of domain-general cognitive theories or hypotheses have been advanced to explain gifted cognition as indicating an advanced or precocious cognitive development: One is the cognitive efficiency hypothesis (reaction time, processing speed, working memory capacity; see Geake, this volume); the other is the cognitive sophistication hypothesis (strategy use, metacognition, cognitive flexibility, managing cognitive complexity and novelty, etc.; see Davidson, this volume). However, research does not provide definitive support for such claims. Individuals with high IQs showed prolonged thickening of the cortices compared to their average counterparts (Shaw

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

59

et al., 2006), suggesting a non-specific cognitive advantage and advanced cognitive development in general (Robinson et al., 2000). However, Jackson and Butterfield (1986) concluded, based on their review, that “there is a great variability in the extent to which gifted children demonstrate precocity in Piagetian reasoning” (p. 160). The putative metacognitive advantage of gifted students also turned out to be more circumscribed than initially thought (Alexander, Carr, & Schwanenflugel, 1995; Steiner & Carr, 2003; Shore, 2000, this volume). Alternatively, we might take a learning approach. Where giftedness is concerned, the issue of domainspecificity-generality really is about the differential acquisition of domain competence, rather than mature domain performance. Shiffrin’s (1996) criteria for determining “natural talent,” in terms of the rate of learning and asymptotic performance (i.e., when performance starts to reach a plateau despite continued efforts for improvement), are also relevant here. There is some evidence pointing to giftedness as a domain-general advantage in learning. For example, individuals with high IQs learn more quickly with less structured instructional conditions (Snow, 1994). Young children with high IQs learn Piagetian conservation tasks with fewer trials (Case, 1992), and they need fewer hints to solve the Tower of Hanoi problem (Kanevsky, 1990). The ease of learning for these individuals is even evident at the brain level in terms of the reduced glucose metabolic rate in the brain (Haier, 2001; Haier & Jung, 2008). Using a “test of limits” approach, a method for obtaining asymptotic performance, Baltes (1998) and his colleagues were able to identify increased rather than decreased individual differences. Studying extreme cases of exceptionality also sheds light on the importance of domain-general abilities. For example, L. Miller (2005) found that, although some idiot savants show an amazing ease of learning, their work often falls short of conceptual coherence, suggesting that both dedicated mechanisms and general analytic and conceptual abilities are important for high-level competence in arts or other domains. The differences between child prodigies and idiot savants provide yet another important clue to the domainspecific versus domain-general debate, suggesting that both domain-specific and domain-general resources are required to achieve true excellence (Feldman, 2003). However, idiot savants’ levels of intelligence often fall

into the category of mental retardation. We do not know whether for a given domain there is a threshold at which a domain-general advantage will reach the point of diminishing returns. Indeed, some researchers (e.g., Hunt, 1999) believe in the existence of such a threshold. There is also research showing that the general cognitive advantage within a domain gradually disappears as one gains domain-specific competence (Ackerman, 1988, 1999). In the gifted literature, the term “domain” often refers to culturally defined domains rather than cognitive domains. Therefore, what kind of cognitive (or affective) demands such a domain imposes on the person is rather an ecological question; namely what it takes to meet the challenges presented in a given task environment. Thus, domain specificity in this context is concerned with whether a person is uniquely fit to do well in one domain but not in others. In this sense, the distinction Simonton (1999) made between simple and complex domains seems important. Most domains of cultural importance are complex; therefore development of expertise in these domains likely involves both domain-specific and domain-general resources (in a biological or cognitive sense). Domainspecific advantages range from dedicated mechanisms such as modular devices (e.g., absolute pitch), physiological and structural–functional adaptations as a result of special training, to possible innate intuitions and encapsulated knowledge, the ease of learning with a particular symbol system. Domain-general advantages range from cognitive flexibility, metacognitive control, and reasoning of the inductive, deductive, and abductive nature, etc. Solutions. Psychometric approaches (Carroll, 1993; Messick, 1992) offer a hierarchical structural solution, which includes not only different contents and media (quantitative, verbal, spatial), but also crystallized and fluid abilities. The psychometric approaches mainly provide prediction models that seemed to have worked well in predicting differential pathways, depending on different constellations of strengths and weaknesses in prospective longitudinal studies (see Lubinski & Benbow 2000). However, psychometric theories are descriptive theories. It cannot resolve ambiguities such as whether there is indeed a general (“g”) factor or “g” is just a statistical artifact and “positive manifold” (Thomson, 1916; see also Horn, 1986). Different from psychometric approaches, which rely on representative tasks to derive ability structures,

60

bioecological approaches take a more theoretical approach. They posit that domain-specific and domain-general competencies have evolutionary origins, mediated through epigenetic development and environmental experiences (Feist, 2004; Feldman, 2003; Geary, 2005; Papierno et al., 2005). In general, bioecological approaches differentiate three main domains: physical, biological, and social (see Geary, 2005, for a taxonomy). The brain contains both dedicated mechanisms while maintaining neural plasticity in making adaptive changes through development. Thus, “innate talent, when it exists for a particular domain, comprises a rare combination of genes that come together to bring about the necessary penchants to self-select the appropriate environmental cue that will actualize that potential via proximal processes” (Papierno et al., 2005, p. 323). To the extent that a domain is cognitively complex, multiple genetic traits have to be simultaneously present to give rise to the manifestation of a talent; moreover, timing of the epigenetic development of all relevant components is also critical (Simonton, 2005). In general, bioecological models stress the importance of various kinds of niche potential and person–environment (domain) fit for talent development, which include both cognitive and affective considerations. For example, in Subotnik and Jarvin’s (2005) rendition of music talent development, while development of “musicality” may involve special sensitivities and inclinations, “charisma” is a quality that is not specific to music. Personality characteristics, such as introversion, are also implicated as important for developing musical talent (Kemp, 1996). Finally, one can also take a cognitive developmental approach. It entails restoring the core meaning of intelligence as the ability to problem solve and make adaptive changes (learning), while taking into account inherent development-related cognitive and neural possibilities and constraints. It assumes that initial gross wiring of the brain is not completely differentiated until through significant interaction with a structured environment (Karmiloff-Smith, 2004). Thus, an alleged innate talent is actually not innately specified but bootstrapped by specific structured environmental experience. A culturally defined talent (say, musicality) may require integration of several such functional units (e.g., for melody, rhythm, and harmony, respectively). Based on Karmiloff-Smith’s (1992) notion that children often go beyond behavioral mastery to

D.Y. Dai

seek a conceptual handle on the newly acquired skill, we can extrapolate that talent development initially takes the form of perceptual and intuitive mastery (turning domain-relevant processes to domain-specific products, such as modular functional units), and gradually achieve conceptual understanding and analytic mastery through conscious, effortful problem solving and knowledge construction. To use Kagan’s (2002) words, it is a process of turning the schematic to the semantic to achieve a conceptual grip. This conjecture is consistent with empirical findings (e.g., Bamberger, 1986), and potentially explains why musically gifted adolescents experience difficulties in switching from a more intuitive mode of music processing, presumably relying on dedicated modules in the brain, to an analytic one, which requires more conceptual analysis of musical elements. This cognitive development approach is also consistent with the notion that most talent development is non-universal (Feldman, 2003), thus entail environmental provisions and support, as well as personal resources, domain-specific and domain-general (see Dai & Renzulli, 2008, for a detailed exposition). From the cognitive development point of view, domain-specificity-generality issue cannot be resolved unless one takes a developmental approach, wherein domain-relevant resources are flexibly mobilized and co-opted in adaptation and self-organization in response to the demands of a domain at a specific stage of talent development. Based on this view, giftedness cannot be completely domain-specific, nor can it be domain-general.

Quantitative Versus Qualitative Differences The tension between quantitative and qualitative differences focuses on the following question: in what sense and to what extent does gifted development constitute an exceptional condition, a condition that is beyond normality and warrants special attention and interventions. From a person-centered perspective on giftedness (i.e., the gifted child), does excellence or potential for excellence reflect some structural and functional organization of the mind that is different in kind rather than in degree? From a domain-centered perspective on giftedness (i.e., talent development), does the development of exceptional competence inherently in-

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

61

volve qualitatively different (and sometimes unique) pathways and trajectories, or is it just a little sooner, a little faster? The question is also related to domain specificity issue. If gifted potential is highly domain specific, then the gifted person is likely to show unique organization of cognitive and affective functioning, and unique developmental trajectories and pathways, qualitatively different from normal people. Evidence of the tension. An increasing discontent expressed in the field is that categorical assumptions are made about what “gifted” means on the basis of a rather arbitrary cutoffs set on some continuous variables of aptitude or achievement (e.g., Borland, 2003, 2005; Keating, in press; Ziegler, 2005; see also Hertzog, this volume). Although not everyone agrees on the categorical interpretation (e.g., Gagn´e, 2004; Gallagher, 2000; Robinson, 2005), many scholars still feel compelled to label different levels of giftedness (e.g., moderately gifted, profoundly gifted, extremely gifted), similar to the practice of labeling different levels of mental retardation (AAMR, 1992), denoting qualitative differences within the gifted, as well as between the gifted and the “non-gifted” (Gagn´e, 2005a; Winner, 2000). Others prefer more inclusive cutoffs, implicitly assuming an aboveaverage threshold in ability requirements for a variety of human endeavor (e.g., Renzulli, 1986); beyond this threshold, further finer-grained differentiation may not be justified or may have limited practical utility. Furthermore, many theorists assume unique developmental experience as quintessential to being gifted. For example, the Columbus Group sees developmental asynchrony as an inevitable result of being gifted (see Morelock, 1996); Dabrowski viewed gifted development as involving positive disintegration (see Piechowski, 1991); Robinson et al. (2000) see the gifted as going through more cognitive stages than their age peers. However, when various cognitive and affective characteristics of the “gifted” and “non-gifted” are compared, the picture is far from clear-cut. When differences were found (e.g., Dai et al., 1998; Jackson & Butterfield, 1986; Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998; Steiner & Carr, 2003), they are better characterized as a matter of degree rather than kind. Nevertheless, child prodigies (Feldman, 1986) evidence early emergence of talents that seem to be qualitatively different from normal developmental trajectories. Children with extremely high IQ seem to have unique academic and social experiences and

social adjustment problems (Gross, 1993; Hollingworth, 1942; von K´arolyi & Winner, 2005). The similar tension exists in the creativity research. Clinical and personality psychologists tend to see creative processes as involving unique intrapersonal dynamics, involving primary and secondary processes (e.g., Martindale, 1999; Rothenberg, 1979), thus differing from normal conditions. In contrast, cognitive psychologists tend to see creativity as a result of developing a solid knowledge base (Weisberg, 1999, 2006) and using general problem solving (Klahr & Simon, 1999), which are not qualitatively different from those that produce general intellectual performance and products. In other words, the processes leading to creative productivity may be quite mundane upon scrutiny. The problem. Description of human characteristics as constituting various continua is a hallmark of population thinking underlying psychometric theory and measurement (Lohman, 2001). According to this view, people differ along certain dimensions in degree rather than in kind. However, it is also true that quantitative differences, when cumulated to reach a critical point, can lead to qualitative changes and new properties. A person with an IQ of 130 may not differ much in substance from a person with an IQ of 120, but has a distinct edge compared to a person with an IQ of 100. Because we never know for sure where these critical points may lie, decisions about cutoffs would be a matter of how to reduce errors and increase the certainty of a “hit,” or deciding on the trade-off between using relatively liberal criteria (i.e., tolerating more Type I errors [false positives] while preventing Type II errors [false negatives]), versus using relatively stringent criteria (minimizing Type I errors [false positives] while permitting more Type II errors [false negatives]). However, the qualitative–quantitative tension reveals more than such pragmatics. The categorical approach to determining the gifted and the non-gifted treats the gifted as a homogeneous group, and there is abundant evidence that it is not. Those who emphasize inherent qualitative differences in gifted development (the Columbus Group or Dabrowski) tend to prescribe normative models of giftedness with strict defining attributes, while the concept of giftedness may be fundamentally prototypical, even exemplary; that is, one cannot infer universally valid attributes based on some particular cases, since trajectories leading to the same level of excellence and eminence (e.g., winning Nobel Prizes) can be quite different for different

62

individuals (Shavinina, 2004). Given the diversity of gifted phenomena, treating giftedness loosely as a form of developmental diversity (Keating, in press) may be a better strategy to include a variety of developmental patterns underlying gifted manifestations, some normal and others unique. While it is debatable as to whether psychometrically defined giftedness constitutes a qualitative difference, setting those so identified apart from the rest of the population (Borland, 2005), qualitative individual differences in mental development due to both genetic and environmental influences have not been appreciated in the developmental literature (McCall, 1981). Effects of genetic and environmental interactions are likely multiplicative rather than additive (Ceci, 1996; Papierno et al., 2005), contributing to the likelihood of discontinuity in intra-individual development and inter-individual differences. There is evidence of a widened range of academic achievement, spanning several grade levels, at any grade at the onset of about the third grade (see Gagn´e, 2005b). Research also shows that selection criterion based on 1 in 10,000 versus 1 in 100 grounded on the out-of-level SAT test scores dramatically increased the odds in long-term prediction that one would obtain doctoral degrees and secure prestigious faculty positions (Lubinski, Webbs, Morelock, & Benbow, 2004). This evidence seems to support the “extremely gifted” classification. Practically, we can operationalize qualitative differences by resorting to the Vygostk’s notion of zone of proximal development (ZPD). To the extent that two persons’ ZPDs do not overlap, it constitutes two qualitatively different developmental conditions; thus a seventh or eighth grade student scoring 600 on SAT-M is clearly having a completely different ZPD than most of his or her age peers as far as mathematical (and possibly general intellectual) development is concerned, thus calling for curricular and instructional differentiation. On the other hand, this qualitative difference in ability and knowledge may or may not have spilt-over effects on other aspects of development (e.g., affect and motivation; see Morelock, 2000, for a Vygotskian analysis of cases of exceptionally high-IQ children). Solutions. There are several possible ways of resolving the qualitative–quantitative tension. First, although some scholars postulate unique structural and functional organization of the brain as responsible for gifted manifestations (e.g., O’Boyle, 2008; O’Boyle, Benbow, & Alexander, 1995), a more functional approach

D.Y. Dai

seems to be a safer starting point; it postulates that quantitative differences in functioning in adaptive selfregulation and self-organization (psychometrically or otherwise measured) can lead to qualitative differences in developmental outcomes, such as organized complexity of one’s action repertoire (Ziegler, 2005). For example, according to the cognitive evolution model of development (Siegler, 1996), children’s strategy use in problem solving shows a developmental pattern of variation, selection, and optimization. As a result, more effective strategies are retained over time. By the same token, we might characterize advanced development as a case of quantitative individual differences in functioning (e.g., variability in strategy selection) leading to qualitatively different outcomes in development, as evidenced by widened developmental differences in achievement (Gagn´e, 2005), or distinct precocity in the case of child prodigies (Feldman, 1986). This approach allows for integration of differential and developmental approaches by specifying when and how individuals start to diverge (i.e., the onset of qualitatively different pathways and trajectories) in development (cf. McCall, 1981). The functional approach can also incorporate different kinds of “doing” as indicative of unique potential. Ericsson has, in effect, specified a qualitative difference when he distinguishes between ordinary mastery efforts and deliberate practice (Ericsson et al., 2005, in press). The condition of satisfaction for the former is “good enough” and the criterion for the latter is attaining whatever is humanly possible. Thus, different trajectories of the development of expertise depend on differing functional modes or styles (i.e., qualitative differences in doing), rather than differing capacities (i.e., qualitative differences in being). A second approach to resolve the tension is to take a more eclectic view of biologically based individual differences as consisting of both differences within the normal range (quantitative, continuous) and abnormality (qualitative, discontinuous). In the former case, gifted individuals differ from others only in degree; they might show advanced development in some areas but otherwise function normally like others. In the latter case, gifted individuals differ from others in kind; that is, their functioning has measurable differences in neuro-cognitive organization, such as preference for specific lateralization (O’Boyle, 2008), or various forms of “a pathology of superiority” (Gershwind & Galaburda, 1987, p. 65) that create “twice exceptional” conditions (Lupart & Toy, this volume). Their

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

phenotypical development may indeed have biological substrates and “organic” causes. The distinction between normality and abnormality partly helps resolve the tension between the “being” and “doing” of gifted potential. While unique structural features of the brain constrain functioning and development (e.g., dyslexics or savant talent; see L. Miller, 2005), unique functional experience can also shape structural and functional organization of the brain (Schlaug, 2001). Both can produce qualitative differences in functional organization of the mind/brain. A third approach is to invoke the distinction between universal and unique human development (Feldman, 1994). Any individual’s development can be characterized as constituting a continuum from the most universal (like everyone else, continuous) to the most unique or idiosyncratic (unlike everyone else, discontinuous) (Feldman, 2003; Lohman & Rocklin, 1995). From this perspective, each individual is like all others (e.g., development of reasoning skills), some others (e.g., development of musical competence), and no others (e.g., development of unique personal knowledge and mental models of the world). Thus, the psychometric measures capture some universal dimensions along which individuals differ to some degree, but are blind to the unique side of human functioning and development. In a sense, psychometric continuity breaks down at a point where non-universal development begins. One can further argue that the more extreme individuals show deviation from the norm, the more unique their functioning and development tend to be, for cognitive or social– emotional reasons. It is their idiosyncratic functioning that provides opportunity for unique development patterns, whether it is early emergence of talent, as in the case of child prodigies in arts, sciences, and games (Feldman, 1986), or development of unique visions of the world, as in the case of Einstein, Dostoevsky, or van Gogh. (The distinction between universal and unique development will be further discussed in the section on “Nomothetic Versus Ideographic.”)

63

egory are masters who have perfected their respective trades to an extremely high level (Ericsson, 2006), and people in the creativity category are makers, who have significantly transformed an intellectual or practical domain or artistic ways of expression, and moved a field forward, or even created a new field (Sternberg, 1999b). The conceptual tension of expertise versus creativity exists between those whose research focuses on expertise and those whose research focuses on creativity, and sometimes between gifted practitioners who espouse differing educational agendas, one aiming at developing high-level expertise and talent and the other at creative productivity. Evidence of the tension. In a chapter of a volume on expertise (Ericsson, 1996) Simonton (1996) felt compelled to coin the term “creative expertise” (p. 227). What he actually delineates is a vision of development of creative productivity that is drastically different from Ericsson’s carefully charted pathways to expertise based on controlled experiments and systematic observations. From Simonton’s point of view, charting the ontogeny of creative productivity entails a different set of parameters than what expertise researchers have prescribed; yet for many cognitive psychologists, Ericsson included, trajectories leading to creativity is not that different from those leading to domain expertise (see Ericsson, 2006; Weisberg, 1999, 2006). There is also a feeling in the community of gifted education that goals of talent development should go beyond mere expertise to reach creative productivity (Renzulli, 2005; Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005). The problem. Weisberg (2006) pointed out two competing propositions regarding the relations between expertise and creativity: (a) expertise facilitates creativity and (b) expertise impedes creativity. It is argued that expertise is necessary for creative productivity because a well-organized, in-depth knowledge base makes it possible to detect discrepancies and problems in the domain and identify new pathways to solving the problems. This facilitation hypothesis is supported by many real-life cases in arts and sciences and controlled research, discussed by Weisberg (1999, 2006) and Ericsson (2006). As a counter-argument, expertise impedes creativity because too much encapsulated knowledge Expertise Versus Creativity renders an expert entrenched in established points of view and unable to “think outside the box.” ExperiMature “gifted” accomplishments belong to two mental research demonstrating the difficulty of breakbroad categories: expertise and creativity. To use ing a mental set (e.g., Luchins & Luchins, 1970) supGardner’s (1997) words, people in the “expertise” cat- ports this impediment hypothesis. In real life, Max

64

Planck’s reluctance to go in the direction that Einstein went, or Einstein’s rejection of premises underlying quantum mechanics, is a case in point (see A. Miller, 1996). Indeed, it is not unusual that scientists “become increasingly ensnared by the ideas that they themselves created” (Simonton, 2002, p. 272). Too much of expertise becomes a handicap when rules of a game change, figuratively as well as literally (Frensch & Sternberg, 1989). It should be pointed out, incidentally, that the expertise research tends to focus on domains involving the mastery of performance that requires one to execute a set of skills and routines within a specific time frame, such as instrument playing, figure skating, or the game of chess or go. One may argue that being capable of playing and interpreting a musical masterpiece near perfection is a completely different matter than being able to create a masterpiece, just as being able to execute a difficult routine beautifully does not means being able to choreograph such a routine. For the latter, deliberate practice may not be enough. Although one may agree that expertise is a necessary condition for creative productivity (this is even the case for Mozart; see Lehmann & Ericsson, 1998), a theory that provides a compelling account of exceptional mastery of skilled performance may not be adequate as an account of creative productivity. Biographic analysis shows that personalities and life trajectories of masters and makers seem distinctly different from each other (Gardner, 1997). While masters tended to exclusively focus on one domain, creators tended to hop around different domains, enhancing cognitive flexibility and forging borrowing and cross-fertilization (Simonton, 1997; Root-Bernstein, this volume). In the community of gifted education, there is a widely held belief that students identified as gifted academic learners are not necessarily the most promising ones in terms of creative productivity. It is this misgiving that seems to have motivated a distinction between a mastery type of giftedness (or schoolhouse giftedness) and a creative type of giftedness (e.g., Callahan & Miller, 2005; Renzulli, 1986; Tannenbaum, 1997). Indeed, retrospective accounts of schooling experience by those eminent creative scientists and writers suggest that schooling in general is not a particularly pleasant and productive experience for many of them (Subotnik & Olszewski-Kubilius, 1998). In general, these creative individuals tended to structure their own lives and actively seek developmental opportunities instead

D.Y. Dai

of being structured by others, as is evident in Mark Twain’s remark: “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.” The most successful individuals in adulthood that Terman identified in his longitudinal study (Terman & Oden, 1959) also shared similar characteristics, the ones that might not be congenial to typical school structures in terms of curriculum and instruction as well as social organization. Solutions. A possible solution to this tension is to take a more domain-specific view on this issue; here domain refers to any well-defined human activity or endeavor, culturally sanctioned or not, that has adaptive significance and functional value. Tannenbaum’s (1997) taxonomy is useful for this purpose. It (1) distinguishes producers from performers, (2) further breaks them down to different categories of productions and performance based on domains, and (3) differentiates two criteria: proficiency and creativity. In addition, there are differences between domains that are more formally organized as a field, with welldefined rules, boundaries, players, and gatekeepers, and domains whose social organization is relatively loose, and standards for excellence less well defined. For more formal disciplines and domains (e.g., classic music, academic disciplines, or medicine), substantial expertise (i.e., mastery of a canonical set of knowledge and skills) may be necessary before one can become creative. For other domains such as creative writing, business, or pop music, where technical mastery may not be as rigorous as formal disciplines, creativity may not require extensive development of expertise. Sometimes a lack of technical proficiency can be a good thing for innovation, as in the case of van Gogh’s painting, partly thanks to his lack of formal training in realist painting techniques. It is also worth noting that efficient mastery in terms of quickly achieving knowledge encapsulation and skill automaticity may be of differential importance at different stages of talent development (Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005). In favor of the facilitation hypothesis, intense efforts of mastery can lead to transformation, in a sense that a striving for high-level expertise pushes one toward “the edge of chaos,” detecting gaps and discrepancies in the existing system, which calls for creative solutions (Dai & Renzulli, 2008; Runco, 1994). To avoid misleading bifurcation of expertise and creativity, a more refined distinction between adaptive expertise and routine expertise serves a good purpose. (Hatano & Inagaki, 1986). Schwartz, Bransford, &

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

Sears (in press) proposed two dimensions: efficiency and innovation. When one strikes a balance between efficiency (achieving mastery and automaticity) and innovation (making transformations and generalizations), one is more likely to become an adaptive expert. When one exclusively focuses on efficiency, one tends to become a routine expert. When one attempts to be innovative without achieving efficiency, one is likely to remain a confused novice. Thus, adaptive expertise entails a balancing act. Sometimes one has to give up well-mastered skills to try new ways of doing things, or take a metacognitive distance from one’s entrenched beliefs to facilitate alternative ways of thinking about an object or phenomenon. Metacognitive control seems to be needed for both expertise and creativity (Weisberg, 2006). In light of the above discussion, the goals of developing expertise and creativity have slightly different, but complementary pedagogical ramifications. Development of expertise typically goes through steady professional routes of sustained or extended mastery, while development of creative productivity involves more individuality (such as self-direction, risk-taking, and a sense of destiny). In many domains, they complement each other. Pertaining to gifted education, historical debates on enrichment and acceleration, two main delivery systems for gifted education, also reveal different emphases, mastery of increasingly challenging materials (acceleration) or gaining the breadth and depth of educational experience to sharpen the mind (enrichment). In an ideal learning condition, the two should intermingle to achieve content–process integration in the development of talent and creative potential (Coleman & Cross, 2005).

65

of giftedness, people with a nomothetic perspective make universal assumptions about what giftedness is and what attributes define giftedness. In comparison, people with an idiographic perspective see giftedness as involving unique individual functioning and development (e.g., child prodigies; Feldman, 1986; musical talent development; Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005), thus not easily fitting into any general differential or developmental theories. In other words, the concept of giftedness from an idiographic point of view is prototypical and exemplary, with limited generality. Evidence of the tension. A most telling historical anecdote is that, when Spearman (1904) declared that, once and for all, general intelligence had been “objectively determined and measured” (p. 201), Binet was not convinced; he argued that two persons who obtained the same test score on some psychometric tests might nevertheless possess different skill sets, which turns out to be the case at the high end of the spectrum almost by statistical necessity. These two early pioneers of intelligence theory illustrate two very different ways or styles of looking at the world. Spearman was a mathematician who value universality, simplicity, and precision, and preferred numbers to immediate phenomenology, with a default assumption characteristic of his time: intelligence works like a “mental faculty,” a position largely discredited by modern cognitive psychology. In contrast, Binet was a clinician who was intrigued by nuances and “idiographic complexity” of the individual intellectual functioning (Brody, 2000, p. 19). Similar differences can also be found in the creativity research. Simonton (1997), for example, developed a predictive and explanatory model of creative productivity in which only a small number of parameters are postulated, and all the theoretical predictions expressed mathematically. In contrast, Gardner (1993, 1997) took a much more intimate look at Nomothetic Versus Idiographic lives of those who have made landmark creative conApproaches tributions, with painstaking efforts to develop a sympathetic understanding of the workings of their minds. Nomothetic and idiographic approaches represent two Indeed, just like Binet did not like what Spearman different ways of “carving the nature at its joints.” had to say, idiographic researchers typically do not Nomothetic approaches make general assumptions of like lots of generalizations made by nomothetic rehow the world functions and derive deductive conse- searchers (e.g., see Gruber, 1986 on psychometrically quences of “natural laws” or universal principles for defined giftedness). Among the gifted researchers, cona given population, whereas idiographic approaches sider the contrast between Gagn´e (1985, 2004) and use an inductive approach, identifying unique patterns Feldman (1986, 2003). The differing epistemic stances and regularities based on intimate observation of a set yield different visions of the nature and nurture of of particulars (Allport, 1937). Applying to the issue giftedness.

66

The problem. Simplification by integration and simplification by isolation are two different ways of understanding the complex world (Iran-Nejad, McKeachie, & Berliner, 1990). Making nomothetic or universal assumptions about psychological processes and individual differences in intelligence and personality is the mainstay of psychology since its inception as a science. In early years, it was conducted in the name of psychophysics. In differential psychology, the task is to identify variables that operate within a population. As Novick (1982) stated, “our success as scientists can be measured by our skill in identifying variables that can be used to define relevant, exchangeable subpopulations” (p. 6). Various ability and personality variables are thus derived through measurement techniques, and considered valid across a population. However, these psychological constructs are fictions we create to describe and organize a set of observations in terms of how these variables may influence individual functioning; a person does not act as a list of variables (Snow, 1995). These fictions start to lose their power when they fail to capture the nuances and complexities of individuality or specific lines of individual development (see also Cross, 2003 for a critique of nomothetic assumptions underlying the empirical-analytic mode of inquiry). For good assessment of gifted or exceptional potential, at least three criteria need to be satisfied: sensitivity, specificity, and normative value (Beutler & Rosner, 1995). Psychometric measurement is excellent at providing normative value through its well-calibrated norms and nomothetic span, adequate in specificity through good construct representation (though constructs like “intelligence” or “creativity” are often criticized as too broad and abstract to be psychologically meaningful and amenable to measurement), but poor at sensitivity, namely, capturing the uniqueness of the individual being assessed. For example, the individuality of the person who carried out all the actions over time leading to gifted performance and productivity can be lost in the snapshot measurement of theoretically deduced variables. A nomothetic approach to giftedness (e.g., defining giftedness psychometrically) is a doubleedged sword. On the one hand, one can argue that extreme conditions of individual functioning should be captured by a psychometric measure if the instrument involved allows for fine-grained differentiation at the high end (i.e., no apparent ceiling effect). On

D.Y. Dai

the other hand, one can argue that the highly gifted may evade standard psychometric measurement altogether, because of their idiosyncrasies in structural and functional organization of their minds and their idiosyncratic handling of specific test situations. This is where the idiographic approach comes to claim its own legitimacy as an alternative or complementary approach. Different from the variable-centered, nomothetic approach, an idiographic approach assumes the unity of the person as a whole. Aristotle identified three meanings of unity: (a) continuity by nature, (b) wholeness or indivisibility of form, and (c) wholeness or indivisibility of motion (see Silverstein, 1988). Unity so defined is the basic criterion for a thing to have a substance. Intelligence as measured IQs is arguably not a substance, as it does not meet the criterion of unity (cf. Gould, 1981). An enactive, functioning person does. The idiographic approach differs from the nomothetic approach in another significant manner. The nomothetic approach takes on an objectivist, mechanical epistemic stance, treating individual functioning as an object, following universal laws; thus the subjective life of an individual can be treated as insignificant and epiphenomenal. In contrast, the idiographic approach always entails an intimate look into the mental life of the person involved (e.g., using a phenomenological approach; Cross, 2003). Thus many researchers proposed constructs, such as organization of intentions (Gruber, 1986), subjective mental space (Shavinina & Kholodnaja, 1996), or subjective action space (Ziegler, 2005), as one of the key ingredients of a model of how gifted performance comes about. The difference raises the issue of whether intuition, personal judgment, and other subjective aspects of life should be taken into account in scientific understanding of phenomena as complex as intelligence, expertise, and creativity. Psychologists differ in this regard (Kimble, 1984). Solutions. The variable-centered, nomothetic approach is still the psychology’s mainstream. On the other hand, the person-centered, idiographic approach, using constructs such as individualized life tasks (Cantor, 1990, p. 740), personal strivings (Emmons, 1986), has gained momentum. We all try to cut the nature at its joints. The issue is how to make the cuts that retain the complexity and sufficient details yet still show intelligible structure and regularities, the ways that

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

“each person is like all other people, some other people, and no other people” (Lohman & Rocklin, 1995, p. 470). As mentioned earlier, the field of giftedness research started with nomothetic assumptions about human traits, such as intelligence (Terman, 1925), but increasingly recognized the importance of starting with particulars, the immediate phenomenology of gifted and talented behaviors (e.g., Witty, 1958). Indeed, Terman himself conducted many case studies in later years of his longitudinal study, producing insights that otherwise could not be obtained (see Terman & Oden, 1959). The nomothetic versus idiographic dimension can be better seen as a continuum rather than a dichotomy. There are middle grounds between universals and particulars. Between using a variable-centered approach to identify “exchangeable subpopulations” (gifted, average, mentally retarded, etc.) and a person-centered approach to identify unique individuality, Muth´en and Muth´en (2000) offers a technical compromise. They recommend using a “latent class” statistical technique to identify relatively homogeneous subgroups in terms of different profiles and developmental patterns. However, Silverstein (1988) argued that, to truly resolve the nomothetic–idiographic tension, functional developmental history (FDH) should be used as a unit of analysis. In the same vein, Haensly, Reynolds, and Nash (1986) called for attention to “the dynamic nature of the human response to a specific and variety of settings” (p. 130). They proposed a unit of analysis that consists of four Cs: “A meaningful definition of giftedness should take into account what and how abilities have productively come together (coalescence); the type of setting that elicits expression of those abilities (context), the opposing forces that generate a divergence of expression (conflict); and the quality, intensity, and duration of that expression (commitment)” (p. 132).

Snow (1995) echoed this sentiment: “it may be that the best way to understand both individual differences and individuality is in the context of development, whereas developmental pathways both general and unique may best be interpreted in the context of differential distributions” (p. xiv). The use of FDH as a unit of analysis instead of using variable-centered approaches seems to be a promising direction (see Dai & Renzulli, 2008, for an attempt to implement this approach).

67

Reductionism Versus Emergentism If the nomothetic–idiographic tension concerns whether one starts with universals or particulars, and how uniqueness can be preserved in search of generality, the reductionism–emergentism tension concerns what levels of analysis and explanation is appropriate given a behavioral and psychological phenomenon. Psychology as a science started out with a strong reductionist orientation (e.g., psychophysics), treating mental events as epiphenomenal of neural-physiological processes. In general, reductionism in psychology is a tendency to trace all complex behaviors and high-level psychological phenomena (including early manifestations of gifts and talents or outstanding eminent achievement) backward to simpler, lower-level components that constitute higher-level phenomena. In its most radical form, psychological processes and events can be causally reduced to neural-physiological events and biochemistry, which can, in turn, be reduced to physics (or from cellular to molecular). A less dramatic example of the reductionist approach is to parse variations in intelligence and personality variables into proportions explained by genetics and environment, respectively (or using more refined schemes): complex phenomena can be taken apart to show its simpler components, and explained by these simpler components in an additive or multiplicative fashion (see Scarr, 1997). Emergentism as a philosophic orientation is relatively new in psychology (Sawyer, 2002). It attempts to keep track of the emergence of complex behaviors in a forward manner, at various levels of organized complexity. For example, evolution can be understood as a self-assembly and self-organization of complexity: living beings have, over millions of years of evolution, surpassed critical thresholds of nervous systems, consciousness, language, and shared technology, which enable Homo Sapiens to achieve a maximal fit through learning and development in an unprecedented manner. Each threshold represents a new level of organized complexity that is indebted to, but cannot be reduced, to lower-level components (e.g., the linguistic, symbolic capability as an emergent property of human functioning entails directedness of consciousness but cannot be simply explained by consciousness). Emergentism would explain individual differences in complex human behaviors, including intellectual performance and manifestations of talents and creative productivity, as a matter of real-time developmental

68

emergence, a dynamic form of organized complexity (Dai, 2005; Sawyer, 2002). Indeed, the essence of development from an organismic point of view is the emergence of new properties with increasing organized complexity (Overtone, 1984). Evidence of the tension. While Jensen (2001) and other differential psychologists were seeking the biological underpinnings of intelligence by obtaining physiological measures such as neural conduction velocity (see also Geake, this volume; Vandervert & Liu, this volume), Gruber (1986) dismissed such a “being” account and characterized Darwin, Piaget, and other epoch-making creative lives as self-construction (i.e., doing/becoming) of the extraordinary. In a sense they were trying to answer the same question of how human exceptional competence and creative productivity comes about, but they were going in such diametrically different directions. As another example, after the three-ring conception of giftedness, Renzulli (2002) still found something wanting and went ahead to propose a set of personal constructs, such as optimism, courage, sensitivity to human conditions, sense of destiny, as necessary motivational forces that drive actions leading to major creative contributions to the society and humankind. Behind the being–doing/becoming debate also lies an epistemological tension, differences in what Dennett (1987) called epistemic stance, or what Kimble (1984) identified as two cultures in psychology: scientism and humanism. The problem. As one recalls, psychology as a young discipline used to emulate physics (some may argue that it still does!). Newtonian physics, with its first principles, has attested to the magical power of reductionism. As a matter of fact, it was so powerful that brilliant physicists such as Planck and Einstein all aspired to unify physical sciences under an even more basic, foundational theory. Planck, for example, warned that “physical research cannot rest so long as mechanics and electrodynamics have not been welded together with thermodynamics and heat radiation” (in Holton, 1981, p. 18). Despite the unsuccessful attempt in Einstein’s later life with his unified field theory, reductionism has proved highly effective when used in physics, but less so in biology, and increasingly controversial in psychology (see Koch & Leary, 1992). It has to do with our basic assumption and understanding of human nature as mechanistic, organismic, or contextual (Overtone, 1984).

D.Y. Dai

The mechanistic vision of human development is that of refinement of machinery. Just like a mechanical gadget, it can be taken apart to show how each component works, all following physical laws. For such a system, addition, subtraction, and rearrangement of components are sufficient to make it work, but no qualitative change can occur in and of itself. In short, a mechanistic model of human development is a reductionist model. In contrast, an organismic vision of human development is modeled after living things such as plants and animals. Living beings are progressively undergoing transformation or qualitative, discontinuous changes. Human beings are even more so; they actively participate in their own development through self-selection and self-initiated actions. Organismic models are non-reductionist and emergentist. A contextual vision of human development incorporates organismic principles but sees human functioning and development as fundamentally embedded in the person–environment dynamic interactions and functional relationships. Thus, contextual models of human development are not only emergentist but also interactionistic. In the context of these three different ontological views of human development, it is easy to see why emergentists tend to take an idiographic approach and reductionists tend to take a nomothetic approach. Based on this scheme, at least four levels of analysis or explanation can be identified: the neural-biological level, the behavioral–functional level, the intentional level, and the activity or social-contextual level (Dai, 2005). Consider the lowest level of emergence in terms of neural wiring and circuit building through learning and maturation to form functional units in the brain. Reductionists parse variations in intellectual performance into genetic and environmental factors as proportional contributions to certain phenotypic development. Emergentism argues that neural wiring is not dictated by genes but highly sensitive to experience, better characterized as a probabilistic epigenesis rather than a deterministic one (Gottlieb, 1998). It has to do with neural plasticity in meeting developmental challenges (see Kalbfleisch, this volume), including talent development; for instance, structural and functional adaptations occur in the brain as a result of training in music (Schlaug, 2001) and other domains (Ericsson et al., in press). Experience and learning change brain physiology and anatomy during child and adolescent development (Nelson, 2000), even in adulthood

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

69

(Greenough, 1976). Thus, assumptions about fixed capacities do not hold even at the neural level! Built on the neural-biological structures and functions is the next level of organized complexity, the growth of competence in cognitive and cultural domains, namely, talents and skills. Reductionists tend to assume that talent is innate, or treat it as an accidental by-product of some abnormal development, a “pathology of superiority.” However, none of the talents in culturally defined domains comes as “packaged” or “pre-programmed.” Rather, emergentists view talent as a result of developmental interactions at several levels (neural, cognitive–affective, social). The emergence of a talent can be characterized as a developmental continuity (quantitative changes) reaching a tipping point to produce a discontinuous outcome (a new level of organized complexity in one’s action repertoire, to use the Actiotope Model; Ziegler, 2005). Domain competence is thus dynamic, in that a talent is a continually changing functional state, continuous increments building up to the next level of organized complexity. Still another higher level of organized complexity has to did with the human ability to mentally represent one’s own past, present, and future, and initiate actions and effect changes in himself or herself. Cognitive psychologists with a reductionist bias typically place their levels of analysis at “subpersonal” levels, that is, mental operations at subconscious level. Dennett (1987) saw them as subpersonal designs, assuming that some mental structures and operations opaque to consciousness carry out all the tasks, and the role of consciousness and intentionality, together with their social-cultural referents and meanings, is epiphenomenal and trivial for that matter. However, this reductionistic view of human functioning has been increasingly contended not only by philosophers (e.g., Searle, 1990, 2002), but also by neurologists and physical scientists (see Cornwell, 1995). For example, Edelman (1995), a neuroscientist, the 1972 Nobel Prize winner for Physiology and Medicine, argued that a unique characteristic of human beings is their ability to model the past and the future. He particularly stressed the role of emergence of selfhood, a construct used by Gruber (1986, 1998) to explain the genesis of many eminent creative contributions:

This selfhood, with its remembered past and envisioned future, sets humans apart from “non-intentional objects” (Edelman, 1995, p. 205). In keeping with this understanding of personal agency, a variety of selfrelated concepts are gaining legitimacy in the scientific discourse on human functioning and development, such as self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and possible selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986). These constructs are increasingly used in the giftedness research. At the highest organized complexity is the activity or social-contextual level, which sees all the other three levels of analysis as nested in this functional context. If intentionality is a centerpiece of human functioning, then human functioning must also be social, as intentionality has a distinct social component. Mainstream psychology often reveals mechanistic or organismic biases in explaining gifted and talented behavior, because etiologies of human behavior are typically seen as residing within the person in question. This individualistic bias is reflected not only in theories that consider gifted and talented as by and large genetically based, but also in theories that emphasize personal efforts as the main cause. Rarely do people see gifted and talented behaviors as enabled, not merely facilitated, by technology and culture, or as distributed between the person and an interacting environment (including other people), until very recently (e.g., Barab & Plucker, 2002; Moran & John-Steiner, 2003; Sawyer, 2003; Ericsson, 2006). Thus, the emergency of excellence at the social-contextual level is attributed to the synergistic power, as a result of reciprocation of domain and social affordances and individual and collective abilities (effectivities) over time. Solutions. As the persistent reductionistic search for the Holy Grail of giftedness for the last century has seemed to meet with serious difficulties, emergentism, with its organismic and contextualist outlook, offers a viable alternative. It provides a new way of understanding excellence as a result of developmental diversity. Many of its features are worth consideration in understanding gifted and talent behaviors, for example, its non-deterministic, probabilistic view of human development, its emphasis on neural plasticity and cognitive adaptivity, its emphasis on equipotentiality and equifinality (i.e., different strengths and different developmental pathways lead to the same level of excellence, as evidenced in Gottfried et al., 2005; Shavinina, 2004; see also Kalbfleisch, this volume; Papierno et al., 2005). To be sure, emergentism has its own chal-

“By selfhood, I mean not just the individuality that emerges from genetics or immunology, but the personal individuality that emerges from developmental and social interactions” (Edelman, 1995, p.201)

70

lenges, such as how to integrate findings that sit at different levels of analysis (with different grain sizes and structures, different laws and principles), and how to provide bridging principles between different levels of analysis that render emergentist accounts coherent and truly integrated, like a piece of seamless fabric rather than a patched quilt (see Searle, 2004, for a philosophic discussion of different levels of analysis).

Excellence Versus Equity Conceptually, promoting and rewarding excellence does not necessarily impede social equity in terms of equal access to opportunities and resources for achieving excellence. However, in a democracy, especially in a society that has a history of racism, sexism, or other forms of social injustice, there are always concerns as to whether only some individuals or groups have privileged access to resources for achieving excellence and cultural distinction, while others are marginalized or even disfranchised. Evidence of the tension. Gifted education bears the brunt of charges of elitism within the educational community and without. The charges include creating a ruling social elite (Margolin, 1994, 1996), destroying the communal unity of school (SaponShevin, 1994, 1996), unfairly creating a social divide between the elect (i.e., the gifted) and the damned (the regular or non-gifted; Berliner & Biddle, 1995), to name a few. The anti-elitist sentiment is understandable if one realizes that in the US educational system, minority students (barring Asians) are overrepresented in special education and underrepresented in gifted education (Donovan & Cross, 2002). There is a suspicion that the system has an inherent bias against minority students in the selection system. Conversely, detracking (dismantling ability grouping) and the purposeful heterogeneous grouping increasingly popular in the United States has also raised concerns that gifted students are likely exploited in the name of cooperative learning (see Colangelo & Davis, 1997). As an early signal of the tension, Renzulli and Reis (1991) pointed out a “quiet crisis” (p. 26) that directly threatens the defensibility and viability of gifted education: the neglect of the issue of equity and underrepresented populations in gifted education. In 1996, an entire issue of the Journal for the Education of the Gifted was

D.Y. Dai

devoted to forging a constructive dialogue between gifted educators and critics of the gifted education movement. Most striking is Borland’s (2003) recent advocacy for “gifted education without gifted children” (p. 105), a far cry from his early position (e.g., Borland, 1989). Borland’s conclusion is that gifted education as currently practiced, for all its good intention, further perpetuates social injustice: privileging the already privileged. Scholars in gifted education are wrestling with the issue of whether gifted education should serve unique needs of relatively few or develop talents for all (e.g., see Gallagher, 2000; Treffinger & Feldhusen, 1996; Morelock, 1996). The problem. The issue concerns whether the selection system for gifted education necessarily means unjustified exclusion of certain groups and individuals. The defense of gifted programs is often built on the assumptions of special needs of some top students that set them apart from their peers. The alleged “special needs” are often so vaguely defined that use of “special needs” as a rationale for gifted education is increasingly facing criticism (Borland, 2003; Grant, 2002) for ethical and pragmatic reasons. Another major argument used to defend gifted education is that cultivating giftedness as the most precious natural resources benefits both individuals who demonstrate this quality and the society at large (Renzulli & Reis, 1991). As the categorical approach to identifying “gifted children” using strict cutoffs appears untenable in light of new understandings of the diversity of gifted manifestations, should we still retain an identification system but use more inclusive criteria (Renzulli & Reis, 1997) or should we adopt a more radical “gifted education without gifted children” approach that Borland (2003) advocates? Epistemologically, the issue hinges on our understanding of the issues discussed above: the being versus doing/becoming of giftedness, the issue of qualitative versus qualitative differences, and domain specificity versus domain generality, and ultimately, what gifted education is for. In a larger scheme of things, the tension reflects an egalitarian sentiment against elitism, a charge to which gifted education is vulnerable. Modern society is a mixture of meritocracy and democracy. This marriage is not always an amicable one. On the one hand, individual excellence is encouraged, recognized, and rewarded in a market economy where efficiency and productivity rule. Democracy also implies that individual differences and individuality should be respected,

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

71

and demonstrated high potential be given opportunity to develop. On the other hand, “survival of the fittest,” “the winner takes all” (Ambrose, 2000), and above all, an image of an IQ elite ruling the less intelligent masses in an IQ-stratified society, reminiscent of Plato’s philosopher-kings, is scary to many, particularly when this elitist vision was promoted by Terman, Goddard, and other Darwinians a hundred years ago in the United States, and still find sympathizers today (e.g., Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). This is probably why many people today seem comfortable with athletic elites, business elites, artistic elites, or even technology elites, but uneasy about an intellectual elite. However, as Hofstadter (1963) argued, “The intellectual class, whether or not it enjoys many the privileges of an elite, is of necessity an elite in its manner of thinking and functioning” (p. 407). One may even argue that a true democracy entails such a high intellectual quality (Dewey, 1916). McWhorter (2003), for example, pointed out an alarming decline in the quality of political discourse in the United States; the language many politicians (arguably an elite group) prefer to use seems increasingly less formal compared to their counterparts in the 1800s and 1900s, relying more on sound bites that have an emotional appeal to their audiences or constituencies but not much of intellectual substance. This declined quality of thinking not only has direct political consequences (e.g., war and peace), but also affects the quality of a democracy. Advocacy for the gifted runs counter to democracy in another way. Culturally speaking, democracy and commercialism are not particularly congenial to refined minds and senses. Indeed, people like William James (or Henry James for that matter) would likely feel out of place if they were still alive today. Tocqueville (1835) foretold the decline of senses and sensibilities in the modern era, and expressed his mixed feelings about the then emergent democracy in his Democracy in America. By the same token, Tannenbaum (1998) warned that the sound and fury of the popular culture could numb sensitivities and dumb down sensibilities, threatening the very existence of the gifted on this planet! It raises the issue of whether gifted education should play an important role of preserving an “elite” quality in an increasingly materialist, post-modern world. In historical hindsight, Sputnik-mobilized energy and enthusiasm for educational excellence in science and mathematics is a mixed blessing, because what historically motivated

the gifted movement were political and economic exigencies (e.g., the United States is losing its competitive edge! To Soviet Union in 1950s, to Japan in 1980s, and now to China!). Giftedness as a precious natural resource should be cultivated and put to good use for the sake of national interest, and no one would question the value of doing so (see Carroll, Crowe, Earle, Orland, Moon, Ross, & Subotnik, this volume). However, it can be argued that well-cultivated, refined minds and senses, as reflected in their intellectual and artistic products and expressions, have their own intrinsic value, and should be preserved with equal urgency. Solutions. Early Darwinians such as Galton and Terman interpreted Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” as a uni-dimensional hierarchy, which is, in hindsight, a misconception. As in a natural world, there are many ways that the organism–environment fit can be achieved. In other words, Darwinian niche potential can be pluralistic, rather than hierarchical. Moreover, it is the variation or diversity, socially and biologically, that produces excellence, not the mere inheritance of family genes. Indeed, as Simonton (2005) pointed out, genius or extreme forms of giftedness is more likely a genetic accident than an inherited family trait. Thus, the myth of a natural-born elite group passing their “gifted genes” onto their offspring, perpetuated by Galton (1869), should be debunked. One might even venture a hypothesis that the statistical concept of regression to the mean also applies in this context. As to how a society should view and treat those who demonstrate different levels of excellence or promise, Sternberg (1996) proposed a Jeffersonian ideal that people are equal in terms of political and social rights, and thus should have equal opportunity to realize their potential, but the extent to which they utilize and benefit from these opportunities may not be equal. People should be rewarded for what they accomplish, given equal opportunity, not for what they might have or could have accomplished. In other words, everyone should be given equal opportunities, but one should not expect equal outcomes, nor should one reward everyone equally if the outcomes are different. A corollary of this argument is that actual achievement should be used as a basis for reward, not putative potential. In gifted education, one way of solving the excellence versus equity problem is to reintegrate gifted education into general education. It is now feasible be-

72

cause general education has increasingly emphasized high-level thinking and teaching for transfer and expertise (e.g., Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). While arguing that goals and guiding principles for gifted education and general education are fundamentally similar, Tomlinson (1996) posits nine dimensions on which educational and instructional differentiation may be made for gifted learners: (a) foundational to transformational, (b) concrete to abstract, (c) simple to complex, (d) few facets to multifacets, (e) smaller leap to greater leap, (f) more structured to more open, (g) clearly defined to fuzzy, (h) less independence to greater independence, and (i) slower to quicker. They can be seen as dimensions along which all students (including the gifted) can be properly positioned based on their zones of proximal development, on how much they will benefit from a given educational experience at a specific point in time. A continuum of educational provisions can be made, some suitable for many, and others only suitable to a relatively few (Renzulli & Reis, 1997; Stanley, 1997; Shore & Delcourt, 1996).

Conclusion More than a century ago, Galton (1896) envisioned that we eventually pinpoint genius as a heritable, measurable mental faculty. Terman (1925) went further to study this putatively heritable trait with the then newly invented measurement technology. These pioneers of gifted psychology provide us with a legacy that needs to be taken seriously, and critically reviewed in light of all the scientific advances made over the past century. In this chapter, I identify several tensions between the old and the new, between different ways of approaching the same issue, and explore how these tensions can be resolved or eased by efforts of synthesis. I attempt to show that meaningful exchanges can be made between those who hold diametrically different viewpoints, and that under the seemingly discrete approaches and perspectives, there is commensurability, continuity, and complementarity. Such exchanges would ensure that, even though we may not agree with each other, we at least understand each other’s point of view. Human understanding follows a learning curve. Ultimately, it self-corrects. Studies of giftedness are no exception. Galton was almost prophetic in his times, but na¨ıve by today’s standards of scientific knowledge.

D.Y. Dai

T. S. Elliot once commented that, with new insights into the human nature and conditions, the entire world order needs to be rearranged to reflect these new understandings. This said, the essential tensions surrounding the concept of giftedness will linger for several reasons. First, we are dealing with issues that are value laden, with ethic and political consequences. Indeed, many in the field can be better described as champions of certain justifiable causes rather than disinterested bystanders; scientists are social beings as well, and have their own political sympathies and commitments. Second, the epistemic complexity of the issues makes it inevitable that knowledge claims we have made or will make, however supported by evidence, are based on theoretical models rather than objective realities independent of the observer and/or the instrument that permits the observation); these knowledge claims or creative interpretations of data are constrained, but not automatically made self-evident, by empirical evidence. And finally, epistemic beliefs and ontological commitments of scholars and researchers, including principles guiding their research, are usually not subject to falsification (Lakatos, 1978). One can remain hopeful, however, that scholars and researchers in the field constructively capitalize on these tensions with both open-mindedness and critical thinking. To quote Toulmin (1972): “A man [or woman] demonstrates his [her] rationality, not by a commitment to fixed ideas, stereotyped procedures, or immutable concepts, but by the manner in which, and the occasions on which, he [she] changes those ideas, procedures, and concepts.” (p. x).

References AAMR (American Association on Mental Retardation) (1992). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of support (9th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Ackerman, P. L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: Cognitive abilities and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 288–318. Ackerman, P. L. (1999). Traits and knowledge as determinants of learning and individual differences: Putting it all together. In P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, traits, and content determinants (pp. 437–460). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Alexander, J. M., Carr, M., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1995). Development of metacognition in gifted children: Directions for future research. Developmental Review, 15, 1–37.

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

73

Allport, G. W. (1937). Patterns and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Ambrose, D. (2000). World-view entrapment: Moral-ethical implications for gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 159–186. Ambrose, D. (2003). Barriers to aspiration development and self-fulfillment: Interdisciplinary insights for talent discovery. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 282–294. Ambrose, D. (2005). Interdisciplinary expansion of conceptual foundations: Insights from beyond our field. Roeper Review, 27, 137–143. Angoff, W. H. (1988). The nature-nurture debate, aptitudes, and group differences. American Psychologist, 43, 713–720. Baltes, P. B. (1998). testing the limits of the ontogenetic sources of talent and excellence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 407–408. Bamberger, J. (1986). Cognitive issues in the development of musically gifted children. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 388–413). Cambridge. England: Cambridge University press. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). smart people or smart context? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165–182. Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, R. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attach on America’s public schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Beutler, L. E., & Rosner, R. (1995). Introduction to psychological assessment. In L. E. Beutler & R. Rosner (Eds.), Integrative assessment of adult personality (pp. 1–24). New York: The Guilford press. Bidell, T. R., & Fischer, K. W. (1997). Between nature and nurture: The role human agency in the epigenesis of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & E. Grigorenko (Eds.), Intelligence, heredity, and environment (pp. 193–242). New York: Cambridge University press. Block, N. J., & Dworkin, G. (1976). The IQ controversy. New York: Pantheon. Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books. Bonsangue, M. V., & Drew, D. E. (1995). Increasing minority students’ success in calculus. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 11, 501–518. Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College press. Borland, J. H. (1997). The construct of giftedness. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3 & 4), 6–20. Borland, J. H. (2003). The death of giftedness. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 105–124). New York: Teachers College press. Borland, J. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children: The case for no conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2 ed., pp. 1–19). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University press. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy press. Brody, N. (2000). History of theories and measurements of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelli-

gence (pp. 16–33). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bio-ecological model. Psychological Review, 101, 568–586. Callahan, C. M., & Miller, E. M. (2005). A child-responsive model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2 ed., pp. 38–51). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University press. Cantor, N. (1990). From thought to behavior: “Having” and “doing” in the study of personality and cognition. American Psychologist, 45, 735–750. Carey, S. (1999). Sources of conceptual change. In E. K. Scholnick, K. Nelson, S. Gelman, A. & P. H. Miller (Eds.), Conceptual development: Piaget’s legacy (pp. 293–326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. Carroll, T., Crowe, E., Earle, J., Orland, M., Moon, J., Ross, P., et al. (in press). Identifying and developing exceptional talent in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Developing a national strategic agenda. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), Handbook on Giftedness. New York: Springer Science. Case, R. (1992). The mind’s staircase: Exploring the conceptual underpinnings of children’s thought and knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ceci, S. J. (1996). On intelligence: A bio-ecological treatise on intellectual development (2 ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press. Ceci, S. J. (2003). Cast in six ponds and you’ll reel in something: Looking back on 25 years of research. American Psychologist, 58, 855–864. Ceci, S. J., & Liker, J. (1986). A day at the races: A study of IQ, expertise, and cognitive complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 255–266. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (1997). Schooling, intelligence, and income. American Psychologist, 52, 1051–1058. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152. Cleary, T. A., Humphreys, L. G., Kendrick, S. A., & Wesman, A. (1975). Educational uses of tests with disadvantaged students. American Psychologist, 30, 15–41. Colangelom, N., & Davis, G. A. (Eds.) (1997). Handbook of gifted education (2 ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2005). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development, guidance, and teaching. Waco, TX: Prufrock press. Cornwell, J. E. (1995). Nature’s imagination: The frontiers of scientific vision. Oxford, UK: Oxford University press. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two discipline of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684. Cross, T. L. (2003). Rethinking gifted education: A phenomenological critique of the politics and assumptions of the empirical-analytic mode of inquiry. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 72–79). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.

74 Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenager. New York: Cambridge University press. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Robinson, R. E. (1986). Culture, time, and the development of talent. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 264–284). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press. Dai, D. Y. (2004). Why the transformation metaphor doesn’t work well: A comment on Gagne’s DMGT model. High Ability Studies, 15, 157–159. Dai, D. Y. (2005). Reductionism versus emergentism: A framework for understanding conceptions of giftedness. Roeper Review, 144–151. Dai, D. Y., & Coleman, L. J. (2005). Introduction to the special issue on nature, nurture, and development of exceptional competence. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 254–269. Dai, D. Y., Moon, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Achievement motivation and gifted students: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 45–63. Dai, D. Y., & Renzulli, R. S. (2008). Snowflakes, Living systems, and the mystery of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 114–130. Dai, D. Y., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Beyond cognitivism: Toward an integrated understanding of intellectual functioning and development. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 3–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DeHaan, R. G., & Havighurst, R. J. (1957). Educating the gifted. Chicago: University of Chicago press. Delisle, J. (2003). To be or to do: Is a gifted child born or developed? Roeper Review, 26, 12–13. Dennett, D. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT press. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free press. Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.) (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education (Committee on Minority Representation in Special Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council). Washington, DC: National Academy press. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology press. Edelman, G. M. (1995). Memory and the individual soul: Against silly reductionism. In J. Cornwell (Ed.), Nature’s imagination: The frontiers of scientific vision (pp. 200–206). Oxford, England: Oxford University press. Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1058–1068. Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 1–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683–703). New York: Cambridge University press.

D.Y. Dai Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). The cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York: Cambridge University press. Ericsson, K. A., Nandagopal, K., & Roring, R. W. (2005). Giftedness viewed from the expert-performance perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 287–311. Ericsson, K. A., Nandagopal, K., & Roring, R. W. (2007). Giftedness and evidence for reproducibly superior performance: An account based on the expert-performance framework. High Ability Studies, 18, 3–55. Feist, G. J. (2004). The evolved fluid specificity of human creative talent. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 57–82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Feldhusen, J. F. (1992). TIDE: Talent identification and development in education. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning. Feldhusen, J. F. (2003). Lewis M. Terman: A pioneer in the development of ability tests. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 155–169). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Feldman, D. H. (1986). Nature’s gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York: Basic Books. Feldman, D. H. (1992). Has there been a paradigm shift in gifted education: Some thoughts on a changing national scene. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline & D. L. Ambrose (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings from 1991 Henry and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 89–94). Uninville, NY: Trillium. Feldman, D. H. (1994). Beyond universals in cognitive development (second ed.). Norwood, Nj: Ablex. Feldman, D. H. (2003). A developmental, evolutionary perspective on giftedness. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 9–33). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Fischer, K. W., & Yan, Z. (2002). Darwin’s construction of the theory of evolution: Microdevelopment of explanations of variation and change in species. In N. Granott & J. Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment: Trnasition processes in development and learning (pp. 294–318). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. Freeman, J. (2005). Permission to be gifted: How conceptions of giftedness can change lives. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2 ed., pp. 80– 97). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University press. Frensch, P. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (1989). Expertise and intelligent thinking: When it is worse to know better? In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 5, pp. 157–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gagn´e, F. (1985). Gifted and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103–112. Gagn´e, F. (1999). My convictions about the nature of abilities, gifts, and talents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 109–136. Gagn´e, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. High Ability Studies, 15, 119–147.

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

75

Gagn´e, F. (2005a). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2 ed., pp. 98–119). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University press. Gagn´e, F. (2005b). From noncompetence to exceptional talent: Exploring the range of academic achievement within and between grade levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 139–153. Gallagher, J. J. (2000). Unthinkable thoughts: Education of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 5–12. Gallagher, J. J., & Courtright, R. D. (1986). The educational definition of giftedness and its policy implications. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 93–111). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University press. Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: Macmillan. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1997). Extraordinary minds: Portraits of 4 exceptional individuals and an examination of our extraordinariness. New York: Basic Books. Geake, J. (in press). Neuropsychological characteristics of academic and creative giftedness. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), Handbook on Giftedness. New York: Springer Science. Geary, D. C. (1995). Reflections of evolution and culture in children’s cognition. American Psychologist, 50, 24–37. Geary, D. C. (2005). The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general intelligence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gershwind, N., & Galaburda, A. M. (1987). Cerebral lateralization: Biological mechanism, associations, and pathology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. New York: Wiley. Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Editorial: Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24, 13–24. Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (2004). Toward the development of a conceptualization of gifted motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 121–132. Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Cook, C. R., & Morris, P. E. (2005). Educational characteristics of adolescents with gifted academic intrinsic motivation: A longitudinal investigation from school entry through early adulthood. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 172–186. Gottlieb, G. (1998). Normally occuring environmental and behavioral influences on gene activity: From central dogma to probabilistic epigenesis. Psychological Review, 105, 792–802. Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: W. W. Norton and Company. Graham, S. (in press). Underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education. In R. F. Subotnik & D. Matthews (Eds.), Lifespan perspectives on giftedness. Grant, B. A. (2002). Justifying gifted education: A critique of needs claims and a proposal. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 359–374. Greenough, W. T. (1976). Enduring brain effects of differential experience and training. In M. R. Rosenzweig & E. L. Bennett (Eds.), Neural mechanisms of learning and memory (pp. 255–278). Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.

Grinder, R. E. (1985). The gifted in out midst: By their divine deeds, neuroses, and mental test scores we have known them. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: developmental perspectives (pp. 5–35). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. London: Routledge. Gruber, H. E. (1981). Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity (Rev. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago press. Gruber, H. E. (1986). The self-construction of the extraordinary. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 247–263). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University press. Gruber, H. E. (1998). The social construction of extraordinary selves: Collaboration among unique creative people. In R. C. Friedman & K. B. Rogers (Eds.), Talent in context: Histporical and social perspectives on giftedness (pp. 127–147). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gustafsson, J.-E., & Undheim, J. O. (1996). Individual differences in cognitive functions. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 186–242). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Haensly, P., Reynolds, C. R., & Nash, W. R. (1986). Giftedness: coalescence, context, conflict, and commitment. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 128–148). New York: Cambridge University press. Haier, R. J. (2001). PET studies of learning and individual differences. In J. L. McClelland & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Mechanisms of cognitive development: Behavioral and neural perspectives (pp. 123–145). Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Haier, R. J., & Jung, R. E. (2008). Brain imaging studies of intelligence and creativity: What is the picture for education? Roeper Review, 30, 171–180. Hall, V. C. (2003). Educational Psychology From 1890 to 1920. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 3–39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma & A. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and educaiton in Japan. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Heinzen, T. (in press). Ilk hunting: Demons, worms, geniuses, and the search for the elusive ego-twisted computer hacker talent. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), Handbook on Giftedness. New York: Springer Science. Heller, K. A., Perleth, C., & Lim, T. K. (2005). The Munich Model of Giftedness designed to identify and promote gifted students. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2 ed., pp. 147–170). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University press. Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free press. Hertzog, N. (this volume). Arbitrariness of definitions of giftedness. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), Handbook on giftedness. New York: Springer Science. Hirschfeld, L. A., & Gelman, S. A. (1994). Toward a topography of mind: An introduction to domain specificity. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind:

76 Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 3–35). New York: Cambridge University press. Hofstadter, R. (1963). Anti-intellectualism in American life. New York: Vintage Books (A Division of Random House). Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ. New York: World Book Company. Holton, G. (1981). Thematic presuppositions and the direction of scientific advance. In A. F. Heath (Ed.), Scientific explanation (pp. 1–27). Oxford, England: Clarendon press. Horn, J. (1986). Some thoughts about intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & D. K. Detterman (Eds.), What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition (pp. 91– 96). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Howe, M. J. A. (1997). IQ in question: The truth about intelligence. London: SAGE Publications. Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W., & Sloboda, J. A. (1998). Innate talents: Reality or myth? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 399–442. Hunt, E. (1999). Intelligence and human resources: Past, present, and future. In P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, traits, and content determinants (pp. 3–28). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hunt, E. (2006). Expertise, talent, and social encouragement. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 31–38). New York: Cambridge University press. Iran-Nejad, A., McKeachie, W. J., & Berliner, D. C. (1990). The multisource nature of learning: An introduction. Review of Educational Research, 60, 509–515. Jackson, N. E., & Butterfield, E. C. (1986). The self-construction of the extraordinary. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 151–181). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University press. Jensen, A. R. (2001). Spearman’s hypothesis. In J. M. Collis & S. Messick (Eds.), Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap between theory and measurement (pp. 3–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kagan, J. (2002). Surprise, uncertainty, and mental structures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press. Kalbfleisch, M. L. (in press). The neural plasticity of giftedness. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), Handbook on Giftedness. New York: Springer Science. Kanevsky, L. (1990). Pursuing qualitative differences in the flexible use of problem-solving strategy by young children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 115–140. Kanevsky, L. (2000). Dynamic assessment of gifted students. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monk,. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. XX). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2004). Bates’ emergentist theory and its relevance to understanding genotype/phenotype relations. In M. Tomasello & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Beyond nature-nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates (pp. 219–236). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Keating, D. P. (in press). Developmental Science and Giftedness: An Integrated Lifespan Model. In R. F. Subotnik & D. Matthews (Eds.), Lifespan perspectives on giftedness.

D.Y. Dai Kelley, T. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurement. New York: World Book. Kemp, A. E. (1996). The musical temperament. Oxford, England: Oxford University press. Kimble, G. A. (1984). Psychology’s two cultures. American Psychologist, 39, 833–839. Klahr, D., & Simon, H. A. (1999). Studies of scientific discovery: Complementary approaches and convergent findings. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 524–543. Koch, S., & Leary, D. E. (Eds.) (1992). A century of psychology as science. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago press. Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scinentic tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago press. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498. Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programs. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University press. Langley, P., Simon, H. A., Bradshaw, G. L., & Zytkow, J. M. (1987). Scientific discovery: Computational explorations of the creative process. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Lehmann, A. C., & Ericsson, K. A. (1998). The historical development of domains of expertise: Performance standards and innovations in music. In A. Steptoe (Ed.), Genius and mind (pp. 67–94). Oxford, UK: Oxford University press. Lippmann, W. (1976). The abuse of the tests. In N. J. Block & G. Dworkin (Eds.), The IQ controversy (pp. 18–20). New York: Pantheon. Lohman, D. F. (2001). Issues in the definition and measurement of abilities. In J. M. Collis & S. Messick (Eds.), Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap between theory and measurement (pp. 79–98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lohman, D. F. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent identification: Implications for identification of academically gifted minority students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 333–360. Lohman, D. F. (2006). Beliefs about differences between ability and accomplishment: From folk theories to cognitive science. Roeper Review, 29, 32–40. Lohman, D. F., & Korb, K. A. (2006). Gifted today but not tomorrow? Longitudinal changes in ability and achievement during elementary school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 451–484. Lohman, D. F., & Rocklin, T. (1995). Current and recurrent issues in the assessment of intelligence and personality. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 447–474). New York: Plenum. Lubinski, D. (2004). Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after Spearman’s (1904) “‘General intelligence,’ objectively determined and measured”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 96–111. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1992). Gender differences in abilities and preferences among the gifted. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 61–66. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2000). States of excellence. American Pshchologist, 55, 137–150.

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

77

Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precious youth after 35 years. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345. Lubinski, D., & Dawis, R. V. (1992). Aptitudes, skills, and proficiencies. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial/organizational psychology (2 ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1–59). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists press. Lubinski, D., Webbs, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2004). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 718–729. Luchins, A. S., & Luchins, E. H. (1970). Wertheimer’s seminar revisited: Problem solving and thinking (Vol. 1). Albany, NY: State University of New York press. Lupart, J., & Toy, R. (in press). Twice-exceptional: Multiple pathways to success. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), Handbook on Giftedness. New York: Springer Science. Margolin, L. (1994). Goodness personified: The emergence of gifted children. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyer. Margolin, L. (1996). A pedagogy of privilege. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 164–180. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969. Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Martindale, C. (1999). Biological bases of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 137–152). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press. Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2006). Mystery to mastery: Shifting paradigms in gifted education. Roeper Review, 28, 64–69. Mayer, R. E. (2003). E. L. Thorndike’s enduring contributions to educational psychology. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 113–154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mayer, R. E. (2005). The scientific study of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2 ed., pp. 437–447). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press. McCall, R. B. (1981). Nature-nurture and the two realms of development: A proposed integration with respect to mental development. Child Development, 52, 1–12. McWhorter, J. (2003). Doing our own thing: The degradation of language and music and why we should, like, care. New York: Gotham Books. Messick, S. (1992). Multiple intelligences or multilevel intelligence? Selective emphasis on distinctive properties of hierarchy: On Gardner’s Frames of Mind and Sternberg’s Beyond IQ in the context of theory and research on the structure of human abilities. Psychological Inquiry, 3, 365–384. Miller, A. I. (1996). Insights of genius: Imagery and creativity in science and art. New York: Springer-Verlag. Miller, L. K. (2005). What the savant syndrome can tell us about the nature and nurture of talent. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 361–373. M¨onks, F. J., & Mason, E. J. (1993). Developmental theories and giftedness. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onk & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 89–101). Oxford, England: Pergamon.

Moran, S., & John-Steiner, V. (2003). Creativity in the making: Vygotsky’s contemporary contribution to the dialectic of development and creativity. In R. K. Sawyer, V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, R. J. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman, J. Nakamura & M. Csikszentmihayi (Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 61–90). Oxford, England: Oxford University press. Morelock, M. J. (1996). On the nature of giftedness and talent: Imposing order on chaos. Roeper Review, 19, 4–12. Morelock, M. J. (2000). A sociohistorical perspective on exceptionally high-IQ children. In R. C. Friedman & B. M. Shore (Eds.), Talents unfolding: Cognition and development (pp. 55–75). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Muth´en, B., & Muth´en, L. K. (2000). Integrating personcentered and variable-centered analyses: Growth mixture modeling with latent trajectory classes. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 24, 882–891. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., et al. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77–101. Nelson, C. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhood. Washington, DC: National Academic press. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Novick, M. R. (1982). Educational testing: Inferences in relevant subpopulations. Educational Researcher, 11, 4–10. O’Boyle, M. W. (2008). Mathematically gifted children: Developmental brain characteristics and their prognosis for wellbeing. Roeper Review, 30, 181–186. O’Boyle, M. W., Benbow, C. P., & Alexander, J. E. (1995). Sex differences, hemispheric laterality, and associated brain activity in the intellectual gifted. Developmental Neuropsychology, 11, 415–443. Overtone, W. F. (1984). World views and their influence on psychological theory and research: Kuhn-Lakatos-Laudan. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 191–226). Orlando, FL: Academic press. Papierno, P. B., Ceci, S. J., Makel, M. C., & Williams, W. W. (2005). The nature and nurture of talent: A bioecological perspective on the ontogeny of exceptional abilities. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 312–331. Passow, A. H. (1981). The nature of giftedness and talent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 5–10. Perkins, D., & Ritchhart, R. (2004). When is good thinking. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 351–384). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Phillips, D., & Burbules, N. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Piaget, J. (1972). Psychology and epistemology: Toward a theory of knowledge. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. Piechowski, M. M. (1991). Emotional development and emotional giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 285–306). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Piirto, J. (1994). Talented children and adults: Their development and education. New York: Macmillan. Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensive programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning press.

78 Renzulli, J. S. (1978). what makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). Cambridge. England: Cambridge University press. Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for tatal school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning press. Renzulli, J. S. (1999). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 3–54. Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Expanding the conception of giftedness to include co-cognitive traits and to promote social capital. Phi Delta Kappan(Sept.), 33–58. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1991). The reform movement and the quiet crisis in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 26–35. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). Schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning press. Robinson, A., & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1998). Giftedness: An exceptionality examined. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 117–139. Robinson, N. M. (2005). In defense of a psychometric approach to the definition of academic giftedness: A conservative view from a die-hard liberal. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2 ed., pp. 280–294). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University press. Robinson, N. M., Zigler, E., & Gallagher, J. J. (2000). Two tails of the normal curve: Similarities and differences in the study of mental retardation and giftedness. American Psychologist, 55, 1413–1424. Root-Bernstein, R. (in press). Multiple giftedness: The case of polymaths. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), Handbook on Giftedness. New York: Springer Science. Rothenberg, A. (1979). The emerging goddess. Chicago: University of Chicago press. Runco, M. A. (1994). Creativity and its discontents. In M. P. Shaw & M. A. Runco (Eds.), Creativity and affect (pp. 102– 123). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Sawyer, R. K. (2002). Emergence in psychology: Lessons from the history of non-reductionist science. Human Development, 45, 2–28. Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Emergence in creativity and development. In R. K. Sawyer, V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, R. J. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman, J. Nakamura & M. Csikszentmihayi (Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 12–60). Oxford, UK: Oxford University press. Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Playing favorittes: Gifted education and the disruption of community. Albany, NY: State University of New York press. Sapon-Shevin, M. (1996). Beyond gifted education: Building a shared agenda for school reform. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 194–214. Scarr, S. (1997). Behavior-genetic and socialization theories of intelligence: Truce and reconcilation. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Intelligence, heredity, and environment (pp. 3–41). New York: Cambridge University press. Schlaug, G. (2001). The brain of musicians: A model for functional and structural adaptation. In R. J. Zatorre & I. Peretz

D.Y. Dai (Eds.), The biological foundations of music (Annals of the New York Academy Sciences) (Vol. 930, pp. 281–299). New York: New York Academy of Sciences. Schneider, W. (2000). Giftedness, expertise, and (exceptional) performance: A developmental perspective. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monk, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 165– 177). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. New York: Macmillam. Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (in press). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning: Research and perspectives. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Searle, J. R. (1990). Is the brain’s mind a computer program? Scientific American, January, 26–37. Searle, J., R. (2002). Consciousness and language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press. Searle, J., R. (2004). Mind: A brief introduction. New York: Oxford University press. Shavinina, L. (1999). The psychological essence of the child prodigy phenomenon: Sensitive periods and cognitive experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 25–38. Shavinina, L. (2004). Explaining high abilities of Nobel laureates. High Ability Studies, 15, 243–254. Shavinina, L. V., & Kholodnaja, M. A. (1996). The cognitive experience as a psychological basis of intellectual giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 3–25. Shavinina, L. V., & Seeratan, K. L. (2004). Extracognitive phenomena in the intellectual functioning of gifted, creative, and talented individuals. In L. V. Shavinina & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of developing high ability (pp. 73–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Shiffrin, R. M. (1996). Laboratory experimentation on the genesis of expertise. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), (pp. 337–345). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shore, B. M. (2000). Metacognition and flexibility: Qualitative differences in how gifted children think. In R. C. Friedman & B. M. Shore (Eds.), Talents unfolding: Cognition and development (pp. 167–187). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Shore, B. (this volume). Metacognition in gifted and talented individuals. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), Handbook on Giftedness. New York: Springer Science. Shore, B. M., & Delcourt, M. A. B. (1996). Effective curricular and program practices in gifted education and the interface with general education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 138–154. Shaw, P., Greenstein, D., Lerch, J., Clasen, L., Lenroot, R., Gogtay, N., et al. (2006). Intellectual ability and cortical development in children and adolescents. Nature, 440/30, 676–679. Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children’s thinking. New York: Oxford University press. Siegler, R. S., & Kotovsky, K. (1986). Two levels of giftedness: Shall even the twain meet. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 417–435). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press.

3

Essential Tensions Surrounding the Concept of Giftedness

79

Silverstein, A. (1988). An Aristotelian resolution of the idiographic versus nomothetic tension. American Psychologist, 43, 425–430. Simmonton, D. K. (1996). Creative expertise: A life-span developmental perspective. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence (pp. 227–253). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic model. Psychological Review, 3, 435– 457. Simonton, D. S. (2002). Great psychologists and their times: Scientific insights into psychology’s history. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 475–494. Simonton, D. K. (2005). Giftedness and genetics: The emergenic-epigenetic model and its implications. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 270–286. Snow, C. P. (1967). The two cultures and a second look. London: Cambridge University press. Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5–32. Snow, R. E. (1994). Aptitude development and talent achievement. In N. Colangelo, S. C. Assouline & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development (Vol. 2, pp. 101–120). Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology press. Snow, R. E. (1995). Foreword. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. xi-xv). New York: Plenum. Soniak, L. A. (2006). Retrospective interviews in the study of expertise and expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 287– 301). New York: Cambridge University press. Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–292. Stanley, J. C. (1996). In the beginning: The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent (pp. 225–235). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University press. Stanley, J. (1997). Varieties of intellectual talent. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 93–119. Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 342–357. Steiner, H. H., & Carr, M. (2003). Cognitive development in gifted children: Toward a more precise understanding of emergent differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 215–246. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1995). A thriarchic approach to giftedness (Research Monograph 95126). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence. New York: Simon & Schuster. Sternberg, R. J. (1999a). Intelligence as developing expertise. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 359–375. Sternberg, R. J. (1999b). A propulsion model of types of creative contributions. Review of General Psychology, 3, 83–100. Sternberg, R. J. (2000). The concept of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 3–15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press. Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Cultural concepts of giftedness. Roeper Review, 29, 160–165. Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (1986). Conceptions of giftedness: A map of the terrain. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 3–18). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University press. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (Eds.) (2004). Creativity: From potential to realization. Washington, DC: Amreican Psychological Association. Subotnik, R. F. (2003). A developmental view of giftedness: From being to doing. Roeper Review, 26, 14–15. Subotnik, R. F. (2006). Longitudinal studies: Answering our most important questions of prediction and effectiveness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 379–383. Subotnik, R. F., & Jarvin, L. (2005). Beyond expertise: Conceptions of giftedness as great performance. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2 ed., pp. 343–357). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University press. Subotnik, R. F., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1998). Distinctions between children’s and adults’ experiences of giftedness. Peabody Journal of Education. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1997). The meaning and making of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2 ed., pp. 27–42). Boston, MA. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1998). Programs for the gifted: To be or not to be. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 3–36. Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1, Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Standford, CA: Stanford University press. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius: The gifted group at mid-life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University press. Thomson, G. H. (1916). A hierarchy without a general factor. British Journal of Psychology, 8, 271–281. Tocqueville, A. (1835/2004). Democracy in America. Washintong, DC: Library of Congress. Tomasello, M., & Slobin, D. I. (Eds.) (2004). Beyond naturenurture: Essays in honor of Elizabath Bates. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tomlinson, C. A. (1996). Good teaching for one and all: Does gifted education have an instructional identity? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 155–174. Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University press. Treffinger, D. S., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1996). Talent recognition and development: Successor to gifted education. Journal for the Education of the gifted, 19, 181–193.

80 Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., D’Onofrio, & Gottesman, I. I. (2003). Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. Psychological Science, 14, 623–628. Vandervert, L. R., & Liu, H. (in press). Neurological bases of individual differences in giftedness. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), Handbook on Giftedness. New York: Springer Science.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press. von K´arolyi, C., & Winner, E. (2005). Extreme giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2 ed., pp. 377–394). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University press. Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 226–250). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press. Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Modes of expertise in creative thinking: Evidence from case studies. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 761–787). New York: Cambridge University press. Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive process used in the evaluation of documentary

D.Y. Dai and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73–87. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children. New York: Basic Books. Winner, E. (1997). Exceptionally high intelligence and schooling. American Pshchologist, 52, 1070–1081. Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Pshchologist, 55, 159–169. Witty, P. A. (1958). Who are the gifted? . In N. B. Henry (Ed.), Education of the gifted. 57th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2. Chicago: University of Chicago. Ziegler, A. (2005). The Actiotope Model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2 ed., pp. 411–436). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University press. Ziegler, A., & Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monk, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 3–21). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd. Zuckerman, H. (1983). The scientific elite: Nobel laureates’ mutual influences. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius and eminence: The social psychology of creativity and exceptional achievement (pp. 241–252). Oxford, UK: Pergamon press.

Chapter 4

Contemporary Models of Giftedness Janet E. Davidson

Abstract One powerful method for understanding, identifying, and studying gifted individuals is through theory-based models that meet high standards. Contemporary models of giftedness have evolved, in part, because views of intelligence have become more complex. First, three recent views of intelligence that have shaped these models will be reviewed: three-stratum theory, multiple intelligences, and the triarchic theory of successful intelligence. Second, five additional components of several current models of giftedness will be discussed: sources of giftedness, social responsibility, creativity, gender, and the role of the environment. Examples of models exemplifying each component will be described and then analyzed in terms of whether they (a) are based on relevant assumptions and empirical findings, (b) are well specified, understandable, and falsifiable, (c) are economical, (d) provide practical guidance about identifying and fostering giftedness, (e) describe, explain, and predict gifted behavior over time and across situations, and (f) generate new research and applications that advance the field. Finally, conclusions will be drawn and recommendations will be offered.

intelligence · The three-ring conception of giftedness · WICS

Introduction

Giftedness is an odd construct. Even though exceptional abilities have been acknowledged for centuries (Ziegler & Heller, 2000), there is still no consensus on what it means for someone to be gifted. Nor is it fully understood why some individuals are identified as gifted during childhood but not in adulthood and vice versa. Not surprisingly, the answers to our concerns about giftedness depend upon the level at which they are addressed. Given that educators, researchers, and other members of a society define and identify giftedness, its conceptualization often takes various forms that differ according to when, where, and how the assessment occurs. For example, many school districts in the United States categorize children as intellectually gifted if they score at or above the 97th percentile on a test of cognitive ability. In contrast, adulthood giftedness is generally determined on the basis of creativity and distinction in a specific domain (Siegler & Keywords The actiotope model of giftedness · Kotovsky, 1986). In other words, childhood giftedness Creativity · The differentiated model of giftedness is often defined by exceptional acquisition of general (DMGT) · The emergenic–epigenetic model · General knowledge, whereas adult giftedness is typically based intelligence (g) · The Munich model of giftedness on extraordinary discovery of a new way to conceptu(MMGA) · The Munich dynamic ability achievement alize information in a specific domain. model (MDAAM) · Multiple intelligences (MI) · The Despite the inherent difficulty in figuring out star model · Talent realization in women · Three- giftedness, the goal is a worthy one. In order to fully stratum theory · The triarchic theory of successful understand and foster the talents of gifted individuals, it is necessary to have a reasonably clear idea of what giftedness consists of, where it comes from, and how J.E. Davidson (B) it can be assessed across the lifespan. Indeed, any Lewis & Clark College, Portland, OR, USA e-mail: [email protected] instructional program for capitalizing on exceptional L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 4, 

81

82

J.E. Davidson

abilities assumes as a prerequisite some understanding of what giftedness is and how it can be recognized. Furthermore, finding the sources of this elusive construct advances our scientific knowledge about the human mind and its intriguing psychological functions. One powerful method for understanding, identifying, and examining giftedness is through theory-based models. Potentially these models will describe, explain, and predict giftedness, allowing us to generalize from the known to the unknown. However, contemporary models of giftedness must meet certain criteria in order to be useful to society and to science. Bad models at best are useless and at their worst can result in poor practices that damage individuals’ lives and the reputation of the field. As Robert Sternberg (2004) notes, vigilance is needed because individuals who are identified as gifted receive opportunities to contribute to society that are not made available to others. Therefore, models of giftedness must be held to extremely high standards. These criteria are similar to those cited in the literature on theories (Davidson, 1990; Hempel, 1966; Kaplan, 1964).

r r

r

r r

r

First, the models must be based on relevant assumptions, build on previous knowledge, and have the best available empirical support. Second, the components of each model and the mechanisms by which they interact must be well specified, internally consistent, and testable. If a model of giftedness is vague, inconsistent, unfalsifiable, or cannot easily be compared to other models then it is useless and potentially harmful. Third, models should be economical rather than overly complicated. More specifically, they need to be understandable to a reasonably competent person and not contain unnecessary or unclear parts that confuse the relevant issues. Fourth, the models need to describe, explain, and predict gifted behavior over time (preferably throughout the lifespan) and across situations. Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, they should provide valid practical guidance about how to develop and select instruments, programs, and policies that identify and foster giftedness. In other words, the models need to be useful to education and other segments of society, as well as to science. Finally, the models must be productive in generating new empirical work that advances the field of giftedness.

Contemporary models of giftedness tend to be more complex and multidimensional than historical ones based on intelligence quotient (IQ). At first glance, one might wonder whether this complexity violates the third criterion mentioned above. However, there are valid and productive reasons for this move away from reductionism. First, a one-dimensional view of giftedness is not fully supported by the available evidence (Ceci, 1996; Winner, 1996) and it has been of limited usefulness to practitioners (Heller, 2003), thus not meeting some of our other criteria. Second, most models of giftedness are closely tied to conceptions of intelligence. Therefore, their complexity has increased as views of intelligence have become more comprehensive. Third, some of the current models have a different goal than those of the past by attempting to bridge the gap between childhood and adult giftedness. Taking a wider range of ages and circumstances into account increases the complexity of the models along with their usefulness. This chapter will briefly describe three views of intelligence that are incorporated into current models of giftedness. Next it will review five other components that characterize many of the contemporary models: sources of giftedness, social responsibility, creativity, gender, and the role of the environment. Due to space limitations, only a sample of specific models will be presented to illustrate each component. At the end of each section we will return to the question: Is this component useful? In other words, we will analyze whether it significantly contributes to models and fits our criteria. Finally, conclusions will be drawn and recommendations will be made for future models.

Foundations: Multidimensional Views of Intelligence At least since Sir Francis Galton (1869) wrote Hereditary Genius, theories of intelligence have influenced attitudes and practices related to gifted individuals. Three fairly recent theories of intelligence have guided the field of giftedness toward more domain-specific, rather than domain-general, models. The first, the three-stratum theory, is a hierarchical psychometric theory that views intelligence as a multifactorial and relatively fixed entity. The other two, the theory of multiple intelligences and the triarchic theory of successful intelligence, conceptualize intelligence as

4

Contemporary Models of Giftedness

a complex system that involves interactions between mental processes, contextual influences, and multiple abilities. According to these latter two models, intelligence is dynamic in nature and can change when environmental conditions change.

83

of the three-stratum model and others like it is that g is not well understood either biologically or psychologically. Carroll (1993, 1996) views it as a unitary dimension of general mental ability that underlies intellectual performance and is particularly evident on tests of complexity or of abstract reasoning. An opposing interpretation is that g is merely a statistical artifact (Horn, 1989). Steve Ceci (1996) argues The Three-Stratum Theory that it could be the result of one or more variables, such as biological, environmental, metacognitive, temBased on his amazingly comprehensive re-analysis peramental, motivational, or even an interlocking set of more than 460 datasets of test scores reported in of independent variables. Obviously, knowing exactly the psychometric literature, John Carroll portrays what g represents would provide a better understandthe structure of intelligence as a pyramid (Carroll, ing of the nature of intelligence and its relationship to 1993, 1996). The top of the pyramid, Stratum III, giftedness. is general intelligence or mental ability (g), which has a high degree of heritability and underlies all intelligent actions. The middle of the pyramid, Stratum II, consists of eight somewhat specialized abilities that influence one’s performance in broad domains. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences These are fluid intelligence (e.g., inductive reasoning), crystallized intelligence (e.g., verbal comprehension), Howard Gardner’s (1983, 1993, 1999) theory of mulgeneral memory and learning (e.g., working memory tiple intelligences (MI), unlike Carroll’s three-stratum span), broad visual perception (e.g., spatial relations), theory, is not based on patterns of paper-and-pencil broad auditory perception, broad retrieval ability, test scores or on a unitary view of intelligence. Acbroad cognitive speediness, and processing speed. cording to MI theory, there are at least eight relatively The order in which the abilities are listed here reflects autonomous, yet often interactive, intelligences that the degree that each one is influenced by general have evolved in the human species and are valued in a intelligence. For example, fluid intelligence is the wide variety of cultures (Gardner, 1983, 1999). Gardmost related to g and processing speed is the least ner defines intelligence as a biopsychological potenrelated. The base of the pyramid, Stratum I, consists tial to design culturally valued products and solutions, of numerous specific abilities, such as spelling ability, and each of his intelligences has its own developmenquantitative reasoning, and lexical knowledge. Each tal course, identifiable core operations, brain structures, ability at Stratum I is related to one or more of the and plausible evolutionary history. An individual develops one or more intelligences through genetic inhereight abilities that comprise Stratum II. The three-stratum model meets many of the cri- itance, training, environmental opportunities, and soteria mentioned previously. For example, it provides cialization of cultural values. Three of the eight intelligences – linguistic, logical– a comprehensive depiction of the general and specific abilities, and their inter-relationships, that under- mathematical, and spatial – are similar to abilities lie exceptional performance on a wide variety of men- measured by standard intelligence tests and they are tal tests. This depiction can explain the heterogeneity represented by some of stratum two’s broad abilities among gifted individuals through differences in their in the three-stratum theory described earlier (Carroll, stratum one and two abilities (Gottfredson, 2003). Fur- 2005). Linguistic intelligence involves the capacity to thermore, the theory builds on previous research and use language to explain, persuade, remember informahas generated a great deal more (e.g., Bickley, Keith, & tion, and comprehend meaning. Logical–mathematical Wolfe, 1995; Song & Porath, 2005). When combined intelligence is the ability effectively to manipulate with information processing tasks, this theory can also numbers, operate on relationships that involve abstract help illuminate the nature of the cognitive processes in- symbol systems, and logically to evaluate quantities and concepts. Spatial intelligence refers to expertise volved in intelligent behavior (Carroll, 1993). Even though the evidence for g’s existence is com- in perceiving, imaging, and transforming objects in pelling (Carroll, 1993; Jensen, 1998), one weakness space.

84

The remaining five types – bodily kinesthetic, musical, intrapersonal, interpersonal, and naturalist – are not measured by conventional intelligence tests, even though they are valued in most cultures. Bodily kinesthetic intelligence is the skillful control and use of one’s body. Musical intelligence includes the ability to appreciate, produce, and combine tones, rhythms, and pitch. Intrapersonal intelligence refers to understanding one’s own emotions, motives, strengths, and weaknesses, whereas interpersonal intelligence involves understanding of, and sensitivity to, other people’s emotions, motives, and behaviors. Finally, naturalist intelligence involves recognizing and classifying natural objects. Even though the independence of the multiple intelligences has not been fully demonstrated (Carroll, 2005; Gottfredson, 2003), MI theory has broadened the conception of giftedness to include a wide range of culturally valued potentials (Fasko, 2001; von Karolyi, Ramos-Ford, & Gardner, 2003). In other words, science and society have begun to acknowledge that giftedness tends to be domain specific rather than general to all domains. In addition, applications of MI theory have expanded assessment by evaluating intelligent behavior in a meaningful context rather than through standardized testing. Portfolios, activities, and themebased materials are used to identify and educate gifted children (Chen & Gardner, 1997; Gardner, 1992). Furthermore, MI theory highlights the importance of focusing on potentials instead of on fixed abilities.

The Triarchic Theory of Successful Intelligence Like Howard Gardner, Robert Sternberg rejects the conception of intelligence as a unitary ability. However, Sternberg’s triarchic theory, which is more complex than MI theory, focuses on the mental processes underlying intelligence rather than on its specific domains. According to Sternberg’s theory (1985), three interacting aspects contribute to successful intelligence. The first consists of the analytical skills that help individuals evaluate, judge, critique, or analyze information. The second involves practical abilities that create an optimal match between one’s skills and one’s external environment. These abilities are used to apply, use, and implement ideas in the real world. The

J.E. Davidson

third aspect is creative intelligence, which involves maximizing one’s experiences in order to generate new products and solve relatively novel problems. In all cultures, according to Sternberg, successful intelligence occurs when individuals achieve their life goals by capitalizing on their strengths and improving upon, or compensating for, their weaknesses. As part of this, they must effectively adapt to, shape, and select their environments through a combination of the analytic, practical, and creative aspects of intelligence (Sternberg, 2005). The three aspects of intelligence are relatively distinct; individuals who are strong in one are not necessarily strong in the other two. What the three aspects have in common is that they each rely on a common set of interdependent mental processes that allow an individual to plan, execute, and monitor performance (metacomponents), implement the metacomponents’ instructions (performance components), and learn new skills and information (knowledge-acquisition components). In other words, these mental processes are domain general and are an essential part of all intelligent behavior. Like MI theory, the triarchic theory has broadened the conception of giftedness and influenced the identification and education of gifted children. For example, this theory was used to develop the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (STAT; Sternberg, 1993), which measures the analytical, practical, and creative aspects of intelligence through verbal, quantitative, and figural problems. Unlike MI theory, several studies have been conducted to validate the triarchic theory (Sternberg, 2003a). For example, Sternberg and his colleagues (Sternberg, Ferrari, Clinkenbeard, & Grigorenko, 1996) discovered that gifted high school students who were taught a college-level course in a way that matched their analytic, practical, or creative abilities achieved at higher levels than gifted students who were given instruction that did not match their strengths. In addition, it was found that intellectually gifted grade school children spontaneously applied knowledge-acquisition components in appropriate ways when solving novel problems. In contrast, students of average intellectual ability needed explicitly to be told what information to encode, how to combine the information, and what information to compare (Davidson & Sternberg, 1984). Crosscultural validation of the triarchic theory has also occurred (Sternberg, Castejon, Prieto, Hautamaki,

4

Contemporary Models of Giftedness

& Grigorenko, 2003), which is commendable and uncommon in this field. Where do these three multidimensional theories of intelligence leave us with respect to models of giftedness? Even though the theories emphasize different aspects of intelligence, they are not mutually exclusive of each other. As Sternberg and Grigorenko (2002) note, g is largely related to analytical ability. Similarly, the analytic, practical, and creative patterns of intelligence can be applied to Gardner’s domains of intelligences. For example, someone with both analytic and linguistic intelligence might excel as a literary critic. In their explanations of why human intellectual performance can be high in some contexts and low in others, all three theories emphasize the range, complexity, and domain-specific aspects of intelligent behavior. Through this focus, they advance the field of intelligence beyond a narrow conception. Contemporary models of giftedness take this wider conception into account in order to describe, explain, and predict the heterogeneity of gifted individuals and the nature of their potentials and abilities. However, the models differ in terms of the particular view of intelligence they assume and the inferences they make about it. For example, adopting a three-stratum approach to intelligence tends to result in conceptions of giftedness as a stable personal characteristic that includes g. Moreover, these models often propose that giftedness can be identified through psychometric testing. In contrast, taking one of the more dynamic views of intelligence into account results in models where the environment and the individual interact to produce gifted behavior. Identification often occurs through context-based measurement and parent or teacher ratings. Contemporary models of giftedness also differ in terms of the attributes they do or do not combine with intelligence, although more convergence is starting to occur. The following five sections will elaborate on some of these characteristics: sources of giftedness, social responsibility, creativity, gender, and the role of the environment.

Sources of Giftedness As noted earlier, an important criterion for models of giftedness is that they need to describe, explain, and

85

predict gifted behavior over time and across situations. In recent years, different explanations of giftedness have resulted in controversy in the field. Some models propose that giftedness is based, at least in part, on natural or genetically endowed abilities; whereas others propose that it is the result of extended practice and skill acquisition. Each of these views and their representative models will be discussed below.

The Role of Natural Abilities Some contemporary models maintain that exceptional behaviors begin with genetically endowed abilities or potentials that are then transformed into outstanding achievement through the influence of nurture. For example, Abraham Tannenbaum’s (1986, 2003) star model proposes that gifted accomplishments are based on five interactive psychological and social factors: superior general intelligence (g), exceptional specific abilities, non-intellective traits, environmental supports, and chance. According to Tannenbaum (2003) and others (Bouchard, 1997; Carroll, 1996), general intelligence has a high degree of heritability and can be measured by standardized intelligence tests. All talented achievement requires some degree of g, although the minimum level varies depending on the domain. Exceptional specific aptitudes often appear early in life. When combined with g, these abilities can help an individual excel in a given talent area. Non-intellective influences, or personality traits, include interpersonal skills, motivation, perseverance, and secure self-concept. Environmental facilitators, which may have genetic antecedents, are the external contexts that help shape proficiency and creative activity within a domain. Interestingly, chance is the final determinant of whether gifted achievement occurs. An individual can be high in the other four factors but fail to attain outstanding performance due to unlucky circumstances. Chance includes both internal and external factors, such as an individual’s genes and random environmental events. These five factors are often portrayed with each one representing its own arm of a sea star and having its own static and dynamic sub-factors (Tannenbaum, 2003). Static elements involve descriptive information at a given point in time, such as where a child currently fits into group norms for abstract reasoning or number

86

of friendships. In contrast, dynamic elements involve ongoing mental processes and situational contexts that cause a child’s behavior to change over time. Giftedness is represented by the center of the sea star, where all five factors come together. However, even though gifted achievement requires high levels of all five elements, the essential minimum for each varies based on the talent area. To be outstanding in their professions, for example, educators might need higher levels of certain non-intellective traits than molecular biologists require. Like Tannenbaum’s star model, Francoys Gagn´e’s (2005; this volume) differentiated model of giftedness and talent (DMGT) explains the relationship between ability and achievement. More specifically, Gagn´e proposes a set of genetically based ability domains that include intellectual (e.g., fluid reasoning and memory), creative (e.g., originality and inventiveness), socioaffective (e.g., interpersonal skills), and sensorimotor (e.g., coordination). All children have these natural abilities to some extent and each one is considered a gift only when it is displayed at a high level (i.e., in the top 10% of their peer group). An individual may be gifted because of exceptional creativity, high levels of one of the other abilities, or both. Talent (or achievement) in a field develops systematically from the natural abilities through maturation, learning, and practice (Gagn´e, 2005). There are three types of catalysts that can help or hinder the transformation of gifts into talents. These are intrapersonal (e.g., temperament), environmental (e.g., schools), and chance (e.g., one’s hereditary characteristics). In other words, according to DMGT, a natural ability (or gift) predicts future achievement in a domain but does not guarantee it. Various aspects of nature and nurture must work together progressively to convert natural ability into talent. Dean Simonton’s (2005) emergenic–epigenetic model gives a detailed explanation of the potential genetic complexities of giftedness and why dissimilar types of giftedness may appear at different rates. The emergenic aspect proposes that many forms of giftedness are polygenic and complex; they require the simultaneous genetic inheritance of all cognitive, dispositional, and physiological traits required to display outstanding achievement in a particular domain. (However, even when giftedness is domain specific, some of its required genetic components may be general ones.) Other forms of giftedness may be

J.E. Davidson

simple in that they require relatively few traits. In addition, the genetic process underlying giftedness can occur in either a multiplicative or an additive manner. In multiplicative forms of giftedness, such as political leadership, a particular talent will not be manifested if even one genetic trait is not inherited or above a certain threshold. If traits are additive, then exceptional achievement can still occur if a particular trait is not present and the existing ones are strong. Simonton’s model implies that complex, multiplicative forms of giftedness will be more difficult to predict than homogeneous ones where a small number of genetic traits operate in an additive manner. For example, simple and additive forms of giftedness are much more likely to be inherited from one’s parents than are multiplicative forms requiring a large combination of traits. The epigenetic aspect of Simonton’s model (2005) maintains that genetic traits develop according to their own gradual inherited trajectories rather than appearing suddenly at birth. In other words, development of giftedness is a dynamic, unstable process where gifts can change throughout childhood and adolescence. In cases where genes operate multiplicatively, giftedness does not begin to develop until the last genetic component is expressed. This means that some complex forms of giftedness might not be identifiable until late adolescence or early adulthood. In contrast, additive forms might be recognized relatively early because they begin when the first genetic component becomes active. Furthermore, the epigenetic aspect of Simonton’s model explains why an individual might be viewed as gifted during childhood but not in adulthood. In some instances, one’s overall potential may be undermined by the late development of unfavorable genetic traits, such as the onset of schizophrenia. In other cases, a child may appear gifted in comparison to his or her peers only until they develop outstanding skills that have relatively late epigenetic trajectories. In short, Simonton’s emergenic–epigenetic model emphasizes that giftedness is far from simple. It can occur in many different ways for genetically different individuals. It is important to note that the three views described above are not solely based on nature: They do not claim that genes alone result in exceptional behavior or that their influence is immutable. According to these models, genetic traits contribute to one’s potential, yet nurture plays a role in transforming ability into outstanding achievement.

4

Contemporary Models of Giftedness

The Role of Expertise In sharp contrast to the natural ability views, some contemporary models propose that giftedness is neither more nor less than expertise in a particular domain. In other words, exceptional performance is the result of extended training and deliberate practice. According to Ericsson, Nandagopal, and Roring (this volume), there is no compelling empirical evidence to support the belief that genetic endowment or intellectual ability is necessary for extraordinary achievements. There is, in their opinion, ample evidence that individuals who practice intensively for approximately 10 years do reach extraordinary levels of performance in a domain. However, not just any type of practice will suffice. It is essential that the practice deliberately involve (a) setting specific goals for improvement, (b) solving increasingly difficult problems, (c) concentrating on their techniques, and (d) obtaining immediate feedback on their performance. The fundamental assumption underlying Ericsson’s theoretical framework is that the quantity and quality of time spent in this type of practice is monotonically related to one’s performance. This monotonic function is due, in large part, to the physiological changes that result when an individual’s brain and body adapt to the increased demands imposed by extended deliberate practice. In addition, larger adaptive changes may occur in certain domains if deliberate practice occurs before, rather than after, critical periods of development. This means that the acquisition of certain skills is more likely for young children than for adults. Ericsson’s framework proposes that expertise develops in three phases (Ericsson, Krampe, & TeschRomer, 1993). In the first, an individual is introduced to enjoyable activities in a particular domain. In the second phase, he or she receives training and engages in deliberate practice. Finally, in phase three, the individual commits full time to improving his or her performance until he or she reaches a professional level. Some individuals enter a fourth phase where they surpass their instructors’ knowledge and make creative contributions to their domains. There are several constraints that limit the number of individuals who successfully complete all three phases. For example, not everyone has the motivation to continue practicing when the challenges become increasingly difficult. Similarly, some individuals do not have necessary external support, such as parental involvement or ac-

87

cess to the excellent training required in phases two and three. A growing concern in the field of giftedness is that our current practice of classifying individuals as gifted is no longer useful. Some of the given reasons include that there is little agreement on what it means to be gifted (Robinson, 2005), the construct is of questionable validity (Borland, 2005), and the classification results in an unequal allocation of educational resources (Borland, 2005). On the basis of their expertise results, Ericsson, Nandagopal, and Roring (this volume) concur that the gifted label should be abandoned. They argue that it inaccurately implies genetic endowment and potential for future achievement. In addition, the label can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If parents think their child is gifted in a domain, they might provide opportunities for him or her to obtain instruction and practice. Other children, however, might not be given the same opportunities if it is believed that they do not have the necessary innate abilities. Robert Sternberg (2003b) retains the concept of giftedness and defines it as developing expertise. More specifically, he argues that ability tests measure expertise in its early stages of development and these tests cannot productively be distinguished from achievement exams. He emphasizes that abilities are flexible, rather than fixed, and can progressively change with deliberate practice. For example, individuals receive test-taking instruction, active rehearsal, and feedback that can be used to improve their performance on future exams. Moreover, the skills required for performing well on exams, such as analytic abilities and sustained concentration, are often also necessary to excel in school or in one’s profession. Sternberg’s model (2000) of developing expertise is based on his triarchic theory of intelligence mentioned earlier. It has five interactive characteristics that are internal to the individual: metacomponents, learning skills (e.g., knowledge-acquisition components, tacit acquisition), performance components, motivation to improve, and an information base that includes declarative and procedural knowledge. Motivation drives these characteristics to directly and indirectly work together until an individual becomes proficient at using a particular set of skills. External context also plays a role. For example, native language, the testing environment, and familiarity with the material can influence one’s test-taking performance. As the context or domain changes, so too does one’s level of

88

proficiency. Therefore, an individual may go through several cycles of moving from a novice to higher levels of expertise. Even though Sternberg (2000) believes the concept of giftedness will always exist due to individual differences in expertise, he maintains that identifying a fixed group of individuals as intellectually gifted is impractical. One reason is that abilities constantly change as expertise develops. In addition, the types of developing expertise that are needed to be classified as gifted change throughout the lifespan. The latter reason helps explain why a person can be classified as gifted in childhood but not in adulthood, and vice versa. Just as the natural abilities models have a role for nurture, the expertise views incorporate nature to some extent. For example, Ericsson, Nandagopal, and Roring (this volume) acknowledge that body and height are genetically based traits that can influence certain physical types of expertise. Sternberg (2000) suggests that both nature and nurture may allow some individuals rather than others to engage more effectively in tasks that are relevant to the development of expertise.

J.E. Davidson

in both practice and knowledge acquisition (Heller, 2003). It also helps resolve faulty assumptions that began with Galton’s (1869) publication of Hereditary Genius. The heritability of certain abilities does not determine one’s destiny nor does it mean that the abilities are fixed entities. Even Galton (1874) eventually came to the realization that nurture, as well as nature, drives development. In their explanations of giftedness, models need a role for both genes and the environment because nature rarely works independently from nurture or vice versa (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). However, in their suggestions for fostering giftedness, it makes sense for models to highlight the role of nurture. Where does this leave us with respect to labeling some individuals as gifted? As noted earlier, Ericsson, Nandagopal, and Roring (this volume) and others are ready to abandon the “gifted” term. This seems a bit premature, given that individual differences do exist and the perceived problems with the label could potentially be solved. First, we need to come to some agreement on what it means to be gifted. This task might not be as impossible as it sounds, given that most models include motivation, effective cognitive skills, and above-average performance in a domain. Consensus conceptions might need to be developmentally based. For example, Subotnik and Jarvin (2005) suggest agebased stages consisting of an early stage where abilCritique of Models Including Sources ity becomes competence, a middle period where precocious attainment of expertise occurs, and an adult Even though they differ in their explanations of gifted- stage involving distinguished performance. Second, the ness, the views presented here have generated new em- gifted label should not be discarded simply because it pirical research and advanced the field. On the surface, might lead to an unfair allocation of educational rethe natural abilities models and the expertise models sources. Instead, superior training should be given to appear to be on opposing sides of an irreconcilable all individuals and the type of resources should vary schism. However, the two approaches can be comple- based on the next logical steps in each person’s acquimentary to, rather than mutually exclusive of, one an- sition of skills. Finally, given that abilities are not fixed other. As John Feldhusen (2005) notes, nature helps an entities, psychometric and context-based identification individual master a field’s procedural and declarative of one’s developing proficiency should be an ongoing knowledge through sustained practice and, therefore, process, attain expertise. One positive outcome of the controversy is that models of giftedness are starting to integrate the The Role of Social Responsibility retrospective expertise approach with the prospective abilities (or psychometric) approach. Two examples in Models of Giftedness are Sternberg’s (2003b) model of developing expertise described earlier and the Munich dynamic ability- Current models of giftedness typically include more achievement model (Heller, Perleth, & Lim, 2005) to than intelligence. What they include depends, in large be described shortly. This combination of approaches part, on what they hope to accomplish. Given that giftprovides valuable insight into processes involved edness is a societal construction, models tend to reflect

4

Contemporary Models of Giftedness

behaviors and potentials that a society values and hopes to foster (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986). One recent societal concern involves a perceived decline in collective, civic actions (Putnam, 2000). Therefore, some contemporary models (or recently revised models) focus on characteristics that allow certain individuals to use their gifts to increase social capital and promote the greater good of others. Two of these models will be reviewed below.

89

personal characteristics have been identified through a comprehensive review and classification of the literature. These are optimism, courage, romance with a discipline, sensitivity to human concerns, physical/mental energy, and vision/sense of destiny. Each factor is characterized by at least two parts. For example, optimism consists of hope and positive feelings from hard work; insight and empathy comprise sensitivity to human concerns; and vision/sense of destiny includes sense of direction, pursuit of goals, and sense of power to make changes. These co-factors interact with each other and enhance the constructive development of the three-ring The Three-Ring Conception and its abilities. Co-cognitive Factors Operation Houndstooth is still in the early stages of testing the co-cognitive factors and developing methSome background information is necessary before de- ods to identify and develop them. Renzulli’s long-term scribing the aspects of this model that relate to social goal is to increase social capital by identifying and capital. Joseph Renzulli (2005) makes a distinction be- preparing ethical future leaders in a wide range of dotween schoolhouse and creative–productive giftedness. mains. Therefore, he and his colleagues are conductSchoolhouse giftedness focuses on high IQ or aptitude ing a series of empirical studies that examine how varscores and rapid adaptation to the academic environ- ious school-based interventions for gifted children inment. This type of giftedness fits the three-stratum the- fluence the behaviors related to each co-cognitive facory well because it can be assessed through psychome- tor (Renzulli, 2002). tric measures and school grades (Robinson, 2005). In contrast, creative–productive giftedness is fostered by the environment and involves the development The WICS Model of Intelligence of innovative products or ideas that will be valued by their targeted audiences. Renzulli’s “three-ring” con- Like Renzulli, Robert Sternberg builds on his previous ception of giftedness is designed with this latter type theories in order to account for and identify gifted leadof giftedness in mind, although he acknowledges that ers of the future. In particular, Sternberg is interested both forms of giftedness are important and frequently in why some individuals, and not others, use their cogoccur together. According to this model (Renzulli, nitive and creative skills to promote the well-being of 1986, 2005), giftedness consists of high levels of all concerned parties. According to his WICS model creativity (e.g., originality of thought), strong commit- (2003b, 2005), giftedness is comprised of three interment to a specific area of interest (e.g., action-oriented active and somewhat hierarchical attributes: wisdom, motivation), and above-average cognitive ability (i.e., intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Sternberg’s trithe top 15–20% in a given area). Renzulli portrays his archic view of intelligence described earlier is the basis model as three overlapping rings because creativity, for creativity and wisdom. Both intelligence and cretask commitment, and above-average general or ativity are required for wisdom. Creativity involves finding a balance between the domain-specific abilities must work together for gifted performance to occur. In addition, these rings are analytical, practical, and creative aspects of inteldepicted on a Houndstooth background of interactive ligence (Sternberg, 2005). This balance allows an environmental and personality factors that influence individual to generate original ideas and products that have unrecognized value and can be “sold” high by gifted behavior. Recently Renzulli (2002, 2005) began Operation convincing others of their worth. In addition, creative Houndstooth, which examines the specific co-cognitive people have personal characteristics that are similar to factors that contribute to the three rings and, in particu- some of the co-cognitive factors described by Renzulli lar, to gifted behaviors that benefit society and increase (2005). These include courage, passion, sensible risk its social capital. Currently, six co-cognitive factors or taking, tolerance for ambiguity, and self-efficacy.

90

J.E. Davidson

Although intelligence and creativity play important roles in giftedness, Sternberg suggests that wisdom may be the most valuable trait for a society to seek in individuals. It also requires balance, this time between short- and long-term intrapersonal, interpersonal, and extrapersonal interests. This balance mediates intelligence and creativity with the goal of achieving a common good. In order to become wise, an individual must use practical intelligence to acquire tacit or implicit knowledge about herself, others, and situational contexts. More specifically, tacit knowledge is (a) procedural, (b) pertinent to the attainment of valued goals, and (c) typically acquired within a domain through mentoring or experience (Sternberg, 2004). This type of knowledge is then used to achieve a common good and constructively to adapt, shape, and select environments for oneself and for others. Like Renzulli’s cognitive co-factors, the wisdom aspect of WICS is relatively recent and has not been tested as extensively as other parts of the model. Fortunately, Sternberg and his colleagues are in the process of developing and validating measures of wisdom (Sternberg, 2005). In order to be a truly gifted contributor to society, however, wisdom, intelligence, and creativity must be synthesized so that they effectively work together. In the current WICS model, it is not entirely clear exactly how or when the synthesis occurs. However, as mentioned earlier, Sternberg does make the case that giftedness involves developing expertise (Sternberg, 2003b) and perhaps this helps with the synthesis.

that great character has to serve as the mediator of great accomplishments; otherwise the brilliant mind can become the most destructive force in the world” (2000, p. 447). In some respects, social responsibility was added to these models in response to a societal need for more social capital. However, because the wisdom-related aspects of these models are relatively recent, their validity and utility have not yet been fully established. It is highly likely that more refinements will need to occur. Moreover, precise specification of these aspects and how they interact with the models’ other elements will be important. Finally, the explanatory power of the models will need to be tested against ones that do not contain mechanisms for social responsibility. In other words, these two models have a long road ahead but they are going in an interesting direction.

Critique of Models that Include Social Responsibility

Required Productive Creativity

The two frameworks just described meet many of our criteria for models of giftedness. First, both build on previous research, theories, and knowledge. It is especially commendable that they are refinements of earlier models. Second, they embody a large amount of empirical evidence in support of most of their elements and there is considerable and reassuring overlap between the two models. Finally, one of the greatest strengths of these frameworks is that they seek to benefit society by identifying and fostering leadership that will address collective needs in a variety of areas. As Abraham Tannenbaum notes, “. . . it is essential for the gifted to learn

The Role of Creativity in Models of Giftedness The three-ring and WICS models are not alone in their inclusion of creativity. In fact, it plays a role in most of the contemporary models and some theorists argue that it is essential for giftedness. Other chapters in this volume (e.g., Chapters 17, 28, and 52) cover creativity in depth. The goal of this section is merely to review how current models differ in their definitions of creativity and their explanations of its relationship to giftedness.

As noted earlier, Renzulli (2005) defines creativity in terms of original production that is valued by a defined audience. Franz Monks (1992) retained this view when he modified Renzulli’s three-ring model to include significant environmental components that inhibit or foster the development of creativity, motivation, and exceptional abilities. According to Sternberg’s (2005) WICS model, a creative individual produces an undervalued idea and, after others eventually come to appreciate the creation, the creator moves on to another undervalued idea. An individual decides at some level whether to take these risks and overcome obstacles in order to be creative. Gruber (1986) agrees

4

Contemporary Models of Giftedness

that creative work requires continuous courage, a high sense of purpose, and the motivation to work hard for a prolonged period of time. This means that precocity and early achievement are neither necessary nor sufficient for creative production. Instead, according to Gruber, a prepared mind, self-mobilization, and ego strength are typically influenced by experience and result in innovative work that benefits others. These views have four critical aspects in common. One is that creativity is a necessary but not sufficient part of giftedness; other components, such as aboveaverage intelligence and high motivation, are also essential. Two, it involves original production. Something novel and substantial needs to be created. The third commonality is that the creation needs to be valued by others. In other words, there must be an appreciative audience. Finally, creativity is identifiable and the environment can foster it.

91

is only one of several genetically based ability domains that may be transformed into talent in a field. The Munich model of giftedness (MMG) and the Munich dynamic ability-achievement model (MDAAM) (Heller, Perleth, & Lim, 2005) are similar to DMGT in that they represent creativity as one of several relatively independent factors. These factors signify talent (or domain-related general competencies) and predict later performance in language, arts, music, and other areas. The talent factors moderate noncognitive personality characteristics (e.g., achievement motivation) and environmental conditions (e.g., family and classroom climate). Personality and environment, in turn, moderate creativity and the other talent factors, as well as actual performance in a domain. In other words, these moderators help determine whether creativity turns into exceptional performance. MMG and MDAAM differ in that the latter model integrates psychometric and expertise approaches to research. In his star model, Tannenbaum (2003) proposes two general types of gifted individuals: producers of ideas Personal Creativity or tangibles and performers of staged artistry or human services. Some producers and performers approach In contrast, Mark Runco’s (2005) concept of personal their tasks creatively, while others are proficient creativity is not tied to original productivity or social rather than innovative. The latter type are skillful and judgment. Instead, personally creative individuals have meticulous in completing their tasks but not original. original interpretations of their own experiences with According to this model, creativity is an option for the world and know when this originality is and is outstanding achievement but not a requirement. not useful. As with other models of giftedness that include creativity, the individual must be intrinsically motivated to create and apply these novel interpretations appropriately. This view of creativity bridges the Critique of Models that Include Creativity gap between childhood and adult giftedness because it involves the same capacity across the lifespan, even Until we understand creativity, we may never comthough one’s creative goals may change with age. Ac- pletely understand the full range of gifted behavior. cording to Runco’s view, personal creativity is both The models presented in this section are based on relenecessary and sufficient for giftedness to occur at all vant assumptions about creativity in relation to giftedages. ness; they build on previous knowledge; and they have empirical support. For example, the Munich models are based on a longitudinal, psychometric study of giftedness (Heller, Perleth, & Lim, 2005). Moreover, some Creativity as a Natural Ability models have been revised to incorporate new findings and approaches. In addition, many of them explain the A third view of creativity proposes that it is a natural creative aspects of giftedness over time and provide ability that may or may not relate to later achievement. practical guidance on how to identify and foster creFor example, DMGT describes creativity as an option ativity. rather than a requirement for gifted behavior (Gagn´e, Unfortunately, the different definitions and con2005). In other words, creativity is a sufficient condi- ceptions of creativity found in these models make it tion for giftedness without being necessary because it difficult to compare them or to test one against another.

92

Now that creativity is frequently associated with giftedness, the field is ready for a precise consensus definition based on objective evidence. Moreover, a consensus definition of creativity would facilitate the construction of objective and valid measures that could be used across research studies and gifted programs. Furthermore, consistent measurement might help resolve whether creativity is a necessary condition for gifted behavior to occur across the lifespan or whether it is simply one form, or even a product, of giftedness (VanTassel-Baska, 2005).

Gender and Giftedness Until recently, models of giftedness did not make a distinction between males and females despite evidence that gender affects the development of giftedness (Kerr & Nicpon, 2003). Girls, for example, are less visible than boys in terms of their achievements, especially as they age (Kerr, 2000). Therefore, the question arises as to whether existing models describe, explain, and predict gifted behavior equally well for males and females. Linda Silverman (1995; Silverman & Miller, this volume) proposes that most conceptions of giftedness take a masculine perspective. These views, including the ones previously described here, focus on a child’s potential for adult eminence. Relatively late identification of gifted children allows more time for evidence of achievement to accumulate. Due to current sociocultural circumstances, this approach gives males more advantages than it does females. In addition, it incorrectly assumes that valid measures of eminence exist for all meaningful pursuits, such as interpersonal achievements, and that the most talented individuals are the ones most recognized or appreciated by society (Subotnik, Arnold, & Noble, 1995). In contrast, conceptions of giftedness from the feminine perspective are child centered and focused on the current cognitive abilities and emotional intensity of gifted children (Silverman & Miller, this volume). The primary concern is with the effects of a gifted individual’s asynchronous development on his or her inner experiences and vulnerability. Therefore, early identification is essential for meeting these children’s existing needs. According to Silverman, the feminine approach to giftedness provides equal opportunities to both girls and boys.

J.E. Davidson

Despite socio-cultural factors, such as inequitable access to resources and societal support, sometimes women do attain great achievements in recognized domains. Based on her in-depth study of 22 eminent American females, Sally Reis (2005, Reis & Sullivan, this volume) developed a model of talent realization in women. According to this model, four factors – abilities, personality, environment, and perception of relations – lead women to believe in themselves, have a heightened sense of purpose, and a strong desire to improve their talents so that they can make a difference in the world. In turn, belief in one’s self and one’s purpose eventually results in eminence. Some of the foundational factors in Reis’ model are similar to those found in a wide range of contemporary models. For example, variables comprising personality, such as motivation and creativity, are central to the three-ring conception of giftedness (Renzulli, 1986) and Monks’ (1992) multifactor model of giftedness. Other factors, such as perception of relations, are not commonly found in other models. More specifically, the perception of relations involves, in part, finding an effective balance between critical work and personal relationships. Interestingly, their approaches to interpersonal relationships seem to be one of the salient differences between gifted women and men. For example, gifted women are likely to include relationships among their greatest achievements (Hollinger & Fleming, 1992). Similarly, Reis (2005) found that personal relationships can hinder the development of women’s talent in a field. In their model of remarkable women, Arnold, Noble, and Subotnik (1996) designate two spheres of talent. One is the personal sphere, where an individual can excel in child rearing or fostering healthy personal ties. The other, more traditional sphere is the public one, where an individual creates ideas or products that are deemed valuable by others. Overall, gifted individuals’ gender-based responses to relationships are reminiscent of proposed gender differences in moral reasoning; males often focus on individuality and principles, while females tend to center on care and responsibility for the welfare of others (Gilligan, 1982). The empirical work on gifted females and the few models that represent them highlight the obstacles women face in transforming their gifts into recognized outstanding achievements. These impediments include low self-esteem, inequity in classrooms, lack of familial support, unrealistic expectations, and multiple

4

Contemporary Models of Giftedness

demands on their time (Kerr & Nicpon, 2003; Reis, 2005). Characteristics that help females overcome these obstacles and attain eminence are mentors, persistence, a strong work ethic, diverse methods for integrating careers and relationships, and a strong support system (Reis, 2005; Reis & Sullivan, this volume).

Critique of the Gender Views Given current socio-cultural circumstances, most contemporary models of giftedness probably do describe, explain, and predict gifted behavior for the majority of males and females in our society. Barriers for gifted girls and talented women seem to reside in the world rather than in the models themselves. However, it could be argued that modifying the models might eventually result in cultural changes. As more gifted girls are identified and nurtured, the more likely it will be that societal perceptions of outstanding achievement will evolve and broaden. Currently, the models that include a role for social responsibility seem particularly useful for identifying gifted girls and fostering their talents. For example, Sternberg’s concept of wisdom as promoting the common good and Renzulli’s co-cognitive factors fit well with some of the attributes of eminent females described above. Not only are the models of eminent women useful for our understanding of this population, they also help clarify aspects of other models. For example, Tannenbaum’s star model and Gagn´e’s DMGT include a role for chance. A natural assumption is that negative events that are out of a gifted individual’s control will hinder the transformation of gifts into talents. However, the work by Reis (2005) illustrates that misfortune can often be a catalyst for talent development.

93

The Person Acting on the Environment Some models envision gifted individuals as having a fair amount of control and influence over their environments. According to the theory of successful intelligence (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002), for example, individuals high in practical abilities create an optimal match between their skills and the external environment. This is done through one of three options: They can adapt to the environment by changing themselves in some respects; they can shape it for their own needs and purposes; or they can select a completely new environment. The models that include social responsibility propose that a truly gifted individual will change the environment for the common good. For example, a wise person might improve a community or consider how to help others find an optimal match with their environments (Sternberg, 2005). Similarly, Renzulli’s (2005) co-cognitive factors are aimed at improving society by increasing its social capital.

The Environment Acting on the Person

In contrast, other contemporary models propose that the environment helps or hinders the transformation of gifts into talents. For example, Monks’ (1992) multifactor model of giftedness mentioned earlier proposes that three important social environments – school, family, and peers – influence an individual’s competencies. More specifically, motivation, creativity, and exceptional abilities are more likely to develop and coincide if one’s interactions with these three types of environments are rewarding. Similarly, in the DMGT (Gagn´e, 2005), catalysts related to the internal or external environment of the individual help determine whether innate abilities are transformed into outstanding achievements in The Role of the Environment a domain. The intrapersonal catalyst (or internal environment) includes a person’s physical and mental Contemporary models of giftedness tend to be dy- characteristics, such as health, temperament, and selfnamic in nature. Rather than viewing giftedness as a management characteristics. The external environment static entity, they propose that the environment and catalyst has four types of factors: milieu (e.g., culture), an individual interact in ways that produce outstand- persons (e.g., teachers, parents, and peers), provisions ing achievement. However, the models vary in terms of (e.g., activities and programs), and events (e.g., major how the individual and the environment are conceptu- surgery and receiving an award). Chance involves alized. Three different views are described below. both internal and external environments, such as genes

94

and socioeconomic status, that can influence both the natural abilities and the other two catalysts. In other words, various forms of environment can determine the extent of one’s gifts and talents. Tannenbaum’s (2003) star model also specifies that environment and chance are essential in turning potential into exceptional achievement. His view of the environment is similar to Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological system’s model in that it includes contexts that indirectly influence the development of a child’s abilities, such as the political and social organizations of his or her culture, as well as those that directly affect the child (e.g., family, school, neighborhood, and peers). His view of chance is similar to Gagn´e’s in that it involves internal and external environmental events beyond one’s control. In addition, Tannenbaum (1986) emphasizes that the environment also needs to recognize one’s achievements. He states, “There has to be a perfect match between a person’s particular talent and the readiness of society to appreciate it” (Tannenbaum, 1986, p. 21). An individual’s talents can fall into one of four categories that are differentially valued by others. Scarcity talents are exactly as the name implies; they are always in demand because they promote physical survival by making people’s lives healthier, easier, and safer. Surplus talents, such as exceptional music and art, increase the beauty of the environment and foster a civilization’s cultural survival. Specialized skills or quota talents, such as engineering and law, provide services and goods for a limited market. In contrast, anomalous talents are unusual skills that may or may not have practical value (e.g., gourmet cooking and subitizing). The value that educators and other members of society place on each of these four types of giftedness determines how much attention and support it receives.

Action, Interaction, and Reaction According to Albert Ziegler (2005), giftedness is not a personal attribute. One does not possess gifts and talents. Instead, giftedness involves the development of an extensive action repertoire and the increasingly excellent performance of actions within a domain. According to the actiotope model of giftedness (Ziegler, 2005), the action repertoire consists of all possible ac-

J.E. Davidson

tions that an individual is capable of making. Actions within a domain are subjectively assessed as talented (i.e., showing promise), gifted (i.e., on the way to becoming outstanding), or excellent (i.e., outstanding). At any random moment, an individual might have a goal or a wish to do something. What might be considered as talented, gifted, or excellent behavior is demonstrated when the individual has the ability to act on the goal, there is the awareness that an effective action can be executed, and the constantly changing environment deems the resulting behavior to be talented, gifted, or excellent. The development of excellent actions takes a long time. During this time, the individual progressively adapts to the evolving environment by realizing when a performed action was successful, when a future action will be successful, and by generating variations on actions. In turn, the environment provides feedback about the individual’s actions and changes in response to the actions. It should be noted that there are various influential environments. One type is the talent domain in which the actions occur. Another is the social network, such as resources and family, which can help or hinder the development of actions and the attainment of one’s goals.

Critique of the Environmental Views The inclusion of the environment in models of giftedness is based on relevant assumptions, prior knowledge, and empirical evidence. Obviously giftedness does not occur in a vacuum but, instead, is defined and shaped by a society. Supportive and stimulating environments tend to promote gifted behavior (Winner, 1996). In addition, some of these models lend themselves to practical guidelines that are used to identify giftedness (e.g., Ziegler & Stoeger, 2004). However, models differ in terms of the type of person–environment relationship on which they focus. Some models propose that the gifted individual acts on the environment, while others view the environment as acting on an individual’s gifts and talents. The actiotope model (Ziegler, 2005) changes the nature of the entire issue by emphasizing that an individual’s actions and the environment are part of a complex system that is interactive and reactive. At some level and at this particular time, all three of these views are

4

Contemporary Models of Giftedness

probably productive. Given that we have the implicit belief that giftedness benefits society, it makes sense to understand and create environments that foster it. Moreover, different environments might be beneficial at different periods of the lifespan. However, it is also useful to keep in mind that gifts are not personal belongings that some people will never receive. Excellent actions take a long time to perfect and they occur within a complex and ever-changing system.

Conclusions and Consequences How productive are these contemporary models of giftedness? In general, the current models seem more extensive and promising than the ones that came before them. To borrow Sternberg’s definition of successful intelligence (2005), the models reviewed here capitalized on the strengths of earlier ones and avoided many of the weaknesses. In addition, the contemporary models were constructed in response to the changing needs within science and society to view giftedness as something more than what conventional intelligence tests measure. Now new types of models are in the field playing a large role in shaping and advancing our conceptions of giftedness. They include gender, personality traits, chance, and characteristics related to social responsibility, in addition to cognitive skills. The current models have a fair amount in common, which is reassuring. They have a broad, multidimensional conception of giftedness and can account for how potential turns into outstanding domain-specific achievement. They address the heterogeneity of giftedness while maintaining a role for homogeneity in areas such as motivation and information processing. Other commendable qualities are that these models provide practical guidance for how to identify and foster giftedness in ways that will potentially benefit society. Many of them even explain why an individual might be viewed as gifted during childhood but not in adulthood and vice versa. Finally, approaches are starting to work with, and not against, each other. However, at some point in the near future, complex multidimensional models will stop being useful if they cannot easily be tested in their entirety and compared with one another. This means that precise operational definitions for constructs must be agreed upon and then valid and reliable measures need to be adopted. In or-

95

der to make accurate comparisons, some models will need more clarity and specification. There is a danger that the essence of giftedness is becoming obscured. In order to prevent this, aspects of models that are not necessary or sufficient to describe, explain, and predict gifted behavior over time need to be eliminated. As a whole, contemporary models meet high standards. They have advanced the field of giftedness and provided insight into the nature of this elusive construct. Of course more work needs to be done, but they have laid an excellent foundation for models of the future.

References Bickley, P. G., Keith, T. Z., & Wolfe, L. M. (1995). The threestratum theory of cognitive abilities: Test of the structure of intelligence across the life span. Intelligence, 20, 309–328. Borland, J. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children: The case for no conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 1–19). New York: Cambridge University Press. Bouchard, T. J. Jr. (1997). IQ similarity in twins reared apart: Findings and responses to critics. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigirenko (Eds.), Intelligence, heredity, and environment (pp. 126–160). New York: Cambridge University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, J. B. (1996). A three-stratum theory of intelligence: Spearman’s contribution. In I. Dennis & P. Tapsfield (Eds.), Human abilities: Their nature and measurement. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Carroll, J. B. (2005). The three-stratum theory of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 69–76). New York: Guilford Press. Ceci, S. J. (1996). On intelligence: A bioecological treatise on intellectual development. (Expanded Edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chen, J., & Gardner, H. (1997). Alternative assessment from a multiple intelligences theoretical perspective. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 105–121). New York: Guilford Press. Davidson, J. E. (1990). Intelligence recreated. Educational Psychologist, 25(3&4), 337–354. Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1984). The role of insight in intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 58–64. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. Th., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.

96 Fasko, D. Jr. (2001). An analysis of multiple intelligences theory and its use with the gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 23(3), 126–130. Feldhusen, J. F. (2005). Giftedness, talent, expertise, and creative achievement. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 64–79). New York: Cambridge University Press. Gagn´e, F. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98–119). New York: Cambridge University Press. Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. New York: Macmillan and Company. Galton, E. (1874). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. New York: Macmillan and Company. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1992). Assessment in context: The alternative to standardized testing. In B. Gifford & M. O’Connor (Eds.), Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction. Boston: Kluwer. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (10th anniversary edition). New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). The science and politics of intelligence in gifted education. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 100–112). New York: Allyn & Bacon. Gruber, H. E. (1986). Self-construction of the extraordinary. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 417–435). New York: Cambridge University Press. Heller, K. A. (2003). WICS – A prototype of synthetic approaches to giftedness in the new century? High Ability Studies, 14(2), 147–148. Heller, K. A., Perleth, C., & Lim, T. K. (2005). The Munich model of giftedness designed to identify and promote gifted students. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 147–170). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hempel, C. G. (1966). The philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hollinger, C. L., & Fleming, E. S. (1992). A longitudinal examination of life choices of gifted and talented young women. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 207–212. Horn, J. L. (1989). Models of intelligence. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Intelligence, measurement, theory, and public policy (pp. 29–33). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco: Chandler. Kerr, B. A. (2000). Guiding gifted girls and young women. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 649–657). New York: Elsevier.

J.E. Davidson Kerr, B. A., & Nicpon, M. F. (2003). Gender and giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 493–505). New York: Allyn & Bacon. Monks, F. J. (1992). Development of gifted children: The issue of identification and programming. In F. J. Monks & W. A. M. Peters (Eds.), Talent for the future (pp. 191–202). Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum. Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Reis, S. M. (2005). Feminist perspectives: A research-based conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 217–245). New York: Cambridge University Press. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). New York: Cambridge University Press. Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Expanding the conception of giftedness to include co-cognitive traits and to promote social capital. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(33–40), 57–58. Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246–279). New York: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, N. M. (2005). In defense of a psychometric approach to the definition of academic giftedness: A conservative view from a die-hard liberal. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 327–342). New York: Cambridge University Press. Runco, M. A. (2005). Creative giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 295–311). New York: Cambridge University Press. Siegler, R. S., & Kotovsky, K. (1986). Two levels of giftedness: Shall ever the twain meet? In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 417–435). New York: Cambridge University Press. Silverman, L. K. (1995). Why are there so few eminent women? Roeper Review, 18(1), 5–13. Simonton, D. K. (2005). Genetics of giftedness: The implications of an emergenic-epigenetic model. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 312–326). New York: Cambridge University Press. Song, K., & Porath, M. (2005). Common and domain-specific cognitive characteristics of gifted students: An integrated model of human abilities. High Ability Studies, 16(2), 229–246. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test. Unpublished test. Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Giftedness as developing expertise. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 55–66). New York: Elsevier. Sternberg, R. J. (2003a). Our research program validating the triarchic theory of successful intelligence: Reply to Gottfredson. Intelligence, 31(4), 399–413. Sternberg, R. J. (2003b). WICS as a model of giftedness. High ability Studies, 14(2), 109–137. Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Introduction to definitions and conceptions of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & S. M. Reis (Eds.),

4

Contemporary Models of Giftedness

Definitions and conceptions of giftedness. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications. Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The WICS model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 327–342). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., Castejon, J. L., Prieto, M. D., Hautamaki, J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Sternberg triarchic abilities test in three international samples: An empirical test of the triarchic theory of intelligence. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(1), 1–16. Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (1986). Conceptions of giftedness: A map of the terrain. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 3–18). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., Ferrari, M., Clinkenbeard, P. R., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1996). Identification, instruction, and assessment of gifted children: A construct validation of a triarchic model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(3), 129–137. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Intelligence, heredity, and environment. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). The theory of successful intelligence as a basis for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(4), 265–277. Subotnik, R. F., Arnold, K. D., & Noble, K. D. (1995). Gifted is as gifted does but what does gifted do? Roeper Review, 18(1), 4–5. Subotnik, R. F., & Jarvin, L. (2005). Beyond expertise: Conceptions of giftedness as great performance. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 343–357). New York: Cambridge University Press. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Giftedness: A psychosocial approach. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of

97 giftedness (pp. 417–435). New York: Cambridge University Press. Tannenbaum, A. J. (2000). Giftedness: The ultimate instrument for good and evil. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 447–465). New York: Elsevier. Tannenbaum, A. J. (2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 45–59). New York: Allyn & Bacon. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005), Domain specific giftedness: Applications in school and life. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 358–376). New York: Cambridge University Press. von Karolyi, C., Ramos-Ford, V., & Gardner, H. (2003). Multiple intelligences: A perspective on giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 100–112). New York: Allyn & Bacon. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books. Ziegler, A. (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 411–436). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A., & Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 3–21). New York: Elsevier. Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (2004). Identification based on ENTER within the conceptual frame of the actiotope model of giftedness. Psychology Science, 46(3), 324–341.

Chapter 5

A Feminine Perspective of Giftedness Linda Kreger Silverman and Nancy B. Miller

Abstract The feminine perspective, the legacy of Leta Hollingworth, focuses on developmental differences in childhood and equal opportunity. The masculine perspective, the legacy of Francis Galton, equates giftedness with eminence. Women, economically disadvantaged, and culturally diverse groups do not have the same opportunities to attain eminence. The lack of eminent women has been attributed to Darwin’s variability hypothesis: since males are more variable than females, more males are assumed to be at the extremes of intelligence, whereas women tend toward the mean. In 1914, Leta Hollingworth completely discredited this hypothesis. Research for 100 years has demonstrated that there are at least as many gifted girls as boys— even in the highest IQ ranges. Men now disparage IQ tests. Internationally, the field still defines giftedness as the potential for eminence. This chapter discusses masculine and feminine conceptions, the development of gifted girls, and barriers for girls from culturally diverse and low socioeconomic circumstances.

respects, this chapter is an update of the previous one, incorporating information about cultural diversity. We will review the origins of the masculine and feminine perceptions of giftedness and current conceptions and discuss the issues facing girls of diverse cultural backgrounds and those of limited economic circumstances.

How Fathers and Mothers Perceive Giftedness

The idea of masculine and feminine perspectives originated from observing differing attitudes of mothers and fathers of gifted children. Over the last 30 years, 5,600 families have come to the Gifted Development Center in Denver, Colorado, USA, for assessment. The vast majority of those who have initiated contact with the Center are mothers—although this picture is gradually shifting. During the first 10 years, fathers often had to be coaxed into agreeing to have their children Keywords Giftedness · Eminent women · Gifted tested. At first blush, this sounds perfectly reasonable, girls · IQ testing · Diversity · Cultural diversity · as children’s education traditionally has been the realm Economic Diversity · Sexism · Gender equality of mothers and finances the realm of fathers. However, deeper, philosophical differences often surfaced in the reactions of the parents during post-test conferences. Introduction While mothers were relieved to have their suspicions confirmed with the testing, some fathers viewed the test The proposal that men and women perceive giftedness results with skepticism. After we tested his son, one differently was put forth in the chapter, “What Hap- Dad remarked, “He’s only 5. What could he have done pens to the Gifted Girl?” (Silverman, 1986). In some in 5 years to be gifted?” Other fathers had similar reactions. A physician asked if the error of measurement was 28 points, because he would have been more comL.K. Silverman (B) Institute for the Study of Advanced Development, Denver, fortable subtracting 28 points from his son’s IQ. When CO, USA he was informed that the margin of error was around 5 e-mail: [email protected] points and that this meant his son’s IQ score might be 5 website: www.gifteddevelopment.com L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 5, 

99

100

points higher, as well as 5 points lower, he was visibly disappointed. One might guess that the skepticism was monetarily motivated: “Why am I paying for this?” However, fathers who attended parent seminars—some of which were free—had comparable attitudes to the Dads who were clients. After one presentation, a father mentioned that his daughter was reading several years above grade level, but he was “sure” she was not gifted. Another Dad described all the awards his son had won at Stanford University, but, he, too, was certain his son was not gifted. When asked “What would he have to do to be gifted in your eyes?” the man quickly retorted, “Well, he’s no Einstein!” Cornell (1983) had an analogous finding. Parents often disagreed about whether their child was gifted or not, and the side each parent was on was predictable: . . .in cases in which the parents disagree in their perception of the child, it is almost always (13 of 15 cases) the mother who perceives the child as gifted and the father who does not. . . (p. 329) . . .The fathers in this study often commented skeptically on their wives’ perception of their children as gifted. (p. 332)

Attempting to understand the basis of the differing viewpoints of these mothers and fathers, it seemed plausible that there could be “distinct masculine and feminine perspectives of giftedness” (Silverman, 1986, p. 56). As we shall see later on, the masculine viewpoint can be held by women and the feminine viewpoint can be held by men, but they seem to emerge from traditional differences in the life experiences of men and women. Men who define themselves by their achievements tend to conceptualize giftedness as achievement or the potential for achievement. From this perspective, to be gifted, one must be recognized by one’s culture as having contributed something of lasting value. The true test of one’s abilities is the quantity, quality, and influence of one’s accomplishments in adult life—often determined by the number of biographies written about an individual (T. Goertzel & Hansen, 2004). It follows that there are no gifted children. There can only be promising children with the potential for greatness. For a Dad who holds this picture of giftedness, predicting which children will be the most influential adults is a bizarre game of chance, and assessment of that potential in a young child makes little sense. In fact, it seems like a cruel game, particularly for a boy,

L.K. Silverman and N.B. Miller

because if his son is selected for “the potentially eminent group,” he may be set up for failure—a life of unbearable pressures and false hopes. The father’s protective reaction, therefore, is to deny his son’s giftedness. “I don’t want to rob him of his childhood.” By way of contrast, if the mother is the child’s primary caretaker, she is apt to experience on a daily basis the dynamic development of her children. She is more likely than her husband to notice if her child is progressing faster through the developmental milestones. Mothers have been found in various parts of the world who observed developmental differences in their children in infancy (Alomar, 2003; Louis & Lewis, 1992). If, at the age of 11 months, her daughter begins asking the names of objects, and if, at 17 months, she is memorizing books, Mom is initially delighted. But when she takes her daughter to a playgroup, delight may turn to anxiety. The mother cannot help but notice that her child is talking in sentences before the other children in the playgroup are combining two words. Awareness of the developmental differences between her child and other children grows into uneasiness. She may wonder, “How will she fit in with the other children?” “Will she be lonely?” “What will the teacher do with her if she’s already reading in kindergarten?” “Should I hide the books?” “I don’t want them to think I’m another ‘pushy parent.”’ “Are we doing enough to nurture her abilities?” Questions like these may eventually lead her to seek professional guidance and assessment of her child’s abilities. But taking that step is not easy—particularly without her partner’s support. When she can no longer ignore the child’s advanced vocabulary and incessant questions, the mother’s fear of “What will happen to my child?” overrides her fear of looking foolish if she has overestimated her child’s abilities. It takes courage to find out just how advanced one’s child might be. As she picks up the phone, a voice in her head is screaming, “What if you’re wrong? All parents think their children are gifted!” In truth, few parents think their children are gifted and want them labeled (Feldhusen, 1998). Parents are actually more likely to underestimate than overestimate their gifted children’s abilities (Munger, 1990; Rogers, 1986). But the myth persists. For Dad, a child only has the “potential” for giftedness; the child’s giftedness has yet to be proved by means of adult achievements. For Mom, potential for achievement is not the salient issue. She is concerned with her child’s adjustment now, in childhood, and she

5

A Feminine Perspective of Giftedness

has been troubled about her child’s welfare ever since she became aware that her child is developing at a faster rate than other children of the same age. Reviewing the literature in the field, it appeared that male writers perceive giftedness very much like the fathers, and female writers’ perceptions tended to mirror those of the mothers. Differences between masculine and feminine perspectives of giftedness become apparent in perusing the earliest writings in the field. Sir Francis Galton, who fathered the study of intelligence, equated giftedness with eminence. Leta Stetter Hollingworth, the foremother of gifted education, objected vigorously to this inequitable criterion. Her writings focused on the psychosocial development and adjustment problems gifted children experience by virtue of their developmental differences. Galton studied eminent men and Hollingworth was the champion of gifted girls and women. Hollingworth taught the first course on “Nature and Needs of the Gifted” at Columbia University Teachers College in 1922 and wrote the first textbook in the field in 1926. The feminine perspective of giftedness was the legacy of Leta Hollingworth, whose message is nearly forgotten in the current milieu. And so our foremother plays a significant role throughout the chapter.

101

6 years that he operated his Anthropometric Laboratory, Galton (1907) tested 9,337 men and women and concluded that women were inferior in all of their capacities to men (Boring, 1950). Although these early measures of mental ability were completely invalid (Carroll, 1993), they supported the entrenched beliefs at the turn of the century. Most of the eminent families Galton studied were independently wealthy, but he insisted that social advantages could not create eminence; otherwise adopted children would attain distinction as easily as natural children. Neither did the vicissitudes of life inequitably affect achievement: the cream naturally rises to the top, regardless of misfortune: High reputation is a pretty accurate test of high ability. . . (p. 2). It follows that the men who achieve eminence, and those who are naturally capable, are, to a large extent, identical. . . . If a man is gifted with vast intellectual ability, eagerness to work, and power of working, I cannot comprehend how such a man should be repressed. (Galton, 1869, pp. 33–34)

The year of Galton’s death, 1911, Leta Stetter Hollingworth began graduate school at Columbia University in education and sociology, eager to take up the cause of gender discrimination. Before coming to New York to marry Harry Hollingworth in 1908, Leta Stetter had taught school in Nebraska. She assumed that she would Giftedness as Eminence be able to continue working after she was married, only to discover that married women were barred from The little book that inaugurated the scientific study of teaching appointments in New York City. A single intelligence, the nature/nurture controversy, the field teacher could retain her position if she married, but if of mental measurements, and the study of genius— she became pregnant, she was dismissed (Klein, 2002). Hereditary Genius—was written by Galton (1869) Hollingworth applied for scholarships and fellowships when he was approaching 50 years of age. To support to obtain a graduate degree, and these doors were also his contention that intelligence is inherited and that closed to her. Women were ineligible for fellowships at it varies greatly among human beings, Galton traced Columbia University (Klein, 2002). Discouraged and the genealogy of many prominent British men, noting puzzled by the role society had laid out for her, she the high incidence of eminence in their families. He pondered the inequality of women’s opportunities in concluded that eminence is hereditary, that ancient society, particularly its toll on gifted women. She called Athenians were genetically superior to Europeans, and this, “the woman question”: that Anglo-Saxons were superior to those of African Stated briefly, “the woman question” is how to reproduce heritage. Galton was also the founder of eugenics, the species and at the same time to work, and realize and it has taken well over a century for the study of work’s full reward, in accordance with individual abilgiftedness to recover from its racist inception. ity. This is a question primarily of the gifted, for the disGalton made no mention of gender or socioecocontent with and resentment against women’s work have originated chiefly among women exceptionally well ennomic status. Women were omitted from his discussion dowed with intellect. (Hollingworth, 1926, pp. 348–349) because the natural superiority of males was presumed. A given woman of the same intellectual caliber as a Fifteen years later, Galton set up the first mental testgiven man is not of the same economic value as the latter, ing center, which measured sensory capacities, such as because masculinity is itself an asset of superior worth. (p. 357) strength of grip and discrimination of weights. In the

102

L.K. Silverman and N.B. Miller

In 1916, Hollingworth began to study gifted children, It is interesting to note that Galton, the founder of eubut never abandoned “the woman question” (Holling- genics, had no children. worth, 1926, p. 348). In the book that formally initiated the field of gifted education, Gifted Children: Their Nature and Nurture, Dismantling the Variability Hypothesis Hollingworth (1926) presented a feminine perspective of giftedness. She challenged Sir Francis Galton’s . . . Women furnish few persons of great eminence, yet views in the very first chapter: An overwhelming majority of illustrious persons have had fathers who were far above the average in socialeconomic conditions—nobles, professional men, or men successfully engaged in commerce. Very few children of manual workers become eminent in high degree . . . Very few women can be included among those who in the world’s history have achieved first rank for mental work. One possible interpretation is that education and opportunity are the prime determinants of achievement, since nearly all of the great men have been born in comfortable homes, of parents in superior circumstances. If opportunity were indeed the prime determinant of eminence, then we should expect those who belong to socially inferior categories to be virtually excluded from it. This is just what we do find, since the uncultured, the poor, servants, and women are very seldom found to have achieved eminence. (p. 11)

sisters of great men are of exactly the same ancestry as their brothers. (Hollingworth, 1926, p. 13)

If sisters of eminent men did not become eminent, another explanation was needed besides heredity. Galton’s half-cousin, Charles Darwin, provided that explanation—the variability hypothesis—which persists today, in spite of rigorous research to quell it (Lips, 2005). Darwin (1897) concluded that male members of all species were more advanced on the evolutionary scale than the female members because of greater variability of secondary sex characteristics. The reason so few women had attained eminence was clear to Darwin—they were less variable than males, therefore far fewer were extremely bright or extremely dull. They were all pretty much the same:

The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two Unlike the hereditarian views of Galton and Terman, sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, Hollingworth (1926) maintained that what a person can in whatever he takes up, than can woman—whether redo might depend on endowment, but what he or she acquiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. (Darwin, 1897, p. 564) tually does do probably depends on opportunity. Galton provided the fuel for her argument that women have Edward L. Thorndike (1906), a devotee of Darwin, little opportunity to attain eminence: warned that postgraduate instruction for women was a poor investment. “A slight excess of male variability A very gifted man will almost always rise, as I believe, to would mean that of the hundred most gifted individeminence; but if he is handicapped with the weight of a wife and children in the race of life, he cannot be expected uals in this country not two would be women, and of to keep as much to the front as if he were single. He canthe thousand most gifted, not one in twenty” (p. 213). not pursue his favorite subject of study with the same abIn the second edition of his classic text, Educational sorbing passion as if he had no pressing calls on his attenPsychology, released in 1910, Thorndike presented the tion, no domestic sorrows, anxieties and petty cares, no yearly child, no periodical infantine epidemics, no confollowing sentiments: stant professional toil for the maintenance of a large family. (Galton, 1869, p. 320)

Hollingworth found this passage an apt description of the plight of gifted women. Citing data collected on the new IQ tests for children, she contemplated what would become of the little girls who tested above 170 IQ: It will be of social value to observe the deflections from possible eminence which they meet, and to see how many will survive “domestic sorrows, anxieties and petty cares, a yearly child, and periodical infantine epidemics.” (Hollingworth, 1926, p. 68)

In the great achievements of the world in science, art, invention, and management, women have been far excelled by men. . . .The probably true explanation is to be sought in the greater variability within the male sex. . .In particular, if men differ in intelligence and energy by wider degrees than do women, eminence in and leadership of world’s affairs of whatever sort will inevitably belong oftener to men. They will oftener deserve it. (p. 35)

When Leta Hollingworth enrolled in graduate school in 1911, E. L. Thorndike became her advisor. It would be easy to imagine that there was a constant war between them. On the contrary, Thorndike was Hollingworth’s greatest mentor—“the most influential to her

5

A Feminine Perspective of Giftedness

103

intellectual and philosophical evolution as a scientist males. A better explanation was that variability is more and teacher” (Klein, 2002, p. 74). Thorndike was a fa- likely to occur where there is more opportunity for its cilitator of learning; he believed in promoting indepen- expression and development: dent thinking in his students. It was in this favorable We should expect to find adult males more variable than climate that Leta Hollingworth (1914) had the spunk to adult females, because the males are free to follow a great variety of trades, professions, and industries, while challenge Thorndike publicly, 2 years before she gradwomen have been confined to the single occupation of uated. Her 21-page article, “Variability as Related to housekeeping, because of the part they play in the perpetSex Differences in Achievement: A Critique,” was pubuation of the species. Thus variability has had comparalished in The American Journal of Sociology: tively little survival value for women. A woman of natural Thorndike . . . declares . . . that “We should first exhaust the known physical causes” before we proceed to any assumption of mental inferiority in explaining woman’s lack of achievement. But have these “known physical causes” been exhausted if we end with the conclusion that “the probably true explanation is to be found in the greater variability within the male sex”? Surely we should consider first the established, obvious, inescapable, physical fact that women bear and rear the children, and this has always meant and still means that nearly 100 per cent of their energy is expended in the performance and supervision of domestic and allied tasks, a field where eminence is impossible. (Hollingworth, 1914, pp. 527–528)

Herculean strength does not wash dishes, cook meals, or rear children much more successfully than a woman of ordinary muscle. But a man of natural Herculean strength is free to abandon carpentry or agriculture and become a prize fighter or a blacksmith, thus exercising and enhancing his native equipment. (p. 343)

Robert Lowie and Leta Hollingworth’s article, “Science and Feminism,” in Scientific Monthly, ostensibly put to rest the variability hypothesis (Lowie & Hollingworth, 1916). Yet, it continues to rear its ugly head. In the October, 2005 issue of Discover magazine, Ellen Ruppel Shell interviewed physician and geneticist, Horst Hameister of the University of Ulm As she was completing her master’s degree, Holling- in Germany. Professor Hameister is quoted as saying, worth was offered a position administering mental tests “Females tend to do better overall on IQ tests; they at a Clearing-House for intellectually limited individ- average out at about 100, while men average about uals. This provided her with an excellent opportunity 99. . . Also, more men are mentally retarded. But when to collect data on the variability hypothesis. One arm you look at IQs at 135 and above, you see more men” of the hypothesis was that there were substantially (p. 43). The variability hypothesis refuses to die. more males than females among the developmentally delayed. Records of 1,000 individuals brought to the Clearing-House over a 2-year period revealed that although boys brought to an institution far outnumbered Eminent Women girls in the younger age groups, by the age of 16, the situation reversed itself and twice as many women Women do not fare well in the race for eminence. were committed (Hollingworth, 1913, 1914). Holling- Of the 768 Nobel Prizes awarded between 1901 and worth discovered that men could only survive outside 2006, 34 were awarded to women—4% of the total— an institution with a mental age of 12, whereas women with 2 of them going to the same woman in the fields could survive with a mental age of 6, by means of of physics and chemistry: Marie Sklodowska Curie. housekeeping chores, child care, and selling sex, there- Twelve of the awards were the Nobel Peace Prize and fore obscuring an accurate count. 10 were in the area of literature. Only 2% were in the In another article published the same year in The sciences (Silverman, 2007). There is no listing of NoAmerican Journal of Sociology, Helen Montague and bel Laureates by ethnicity: Leta Hollingworth (1914) shared the results of an even Few women relative to men have managed to achieve more ambitious project. They undertook a study of positions of eminence. . . . Men received almost 98% of 2,000 neonates—1,000 of each sex—and, analyzing the Nobel prizes in science areas and 99% of the prestigious awards in mathematics during the 20th century. 20,000 measurements, demonstrated that the variabil. . . Women of color, often the targets of double discrimity of infants was no greater in males than in females. ination, have even less representation in the ranks of the Where variability did exist, it favored the girls. Thereeminent than do their ethnic majority counterparts. For fore, the preponderance of men among the eminent instance, the first Ph.D. in mathematics awarded to an African American woman, Evelyn Boyd Collins, was not could not be traced to greater inherent variability of

104

L.K. Silverman and N.B. Miller

Madeline Albright and Condeleezza Rice as Secretaries of State, and Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, successfully breaking what she called the “marble” ceiling. Currently, there are 16 female US senators; however, only 17% of the members of the US Congress are women. The United States ranks low, internationally, in its representation of women in national legislatures: “71 nations have a greater percentage of females” (Wallenchinsky, 2007, p. 5). Myra Sadker and David Sadker (1994) asked stuTed Goertzel, with the assistance of his step-niece dents from elementary to college age to list 20 famous Ariel Hansen (T. Goertzel & Hansen, 2004), provided American women (no athletes or entertainers) within a second edition of his parents’ study of famous 20th 5 minutes. “On average, students can list only four century individuals, Cradles of Eminence (V. Goertzel or five women from the entire history of the nation” & M. Goertzel, 1962). In the original study, only 14% (Sadker & Sadker, 1994, p. 130). When so few were of the 400 eminent individuals were female. Of these, able to do this, they made the task easier by ask44.8% were writers, 14% were singers or musicians, ing them to name 10 famous women anywhere in the and 10% were actresses—nearly two-thirds of the world; students were still unsuccessful. The focus on women (T. Goertzel & Hansen, 2004). The other 22 men’s achievements in history and science books is women represented 6% of the total number of eminent part of the problem. Most history books are about war individuals. and conquest—definitely male territory, and the study In the updated collection of 700 famous men and of science has not been equally accessible to females: women, T. Goertzel and Hansen (2004) reported that In the 1970s, analyses of best-selling history books using the same methodology as the original book, twice showed a biological oddity, a nation with only founding as many eminent women were found; however, there fathers. More space was given to the six-shooter than were twice as many actresses, 8 times as many athletes, to the women’s suffrage movement. In fact, the typical history text gave only two sentences to enfranchising half and quite a few in a new category—“Wives, Family the population. Science texts continued the picture of a Members, and Socialites.” In addition, there were less one-gender world. . . . Today’s history and science texts than half as many women writers: are better—but not much. (Sadker & Sadker, 1994, p. 7) granted until 1946; the first African American woman to earn a Ph.D. in physics, Shirley Jackson, received it in 1976; and only in 1987 did the NASA astronaut training program select its first African American female astronaut, Dr. Mae Jemison. . . . Only 2% of the directors of the top 100 companies in Britain are women.. . . Females and males are socialized differently with respect to achievement, . . . males are often automatically accorded more status than females, and . . . women and men frequently differ in their access to the resources. . . (Lips, 2005, pp. 461–463)

These biases persist in the later samples, with very few women in the categories of political leader, an important category for men. Indeed, part of the increase in women in the sample is due to growth in the category, “Wives, Family Members, and Socialites” [8.5% of the women]. There is also a significant increase in the biographies of women athletes. This bias is not a defect in the sampling; it reflects current social reality. There simply are many more eminent women who are writers [17.3%], singers [9.8%], athletes [8.4%], and actresses [20.6%] than eminent women in top political positions. (p. 318–319)

There is no question that great gains have made in opportunities for women in athletics, but female athletes and their teams are paid substantially less than males (Lips, 2005). At the international level, women have made giant strides politically in the last few years. There are now 30 women ruling countries, compared to 17 in 2005; women leaders can be found in every region of the world (Ho, 2006). There also has been an increase in female role models in politics in the United States in recent years:

The media are also guilty. Newsweek magazine published an article on “The Puzzle of Genius” in 1993 (Begley, 1993). Although warned in advance that the term “genius” is rarely applied to women, this concern fell on deaf ears: the 8-page article described the achievements of 55 male geniuses. Only 3 women appeared: Marie Curie, Martha Graham, and Sarah Chang. The winner of two Nobel Prizes—Marie Curie—was stunningly ignored; she was simply listed in parentheses as “motherless.” Martha Graham was pictured with no description, but her tutu gave away her profession. And Sarah Chang, the 12-year-old violin prodigy, was not actually in the article; she appeared in a sidebar entitled, “They Burn So Bright,” implying that she was likely to burn out! The belief that only men can be geniuses may be so deeply ingrained that the club might not ever offer membership to women: There is no female genius, and there never has been one. . .and there never can be one. . .. A female genius

5

A Feminine Perspective of Giftedness is a contradiction in terms, for genius is simply intensified, perfectly developed, universally conscious maleness (Weininger, 1910, p. 347).

105

psychology. While the males were unquestionably productive in adult life, none achieved the level of greatness Terman hoped. Critics of IQ testing have used this fact as just cause to denounce intelligence testing.

Masculine Conceptions of Giftedness Galton established eminence as the quintessential evidence of giftedness. Darwin seconded the motion. Lewis Terman cemented the connection in his Genetic Studies of Genius (Terman, 1925). In 1921, Terman received a sizeable grant from the Commonwealth Fund to investigate the childhoods of 300 eminent individuals and to conduct a longitudinal study of gifted children. Catherine Cox (1926), who contributed the second volume of the series, presented evidence of giftedness in the childhoods of eminent individuals, drawn from their biographies, along with estimates of their IQs. The 300 individuals selected for study came from Cattell’s “objectively determined” (p. vi) list of the 1,000 most eminent men in history. This list of men included 32 women. Cattell wrote, “I have spoken throughout of eminent men as we lack in English words including both men and women, but as a matter of fact women do not have an important place on the list” (as quoted in Hollingworth, 1914, p. 525). In the Preface to Volume 2, Terman wrote:

The Benefits of IQ Testing for Gifted Females

Alfred Binet (Binet, 1905) in France and Lewis Terman (1916b) in the United States, along with the studies of Peter and Stern (1922) in Germany, changed the course of history for women. The development of a scale that could measure intelligence in childhood was a pivotal turning point, challenging the ancient law of the natural superiority of males. Studies emanating from these scales shocked the scientific world, as they demonstrated clearly that girls equaled or surpassed boys in intelligence. Yerkes and Bridges, two of Terman’s contemporaries in the new assessment industry, warned him that it would be a serious injustice to the girls to evaluate their scores in light of norms that did not take sex differences into account. They recommended that Terman construct separate sets of norms for boys and girls (Terman, 1916a). He did not heed their advice. When the first 1,000 Stanford-Binets were administered, Terman (1916a) reported “there was found a The interests of the editor center largely in the question small but fairly constant superiority of the girls up whether, or to what extent and how, genius is evidenced to the age of 13 years. At 14, however, the curve in childhood, since it is obvious that the answer to this question must be forthcoming before we can rationally for the girls dropped below that for boys” (p. 70). set about the formulation of methods for the training of Terman realized that his findings would be met with gifted children. (Cox, 1926, p. vi) disbelief. Even he held the variability hypothesis saTerman (1917) conducted the prototype for this inquiry cred (Borland, 1990). He followed up his results with in an evaluation of Galton’s level of intelligence from an analysis of school records and teacher judgments evidence of his precocity in childhood. He estimated for nearly a thousand students “for evidence as to the that Galton’s IQ was “not far from 200” (p. 210) from genuineness of the apparent superiority of the girls” the fact that he learned to read at 2 1/2, was able to (Terman, 1916a, p. 70): read any English book at the age of 4, learned his mulThe results of all these lines of inquiry support the tests in tiplication facts before he was 5, etc. Terman’s recogsuggesting that the superiority of the girls is probably real even up to and including age 14, the apparent superiority nition that advanced development in childhood correof the boys at this age being fully accounted for by the lated with level of intelligence was an important founmore frequent elimination of 14-year-old girls from the dation for the feminine perspective. grades by promotion to the high school. (p. 70) The second part of the grant enabled Terman to study 1,528 children who had attained 140 IQ or above The feminine perspective of giftedness, as it was on his Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (1916b). The conceived by Leta Hollingworth, was necessarily “Termites,” as they were called, were and continue to tied to performance of children on IQ tests. With be followed for their entire lives. This unprecedented recognized achievement in adulthood being considevent laid the groundwork for longitudinal studies in ered the definitive demonstration of high intelligence,

106

females were excluded. The advent of intelligence testing of children provided empirical proof of high intelligence in females. IQ tests became the valid, reliable, and cherished method of finding gifted girls. Hollingworth (1926) wrote, “mental tests proved the existence of gifted girls” (p. 347). The evidence was irrefutable. Even Thorndike recognized it: The trivial difference between the central tendency of men and that of women . . . is the common finding of psychological tests and school experience . . . One who accepts the equality of typical (i.e., modal) representatives of the two sexes must assume the burden of explaining the great differences in the high ranges of achievement. (Thorndike, 1910, p. 35)

Hollingworth (1926) eagerly publicized the findings of Terman, and Peter and Stern in Gifted Children: Their Nature and Nurture: In the most extensive census at present available [Terman’s study], therefore, among school children testing above 140 IQ, the ratio of boys to girls is 111:100 when allowance is made for the greater number of boys born. The three highest cases—those ranging farthest from mediocrity—were girls, all with IQ above 190. In Germany, Peter and Stern, testing large groups for children of promise in the Volkschulen, report that “the girls do as well as the boys. The ten best girls equal the ten best boys in performance.” . . . Mental tests have given no explanation of the great disproportion of eminence among men. . . . On the basis of mental gifts alone we should expect for every hundred and eleven men of eminence for intellectual work one hundred women of equal eminence. Moreover, the most eminent persons should be women (since the highest IQ’s found were those of girls). As this is by no means what history reveals (though we know that intellect in childhood is predictive of intellect in maturity) we must assume that there are powerful determinants of eminence beside intellect. (pp. 67–68)

L.K. Silverman and N.B. Miller It is abundantly clear than an extraordinarily high IQ is not an indicator of later attainment that may be regarded as highly or significantly creative; nor do the most remarkable test ratings in childhood warrant expectancies of adult performance which may be characterized as the work of genius. . . If by gifted children we mean those youngsters who give promise of creativity of a high order, it is doubtful if the typical intelligence test is suitable for use in identifying them. (p. 504)

In the book that shook the foundations of gifted education, Howard Gardner (1983) attacked IQ testing in the first pages: The hedgehogs not only believe in a singular, inviolable capacity which is the special property of human beings: often, as a corollary, they impose the conditions that each individual is born with a certain amount of intelligence, and that we individuals can in fact be rank-ordered in terms of our God-given intellect or I.Q. So entrenched is this way of thinking—and talking—that most of us lapse readily into rankings of individuals as more or less “smart,” “bright,” “clever,” or “intelligent.” (p. 7) . . .The tests have predictive power for success in schooling, but relatively little predictive power outside the school context . . . (p. 16)

David Feldman (1984) investigated whether individuals who obtained IQ scores above 180 were “significantly more gifted” (p. 521) than those with IQs in the 150 range. He concluded the following: On the whole, one is left with the feeling that the above180 IQ subjects were not as remarkable as might have been expected. . . . While 180 IQ suggests the ability to do academic work with relative ease, it . . . does not suggest the presence of “genius” in its common-sense meaning, i.e., transcendent achievement in some field. For these kinds of phenomena, IQ seems at best a crude predictor. For anything more, we will probably have to look to traditions other than the psychometric and to variables other than IQ. (p. 521)

As we shall see, current studies confirm these results. While gifted women continue to be poorly represented among the eminent (1–6%), gifted girls perform The title of Robert Sternberg’s book, Beyond IQ, is sugas well as gifted boys on measures of intelligence. gestive of its contents:

The War Against IQ Testing It is interesting that the attack against intelligence tests was launched by men—men of noteworthy achievement. From the masculine perspective, IQ tests are of questionable value, as they fail to predict eminence in adult life. Over 65 years ago, Paul Witty (1940) presented the position that is still popular today:

Many people who have been exposed to the content of typical IQ tests . . . cannot help but be struck by the narrowness of the conception of intelligence that they represent. On the one hand, they provide a fairly broad sampling of higher-level cognitive skills; on the other hand, they fail to sample the kinds of noncognitive adaptive skills that people . . . indicate form a part of intelligence in the real world. (Sternberg, 1985, p. 35)

The indictment against IQ tests by American leaders in the field, endorsed by the media (Snyderman & Rothman, 1988), has had a sweeping impact worldwide.

5

A Feminine Perspective of Giftedness

Nancy Robinson (2008), who has conducted studies of thousands of gifted children, counters the arguments of those who use lack of stellar achievement in adult life to disparage intelligence testing: Not all students selected for gifted programs will proceed to become gifted adults or world-class performers, to be sure. It would be wrong to criticize selection measures because they do not, by themselves, locate as children those adults who will change the world. For such success, a number of personality factors, high-quality instruction, deep and protracted commitment to one’s talent development through both good times and bad, opportunities for advancement, and an appropriate configuration of genes are all required. (Robinson, 2008, p. 171)

Current Models of Giftedness The masculine perspective—the search for the potentially eminent—has dominated the field for the last century. A search of Psychological Abstracts (Albert, 1969) revealed 184 entries on genius, eminence, and distinction between 1927 and 1957, compared with 213 on gifted children and giftedness. After Sputnik was launched, America suddenly valued its gifted children as a national resource to regain its technological supremacy. During this heyday, from 1958 to 1965, there were 295 studies of giftedness and gifted children, compared to 8 on genius. Fifty years after Sputnik, gifted children are still valued for what they can do—and what they have the potential to do—rather than for who they are. Gifted women, also, have become valued for what they can do. A recent on-line search of the PsycINFO database for “giftedness and women” produced 294 records from 1967 to 2006, references to articles, books, chapters, dissertations, and reports. The word “achievement” appeared in 119 or 41% of the entries in the title, abstract, subject line, or classification code. From 1967 to 1976, 56% of the records focused on achievement, and from 1977 to 1986, that shrunk to 44%. In the first two decades, there were only 41 reports on gifted women, and 20 were concerned with women’s achievement. In the last two decades, there were 253 abstracts on gifted women and 98 of these related closely to their achievement. The question of how to groom gifted women to become high achievers is the focus of a great deal of research. For the last 15 years, there has been a strong movement to do away with “giftedness” and replace it with

107

“talent development” (e.g., Treffinger & Feldhusen, 1996). This paradigm shift, as Feldman (1992) calls it, involves abandoning testing, especially IQ tests, and replacing the notion of general intelligence with the recognition of multiple intelligences (e.g., Gardner, 1983). The influence of this movement was seen in National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent, a report issued by the United States Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) (1993). Representing the official position of the United States, National Excellence redefined giftedness in the following manner: “Children and youth with outstanding talent perform or show the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with others of their age, experience, or environment” (p. 26, italics added). Although the term “gifted” remains in common parlance, no new government report has been issued since 1993. A search for definitions of giftedness revealed that the National Association for Gifted Children in England recognizes five modern definitions and conceptions of giftedness put forth by Howard Gardner, Joseph Renzulli, Francoys Gagne, Robert Sternberg, and Abraham Tannenbaum (http://www. nagcbritain.org.uk/). All of these men subscribe to an achievement view of giftedness, or view giftedness as the potential for achievement. Howard Gardner (1983) postulated seven intelligences based on the culturally recognized achievements of adult males (with the exception of choreographers, such as Martha Graham). Joseph Renzulli’s (1978) three-ring conception of giftedness downplays the role of intelligence in giftedness, suggesting that above-average intelligence is sufficient for creative–productive giftedness, along with task commitment and creativity. For Gagne (1985), giftedness is natural ability that must eventuate in talent. Talent is significantly above-average performance in one or more fields of human activity. “Gagne’s model has been adopted by the majority of the Australian state education systems” (M. Gross, personal communication, January 19, 2007). Robert Sternberg’s (1985) triarchic theory postulates 5 criteria that need to be met for a person to be judged gifted: (1) excellence relative to peers; (2) rarity of a high level skill; (3) the area in which the person excels must lead to productivity or potential for productivity; (4) it is demonstrable through valid assessments; and (5) it is valuable—the excellence the person possesses must be valued by his or her society. Abraham Tannenbaum

108

(1983) defines giftedness as potential for becoming critically acclaimed performers or producers of ideas. Developed talent exists only in adults. All good exemplars of the masculine perspective, these definitions were put forth between 1978 and 1985 and are still the most prevalent views. Recognized achievement or potential is what counts, not ability. The feminine perspective is conspicuously absent.

L.K. Silverman and N.B. Miller conflict with the expectations of the surroundings. This difference is then seen as a defect in the child rather than in his or her relationship with an outside world that does not understand. (Roeper, 1996, p. 18)

Deeply concerned with the overemphasis on education for success, Roeper (1990) has stressed that success, as it is defined by the individual, is a natural byproduct of an education that concentrates on the development of the Self. The feminine point of view focuses on gifted children’s experiences in childhood, not in terms of how they shape or foreshadow their adult lives, but beFeminine Conceptions of Giftedness cause childhood is precious in and of itself, and children’s happiness or misery is important. Barry Grant The missing element in the achievement-oriented mod- and Michael Piechowski (1999) propose that child els is the gifted child. With the emphasis on talent de- centeredness is the “moral responsibility of gifted eduvelopment, the field has lost sight of the inner experi- cators” (p. 6): ence of giftedness. The essential characteristics of the There is another sense, a moral sense, in which we must feminine perspective have been articulated most elorecognize the gifted and anyone else we serve. To recognize also means to acknowledge, to accept what we quently by two men: For some theorists and researchers, explaining giftedness means describing the conditions that produce gifted achievements. Trapped by the metaphor of “gifts,” they believe that the most important aspect of being gifted is the ability to turn gifts into recognizable and valued accomplishments. The growing emphasis on talent development . . . fosters an achievement orientation. . . The models and theories set to maximize giftedness regard gifted children much as farmers regard cows and pigs, with an eye to getting them to produce more. They do not describe how giftedness works—how the gifted think, feel, and experience. (Grant & Piechowski, 1999, p. 8)

have identified in its own right and on its own terms. This meaning tends to be overlooked. Yet, from the time of Comenius in the 17th century . . . we have had people who stressed recognizing children in their own right, attending to them according to their development, and making learning natural and enjoyable. (p. 6) We believe, as they did, that first and foremost we have to be child-centered. . . Being child-centered means respecting children’s autonomy, providing experiences that enable children to follow their passions and be self-actualizing, and seeking to understand things from a child’s point of view. The strongest argument for child-centeredness is that it regards children as ends, not means. In provides conditions for children to flourish, become themselves, and it does not impose a way of being on them. An understanding of the child’s perspective and inner life aids us in assisting children in finding their own way in life. (p. 8)

“How the gifted think, feel, and experience” is the heart of the feminine viewpoint. Annemarie Roeper’s definition of giftedness encompasses all of these: “Giftedness is a greater awareness, a greater sensitivity, and a greater ability to understand and transform perceptions Similar views are found in the writings of Annemarie into intellectual and emotional experiences” (Roeper, Roeper (1990): 1982, p. 21). Throughout her career, Roeper has We have separated education from psychology and therebrought attention back to the child and to the critical fore do not know the child . . . Education is usually defined as the answer to the question: “What do we do to and role of emotions in the development of the gifted: It is my belief that the gifted child is emotionally different from others . . . The Self of the gifted child is structured differently. Their depth of awareness is different. The center of their inner life is different. Their view of the world is more complex in a fundamental way. That is why one cannot say the child is “partially gifted” in certain areas only and not in others. There is a gifted personality structure, and the more highly gifted a child is, the more this difference becomes apparent, and the more often the Self comes into

for the child?” It does not emphasize the question, “What does the child bring to this process?” “Who is this child? “How does the child feel about the process?” (Roeper, 1990, p. 9)

Grant and Piechowski listed Leta Hollingworth [1886–1939] and Annemarie Roeper [1918–] among the “Child-Centered Torchbearers in the History of Education” (p. 7). These two leaders exemplify the feminine perspective in gifted education. Both found

5

A Feminine Perspective of Giftedness

gifted children utterly fascinating. As counselors, they were capable of entering the inner world of the gifted child. Much like a marine biologist might listen to whale songs in hopes of decoding their hidden meanings, they listened intently to the children until the deepest layers of their experience were revealed to them. They both wrote about the children’s loneliness, imaginary worlds, unusual awareness, intense sensitivity, argumentativeness, and inability to fit in. The children shared with them their passion for justice, their fledgling attempts to build a philosophy of life, their quest to find their place in the universe, and their attempts to adjust to a world that is often hostile to the gifted. They both worked with young gifted children, highly gifted children, underachievers, and children of diverse cultural backgrounds. They both described the barriers faced by gifted girls, children of low socioeconomic circumstances and children of color. They understood the pain gifted children face when they are rejected by their classmates. “The more intelligent a person is, regardless of age, the less often can he find a truly congenial companion” (Hollingworth, 1942, p. 253). Hollingworth (1942) observed that children in the moderately gifted range had a much easier time relating to their classmates than children in the higher IQ ranges: This tendency to become isolated is one of the most important factors to be considered in guiding the development of personality of highly intelligent children. . . The majority of children between 130 and 150 IQ find fairly easy adjustment. . . Great difficulty arises only when a young child is above 160 IQ. At the extremely high levels of 180 and 190 IQ, the problem of friendships is difficult indeed, and the younger the person, the more difficult it is. (Hollingworth, 1942, p. 264)

Children value relationships far more than achievement. Friendships are central to their happiness; loneliness can be unbearable. Failed relationships are among the most painful experiences anyone can have. Unfortunately for gifted children, their relationships are typically more fragile than most, and their sense of exclusion can run deep. Relationships with peers are often tenuous . . . The loneliness and sense of rejection a gifted child may experience can have a major impact on the development of the Self. “I feel invisible. I am invisible. Recess is the worst time,” said David. “I feel I don’t exist. I cannot stand it. . . . The other children just walk around me.” (Roeper, 2007, p. 56)

Both women noted that gifted children show an early interest in origins and the meaning in life. “Who made

109

the world?” “Where did I come from?” “What will become of me when I die?” “Why did I come into the world?” (Hollingworth, 1931, p. 11). “Children’s emotional need for understanding their own origins expresses itself in their enthusiasm for dinosaurs, cavemen, etc. They want to know the origin of the species and they want to know their own origin” (Roeper, 1990, p. 52). Hollingworth (1931) discovered that children begin to require logically coherent answers to these questions when they reach the mental age of 12 or 13. The higher the IQ, the earlier the child develops a pressing need for an explanation of the universe. Children who score above 180 IQ desire a systematic philosophy of life and death at the age of 6 or 7 years. As educators, they both emphasized the importance of interdependence and a sense of community responsibility—feminine values. Both leaders created educational environments for the primary purpose of nurturing the emotional development of gifted children. Annemarie and George Roeper founded The Roeper School in 1941 and it still stands as the oldest private school for the gifted in operation in the United States. The philosophy of the school “is based on the belief in self-actualization, respecting the growth and the uniqueness of each member of the community, as well as the reality of mutual interdependence” (Roeper, 1990, p. 1). Leta Hollingworth set up experimental classes for gifted children in New York City in 1922 and in 1936 that incorporated “emotional education” (Hollingworth, 1939, p. 585). Infused throughout this program was a beautiful set of human values: basic respect for humanity, awareness of our global interdependence, and commitment to service. Follow-up studies indicate that Hollingworth’s program had a profound, lifelong impact on the students (Harris, 1992; White 1990). Harris (1992, p. 102) asked some of these individuals, almost 70 years later, “From your point of view, what constitutes success in life?” Their answers revealed the same values that they had learned in their classes: societal connection, awareness, compassion for others, definitions of success inextricably interwoven with self-actualization, and sensitivity to the needs of others. Hollingworth and Roeper both spoke of the uneven development of gifted children. “Gifted children have a tendency to surprise us with their advanced abilities, . . . their ability to generalize, their sensitivity . . . On the other hand, they often appear infantile . . .” (Roeper, 2004, p. 145):

110 To have the intelligence of an adult and the emotions of a child combined in a childish body is to encounter certain difficulties. It follows that (after babyhood) the younger the child, the greater the difficulties, and that adjustment becomes easier with every additional year of age. The years between four and nine are probably the most likely to be beset with the problems mentioned. (Hollingworth, 1931, p. 13)

Their observations kindled the Columbus Group (1991) definition of giftedness, a phenomenological definition that exemplifies the feminine perspective: Giftedness is asynchronous development in which advanced cognitive abilities and heightened intensity combine to create inner experiences and awareness that are qualitatively different from the norm. This asynchrony increases with higher intellectual capacity. The uniqueness of the gifted renders them particularly vulnerable and requires modifications in parenting, teaching and counseling in order for them to develop optimally. (The Columbus Group, 1991; Silverman, 1993a)

Studying young gifted children, Wendy Roedell (1989) also wrote about the unevenness of their development. She observed that rather than demonstrating high abilities in all areas, these children had definite peaks of extraordinary performance as well as valleys. Their intellectual development usually surpassed the development of their physical development and social skills. They were only likely to excel in those physical tasks that involved cognitive organization. Roedell (1989) warned that expectations of gifted children need to be based on their level of experience and maturity, not just the level of their cognition. Their advanced reading skills may expose them to information they cannot handle emotionally. A father found his 4-year-old reading the Bible. “She closed the book with a terrified look on her face and said, ‘I’m reading the Book of Revelations, and boy, is it scary!”’ (p. 22). While young gifted children demonstrate advanced cognition of social relations, their understanding is not necessarily reflected in their behavior. “It is unsettling to hold a high-level conversation with a 5year-old who then turns around and punches a classmate who stole her pencil” (p. 22). In an earlier article on highly gifted children, Roedell (1984) described the relationship between level of giftedness and vulnerability, focusing on the children’s sensitivity, feelings of alienation, and lack of societal support: . . .There is general agreement that highly gifted children are more susceptible to some types of developmental difficulties than are moderately gifted or average children. Areas of vulnerability include uneven development,

L.K. Silverman and N.B. Miller perfectionism, adult expectations, intense sensitivity, self-definition, alienation, inappropriate environments, and role conflicts. (Roedell, 1984, p. 127)

Nancy Robinson (2008) is yet another strong spokesperson for the importance of childhood in the lives of the gifted. She, too, has created exemplary educational interventions for gifted students: Academically gifted children are at high risk of suffering discouragement and giving up in the clutches of an illfitting, slow-moving educational system. We as a society sentence them to at least 6 hours a day, 180 days a year, during 13 years that are critical to their development— more than 14,000 precious hours not including homework. As a society, we are therefore responsible, because we set up the system—to identify those students whose thinking and skills are too advanced for what is being offered them, the level and pace of their learning being significantly more mature than that of their classmates. Having located these children, we are morally obligated to provide them with a better-fitting educational experience, a rigorous academic program that makes it possible for them to continue to grow and to gain satisfaction from their own efforts. (p. 158)

Women leaders in the field see the child, not as “father of the man,” but as a person with unique needs born of cognitive, emotional, and developmental differences. Hear their voices. Joanne Whitmore (1980) defined “intellectual giftedness as exceptional potential for learning and a superior capacity to assimilate, manipulate, and utilize abstract concepts and factual information” (p. 61). For Barbara Clark (1983), giftedness implies total and integrated brain functioning, including cognition, emotion, intuition, and physical sensing. Developmental advancement in one or more areas was the definition proposed in “What Happens to the Gifted Girl?” (Silverman, 1986), as well as in “Early Development of Gifted Children” (Roedell, 1989). Ellen Winner (1996) sees giftedness as precocity, an insistence on marching to one’s own drummer, and a rage to master. In Empowering Gifted Minds, Bobbie Gilman (2003) describes giftedness as high-level cognitive functioning, and, in her chapter in Conceptions of Giftedness, Nancy Robinson (2005) sees it essentially as reasoning ability—echoing Binet (1909) and Terman (1921). As psychological examiners, their definitions resemble Leta Hollingworth’s (1926): gifted children are those identified as very superior on intelligence tests. Based on the philosopher Immanuel Kant, Deirdre Lovecky (2004) defines giftedness as “cognition (precocious development, high cognitive ability, reasoning ability, creative ability); conation (high motivation, a passion

5

A Feminine Perspective of Giftedness

to master), and emotion (intense emotional experiences, sensitivity, compassion and empathy)” (p. 38). While some of these researchers limit their definitions to advanced cognitive abilities, or more broadly to advanced development in general, many specify the role of emotions. Others, like Hollingworth, Robinson, Roedell and Silverman, defined giftedness as highreasoning ability or advanced development, measurable by IQ tests; they also studied the social and emotional development of gifted children. None of the above definitions emphasizes achievement or the potential for recognized accomplishment in adult life. One exception is Barbara Kerr (1994) who focuses on girls’ potential for high achievement: The definition of giftedness in this book embraces exceptional academic ability as well as creative and specific talents, and its range includes “high-potential” girls (the upper 25 percent on school achievement tests) as well as the near-genius Presidential Scholars. Therefore, it includes almost all who have the potential for excellence in their chosen fields. (p. x)

The most popular perspectives of giftedness, essentially derivations of Galton’s equation of giftedness with eminence, impede the full recognition of giftedness in females. The masculine frame of reference places heavy weight on future achievements and productivity; the feminine view is primarily concerned with the impact of developmental differences on a child’s immediate needs. From the masculine vantage point, intelligence tests are of little value, since they do not correlate with adult achievement; from the feminine, they are a valuable means of assessing advancement and discovering hidden abilities. None of the masculine conceptions concern themselves with emotional development, whereas emotional development plays a central role in the feminine perspective. The emphasis in the former perspective is on demonstration of talent, while in the latter perspective there is more concern for the amelioration of underachievement, and the creation of equal opportunities for children of diverse cultural and economic circumstances (Arnold, Noble & Subotnik, 1996).

Identification of Gifted Girls The value that schools place on achievement is quite evident from the admissions criteria used to select students for gifted programs. High achievement

111

scores or high marks or both are often required for acceptance into a gifted program. The eminent child in school is the winner of the competition for grades and awards. The emphasis is on products, performance, portfolios—the external trappings. Industrious students who are motivated to achieve high marks are thought to be the brightest students in the class. While this is often the case, it is also true that equally bright or even more advanced students may not achieve in the classroom, for a variety of reasons. Exceptionally gifted children may refuse to perform work they have already mastered. Children from culturally diverse groups may not want to stand out from their peers, for fear of rejection. The focus on academic success favors girls in elementary school, since girls tend to conform to adult expectations, but the picture gradually changes in junior and senior high school, when girls attempt to establish their femininity, becoming more absorbed with their attractiveness and less with schoolwork. The emphasis on achievement is not equitable at any age level for children of low socioeconomic means. When gifted programs are reserved for high achievers, they find and serve primarily higher socioeconomic groups. The gifted come from all social classes, but poorer children have fewer books in the home, fewer role models for achievement and less support for academic success. Although more attention is given to identification than to any other phase of gifted education, the process bears a disquieting resemblance to the selection of students for acceptance to college. In college admissions procedures, the emphasis is placed on achievement and aptitude scores, indications of high performance. Admissions are highly competitive, with each college selecting the “best” applicants who have the “most promise” for success in and beyond college. The information obtained on each candidate is used solely for the purpose of selection; it has no bearing on the student’s program. When the selection process is completed, the admissions materials of the successful candidates are filed away, while the materials for the unsuccessful ones are discarded. Identifying gifted children according to the college admissions model portrays the image of the gifted program as an award or privilege for the “best” students. It turns the identification process into a contest with “winners” and “losers.” Parents become vested in their children’s gaining acceptance in the program because they view it as a stepping stone toward admission to the

112

better colleges and a ticket to success in adult life. Children perceive themselves as failures if they are not accepted in the program. Programs for the gifted should be based on differential needs of students, rather than offered as a merit badge to high achievers, whose needs may be being met adequately in the regular classroom. It is ironic that ability measures, which came into vogue as a way of equalizing the playing field for the poor, culturally diverse and women (Snyderman & Rothman, 1988), have been abandoned for achievement measures, which favor the advantaged. The dictum of multiple criteria for identification has not appreciably increased the percentage of non-White children in gifted programs in the United States (Ford, 2001), whereas IQ testing, with the highly verbal, culturally loaded Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, unearthed many highly gifted African American children (Kearney & LeBlanc, 1993). Standardized individual intelligence tests, administered before girls are socialized to hide their abilities, remain the best means of identifying gifted girls. Schools often rely on group tests rather than individual IQ tests because of the expense. Group intelligence, aptitude, and achievement tests are competitive and timed—two strikes against girls. Unfortunately, parents who decide to obtain private IQ testing for their children are much more likely to bring their sons than their daughters. Hollingworth (1926) noted, In New York City, where children were being selected for special classes for gifted children, parents and teachers as usual suggested more boys than girls as candidates. . . . Among those chosen from these candidates by mental test as of the requisite degree of intellect, only thirty per cent of the fifty allowed to attend the classes were girls; but of the thirty children whose parents refused permission, or who for other reasons could not join the classes, sixty per cent were girls. (p. 66, italics added)

L.K. Silverman and N.B. Miller

tre for Gifted Education in New Zealand, observed that “the ratio of boys to girls was consistently between two to three boys for every girl referred for assessment. That stayed the same over a ten-year period” (R. Cathcart, personal communication, January 20, 2007): When I run workshops on identification for teachers, I begin with a selection of short case histories and ask the teachers, without any input from me, to discuss these as “children referred as possibly gifted” and to decide whether or not the referrals should go ahead. One of the case histories describes a very quiet, very compliant little girl achieving at a just-above-average level at school whose mother describes her as being highly inquisitive as a preschooler, full of questions, grasping things very quickly, and learning to read by herself—in fact as reading Anne of Green Gables for herself before starting school (based on an actual child). I have given that workshop I suppose about 200 times now, and I am still finding that at least 80% of all teachers instantly dismiss that child as clearly not gifted. Most say she simply has a pushy mother—“That child’s problem is obviously the mother,” many say. Many will add, “She might be able to read the words, but of course she won’t understand them,” ignoring the fact that NO child sits and reads their way through a book (especially a non-picture book reliant solely on text) which they cannot comprehend at least at some level. My personal rating of my level of success with these workshops rests on how many of these teachers have changed their minds about this child by the end of the session! But I think it illustrates very well the kinds of assumptions that lead to this imbalance in our referrals. (R. Cathcart, personal communication, January 20, 2007)

Similarly, the Gifted Kids Programme in New Zealand, aware of the gender imbalance in their referrals, has conducted target workshops to correct the situation. Deborah Clark, Associate Principal, believes that three interventions have altered the gender ratio: (1) Since 90% of the students are referred by teachers, they let the teachers know that they have been referring mostly Over the last 30 years, 40% of the children brought boys and ask, “Where are your girls?”; (2) They run to the Gifted Development Center have been girls and annual workshops on hidden gifted students, includ60% have been boys. In the first 10 years, the percent- ing gifted girls; and (3) They offer staff meetings at age of girls was slightly higher, 43% versus 57% boys. schools that consistently under-identify girls in which In recent years, it has dipped down as low as 35% girls they discuss characteristics of gifted children. In 2002 and 65% boys. This discrepancy in referral rate is com- and 2003, before they initiated these workshops, refermon in other assessment centers worldwide. Approxi- rals for males ranged between 65 and 80% of the total. mately two-thirds of the clients brought to psycholo- From 2004 through 2007, there has been a steady ingists for private testing to determine giftedness in the crease in the referrals of girls; boys now comprise apUnited States are male. Centers in Australia report that proximately 55% of the referrals (D. Clark, personal three-fourths of their referrals are boys (H. Dudeney, communication, January 21, 2007). personal communication, January 7, 2007). Rosemary Nancy Robinson and her colleagues have amassed Cathcart, founder of the George Parkyn National Cen- data from several large-scale longitudinal studies of

5

A Feminine Perspective of Giftedness

young gifted children. Among their findings are that parents’ perceptions of their children’s precocity are accurate, standardized test results correlate with actual behavior, and standardized testing of young children predicts later performance: These findings confirm the accuracy of parental descriptions of their children’s behavior. They tell us to trust parents who think that their children’s behavior is advanced – whether or not we have seen that behavior in school. But the studies also do something else. They confirm that the results of standardized tests are strongly correlated with the children’s actual behavior at home. Furthermore, each of the above studies had a 2- to 5-year longitudinal aspect, and in each case, the scores initially attained by the children were predictive over time for the group as a whole. (Robinson, 2008, p. 168)

The large database of the Gifted Development Center (N = 5, 200) supports the accuracy of parents as identifiers of giftedness, as well as the findings of Terman, and Peter and Stern (Hollingworth, 1926) nearly a century ago. Girls continue to perform as well as boys or better on individual IQ tests. The distribution of IQ scores in the exceptionally (160+ IQ) and profoundly gifted (175+ IQ) ranges is 40% girls and 60% boys— identical to the gender distribution of our sample. Very similar to Terman’s findings with 1,000 children, 4 of the 5 highest IQ scores were achieved by girls, including the highest IQ score (262 + IQ). These scores were obtained on the virtually untimed Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Form L-M), which is still permissible to use as a supplementary test (see Chapter 48). This particular scale is not exactly gender friendly: all the items are about boys and men. Scores in these upper ranges are often questioned or dismissed, but then, so are rapid advancement through the developmental milestones and early reading ability, other clear indicators of giftedness in girls. The findings that there are as many profoundly gifted girls as boys have been shared with several newspapers, magazines, and television news programs for two decades, and never appears newsworthy enough to report. To report anything positive about IQ tests would go against the grain of the industry (Snyderman & Rothman,1988). Instead, the reporters continue to jump on the “Kill-the-IQ-test” bandwagon. It is no wonder that females continue to feel inferior in intelligence to males. All the evidence of their intelligence is either suppressed or ignored.

113

The Development of Gifted Girls Precocity in gifted girls may escape notice because girls are expected to develop faster than boys. Girls tend to be more robust babies, and learn to talk, count, and read earlier than boys (Silverman, 1986). The significance of girls’ early development is diminished by those who ascribe to the maxim: “early ripe, early rot.” Ready for school at an earlier age, gifted girls are often more successful than boys as early entrants to kindergarten (Callahan, 1979; Robinson, 2004). When programs are designed for young gifted children (ages 4–7), there is never any difficulty finding an equal number of boys and girls. But gifted girls mysteriously vanish as they get older. Myra and David Sadker remarked, “Girls are the only group who begin school scoring ahead and leave behind, a theft occurring so quietly that most people are unaware of its impact” (as quoted in Silverman, 1995). Gifted girls are chameleons. From the time they enter school, or even preschool, they learn how to behave exactly like the other girls in the group so that they will be accepted. If their classmates are developmentally less mature, gifted girls will frequently don the mental attire of their friends and soon will be imperceptible from them in thought, manner, and achievement (Silverman, 1993b). A preschool director who was very interested in identifying gifted children in her school remarked that she had no difficulty spotting the boys, but she could not pick out the girls. At the age of 4, they had already gone into hiding. Gifted boys are more visible, as they attempt to gain teacher attention or annoy the other students or demonstrate leadership or withdraw. They usually reject classmates who are not as capable as themselves. By way of contrast, gifted girls treat school as a social experience, and they use their considerable talents to gain acceptance, blending into the group, and becoming invisible. When mothers describe girls’ advanced abilities at home that are not demonstrated in school, they are often patronized: “All parents think their children are gifted.” As Rosemary Cathcart described above, teachers easily discount the early signs of giftedness reported by parents, unless they see confirmation of these skills at school. Gifted girls will not show their true capabilities at school unless several of their classmates are equally capable. Parents usually provide a safe environment in the home for gifted girls to reveal their abilities. Only one indication of gender bias has been found at our

114

Center with any regularity. The parent questionnaires ask if the child shows any signs of leadership. Mothers respond that their young son “likes to be the boss,” “is the captain of the ship,” “assigns roles to other children,” “takes the lead in games,” “decides what games to play, who should be what character,” etc. Responses for girls (and exceptionally gifted boys) often include the word, “bossy.” “She’s so bossy I’m afraid she isn’t going to have any friends.” Preschool and primary teachers respond similarly, even asking for advice as to how to correct the “bossiness” they observe in gifted girls. In children’s literature, such as Little Miss Bossy (Hargreaves, 1981), as well as literature on highly capable adolescents, the term “bossy” appears only in relation to girls (Gilligan, 1989; Lutfig & Nichols, 1990; Olszewski-Kubilius & Kulieke, 1989). It seems improbable that the leadership skills of gifted 4-year-old girls vary to such a degree from the boys that the term “bossy” is warranted to describe them. It is more likely that these differences are in the eye of the beholder, with boys being socialized to be leaders and girls being socialized to be followers (Silverman, 1993b). The peer group is a major factor in the socialization of girls. “Most girls know deep down that standing out can get you in big trouble” (Simmons, 2002, p. 106). Nine-year-olds can be particularly cruel to girls who are different from the pack in any way, shape or form. “The other girls watch and talk about everything: what she eats and wears, whom she plays with” (Simmons, 2002, p. 170). If the group turns on her, the gifted girl becomes “poison.” No one will play with her, invite her to parties, look at her, or acknowledge her existence. They will make fun of her, tell rumors about her, and find other ways to humiliate her. Anyone who dares to be nice to her will find that they are “poison” too. This is a very effective method of squelching giftedness (Silverman, 1993b). Lee Anne Bell (1989) found that by fourth or fifth grade, girls who exhibit outstanding academic ability begin to lose self-confidence, become extremely self-critical and often lower their effort and aspirations to conform to gender stereotyped expectations. If acceleration is being considered, boys are more likely to leave their peer group at any stage of development in the hope of learning more at higher grade levels, but girls usually need to be accelerated before the age of 8. From that point forward, they are at the mercy of their peer group and will not leave them, no

L.K. Silverman and N.B. Miller

matter how unhappy they might be at their grade level. The risks involved for girls are higher than for boys: In fourth grade, Tracy stunned her teachers by completing her math workbook during the first week of school. She was promptly skipped a grade into a class notorious for meanness. On the first day of fifth grade, the girls refused her at the lunch table, sniping that she wasn’t really a fifth grader. They forced her to eat alone. . . . The lunchtime isolation quickly became a school-day pastime for the popular girls. They continued to ostracize Tracy throughout middle school, telling her she was stupid, that her jokes were bad, her clothes all wrong. . . . Tracy looked up and said, “You don’t know how much courage it takes me to go to school every day.” (Simmons, 2002, p. 217)

In Odd Girl Out: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls, Simmons (2002) offers strategies for parents, teachers, and counselors to combat the covert aggressions in girls. It is essential for educators and parents to be aware of the subtleties of its expression, as well as its devastating impact on girls’ self-concept. Early entrance is an ideal alternative for girls, as the peer group of children slightly older than themselves is established from the beginning of school. “When schools are locked into an age-in-grade format, early admission to kindergarten may be the only window of opportunity available to gifted girls” (Kerr, 1991, p. 408). Research support for acceleration, especially early entrance, is strong (Colangelo, Assouline & Gross, 2004; Feldhusen, Proctor & Black, 2002). A recent review concluded, “We can lay firmly to rest the myth that acceleration is inherently dangerous for gifted students” (Robinson, 2004, p. 64). This key option for gifted girls is impossible without access to early identification. Yet, National Excellence (OERI, 1993) warns against the identification of preschool and primary gifted students: These suggestions are not intended to imply that schools should label preschool and primary students as gifted and talented. They should not. Instead, preschools and primary schools should develop a curriculum for all that nurtures the strengths of children and encourages its staffs do the same. (OERI, 1991, p. 28)

This is a national agenda that favors males. If giftedness is perceived as the potential to attain eminence in a specific domain of talent, late identification makes sense. Children who are identified as high achievers later in their school careers are more likely to be successful adults.

5

A Feminine Perspective of Giftedness

Another reason to identify girls early is that by the age of 8 or 9 years, many girls have learned that it is “smart not to be too smart”—that it is more important to fit in with the other girls than it is to develop one’s own abilities. It is difficult to get an accurate IQ score on an 8-year-old gifted girl who will not guess, who will only respond if she is absolutely certain she is correct, or who bats her eyelashes and says sweetly, “I don’t know,” even when she does know the answer. Early identification of gifted girls is crucial. A great deal has been written about the plight of preteen and teenage gifted girls (see Silverman, 1995, for a summary); there is insufficient space in this chapter to deal with more than a few of the issues. This is a turning point for many bright girls. As girls develop gender identity at this age, they must choose between femininity and achievement, which is considered a masculine quality. Those who choose achievement face torment from both the boys and the girls. In their early teens, gifted girls see few advantages of being gifted and often sacrifice their gifted friends to gain acceptance by less capable classmates (Buescher, Olszewski & Higham, 1987). Rachel Simmons (2002) asked a group of teenage girls in the United States to name the qualities of a perfect girl and the qualities of a girl no one would want to be. Highest in the list of qualities for the ideal girl were “very thin,” “pretty,” and “blond.” Among the traits in the opposite list were “brainy,” “opinionated,” “professional,” “serious,” “strong,” “independent,” and “bookish” (pp. 124–125). It is little wonder that girls’ self-esteem is negatively related to their achievement (AAUW Educational Foundation, 1992). For boys, the opposite pattern occurs: high achievement leads to high self-concept. Just at the stage of development when gifted girls are most vulnerable and begin to doubt their intelligence, a term creeps into educators’ vocabulary that does untold damage: “overachiever.” When educators of the gifted are asked to visualize an underachiever and write down the first name that comes to mind, and then they are asked to write down the first name of an overachiever, two-thirds of the underachievers invariably are male and two-thirds of the overachievers are female. When asked to define “overachievement,” participants describe typical traits of high achievers, such as “working hard,” that have been scorned. Fennama (1990) found that junior high school mathematics teachers attributed the success of their best male math

115

students to ability and the success of their best female math students to hard work. Gifted girls share the belief system of their math teachers: boys have ability and girls just work really hard. Underachievement is a psychological reality. It is always possible to have a significant discrepancy between one’s ability and one’s performance. In fact, a case can be made that most gifted children are forced into patterns of underachievement because the level of work they are required to do in school is usually much less than their capabilities. But “overachievement” is an oxymoron: no one can achieve more than she is capable of achieving. The term implies that the person makes up for lack of ability by hard work. It is a sexist expression that serves no useful purpose; it simply demoralizes, weakens the confidence of gifted females, and leaves scars that last a lifetime (Silverman, 1993b). Although some theorize that boys’ abilities are more real than girls because they correlate with adult achievement, there is strong reason to believe that the progressive loss of talent in girls can be traced to the effects of socialization, which steadily erode gifted girls’ self-confidence and undermine their aspirations. Gifted girls appear to “plateau” in their abilities as soon as they turn their attention to dieting, clothes, and preoccupation with boys. Suddenly, boys take the lead in academic achievements—a lead sustained throughout the rest of their lives. In the United States, boys outperform girls on college board examinations, thereby securing admission to the most selective colleges and obtaining a substantial proportion of scholarships (Sadker & Sadker, 1994): On average, girls get better grades than boys at all levels of schooling but score lower than boys on key standardized tests administered to 11th and 12th graders. For example, boys outscore girls (with discrepancies greatest for African American and Hispanic girls) on both the verbal and mathematics sections of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and on all subsections of the American College Testing Program except English (ACT). As a result girls lose millions of dollars in scholarship funds. In 1988–89, 63 percent of the National Merit Scholarship semi-finalists were boys while only 32 percent were girls (sex of 5 percent of the students not identified). Since girls continue to earn better grades, there is continued evidence that the test is biased in favor of boys. (The Mid-Atlantic Equity Center & The Network, Inc. 1993)

Is it possible that males are more successful from high school on because gifted females simply stopped

116

L.K. Silverman and N.B. Miller

caring and gave them the lead? It is not a real or by subjective judgment, is far, far worse” (Bereiter, competition if half of the players give up the race 1976/1977, p. 43). In the 1970s, Virginia Ehrlich (Silverman, 1995). (1978) created the Astor Program for Gifted Children in New York City for inner city 4- to 8-year-olds. After trying several “culture fair” tests, she found many more gifted African American children on the Issues of Cultural Diversity Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Form L-M. Kathi Kearney and Jene LeBlanc (1993) pulled together Former Texas Governor Ann Richards once remarked, a significant body of research on gifted African “Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did. She American children, conducted over a span of 60 years, just did it backwards, and in high heels” (Farrell, 2007). some of which had never been published. Without an Richards’ witty comment highlights the unrecognized exhaustive search, nearly 200 African American chiland extraordinary abilities of women. Gifted females dren were found in various studies that scored above of color and those from poor and working-class back- 130 on the Stanford-Binet, a strong test of abstract grounds often have similarly unrecognized abilities. verbal reasoning ability, including several who scored They must overcome incredible odds to reach the level in the exceptionally gifted range (160+) and one girl of success of their male counterparts. who scored 200 IQ. These studies were marginalized Meeting the needs of gifted females from ethnically as they called into question the stereotypic beliefs that diverse backgrounds, racial minorities, and lower so- African Americans had inferior intelligence, as well cioeconomic families represents a challenge for edu- as the opposing beliefs that IQ tests, especially highly cators today. Most of the research found on cultural verbal, culturally loaded tests like the Stanford-Binet, diversity and economic disadvantage has been con- could not identify gifted African Americans. ducted in America. Demographic changes in the US Whenever a negative stereotype exists about a parpopulation are evident by the fact that Hispanic stu- ticular group’s ability, its members experience what dents now represent the majority ethnic group in many is called stereotype threat. “An individual’s awareness school districts in states such as California, Florida, that he or she may be judged by or may fulfill negaTexas, Illinois, and New York (Castellano, 2004). It has tive stereotypes about her or his gender or ethnic group been estimated that the non-White population in the can have a dramatic negative effect on performance” United States will exceed the White-European popula- (Lips, 2005, p. 44). If the stereotype is that one’s gention within the next century (Evans, 1996). Culturally der or ethnic group is less intelligent, this is likely to and linguistically diverse students require special con- corrode the self-confidence of members of the group sideration in order for their abilities to blossom. when performing intellectual tasks. One study found Yet, surprisingly, under-representation in gifted ed- that African American and White undergraduates perucation programs has increased for Hispanic Ameri- formed equally well when told an experiment involved cans and African Americans since the late 1970s (Ford, understanding the psychology of verbal problem solv2001). Under-representation of minorities in gifted ed- ing. When a second group was given identical tasks ucation programs has been attributed to all of the fol- and told their individual verbal ability was being aslowing: test bias, lack of teacher referrals, deficit-based sessed, African American students solved only half as educational models, underachievement, negative peer many problems as White students (Ford, Grantham, & pressure, deficit thinking, and stereotype threat (Ford, Milner, 2004). The stereotype of intellectual inferiority 2001; Ford, Grantham, & Milner, 2004; Ford, Harris, appears to have decreased the performance of African Tyson & Frazier Trotman, 2002). Deficit-based educa- American college students. tional models are based on the assumption that minorIt is becoming more widely recognized that soity students are deficient and, therefore, unable to reach cial conditions, including poverty, racism, and inferior high standards. schools, contribute to the plight of minority students While there has always been a great deal of con- (Parrish, 2004) and inhibit the development of talents cern about the cultural loadings of IQ tests, it must in gifted girls (Evans, 1996; Kerr, 1994). Attention be remembered that “virtually every other form of to cultural diversity in the literature on gifted women psychological evaluation, whether by objective tests has increased during the past 40 years. As evidence,

5

A Feminine Perspective of Giftedness

117

a PsycINFO database search of “gifted” and “women” showed an increase of over 20% for references from the earliest (1967–1976) to the latest (1996–2006) decade. Of the 294 records identified in the search, 60 included culture or diversity in the title, abstract, subject line, or identifier codes. Diversity was found far less often (only 7) than culture(s) or cultural (including socio-cultural and cross-cultural), which appeared in 54 references; only one reference included both terms. Classification of references in 10-year intervals is shown in Table 5.1. A substantial increase in the percentage of records covering cultural issues had occurred by the mid-1970s. However, just 25% of more recent references include the topic. Therefore, only a relatively small percentage of the current literature on gifted women is addressing this important issue. Table 5.1 Proportion of PsycINFO references to culturally diverse gifted women Years

Records

Percent

1967–1976 1977–1986 1987–1996 1997–2006

1 of 23 4 of 18 20 of 111 35 of 142

4 22 18 25

Sexism and Racism In her classic book, Feminism is for Everybody, Bell Hooks (2000) describes a movement to end sexist oppression in today’s society. This includes not only the commonly accepted rights of women to equal employment and pay but signifies an end to sexism, racism, and social class oppression. Looking within the American educational system, barriers to success often exist for female students of color, those from poor and working-class backgrounds, those for whom English is a second language, and immigrants. Understanding how these cultural differences impact student learning is paramount. For example, second-language learners may not grasp the meaning of complex concepts because of language differences, rather than perceived differences in ability (Klug, 2004). Prejudice against different “others” also interferes with the recognition of the talents and abilities of ethnic minorities. When comparisons are made to White, middle-class, Europeans standards, students from different cultures are often seen as inferior and

lacking certain skills. Behaviors that do not fit with mainstream expectations are often misunderstood (Klug, 2004). For example, African American girls’ play in a Head Start program was seen as aggressive when it involved oppositional talk and teasing. Sociologists, however, showed their style of interaction to be a form of communal activity among minority females, one in which friendship is established and identities constructed (Corsaro, 2005). In much the same way, Italian school children engage in discussione, which involves animated public discussions and extended group debates, these often occurring when one child opposes the views of another. This common activity, simulating adult exchanges, is often highly stylized and valued by children for its shared routines (Corsaro, 2005). Awareness and attention to the unique cultural, social, and psychological factors of gifted students from minority groups are needed. Issues of racial and ethnic identity often hamper the progress of these students. Group allegiance and negative peer pressure can threaten academic success for minorities who may be seen as abandoning their own culture to accept that of the dominant societal group. This is true for minority members in any culture. African American women have reported personal strengths based on strong kinship networks and socialization to egalitarian gender-roles and independence; yet, they continue to face barriers based on sexism and racism (Kitano, 1998b). Likewise, Latina women, who “described their culture and homes as valuing education, achievement, hard work, and interpersonal relationships,” struggle to overcome gender and racial oppression in their everyday lives (Kitano, 1998a, p. 143). Sexism and racism take many forms; researchers in the field have categorized them as external and internal barriers to gifted females’ advancement. External barriers include gender-role stereotyping at home and at school (Reis, 2001); acculturation to gender inequality (Reis, 2001); a lack of role models, mentors, and counseling (Kitano, 1994/1995); and sex-role traditionalism (Thorne, 1995). Contextual factors often lead to internal or interpersonal obstacles, including feelings of insecurity (Cohen, 1998), self-doubt, selfcriticism, lowered expectations, fear of success (Reis, 2002; Thorne, 1995) and lack of belief in one’s ability (Reis, 2002). All of these factors can undermine women’s self-efficacy in their personal, academic, and professional lives.

118

To understand the influences on gifted female learners from diverse backgrounds, we must consider the parents, extended family, and community effect (Sethna, 2004). The community effect is the combined influence from living in a particular community, including the neighborhood school attended; the language or dialect spoken; the social class of the residents and their attitudes and values; the percentage of families who own their own homes have computers and Internet access; the percentage of peers who attend college or are involved in gang activity, etc. Examples from two different cultures, Asian and Native American, show contrasting expectations of gifted girls. Because parents of Chinese, Japanese, and Indian origins faced a competitive educational system in their homeland, they encourage their children to be especially diligent in their schoolwork so they can go to the very best college to which they can gain admission. They believe that “teacher’s skills and student’s diligence—not innate intelligence” predict children’s school success (Sethna, 2004, p. 107). For this reason, parents of Asian descent expect their children to work hard to hone their intellectual skills. When it comes to college they expect they will choose high-status professions, particularly those in the field of medicine, law and engineering (Sethna, 2004). Their daughters bear the parental expectation that they will distinguish themselves. In contrast, the expectation of parents of Native American females is just the opposite. Kerr (1994, p. 176) called gifted Native American girls “the most neglected minority” group in the educational system, pointing out their cultural beliefs often lead them to hide their intellectual abilities. The most prominent of these is a strongly-held belief in the communal nature of society in which focus on the individual, i.e., being smarter than one’s classmates violates powerful social mores (Kerr, 1994; Klug, 2004). Distinguishing oneself must be placed within the accepted cultural milieu of the community. “In order to encourage Pima girls to put themselves forward for a pageant featuring traditional and modern talents, it was necessary to stress the pride which the community would feel in the accomplishments of the young women” (Kerr, 1994, p. 177). The same values have been found among the Maori in New Zealand. In cultures such as these, identifying a gifted group may be more effective than identifying a gifted child.

L.K. Silverman and N.B. Miller

Social Class Bias For sometime now educators and counselors have recognized the discrimination gifted women of color experience based on both sexism and racism (Evans, 1996; Kerr, 1994; Kitano, 1998a,b). Being female and non-White are characteristics that are almost always evident on sight. Another prejudicial characteristic not as visible, and often not as recognized, is social class. Females who grow up in economically disadvantaged circumstances are frequently less prepared for the academic setting and teacher’s expectations. Children’s social class is based on their parents’ socioeconomic status (SES), which reflects their education, occupation, and level of income. Social class is a way of life that determines the neighborhood children grow up in, the schools they attend, and the workplace roles that are familiar to them. Socialization practices differ markedly by social class in part because parents’ values are influenced by their working conditions. Upper-middle-class parents, who exercise more autonomy on the job, encourage independence and selfdirection in their children. By contrast, working-class parents emphasize conformity and discipline because those are most often the keys to success in their jobs (Elkin & Handel, 1989). The observations of Annette Lareau and her research associates of middle-class, working-class, and poor families revealed that middle-class parents’ approach to childrearing resulted in a “transmission of differential advantages to their children” (2003, p. 5). This was most evident in institutional settings, such as the school, where children’s skills in reasoning and negotiating were highly valued. Middle-class children’s larger vocabulary, ability to express their opinions, and general “sense of entitlement” served them well in the classroom, while children of poor and working-class parents were constrained in their interactions within the school. This “sense of constraint” on the part of poor and working-class children was due in large part to the fact that their parents were not as comfortable in dealing with school officials, seldom criticized teachers, and were willing to go along with any decision these professionals made. For example, one young girl’s poor reading ability was allowed to go on for several years because her parents did not take a more aggressive role in identifying the problem. Despite the fact that all the parents in Lareau’s (2003) study were concerned about their children’s

5

A Feminine Perspective of Giftedness

education, the strategies of middle-class parents, both African American and White, more closely matched the expectations of teachers and principals, who themselves were middle class. In an educational system heavily influenced by middle-class culture, children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are at a disadvantage, often lacking the confidence in interactions with professionals necessary to be effectual. An article highlighting recent trends in England reported . . .social class is the most reliable educational indicator, with children from higher socioeconomic groups consistently outperforming their less affluent peers. This issue is at its most acute in respect to the gifted and talented, with many gifted and talented pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds failing to achieve highly in the general education system. (Eyre & Geake, 2002, p. 20)

119

ment, from self-deprecation to self-efficacy” (Cohen, 1998, p. 360). The key to success for many minority women has been use of one or more coping strategies ranging from acknowledging the negative elements and moving on to ignoring and reframing them (Kitano, 1998b). The following interview illustrates both the barriers and the coping strategies of one gifted female from a low-income background.

Case Study: A Personal Interview

Following a small group discussion of the effects of racism and sexism in society today, an African American doctoral candidate agreed to an interview (Miller Working-class families’ typical male-centered attitudes & Silverman, 2007). The questions used were adapted and gender-role stereotyping have an effect on the ca- from Kitano’s (1998a; 1998b) studies of gifted minorreer aspirations of gifted girls, encouraging them to ity females. stay within the bounds of feminine roles and female occupations. A gifted Latina woman in Kitano’s study 1. What personal characteristics did you display dur(1998a) describes her parents’ encouragement in the ing the school years that might have indicated your following way: high ability? I was always very mature for my age, I developed an extensive vocabulary quite rapidly, and I learned new tasks very quickly. My second-grade teacher is the person who decided that I should be tested for my school’s gifted program. I think that I remember Her teachers held similar expectations for her: “My the day she decided to do so. We had just received a teachers would say, ‘She’s really sweet and cooperamath worksheet that we were supposed to spend the tive.’ To me that [meant] I have achieved my maximum last hour of class working on and then take home potential. Nobody ever commented on my intelligence for homework. I finished within a few minutes and or potential for advancing” (p. 146). was sitting at my desk staring off into space. I don’t Effective female role models and successful menknow if she hadn’t noticed before that this is how tors are rarely available to gifted girls from low-income I usually completed my work, but I remember her families. The fortunate girl is the one who is able to walking by my desk and asking if I was done. I said, find a teacher who encourages her talent (Kastberg & “Yes,” and she just looked confused. She checked Miller, 1996). When girls pursue goals of their own, my answers and they were all right. A few days later they pay a price: I was told that I would be tested for gifted. It was constantly the tug of war between feeling like I 2. In what ways did major socialization agents— wasn’t being a good daughter because I had left home to family, community, school, peers—contribute to or go to college. My father didn’t want me to leave home. That became a very, very serious point of contention. My hinder you in reaching your goals? family did not support me financially or economically I think that being labeled as gifted early on confrom that point on. It still hurts me because they didn’t. tributed to my achievement because it was one force (Kitano, 1998a, p. 146) in my life that told me I was smart and I could In one study, the attitudes and beliefs of gifted minority accomplish great things if I wanted to when so and economically disadvantaged women, when given many other people either didn’t notice my abilithe opportunity to attend a prestigious college, were ties or doubted that they existed. I think the one described as going “from powerlessness to empowerthing that I truly learned from the gifted program . . .to them doing well was just passing everything because I was a girl. . .As long as I was passing, I was fine because I was a girl. When I was younger there wasn’t a whole lot expected of me except to be a good girl. (p. 146)

120

L.K. Silverman and N.B. Miller

(as the program itself wasn’t that great) is to look of criticism when we did poorly (my parents just for a challenge. Since things came to me pretty easdidn’t know what had gotten into me in middle ily, I wasn’t used to exerting effort to accomplish school). One time, in elementary school, I brought anything and I couldn’t see the value in doing so. home my report card and showed it to my father. He Throughout all of elementary and middle school looked at my grades and told me I wasn’t smart, I my teachers talked about challenges like they were was just a brown-noser. I didn’t know what a browngood things and they assumed I was looking for noser was, so I had to look it up in the dictionary. I them. At some point I internalized those values, was deeply hurt by my father’s lack of faith in me. and have frequently found myself pushing my limI never even spoke to my teachers at school—how its as an adult just to keep myself entertained and could I be a brown-noser? see what I can really do. 3. What roles were played by societal-institutional Just as much as being in the gifted program factors (e.g. social movements, racial or gender helped me achieve, I think it also hindered me. bias)? I was pulled out of class a couple times a week I think that one of the biggest reasons it took so which made me feel very different. Everyone knew long for my second grade teacher to notice me (and where I was going and I felt like a freak. Also, the fact that neither my kindergarten nor 1st grade most of the time we spent in gifted, we didn’t teachers before her ever noticed me at all) was that, really do anything important; we spent most of our no matter what I did, no one could fathom that a time drawing pictures and talking. I developed the little black girl could be that smart. When I got to opinion that the point was just to distract us for a college, I became very involved in working against few hours so we wouldn’t be quite so bored and act racism. While I was still frequently underestimated, up in class. We got back to class, caught up, and especially because of my gender, it didn’t take long were still bored. By the time I got to middle school, for me to emerge as a leader both on campus and I was so sick of feeling different that I intentionally off. I learned that I had a voice, and that if I spoke tried to do poorly in my classes (the funny thing up loud enough, people would listen. is, I still got A’s and B’s) because I thought that 4. What were the most difficult barriers you faced in everyone would think I was normal if I got grades reaching your goals? like they did. None of my gifted teachers ever tried Mostly economic hardship and cultural differto talk to us about how we felt being pulled aside ences. It is a very different world below the poverty for the program; they assumed that we thought as line, and I’ve had to learn to negotiate middle- to highly of ourselves as they did. upper-class culture through my contact with higher Some of my regular teachers were also not helpeducation. Someone I know compared it to immiful. My 6th grade history teacher was adamantly grating, and that’s exactly how I feel sometimes. opposed to the whole idea of having a gifted edu- 5. What strategies did you use to succeed? cation program—and he told us so. He didn’t think I can’t honestly say that I really had that many it was necessary and that we shouldn’t be treated strategies. After a year of trying to be dumb in midas though we were special. He would oftentimes dle school I decided to make more achievement orirefuse to let us leave his classroom if we happened ented friends so that I would feel more like I fit in. to have history at the same time we had gifted. I was heavily recruited by colleges throughout high Needless to say, his behavior didn’t make me feel school, so I just went to the one I thought I’d like the any better. best. When I got there I didn’t have the discipline to I’m sad to say, but I think another thing that got do the amount of work they expected us to do (esin my way had to do with my parents. Since my pecially in comparison to the rich kids who’d spent older brother is also highly intelligent (he was also their entire lives in prep school that I was graded tested for gifted but didn’t hit the 98th percentile— against). I didn’t actually do anything to change my given what he used to do as a child, I think his test situation though; I just kept trying to coast through was an underestimate) my parents didn’t think there school because it had always worked before. After was anything unusual about the things we could do. my first two years I decided to get serious, and then There were no rewards for doing well, but plenty my only strategy was to actually do my homework.

5

A Feminine Perspective of Giftedness

I never really studied much for tests and would still say that I’m not the most disciplined person in the world when it comes to academic work. 6. How would you describe your social class background and its effect? As I mentioned previously, I grew up below the poverty line (add my race and my giftedness to that and you can see why difference was so painful for me). Although I still feel the effects of poverty, in that I do not have as much financial help as my classmates, I realize that my situation has changed and I am better described as middle class. This is weird for me because for the majority of my life and all of my formative years I have been a poor kid. No matter how much money or education I have, I will always be a poor kid in some ways. But I will also be middle class. People who have written about women of color in my situation say we live in the “borderlands.” It seems to fit my experience well. Issues of cultural identity (Kitano, 1998b) or identity confusion (Kastberg & Miller, 1996), evident in this case study, are common in the lives of gifted minority females and those from disadvantage. Most of the successful African American women studied by Kitano described themselves as “definitely ‘not assimilated’ but bicultural” (1998b, p. 278) with one foot in the culture of their heritage and the other in the world they inhabit as middle-class professionals. They considered their ability to go between the two cultures or to “live in a double world,” moving easily between diverse settings, as crucial to their success. Some gifted minority women also refer to themselves as “bilingual,” using their educated language to communicate with colleagues and their familiar dialect to maintain connections with family and friends (Kastberg & Miller, 1996). This duality of culture and language creates a complex inner struggle for some, including feelings of loss and identity confusion, but for others it represents a source of pride and accomplishment.

What Represents Success to Gifted Women? Subotnik, Kassan, Summers and Wasser (1993) studied graduates of Hunter College Elementary

121

School, a co-educational school designed according to Hollingworth’s educational principles. These researchers seemed somewhat disappointed about the fact that none of these former students demonstrated stellar productivity in their adult lives. Instead, they chose happiness, which coincided with the family and school values that “celebrated social adjustment” and “discouraged obsessive attention to special talent or recognition” (p. 118). They raise the question of whether gifted education programs should support individual values of happiness, satisfaction, and fitting into society, which gears them toward moderate productivity, or should they urge students to transform the world. “True genius . . .is likely to be driven, compulsive, and never fully contented. We may be enriched at his or her expense” (p. 119). They saw each course as having merit and justification. Barbara Kerr (1994) expressed similar concern that her gifted classmates failed to fulfill their girlhood dreams, since they had adapted so well to women’s traditional roles. The eminent women she studied had very different values and life experiences; they were passionate about their life’s work and less socially adapted. These questions need to be grappled with if we are to understand the life goals of gifted females. Do most gifted girls want to change the world when they grow up? Or are they content to influence the lives of their children and their community, to educate themselves and work in their chosen fields in a way that serves the whole rather than calling attention to themselves? Constance Hollinger and Elyse Fleming (1992) studied 126 gifted and talented young women for 14 years before they began to wonder if they were asking the right questions. Did women define achievement or success in ways substantially different from men? They were inspired by Eccles (1987) and other scholars who asserted that the traditional definition of achievement is stereotypically masculine. “From a relational vantage point, the growth and maturing of a significant relationship may well rival in importance and value a promotion to a corporate vice-presidency” (Hollinger & Fleming, 1992 p. 208). They asked their participants, “What do you consider to be your three greatest achievements since you graduated from high school?” (p. 209). The responses of these gifted women led them to the following conclusions: Despite their accomplishments in traditional areas of achievement, these gifted young women, when defining their own achievements, also report personal

122

L.K. Silverman and N.B. Miller

and relational areas of achievement. . .. Their responses indeed validated the need for an expanded definition of achievement that includes not only educational, career and financial accomplishments but also accomplishments that fall within other personal and interpersonal life spheres. (p. 209)

Implications and Recommendations

and personal satisfaction, along with feelings of peace, happiness, and creativity with relation both to the arts and to family life. (p. 102)

r

Willard White (1990) conducted a follow-up study of three of Hollingworth’s subjects—two women and one man—who scored above 180 IQ. He asked them what they considered to be their greatest achievements. The man referred to his mathematical theories and the two women replied, their children. All three had devoted some part of their lives to improving education. From these studies, it would seem that our definition of achievement for the gifted, particularly gifted women, is too narrow. All point to the necessity of broadening what we value as domains of achievement so as to include those emotional/relational spheres in which many gifted women choose to devote their energies. Women’s models of success include individual self-actualization, volunteerism, and community service (Arnold, Noble & Subotnik, 1996; Cohen, 1998). Did all the “great men” is history discover, invent, or create entirely on their own or were the paradigmatic shifts and discoveries actually the result of a team effort within a hierarchical social structure, so that only one man received the credit? Women seem to be comfortable and effective working collaboratively in a team effort rather than as isolated individuals. Some examples are the Stone Center’s self-in-relation theorists at Wellesley College (Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver & Surrey, 1991) and the group that produced Women’s Ways of Knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger & Tarule, 1986). Group endeavors seem to acknowledge more fairly the process by which new ideas come into being, as well as meeting both relational and achievement needs. From this perspective, women would not be shut out of the highest regions of merit, nor would they have to choose between their need for relationships and their need to fulfill their creative potential.

r

The conceptions of giftedness that inform gifted programs either help or hinder the identification and development of gifted girls. If gender equity and equitable access of culturally diverse and economically disCarole Harris (1992) reported similar findings in her advantaged students are goals of the program, then the longitudinal study of students who had been enrolled emphasis on achievement needs to be reconsidered in in Hollingworth’s experimental classes: favor of a child-centered approach, with attunement to diversity. The following key principles will assure a Most of the subjects in the Hollingworth group, about more inclusive program: 85%, also speak of achievement in terms of their children

r r r r r

r r r r

r

Collect information about developmental advancement in early childhood. Take parents’ perceptions of their children’s advanced abilities seriously. Identify gifted girls in preschool and primary grades. Use untimed tests, preferably standardized individually administered IQ tests. (See Chapter 48.) Provide opportunities for early entrance to school. Group gifted children for instruction, so that gifted girls do not feel constrained to hide their abilities. Keep track of distributions of gifted students by gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. When inequitable distributions are found, take active steps to correct the situation, such as staff development and conducting searches for hidden gifted students. Review textbooks for gender representation. Augment texts with other resources that provide feminine role models, particularly women of color. Provide counseling and support groups for gifted girls, where they feel safe discussing gender issues. Ban the words “bossy,” “overachiever,” and other sexist terms. Have strong sanctions against covert female bullying. “Existing rules should be amended to prohibit specific behaviors such as rumor spreading, alliance building, secret telling, and severe episodes of nonverbal aggression” (Simmons, 2002, p. 249). Create policies against sexism in school. Be alert to subtle forms of sexism.

The development of gifted girls begins in the family. Parent seminars can educate families regarding the early indicators of giftedness and effective ways to advocate for their daughters. Parents, as well as teachers, should hold high expectations for girls (Kitano, 1998a). It is wise to tell girls early in life that they are intelli-

5

A Feminine Perspective of Giftedness

gent (Kerr, 1991) as it is easy for them to lose confidence in their abilities. Girls do not have to choose between social acceptance and achievement when they have the support of other girls like themselves. Whenever possible, group gifted girls together for instruction and provide opportunities for them to interact with other advanced students. When gifted girls learn early in life that they can master work they initially deem as “too hard,” they are more likely to take on more difficult tasks as they get older. Although they often underestimate their abilities, gifted girls are usually happiest when they are intellectually challenged (Kerr, 1991). It is essential that our brightest girls be guided into taking 4 years of mathematics in high school, as well as other rigorous courses: Few gifted girls are aware of the absolute importance of mathematics to their future goals. Frequently, gifted girls drop out of math and science courses for superficial reasons, not realizing that most college majors leading to high-level careers and professions require 4 years of high school preparation in math and science. (Kerr, 1991, p. 411)

Those girls who suffer from math phobia should be given tutoring to overcome their fear. Callahan (1991) asserts that there should be as many remedial mathematics teachers available to adolescent girls as there are remedial reading teachers available to young gifted boys. This requires recognizing that mathematics is as vital for girls as reading is for boys. Discrepancies in scores between males and females in college board exams are partially due to the fact that these tests are timed. Experiments in which girls take the tests untimed have greatly diminished the gender gap (Dreyden & Gallagher, 1989; Kelly-Benjamin, 1990). Sadker & Sadker (1994) recommend that scholarship opportunities be based as much on grades as on timed aptitude and achievement tests, since girls with high-grade point averages in mathematics but lower SAT-Math scores than boys demonstrated higher performance in college courses. College preparation, life planning, and career counseling are extremely helpful for gifted girls (Kitano, 1998a). Female role models and mentors need to be available to provide guidance and support to gifted girls in the pursuit of their goals (Reis, 2001). Introduce girls to role models of women who have chosen different life paths (Phelps, 1991) through classroom speakers, career days, biographical study, films, shadowing a professional for a day or so, internships,

123

mentorships, and apprenticeships. Research with samesex schools internationally has demonstrated that they promote leadership and higher achievement in girls in high school and undergraduate school (Callahan, 1991; Granleese & Joseph, 1993; Kerr, 1991; Riordan, 1990; Sax, 2005; Schwartz, 1991).

Supporting Cultural and Economic Diversity Understanding and supporting gifted female students from diverse backgrounds, including students of color, those from economic disadvantage, and those with language difficulties, require attention to the broader social context and recognition of bias. Knowledge of the cultural values, beliefs, and practices of those who influence gifted females, such as parents, relatives, and community members is vital (Ford et al., 2004; Klug, 2004; Sethna, 2004). It is extremely difficult to recognize gifted girls when they are hesitant to raise their hand, speak in class, or admit they know the answer. The goal of educators should be to provide a climate in which girls can learn and grow and still feel comfortable in their family and neighborhood. Just as difficult as recognizing exceptional minority females is acknowledging the effect of prejudice on their performance, especially when it is subtle and practically invisible. Preventing the detrimental effects of discrimination on those at the intersection of gender, race, and social class is a challenge for all those in education today. The responsibility for alleviating underachievement is ours as educators; it starts with creating an environment free from prejudice where every girl’s talents are nourished. Dismantling gender and racial stereotypes benefits both females and males by allowing them to pursue their talents without the risk of violating powerful social norms. Stereotype threat, a response to negative stereotypes based on sex or race, has been shown to adversely affect a person’s everyday behavior and performance on verbal and mathematical tests (Lips, 2005). Eliminating this threat may encourage females to pursue math and science in grades 1–12 and to select college majors built on those skills, e.g., engineering, chemistry, and even physics. It may encourage minority women to pursue careers in fields where few, if any, role models exist.

124

Sociologist William Corsaro (2005) recommends improved not-for-profit child care and more government supported early education programs in an attempt to improve the condition of poor children in the United States. “High-quality early education programs for three-to six-year-old children are widely available at low cost in Europe. France and Italy, for example, have developed excellent early childhood education programs for three- to six-year-olds with near universal attendance” (p. 290). An early start increases the likelihood minority girls and boys and those from lowincome and working-class families are on equal footing with those from middle-class families when they enter kindergarten. This is particularly important for bilingual children and those for whom little preparation for school has been available. Corsaro also recommends expanding America’s Head Start program from a half day to a full day and extending the program to cover many more of those who are eligible. Currently less than half (42%) are enrolled, due to lack of US government funding. This would provide the early exposure to learning skills economically disadvantaged minority children so desperately need. Social-class discrimination holds back many gifted females, and the necessity of addressing this issue is more evident today than ever. From early education programs, such as the compensatory Head Start program for underprivileged children (Corsaro, 2005) to those serving exceptional women from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, such as the Ada Comstock program at Smith College (Cohen, 1998), evidence exists that enriched educational opportunities for females are paying off. To end sexism, racism, and social class oppression in gifted education, we must break down the barriers to success too often experienced by underrated girls, female students of color, and those who are economically disadvantaged. Neutralizing gender stereotypes, by making them “less rigid and inclusive of fewer aspects of behavior,” has the potential to benefit women even more than men because power and status have been associated with qualities assigned to males (Lips, 2005, p. 51). Without the belief in stereotype behaviors that lead to submission, deferral, and rejection of some occupations altogether, women’s self-confidence and aspirations could rise to new heights and their goals surpass any previously imagined.

L.K. Silverman and N.B. Miller

Conclusion Our field draws its nourishment from Leta Hollingworth and all of the feminine energy that has been devoted to gifted children. It is not accidental that Hollingworth was passionate about the plight of gifted women and gifted children. “The Woman Question” is as much with us today as it was in 1926. Do we pour our considerable energies into developing our gifted children at the expense of ourselves or do we go for glory? If we are satisfied with doing our part for the good of the whole, then glory is not the goal. We can still make a difference in the world, even if no one remembers our names. Eminence is a man’s game. Driven by the competitive spirit, it is a gentleman’s war, with the victor gaining a permanent place in history. Predominantly white males set up the rules of the game, decide who can play, and decide who will win. Like all wars, it has winners and losers. Even Margaret Mead failed to get into Cradles of Eminence (V. Goertzel & M. Goertzel, 1962) because she did not have two biographies written about her at the time. Some women will find their way into the ranks of the eminent, but at what price? All of the longitudinal studies of the gifted have the same message. Terman and Oden (1959) found that their “Termites” defined success in adult life in terms of vocational satisfaction, a happy marriage and family life, helping others, and a well-adjusted personality. Sears and Barbee (1977) found that the women in Terman’s study at midlife (mean age 62 years) were generally happier if they had worked outside the home, but not necessarily in a noteworthy manner. Hollingworth’s students and children she studied above 180 IQ, as well as those found by other researchers, had relational goals and were deeply fulfilled being of service to others. The goals for the gifted are not fame and wealth: those are the goals of high achievers. Developmental differences, observable in early childhood, are reliable indicators of giftedness. They are culture-blind and gender-blind. Gifted children of every color, in every nation, in every culture, and in every social class, develop at a faster rate than their age peers. Their mental growth outstrips their physical abilities, and so they have uneven, asynchronous development. They tend to be highly sensitive. “It feels like I have no skin.” They feel the pain of others and want to be of service. Their awareness and moral sensitivity, derived from the marriage of cognitive

5

A Feminine Perspective of Giftedness

complexity and emotional sensitivity, are not valued by society. These are not advantages in the race to fame. It is their vulnerability that requires accommodations, rather than their potential to contribute to society. Our role as educators is to enable all children to fulfill their potential, but we must remember that they must be allowed to define success in their own terms. Greater awareness is needed of the sexism in society and in school that robs gifted females of equal opportunities in education and employment. In gifted education, it is important to recognize the benefits to girls and children of diverse cultures to identify them early on individual IQ tests. The highest IQ scores in African American and White samples have been attained by gifted girls. This information needs to be taken seriously. Active commitment is needed in order for gender equity to become a priority. Policies eventually change the opportunities for gifted girls and women. “In Norway, the government was so embarrassed by the low representation of women on corporate boards (7.5%) that it ordered all public companies to appoint women to at least 40% of the all board positions by 2005 (Goldsmith, 2002)” (Lips, 2005, p. 463). Policies that recognize women’s dual roles as care givers and as workers are essential. On December 6, 2005, a joint statement on gender equity in higher education was issued by the presidents of nine major American research universities: CalTech, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, UC Berkeley, U. Michigan, U. Pennsylvania and Yale. They recognized that barriers still exist for women in science, engineering, and in academic fields throughout higher education. They pledged to change institutional policies, provide resources and to take significant steps toward enabling academic careers to be compatible with family care giving responsibilities (Jaschik, 2005). Newly elected Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, has pledged to bring issues of “care” to the forefront: health-care legislation, minimum-wage laws, and ethical standards for legislators. These policies make a difference. Each of us makes a difference with our lives, each of us contributes to the whole.

References AAUW Educational Foundation. (1992). The AAUW Report: How schools shortchange girls. Executive summary. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

125 Albert, R. S. (1969). Genius: Present-day status of the concept and its implications for the study of creativity and giftedness. American Psychologist, 24, 743–752. Alomar, B. O. (2003). Parental involvement in the schooling of children. Gifted and Talented International, 18, 95–100. Arnold, K., Noble, K. D., & Subotnik, R. F. (1996). Perspectives on female talent development. In K. Arnold, K. D. Noble, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 1–19). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Begley, S. (1993, June 28). The puzzle of genius. Newsweek, 46–53. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books. Bell, L. A. (1989). Something’s wrong here and it’s not me: Challenging the dilemmas that block girls’ success. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 118–130. Bereiter, C. (1976–1977). IQ and elitism. Interchange, 7(3), 36– 44. Binet, A. (1909). Les idees modernes sur les enfants. Paris: Flammarion. Binet, A., et Simon, Th. (1905). Application des methods nouvelle au diagnostic du niveau intellectual chez des enfants normaux et anormaux d’hospice et d’ecole primaire. L’Annee Psychologique, 11, 191–244. Boring, E. G. (1950). A history of experimental psychology (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Borland, J. H. (1990). Leta Hollingworth’s contributions to the psychology and education of the gifted. Roeper Review, 12, 162–166. Buescher, T. M., Olszewski, P., & Higham, S. J. (1987, April). Influences on strategies gifted adolescents use to cope with their own recognized talents. Paper presented at the 1987 biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, MD. Callahan, C. M. (1979). The gifted and talented woman. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and the talented: Their education and development. The seventy-eighth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (pp. 401– 423). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Callahan, C. M. (1991). An update on gifted females. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 284–311. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Castellano, J. (2004). Empowering and serving Hispanic students in gifted education. In D. Boothe & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 1–13). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Clark, B. (1983). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Cohen, R. M. (1998). Class consciousness and its consequences: The impact of an elite education on mature, working-class women. American Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 353–375. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Vol. 1. Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted

126 Education and Talent Development. [Available free online at http://nationdeceived.org] Columbus Group (1991, July). Unpublished transcript of the meeting of the Columbus Group. Columbus, OH. Cornell, D. G. (1983). Gifted children: The impact of positive labeling on the family system. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53, 322–336. Corsaro, W. A. (2005). The sociology of childhood (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Cox, C. M. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. L. M. Terman (Series Ed.), Genetic studies of genius, Vol. 2. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Darwin, C. R. (1897). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex (Rev. ed.). New York: D. Appleton. Dreyden, J. I., & Gallagher, S. A. (1989). The effects of time and direction: Changes on the SAT performance of academically talented adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 187–204. Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievementrelated decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 135–171. Ehrlich, V. Z. (1978). The Astor program for gifted children: PreKindergarten through grade three. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University in cooperation with the Board of Education of the City of New York. Elkin, F., & Handel, G. (1989). The child and society: The process of socialization. New York: Random House. Evans, K. M. (1996). Counseling gifted women of color. In K. Arnold, K. D. Noble, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 1–19). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Eyre, D., & Geake, J. (2002). Trends in research into gifted and talented education in England. Gifted and Talented International, 17, 15–21. Farrell, J. A. (2007, January 7). Pelosi gets a life. The Denver Post, pp. E1, E3. Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Identification and assessment of talented learners. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd ed., pp. 193–210). Denver: Love. Feldhusen, J. F., Proctor, T. B., & Black, K. N. (2002). Guidelines for grade advancement of precocious children. Roeper Review, 24, 169–171. Feldman, D. H. (1984). A follow-up of subjects scoring above 180 IQ in Terman’s “Genetic Studies of Genius.” Exceptional Children, 50, 518–523. Feldman, D. H. (1992). Has there been a paradigm shift in gifted education? In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 89–94). Unionville, NY: Trillium. Fennama, E. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics. In E. Fennama & G. Leder (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 169–187). New York: Teachers College Press. Ford, D. Y. (2001). Achieving equity and excellence: Recruiting and retaining minority students in gifted education. In N. Colangelo & S. G. Assouline (Eds.), Proceedings from the 1998 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace national research sym-

L.K. Silverman and N.B. Miller posium on talent development (pp. 27–39). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Milner, H. R. (2004). Underachievement among gifted African American students: Cultural, social, and psychological considerations. In D. Boothe & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 15–31). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Ford, D. Y., Harris, J. J., III, Tyson, C. A., & Frazier Trotman, M. (2002) Beyond deficit thinking: Providing access for gifted African American students. Roeper Review, 24, 52–58. Gagne, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103–112. Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its causes and consequences. London: Macmillan. Galton, F. (1907). Inquiries into human faculty and its development (2nd ed.). London: J. M. Dent & Sons. Gardner, H. G. (1983). Frames of mind: A theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gilligan, C. (1989). Preface: Teaching Shakespeare’s sisters. In C. Gilligan, N. P. Lyons, & T. J. Hanmer (Eds.), Making connections: The relational worlds of adolescent girls at Emma Willard School (pp. 6–29). Troy, NY: Emma Willard School. Gilman, B. J. (2003). Empowering gifted minds: Educational advocacy that works. Denver: DeLeon. Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, M. G. (1962). Cradles of eminence. Boston: Little, Brown. Goertzel, T. G., & Hansen, A. (2004). Cradles of eminence: Childhoods of more than 700 famous men and women (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Granleese, J. & Joseph, S. (1993). Self-perception profile of adolescent girls at a single-sex and a mixed-sex school. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, 525–530. Grant, B., & Piechowski, M. M. (1999). Theories and the good: Toward a child-centered gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 4–12. Hargreaves, R. (1981). Little Miss Bossy. Los Angeles, CA: Price Stern. Harris, C. R. (1992). The fruits of early intervention: The Hollingworth group today. Advanced Development, 4, 91–104. Ho, S. (2006, November 10). Women in world politics. Voice of America News. Retrieved January 20, 2007, from http://www.voanews.com/burmese/archive/200611/2006-11-10-voa3.cfm Hollinger, C. L., & Fleming, E. S. (1992). A longitudinal examination of life choices of gifted and talented young women. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 207–212. Hollingworth, L. S. (1913). The frequency of amentia as related to sex. Medical Record, 84, 753–756. Hollingworth, L. S. (1914). Variability as related to sex differences in achievement: A critique. The American Journal of Sociology, 22, 19–29. Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York: Macmillan. Hollingworth, L. S. (1931). The child of very superior intelligence as a special problem in social adjustment. Mental Hygiene, 15(1), 1–16. Hollingworth, L. S. (1939). What we know about the early selection and training of leaders. Teachers College Record, 40, 575–592.

5

A Feminine Perspective of Giftedness

Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ StanfordBinet: Origin and development. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book. Hooks, B. (2000). Feminism is for everybody. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. Jaschik, S. (2005, December 7). 9 University presidents issue statement on gender equity. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from http://insidehighered.com/ news/2005/12/07/gender Jordan, J. V., Kaplan, A. G., Miller, J. B., Stiver, I. P., & Surrey, J. L. (1991). Women’s growth in connection. New York: Guilford Press. Kastberg, S. M., & Miller, D. G. (1996). Of blue collars and ivory towers: Women from blue-collar backgrounds in higher education. In K. Arnold, K. D. Noble, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 49–67). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Kearney, K., & LeBlanc, J. (1993). Forgotten pioneers in the study of gifted African-Americans. Roeper Review, 15, 192–199. Kelly–Benjamin, K. (1990, April). Performance differences on SAT math questions. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. Kerr, B. A. (1991). Educating gifted girls. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 402– 415). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kerr, B. A. (1994). Smart girls: A new psychology of girls, women and giftedness (Revised ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Kitano, M. K. (1994/1995). Lessons from gifted women of color. The Journal of Secondary Education, 4(2), 176–187. Kitano, M. K. (1998a). Gifted Latina women. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 131–159. Kitano, M. K. (1998b). Gifted African American women. Journal for the Education of The Gifted, 21, 254–287. Klein, A. G. (2002). A forgotten voice: A biography of Leta Stetter Hollingworth. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Klug, B. J. (2004). Children of the starry cope: Gifted and talented Native American students. In D. Boothe & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 49–71). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Lips, H. M. (2005). Sex and gender: An introduction (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Louis, B., & Lewis, M. (1992). Parental beliefs about giftedness in young children and their relation to actual ability level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 27–31. Lovecky, D. V. (2004). Different minds: Gifted children with AD/HD, Asperger Syndrome, and other learning deficits. London: Jessica Kinglsey. Lowie, R. H., & Hollingworth, L. S. (1916). Science and feminism. Scientific Monthly, 3, 277–284. Lutfig, R. L., & Nichols, M. L. (1990). Assessing the social status of gifted students by their age peers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 111–115. The Mid-Atlantic Equity Center & The Network, Inc. (1993). Beyond Title IX: Gender equity issues in schools. Chevy Chase, MD: Authors. Retrieved January 22, 2007, from http://www.maec.org/beyond.html

127 Miller, N. B., & Silverman, L. K. (2007). [The minority experience: A case study.] Unpublished raw data. Denver, CO; Gifted Development Center. Montague, H., & Hollingworth, L. S. (1914). The comparative variability of the sexes at birth. The American Journal of Sociology, 20, 335–370. Munger, A. (1990). The parent’s role in counseling the gifted: The balance between home and school. In J. Van TasselBaska (Ed.), A practical guide to counseling the gifted in a school setting (2nd ed., pp. 57–65). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children. The National Association for Gifted Children Britain. Giftedness and high ability: Definitions of giftedness. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://www.nagcbritain.org.uk/giftedness/ definitions.html Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. M., & Kulieke, M. J. (1989). Personality dimensions of gifted adolescents. In J. Van Tassel-Baska & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of influence on gifted learners: The home, the self, and the school (pp. 125–145). New York: Teachers College Press. Parrish, M. (2004). Urban poverty and homelessness as hidden demographic variables relevant to academic achievement. In D. Boothe & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 203–211). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Peter, R., & Stern, W. (1922). Die auslese befahigter Volksschuler in Hamburg. Leipzig: Barth. Phelps, C. R. (1991). Identity formation in career development for gifted women. Roeper Review, 13, 140–141. Reis, S. M. (2001). External barriers experienced by gifted and talented girls and women. Gifted Child Today, 24(4), 26–35. Reis, S. M. (2002). Internal barriers, personal issues, and decisions faced by gifted and talented females. Gifted Child Today, 25(1), 14–28. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184. Riordan, C. (1990). Girls and boys in school: Together or separate? New York: Teachers College Press. Robinson, N. M. (2004). Effects of academic acceleration on the social-emotional status of gifted students. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. (Vol. 2, pp. 59–67). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development [Available free online at http://nationdeceived.org] Robinson, N. M. (2005). In defense of a psychometric approach to the definition of academic giftedness: A conservative view from a die-hard liberal. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 280–294). New York: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, N. M. (2008). The value of traditional assessments as approaches to identifying academically gifted students. In J. Van Tassel-Baska (Ed.), Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students (pp. 157–174). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Roedell, W. C. (1984). Vulnerabilities of highly gifted children. Roeper Review, 6, 127–130.

128 Roedell, W. C. (1989). Early development of gifted children. In J. Van Tassel-Baska & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of influence on gifted learners: The home, the self, and the school (pp. 13–28). New York: Teachers College Press. Roeper, A. (1982). How the gifted cope with their emotions. Roeper Review, 5(2), 21–24. Roeper, A. (1990). Educating children for life: The modern learning community. Monroe, NY: Trillium Press. Roeper, A. (1996). A personal statement of philosophy of George and Annemarie Roeper. Roeper Review, 19, 18–19. Roeper, A. (2004). My life experiences with children: Selected writing and speeches. Denver: DeLeon. Roeper, A. (2007). The “I” of the beholder: A guided journey to the essence of the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Rogers, M. T. (1986). A comparative study of developmental traits of gifted and average children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, Denver, CO. Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Sax, L. (2005). Why gender matters: What parents and teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences. New York: Doubleday. Schwartz, L. L. (1991). Guiding gifted girls. In R. M. Milgram (Ed.), Counseling gifted and talented children: A guide for teachers, counselors and parents (pp. 143–160). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Sears, P. S., & Barbee, A. H. (1977). Career and life satisfactions among Terman’s gifted women. In J.C. Stanley, W.C. George, & C.H. Solano (Eds.), The gifted and the creative: A fifty-year perspective (pp. 28–65). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Sethna, B. N. (2004). An unconventional view of gifted children of Indian descent in the United States. In D. Boothe & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 101–117). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Shell, E. R. (2005, October). Frontiers of science: Sex. Discover. pp. 42–43. Silverman, L. K. (1986). What happens to the gifted girl? In C. J. Maker (Ed.), Critical issues in gifted education, Vol. 1: Defensible programs for the gifted (pp. 43–89). Austin, TX: ProEd. Silverman, L. K. (1993a). The gifted individual. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted & talented (pp. 3–28). Denver: Love. Silverman, L. K. (1993b). Social development, leadership, and gender issues. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted & talented (pp. 291–327). Denver: Love. Silverman, L. K. (1995). To be gifted or feminine: The forced choice of adolescence. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 6, 141–156. Silverman, L. K. (2007). [The percentage of female Nobel Laureates.] Unpublished raw data compiled from The No-

L.K. Silverman and N.B. Miller bel Foundation website, http://nobelprize.org/ and Female Nobel Prize Laureates listed on The Nobel Prize Internet Archive, http://almaz.com/nobel.html. Retrieved January 20, 2007. Simmons, R. (2002). Odd girl out: The hidden culture of aggression in girls. Orlando, FL: Harcourt. Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1988). The IQ controversy, the media and public policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Subotnik, R., Kassan, L., Summers, E., & Wasser, A. (1993). Genius revisited: High IQ children grown up. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan. Terman, L. M. (1916a). The measurement of intelligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Terman, L. M., (1916b). The Stanford revision of the Binet-Simon tests. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Terman, L. M. (1917). The intelligent quotient of Francis Galton in childhood. American Journal of Psychology, 28, 209–215. Terman, L. M. (1921). In E. L. Thorndike, et al. Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 127–133. Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius, Vol. 1: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 5. The gifted group at mid-life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Thorne, Y. M. (1995). Achievement motivation in high achieving Latina women. Roeper Review, 18(1), 44–48. Thorndike, E. L. (1906). Sex in education. The Bookman, 23, 211–214. Thorndike, E. L. (1910). Educational psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Treffinger, D. J., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1996). Talent recognition and development: Successor to gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 181–193. Wallenchinsky, D. (2007, January 14). Is American still no. 1? Parade, 4–5. Weininger, O. (1910). Sex and character. London: Wm. Heinemann & Sons. (English translation from the sixth German edition.) White, W. L. (1990). Interviews with Child I, Child J, and Child L. Roeper Review, 12, 222–227. Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books. Witty, P. (1940). Contributions to the IQ controversy from the study of superior deviates. School & Society, 51, 503–508.

Chapter 6

An Expert Performance Approach to the Study of Giftedness K. Anders Ericsson, Kiruthiga Nandagopal and Roy W. Roring

Abstract Ever since the publication of Galton’s seminal book, Hereditary Genius (1869/1979), researchers and the general public have assumed that individuals need to be endowed with inherited gifts to attain elite levels of performance. This chapter describes the surprising lack of firm objective evidence for this assumption. We review a variety of findings that support the important role of extended training, such as structural changes and adaptations of the mechanisms that mediate increasing levels of performance and how these changes result from years and decades of daily deliberate practice. We also detail a new alternative approach toward the study of giftedness, namely the expert performance approach, and how it is able to explain the findings from studies of reproducibly superior performance. The proposed framework can also account for how perceived “giftedness” is often a selffulfilling prophecy, as it often provides “gifted” children with better motivational support and access to superior training resources, resulting in the superior development of performance.

achievements at public competitions, their performance often looks extremely natural and surprisingly effortless. To the casual observer, these exhibitions appear so extraordinary that it is difficult to imagine how other “normal” individuals would ever be capable of achieving similar performance levels. It is tempting to view exceptional achievements as reflecting some unique innate talent of these performers. Indeed, stable individual differences in some cognitive abilities and physical characteristics as measured in basic laboratory settings suggest that some individuals might have inborn capacities or innate gifts required for high levels of domain performance. Suppose modern researchers are faced with one of these individuals displaying amazing achievements. There are multiple possible approaches for determining the possible causes and mediating factors, but many scientists would agree that one logical first step would be to see whether the performers could reproduce their exceptional performance in a controlled laboratory setting. If after repeated attempts the superior performance cannot be reproduced, Keywords Deliberate practice · Expertise · Skill ac- then nothing can be subsequently investigated and quisition · Physiological adaptation exceptional mem- explained. On the other hand if it is reproducible, then further investigations can attempt to identify the source ory · Self-fulfilling prophesy of the reproducibly superior performance. Plausible hypotheses on how this task might be accomplished would be tested by observing and measuring behavior Introduction during the performance under different manipulations. Once models of the individuals’ performance When exceptional individuals such as ice skaters, are understood and supported, the researcher will chess players, and musicians demonstrate outstanding attempt to determine their developmental trajectory. For instance, how was the exceptional individual able to develop their performance? Is it possible K.A. Ericsson (B) for new unskilled individuals to acquire this type of Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA e-mail: [email protected] performance through instruction, training, and practice L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 6, 

129

130

so that they can ultimately reproduce the superior performance? This approach is, in a nutshell, the essence of the expert performance framework as set forth by Ericsson & Smith (1991). There are essentially three steps. First, the superior performance must be reproduced in a laboratory setting. Second, the performance can then be experimentally investigated and the mediating mechanisms described. Finally, the third step seeks an understanding of how these mechanisms are developed over time. Thus, our approach is dedicated to the study of superior reproducible performance. We accept that many of the individuals that giftedness researchers would identify as being “gifted” do demonstrate superior reproducible performance (e.g., GPA), but we do not use the term “giftedness” for two main reasons. First, the term “giftedness” is often used to indicate innate, genetic endowments or advantages. As we will discuss in a subsequent section, while we accept the possibility of genetic endowments, to date we have yet to uncover any firm evidence of their existence. Second, the term “giftedness” is often used to imply a potential for superior performance, even (according to several giftedness researchers) prior to or in the absence of actual accomplishment. Indeed, in a later section of this chapter we will discuss how efforts to identify talented individuals who succeed as adults have been surprisingly unsuccessful and how mere perceptions of talent, whether based on an objective advantage or not, may actually facilitate the development of future superior performance. In this chapter, we outline how our approach might be applied by giftedness researchers and how our focus on reproducible evidence contrasts with anecdotal or subjectively assessed accounts of performance. We begin by discussing the origins of the science of high level of performance often described as requiring gifts and innate capacities. Next, we present the expert performance approach, describe how it restricts the acceptable evidence and focuses on investigations of reproducibly superior performance. We then take issue with the evidence for immutable limits on performance and present several relevant findings. We present evidence that deliberate practice is necessary for achieving the physiological and cognitive transformations required for the observed high levels of performance. We then explain how the expert performance approach can be used to provide causal accounts for the development of superior performance, describing relevant examples

K.A. Ericsson et al.

from empirical investigations of various domains of expertise, such as chess, music, and sports, to illustrate our framework. Finally, we discuss how perceptions of giftedness and talent can be explained by our findings and present our conclusions. In describing our approach and discussing relevant empirical findings, we hope to encourage scientists dedicated to the investigation of the development of superior performance to adopt a common framework whereby evidence can be integrated into our current understanding of human potential.

Galton’s Traditional Account of Giftedness and Natural Ability Much of the earliest work on understanding elite achievement can be traced back to Galton’s (1869/1979) seminal book Hereditary Genius (Ericsson & Charness, 1994; Ericsson, Krampe, & Heizmann, 1993; Simonton, 1999). Galton argued that, akin to attributes such as height, intellectual capacities are hereditary and immutable: “Now, if this be the case with stature, then it will be true as regards every other physical feature—as circumference of head, size of brain, weight of grey matter, number of brain fibres, &c.[sic]; and thence, a step on which no physiologist will hesitate, as regards mental capacity” (Galton, pp. 31–32, italics added). According to Galton, whether an individual can become an eminent scientist, artist, or world-class performer is determined by this mental capacity, which cannot be improved through training or practice. Galton (1869/1979) argued that improvements in domain performance are rapid only in the beginning of training with subsequent diminishing returns in performance gains due to practice, until “maximal performance becomes a rigidly determinate quantity” (p. 15), representing an immutable limit on performance, “where he cannot by any education or exertion overpass” (p. 15). Galton’s argument for inherited immutable limits of performance has influenced generations of psychologists. Reviewing Galton’s work, Jensen (2002) states that “Overall, Galton’s paradigm, with its roots in evolutionary theory, genetics, and physiology, has proved essentially sound” (p. 167). Detterman & Ruthsatz (2001) argue, “In situations where practice, instruction, or intervention is applied, the most

6

An Expert Performance Approach to the Study of Giftedness

important determinant of a person’s final position in a distribution will be their position in that distribution before practice, instruction or intervention” (p. 135, italics added). Innate talents have even been proposed as arising from multiplicative rather than additive genetic effects (Simonton, 1999): “[A]lthough superior performance in games, sports, science, and the arts is often ascribed to talent, the hypothesized phenomenon may not be fully understood unless it is conceived as a multidimensional and multiplicative developmental process” (Simonton, 1999, p. 435) and that “[o]nly in the case of monozygotic twins, who inherit identical epigenetic programs, would one ever predict equivalent developmental trajectories in the emergence of a given talent” (Simonton, 1999, p. 445). As we discuss later in this chapter, we do not argue against the fact that genes play a critical role in determining the development of adaptations which support elite performance. Also, we do not question that some individuals are born with genetic mutations which lead to diseases and medical problems. Our concerns are directed against the strong belief among many modern researchers that individual differences in genetic endowments among healthy children lead to superior innate characteristics which are necessary to reach final levels of performance. As we describe in the section below, much of the “evidence” cited in support of innate abilities derives from anecdotes that cannot be independently verified and thus are not suitable as a scientific empirical basis.

131

is difficult, however, to draw conclusions from these anecdotes for several reasons. First, many of these anecdotes cannot be independently verified. Several amazing childhood stories are told about the profoundly accomplished mathematician and scientist, Carl Friedrich Gauss, such as his amazing precocity with numbers and his ability to correct his father’s tax calculations as a toddler. These stories, however, were later revealed to be largely told by Gauss himself in his old age, and more recent biographies do not even include these anecdotes. (e.g., B¨uhler, 1981). Furthermore, the “early signs” described in some stories may not reliably predict future performance. For example, Yehudi Menuhin’s “response to violins in concert” (Scheinfeld, 1939, p. 239) may have been essentially forgotten if he had not become an expert violinist. This is suggested by researchers who point out that these and other related types of musical “talent” are often reported among all children at this age, and the age of first appearance or frequency is unrelated to subsequent music performance (Howe, Davidson, Moore, & Sloboda, 1995). We agree that it is difficult, especially after actually witnessing extremely precocious children, to explain how a young child can accomplish feats which even some adults find difficult. Yet, several reviews reveal that these abilities do not appear suddenly, but rather, gradually over time (Treffert, 1989; Howe et al., 1998). Indeed, these children usually start rigorous training at very early ages, sometimes as early as 3 or 4 (Ericsson et al., 1993), and spend a lot of time engaged in practice (Winner, 1996; Hyllegard, 2000). If Garett was able to read at 18 months, it is likely that his parental support Anecdotal Accounts for Early Talent and his early environment was different than that of most children; moreover, we cannot assume that Garett We have all heard stories about the remarkable is innately talented without examining his developmenachievements of precocious children or perhaps even tal history—the fact that he is young and he is reading seen these amazing performances with our own eyes. is not enough. Additionally, many early accomplishments that Giftedness researchers often cite stories as evidence can be independently verified do not guarantee futhat such performance indicates the existence of innate ture success. Many prodigies do not live up to their talent. For instance, Feldman (1986) describes many expectations by the time they reach adulthood (Goldprodigies in his work, such as Mac Randall, a young smith, 2000). Indeed, it is quite common for prodigies playwright by age 4. Von K´arolyi & Winner (2005) cite examples such as “Garett, who read at 18 months” to face “mid-life” crises in adolescence and stop prac(p. 378) and “Amy, who did algebra for fun at age ticing, as the performance levels appearing impressive 4” (p. 378). Historical accounts also exist of many as children are no longer impressive at older ages prominent individuals who were considered extremely (Bamberger, 1982). Without the continued attempts precocious as children, such as Mozart and Picasso. It to improve, many of these early prodigies fall by the

132

wayside. Furthermore, several accomplished individuals do not show signs of talent or gifts at very young ages (Howe, Davidson, Moore, & Sloboda, 1995; Howe et al., 1998). Perhaps even more importantly, an objective metric of performance is necessary to ensure that the performances of supposedly gifted individuals are in fact reliably superior. In the next section, we discuss reliable, scientific methods identifying and examining superior performance according to the expert performance approach.

The Expert Performance Approach to Capturing Superior, Reproducible Performance Given the difficulties with anecdotal evidence, how are scientists to build a sound empirical basis for a cumulative science? As discussed above, the first step toward understanding expert performance in any domain is reproducing the reliably superior performance under controlled conditions (Ericsson & Smith, 1991). In order to achieve this, individuals nominated as experts must be able to demonstrate superior performance. Several investigations and reviews have demonstrated that this can be potentially problematic as experts are often nominated according to prestige or length of experience (for a review, see Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996). When given representative tasks in the laboratory, these individuals are often unable to outperform intermediates or even novices. For example, Dawes (1994) found that highly experienced psychotherapists were not more successful than untrained novices at treating patients. Similarly, reviews of decision making have revealed that advice given by expert stock analysts and financial forecasters are often not superior to that given by novices (Camerer & Johnson, 1991; Shanteau & Stewart, 1992). For some domains, such as music and the arts, it appears difficult to identify true experts as performance is often judged on the basis of technical and artistic proficiency and can be greatly influenced by subjective factors, such as the reputation or even the appearance of the performer (Gabrielsson, 1999, Findley & Ste-Marie, 2004). However, recent reviews and investigations have demonstrated that, with careful planning, it is possible to eliminate potential bias factors and objectively judge performance in these domains (Goldin & Rouse, 2000). These and sim-

K.A. Ericsson et al.

ilar findings illustrate how individuals who have more experience or superior reputations do not necessarily demonstrate higher levels of skill at representative tasks. Several researchers have also discussed difficulties associated with the identification of gifted students (Gagn´e, 1991; Feldhusen & Jarwan, 1993; Pfeiffer, 2003; for a review, see Shavinina & Kholodnaja, 1996). Similar to other domains in which experts are nominated by peers or selected according to length of experience, gifted students are often identified through teacher nomination or GPA (Kammer, 1984; for a review, see Konstantopoulous, Modi, & Hedges, 2001), SAT scores (Stanley, Keating, Fox, 1974; Jarosewich & Stocking, 2003) or IQ scores (Hollingworth, 1942; Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst, & Guerin, 1994) rather than their actual, most recent academic performances. Indeed, one national concern is that many gifted students (identified by the methods discussed) are “underachievers,” failing to perform according to academic standards expected of them (i.e., top 3–5% as compared to other students, according to the U.S. Commissioner of Education (1972)). For example, Johnson (1981) reported that 45% of gifted students in Iowa had GPAs lower than a C. The question arises: Are these students gifted in the first place? If so, which metric is superior when different criteria often select different individuals? In some domains, superior performance is more easily assessed than in others. In sports, for example, standardized situations have long been designed to compare athletic individual performances, such as timing the 100-yard dash. Similarly, in competitive sports and games such as chess, one competitor usually outperforms another and players can thereby be ranked according to a rating system (e.g., the Elo system). In other domains, especially professional domains such as medicine, financial forecasting, and academic domains, it is difficult to separate experts from individuals with the reputation of being an expert. Recent reviews, however, have demonstrated that even in these domains it is possible to design representative laboratory tasks in order to reliably separate experts from intermediates and novices. These reviews have been published in domains such as medicine (Ericsson, 2004), nursing (Ericsson, Whyte, & Ward, 2007), and gifted education (Cross & Coleman, 2005). In sum, according to the expert performance approach the first step toward understanding superior per-

6

An Expert Performance Approach to the Study of Giftedness

133

formance is to reproduce this behavior reliably under controlled laboratory conditions. This is more difficult to accomplish in some domains than others, especially domains in which the judgment of performance can be influenced by subjective factors or domains where it is unclear which tasks capture the true essence of expertise. However, recent investigations from the expert performance approach have carefully designed manipulations that enable the objective measurement and evaluation of performance and, ultimately, the separation of experts from novices and intermediates. Once reliably superior performance has been captured, it must be examined and its development must be explained. As discussed above, many accounts cite innate, heritable limits as the source of superior performance. In the next section, we review findings from the expert performance approach that challenge the notions of innate, heritable limits to performance.

timate levels of achievement exist and that these capacities are hereditary. However, recent research has revealed several empirical findings demonstrating that these assumptions are questionable.

Fig. 6.1 Expert performance increases as a function of age. An illustration of the gradual increases in expert performance as a function of age, in such domains as chess. The international

level, which is attained after more than around 10 years of involvement in the domain, is indicated by the horizontal dashed line (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1999)

Improvements in Performance Long After Physical Maturity

Mental and physical capacities increase throughout development: adults outperform children on most tasks, and the most elite individuals in domains perform at higher levels as adults than as children. This fits well with Galton’s arguments, as such capacity increases during maturation tend to coincide with increases in domain performance during these years. Given that innate capacities should correspond to performance level, it would be natural, based on this reasoning, to assume that once maturity is reached and these capacities stop increasing further increases in performance would be minimal. However, the empirical evidence Recent Evidence Questioning Galton’s on peak ages of elite performers tells a very different Assumptions of Immutable Limits story—in virtually all domains of expertise, the age of peak performance falls well above the late teens (the Galton’s (1869/1979) argument makes at least two ba- age of maturation in industrialized countries). As illussic claims, namely that capacities constraining the ul- trated in Fig. 6.1, experts’ best performance is often

134

reached decades later; for performers in many vigorous sports, peak age is the mid- to late 20s, and for the arts and science, it is a decade later, in the 30s and 40s (see Lehmann, 1953, and Simonton, 1997, for reviews). For instance, in the intellectual sport of chess recent analyses indicate that experts may continue to improve until their mid-40s, and there are examples of individuals who improve even after that age (Roring & Charness, submitted). These findings demonstrate that improvement in a domain is not restricted to increases in mental or physical capacities due to developmental maturation because levels of performance develop for a few decades after adulthood is attained. Alternatively, the notion of a mental capacity constraining the final levels of achievement might be characterized as a difference in the capacity to acquire domain skills at a particular rate. An innate rate of learning is one potential type of capacity that might still allow for these high ages of peak performance. Many researchers point to the finding that some individuals learn much faster than others as evidence of such capacities. For example, Simonton (2005) claims that perspectives similar to ours “run into numerous empirical and theoretical problems” (p. 318), arguing that “the extreme environmentalist position fails to account for the exceptional rates at which highly gifted individuals can acquire mastery of a chosen domain” (p. 318). However, different rates of improvement can be explained by differences in the quality of practice. In fact, in domains of science, the arts, and athletics, interviews with top performers reveal that these individual engaged in qualitatively different forms of training and have unique environmental conditions different than for most other individuals. From the retrospective interviews of mathematicians, neurologists, tennis players, swimmers, pianists, and sculptors, Bloom (1985) highlights the importance of having early access to the best training resources and to the best teachers for reaching the highest levels. Parents of the future elite performers pay for expensive teachers and equipment and devote large amounts of time escorting their child to training and to competitions, even relocating the family to the training facilities in some cases! Perhaps one of the most compelling observations supporting the importance of extended practice in expertise acquisition is that even those who might be the most “talented” need around a decade of intense involvement before they reach an international level, and

K.A. Ericsson et al.

for most individuals it takes considerably longer. Simon & Chase (1973) originally proposed the 10-year rule for chess, and later reviews extended the 10-year rule to music composition, sports, science, and arts (Ericsson et al., 1993). Rather than engage in sustained deliberate practice for decades, most individuals never maintain the serious commitment to performance improvement for more than a few months and, thus, will not attain the upper limit of their performance.

Heritable Achievement and Historical Improvements in Performance The second of Galton’s assumptions cites heredity as the source of individual differences in elite achievement. In modern terms, this equates to stating that fixed capacities are transmitted genetically; however, with the exception of identical twins, no two people are genetically equivalent. Thus, it is quite difficult, if not impossible, to investigate what happens when genetically identical individuals engage in similar training and to then examine whether they each repeatedly reach a fixed upper limit on their performance. The problem is compounded by the conspicuous absence of twins (identical or fraternal) who have attained high levels of skill (Bouchard & Lykken, 1999). This striking under-representation of twins and of adopted individuals among the elite precludes the estimation of heritability of eminent achievement (Ericsson, 2007a,b). However, Klissouras et al. (2001) discovered at least one case of identical twins where both engaged in extended practice in the same domain but reached quite different levels of performance. Such findings weaken the idea of a genetically based fixed upper limit (Ericsson, 2007b). While scientists have not found large numbers of identical expert twins, another approach is to examine the most elite achievers in populations where the pool of genes is comparable. Since it takes thousands of years for evolutionary improvements in the genetic structure of human populations to occur (in part due to the fact that producing even a handful of filial generations requires over a century), historic comparisons between recent cohorts provide a method of comparing genetically comparable groups. The surprising finding is that even within the last century, dramatic improvements have occurred at the highest levels of

6

An Expert Performance Approach to the Study of Giftedness

performance. In some sports, such as the marathon and swimming events, many serious amateurs of today could easily beat the gold medal winners of the early Olympics (Schulz & Curnow, 1988). For example, after the IV Olympic Games in 1908, officials almost prohibited the double somersault in dives, arguing that these dives were too dangerous and that no human could ever master them. Modern elite divers regularly complete triple somersault dives. In music, many pieces that are quite commonly performed by experts were considered impossible to play in the 19th century (Lehmann & Ericsson, 1998). Even in the cognitive domain of chess expertise, modern professional players make far fewer errors in chess games than the earlier world champions from the 19th century, and the difference in skill between the world champion of the 1990s and the champion from the 1890s is estimated as around 3–4 standard deviations (Roring & Ericsson, submitted)! Hence, two populations with similar gene pools have the potential to produce very different levels of elite achievement, which is not easily explained by Galton’s genetic account.

Evidence of Innate Limits: Distinguishing the Automatization of Everyday Skills from the Acquisition of Expert Performance According to Galton (1869/1979), innate limits exist such that after an individual starts out in a domain, performance can only improve up to a certain point. Eventually, the rate of improvement diminishes and each individual will reach an impasse, beyond which “. . .he cannot by any education or exertion overpass” (p. 15). In other words, only those with the appropriate genetic endowment will reach the upper echelons of performance—others will achieve various lower cut-off points according to their own genetic endowments. In our extensive reviews, however, we have been able to find very little empirical evidence of such performance limits. In fact, the only unmodifiable heritable factors we were able to uncover were height and body size (the only attributes that Galton specifically referred to in his arguments). The expert performance approach restricts itself to the examination of domains in which the acquisition of reproducibly superior performance is evident—in other words, domains

135

where there are measurable distinctions between experts, novices, and intermediates. We would argue that for everyday skills it is true many individuals reach plateaus, once acceptable levels of performance are quickly attained. In contrast, expert performance involves the continuous improvement of performance through the enhancements of mental representations and physical structures, without settling for a merely acceptable performance level. Traditional theories of skill acquisition (e.g., Fitts & Posner, 1967) support the notion that individuals eventually reach stable asymptotes of performance for everyday activities, such as casual golf, driving a car, using new computer software, and other common skills. As illustrated in the lower arm of Fig. 6.2, when introduced to a new domain individuals initially need to exert effort and concentration in order to reach acceptable levels of performance. Once these levels have been attained and gross mistakes become increasingly rare, the need for effortful concentration is minimized. At this point, performance is automated—individuals no longer need to make intentional adjustments. Our reviews have revealed that mere engagement in domain-related activities is insufficient to ensure performance improvements (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996; Ericsson, 2004). As discussed above, individuals with the most experience in a given domain are often unable to outperform intermediates or even novices. Furthermore, there are examples of some abilities, such as the diagnosis of heart sounds and x-rays by general physicians (Ericsson, 2004) and auditor evaluations (B´edard & Chi, 1993) that decrease systematically in accuracy with the length of professional experience after the end of formal training. If, however, further improvements are to be made, the individual must exert additional effort and concentration. In the next section we will discuss how individuals are able to seek out particular training activities that allow them to continue to improve and avoid performance asymptotes. In sum, although for some individuals performance appears to reach an asymptote, there is no current evidence that these individuals are unable to improve. Thus, the impetus for current research investigating the possible origins of individual differences should be to understand the motivational factors that lead a small number of individuals to maintain effortful pursuit of their best performance throughout their productive career.

136

K.A. Ericsson et al.

Fig. 6.2 The course of improvement of expert performance versus everyday activities. An illustration of the qualitative difference between the course of improvement of expert performance and of everyday activities. The goal for everyday activities is to reach as rapidly as possible a satisfactory level that is stable and “autonomous.” After individuals pass through the “cognitive” and “associative” phases they can generate their performance virtually automatically with a minimal amount of effort (see the gray/white plateau at the bottom of the graph). In contrast, expert performers counteract automaticity by developing increasingly

complex mental representations to attain higher levels of control of their performance and will therefore remain within the “cognitive” and “associative” phases. Some experts will, at some point in their careers, give up their commitment to seeking excellence and, thus, terminate regular engagement in deliberate practice to further improve performance which results in premature automation of their performance (Adapted from “The scientific study of expert levels of performance: General implications for optimal learning and creativity,” Ericsson, 1998b, p. 90.)

The Expert Performance Approach: The Acquired Mechanisms and Their Development

engaged in these activities during the development of their performance.

In the beginning of this chapter we described how the expert performance approach involves a search for reproducibly superior performance, which it then attempts to capture with standardized tests in the laboratory in order to assess the mechanisms that mediate expert performance and their development (Ericsson & Smith, 1991). In the preceding section we also reviewed evidence against the existence of innately determined constraints that limit the acquisition of exceptional and expert performance by healthy individuals. In this section we will review some of the mechanisms that have been found to mediate exceptional and expert performance in more traditional domains of high ability, such as chess, sports, arts and sciences, and professional domains. We will show that their domain-specific characteristics strongly imply their acquired nature. More importantly, we will also review the evidence that certain types of practice activities can explain the acquisition of these mechanisms by identifying the degree to which performers were

Identifying the Mechanisms That Mediate Expert Levels of Performance The expert performance approach uses a method of studying experts’ performance that differs from the traditional approaches which search for correlations with psychometric measures of intelligence and other types of general abilities. This approach focuses directly on the analysis of the captured superior performance. It attempts to reproduce experts’ superior performance on representative tasks in order to identify the specific anatomical, physiological, and cognitive mechanisms that are responsible for the experts’ performance advantage over less-skilled individuals on these particular types of tasks. It traces concurrent cognitive processes in order to identify intermediate processes that make the expert performance superior to that of less-accomplished performers. Once the processes are isolated, investigators design experimental tests that evaluate the causal role of the mechanisms which are

6

An Expert Performance Approach to the Study of Giftedness

proposed to account for the observed differences in performance. Cognitive psychology has developed a wide range of methods for tracing the processes involved in expert performance using analysis of latency components, eye fixations, and concurrent and retrospective verbal reports (see Ericsson & Oliver, 1988). The overall time to complete a task can be broken down into component processes with different functions. For example, research on expert performers has shown how these individuals are engaged in more complex encoding processes to encode relevant information in long-term memory (Ericsson & Charness, 1995). Studies of experts on memorizing lists of digits show that they segment the lists into groups of digits which are encoded meaningfully and then associated with retrieval cues and other encoded digit groups in the list. Experiments show that with practice these processes can be increased in speed and more refined retrieval cues can be developed which allow performers to flexibly access all the different groups stored in long-term memory (Chase & Ericsson, 1981, 1982; Ericsson, 1988). In a similar manner, experts develop qualitatively different strategies to maximize their performance. For example, elite long-distance runners are able to run on treadmills with superior running economy—the metabolic efficiency of maintaining their race pace—in comparison to sub-elite runners (Conley & Krahenbuhl, 1980). Interviews and field experiments show that elite longdistance runners verbally report monitoring their internal states more closely and focus more on planning their race performance during competition than lessaccomplished runners (Baker, Cˆot´e, & Deakin, 2005; Masters & Ogles, 1998). The most compelling scientific evidence for cognitive accounts of exceptional and expert performance comes from laboratory studies where expert performance is captured by tasks involving the generation of the most appropriate action in representative game situations (Ericsson & Smith, 1991). In his pioneering work introducing this methodology, de Groot (1946/1978) presented unfamiliar chess positions from games of chess masters to expert and world-class chess players and instructed them to select the best next move while thinking aloud. Based on analyses of the verbal protocols he found that chess players first perceived and interpreted the chess position and potentially advantageous moves were investigated. These promising moves determined

137

within the first 5–15 seconds were then evaluated mentally by planning consequences of potential chess moves. During the subsequent phase of planning and evaluation, the studied chess players would either select their best move among the generated set or discover new and even better moves. During the following decades, de Groot’s (1946/1978) account has been validated by experiments that selectively interfere with the proposed encoding and retrieval mechanisms, akin to the research on memory expertise (Ericsson, 2006a; Ericsson & Charness, 1995; Ericsson, Patel, & Kintsch, 2000). As players acquire increased chess skill, they acquire better and more refined mental representations that allow them to mentally evaluate and manipulate chess positions better than less-skilled players. In most sporting events and real-time professional activities, such as surgery, the demand for rapid execution of highly practiced activities would seem to preclude concurrent thinking. However, even the superior speed of expert performers appears to depend primarily on acquired cognitive representations that allow performers to be prepared for execution of appropriate actions rather than any superior basic acuity of their sensory perceptual systems and/or faster basic speed of their motor systems (for reviews, see Abernethy, 1991; Starkes & Deakin, 1984, and Williams & Ward, 2003). The benefit of skilled preparation has been most extensively demonstrated in experimental studies of typing. Analyses of eye fixations show that expert typists look further ahead in the text to prepare future keystrokes in advance, and thus move relevant fingers toward their desired locations on the keyboard while other keys are being hit. Salthouse (1984) demonstrated experimentally that this mechanism causes superior performance by revealing that when typists are restricted from looking ahead in the text by displaying only one word at the time on a computer screen, experts’ typing speed is reduced almost to the level of novice typists who cannot rely on looking ahead to any useful degree. The early studies of the rapid reactions of athletes, such as hockey goalies, tennis players, and baseball batters, involved tasks where athletes were asked to predict future outcomes from pictures and films without any time pressure (Abernethy, 1991). More recent studies have occluded vision in real time while elite athletes execute representative tasks and thus preserved the real-time constraints of naturally occurring game

138

situations. Under these conditions researchers have experimentally demonstrated that more-skilled athletes are better able to use anticipatory cues to guide their motor responses than less-skilled athletes (Abernethy, Gill, Parks, & Packer, 2001; Starkes, Edwards, Dissanayake, & Dunn, 1995). Expert performers do not simply acquire superior anticipation skills, but also acquire superior control over their motor actions. For example, at increased levels of expertise, athletes, such as figure skaters, are able to perform more complex behavior, such as a triple axel jump. Furthermore, expert performers, such as athletes and musicians, acquire the ability to reproduce the same motor actions consistently when they want to do so. For example, expert golfers are more consistent in executing the same putt than less-skilled players (Ericsson, 2001). Similarly, studies of expert musicians have shown how they are able to control their performance in a flexible manner (Krampe & Ericsson, 1996; Lehmann & Ericsson, 1997). Interestingly, recent reviews propose that there are specific neurological adaptations associated with experts’ acquired cognitive and physiological advantages (see Vandervert & Liu, this volume). Most importantly, these acquired mechanisms are tightly integrated with the demands of the representative tasks of the domain of expertise and thus do not generalize to other domains, with different demands for perceptual discriminations, working memory, and motor behavior. In fact, differences in strength, flexibility, and endurance that characterize the best performers in sports and artistic performance show the same specificity to the physiological demands of the task. Investigations have demonstrated that the proportion of slow-twitch muscle fibers favoring endurance is only abnormal for the muscle groups involved in the target activity—capillary supply, and metabolic changes are increased only for the relevant motor systems (Ericsson, 2006b; Ericsson et al., 1993). For example, Tesch & Karlsson (1985) found that optimal muscle fiber distributions of elite athletes’ muscles are only observed for muscles specifically trained for a sport (legs of runners and back muscles of kayakers), with no observable differences for untrained muscles. In sum, the expert performance approach uses a variety of techniques to objectively measure performance and capture expert–novice differences. The results from numerous investigations demonstrate that expert performance is primarily mediated by acquired

K.A. Ericsson et al.

mental representations which allow the experts to anticipate courses of action, to control those aspects that are relevant to generating their superior performance, and to evaluate alternative courses of action during performance or after the completion of the competition.

The Development of Expert Performance The expert performance approach has shown that it is possible to measure individuals’ performances independent of age and gender and thus graph the development of performance as a function of years of training (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996), as we illustrated earlier in Fig. 6.1. Bloom and his colleagues (Bloom, 1985) have shown that elite athletes and other expert performers have different developmental histories compared to their less-accomplished peers. Elite performers start early with supervised training and gain access to the best training environments. Ralf Krampe, Clemens Tesch-R¨omer, and the first author (Ericsson et al., 1993) tried to go beyond Bloom and his colleagues’ work in describing the necessary resources and conditions for elite performance, focusing on those training activities that could explain individual differences among high level performers (violinists) with over 10 years of training. Based on a review of laboratory studies of learning and skill acquisition during the last century, we (Ericsson et al., 1993) found that improvement in performance was virtually uniformly observed when individuals were given tasks with a well-defined goal, were provided with feedback, and had ample opportunities for repetition. The associated deliberate efforts to increase one’s performance beyond its current level were found to require problem solving and the search for better methods to perform the tasks. When individuals engage in a practice activity on a task (typically designed by their teachers) with full concentration on improving some aspect of their performance, Ericsson et al. (1993) called that activity deliberate practice. The requirement for concentration on improving performance differentiates deliberate practice from both routine performance and playful engagement as these two types of activities would, if anything, merely strengthen the current cognitive mechanisms

6

An Expert Performance Approach to the Study of Giftedness

rather than modify them to allow increases in the level of performance. The original research on expert violinists’ practice (Ericsson et al., 1993) led to the empirical assessment of deliberate practice in music. Rather than the amount of music-related activities, such as listening to music, performing music, and engaging in playful music making with one’s peers, the critical activity is solitary practice where individuals strive to meet specific goals determined by their music teacher during weekly lessons. Greater amounts of solitary music practice accumulated during the musicians’ development is associated with higher levels of attained music performance, even for musicians who have spent over 10 years studying music (Ericsson, 2002; Ericsson et al., 1993). Similarly in chess, Charness and colleagues (Charness, Tuffiash, Krampe, Reingold, & Vasyukova, 2005) found, somewhat surprisingly, that the number of chess games played was not related to levels of chess skill. In fact, the amount of solitary chess study was clearly the best predictor of chess skill. When solitary study was statistically controlled, there was only a very small benefit from other types of chess-playing experience, such as the number of games played in chess tournaments. Solitary study in chess involves the examination of chess games by masters. Chess students review each move of the game and try to anticipate the move made by the masters. When players compare their selected move against the one selected by the master, they get feedback on the quality of their move. When the chess masters selected a different move, the player can analyze the position to uncover the rationale for the masters’ superior move by planning out consequences of that move and this activity meets the criteria for deliberate practice (Ericsson et al., 1993). Similar findings of the importance of solitary practice over competing or playing with others have been obtained by Duffy, Baluch, & Ericsson (2004) for expert performers in dart throwing, where feedback is immediate, and by Starkes, Deakin, Allard, Hodges, & Hayes (1996) for expert figure skaters, where feedback is received in the form of successful completion of jumps and is augmented by verbalized comments by coaches. Athletes in these domains can use this feedback to identify and then work on weaknesses in their performance by repeating the targeted activity, first in isolation and then in increasingly complex contexts. When targeting specific weaknesses the athletes can often observe their own im-

139

provements in performance within days or weeks of practice.

Scientific Accounts of the Acquisition of Expert Performance and Its Mediating Mechanisms A complete scientific account of exceptional and expert performance needs to be able to explain how performers develop the complex cognitive mechanisms, improved physiological adaptations, and other factors that mediate their superior performance. The central thesis of the expert performance approach is that experts continually engage in deliberate practice activities (Ericsson, 1998a, 2006b; Ericsson et al., 1993; Krampe & Ericsson, 1996)and that the engagement in these activities causes refinement and maintenance of the mediating mechanisms. In contrast, less-accomplished individuals do not engage in deliberate practice activities once they have reached an acceptable level. They simply perform the domain-relevant activities and, as a result, their performance becomes less effortful and increasingly automated and thus is stabilized in an arrested form (as illustrated in the lowest arm of Fig. 6.2). For example, in many recreational and everyday activities, such as skiing, tennis, typing, board games, and driving a car, an acceptable level of performance is attained after some limited period of training and experience— often less than 50 hours for many leisure type activities. As individuals’ recreational performances improve to a point where obvious correctable errors are no longer made, the execution of the behavior tends to become increasingly automated, thus reducing conscious control and limiting those individuals’ abilities to make intentional specific adjustments (Fitts & Posner, 1967). When individuals have automated their performance, further experience will no longer be associated with any marked improvements and the length of accumulated experience will not be related to attained level of performance (see Ericsson, 2004, and Choudhrey, Fletcher, & Soumerai, 2005, for reviews in professional domains that show no change or even reductions in performance with additional experience). In the next section, we describe how engagement in deliberate practice leads to the cognitive and physiological adaptations necessary for expert performance.

140

A wealth of empirical findings in support of the expert performance approach comes from sports domains, and we will discuss some of these key studies and their results to illustrate our framework—it should be noted, however, that our framework does not solely apply to sports. There are, indeed, numerous relevant findings from other domains, which will also be discussed.

Toward Detailed Causal Accounts of the Development of Expert Performance in Sports The fundamental assumption of the expert performance approach is that the development of expert performance occurs gradually, through a sequence of incremental changes and refinements of the corresponding mediating mechanisms. This means that it should be possible, at least in principle, to describe the development of performance for a given individual as a sequence of specific cognitive and physiological changes to mechanisms that allow the generation of the superior expert performance, as shown in Fig. 6.3. According to this theoretical framework, reliable improvements in performance have definite, identifiable causes, such as growth due to developmental fac-

Fig. 6.3 A schematic illustration of the acquisition of expert performance as a series of states with mechanisms for monitoring and guiding future improvements of specific aspects of performance (Adapted from “The development of elite performance and deliberate practice: An update from the perspective of the

K.A. Ericsson et al.

tors and adaptive responses to changes in the structure and intensity of practice activities. Each observable transition to a different structure of the mechanisms as illustrated in Fig. 6.3 must be explained. Ultimately, a complete theory must be able to account for the development and refinement of all associated biological and cognitive mechanisms that contribute to the execution of expert performance. The same theory must also be able to explain many of the differences in the physiological systems and anatomical features of the bodies of superior athletes who excel in various types of events. To understand the causal mechanisms underlying the statistical correlation between reported amount of practice and levels of performance, we need to search for causal (preferably biological and chemical) effects that can explain the detailed processes of the specific changes caused by the engagement in particular practice activities. A key challenge for an aspiring expert performer is to avoid the normal tendency toward reduced effort and the arrested development associated with automaticity (see Fig. 6.1). The developing expert performer actively counteracts this trend by deliberately constructing and seeking out training situations in which the set goal exceeds their current level of attainable performance. In domains, such as sport, where strength, endurance, or flexibility is important,

expert-performance approach” by K. A. Ericsson in J. L. Starkes and K. A. Ericsson (Eds.), Expert performance in sport: Recent advances in research on sport expertise (p. 70). Copyright 2003 by Human Kinetics)

6

An Expert Performance Approach to the Study of Giftedness

the expert performers keep pushing themselves during training to go beyond their current physiological adaptations to reach new and more far-reaching changes. The greatest advances in the development of detailed causal biological and chemical models have been made in applied physiology, where researchers have proposed detailed accounts of changes in mediating physiological and anatomical characteristics in response to intense training. In the next subsection, we discuss some of the relevant findings demonstrating the physiological changes caused by sustained engagement in deliberate practice.

Improving the Physiological and Anatomical Mechanisms That Mediate Performance When most healthy individuals reach adulthood their bodies and physiological systems will remain relatively unchanged for several decades if they continue their habitual level of activity. This, however, does not imply that the body is incapable to change in response to dramatic changes in peoples’ pattern of mental or physical activities. Mammalian bodies have evolved to cope with short-term fluctuations in physiological demands. A fundamental role of the human body is to protect the homeostasis of its many trillions of cells, so they can function within their preferred temperature range and be provided a sufficient supply of oxygen, water, and energy. When individuals engage in physical sport activities, however, the metabolism of the active muscle fibers increases, the supply of oxygen and energy within these muscle cells depletes and supplies are extracted from the nearest blood vessels. To preserve homeostasis of the cells, the body activates various counter measures (negative feedback loops). For example, enhanced breathing rates increase oxygen uptake and decrease carbon dioxide concentrations in the blood. By converting energy from energy stores in the liver and elsewhere the available energy circulating in the blood is replenished, and the increased rate of blood circulation distributes these commodities to the systems of the body with the greatest needs. However, if individuals deliberately push themselves beyond their comfort zones (Ericsson, 2001, 2002) and engage in sustained strenuous physical activity, they

141

will overpower the available mechanisms protecting homeostasis and induce an abnormal state for cells in some physiological systems. These states will involve insufficient levels of certain vital elements and compounds, such as oxygen, and energy-related compounds (e.g., glucose), which force metabolic processes to change and produce alternative biochemical products. These biochemical products will trigger the activation of genes in a massive storage of dormant genes within the cells’ DNA. The activated genes in turn will “turn on” biochemical systems designed to stimulate bodily reorganization and adaptive change. Recent research has been able to analyze the chemical contents of cells such as activated genes and proteins and study changes in response to vigorous activity, such as physical exercise. For example, over 100 different genes are activated and expressed in mammalian muscle in response to intense physical exercise (Carson, Nettleton, & Reecy, 2001). The process of causing physiological change by overloading the physiological system is well illustrated in efforts to increase aerobic fitness. For example, it is well known that jogging and exercise of modest intensity and duration does not improve young active adults’ aerobic fitness. Scientific studies show that it is necessary for young adults to reach a certain threshold in the intensity in their physical exercise in order to reliably improve their aerobic fitness (Robergs & Roberts, 1997). Specifically, young adults need to exercise at least two or three times each week for at least 30 minutes per session with a sustained heart rate that exceeds 70% of their maximal level (around 140 beats per minute for someone with a maximal heart rate of 200). Extended physical activity at these high levels of intensity causes abnormal metabolic conditions that produce chemical compounds that activate genes which, in turn, induce changes in cells and organs. It is, however, not simple to induce the metabolic conditions that will trigger change. For example, when adults start to jog on a weekly basis, early weeks of training involve the coordination of firing of the fibers in the involved muscles. Once the individual is able to induce coordinated sustained activity of the muscles, the muscle fibers can be activated as long as there is sufficient transport of blood to sustain a steady supply of oxygen and glucose. When these concentrations become too low, it will trigger biochemical activity which, in turn, stimulates the growth of new capillaries (angiogensis; Prior, Yang, & Terjung, 2004). Similarly,

142

it is possible to attain improvements of strength and endurance when individuals keep engaging in a cycle of overloading some system or sub-system (i.e., increasing intensity, frequency, or duration on a weekly basis) that will eventually induce a physiological adaptation. Once the new adaptation is attained, the individuals must induce a new overload by pushing the adapted physiological systems outside the current comfort zone to trigger additional physiological growth and further adaptation (Ericsson, 2003a, 2006b).

Induced Changes in Elite Performers’ Physiological and Anatomical Characteristics There are many types of physiological and anatomical characteristics that distinguish elite performers from less-accomplished performers. Acquisition of these characteristics is consistent with acquired adaptations to increased demands induced by their intense and extended engagement in practice activities (see Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996, Ericsson et al., 1993, and Ericsson, 2003b, 2006b, for reviews). For example, the larger hearts of endurance runners have been shown to emerge only after years of extended intense practice, and their hearts appear to grow in response to continued physiological challenge (increased intensity and duration of physical training). More recent evidence on Olympic-level athletes’ enlarged hearts provides even more compelling support for the acquired nature of these adaptations. When these athletes stop or even significantly reduce their training amounts at the end of their careers their enlarged hearts eventually revert back toward average size (Pelliccia et al., 2002). The expert performance approach describes the acquisition of the experts’ physiological characteristics as a sequence of adaptations where practice activities induce critical states in cells in physiological systems that trigger, as well as maintain, these adaptations. This means that acquiring or changing physiological characteristics cannot easily be attained in any order and that the possibility of inducing adaptations will depend on the stage of general development of children and adolescents. For example, some specific practice activities appear to alter anatomical characteristics in an irreversible manner when they are attained during certain critical developmental periods. Ballet dancers’

K.A. Ericsson et al.

ability to turn out their feet, and the baseball pitchers’ and handball players’ ability to stretch back with their throwing arm are linked to stretching while practicing the associated movements when the children’s bones and the cartilage in their joints are being calcified in late childhood (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996). Attempts by handball players to attain similar adaptations at much older ages through practice have been found to be unsuccessful and often result in chronic shoulder pain (Pieper, 1998). Physiological changes are not limited to muscles, cartilage, bones, hearts, and capillaries. There is now compelling evidence that even the development of the brain (especially the myelinization) can be dramatically changed by practice. Although some researchers may argue that gifted individuals maintain their performance advantage because of structural and functional neurological advantages (e.g., Geake, this volume), extensive studies have documented practice-induced changes with brain scans of musicians during childhood and adolescence (Bengtsson et al., 2005; Pantev et al., 2003). Such findings suggest that engagement in early, relevant practice activities cause the adaptations (neurological, physiological, and cognitive) necessary to sustain elite levels of performance. Indeed, reviews have also indicated that key physiological changes associated with some sports may be more easily brought about during early development rather than during adolescence or adulthood (Ericsson, 2003b, 2006b; Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996). Furthermore, recent research suggests that there is a relationship between reading ability and the development of white matter in children, and that this effect strengthens over time with increased reading experience (Deutsch et al., 2005) (for further discussion of the importance of engagement in relevant activities during critical or sensitive periods, see Shavinina, 1999, and Vandervert & Liu, this volume).

General Reasons for Individual Differences According to the reviewed findings, most individual differences in elite achievement appear to be explainable by physiological characteristics acquired through a long series of adaptations. Each adaptation is induced by biochemical responses to the strain induced by particular practice activities at appropriate ages or stages

6

An Expert Performance Approach to the Study of Giftedness

of physiological development (Ericsson, 2006a,b). The expert performance framework identifies a few different possible reasons for the inability of individuals to reach expert levels of performance. First, individuals may lack certain types of genes in their genetic endowment (innate talent) that are necessary for the acquisition of expert performance. However, the currently available evidence supporting the existence of genes that provide a firm immutable advantage among healthy individuals is limited to height and body size. Second, the expert performance approach has found that the primary factors controlling the acquisition of expert performance involve the extended engagement in deliberate practice necessary to induce the extended series of adaptations. The expert performance approach does accept, however, that there are relevant influences to performance which can occur prior to engagement in extensive training. It is possible, for instance, that differences related to motivational support, access to early training/instruction, and availability of the best training resources lead to differences in the attained level of performance at a given age. In the next section we will discuss some environmental factors that have been linked to successful acquisition of expert performance.

The Effects of Perceived Talent As discussed in the introduction to this chapter, one of the reasons we do not use the term “giftedness” is that the term is often used to imply potential for future superior performance even in the absence of actual accomplishments. Indeed, talent scouts and educational authorities have often used the “giftedness” label without considering factors that may have led to perceptions of giftedness and without fully appreciating that those labeled “gifted” are often given access to special resources which may, ultimately, lead to their outstanding performance. Reviews have indicated that talent identification in children has been largely unsuccessful, demonstrating consistent failures with the identification of future exceptional performers in sports or the arts (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996). Specifically, such identification methods often assume that “talented” individuals have the potential to achieve superior performance without as much training as other “nontalented” or “less-talented” individuals and that these advantages are evident in performance at an early age.

143

Recent research has uncovered some interesting factors that have been related to the acquisition of expert levels of performance. These factors are particularly interesting as they seem to support the important role of early success and the perception of advantages attributed to innate talent. In the next subsections, we discuss these factors and describe how perceptions of talent are often spurious and can have potentially negative effects.

The Relative Age Effect In hockey, professional athletes are up to six times more likely to be born during some months of the year than in others (Boucher & Mutimer, 1994). This has been dubbed the “birth-date effect” or “relative age effect” and occurs primarily due to the effects of perceived talent early in these professional’s careers (Musch & Hay, 1999). Specifically, when children participate in sports they are often grouped together in age cohorts—children born between January 1 and December 31 in a given year are grouped together to form teams. As a result, the oldest children in each team will be almost a year older than the youngest. For very young children, 1 year entails significant physical and cognitive maturation, and thus the older children are physically larger and appear more talented to coaches who may not know the children’s birthdates. The older children are then selected into talent groups, wherein they receive access to training resources that the younger children would not have access to. This, in turn, magnifies their relative performance advantages by accelerating their development. Musch & Hay (1999) have reviewed the evidence for the relative age effect and have almost conclusively linked the effect to these talent identification errors. Furthermore, in a compelling study Helsen, Starkes and van Winckel (2000) analyzed a natural experiment involving date changes and age cohorts. In Belgium, young soccer players are usually grouped together in cohorts from August 1 to July 31. As a result, the oldest (and thus, most successful) players were born in August, September, and October. When the cohort range changed in 1997 to the time frame between January 1 and December 31, within a year the months during which the most successful players were born also changed (i.e., to children born from January to March).

144

This relative age effect demonstrates that early success relative to one’s peers can have long-term effects in domains where talent scouts and coaches seek talented individuals in order to provide them with the best training environments. In these domains, early success serves as a trigger for better training conditions that likely are the real cause for the long-term success of these individuals.

K.A. Ericsson et al.

other examples of physiological modifications that occur primarily during early development, such as foot turnout in ballet dancers and pitch arm movements in baseball players, where the modifications are created during the point in growth when bones are still being calcified. In sum, our reviews suggest that early talent identification attempts have been largely unsuccessful as talent scouts and coaches may not appreciate that factors such as birth date may lead to the perception of talent. Furthermore, the contribution of other environmental How Early Training Can Cause Adaptations factors, such as parental support and early practice acThat Are Perceived as Innate Talents and tivities during critical periods, are often overlooked. Gifts Those identified as gifted are often granted access to special, exclusive training resources, which further perParents are often pleased when their infants show signs petuates their performance advantages. We argue that of interest toward music, the arts, sports, or academia. the label of “gifted” insofar as it refers to genetic enOften, these signs of interest are mistaken for indi- dowments or potential for subsequent performance is cators of early talent and, as a result, parents pro- tenuous and can even be detrimental as it may lead to vide their children with regular instruction and super- the unfair allocation of superior training resources. We vised practice. Training can begin very early, some- would agree with recent researchers, who have questimes as early as 3 or 4 years of age (Ericsson, Krampe tioned the “gifted” label (e.g., Borland, 2005) and sup& Tesch-R¨omer, 1993; Lehmann & Ericsson, 1998), port an abandonment of the term. which means that some children have the advantage of several years’ worth of practice over their peers in one or more domains. Several giftedness researchers have agreed that gifted students engage in large quantities of Conclusions deliberate practice. For example, according to Hyllegard (2000), parents of children in a gifted program for In the introduction to this chapter we discussed the the visual arts report that their children devote immense finding that much of the empirical data cited in support amounts of time to practice activities such as drawing of giftedness fail to meet the scientific standards for and copying—in fact, they spent more time engaged in reproducibly superior performance. We then discussed these activities than many of the best musicians in our Galton’s ideas of individual differences in innate limstudy (Ericsson et al., 1993) even spent in solitary mu- its for exceptional performance and reviewed evidence sic practice at comparable ages. Winner (1996; 2003) questioning the existence of firm asymptotes for the athas also reviewed how gifted students are characterized tainable performance of individuals. We then described by a “rage to master,” where they “exhibit intense (al- the mechanisms that have been found to mediate the most obsessive) interest [in a domain] and an ability to acquisition of performance through training and deliberate practice. We have not found any rigorous reprofocus their attention sharply” (Winner, 2003, p. 372). This early engagement in deliberate practice may ducible evidence that innate abilities, excepting height have especially large adaptive responses in some do- and body size, prevent healthy individuals from attainmains. For example, the acquisition of perfect pitch ing expert levels of performance. Traditional accounts of talented achievement have (the ability to name individual tones presented in isolation) can be obtained if appropriate training and feed- been based on the inability of other accounts based back is given between the ages of 3 and 5 years. How- on learning to explain various forms of exceptional ever, the ability is much more difficult to acquire as performance. However, in the last few decades it has an adult. Abilities acquired during a critical period, become possible to develop genetic accounts of giftsuch as perfect pitch, could be misidentified as innate edness that depend on the successful identification of sources of talent. We discussed in an earlier section genes or combinations of genes in DNA which gifted

6

An Expert Performance Approach to the Study of Giftedness

individuals uniquely possess. In writing this chapter we have found it interesting that the project of identifying unique genes which are able to explain the exceptionally superior performance of “gifted” individuals has been remarkably unsuccessful. Even more importantly, upon finding any such genes, a complete genetic account of the development of the exceptional achievement must ultimately explain how these unique genes are activated and expressed during development. This account must explain how these genes in conjunction with extended deliberate practice are able to modify the physiological and anatomical attributes that account for the measured exceptional ability. All theoretical accounts of exceptional achievements must be based on genetics, learning, and development and propose increasingly detailed and complete accounts of the associated development of observable behavior. Any comprehensive theory must describe how the development of performance is mediated by activities, environments, and those genes common to all healthy humans and how unique activities, environments, and genes are selectively available only to those individuals who attain exceptional and expert levels of performance. We want to encourage investigators of giftedness, high ability, and expert performance to adopt a common empirical framework, where adult skills are conceptualized as a sequence of acquired states of measurable levels of mastery. With such a general framework it would be possible to integrate knowledge within and between domains of expertise as well as identify extraordinary empirical findings that should be replicated and explored with experimental investigations. A deeper understanding of the human potential for development and how individuals’ different goals for achievement can be attained by particular training methods will provide motivated individuals with the freedom and encouragement to continue on the road to excellence.

145

mutually agreed-upon scientific evidence and its theoretical interpretations within competing frameworks. We think that Gagn´e’s chapter is inciting researchers to move away from a science of high ability and establish a separate interest group—the pronats—to fight the imaginary enemy—the antinats.

Gagn´e’s Opinions Are Not Representative of Those of Researchers of High Ability

Those who are interested in attempts to resolve, or at least advance, the discussion of the role of non-genetic factors in the development of high ability need to know that Gagn´e’s reactions appear to be unique among the premier researchers studying high ability and innate talent. Among the world-famous researchers of high ability commenting on our target article in High Ability Studies (Ericsson et al., 2007a) the majority of commentators (Baker, 2007; Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007; Coleman, 2007; Freeman, 2007; Kaufman, 2007; Runco, 2007; Subotnik, Jarvin, & Rayhack, 2007; Ziegler, 2007) were kind enough to compliment us on our target article’s scope and depth of its review, even though many expressed disagreements with some of our views and interpretations—the kind of response that we had been hoping for. Simonton (2007) wrote that “[E]environmental variables, including deliberate practice, explain most but not all of the variance in extraordinary accomplishments” and then described new evidence that he cited in support of genetic influences on the attainment of exceptional performance. Shavinina (2007) described several unique characteristics of elite performers and concluded that “We do not know for sure whether deliberate practice alone shaped these abilities or if it only crystallized them.” Furthermore, Vandervert (2007) proposed an intriguing explication of the brain mechanisms that mediate the effects induced by deliberate practice. In Postscript dramatic contrast to these (and the other) constructive commentaries, Gagn´e (2007) began his commentary We are grateful to Larisa Shavinina to let us read and by arguing that the majority (75%) of researchers comcomment on Gagn´e’s chapter in this handbook. How- menting on Howe et al.’s (1989) target article in 1989 ever, after reading his chapter we felt disappointed. The argued for evidence of innate (genetic) talents. He purpose of our chapter and the target article in High further claimed that our target article did not present Ability Studies (Ericsson et al., 2007a,b) was to search any progress and that the presented arguments against for common ground in order to start a discussion and Howe et al. (1989) remained valid. Our analysis of the dialogue with researchers studying high ability about 14 commentators on Ericsson et al.’s (2007a) target

146

article showed that 13 of them—all except Gagn´e— explicitly noted that progress has been made toward identifying the scientific evidence which will form the empirical foundation of a science of high ability. As a result we are optimistic that our chapter and our target article and its associated commentaries along with our reply have led to an improved understanding of the reproducible evidence on the structure and development of high ability and prepared researchers for a science of high ability.

Gagn´e’s Allegations of Failure to Discuss Embarrassing Findings—The Advantage of African Athletes It is unfortunate that Gagn´e (this volume) was unable to read the other commentaries to our target article (Ericsson et al., 2007a) and our associated reply (Ericsson et al., 2007b). Had Gagn´e read the other commentaries more carefully he would have avoided claiming that our target article had intentionally failed to discuss “embarrassing findings for the deliberate practice approach,” such as the racial advantage of African American, African, and Caribbean athletes. In our response in High Ability Studies (Ericsson et al., 2007b) to Gagn´e’s (2007) commentary and his allegation that we failed to discuss the genetic advantage of athletes of African decent, we pointed out that we have discussed the issues of genetic differences in athletes extensively in other papers (Ericsson, 2003a,b, 2007a,b). Furthermore we showed that even Entin (2000) in his book Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We’re Afraid To Talk About It concedes that he knew of no solid evidence for individual genes that could reliably explain the superiority of runners with African ancestry, such as Kenyans. Rather, Entin stated that he merely believes scientific evidence for such genes will eventually emerge in the future. In direct opposition to this belief, more recent research on the compelling performance advantage of Kenyan runners in long-distance events (see Ericsson, 2007a,b, for more details) points to alternative accounts based on physiological differences induced by physical activity at high altitude during childhood (Larsen, Nolan, Borch, & Sondrgaard, 2005; Onywera, Scott, Boit, & Pitsiladis, 2006).

K.A. Ericsson et al.

More generally we responded to the long list of charges made in Gagn´e’s commentary in our reply (Ericsson et al., 2007b) and so we will not repeat our answers in this postscript. Instead we will focus on Gagn´e’s (2007, this volume) chapter, where he is unable to accurately describe our idea and arguments. First, we will discuss a series of instances where he seems to fail to understand our claims and spends pages refuting claims that we never made. Second, we will discuss Gagn´e’s charge of scientific misconduct concerning the omission of the Baltes & Kliegl (1992) finding of testing the limits. Finally, we will review concerns about Gagn´e’s practice of citing people’s opinions about what they expect to find in the future rather than acknowledging the absence of currently reproducible evidence.

Gagn´e’s Major Misunderstandings: What Constitutes a Domain of Expertise As evidence of the first point Gagn´e (this volume) quoted on several occasions one of our sentences and then, presumably unintentionally, restates our position incorrectly and then proceeds to argue against the misstated claim. Gagn´e cites our claim that “we have found no studies that have demonstrated that IQ is predictive of achievement in domains where reliable, superior performance has been collected meeting our earlier criteria” (p. 38). He disregards important points that precede this quote in our target article and spends several pages reviewing significant correlations between performance on IQ tests and school performance. He overlooked our extensive discussion earlier in the target article about how the research approach of studying general intelligence and its attempt to predict academic performance differs from the expert performance approach. In this section, we made two important points: “In contrast, the expert performance approach focuses on the measurement of the essence of expertise in a domain and thus on the associated criterion performance and its related large reliable individual differences. The focus in the expert-performance approach is on specifying the mediating mechanisms that can be assessed by processtracing and experimental studies” (Ericsson et al. 2007a, p. 13).

6

An Expert Performance Approach to the Study of Giftedness

Gagn´e (this volume) ignores our assumption that the relevant performance (in Gagn´e’s quote from our target article) refers to skilled and expert performance in a domain of expertise. School performance is a preparatory step toward a professional skill—nobody can get tenure as a lifetime student! In fact, school performance has been found to be essentially unrelated to actual performance in many real-world domains; for instance, in a meta-analysis Roth & Clarke (1998) found an observed correlation of 0.15 with starting salary (perhaps the most objective measures of job success analyzed to date) and grades in professional schools as well as an observed correlation of only 0.05 with salary growth. Similarly, when we examined the data on the relation between expert performance and general mental ability (intelligence tests designed to measure school performance) we found no reliable correlation between IQ tests and attained chess rating (Roring, Nandaopal, & Ericsson, 2007) or GO ratings (Horn & Masunaga, 2006; Masunaga & Horn, 2001). In our target article (Ericsson et al., 2007a) we also proposed that it is possible to use the expert performance approach to study school performance and its relation to IQ: “It is possible to assimilate the research on scholastic abilities within the expertise approach by changing the focus from the measurement of the latent abilities to the study of reproducible achievement by adopting its measurement (e.g., performance on scholastic achievement tests) as the gold standard. By targeting the performance on the specific forms of skill developed in school, it is possible to study how performance on these tests is influenced by different developmental histories and past engagement in various practice activities” (Ericsson et al., 2007a, p. 13).

In order to understand the factors that allow high school and college students to gain high grades we can apply the expert performance approach and examine the differences in developmental history and current mediating mechanisms that distinguish the best students from the rest. Although we can correlate the students’ grades with performance on ability tests, such as IQ, the causal directions of these correlations are difficult to interpret because tests and grades were originally designed to measure the same thing. For example, in their pioneering research Binet & Simon (1915) searched for test items for their intelligence test to predict performance in school settings. Hence, the high correlation between IQ tests and school performance is a result of the design process of the original intelligence test. Moreover,

147

the expert performance approach can be applied for understanding the superior performance on the IQ tests and subtests themselves. For example, one subtest that correlates very high with overall IQ scores is the test of vocabulary. The acquisition of these vocabulary items requires exposure to rare words in some context, such as during reading. Within the expert performance approach we view high performance on IQ tests, such as vocabulary tests, as a performance where the underlying mediating mechanisms can be identified and potentially explained by engagement in appropriate learning activities. By analyzing both the development of school performance as well as the performance on IQ tests, we can assess if and how the same learning activities and mediating mechanisms overlap. However, in other domains of expertise, such as chess, it would be surprising if deliberate practice in chess benefited development of knowledge of rare words and vice versa. We are not by any means saying that IQ tests are never correlated with performance in domains of expertise, as our review (Ericsson et al., 2007a) clearly shows. For example, in the initial acquisition of a skill, such as chess, task performance is correlated with performance on IQ tests, but the correlations decrease over hours, days, months, and years of practice (see Ackerman, 1987, 1988, 2000). The distinction between performance attained within a few hours or even less than 50 hours and the performance attained after 5,000– 20,000 hours of deliberate practice is crucial. In his chapter Gagn´e (this volume) does not acknowledge this distinction when he cites two examples as “the deliberate omission of other results contradicting their Antinat thesis” (p. 52). Both the study by Fox et al. (1996) on heritability of “pursuit rotor” performance and memory training by Baltes & Kliegl (1992) referred in both cases to a very limited amount of practice, namely 17 hours of training (Baltes & Kliegl, 1992) and 1.5 hours (three session of 30 minutes each in Fox et al., 1996) when compared to the thousands of hours required to reach expert levels of performance. In the case of pursuit rotor performance Gagn´e (this volume) even concedes there is evidence that heritability after brief training is unrelated to heritability of championship performance attained after hundreds or even thousands of hours of training. Moreover, with respect to Baltes & Kliegl (1992), Gagn´e (this volume) has mischaracterized the findings from this and other related studies and we discuss them in detail in the next section. All these

148

misunderstandings derive fundamentally from the differences between Gagn´e and us with regard to the following proposition: After extended training process leading to skilled and expert performance the structure of mediating mechanisms change as more complex mechanisms are acquired and transformed through deliberate practice. Hence, correlations between target performance and performance on ability tests at early stages of training (0–20 hours) differ fundamentally from those obtained after extended deliberate practice (500–10,000 hours). We hope that Gagn´e in the future will restrict his counterexamples to cases involving highly skilled performance because he explicitly agrees that high ability can only be attained after much extended deliberate practice.

Mischaracterizing Baltes and Kliegl’s (1992) Testing-the-Limit Study In his chapter Gagn´e (this volume) expresses his outrage over the fact that our target article intentionally ignored reporting on the testing-the-limit study by Baltes & Kliegl (1992) even though the first author of the target article was one of the pioneers of this type of memory training and must have known about its findings. The first author has always been very familiar with these studies and even spent 2 years working with Baltes and Kliegl at the Max-Planck Institute in 1987– 89, when the data collection for most of the studies using the testing-the-limits method were completed. Gagn´e incorrectly assumes that these articles prove innate capacity differences among different adults. However, the individual differences referred to the quote from Baltes (1998) in his chapter (Gagne, this volume) concerned effects of age (the performance of 66 to 80 year olds versus the performance of 20 to 30 year olds). That study essentially examined a within-subjects variable—we all have been 20 years old and will eventually be over 60 years old. The same differences between age groups would be expected if participants’ performance on this memory task was tested first when they were 20–30 years old and then a second time at 60–80 years of age. Given that the genetic make-up (DNA) does not change with age these performance differences due to age cannot be explained by innate talent or inter-individual differences in genes. In fact, Baltes & Kliegl (1992, p. 123,

K.A. Ericsson et al.

italics added) summarized their result section with “[W]we submit, therefore, that the testing-the-limits strategy used indeed resulted in an outcome where age differences observed became increasingly associated with age per se rather than with other markers of cognitive functioning,” thus explicitly rejecting Gagn´e’s claim that “The large individual differences observed at the outset of both studies not only reappear at the end of the training, when subjects approach their maximum reachable performance, but show a significant increase” (this volume, p. 56). In none of the studies using the testing-the-limits approach (Lindenberger, Kliegl, & Baltes, 1992; Kliegl, Smith, & Baltes, 1990) were they able to show that their methods significantly enhanced inter-individual differences related to performance on intelligence and other ability tests. In fact, Lindenberger et al. (1992) found that the correlation for two of the subtests on Wechsler’s intelligence tests and memory performance after practice decreased from 0.69 and 0.53 to 0.27 and 0.00, respectively, when the effects of age and expertise were statistically controlled. Similarly, Kliegl et al. (1990) found no correlations between ability tests and memory performance before or after extended practice for their younger adult group (19–29 years of age). The only significant change with practice was that “factors associated with chronological age became more salient as the training unfolded” (Kliegl et al., 1990, p. 901). More importantly, the participants’ performance in Baltes & Kliegl’s (1992) after 17 hours of training was very far from an expert level. After 17 hours of training the young and old participants could only recall four and two words, respectively, of a list of 30 presented words when the list was presented with the one-word-per-second rate (see Kliegl, Smith, & Baltes, 1990, p. 897), whereas the digits-span expert could recall over 80 and over 100 digits with that fast presentation rate. To conclude, the training in Baltes & Kliegl’s (1992) study represents a small fraction (17 hours of training) of the total amount of training recorded for memory experts with over 200 hours (see Ericsson, 2003c, for a review).

Citing Beliefs and Opinions Rather than Reproducible Evidence The clearest difference between us and Gagn´e concerns Gagn´e’s (this volume) reliance on non-verifiable evi-

6

An Expert Performance Approach to the Study of Giftedness

dence and the cited opinions of scientists and journalists. In the following quote Gagn´e (this volume) relies on the beliefs of three people as a response to our documented failure of finding hard scientific evidence. As a response to Ericsson et al.’s (2007a, 2007b) conclusion that except for “fixed genetic factors determining body size and height, we were unable to find evidence for innate constraints to the attainment of elite achievement for healthy individuals” (p. 2), I will end this summary with a recall of some contrary statements. “Most of us could never achieve elite athlete status, however hard we trained” (MacArthur & North, 2005, p. 331). “Don’t expect to see a white man set a world record in a road race—any race, at any distance from 100-meters to the marathon” (Entine, 2000, p. 19). “It’s genetically improbable to expect to find any elite marathoners coming out of Cameroon, Nigeria, or Senegal” (Entine, 2000, p. 249). “The discovery could explain why “some people train for ages but remain eighty-pound weaklings, while others develop muscles very quickly,” said the team leader, Dr. Kathryn North [the same North as in MacArthur & North]” (Entine, 2000, pp. 254–255) (Gagn´e, this volume, pp. 39–40).

149

Another problem with citing scientists’ beliefs and opinions is that scientists’ beliefs sometimes change. In his chapter Gagn´e (this volume) does not mention the more recent article by Sternberg (2001) in High Ability Studies with the title “Giftedness as developing expertise: a theory of the interface between high abilities and achieved excellence,” where he discusses evidence for negative correlations with general mental abilities such as Spearman’s g in some cultural environments. Sternberg (2001) concludes his article with “Until we expand our notions of abilities, and recognize that when we measure them, we are measuring developing forms of expertise, we will risk consigning many potentially excellent contributors to our society to bleak futures. We will also be potentially overvaluing students with expertise for success in a certain kind of schooling, but not necessarily with equal expertise for success later in life” (Sternberg, 2001, pp. 175–176).

For Gagn´e who is an expert at theories of giftedness and who cites Sternberg’s (2005) article on successful intelligence, we find it surprising that he In other places Gagn´e (this volume) claims that retis either unaware or has intentionally omitted menrospective testimonies by parents of talented children tioning the substantial change in Sternberg’s more re“are undeniable proof of precocity” (p. 43) without cent thoughts (Sternberg, 1999, 2001) that occurred even describing how the parents’ statements can be versince his commentary in Behavioral and Brain Sciified and claims examined with experimental objective ences (Sternberg, 1998). methods. Gagn´e (this volume) also cites famous scientists’ critique of evidence, such as Sternberg’s (1998) critique of Howe et al.’s (1998) argument that the empiri- If We Had Three Wishes from the Guardian cal evidence for innate talent is lacking.

Genie of the Science of High Ability

The second point is that there is little or no documented evidence in favor of innate talents. Virtually all the evidence they review is irrelevant to their point, adding bulk but no substance to their article. The problem is their misunderstanding of what would constitute evidence in favor of a genetic basis for talents. The only available evidence relevant to claims about genetic bases of talent are documented heritability statistics (Sternberg, 1998, pp. 425– 426). Sternberg goes on to explain how mean differences say literally nothing about individual differences, whereas the concept of natural abilities is all about individual differences (Gagn´e, this volume, p. 45).

If we were to meet the guardian genie of the science of high ability we would ask for three wishes for future research on high ability. First, we would wish that new researchers will read all the material discussed, namely Gagn´e’s chapter (Gagn´e, this volume) as well as our chapter (Ericsson et al., this volume) and the entirety of the High Abilities Special Edition (which includes our target article with our reply (Ericsson et al., 2007a,b) and all the commentaries, including Gagn´e’s (this volume) chapter is replete with citations Gagn´e’s (Gagn´e, 2007)) to form their own opinions of expressed opinions in support of his argument, when about the evidence and the scientific value of the acreproducible evidence is lacking. For example, Gagn´e counts provided by different theoretical frameworks. also admits that McArthur & North (2005) acknowl- Second, we would hope that all readers are committed edge the lack of reproducible evidence for effects of to the long and cumbersome path of collecting and anidentified individual genes and cites their belief that alyzing reproducible scientific evidence on high abilthere will exist such evidence in the future—but ex- ity rather than breezing through the literature lookpectations do not constitute scientific facts. ing for supporting opinions of popular authors without

150

adjoining scientific evidence or failing to read scientific articles carefully. Remember that arguments based on cited beliefs of other people do not constitute reproducible scientific evidence! Our final wish is that scientists refrain from ad hominem attacks and debate topics with the normal tools of the scientific method.

References Abernethy, B. (1991). Visual search strategies and decisionmaking in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 22, 189–210. Abernethy, B., Gill, D. P., Parks, S. L., & Packer, S. T. (2001). Expertise and the perception of kinematic and situational probability information. Perception, 30, 233–252. Ackerman, P. L. (1987). Individual differences in skill learning: An integration of psychometric and information processing perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 3–27. Ackerman, P. L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: Cognitive abilities and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 288–318. Ackerman, P. L. (2000). A reappraisal of ability determinants of individual differences in skilled performance. Psychologische Beitr¨age, 42, 4–17. Baker, J. (2007). Nature and nurture interact to create expert performers. High Ability Studies, 18, 57–58. Baker, J., Cˆot´e, J., & Deakin, J. (2005). Cognitive characteristics of expert, middle of the pack, and back of the pack ultraendurance triathletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 551–558. Baltes, P. B. (1998). Testing the limits on the ontogenetic sources of talent and excellence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 407–408. Baltes, P. B., & Kliegl, R. (1992). Further testing of limits of cognitive plasticity: Negative age differences in a mnemonic skill are robust. Developmental Psychology, 26, 121–125. Bamberger, J. (1982). Growing up prodigies: The mid-life crisis. In D. H. Feldman (Ed.), Developmental approaches to giftedness and creativity (pp. 61–67). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. B´edard, J., & Chi, M. T. H. (1993). Expertise in auditing. Auditing, 12(Suppl.), 1–25. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). The genesis of creative greatness: Mini-c and the expert-performance approach. High Ability Studies, 18, 59–61. Bengtsson, S. L., Nagy, Z., Skare, S., Forsman, L., Forsberg, H., & Ull´en, F. (2005). Extensive piano practicing has regionally specific effects on white matter development. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1148–1150. Binet, A., & Simon, Th. (1915). A method of measuring the development of the intelligence of young children. Chicago: Medical Book. Bloom, B. S. (1985). Generalizations about talent development. In B. S. Bloom (Ed.), Developing talent in young people (pp. 507–549). New York: Ballantine Books. Borland, J. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children: The case for no conception of giftedness. In R. J. Stern-

K.A. Ericsson et al. berg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd Ed.) (pp. 1–19). Cambridge University Press. Bouchard, T. J. Jr., & Lykken, D. T. (1999). Genetic and environmental influence on correlates of creativity. In N. Colangelo & S. G. Assouline (Eds.), Talent development III: Proceedings from the 1995 Henry B. & Jocelyn Wallace national symposium on talent development (pp. 81–97). Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press. Boucher, J. L., & Mutimer, T. P. (1994). The relative age phenomenon in sport: A replication and extension with icehockey players. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 377–381. B¨uhler, W. K. (1981). Gauss: A biographical study. New York: Springer. Camerer, C. F., & Johnson, E. J. (1991). The processperformance paradox in expert judgment: How can experts know so much and predict so badly? In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 195–217). New York: Cambridge University Press. Carson, J. A., Nettleton, D., & Reecy, J. M. (2001). Differential gene expression in the rat soleus muscle during early work overload-induced hypertrophy. FASEB Journal, 15, U261– U281. Charness, N., Tuffiash, M. I., Krampe, R., Reingold, E. & Vasyukova E. (2005). The role of deliberate practice in chess expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 151–165. Chase, W. G., & Ericsson, K. A. (1981). Skilled memory. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 141–189). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chase, W. G., & Ericsson, K. A. (1982). Skill and working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 16, pp. 1–58). New York: Academic Press. Choudhrey, N. K., Fletcher, R. H., & Soumerai, S. B. (2005). Systematic review: the relationship between clinical experience and quality of health care. Annals of Internal Medicine, 142, 260–73. Coleman, L. J. (2007). Parts do not make a whole; Lumping expertise into a hole. High Ability Studies, 18, 63–64. Conley, D. L., & Krahenbuhl, G. S. (1980). Running economy and distance running performance of highly trained athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 12, 357–360. Cross, T. L., & Coleman, L. J. (2005). School-based conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness, second edition (pp. 52–63). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Dawes, R. M. (1994). House of cards: Psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. New York: Free Press. de Groot, A. (1978). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton. Detterman, D. K., & Ruthsatz, J. M. (2001). The importance of individual differences for exceptional achievement. In N. Colangelo & S. G. Assouline (Eds.), Talent development IV: Proceedings from the 1998 Henry B. & Jocelyn Wallace national symposium on talent development (pp. 135–154). Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press. Deutsch, G. K., Dougherty, R. F., Bammer, R., Siok, W. T., Gabrieli, J. D., & Wandell, B. (2005). Children’s reading performance is correlated with white matter structure measured by diffusion tensor imaging. Cortex, 41, 354–363

6

An Expert Performance Approach to the Study of Giftedness

Duffy, L. J., Baluch, B., & Ericsson, K. A. (2004). Dart performance as a function of facets of practice amongst professional and amateur men and women players. International Journal of Sports Psychology, 35, 232–245. Entine, J. (2000). Taboo: Why black athletes dominate sports and why we are afraid to talk about it. New York: Public Affairs. Ericsson, K. A. (1988). Analysis of memory performance in terms of memory skill. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol 4., pp. 137–179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ericsson, K. A., & Oliver, W. L. (1988). Methodology for laboratory research on thinking: Task selection, collection of observation and data analysis. In R. J. Sternberg & E. E. Smith (Eds.), The psychology of human thought. (pp. 392– 428). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Prospects and limits in the empirical study of expertise: An introduction. In K. A. Ericsson and J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 1–38). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. Th., & Heizmann, S. (1993). Can we create gifted people? In CIBA Foundation Symposium 178: The origin and development of high ability (pp. 222–231, discussion of this presentation is transcribed on pp. 232–249). Chichester, England: Wiley. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. Th., & Tesch-R¨omer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49, 725– 747. Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1995). Abilities: Evidence for talent or characteristics acquired through engagement in relevant activities. American Psychologist, 50, 803–804. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245. Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence on maximal adaptations on task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273–305. Ericsson, K. A. (1998a). Basic capacities can be modified or circumvented by deliberate practice: A rejection of talent accounts of expert performance. A commentary on M. J. A. Howe, J. W Davidson, and J. A. Sloboda “Innate Talents: Reality or Myth?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 413–414. Ericsson, K. A. (1998b). The scientific study of expert levels of performance: General implications for optimal learning and creativity. High Ability Studies, 9, 75–100. Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1999). Expertise. Encyclopedia of Creativity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ericsson, K. A., Patel, V., & Kintsch, W. (2000). How experts’ adaptations to representative task demands account for the expertise effect in memory recall: Comment on Vicente and Wang (1998). Psychological Review, 107, 578–592. Ericsson, K. A. (2001). The path to expert golf performance: Insights from the masters on how to improve performance by deliberate practice. In P. R. Thomas (Ed.), Optimising performance in golf (pp. 1–57). Brisbane, Australia: Australian Academic Press.

151 Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: Insights from the study of expert performance. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence in education (pp. 21– 55). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Ericsson, K. A. (2003a). The development of elite performance and deliberate practice: An update from the perspective of the expert-performance approach. In J. Starkes and K. A. Ericsson (Eds.), Expert performance in sport: Recent advances in research on sport expertise (pp. 49–81). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Ericsson, K. A. (2003b). How the expert-performance approach differs from traditional approaches to expertise in sports: In search of a shared theoretical framework for studying expert performance. In J. Starkes and K. A. Ericsson (Eds.), Expert performance in sport: Recent advances in research on sport expertise (pp. 371–401). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Ericsson, K. A. (2003c). The search for general abilities and basic capacities: Theoretical implications from the modifiability and complexity of mechanisms mediating expert performance. In R. J. Sternberg and E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Perspectives on the psychology of abilities, competencies, and expertise (pp. 93–125). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A. (2004). Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Academic Medicine, 79, S70–S81. Ericsson, K. A. (2006a). Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts’ performance on representative task. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, and R. R. Hoffman, R. R. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 223– 242). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A. (2006b). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, and R. R. Hoffman, R. R. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 685–706). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A. (2007a). Deliberate practice and the modifiability of body and mind: Toward a science of the structure and acquisition of expert and elite performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 38, 4–34. Ericsson, K. A. (2007b). Deliberate practice and the modifiability of body and mind: A reply to the commentaries. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 38, 109–123. Ericsson, K. A. Roring, R. W., & Nandagopal, K. (2007a). Giftedness and evidence for reproducibly superior performance: An account based on the expert-performance framework. High Ability Studies, 18, 3–56. Ericsson, K. A. Roring, R. W., & Nandagopal, K. (2007b). Misunderstandings, agreements, and disagreements: Toward a cumulative science of reproducibly superior aspects of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 18, 97–115. Ericsson, K. A., Whyte, J., & Ward, P. (2007). Expert performance in nursing: Reviewing research on expertise in nursing within the framework of the expert-performance approach. Advances in Nursing Science, 30, E58–E71. Feldhusen, J. F., & Jarwan, F. A. (1993). Identification of gifted and talented youth for educational programs. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International

152 handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 233–251). New York: Pergamon Press, Inc. Feldman, D. H. (1986). Nature’s gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York: Basic Books. Findley, L. C., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2004). A reputation bias in figure skating judging. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 154–166. Fitts, P., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Fox, P. W., Hershberger, S. L., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1996). Genetic and environmental contributions to the acquisition of a motor skill. Nature, 384, 356–358. Freeman, J. (2007). If you can’t measure it—it doesn’t exist. High Ability Studies, 18, 65–66. Gabrielsson, A. (1999). The performance of music. In D. Deutsch (Ed.), The psychology of music (2nd ed., pp. 501– 602). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Gagn´e, F. (1991). Toward a differentiated model of giftedness and talent. In N. Colangelo and G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 65–80). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gagn´e, F. (2007). Predictably, an unconvincing second attempt. High Ability Studies, 18, 67–69. Galton, F., Sir (1869/1979). Hereditary genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: Julian Friedman. (Original work published 1869) Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review, 90, 715–741. Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., & Guerin, D. W. (1994). Gifted IQ: Early developmental aspects. New York: Plenum Press. Goldsmith, L. T. (2000). Tracking trajectories of talent: Child prodigies. In R. C. Friedman & B. M. Shore (Eds.), Talents unfolding (pp. 89–118). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Helsen, W. F., Starkes, J. L., & van Winckel, J. (2000). Effect of a change in selection year on success in male soccer players. American Journal of Human Biology, 12, 729–735. Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ: Stanford Binet origin and development. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book Company, 1942. Horn, J., & Masunaga, H. (2006). A merging theory of expertise and intelligence. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, and R. R. Hoffman, R. R. (Eds.). Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 587–611). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Howe, M. J. A. (1998). Early lives: Prodigies and non-prodigies. In A. Steptoe (Ed.), Genius and mind: Studies of creativity and temperament (pp. 97–109). New York, US: Oxford University Press. Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W., Moore, D. G., & Sloboda, J. A. (1995). Are there early childhood signs of musical ability? Psychology of Music, 23,162–176. Howe, M.J.A., Davidson, J.W., & Sloboda, J.A. (1998). Innate talents: Reality or myth? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 399–442. Hyllegard, R. (2000). Parental attribution of artistic ability in talented children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, 1134–1144.

K.A. Ericsson et al. Jarosewich, T. & Stocking, V. B. (2003). Talent search: Student and parent perceptions of out-of-level testing. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 137–150. Jensen, A. R. (2002). Galton’s legacy to research on intelligence. Journal of Biosocial Science, 34, 145–172. Johnson, C. (1981). Smart kids have problems too. Today’s Education, 70, 26–29. Kammer, P. P. (1984). Conceptual level of development as it relates to student participation in gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 89–91. Kaufman, S. B. (2007). Investigating the role of domain general mechanisms in the acquisition of domain specific expertise. High Ability Studies, 18, 71–73. Kliegl, R., Smith, J., & Baltes, P. B. (1990). On the locus and process of magnification of age differences during mnemonic training. Developmental Psychology, 26, 894–904. Klissouras, V., Casini, B., Di Salvo, V., Faina, M., Marini, C., Pigozzi, F., et al. (2001). Genes and Olympic performance: a co-twin study. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 22, 250–255. Konstantopoulous, S., Modi, M., & Hedges, L. V. (2001). Who are America’s gifted? American Journal of Education, 109, 344–382. Krampe, R. Th., & Ericsson, K. A. (1996). Maintaining excellence: Deliberate practice and elite performance in young and older pianists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 331–359. Larsen, H. B., Nolan, T., Borch, C., & Sondrgaard, H. (2005). Training response of adolescent Kenyan town and village boys to endurance running. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 15, 48–57. Lehman, H. C. (1953). Age and achievement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lehmann, A. C., & Ericsson, K. A. (1997). Research on expert performance and deliberate practice: Implications for the education of amateur musicians and music students. Psychomusicology, 16, 40–58. Lehmann, A. C., & Ericsson K. A. (1998). The historical development of domains of expertise: Performance standards and innovations in music. In A. Steptoe (Ed.), Genius and the mind: Studies of creativity and temperament in the historical record (pp. 67–94). New York: Oxford University Press. Lindenberger, U., Kliegl, R., & Baltes, P. B. (1992). Professional expertise does not eliminate age differences in imagery-based memory performance during adulthood. Psychology of Aging, 7, 585–593. Masters, K. S., & Ogles, B. M. (1998). Associative and dissociative cognitive strategies in exercise and running: 20 years later, what do we know? The Sport Psychologist, 12, 253–270. Masunaga, H., & Horn, J. (2001). Expertise and age-related changes in components of intelligence Psychology and Aging, 16, 293–311. McArthur, D. G., & North, K. N. (2005). Genes and human elite athletic performance. Human Genetics, 116, 331–339. Musch, J., & Hay, R. (1999). The relative age effect in soccer: Cross-cultural evidence for a systematic discrimination against children born late in the competition year. Sociology of Sport Journal, 16, 54–64.

6

An Expert Performance Approach to the Study of Giftedness

Onywera, V. O., Scott, R. A., Boit, M. K., & Pitsiladis, Y. P. (2006). Demographic characteristics of elite Kenyan endurance runners. Journal of Sport Sciences, 24, 415–422. Pantev, C., Ross, B., Fujioka, T., Schulte, M., & Schulz, M. (2003). Music and learning-induced cortical plasticity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 999, 438–450. Pelliccia, A., Maron, B. J., de Luca, R., di Paolo, F. M., Spataro, A., & Culasso, F. (2002). Remodeling of left ventricular hypertrophy in elite athletes after long-term deconditioning. Circulation, 105, 944–949. Pfeiffer, S. I. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for students who are gifted: What the experts say. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 161–169. Pieper, H. G. (1998). Humeral torsion in the throwing arm of handball players. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 26, 247–253. Prior, B. M., Yang, H. T., & Terjung, R. L. (2004). What makes vessels grow with exercise training? Journal of Applied Physiology, 97, 1119–1128. Robergs, R. A., & Roberts, S. O. (1997). Exercise physiology: Exercise, performance, and clinical applications. St. Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book Roring, R. W., & Charness, N. (2007). A multilevel model analysis of chess across lifespan. Psychology and Aging, 22(2), 291–299. Roring, R. W., & Ericsson, K. A. (2007). The highest levels of intellectual achievement are rising: Evidence from world championship performance. Working paper, Department of Psychology, Florida State University. Roring, R. W., Nandagopal, K., & Ericsson, K. A. (2007). Can Parieto-Frontal Integration Theory be extended to account for individual differences in skilled and expert performance in everyday life? Behavior and Brain Sciences, 30, 168–169. Roth, P. L., & Clarke, R. L. (1998). Meta-analyzing the relation between grades and salary. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 386–400. Runco, M. A. (2007). Achievement sometimes requires creativity. High Ability Studies, 18, 75–77. Salthouse, T. A. (1984). Effects of age and skill in typing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 345–371. Scheinfeld, A. (1939). You and heredity. New York: Frederick A. Stokes. Schulz, R., & Curnow, C. (1988). Peak performance and age among superathletes: Track and field, swimming, baseball, tennis, and golf. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 43, 113–120. Shanteau, J., & Stewart, T. R. (1992). Why study expert decision making? Some historical perspectives and comments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 95– 106. Shavinina, L. V. (2007). On the advancement of the expertperformance approach via a deep understanding of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 18, 79–82. Simon, H. A., & Chase, W. G. (1973). Skill in chess. American Scientist, 61, 394–403. Simonton D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic approach. Psychological Review, 106, 435–457.

153 Simonton, D. K. (2005). Genetics of giftedness: The implications of an emergenic-epigenetic model. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 312–326). Cambridge University Press. Simonton, D. K. (2007). Talent and expertise: The empirical evidence for genetic endowment. High Ability Studies, 18, 83– 84 Stanley, J. C., Keating, D. P., Fox, L. H. (1974). Mathematical talent: Discovery, description, and development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Starkes, J. L., & Deakin, J. (1984). Perception in sport: a cognitive approach to skilled performance. In W. F. Straub and J. M. Williams (Eds.), Cognitive sport psychology (pp. 115– 128). Lansing, NY: Sport Science Associates. Starkes, J. L., Deakin, J., Allard, F., Hodges, N. J., & Hayes, A. (1996). Deliberate practice in sports: What is it anyway? In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 81–106). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Starkes, J. L., Edwards, P., Dissanayake, P., & Dunn, T. (1995). A new technology and field test of advance cue usage in volleyball. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66, 162– 167. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). If the key’s not there, the light won’t help. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 425–426. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Intelligence as developing expertise. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 359–375. Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Giftedness as developing expertise: A theory of the interface between high ability and achieved excellence. High Ability Studies, 12, 159–179. Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The theory of successful intelligence. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 39, 189–202. Subotnik, R. F., Jarvin, L., & Rayhack, K. (2007). Exploring the implications of putting the expert-performance framework into practice. High Ability Studies, 18, 85–87. Tesch, P. A., & Karlsson, J. (1985). Muscle fiber types and size in trained and untrained muscles of e´ lite athletes. Journal of Applied Physiology, 59, 1716–1720. Treffert, D. A. (1989). Extraordinary people: Understanding “idiots savants.” New York: Harper & Row. U.S. Commissioner of Education. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Vandervert, L. R. (2007). Cognitive functions of the cerebellum are critical to explaining how deliberate practice produces giftedness. High Ability Studies, 18, 89–92. von K´arolyi, C., & Winner, E. (2005). Extreme giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 377–394). Cambridge University Press. Williams, A. M., & Ward, P. (2003). Perceptual expertise: Development in sport. In J. Starkes and K. A. Ericsson (Eds.), Expert performance in sport: Recent advances in research on sport expertise (pp. 219–247). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: BasicBooks. Winner, E. (2003). Creativity and talent. In M.H. Bornstein & L. Davidson (Eds.), Well-being: Positive development across the life course. Crosscurrents in contemporary psychology (pp. 371–380). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ziegler, A. (2007). Ericsson’s three challenges. High Ability Studies, 18, 93–95.

Chapter 7

Debating Giftedness: Pronat vs. Antinat Franc¸oys Gagn´e

Abstract This chapter pursues two main goals: (a) demonstrate that natural abilities—and their outstanding expression as gifts—really exist (the mainstream Pronat position) and that recent attacks by a few researchers who deny their existence (the Antinat position) can be easily parried empirically; (b) expose questionable scholarly behavior by some Antinat researchers. In the first part, I will examine the concept of natural ability, pointing out its six defining characteristics. I will then demonstrate with extensive empirical evidence that both general intelligence and physical natural abilities meet all six defining criteria of a natural ability. In the second part, I will illustrate how some influent Antinat researchers deliberately exclude relevant evidence, accumulate irrelevant evidence, ignore crucial objections, and select from published studies only the results that support their position. These cases of deliberate (mal) practice show their lack of desire to examine objectively all the available evidence and reassess their entrenched beliefs. Keywords DMGT · Natural ability · Measurement · Intelligence · Heritability · Predictive power · Physical abilities · Scientific misconduct · Relative age effect

Introduction Most scientists in psychology and education recognize without hesitation the existence of natural abilities. By natural ability, I mean mental or physical abilities (a) F. Gagn´e (B) Universit´e du Qu´ebec a` Montr´eal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada e-mail: [email protected]

whose development is significantly influenced by our genetic endowment and (b) that directly act as causal agents in the growth of competencies (knowledge and skills) characteristic of a particular occupational field. As for giftedness, the target concept of the present handbook, it corresponds to the top end of the normal distribution of natural abilities; simply said, gifts are outstanding natural abilities. In the analysis of competency development, natural abilities represent the “potential” pole on a potential-to-performance continuum. The developmental process draws on this potential to systematically construct competencies in every occupational field, including professions, trades, technology, arts, and sports. Consequently, natural abilities significantly predict, along with other important causal variables, the level of these occupational achievements. The above statements summarize a position that would probably rally a majority of scholars in all fields of talent development (e.g., academics, arts, music, sports). This mainstream position, which I will label Pronat, leaves room for a small minority of researchers, let us call them Antinats, who are not just skeptical about the “naturalness” of some abilities, but manifest strong opposition to that concept (e.g., Charness, 1998; Ericsson, 2003; Lehmann, 1998; Starkes & Helsen, 1998; Tesch-R¨omer, 1998). That opposition expressed itself most vocally through two direct attempts (Ericsson, Roring, & Nandagopal, 2007; Howe, Davidson, & Sloboda, 1998) to disprove the existence of natural abilities (whose giftedness level they usually call innate talent). In the first systematic effort against the mainstream position, Howe et al., (1998) concluded their review as follows: “The evidence we have surveyed in this target article does not support the talent account, according to which excelling is a consequence of possessing innate gifts” (p. 407). Thirty researchers pos-

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 7, 

155

F. Gagne´

156

itively answered an invitation by the Behavioral and Brain Sciences editors to comment on that article. No fewer than 75% (18/24) of those who clearly took position on the core issue, namely the existence or not of “innate talents,” strongly rejected the authors’ negative conclusion. I will mention in this chapter some of their counterarguments and methodological critiques. In their response to the commentators, Howe et al. ignored most of the relevant objections expressed by these 18 critics and reaffirmed their initial position as follows: “On the central question of whether innate talents (as defined in the target article) are real or mythical, we have not encountered in the commentaries any convincing reasons for changing our position. Innate talents are, we think, a fiction, not a fact” (p. 437). In the more recent attempt, Ericsson et al. (2007) assembled a partially different set of counterevidence to the Pronat mainstream position. They came to an equally strong conclusion: “With the exception of fixed genetic factors determining body size and height, we were unable to find evidence for innate constraints to the attainment of elite achievement for healthy individuals” (p. 3). Twelve professional peers were invited to comment on that target article, me included. Again, a majority of those whose comments addressed the core question of the target article—the existence or not of “innate talents”—disagreed with the authors. Apart from these two sets of comments, I am not aware of any comprehensive response to these two attacks on the twin concepts of natural ability and giftedness. Consequently, it seemed a perfect occasion to include a formal counterpoint to Antinat positions in the most extensive handbook yet on the subject of giftedness. With its 70+ chapters, it dwarfs all past similar publications (e.g., Colangelo & Davis, 2003; Heller, M¨onks, & Passow, 1993;Heller, M¨onks, Sternberg, & Subotnik, 2000). In the first part, The case for giftedness, I will define the concept of natural ability, inserting it within the larger framework of my Differential Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT). I will focus on general natural ability since the existence of the whole concept, and not just its giftedness part, has been challenged. I will then look for evidence of its existence in two wellresearched ability domains, the intellectual and physical domains. In the second part, The case for Antinat deliberate (mal)practice, I will address a much more delicate subject, namely the recurring scholarly misconduct of some Antinat researchers, as they manifest themselves in the two target articles mentioned above.

This inappropriate scientific behavior will demonstrate why there is little hope for an eventual meeting of minds between the two opposing camps.

The Case for Giftedness No official Pronat position exists. The one I offer here shares many principles and ideas with other conceptions of giftedness, but has distinct idiosyncratic characteristics. This first part is subdivided into four sections. In the first one, I briefly present my Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent, a talent development theory that uses the terms gifts and talents in very distinct ways. The DMGT offers a general framework to analyze the dynamics of talent development over the life span; it also introduces a clearly defined set of terms to describe unambiguously all major components of the talent development process, as well as the prevalence of various levels of giftedness and talent. It will serve as my background structure throughout this debate. In the second section, I define the concept of natural ability through six differential criteria: two essential characteristics and four logically associated corollaries. The third and fourth sections are devoted to the constructs of general intelligence and physical ability, respectively. I first define them, then bring forth relevant scientific literature to demonstrate how each perfectly meets all six defining criteria of natural abilities.

The Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT)1 Among current conceptions of giftedness (Sternberg & Davidson, 2005), the DMGT stands alone in its clear, distinct, and well-operationalized definitions of two key concepts in the field of gifted education: giftedness and talent. I will not describe the DMGT in detail, but survey its components and structure just enough to enlighten readers who have never encountered this theory; I will also define various terms that will regularly reappear in other parts of this chapter. Please keep in mind that all the terms defined in the following presen1 Since the writing of this chapter, the DMGT went through a major update, only recently unveiled. An overview of the revised DMGT 2.0 is available from the author.

7

Debating Giftedness

157

Fig. 7.1 Gagn´e’s differentiated model of giftedness and talent (DMGT.2007)

tation will maintain that specific meaning throughout the chapter, except when otherwise stated. Interested readers will find detailed presentations of the DMGT in various recent sources (Gagn´e, 2003, 2004, 2005a, in press; Van Rossum & Gagn´e, 2005). As shown in Fig. 7.1, the DMGT brings together six components: gifts (G), talents (T), the talent development process (D), intrapersonal catalysts (I), environmental catalysts (E), and the chance factor (C), They can be grouped into two distinct trios: (a) the talent development trio (G, T, D) and the “supporting cast” trio (I, E, C).

The Talent Development Trio The first trio includes the three components whose interaction summarizes the essence of the DMGT’s conception of talent development: the progressive transformation of gifts into talents. Here are formal definitions for the two target concepts. Giftedness designates the possession and use of untrained and spontaneously expressed outstanding nat-

ural abilities or aptitudes (called gifts), in at least one ability domain,2 to a degree that places an individual at least among the top 10% of age peers. 2 When I conceived the DMGT at the turn of the 1980s, I decided to adopt the term “domain” for categories of natural abilities (gifts) and the term “field” for talent areas; I hoped in that way to reduce confusion when discussing these two category systems. Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson (1986) independently proposed another differentiation, which they described as follows:

If by “domain” we mean a culturally structured pattern of opportunities for action, requiring a distinctive set of sensori-motor and cognitive skills—in short, a symbolic system such as music, mathematics, or athletics—we may designate by “field” the social organization of a domain. A field includes all the statuses pertinent to the domain; it specifies the habitual patterns of behavior—or roles— expected from persons who occupy the various statuses. (pp. 278–279) My own definition of field does not distinguish these two perspectives. Because I analyze the phenomenon of talent development from a less macroscopic or societal outlook, and more from a psycho-educational perspective, that distinction has limited usefulness. But note the large overlap between their defini-

158

Talent designates the outstanding mastery of systematically developed competencies (knowledge and skills) in at least one field (see Note 1, p. 157) of human activity to a degree that places an individual at least among the top 10% of “learning peers” (all those who have accumulated a similar amount of learning time from either current or past training). The terminology used in the above definitions reveals the breadth of the theory. Although it was created to explain the transformation of gifts into talents, the DMGT also applies more generally to the transformation of average (or low) natural abilities into average (or low) competencies (knowledge and skills). Gifts (G). The DMGT distinguishes four natural ability domains (see Fig. 7.1): intellectual (Gi), creative (Gc), socioaffective (Gs), and physical (Gp). These natural abilities, whose development and level of expression is partially controlled by the individual’s genetic endowment, can be observed in every task children are confronted with in the course of their schooling. For instance, think of the intellectual abilities needed to learn to read, speak a foreign language, or understand new mathematical concepts; the creative abilities needed to solve different kinds of problems and produce original work in science, literature, and art; the physical abilities involved in sports, music, and sculpture; the social abilities that children use daily in interactions with classmates, teachers, and parents. Gifts can be observed more easily and directly in young children because environmental influences and systematic learning have exerted their moderating influence in a limited way. However, they still show themselves in older children and even in adults through the facility and speed with which individuals acquire new competencies (knowledge and skills) in any given field of human activity. Said differently, ease and speed in learning is the trademark of giftedness. Talents (T). As defined in the DMGT, talents progressively emerge from the transformation of these outstanding natural abilities or gifts into the well-trained and systematically developed competencies characteristic of a particular field of human activity. On the potential-performance continuum, talents represent the performance pole, thus the outcome of the talent development process. Talent fields can be extremely diverse.

F. Gagne´

Figure 7.1 shows examples of talent fields relevant to school-aged youth. A given natural ability can express itself in many different ways, depending on the field(s) of activity adopted by an individual. For example, manual dexterity can be modeled into the particular skills of a pianist, a painter, or a video-game player. Similarly, intelligence can be modeled into the scientific reasoning of a chemist, the game analysis of a chess player, or the strategic planning of an athlete. Developmental process (D). In this theory, natural abilities or aptitudes act as the “raw material” or constituent elements of talents. The process of talent development manifests itself when the child or adolescent engages in systematic learning and practicing; the higher the level of talent sought, the more intensive this process will be. Developmental processes can take three different forms. (a) Maturation is a process largely controlled by the genetic endowment. It ensures the growth and transformation of all biological structures and physiological processes (called endophenotypes) that underlie phenotypic abilities. (b) Spontaneous learning corresponds essentially to knowledge and skills acquired as part of daily activities. Much of what is called “practical intelligence” (Sternberg & Wagner, 1986) results from such unstructured learning activities. The general knowledge, language skills, social skills, or manual skills mastered by young children before they enter the school system result almost totally from such unstructured activities. (c) Systematic learning is characterized not only by a conscious intention to attain specific learning goals but also by a systematically planned sequence of learning steps to achieve these goals. When that systematic learning reaches high levels, Ericsson’s concept of deliberate practice (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-R¨omer, 1993) becomes a central part of the learning process. This third type is not necessarily formal. In its non-formal type, it corresponds to autodidactic or self-taught learning, done most of the time as a leisure activity. Still, the most common learning process remains formal or institutionally based and leads to an official diploma recognizing competence or talent. As a general rule, these three processes contribute in inverse ways to the development of gifts and talents. In the case of gifts, the major developmental agent is maturation, closely followed by informal learning; it is the opposite in the case of talents, with formal institutional tion of domain and my own definition of field. Since most relearning accounting for most of the developmental acsearchers in gifted education commonly use the term “domain” in their writings, I judged important to write this clarifying note. tivity.

7

Debating Giftedness

The prevalence question. Any definition of normative concepts must specify how subjects differ from the norm and what it means in terms of the prevalence of the population subsumed by the label. In the DMGT, the threshold for both giftedness and talent is placed at the 90th percentile. In other words, those who belong to the top 10% of the relevant reference group in terms of natural ability (for giftedness) or achievement (for talent) may receive the relevant label. This generous choice of threshold is counterbalanced by the use of five successive levels of giftedness or talent based on the metric system (Gagn´e, 1998b). Thus, within the top 10% of “mildly” gifted or talented persons, the DMGT identifies the following four progressively more selective subgroups, labeled “moderately” (top 1%), “highly” (top 1:1,000), “exceptionally” (top 1:10,000), and “extremely” (top 1:100,000), respectively.

159

ences on the process of talent development. Gifted education programs within or outside the school belong to the category of provisions, as do similar types of programs in other fields; these more systematic forms of intervention contribute to foster—or hinder—the talent development process. Finally, significant events (the death of a parent, a prize or award, a major accident or illness) can alter the course of talent development one way or the other. Chance (C). Chance could be added as a fifth causal factor associated with the environment (e.g., the chance of being born in a particular family; the chance of the school in which the child is enrolled developing a program for talented students). But, strictly speaking, it is not a causal factor. Just like the type of influence (positive vs. negative), chance characterizes the predictability (controllable vs. uncontrollable) of elements belonging to three other components (G, I, or E). Chance’s crucial involvement is well summarized by Atkinson’s (1978) belief that all human accomplishThe “Supporting Cast” Trio ments can be ascribed to “two crucial rolls of the dice The talent development process is facilitated (or over which no individual exerts any personal control. hindered) by the action of two types of catalysts: These are the accidents of birth and background. One intrapersonal and environmental (see Fig. 7.1). The roll of the dice determines an individual’s heredity; the last component, chance, temporarily associated with other, his formative environment” (p. 221). the catalysts, will have its precise role revised in the near future. Intrapersonal catalysts (I). The intrapersonal cata- The Dynamics of Talent Development lysts include physical and psychological factors, many of them under the partial influence of the genetic en- For the model to become a theory, the six components dowment. Among the psychological catalysts, motiva- need to be dynamically associated, a process still in tion and volition play a crucial role in initiating the pro- progress. Here are a few glimpses of the theory part of cess of talent development, guiding it and sustaining the DMGT. it through obstacles, boredom, and occasional failure. Basic overview. The relationships among the six Self-management gives structure and efficiency to the components are expressed through a complex pattern talent development process, as it does to other daily ac- of interactions. The most fundamental is the causal retivities. Hereditary predispositions to behave in certain lationship between natural abilities (gifts) and compeways (temperament) and acquired styles of behavior tencies (talents), illustrated by the large central arrow in (e.g., traits and disorders) also contribute significantly Fig. 7.1. Because gifts are the constituent elements (or to support and stimulate, or slow down and even block, raw materials) of talents, it follows that the presence talent development. of talents implies underlying gifts. But that statement Environmental catalysts (E). The environment man- needs to be qualified. Of course, I and E catalysts, as ifests its significant impact in four different ways. The well as the D component, play a significant facilitatmilieu exerts its influence both at a macroscopic level ing (or hindering) role in the developmental process. (e.g., geographic, demographic, sociological) and at a As causal agents they take away from gifts part of the more microscopic level (e.g., size of family, age and predictive power for talent emergence, thus reducing gender of siblings, socioeconomic status). Many dif- the causal power of gifts to a moderate level. Conseferent persons, not only parents and teachers but also quently, at low levels of talent, we could observe indisiblings and peers, may have positive or negative influ- viduals with natural abilities below the gifted level hav-

F. Gagne´

160

ing reached talent-level performances through strong inputs from intrapersonal and/or environmental catalysts, as well as from the developmental process itself (amount and intensity of learning and practicing). This moderate relationship between gifts and talents also means that gifts can remain undeveloped, as witnessed by the well-known phenomenon of academic underachievement among intellectually gifted children. The causal components usually act through the developmental process, facilitating or hindering the learning activities and thus the performance. But any pair of components can interact, and in both directions (e.g., G influencing I and vice versa); achievements (T) or their absence can even have a feedback effect on the other components. What makes a difference? Are some components generally recognized as exercising more powerful influences on talent emergence? It is possible to find in the scientific literature strong defenders for each of the DMGT’s components. It is clear, for instance, that strong environmentalists (e.g., Bloom, 1985a) will choose the E catalysts; for his part, Ericsson (Ericsson et al., 1993) has been insisting for almost two decades that his “deliberate practice” construct (a part of D) is the crucial element in talent development. My own review of the existing literature has brought me to propose the following hierarchy among the four components: G, I, D, E (see Gagn´e, 2003, 2004, 2005a, for a detailed discussion of that ranking). Because of its pervasive role through most components, I have put aside the chance factor. Still, that pervasive role achieved through non-controllable genetic and environmental influences would give it a top ranking. Creating a hierarchy should not make us forget that (a) all components play a crucial role in the talent developments process, and (b) that each individual story of talent emergence reveals a unique mixture of the four causal components (see Gagn´e, 2000, for an illustration). In a nutshell, the emergence of talents results from a complex choreography between the four causal components, a choreography unique to each individual situation.

gifts and talents; and without that distinction the whole DMGT edifice literally crumbles. No wonder that the drastic judgments pronounced by Antinat researchers make me react strongly! And their judgments are usually unmitigated, as we saw in the quotes presented in the introduction of the chapter. When I examined the evidence behind their strong statements, I found much room for critique, especially the omission of dozens of crucial facts supporting the Pronat position. I will present in the next two sections more than enough evidence to prove beyond any doubt the existence of natural abilities and gifts. But, I must first discuss the definition of the natural ability construct. I must do so because some Antinat researchers have advanced definitions that I find unsatisfactory. This exercise will begin with a brief survey of some existing definitions; I will then identify six defining criteria of natural abilities, pointing out in the process some submitted characteristics that I do not consider essential or even relevant. I will complete this definition with precisions on their measurement.

About Natural Abilities and Giftedness

3 I created the IGAT acronym (Intellectually Gifted and Academically Talented) to convey the idea that school districts select the vast majority of their gifted program participants with a combination of general intelligence and academic achievement measures.

As shown in the preceding section, the concept of natural ability anchors the DMGT’s distinction between

Survey of Differentiating Criteria The distinction between the aptitude–potential pair and the performance–achievement duo is probably one of the most ubiquitous distinctions in the field, not only in the gifted education literature, mostly interested by the IGAT3 population, but also in the larger talent development literature, which includes all other fields, especially arts and sports. Some years ago, I summarized my convictions about the nature of abilities, gifts, and talents in the form of 22 statements as logically sequenced as I could (Gagn´e, 1999b). They were grouped into three sections: (a) the nature of human abilities, (b) individual differences and their origins, (c) the specific case of gifts and talents. Six commentators reacted to that target article. One of them (Borland, 1999) did not mince his words: “Perhaps more important, I believe the natural-systematically developed dichotomy lacks utility” (p. 140). In my response to the commentators, I answered, “Its usefulness resides in my association of

7

Debating Giftedness

NAT and SYSDEV abilities with potential and achievement respectively. . ..It permeates every text ever written in gifted education and is also present, explicitly or implicitly, in most definitions of giftedness, talent, or both” (Gagn´e, 1999a, p. 204). I then quoted many examples of that distinction from the writings of major scholars in the field. Although the exact definition of aptitude has been the subject of some controversy (e.g., Anastasi, 1980; Lubinski & Dawis, 1992; Snow, 1992; Snow & Lohman, 1984), most scholars have readily adopted the aptitude–achievement dichotomy. I will present here two definitions that I find relevant to the present discussion. Angoff’s characteristics. Angoff (1988) was one of the most articulate in his support for a distinction between aptitude and achievement. He proposed the following differentiating characteristics: (a) slow growth (for aptitudes) vs. rapid growth (for achievement); (b) informal learning vs. formal; (c) resistance to stimulation vs. susceptibility to it; (d) major genetic substratum vs. major practice component; (e) more general content vs. more circumscribed; (f) “old formal” learning vs. recent acquisitions; (g) more generalizable vs. narrower transfer; (h) prospective use (predicting future learning) vs. retrospective use (assessing amount learned); (i) usable for general population evaluation vs. limited to systematically exposed individuals. It is worth noting that all these characteristics apply perfectly to the DMGT’s differentiation between gifts and talents. Howe et al.’s proposed properties. In their target article questioning the existence of gifts (innate talent), Howe et al. (1998) proposed five properties that should be observed for a particular characteristic to be called a “talent”: (1) It originates in genetically transmitted structures and hence is at least partly innate. (2) Its full effects may not be evident at an early stage, but there will be some advance indications, allowing trained people to identify the presence of talent before exceptional levels of mature performance have been demonstrated. (3) These early indications of talent provide a basis for predicting who is likely to excel. (4) Only a minority are talented, for if all children were, there would be no way to predict or explain differential success. Finally, (5) talents are relatively domain-specific (pp. 399–400).

The above quote exemplifies the interpretative ambiguities created by the lack of a clear distinction between giftedness and talent. The authors use the expression

161

“innate talent” most of the time to designate the target concept of their article (the DMGT’s giftedness), but choose the expression “talent account” (without “innate”) to describe the theoretical position defended by Pronat scholars. In the second item, the meaning of the term talent is again ambiguous since it can refer to both gifts and early manifestations of talent. Indeed, the DMGT’s definition of talent recognizes that they may appear very precociously, in fact as soon as individual differences in the growth of competencies make it possible to pinpoint the top 10% achievers. At the same time, the fast pace of learning that produced these precocious high achievements serves as an indirect measure of giftedness. Again, in the third property, the expression “early indications of talent” can target both measures of giftedness or talent. With regard to their content, the first property requires only that we replace innate with hereditary (see DC-1 below). Except for its ambiguous terminology, the second property poses few problems so long as the “advance indications” can take other forms than direct measures of the natural ability itself, for instance clear indications of a faster learning pace. The third and fourth ones pose no problem although the fourth appears tautological; are not gifts and talents normative concepts by definition? Finally, the only unacceptable property is the last one. That rejection will be discussed below (see DC-4).

Two Basic Defining Criteria What distinguishes natural abilities from systematically developed competencies? Angoff (1988) did not specify which of his differentiating characteristics constituted core elements compared to more peripheral ones. For their part, Howe et al. (1998) considered each of their five properties to be essential. My own answer will borrow from both sources. After specifying a preliminary condition, namely that only “real” abilities be labeled gifts or talents, I will propose six defining criteria between natural abilities and competencies. The first two are the basic ones, from which the next four ensue, just like corollaries in a logical argument. In a nutshell, natural abilities (1) have direct genetic roots and (2) act as constituent elements of competencies. Because of these two basic characteristics, they (3) develop informally, (4) are field-independent, (5) have predictive power with regard to competencies, and (6)

162

impose constraints on competency levels. Let us examine each of them in more detail. What are “real” abilities? This preliminary condition may appear self-evident, even tautological. Yet, I find it very important in view of the current tendency to extend the “giftedness” label to many human characteristics that do not belong to the realm of abilities (see, in this handbook, Bar-On’s chapter on emotional giftedness and Gottfried and Gottried’s chapter on gifted motivation). What are abilities? The term refers to the mental or physical power to do something; it is directly related to action, including the potential for action. By contrast, non-ability characteristics belong to the vast area of personality constructs; they correspond to behavioral “styles” (McCrae et al., 2000). Consequently, expressions like “gift of optimism,” “gift of will power,” or religious/spiritual giftedness (Piechowski, 2003) create undesirable ambiguity. I will readily acknowledge that some characteristics within the intrapersonal (I) catalyst component behave like abilities and that the border separating abilities, especially social abilities, from some I components remains imperfectly defined. Indeed, some DMGT catalysts are frequently described as abilities, like self-control abilities or motivation skills (Accel-team, 2007; Brown, 1976).4 Moreover, research has revealed the genetic roots of many of them, especially those associated with the Big Five personality constructs (Rowe, 1997). These genetic roots may tempt researchers and other professionals to use the label “giftedness” to convey the “given” part of these characteristics. I am worried that this broadening of the giftedness construct will dilute its meaning, exactly like it has begun to happen with the intelligence construct (e.g., Gardner’s (1983) multiple intelligences; Goleman’s (1995) emotional intelligence; Sternberg’s (2005) theory of successful intelligence). Unfortunately, I have not found an appropriate term to substitute for giftedness, although it is easy to replace natural ability with propensity or predisposition; we could add an adjective, like “high” or “strong.” Finally, this preliminary criterion applies of course to systematically developed abilities, like competencies and talents. This brings me to reject

F. Gagne´

the label Moon (2003) chose to describe her recently proposed “personal talent,” a construct that globally overlaps the DMGT’s motivation–volition pair within the intrapersonal catalysts. DC-1. Natural abilities have direct genetic roots. The genetic origin of natural abilities constitutes the most basic of all six defining criteria. Indeed, the adjective “natural” directly refers to the underlying genetic substrate of these abilities. Many researchers in the field of behavioral genetics have assessed the heritability of natural abilities, especially those in the intellectual and physical domains (Bouchard, Malina, & P´erusse, 1997; Plomin, DeFries, McClearn, & McGuffin, 2001). The significant heritability of natural abilities does not make them “innate” as claimed by some (Howe et al., 1998; Ericsson et al., 2007). The term “innate” “implies hard-wired, fixed action patterns of a species that are impervious to experience. Genetic influence on abilities and other complex traits does not denote the hard-wired deterministic effect of a single gene but rather probabilistic propensities of many genes in multiple-gene systems” (Plomin, 1998, p. 421). Consequently, it conveys two false images about natural abilities (a) that the observed individual differences are immutable and (b) that they appear suddenly (see DC-3 below). Few scientists use the term “innate” to describe any type of human natural abilities or temperamental predisposition. Finally, the adjective “direct” in the expression “direct genetic roots” completes the differentiation between natural abilities and competencies. For example, research has shown that academic achievement measures have genetic roots (Plomin et al., 2001); but the genetic component in academic achievement almost completely overlaps the hereditary component of IQ scores. In other words, the genetic roots of academic competence are indirect; they have their origin in the strong relationship between intelligence and academic achievement (Plomin & Price, 2003). DC-2. Natural abilities are the constituent elements of competencies. This second basic criterion logically emerges from a common sense examination of any learning activity. The competencies—and talents—that progressively develop are not appearing out of thin air; sometimes, they barely differ from their natural origins. Think of sprinting or weightlifting for example. Yet even these athletic skills usually require months 4 Just “Google” the various expressions in this paragraph and and years of practice to be honed to Olympic stanyou will obtain dozens of sites related to motivation skills, relidards. The same parallelism applies to cognitive natgious giftedness, and so forth.

7

Debating Giftedness

ural abilities when children begin learning academic subjects. Finally, structural analyses of occupations reveal that a particular natural ability can serve as a building block for many occupations. For instance, speed is important not only in running but also in long jump and pole vaulting, in some positions in football, in bobsleigh (especially the last “pushing” member on teams of two or four), and so forth. Similarly, cognitive abilities contribute to the growth of professional skills (e.g., lawyer, doctor, chemist), technical skills (e.g., computer analyst, supervisor in manufacturing, electrician), or expertise in arts (music, drama, visual arts). Creative abilities play a significant role in scientific research, fiction writing, and choreography (dance, skating, gymnastics). In brief, even a casual look at any learning situation confirms the direct causal relationship between natural abilities and systematically developed competencies.

Four Crucial Corollaries As explained above, the last four defining criteria logically ensue from the hereditary and building block characteristics of natural abilities. But, and this is important, their logical status as corollaries in no way reduces their differentiating significance compared with the first two. DC-3. Natural abilities develop informally. In my description of the DMGT’s first trio of components I mentioned three developmental processes, with their inverse contribution to the respective development of gifts (mostly maturation and informal learning) and talents (mostly formal learning and practicing). This primary role of maturation, a process with strong genetic roots, and daily life learning explain both the partly uncontrollable and spontaneous development of natural abilities. Piaget’s developmental theory constitutes an excellent example of this type of development with regard to cognitive abilities. Natural abilities tend to develop more slowly on average than systematically developed competencies; maturational processes progress at their slow internal pace, but with large individual differences, and attempts to accelerate informal learning activities are not common (Angoff, 1988). Moreover, the hereditary component makes them much more resistant to change, one way or the other, than systematically developed competencies.

163

By stating that natural abilities develop, albeit differently from competencies, I affirm that they do not appear suddenly. No doubt that individual developmental paces differ considerably, with some children showing much slower growth than average, and others much faster growth. But even the fastest developing children do progress only imperceptibly on a daily or weekly basis. This statement directly contradicts repetitive allegations by Ericsson et al. (2007) that Pronat scholars believe in sudden appearance of “innate talent.” Here are some examples. “Empirical investigations of superior performance that adhere to the criteria outlined above demonstrate that exceptional performance does not appear suddenly or without prior training, but gradually” (p. 20). “Exceptional achievements attributed to innate ‘gifts’ are typically thought to arise abruptly and naturally” (p. 14). “We are unable to find empirical support for the sudden emergence of high levels of performance” (p. 31). “We hope that the proponents of innate talent are challenged to identify any existing evidence on suddenly appearing reproducible abilities” (p. 45). I will not swear that no one in gifted education has ever spoken of sudden apparition; suddenness could have been used more or less metaphorically, or to suggest that the ability had remained unobserved until well developed. But I am convinced that not a single scholar in the large field of gifted education holds such a belief. Giftedness has nothing to do with suddenness, but with accelerated pace of learning, sometimes a quite exceptional acceleration, as shown by the prodigies that Antinat researchers keep excluding from the debate. DC-4. Natural abilities are field independent. Howe et al.’s (1998) fifth property states that “innate talents” are “domain” specific, which means field specific in DMGT terminology. To ensure terminological coherence within this chapter I will use field specific from now on. Two commentators (Detterman, Gabriel, & Ruthsatz, 1998; Starkes & Helsen, 1998) disagreed with the introduction of that necessary property. Detterman et al. noted the diversified predictive power of intelligence, while Starkes & Helsen invoked innate talents’ genetic roots. These two critiques can be restated as follows. First, the significant genetic roots of natural abilities preclude their association with specific occupational fields. Suggesting that a whole set of genes—since ability differences do not depend on single genes (Plomin & Price, 2003)—associated with a specific field of talent could have evolved within a few

F. Gagne´

164

centuries directly contradicts evolution’s time frame of tens of millennia. Second, their causal role as building blocks of talents argues for the opposite, domain specificity, with openness to any occupational field— or sub-field—that might require any of them for the development of specific competencies. The same logic requires that we avoid using field descriptors to label natural abilities (e.g., musical giftedness, athletic giftedness, entrepreneurial giftedness, academic giftedness), unless it is clear that the expression refers to field-independent, but domainrelated natural abilities. For instance, depending on the particular sport discussed, “athletic” giftedness should refer to a specific combination of natural physical abilities, such as speed, strength, endurance, flexibility, coordination. Similarly, “academic” giftedness should clearly refer to intellectual giftedness until proof is shown that other domains of giftedness contribute significantly to academic talent. DC-5. Natural abilities predict future performance. Without some predictive power for future competence development, natural abilities would present little interest. Indeed, the parallelism between the giftedness–talent pair and the potential–achievement continuum implies that some relevant high potential (giftedness) leads to a specific form of outstanding achievement (talent). Note the direct filiation between this corollary and the basic building block role of natural abilities. If they act as the raw material for competencies, then individual differences in natural ability must logically generate parallel individual differences in achieved competencies, at least to some extent. DC-6. Natural abilities constrain attainable competence levels. The last corollary directly follows from the predictive power of natural abilities. It stands to reason that a causal relationship between two variables means that higher—or lower—levels in one are associated with higher—or lower—levels in the other. That is what correlations mean. Consequently, with at least a moderate correlation between a given natural ability and a competency, we should expect high natural abilities (gifts) to increase the probability of high competencies (talents), and vice versa. The quantitative nature of any correlation demands an equally quantitative definition of constraints; they are not an either/or condition, but a subject of varying probability. Within this quantitative perspective, lower natural abilities signify a growing weight on the learning process, a weight that

reduces the chances of high achievements, thus creating a practical ceiling to attainable performances, however intensive the amount of practice. No doubt that high motivation and strong willpower can allow some individuals with non-gifted abilities to reach talentlevel performances (top 10% in the DMGT). But, below average natural abilities will most probably prevent any individual, however large the input from the other components (I, D, or E), from reaching talentlevel performances, even less so performances at moderate (top 1/100) or high (top 1/1000) levels of talent. In the next two sections, I will present evidence on the major constraints imposed by intellectual and physical natural abilities on the level of achievement. This corollary is particularly important in view of Ericsson et al.’s (2007) main conclusion: “With the exception of fixed genetic factors determining body size and height, we were unable to find evidence for innate constraints to the attainment of elite achievement for healthy individuals” (p. 3). In other words, whatever the level of a person’s natural abilities—assuming, of course, they exist—they would pose no obstacle to reaching the highest levels of performance in any field. Any healthy individual would only need to invest a sufficient amount of time and deliberate practice, and the motivation to sustain that practice; observed differences in achievement would depend essentially on amount of deliberate practice and motivation level. As Ericsson (1998) states, “The real key to understanding expert and exceptional performance is in the motivational factors that lead a small number of individuals to maintain the effortful pursuit of their best performance during their productive career—when most other individuals have already settled for a merely acceptable level” (p. 414). I intend to show that this allegedly more parsimonious view of expertise emergence misses many significant variables and that the DMGT offers a much more complete framework to analyze talent development.

Measurement Issues Before closing this section, it seemed appropriate to include some general information on the differentiated measurement of natural abilities and competencies. Let us point out first that there is no airtight qualitative difference between natural abilities and systematically developed knowledge and skills

7

Debating Giftedness

(Lubinski & Dawis, 1992); both are abilities, and their differentiation rests on the type and intensity of the processes responsible for their respective development (Angoff, 1988). In other words, although well-trained professionals can categorize most ability measures as representing either natural abilities or competencies, there are a few instances of overlap. For example, the regular school curriculum includes the development of an extensive vocabulary, and some academic exams assess its mastery. At the same time, it is one of the most central measures in individually administered IQ tests; the Vocabulary subtest of the Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children (revised form) shows the highest correlation (.74) of all subtests with the global IQ score (Sattler, 1988). In this way, vocabulary knowledge becomes a central measure of general intelligence, a prototypical natural ability as we will see below. Similarly, the College Board’s (see “collegeboard.com”) SAT Reasoning Test (or SAT-I) officially measures academic achievement; all college-bound high school seniors must complete it (or its competitor the ACT). Yet its contents focus more on reasoning and analysis than on memorized factual knowledge; this is why it has become an instrument of choice in the assessment of exceptional precocity through the nationwide network of Talent Searches (see Brody’s chapter in this handbook). But, apart from a few cases like these, it is usually easy to measure either natural abilities or developed skills. Within the DMGT framework, the rule is simple: if the measure of individual differences is field related, then one is measuring learned competencies and not natural abilities. With competencies, any performance measure will do: school homework or exams, standardized achievement tests; music, dance, or visual arts competitions; professional examinations like the Graduate Record Examination (see “ets.org”), car driving exams, and so forth. Of course, sport leads in the comprehensiveness of its performance measures: speeds or heights reached, distances covered, times attained, baskets fielded, passes caught, and hundreds of others. In the case of natural abilities, measures exist for all four domains, but with unequal levels of psychometric soundness. The intellectual and physical domains stand out with the quality of their assessment tools, IQ tests in the first case and physical fitness batteries in the second. I will describe them briefly in the next two sections. The creative domain also has tests, but their psychometric qualities remain well be-

165

low those of IQ tests, especially in terms of convergent validity (Plucker & Renzulli, 1999). Because of its more recent exploration, the social domain lags behind in terms of psychometrically sound measures; available instruments predominantly revolve around selfassessments or peer judgments (e.g., leadership rating scales, judges’ scores in public speaking competitions). The earlier the assessment is made, the “purer” the measure of the natural ability will be, since systematic skills development rarely begins before school age, and usually later for most fields of human activity. Within the DMGT framework, the intrapersonal and environmental catalysts contribute to the spontaneous development of natural abilities. It makes sense that young persons who discover their high natural ability in a given domain or sub-domain will be motivated by their initial progress and will tend to increase their informal practice of that ability. Consequently, it should be clear that natural ability measures do not just assess the genetic component of that ability; they include the normal influence of personal and environmental inputs. That is why they are called “natural” and not “innate.” Summary This section aimed at identifying the essential characteristics of a natural ability and, by extension, its outstanding manifestation as giftedness. Borrowing partly from two proposals, I identified six constituent characteristics that “real” abilities must possess to qualify as natural. The first two define their essential nature. (1) Natural abilities have strong roots in a person’s genetic endowment; (2) they serve as a reservoir of building blocks for systematically developed competencies— and talents. The last four have a corollary status, but keep a differentiating role as powerful as the first two. (3) Natural abilities develop informally and slowly, mostly through maturation and daily use, and are thus more resistant to change than competencies; (4) they are field independent, allowing them to contribute to a diversity of field-related competencies; (5) their causal role as building blocks gives them a significant predictive power with regard to systematically developed achievements. Finally, (6) the causal relationship between natural abilities and achievements generates significant upper limits for achievements; these limits appear and increase as the natural ability level decreases. Now that I have set the scene by defining the key construct, it is time to examine what empirical evi-

166

dence exists to support the Pronat theoretical position that some abilities possess all the necessary characteristics to be labeled “natural.” I will limit that demonstration to two domains, the intellectual and the physical, simply because there is in both a large and diversified amount of relevant scientific literature. If my demonstration succeeds, there will be no reason to doubt that similar empirical data will eventually become available to confirm the “naturalness” of creative and social abilities.

Evidence from the Intellectual Domain Among the four natural ability domains identified in the DMGT, the intellectual domain is by far the richest in amount and quality of research, not only on the nature of intelligence but also on its genetic origins, and its predictive power for a large variety of significant personal and social outcomes (Gottfredson, 1997b). According to Plomin (1998), there is more research on the intellectual domain alone than on all the others combined.

Defining General Intelligence Intellectual giftedness represents the prototypical expression of a natural ability. It should surprise no one that the term gifted is spontaneously associated with intellectual giftedness: the field of gifted education is essentially built around professionals and scientists working with the K-12 population. For them, the term giftedness spontaneously brings up the image of bright kids. And the strong predictive power of intelligence measures with regard to academic achievement reinforces that relationship. This spontaneous association can be readily observed in many chapters of the present handbook (e.g., Gross’s chapter on highly gifted; Olenchak’s chapter on underachievement; Peichowski’s chapter on gifted individuals’ emotional sphere; Sayler’s chapter on gifted and thriving; Silverman’s chapter on feminine perspective; and no doubt many others). Even more, most professionals and scholars in other fields have acknowledged that association by abstaining to use the term gifted. Instead, they use “talent” to describe both outstanding natural abilities and exceptional achievements. A few will make a distinction by using “natural talent” to

F. Gagne´

talk about giftedness, especially in sports (Tranckle & Cushion, 2006; Van Rossum & Gagn´e, 2005). This prototypical role of intellectual giftedness gives special importance to the demonstration made in the present section. As we enter the intellectual domain, the first step consists, of course, in defining clearly the core concept. Such a definition is important in view of the positions maintained by Antinats on that subject, either considering general intelligence irrelevant in the discussion of “innate talents” (Howe et al., 1998) or questioning its existence (Ericsson et al., 2007) (see section “Counterarguments”). Is it really a disputed concept? Not at all. As we will soon see, most specialists in the broad field of cognitive studies generally agree on its nature. That consensus was reaffirmed just a decade ago, soon after the publication of Herrnstein & Murray’s (1994) highly controversial The Bell Curve. Carroll (1997) relates that this book “spawned a veritable cottage industry in which almost numberless reviews, critiques, editorials, and the like were written—but only rarely by informed specialists—to express (mainly) negative views about Herrnstein and Murray’s data, analyses, and conclusions. . .even to the extent of questioning the very concept of intelligence, the instruments used in measuring it, and the methodology of psychometrics” (pp. 25–26). In reaction to these criticisms, a group of 52 specialists5 in the field of intelligence and cognition, under the leadership of Linda Gottfredson, decided to publish a statement on the empirical knowledge accumulated about intelligence and IQ tests (see Gottfredson, 1997a, for a narrative description of that initiative). Their position paper, called Mainstream Science on Intelligence (MSOI), took the form of a series of 25 short statements on the nature and measurement of intelligence, on the validity of IQ scores, as 5 Gottfredson invited 131 specialists to sign the declaration. They represented a diversity of disciplines: anthropology, behavioral genetics, mental retardation, neuropsychology, sociology, psychometrics, child development, educational psychology, and personnel selection. At the deadline, 100 had responded. Among the 48 who refused to sign, 11 declared themselves insufficiently informed, 10 gave no reason, 11 expressed their disagreement with one or more of the 25 statements, and 6 agreed with the content but not with the publication means. Finally, 10 said that they endorsed the declaration, but could not do so publicly for political reasons (Gottfredson, 1997a). This breakdown shows that many who refused did not do so because of their disagreement with the contents of the declaration.

7

Debating Giftedness

well as the origin and stability of individual and group differences (Gottfredson, 1997a). The document appeared in the December 13, 1994, issue of the Wall Street Journal. The first three statements, reproduced below, precisely circumscribe the concept of general intelligence. 1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or testtaking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—“catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do. 2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character, personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to. 3. While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down). (Gottfredson, 1997a, p. 13)

The definition presented in that public declaration coincides with many others. For instance, Carroll (1997) states, “IQ represents the degree to which, and the rate at which, people are able to learn, and retain in longterm memory, the knowledge and skills that can be learned from the environment (that is, what is taught in the home and in school, as well as things learned from everyday experience)” (p. 44). In brief, contrary to the Ericsson et al.’s position mentioned above, most specialists in the field fully agree on the core nature of general intelligence.

The Genetics of Intelligence The MSOI declaration reserved five statements (statements 14–18) to an analysis of the source and stability of within-group differences. Here is a summary of their consensual position: St. 14: Individuals differ in intelligence due to differences in both their environments and genetic heritage; heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to 1), most thereby indicating that genetics plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals. St. 15: Members of the same family

167 also tend to differ substantially in intelligence (by an average of about 12 IQ points) for both genetic and environmental reasons. St. 16: That IQ may be heritable does not mean that it is not affected by the environment; individuals are not born with fixed, unchangeable levels of intelligence (no one claims they are). St. 17: Although the environment is important in creating IQ differences, we do not know yet how to manipulate it to raise low IQs permanently. St. 18: Genetically caused differences are not necessarily irremediable, nor are environmentally caused ones necessarily remediable. Both may be preventable to some extent (Adapted from Gottfredson, 1997a, pp. 14–15).

There is no point in repeating here what a large number of literature reviews have already said on the genetic origins of individual differences in intelligence (e.g., Plomin et al., 2001; Plomin & Price, 2003); they would simply confirm with more details the contents of the above five statements. By presenting this summary of the 52 scholars’ agreement on the nature–nurture question I only intended to maintain the continuity between their clear definition of intelligence and their statements concerning the hereditary origins of intelligence thus defined.

The Predictive Power of Intelligence The MSOI declaration devotes five statements (9–13) to the specific question of the practical significance of the intelligence construct as a predictor in daily life situations. Again, it is worth summarizing their consensual statements: St. 9: IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance. St. 10: A high IQ is an advantage in life because virtually all activities require some reasoning, and decision-making. Conversely, a low IQ is often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. There are many exceptions, but the odds for success in our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs. St. 11: The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase as life settings become more complex (novel, ambiguous, changing, unpredictable, or multifaceted). St. 12: Differences in intelligence certainly are not the only factor affecting performance in education, training, and highly complex jobs (no one claims they are), but intelligence is often the most important. St. 13: Certain personality traits, special talents, aptitudes, physical capabilities, experience, and the like are important (sometimes essential) for successful performance in many jobs, but they have narrower (or unknown) applicability or “transferability”

168 across tasks and settings compared with general intelligence (Adapted from Gottfredson, 1997a, p. 14).

This set of five statements affirms not only the substantial predictive significance of general intelligence but also its priority status among predictors of various life outcomes. Strangely, Ericsson et al. (2007) affirm, “More importantly for our review is that we have found no studies that have demonstrated that IQ is predictive of achievement in domains where reliable, superior performance has been collected meeting our earlier criteria” (p. 38). Because of that quote I decided to devote some pages to a detailed survey of the relevant evidence. I will cover a variety of sources: academic, occupational, and general life outcomes. Two additional themes, one dealing with constraints and the other with the primacy of IQ as a predictor, will complete this section. Predicting academic achievement. During a major part of the past century, hundreds of researchers have examined the relationship between IQ and academic achievement; their samples cover all grades from kindergarten to postgraduate education. In most of these studies, the criterion instrument took the form of end-of-year exams or standardized achievement tests. Ericsson et al. (2007) identify three essential rules to ensure the scientific quality of performance criteria: First, the phenomena must be observable and correspond to measurable performance. Second, the associated performance must be generated under controlled and standardized conditions in the sense that it is possible to elicit it repeatedly by presenting representative tasks. Finally, performance on the representative tasks must be reproducibly superior to motivated control groups with different amounts of experience with the task domain [DMGT’s field]. The last two criteria are of utmost importance (p. 14).

Academic achievement measures, especially standardized achievement tests, meet these three rules perfectly. First, they are easily measurable; second, students take them under very controlled conditions— albeit with some occasional cheating!—and take them repeatedly year after year; third, assuming the general comparability of grade level cohorts, average performances increase from one grade level to the next as students add more learning and practice (Gagn´e, 2005b). Consequently, there is no reason for Antinats to reject concurrent and predictive validation studies that compare IQ scores with academic achieve-

F. Gagne´

ment measures. Reviews of such studies (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Jensen, 1998; Sattler, 1988), as well as one major meta-analysis (Walberg, 1984), have confirmed uncorrected correlations of around .60 and .50 at the elementary and high school levels respectively. These high correlations speak for themselves: they reveal that brighter students achieve much better, thus have better chances to complete a high school diploma and access undergraduate and graduate programs. Here are a few specific statistics. Herrnstein & Murray (1994) used the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth database to assess the probability of obtaining a high school degree. They showed that 55% of students with the lowest IQs (bottom 5%) never completed a high school diploma, that 35% of those in the next 20% of IQ scores (between 76 and 90) did the same, but that fewer than 1% did not complete a high school degree among the top 25% in general intelligence (IQs of 110 and up). They used that same database to estimate the probability of obtaining a bachelor’s degree. They observed that more than 20% of students with IQs in the second decile (between the 10th and 20th centile) entered a 2-year or 4-year college during the 1980s. But they pointed out that “fewer than 2 percent of them [fewer than 10% of admitted students] actually completed a bachelor’s degree. Meanwhile, about 70 percent of the students in the top decile of ability were completing a B.A.” (p. 36). The text specifies neither the type of B.A. degree achieved by that 2% of low-IQ individuals nor the level of their SAT scores. These probabilities confirm that lower intelligence does create major quantitative constraints in students’ efforts to reach high levels of education; and this last set of data targets a rather common diploma reached by about 35% of the U.S. population (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). The probabilities decrease significantly when we look at M.A. degrees and Ph.D. degrees. In a nutshell, because of the causal linear relationship between IQ and academic achievement, quantitative constraints to achieving higher education degrees monotonically increase as IQ scores decrease. Predicting occupational achievement. Literature reviews abound on the predictive validity of IQ scores with regard to job performance (e.g., Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Gottfredson, 1997b; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Ericsson et al. (2007) briefly cite the Hunter & Hunter (1984) review as follows: “The

7

Debating Giftedness

observed correlations between particular tests and the criterion performance is [sic] often relatively low and in the 0.1 to 0.3 range” (p. 13). Strangely, citing the same source, Gottfredson (1997b) presents a totally different picture, pointing out among other things that the predictive validity of IQ scores is directly related to job complexity. In their literature review, Hunter & Hunter (1984) subdivided general job families into three levels of complexity: low (e.g., assembler, forklift operator), medium (e.g., auto mechanic, radiology technician, high school teacher), and high (e.g., retail food manager, biologist, administrator). Gottfredson summarized their results as follows: “The validity of cognitive ability (corrected for unreliability and restriction in range) for predicting job performance rose. . .from .40, to .51, and .58, respectively, for the low, medium, and high ‘data’ complexity job families” (p. 82). She concluded, “g can be said to be the most powerful single predictor of overall job performance.. . .No other single predictor measured to date (specific aptitude, personality, education, experience) seems to have such consistently high predictive validities for job performance” (p. 83). In a more recent and extensive literature review, Schmidt & Hunter (1998) assessed the relative effectiveness of 19 predictors of job performance used in personnel selection. They compared general mental ability (GMA) with 18 other predictors of job performance or job training success (e.g., work sample tests, integrity tests, work knowledge, biographical data, even graphology). They concluded that GMA outranked all other techniques in predictive power. At best, a few predictors added about 25% to the predictive power of GMA alone. Predicting other life outcomes. The predictive power of IQ tests extends well beyond academic achievement and job performance. Herrnstein & Murray (1994) used a five-category breakdown of IQ scores (bottom 5%, next 20%, middle 50%, next 20%, top 5%) to examine the impact of individual differences in intelligence on various life outcomes. Their observations are disseminated through Chapters 5–11 in The Bell Curve. Gottfredson (1997b) summarized them in one table (Table 10, p. 118). To illustrate a few highlights from that table, I will use two comparison groups, the below average 20% (IQs between 76 and 90) and above average 20% (IQs between 111 and 125). Among other things, this comparison reveals the following disparities: (a) twice as many (17% vs. 7%)

169

of the low-IQ mothers’ children had IQs below 75; (b) four times as many (17% vs. 4%) low-IQ mothers had illegitimate children; (c) five times as many low-IQ mothers lived in poverty (16% vs. 3%), or went on welfare after their first child was born (21% vs. 4%); (d) seven times as many (7% vs. 1%) low-IQ men had been incarcerated; (e) eight times as many (17% vs. 2%) low-IQ mothers were chronic welfare recipients; and, finally, (f) the ratio of high school dropouts between the two groups was no less than 85:1 (35% vs. 0.4%)! Again, we observe how IQ scores produce significant quantitative constraints to the quality of life among Caucasian adults, so much so that Gottfredson concludes, “There are many other valued human traits besides g. . .but none seems to affect individuals’ life chances so systematically and so powerfully in modern life as does g. To the extent that one is concerned about inequality in life chances, one must be concerned about differences in g” (pp. 120–121). The limits of IQ plasticity. Angoff (1988) mentioned resistance to change as one typical characteristic of natural abilities (aptitudes); it is directly related of course to the constraints that the genetic endowment imposes on their plasticity. With regard to general intelligence, three distinct sources of evidence illustrate this resistance: (a) stability indices of IQ scores, (b) early interventions with low-income and at-risk children, and (c) adoption studies. In their renowned handbook, Anastasi & Urbina (1997) review longitudinal studies of children’s intelligence. They point out that “as would be expected, retest correlations are higher, the shorter the interval between tests. With a constant interval between tests, moreover, retest correlations tend to be higher the older the children” (p. 324). Most of the correlations they cite exceed .60. For instance, they describe a long-term follow-up of children initially tested between the ages of 2 and 5 for the standardization sample of the 1937 Stanford-Binet. “Initial IQs correlated .65 with 10-year retests and .59 with 25-year retests. The correlation between the 10-year retest (mean age = 14) and the 25-year retest (mean age = 29) was .85” (p. 324). Anastasi & Urbina caution that these high values leave room for occasional significant changes over time, especially when individuals encounter long-term traumatic situations. The second source of evidence comes from systematic early education programs, especially with at-risk or low-income children. Everyone remembers Head

F. Gagne´

170

Start, probably the most extensive of these early stimulation programs. Haskins (1989) reviewed short-term and long-term educational impacts of a large group of these model programs organized into the Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. On the basis of multiple follow-up IQ tests between the ages of 6 and 17 he described a pattern of initial gains followed by declines. He quoted a follow-up review by Lazar, Darlington, Murray, Royce, & Snipper (1982): “The authors’ conclusion that early education ‘produced an increase in low-income children’s intelligence test scores that lasted for several years’ but was ‘not permanent’ (p. 48) succinctly captures the complex set of IQ results” (p. 273). Concerning specific Head Start impacts, Haskins cited short-term intervention effect sizes “of .59 on IQ tests, .31 on school readiness tests, and .54 on achievement tests” (p. 277). But, he added, “effect sizes decline each year as children proceed through the public schools. None of the differences is educationally meaningful after the first year of schooling” (p. 277). The third and final set of data comes from adoption studies, where children from low-income families are adopted into families from higher socioeconomic status. Apart from a French study (Capron & Duyme, 1989) where a stronger impact of 12 IQ points was observed, other adoption studies obtained more modest results, with still unclear long-term impacts. In her seminal book The Nurture Assumption, Harris (1998) summarized the results as follows: Behavioral geneticist Matt McGue is probably the world’s leading expert on adoption studies of IQ. His current guess is that the long-term benefits of adoption might amount to about seven IQ points. Perhaps this finally closes the case on the boast John B. Watson made so long ago: “Give me a dozen healthy infants,” he said, “and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer,” you name it. An increase of seven IQ points is not to be sneezed at, but it is not enough to get a child of average genetic endowment into medical school (Harris, 1998, p. 262).

tion (7–8 IQ points) when these children are adopted into families that offer more favorable developmental and educational environments. In other words, two crucial characteristics of natural abilities—here general intelligence—contribute to the level of constraints encountered by individuals. First, their genetic roots create important resistance to change; second, their causal power over various life outcomes reinforces the size of these constraints. Relative predictive powers. In statement 12 of the MSOI declaration the signatories affirm that general intelligence is often the strongest predictor of educational and occupational outcomes. Here is a recent contribution to the literature supporting that affirmation. Gagn´e & St P`ere (2002) reviewed the literature comparing the relative predictive power of intelligence and motivation with regard to academic achievement. Although hundreds of studies can be found for either variable, the authors found only five macrolevel (nonexperimental) studies in which researchers had jointly used both measures within an additive causal model. Which came out as the most powerful predictor? Here is Gagn´e & St P`ere’s conclusion; it needs no additional comment: Motivation’s independent contribution to the prediction of scholastic or occupational achievement appears limited. It is frequently non-existent. . .or much less powerful than the independent contribution of cognitive abilities.. . .The 4:1 and 6:1 ratios respectively extracted from Walberg’s (1984) and Schmidt and Hunter’s (1998) syntheses, probably upper-limit estimates, are more or less equidistant from the two extremes (p. 78).

Counterarguments

The authors of the two Antinat target articles did have a few things to say about general intelligence. This presentation would not be complete without a critical analysis of their views. From Howe et al. (1998). By introducing their fifth property, namely a need for “domain”(field)These three sets of empirical data converge on the specificity, Howe et al. (1998) automatically excluded same two conclusions. First, the level of general in- general intelligence from their analysis. They mention telligence stabilizes progressively during childhood; in it two or three times, but only to discuss its low the absence of major stressful events, it remains very relationship with some specific abilities (e.g., music, stable over the rest of the life span. Second, deliber- visual arts). For example, “Although the evidence ate efforts to rise the IQ of at-risk children have had of a genetic contribution to human intelligence is little long-term success, except for a moderate aver- consistent with the talent account, there are only weak age improvement of at most half a standard devia- correlations between general intelligence and various

7

Debating Giftedness

specific abilities” (p. 402). That quote acknowledges the genetic endowment of intelligence, points out weak predictive power with some specific skills, but completely ignores the large scientific literature associating IQ scores with academic achievement and occupational performance. Some commentators (e.g., Detterman et al., 1998; Gagn´e, 1998a; Plomin, 1998) criticized the authors’ decision to include the fifth property and thus ignore what Pronat scholars consider as the best documented instance of a natural ability. In their rejoinder, Howe et al. responded as follows: For most people there is a clear distinction between specific talents and general intelligence despite the fact that these are related. This consideration makes it impossible for us to agree with Plomin, Detterman et al., and Gagn´e that talent ought to be defined in a way that allows general intelligence or cognitive ability to count as an instance of it. The finding that intelligence is heritable does not seem to us to have much bearing on the viability of the talent account (pp. 432–433).

If I understand that statement correctly, it means that because “most people” (who are they?) entertain a field-specific belief, the authors must reject the judgment of experts, most of whom believe otherwise. It seems to me a very strange decision. But let us read again carefully the first sentence of their quote. Could these “people” have in mind, as a majority of lay people do (Gagn´e, B´elanger, & Motard, 1993), the DMGT’s distinction between gifts and talents? If so, then they do make a “clear distinction between specific [systematically developed] talents and general intelligence.” And, exactly because of that distinction, these talents are not “innate,” whereas general cognitive ability has a strong hereditary basis, as Howe et al. themselves acknowledge. From Ericsson et al. (2007). Ericsson et al. (2007) do not directly discuss the theme of general intelligence as a natural ability. Nowhere did I find direct and substantial counterevidence to the arguments presented here on the nature of intelligence, its heritability, and its predictive power. They briefly mention the subject within two sections of their target article. In the first one, they begin by criticizing the work of Binet and Simon, precursors of intelligence testing, saying that their approach “does not try to capture the essence of the criterial performance, namely performance on the school examinations themselves, but rather searches for any tasks and items of reasoning, memory, and other cognitive functions that correlate with and thus can predict the target performance” (p. 12). That cri-

171

tique is unfair because it does not respect the mandate these scientists received from the French Minister of Public Instruction. He asked them to create a diagnostic instrument that would distinguish school children who were failing because they did not have the necessary— cognitive of course—aptitudes to succeed from school children who were failing for other reasons (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). They were not asked to dissect the reasoning processes involved in answering language, geographical, or mathematical questions, just create an instrument with good concurrent validity. To better understand Ericsson et al.’s error of judgment, it is useful to introduce here Embretson’s (1983) twin outlooks for test validation. The first one, called “construct representation,” aims to “identify specific information-processing components and knowledge stores needed to perform the tasks set by the test items” (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997, p. 135). The second, called “nomothetic span,” is concerned with the network of relations a test entertains with other variables, including criterion performances and other real-life data. Binet and Simon’s mandate belongs to the second perspective, whereas Ericsson et al.’s critique pertains to the first perspective. Moreover, their critique does not even target the predictor but the criterion! Said differently, Ericsson et al.’s (2007) “complaint” that Binet and Simon did not try “to capture the essence of the criterion performance” means that they should have examined in depth the component skills that make up a particular field’s expert performance. The only valid purpose for such a “skill dissection” operation is to better understand the nature of the criterion itself; in other words, what does expertise look like? It will in no way help answer the question that professionals in the field of talent development consider their core problem: how do non-criterion variables (the DMGT’s G, I, D, and E components) causally contribute to the emergence of talents (Ericsson’s expert performances)? A few paragraphs later, Ericsson et al. (2007) state that “one of the goals of ability research is to uncover latent variables that measure cognitive capacities, such as ‘g’, by analyzing performance on a large number of test items for large representative groups of a population and then measure its relation to some other latent criterion variable measuring performance” (p. 13). Again, that “one” goal includes both the construct representation perspective (uncover latent variables) and the nomothetic span outlook (measure its relation with

172

a latent criterion variable). Having stated that goal, they conclude that they are “unaware of successful attempts to understand many of these latent variables (abilities) beyond an intuitive level” (p. 19). It is not clear if the “latent variables” mentioned refer to the first set (the determinants of g) or the second (the nature of outside criteria). In the first case, there is a large amount of scientific literature on the “dissection” of cognitive tasks. It begins with Jean Piaget’s seminal work and includes hundreds of studies in the fields of cognition and psychometrics (Sternberg, 1982). It culminates in the seminal work of J. B. Carroll (1993) on the hierarchical structure of human abilities. As for the second case, namely the analysis of outside criteria, it is not relevant to the present theme because it concerns measures of talent and not giftedness. In their second brief look at general cognitive abilities, Ericsson et al. (2007) begin with the following statement: “Behavioral geneticists argue that most cognitive abilities and physical characteristics are determined in part by genetic factors and typically around half of the variance in individual differences is heritable” (p. 36). They say nothing about their own position concerning the heritability of general cognitive abilities, except by cautioning that “heritability does not imply immutability or unchangeability” (p. 36), a statement no expert will contest. That introduction is followed by a major argument, namely “that observed heritabilities for cognitive tasks in a similar manner do not reflect upper-bounds of functioning (limits on attainable performance) when we are addressing these issues within the domain of general psychology” (p. 36). I have tried in the preceding section to defend the opposite position. I must reiterate that the recognition of limits imposed by the level of natural abilities does not deny the immense improvements in performance that systematic learning and practice can bring about over months and years. But as shown by at least two studies (Baltes & Kliegl, 1992; Fox, Hershberger, & Bouchard, 1996), when individuals are followed through a long, testing-the-limits process of learning, they do not reach an almost identical level of maximal expertise. Quite the opposite, not only does the range of individual differences remain, but it approximately doubles in one case (Fox et al.), creating a fan spread effect similar to the one I observed with academic achievement test data (Gagn´e, 2005b). Both Howe et al. and Ericsson et al. completely ignored that crucial result from these two studies. I will come back

F. Gagne´

to that “omission” in the second part (“Major Lapses” section). Then comes their only direct discussion of the nature of general intelligence: It is possible that a general ability could represent some form of genetic talent. Notably, whether such a general ability exists is still disputed. Some researchers claim that the evidence for a general cognitive ability, the ‘g’ factor, is overwhelming given findings from factor analyses of the well-replicated finding of positive manifold (Jensen, 1998; Carroll, 2003). These researchers claim that IQ scores, for instance, largely reflect such a factor. However, other researchers have disagreed with this interpretation, arguing that positive manifold may reflect whatever circumstances or influences that lead some individuals to acquire more of the skills measured in typical IQ tests. Indeed, many researchers have suggested that schooling plays a large causal role in influencing IQ scores (Ceci, 1991) (2007, p. 37).

This quote completely misrepresents existing theoretical views in the field of cognitive studies. First, as shown in the first three statements from the MSOI declaration described earlier, the existence of a general cognitive ability does not represent the “claim” of a few scientists, but a fact acknowledged by a large number of eminent specialists. Second, the strong heritability of general intelligence directly contradicts the environmentalist interpretations of the few—not “many” as claimed—scientists who question the concept of general intelligence and its heritability. Finally, I would be curious to know who, besides Ceci, are those “many” researchers who, according to Ericsson et al., “claim” that “schooling plays a large causal role [my emphasis] in influencing IQ scores.” I cannot remember having seen in the mainstream literature on general intelligence that strange inversion of the well-recognized causal relationship between IQ as a predictor and academic achievement as the criterion. From Ericsson et al., this handbook. Having obtained with the permission of the first author Ericsson et al.’s manuscript for this handbook, I was surprised to discover that the authors had chosen to completely ignore the subject of intellectual giftedness. Yet, from the references they cite in the target article (Ericsson et al., 2007), they know very well how closely the constructs of intelligence and giftedness are associated in the minds—and writings—of most specialists in gifted education. So, considering the focus of this handbook, that decision is indeed very strange. [Note. This is the only reference I will make to that chapter. I believe it would not be fair to discuss and criticize it if its authors did not get an equal opportunity

7

Debating Giftedness

to respond. That was not possible since I completed this chapter after they had sent theirs.]

Summary I tried in this section to pre-empt the major objections advanced by Antinats who reject general intelligence as a major natural ability. The evidence I presented makes it clear that general intelligence meets all six defining criteria I listed for an ability to be labeled “natural.” Not only does it clearly belong to the realm of abilities but its definition, as it appears in the MSOI declaration (Gottfredson, 1997a), is shared by a majority of specialists in the field. It has strong and undisputed genetic roots and develops progressively and informally, which makes it somewhat resistant to change. Its significant—and often preeminent— predictive power for a diversity of life outcomes (educational, occupational, societal) confirms that its reasoning and problem-solving processes serve as building blocks for a large variety of competencies; this fundamental role makes general intelligence totally field independent. Finally, because of its causal influence as a building block of skills, general intelligence creates major quantitative, thus practical, constraints to achievements. Said differently, as the level of intelligence decreases, the upper limit for achievements in many fields also decreases. As the Romans would say, “Quod erat demonstrandum.” [What was to be demonstrated.]

Evidence from the Physical Domain6 Since the realm of physical abilities is the second most researched ability domain with regard to genetic foun6 This section, initially planned, had been deleted because of its potential overlap with another chapter on the subject of talent development in sports (Van Rossum, this handbook). When I examined the manuscript, kindly sent by the author, I discovered that it almost completely ignored the question of physical giftedness and its impact on talent development in sports. I was expecting that the subject of physical giftedness would be its focus. Instead, Van Rossum devoted the lion’s share of his text to environmental factors (e.g., parents, school, coach, injuries). In view of this lack of information and although I am not a specialist in sport, the editor and I jointly decided to reintroduce a section on the physical domain.

173

dations and predictive power, it can contribute substantial information to the present debate. I will adopt the same sequence here as in the preceding section. To avoid confusion, I will use the expression physical ability when discussing natural abilities, and (athletic) skills when describing the (systematically developed) competencies typical of a given sport.

Defining Physical Abilities The sensorimotor domain comprises two very distinct subgroups: sensations and motions. Although the first subgroup has received little attention in the field of sports, it is worth a brief look. The sensory component. The most common classification of the senses is no doubt the five senses: touch, taste, smell, hearing, and sight. This common sense classification can get much more technical. For instance, Kipfer (1997) distinguishes “deep senses (muscle, tendon, joint, deep pain and pressure), skin senses (touch, skin pain, temperature), special senses (vision, hearing, smell, taste, vestibular-equilibrium), and visceral senses (conveyance of information about organic and visceral events)” (p. 67). Kipfer’s first category, plus the vestibular-equilibrium special sense, could jointly correspond to kinesthesia or “the sensation, of position, movement, tension, etc. of parts of the body, perceived through nerve end organs in muscles, tendons, and joints” (Webster, 1983). Although the status of kinesthesia as a sensory or motor component appears unclear from various sources, that debate does not impact the present discussion. We commonly associate high sensory aptitudes with non-sport occupations, for instance smell and taste with wine tasting or professional cuisine, hearing with music, touch with osteopathy. In sports, the motor component gets most of the attention. But the quality of movements depends in no minor part on the constant perceptual integration of sensory inputs. Bartlett (1958) summarized that indissociable “partnership” very well. “Skilled performance must all the time submit to receptor control, and must be initiated and directed by the signals which the performer must pick up from his environment, in combination with other signals, internal to his own body, which tell him about his own movements as he makes them” (p. 14). And Gardner (1983) called one of his intelligences “bodily kinesthetic” thus linking the perceptual and

174

motor (or mental and physical) dimensions of human activity. In brief, although this section will focus on the motor component, we should always keep in mind the close partnership between the two components. The motor component. The second component has direct relationships with sports, almost all sports.7 The preliminary condition I stated, namely circumscribing what belongs to the realm of abilities, is especially relevant here. Researchers in sports commonly mix behavioral measures of abilities (e.g., running speed, jumping height) with anatomical or morphological indices (height, weight, limb measurements), and/or physiological and metabolic measures (e.g., VO2 max, glucose tolerance). Only the first category meets my definition of ability; the other two must be excluded, not for lack of relevance to talent development in sports, but because they belong to a different level of analysis. Physiological or metabolic processes are endophenotypes; they correspond to “physical traits— phenotypes—that are not externally visible but are measurable. Endophenotypes can reveal the biological bases for a disorder better than behavioral symptoms because they represent a fundamental physical trait that is more closely tied to its source in a gene variant” (Nurnberger & Bierut, 2007, pp. 48–49). Similarly, Gottesman & Todd (2003) explain that in the case of phenomena having multi-gene origins endophenotypes provide “a means for identifying the ‘downstream’ traits or facets of clinical phenotypes, as well as the ‘upstream’ consequences of genes” (p. 637). This definition of endophenotypes excludes morphological characteristics; but, even though most morphological characteristics are directly observable exophenotypes, just like physical abilities and athletic skills, their stronger genetic roots place them at a more basic causal level. Both endophenotypes and morphological traits are part of the complex hierarchical causal chain8 7

A brief surf on the web reveals the debated nature of strategy games (e.g., card games, chess, backgammon) as “real” sports. Video games are probably the least disputed case. But the pro side got official support during the inauguration of the IOC Bridge Grand Prix held at the Olympic Museum in Lausanne. Damiani (1999) titled his report “Bridge is a sport” saying, “The words were spoken by the President of the IOC, Mr. Juan Antonio Samaranch, who stated that ‘bridge is a sport and, as such, your place is here like all other sports”’ (p. 1). If recognized as sports, these activities would require little competitive motor skills! 8 A more detailed hierarchical chain of causal influences from genes to human behavior could look somewhat like this:

F. Gagne´

joining genes to physical abilities, and ultimately to athletic skills. For that reason, they will appear as relevant variables in the next two sections on the genetics and predictive power of physical abilities. Many different classifications have been proposed for natural motor abilities. Burton & Miller (1998) reviewed a few of them, including Harrow’s (1972) well-known description of the physical component in Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (1956). They then described their own developmental taxonomy of movement skills, in which foundation areas serve as building blocks for mature functional movement skills.9 Their foundation complex includes 11 elements: balance-postural control; body composition; body size and morphology; cardiovascular endurance; cognition; flexibility range of motion; knowledge; motivation and affect; muscular strength and endurance; neurological functioning reflexes; sensations-sensory integration-perception. That long list associates very disparate elements; its lack of structure made it less attractive. Among the taxonomies I examined, I preferred the well-structured model that Bouchard & Shepard (1994) proposed to analyze human fitness and performance. It includes five major components, three of which are endophenotypes (the first one only partly): morphological (e.g., body mass index, body composition and measurements, bone density, flexibility of joints), physiological (e.g., maximum aerobic power, heart and lung functions), and metabolic (e.g., glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity) causal agents. The last two components represent natural abilities: (a) the muscular component expressed in power, strength, and endurance; (b) the motor component manifested in agility, balance, coordination, and speed. Readers will easily associate these abilities with specific sports, like strength with weight lifting, flexibility and balance genes → proteins → biological development of structures → morphological–physiological characteristics or processes → physical abilities → athletic skills. Any element mediating the relationship between genes and physical ability could be considered an endophenotype and help explain the processes through which genes exert their causal action. 9 Burton & Miller (1998) mention an ongoing debate on the existence of “motor” abilities. They affirm that “there is little evidence that motor abilities exist” (p. 43). Yet in a later chapter (Chapter 8), they discuss the difference between motor abilities and movement skills, proposing four key differences: generality, product of factor analyses, theoretical origin, and resistance to change. I will leave to sport specialists further discussion of this debated question.

7

Debating Giftedness

with gymnastics, speed with sprinting, coordination with many team sports, and endurance with road cycling. Measuring physical abilities. Natural abilities can be measured at a very early age, usually by the start of formal schooling, well before children have begun any specific training in sports. Physical education teachers regularly assess some of these abilities more or less formally during their physical education classes with young students. More systematic assessments also exist. For instance, Morrow, Jackson, Disch, & Mood (2005) describe four different youth fitness batteries: FITNESSGRAM (Human Kinetics), President’s Challenge (two distinct batteries), and Netherlands’s Eurofit battery. They include a diversity of tests: curlups, shuttle runs, endurance runs or walks, pull-ups, push-ups, and so forth. Published norms reveal that young children already differ considerably in their physical abilities. For example, in the norms used for the President’s Challenge (2007) fitness tests, 6-year-old boys in the bottom 5% (P5 ) take 18+ min to run/walk 1 mile (1.62 km), whereas those at the 95th percentile (P95 ) are twice as fast, covering that distance in a bit less than 9 min. The results are approximately the same for 6-year-old girls. In the case of curl-ups, 6-year-old boys and girls at P5 can do only seven in 60 seconds, whereas those at P95 can do 40 (boys) and 36 (girls), at least five times as many. Note that these comparisons exclude the top and bottom 5%. Note on talents in sports. As soon as children or adolescents start participating in systematic training programs, they begin building skills directly related to that sport. Their performance will no longer be measured through general tests of natural physical abilities, but assessments will examine individual differences in learned skills. The diversity of sports is such that classifications are not easy to make, especially classifications with mutually exclusive categories. Going well beyond the very basic individual/team dichotomy, Kipfer (1997, pp. 347–350) presented an interesting set of 11 non-mutually exclusive categories based on a special characteristic shared by groups of sports: air (gliding, parasailing), animal (hunting, rodeo), athletics/gymnastics (aerobics, decathlon), ball and stick (baseball, golf), combat (aikido, wrestling), court (handball, tennis), target (bowling, pool), team (football, volleyball), water (diving, surfing), wheel (bicycling, car racing), and winter (bobsledding, skiing).

175

The Genetics of Physical Abilities Professional beliefs in the strong genetic roots of physical abilities and athletic performance go back many decades. In their seminal chapter on talent identification, R´egnier, Salmela, & Russell (1993) reviewed nine different models of talent detection published during the 1970s and 1980s (Bar-Or, Bompa, Dreke, Geron, Gimbel, Harre, Havlicek, Jones & Watson, Montpetit & Cazorla); all of these models gave a significant role, sometimes the predominant role, to natural abilities and their anatomical or physiological endophenotypes. But, although scholars created these models, many Antinat spokespersons will probably object that these theoretical models do not constitute hard evidence on the heritability of physical abilities. So, instead of describing them in some detail, I will go directly to empirical evidence. It began accumulating during the 1970s, and the pace of research increased from decade to decade. I will survey this progress by borrowing heavily from two very different sources: a recent technical literature review by MacArthur & North (2005) and a detailed examination of the size and sources of black–white differences in sport achievements by an award-winning journalist (Entine, 2000). The same scientists will be repeatedly cited by both sources, especially a large team under the leadership of Dr. Claude Bouchard, formerly from Laval University (Quebec). The MacArthur and North review. Right at the outset, in their abstract, MacArthur & North (2005) clearly state their strong belief in a significant hereditary component of individual differences in physical abilities, as well as their morphological and physiological understructures. That hereditary component applies not only to normal individuals but also to the sporting elite: Physical fitness is a complex phenotype influenced by a myriad of environmental and genetic factors, and variation in human physical performance and athletic ability has long been recognized as having a strong heritable component. Recently, the development of technology for rapid DNA sequencing and genotyping has allowed the identification of some of the individual genetic variations that contribute to athletic performance. This review will examine the evidence that has accumulated over the last three decades for a strong genetic influence on human physical performance, with an emphasis on two sets of physical traits, viz. cardiorespiratory and skeletal muscle function, which are particularly important for performance in a variety of sports. We will then review recent studies that have identified individual genetic variants as-

176 sociated with variation in these traits and the polymorphisms that have been directly associated with elite athlete status. Finally, we explore the scientific implications of our rapidly growing understanding of the genetic basis of variation in performance (p. 331).

MacArthur & North (2005) begin the text itself by pointing out that “elite athletes, viz. athletes who have competed at a national or international level in their chosen sport, represent a rare convergence of genetic potential and environmental factors” (p. 331), adding that “most of us could never achieve elite athlete status, however hard we trained [a clear statement of major constraints]. Just as genetic predisposition plays a major role in determining one’s susceptibility to multifactorial diseases such as diabetes and cancer, elite athletic performance is a complex fitness phenotype substantially determined by genetic potential” (p. 331). They tell how the first strong evidence for a genetic influence on physical performance came from familial studies (e.g., comparisons of identical vs. fraternal twins, biological vs. adopted siblings, parents vs. children). Bouchard and his team were pioneers in that type of research, gathering a large database called the HERITAGE (health, risk factors, exercise training and genetics) Family Study (Bouchard et al., 1995). A consortium of five universities in the United States and Canada joined forces to gather the database, composed of 101 white and 127 black families who were assessed in the sedentary state and in response to a standardized 20-week aerobic exercise training program (Bouchard, Malina, & P´erusse, 1997). MacArthur & North (2005) summarize some of the numerous studies (literally dozens of them) produced from that database. These researchers obtained heritability estimates ranging from 20% to 75% for a diversity of factors associated with physical performance: maximum oxygen uptake in the sedentary state and in response to training, oxygen consumption and power output during submaximal exercise, the exercise heart response rate to training, muscle adaptation to endurance exercise, vertical jump height, and various measures of muscle strength and response to training. The Laval group also demonstrated the significant heritability of “trainability,” the response of individuals to systematic training (Bouchard et al., 1997). MacArthur and North finally note Simoneau & Bouchard’s (1995) study in which they estimated that the genetic contribution to variation in the relative proportions of skeletal muscle fiber types lay between 40% and 50%.

F. Gagne´

The HERITAGE findings and other similar ones encouraged attempts to identify genetic loci and specific polymorphisms that impact human physical performance. That line of research got a boost from various technical discoveries, as well as the decoding of the human genome. “The process of identifying and genotyping candidate genetic variations for performancerelated traits has accelerated over the last 5 years and the results are catalogued in the 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 releases of the human gene map for performance and health-related fitness phenotypes” (MacArthur & North, 2005, p. 332). From just a few genes identified before 1997, the list grew to 48 by the end of 2003. Then, the number exploded; over 160 candidate genes had been identified by the end of 2005 (Rankinen et al., 2006). The authors of that specialized gene map state that “the physical performance phenotypes for which genetic data are available include cardiorespiratory endurance, elite endurance athlete status, muscle strength, other muscle performance traits, and exercise intolerance of variable degrees” (p. 1863). MacArthur & North (2005) examine a few of the genes that have received more attention, specially the ACE I/D variant, which they consider to be “the most widely studied genetic variant in the context of elite athlete status and performance-related traits” (p. 333). They note that results from dozens of studies “suggest that the two alleles at the ACE I/D polymorphism have differing effects on athletic performance, with the I [insert] allele favoring endurance ability and the D [delete] allele improving performance in sprint or power events” (p. 334). Looking at the future, MacArthur & North (2005) envision that “the process of talent identification could, in principle, be revolutionized by the discovery and characterization of genetic variants that strongly influence athletic performance, with routine genetic analysis being added to the existing battery of physiological, biochemical and psychological tests” (pp. 335–336). But, with the caution typical of good scientists, they point out that this field is embryonic, and that “there is still no evidence that any of these variants have any substantial predictive value for prospectively identifying potential elite athletes” (p. 336). Entine’s (2000) “Taboo” subject. Jon Entine’s book, Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We’re Afraid to Talk About It, is one of the most fascinating books I have read recently. It surveys very comprehensively the genetic, cultural,

7

Debating Giftedness

and physiological roots of black athletic superiority in sports. The author recounts the history of human migrations, specially in Africa, and the story of black segregation and eventual participation in various sports. He discusses sociological explanations and their limits, presents short individual vignettes of famous athletes, and describes the latest scientific breakthroughs in evolution and genetic research. Two types of information from Entine’s book appear relevant to the present debate: (a) statistics on the phenomenon itself and (b) highlights from Entine’s overview of the behavior genetics literature. Here are a few astounding statistical data: Check the NBA [National Basketball Association] statistics: not one white player has finished among the top scorers or rebounders in recent years. White running backs, cornerbacks, or wide receivers in the NFL [National Football League]? Count them on one hand. Roll the calendar back decades, to the 1950s, to find the last time a white led baseball in steals. A white male toeing the line at an Olympic 100-meter final? Not in decades. Don’t expect to see a white man set a world record in a road race—any race, at any distance from 100-meters to the marathon. It may happen. In some future decade. But don’t hold your breath. (p. 19) All of the thirty-two finalists in the last four Olympic men’s 100-meter races are of West African descent. The likelihood of that happening based on population numbers alone—blacks with ancestral roots in that region represent 8 percent of the world’s population—is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001. (p. 34) [Yes, 33 zeros!] All told, Kenya has collected thirty-eight Olympic medals since the 1964 Olympics.. . .Based on population percentages alone, the likelihood that this Texassized country could turn in such a remarkable medal performance is one in 1.6 billion.. . .One small district, the Nandi, with only 1.8 percent of Kenya’s population, has produced about half of the world-class Kalenjin athletes and 20 percent of all the winners of major international distance-running events (pp. 39–40).

177

sports, and also between blacks of different African descent, let us survey how Entine covers the scientific literature on the genetic roots of these differences. The following quotes come from his Chapter 19, Winning the Genetic Lottery.10 Entine first talks about morphologic differences. “With their ectomorphic physiques, Kenyans will never compete for the title of ‘world’s fastest human,’ no matter how diligently they may train. The converse holds true for West Africans. It’s genetically improbable to expect to find any elite marathoners coming out of Cameroon, Nigeria, or Senegal” (p. 249) [Damon et al., 1962; Roberts & Bainbridge, 1977]. “It’s estimated that 40 percent of the phenotypic variance of fiber type is due to environmental influences such as exercise, whereas 45 percent is associated with genetic factors (the remaining 15 percent is due to sampling error. Although physical activity can improve fitness, it cannot alter a person’s biological endowment” (p. 253). He then addresses early developmental differences: “Numerous studies have found that by age five or six black children consistently excel in the dash, the long jump, and the high jump, all of which require a short power burst. Racial differences become more pronounced over time” (p. 251) [Malina, 1969, 1986, 1988]. I doubt that such early differences can be satisfactorily explained just with informal practice differences, and without any differential maturational effects. The next quote illustrates direct differences in physical abilities with athletes who have reached peak performance: “Scientists. . .frequently test for vertical leap—the ability to jump into the air without a run-up. A jump of one-third of an athlete’s height is considered impressive. White members of a U.S. Olympic men’s volleyball team, known for their terrific vertical leap, max out at 50 percent. Black basketball players commonly exceed that figure” (p. 252) [Capouya, 1986]. I do not believe that disparities in deliberate practice can explain such large differences among elite athletes. The last three quotes, somewhat longer, present results from empirical studies briefly summarized by Entine:

The best summary I found of Entine’s evidence comes from a Burfoot (1992) quote: “Given the universality of running, it’s reasonable to expect that the best runners should come from a wide-range of countries and racial groups. This isn’t, however, what happens. Nearly all While searching for a gene responsible for muscle weakness caused by [muscular dystrophy], researchers the sprints are won by runners of West African deat a Sydney, Australia, hospital found that 20 percent of scent. Nearly all the distance races are won, remarkably, by runners from just one small corner of one small African country [Kenya’s Nandi district]” (En- 10 Most of the quotes I borrowed from Entine’s Chapter 19 intine, 2000, pp. 30–31). clude reference note numbers to the scientific references from Now that we have basic data on the large gap in which came the presented evidence. These references appear performance between white and black athletes in some within brackets immediately after each quote.

178 people of Caucasian and Asian background have what they affectionately called a “wimp gene,” a defective gene that blocks the body from producing a-actinin-3, which provides the explosive power in fast-twitch muscles. However, samples drawn from African Bantus, specifically Zulu tribal members, showed that only 3 percent had the wimp gene. The discovery could explain why “some people train for ages but remain eighty-pound weaklings, while others develop muscles very quickly,” said the team leader, Dr. Kathryn North. (pp. 254–255) [North et al., 1999] In a treadmill study, black marathoners consistently bested whites. . ..There was a dramatic difference in the ability of the blacks to run at a higher maximum oxygen capacity. In the case of the marathoners, blacks performed at 89 percent of the maximum oxygen capacity, while whites lagged by nearly 10 percent. The muscles of the black athletes also showed far fewer signs of fatigue as measured by lactic acid. (p. 258) [Coetzer et al., 1993] In one recent genetic study, Bouchard and his team found that individual differences in physical trainability can be directly correlated to specific gene sequences. A similar study by scientists at the University College of London have [sic] isolated what they have dubbed “high performance genes,” a stretch of DNA that helps regulate metabolic efficiency. Those who had this gene variant more efficiently transferred nutrients and oxygen to the muscles—they were able to work harder with less fuel, showed greater endurance, and responded to physical-fitness training far better than those who did not. The British scientists believe that 90 percent of the performance of athletes could be determined by their genetic makeup, although no research had yet been done on which population groups might be lucky enough to have high performance genes (p. 267) [Glausiusz, 1999; Rivera et al., 1997].

Between the British scientists’ very high heritability estimate and Antinats’ 0% estimate I hope that readers will have found in the above evidence enough support for a middle-of-the-road 50% proposal. Again, as the Romans were fond to say, “In medio stat virtus” [Virtue is in moderation].

The Predictive Power of Physical Abilities My limited expertise in sport psychology precludes any attempt at summarizing the vast scientific literature on the concurrent and predictive validity of natural abilities with regard to achievements in sport. But I do not believe that a satisfactory demonstration requires a comprehensive literature review; so long as I can show some clear evidence that physical natural abilities do predict sports achievements with at least moderate power, I will consider my point made. I will subdivide

F. Gagne´

the evidence into indirect and direct forms. But first I would like to briefly discuss a particular characteristic of the field of sports that has considerable impact on the subject of predictive power. Preliminary question. Whether they are fast or slow learners, more or less intrinsically or extrinsically motivated, all children must attend school, at least until mid-adolescence. Compared with other fields of human activity, that unique characteristic of the schooling process has a direct impact on research: validation studies of the predictive power of intelligence will benefit from an almost unselected population of children from a given age group. Non-selection means large variations on both predictor and criterion measures; and more variation means more predictive potential. The picture changes drastically when we leave general education. A new major variable appears: liberty of choice. Unless subject to strong parental pressures, children with limited physical abilities or motivation can avoid sports almost completely. And even if they participate recreationally, they stand little risk of being chosen for—or applying to—competitive training groups. For those who wish to go further, the very first selective step to access competitive training becomes another powerful discriminator that further significantly decreases individual differences in both physical ability and motivation. But the reduction in ability variance does not stop there. Soon after they start participating in competitive sports, young boys and girls with limited abilities, modest interest and/or little perseverance, will start dropping out in large numbers from that first competitive cohort (Van Rossum, this handbook, Section Dropout). In other words, I believe that young boys and girls who are actively involved in the early steps of competitive training in most sports already constitute a very biased sample in terms of many personal and environmental characteristics, especially the level of their physical abilities. Compared to the general population of age peers, I would estimate that a majority of them belong to the physically gifted (top 10%) population. The impact of this hypothetical scenario on talent development research is clear: an early major decrease in ability and motivation variance reduces their predictive “potential” by comparison to other causal factors. These variables have already exerted their major impact at the very beginning of the talent development process. How plausible is that scenario? Unfortunately, the scientific literature on the predictive power of var-

7

Debating Giftedness

ious variables during the early steps of the talent development process seems very limited. The chapters on talent detection in both editions of the Handbook of Sport Psychology (Durand-Bush & Salmela, 2001; R´egnier et al., 1993) do not discuss it in detail, nor do they present empirical evidence on the short-term predictive power of various predictors during these early phases. Until such evidence becomes available, I remain convinced that by the time young athletes reach regional or state levels of competition, none of them still belong to the average population in terms of their physical abilities. Said differently, non-gifted physical abilities have practically constrained their access to middle levels of competition, let alone higher levels. And, as we will see below, athletes who have reached at least state-level competition constitute the vast majority of samples in predictive studies in sport. Yet, in spite of that intense selectivity, we will discover that natural abilities maintain significant predictive power. Now, let us move on to the first type of evidence. Indirect evidence. The first indirect piece of evidence comes from the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS). About 15 years ago, AIS professionals started a countrywide Talent Search Program based heavily on measures of natural abilities and physiological characteristics. They invited all secondary schools to administer a battery of tests to large numbers of young (14- to 16-year-old) adolescents. About 40% of invited schools across Australia did participate, implying that more than 100,000 high school students were tested (Hoare, 1996). Those with very high scores (about the top 10%) were offered a more detailed regional measurement session. Then, the regional high achievers were invited to the national center for even more advanced tests in their laboratories. Those who obtained high scores in the lab tests were offered a subsidized high-level talent development program, supervised by state and national sports associations. All in all, about 1,000 athletes joined a talent development program in a variety of sports. The program was judged very successful, producing many junior world medalists (Hoare, 1998). This approach, still in use along with other procedures (Jason Gulbin, personal communication, February 9, 2007), confirms the significant role that the AIS reserves for physical abilities in the initial detection of promising athletes. It also shows how restricted the range of physical abilities rapidly becomes among those involved in the successive steps of that AIS identification process: more than 95% of

179

the population variation disappears, since chosen athletes all perform well in the top 5% of the population norms. Not a single one of them would be considered below the DMGT’s mild or moderate giftedness levels. The second piece of indirect evidence has its source in a widely cited interview study (Bloom, 1985a). Benjamin Bloom and his collaborators interviewed about 20 internationally renowned individuals in each of six fields: music and sculpture in arts, mathematics and neurology in science, tennis and swimming in sports. Right at the outset of the book, Bloom (1985b) expressed his strong environmental leanings: “It is likely that some combinations of the home, the teachers, the schools, and the society may in large part determine what portions of this potential pool of talent become developed” (p. 5). In the final chapter, he reiterated that credo, but added two important causal ingredients. First, he mentioned three critical intrapersonal catalysts, namely a strong commitment to the chosen talent field, a very high achievement motivation, and a willingness to put in great amounts of time and effort. Second, he acknowledged the role of giftedness: “Another general quality that was noted in each of the talent fields was the ability to learn rapidly and well” (p. 545). In fact, in an earlier preliminary publication on these interviews, Bloom had already acknowledged individual differences in natural ability among subjects in his sample: In homes where other children were also interested in the talent area, the parents sometimes mentioned that one of the other children had even greater “gifts” than the individual in the sample, but that the other child was not willing to put in the time and effort that the parents or the teacher expected and required (Bloom, 1982, pp. 512– 513).

The third and last example comes from one of my own studies (Gagn´e, Blanchard, & B´egin, 1998). We queried 467 athletes and coaches about their relative ranking of causal determinants of excellence in sports. They received a list of nine different characteristics (level of interest, perseverance and tenacity, level of aptitudes, personal qualities, parental supervision and encouragement, sport-centered family environment, amount of practice, quality of coaching, chance factors), and were asked to choose two (ranked 1 and 2) that best distinguished very successful athletes (national or international eminence) from unsuccessful ones (regional excellence), as well as two others (ranked 8 and 9) that least distinguished them. Perse-

180

verance came well ahead of all others with an average ranking of 2.79, followed by three almost equally important factors: aptitudes (3.83), practice (3.89), and personality (4.04). The three environmental catalysts, as well as chance factors, were judged least important. Schader (2001) replicated that methodology with a large group of U.S. female Olympians, obtaining very similar results. We also got very similar results from large samples of musicians and music teachers (Gagn´e & Blanchard, 2003), as well as teachers and students in general education (Gagn´e, Blanchard, & B´egin, 1999). Altogether, these results show that a vast majority of teachers and learners in various fields believe that physical abilities (aptitudes) play as important a role in talent emergence as motivation and practice. If giftedness is a myth, as Tesch-R¨omer (1998) flippantly stated, then that myth has powerful roots! Direct evidence. The scientific literature in sport contains dozens of studies on the predictive effectiveness of physical abilities and/or their anatomical and physiological endophenotypes. R´egnier et al. (1993) surveyed much of the pre-1990s research. They classified empirical studies into three groups: (a) univariate studies, (b) unidisciplinary multivariate studies, and (c) multidisciplinary multivariate studies. R´egnier et al. pointed out that, because of their broader coverage of potentially relevant causal determinants, studies of the third type offer much better predictive potential, an observation that fits perfectly well with the multi-variable framework of the DMGT. Here are two illustrative examples from that third category: Deshaies, Pargman, and Thiffault (1979) measured 116 hockey players on 6 biophysical variables, 4 specific hockey skills, and 4 psychological variables. Expert evaluations of players were used as the performance criterion. Regression analysis yielded a predictive model that included 4 variables: anaerobic power, forward skating speed, visual perception speed, and motivation. Each of the three groups of variables was represented. The model explained 55% of the performance criterion variance, with biophysical variables alone explaining 17%, psychological variables 20%, and hockey skills 33% of the performance variance, respectively (R´egnier et al., 1993, p. 293).

F. Gagne´

analogically, that we assess the mathematical problemsolving skills of students, and then use these scores to “predict” math achievement on a standardized test. Since the students would be using these same skills to do the test, we would expect, of course, a high correlation! The situation is exactly the same in the case of Deshaies et al.’s (1979) hockey skill measures; they do not constitute a real “predictor”; their use in that study creates a confusion of goals. When we look at the study’s methodology, it belongs to what Embretson (1983) called the “nomothetic span” perspective. In other words, it tries to examine the network of relations between predictors and performance criteria. But by including among the predictors a series of variables (hockey skills) that are not “real” predictors but just another way of measuring the criterion (talent), they switch to the “construct representation” perspective, which aims to “identify specific information-processing components and knowledge stores needed to perform the tasks set by the test items” (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997, p. 135). As mentioned in the preceding section, these two perspectives should not be mixed in the same study. In brief, the biophysical variables would have fared much better if they had not competed “unfairly” with parallel measures of the criterion! Still, they contributed significantly to that prediction, especially if we consider that the sample included players from the Quebec Junior Major Hockey League, the last step before the top: the professional National Hockey League. Now, here is the second example: Nagle, Morgan, Hellickson, Serfass, and Alexander (1975) measured 42 wrestlers trying out for the U.S. team of the 1972 Olympic Games on 12 psychological and 9 biophysical variables. A discriminant analysis between both groups of wrestlers (selected and nonselected) yielded a multiple correlation coefficient of .67 for the physiological variables, .73 for the psychological variables, and .92 when both series were combined (R´egnier et al., 1993, p. 293).

A decade after the Nagle et al. (1975) study, Silva, Shultz, Haslam, Martin, and Murray (1985) replicated its design with very similar results. Note the high level of competition in that study (as in so many others in Within the DMGT framework, hockey skills represent sports); all 42 wrestlers were trying out for the U.S. measures of talent, in the same way that goals scored Olympic team, no less. Yet, within that rarefied world do. Both belong to the same level of analysis (talent), of ultra-elite athletes, physiological variables—whose with hockey skills corresponding to process measures hereditary roots have been clearly shown in the precedof talent, whereas goals scored or expert evaluations ing section—still played as important a role as the psycorrespond to outcome or product measures. Imagine, chological variables. The strangest result in that study

7

Debating Giftedness

is that such high multiple correlation coefficients could be obtained within such a homogeneous sample. My last example comes from the best—but least employed—methodological approach to assess the predictive validity of causal determinants of excellence in sports: longitudinal studies. Very few researchers have conducted “real” longitudinal studies that look prospectively at the predictive validity of various causal determinants of talent in sports. Most of them adopted the more practical retrospective approach, like Bloom’s (1985a) or Hemery’s (1986) interview studies. In his review of the literature on motor skill acquisition, Seefeldt (1988) found none. Since then, at least one has been published, a German study on talent development in tennis (Schneider, B¨os, & Rieder, 1993; B¨os & Schneider, 1997). The sample included all the adolescent tennis players (73 boys, 34 girls) selected for the national junior teams for a period of five successive years (1978–1982). The researchers gathered a large set of measures from various domains, including motor abilities, specific tennis skills, physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics. The collected data were used to predict international tennis ranking, based on tournament results between 1985 and 1992. In a concise overview of the study, Schneider (2000) summarized its results as follows: “parents’ support, the amount and intensity of practice, as well as the level of achievement motivation significantly predicted children’s tennis rankings several years later” (p. 172). He added, however, that the importance of natural motor abilities should not be overlooked: One interesting aspect of the causal model estimated and tested by Schneider et al. (1993) was that although tennisspecific skills and the amount and intensity of practice accounted for most of the variance in children’s tennis rankings several years later, the effects of basic motor abilities on tennis performance could not be ignored. That is, when the basic ability construct was omitted from the model, the model no longer fitted the data. Although individual differences in basic motor abilities were not large in this highly selected sample, they made a difference when it came to predicting individual tennis performance (Schneider, 2000, p. 172).

Note the strange discrepancy between the predictors named in the two quotes; only one appears in both. A language barrier prevented a closer examination of the two original research papers. This study suggests two other comments. First, the causal role of tennisspecific skills as predictors of international ranking

181

leaves me unimpressed; their use in this study brings back the same critique I made earlier about the Deshaies et al. (1979) study, namely a confusing concatenation of the two distinct validation outlooks identified by Embretson (1983). Second, note again the choice of a very selective sample: all the subjects were already members of the German national junior teams, thus excluding at least 99% of all young Germans who played any level of competitive tennis during that period. So, when Schneider mentions that “individual differences in basic motor abilities were not large,” I would consider that “the understatement of the year”! Many successive selection steps had no doubt occurred before these young players, some of them only 10 years old when first assessed, reached national-level competition and were included in that research’s sample (among them Steffi Graf and Boris Becker; Van Rossum & Gagn´e, 2005). In spite of that, basic abilities “made a difference when it came to predicting individual tennis performances.” Schneider recently confirmed this interpretation: “In my view, the fact that this variable was still important in predicting the outcome variable is non-trivial” (Wolfgang Schneider, personal communication, March 31, 2007).

Summary As in the preceding section, I first circumscribed the target concept of (natural) physical ability, with its outstanding manifestation in physical giftedness. The morphological, physiological, and metabolic characteristics defined by Bouchard & Shepard (1994) were qualitatively distinguished from abilities. But since these endophenotypes directly impact individual differences in measured abilities and are commonly assessed along with abilities, I judged appropriate to include them as relevant predictors of talent in sports. Two different sources of evidence (Entine, 2000; MacArthur & North, 2005) were tapped to cover research on the genetic roots of physical abilities. In each case, there was more than enough conclusive evidence that individual differences in physical abilities (and their morphological and physiological understructures) have genetic roots. That significant genetic endowment creates major constraints in reaching high-performance levels. The theme of constraints appeared again and again in the quoted sources. As a response to Ericsson et al.’s (2007) conclusion that

182

except for “fixed genetic factors determining body size and height, we were unable to find evidence for innate constraints to the attainment of elite achievement for healthy individuals” (p. 3), I will end this summary with a recall of some contrary statements. “Most of us could never achieve elite athlete status, however hard we trained” (MacArthur & North, 2005, p. 331). “Don’t expect to see a white man set a world record in a road race—any race, at any distance from 100-meters to the marathon” (Entine, 2000, p. 19). “It’s genetically improbable to expect to find any elite marathoners coming out of Cameroon, Nigeria, or Senegal” (Entine, 2000, p. 249). “The discovery could explain why ‘some people train for ages but remain eighty-pound weaklings, while others develop muscles very quickly,’ said the team leader, Dr. Kathryn North [the same North as in MacArthur & North]” (Entine, 2000, pp. 254–255).

The Case for Antinat Deliberate (Mal)practice Scientific knowledge grows not only from the accumulation of new information but also from the confrontation of divergent theories. In these intellectual face-offs, evidence and counterevidence accumulate, one position progressively gains preeminence, then becomes a scientific fact. Its tenets are no longer questioned, albeit sometimes by fringe groups, as is still the case in the United States with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (Harris & Calvert, 2003; Shermer, 2006). As part of that slow process of knowledge acquisition, scientists analyze past research to tease out new hypotheses, conduct original studies, and try to interpret their—and others’—findings as objectively as possible. Complete objectivity belongs of course to the realm of utopia; but most researchers make an effort to report their own results with appropriate caution, as well as describe other researchers’ studies as faithfully as possible. Cases of fraudulent behavior sometimes happen, as witnessed by Sokal’s famous “hoax” and his subsequent denunciation of inappropriate use of physics and math constructs by some postmodernist thinkers (Koertge, 1998; Sokal & Bricmont, 1998; Sokal & Lingua Franca editors, 2000). Thankfully, major improprieties like these are rare.

F. Gagne´

In the course of debates that can go on for months and years, opponents present large quantities of facts as evidence or counterevidence. Ideally, members of both camps should read all the texts cited—and quoted— by their adversaries. That is not always feasible practically. Moreover, no one expects non-specialist readers to have read the cited sources; so they are the ones most at risk from any scholarly misconduct. Protagonists and general readers usually accept “as is” the citations and quotes presented by either side, confident that proper scholarship will ensure the objectivity of that information. Of course, researchers on both sides are aware that divergent positions will make for divergent interpretations; but they expect that the facts themselves will be at least reliably reported and that authors’ positions will not be distorted. Without such scholarly behavior, the confidence between scientific peers, as well as between authors and their readers, would rapidly crumble. Where does this introduction lead me? Readers may have wondered through the first part of this chapter about the reasons for such a huge chasm between the two positions discussed; we are not looking here at arguments over shades of gray, but at diametrically opposed views. Why has there been no progression over the past decade toward some consensual agreement on basic aspects of the question? In my view, the lack of progress in this “dialogue of the deaf” ensues in large part from repetitive Antinat behavior that does not respect the basic scholarly rules described above. This is a very severe judgment about the professional behavior of peers, and it demands adequate supportive evidence. This is why I reserved the whole second part of this chapter for that demonstration. I will analyze a variety of statements from the two target articles (Ericsson et al., 2007; Howe et al., 1998) discussed in the first part. I am well aware that the title adopted for the second part uses very strong terms. But, beyond its ironical— and deliberate—distortion of a pet Antinat construct, it conveys exactly my conclusion, namely that both groups of Antinat spokespersons are guilty of scholarly misconducts—Webster (1983) defines malpractice as “misconduct or improper practice in any professional or official position” (p. 1091); and these misconducts were in no way impulsive, thoughtless or unreflecting, but intentional and purposeful decisions by their authors. The title should become self-evident as my analysis unfolds. My accusations directly target the re-

7

Debating Giftedness

searchers who have signed the two Antinat articles discussed in this chapter. But they do indirectly include all other Antinat researchers who explicitly endorsed the views of these frontline spokespersons (e.g., Charness, 1998; Lehmann, 1998; Starkes & Helsen, 1998; Tesch-R¨omer, 1998); their almost uncritical support makes them accomplices in the dissemination of the false ideas resulting from this unacceptable behavior. Consequently, I feel comfortable with my occasional use of general expressions like “Antinat scholarship” when introducing or commenting some examples. This “dissection” of Antinat scholarship will be subdivided into two main sections: (a) the opponents’ selective choice of “acceptable” debating arenas and rejection of “unacceptable” ones; (b) their selective coverage of the relevant literature, and selective analysis and reporting of factual data that contradict their position.

Selective Choice of Debating Arenas The selective process adopted by Antinat spokespersons works in two distinct ways; either they exclude phenomena judged relevant by defenders of the mainstream Pronat position or they give priority status to themes that Pronats deem either non-controversial or irrelevant.

Selection by Omission This section adopts a macroscopic perspective, namely the deliberate omission of whole research areas. I will examine later more detailed instances, like the omission of specific adverse studies, specific counterevidence within studies, or specific critiques of their positions. I have already criticized (see DC-4) Howe et al.’s (1998) controversial decision to include field specificity among the required properties of “innate talent.” That decision allowed them to exclude the most heavily researched natural ability: general intelligence. I showed how poorly they had defended their decision, laying the blame on an unsubstantiated reference to “most” people’s definition of “innate talent.” Other commentators signaled additional omissions by Howe et al., among them their lack of—or very partial—coverage of the literature (a) on

183

the genetics of intelligence (Detterman et al., 1998; Gagn´e, 1998a; Plomin, 1998; Winner, 1998), (b) on early precocity (Winner, 1998), (c) on the genetics of learning pace (Rowe, 1998), and (d) on the limited and transitory impact of early cognitive stimulation with at-risk populations (Gagn´e, 1998a). Two additional omissions deserve special attention; they concern deliberate decisions made by both Howe et al. (1998) and Ericsson et al. (2007). The rejection of “exceptional” individuals. Howe et al. (1998) did not completely bypass the subject of exceptionally talented behaviors manifested by these autistic individuals called “savants.” They briefly describe two examples in visual arts and music. Yet they rapidly conclude as follows: “Exactly why these children could do things that others could not remains largely a matter for speculation. . .There is no direct evidence that the causes are innate, and if they do have an innate component, its main direct effect may be to augment the individuals’ obsession rather than their specific skills as such” (p. 403). Two commentators (Rutter, 1998; Winner, 1998) disagreed strongly with their association of the genetic component with obsession rather than with the skills themselves. Rutter pointed out, “The reason for association between such skills and the very high genetic component in the underlying liability to autism (Bailey et al., 1996) remains unknown, but it is certainly implausible that the skills have been fostered by teaching” (p. 422). For their part, Ericsson et al. (2007) solved the problem of having to deal with the troublesome question of savant skills by specifying their goal as follows: “Given that we are interested in generalizations for normal, healthy individuals, we will not include evidence from populations with individuals who have any identified and medically recognized deficits” (p. 6). Although their decision conveniently pushes aside a very strong piece of counterevidence, it makes more sense than Howe et al.’s attitude. The rejection of testimonial information. Howe et al. (1998) describe two types of exceptionally precocious behaviors: the early mastery of advanced language skills and the prodigious achievements of many classical music composers. They reject without hesitation the validity of that information. In the first case, they state, “In none of these cases was the very early explosion of language skills observed directly by the investigator, and all the early studies were retrospective and anecdotal” (p. 401). The second

F. Gagne´

184

type of information receives a similar brushing aside: units the learning pace of those thousands of young violin learners who “screech” their way through years of “The accuracy of such autobiographical reports is Suzuki classes? My own answer is predictably “Yes” to questionable considering that childhood memories of all these questions (Gagn´e, 2007, p. 68). the first three years are not at all reliable” (p. 401). Along with two other commentators (Feldman & Concerning their argument that such testimonies are Katzir, 1998; Winner, 1998), I strongly criticized their “not based on reproducible observable evidence,” how decision: can they be? Cloning? Here again, Pronats face another irrelevant requirement, just like Howe et al.’s (1998) According to them, information from parents, teachers, field specificity. The proof of precocious behavior refriends, colleagues, biographers, and even the subjects’ own recollections should not be believed. They refuse quires no replication at all, only reliable information, to discuss such information, even from direct observers. which is the case most of the time. As a way out, both What would they say of the following example? Dorothy Howe et al. and Ericsson et al. (2007) question the reDeLay, a renowned professor at New York’s Julliard liability of parents’ descriptions of their children’s preSchool of Music, recalled as follows her first encounter with the young prodigy Sarah Chang, who subsequently cocious achievements. But who cares about possible became her pupil. “I think she was six, or perhaps five, errors of a few weeks or months when the behaviors and she played the Mendelssohn concerto with real are advanced by 2 or 3 years! The basic fact remains emotional involvement, and I said to myself, ‘I have that these testimonies are undeniable proof of precocnever seen or heard anything quite like it in my entire life’ ” (Lang 1994, p. 123). Is professor DeLay an ity, sometimes exceptional precocity (Feldman, 1986); unreliable witness? How can one explain such extreme and that precocity must be explained. Is it just deprecocity without invoking some form of natural talent? liberate practice, as Antinats will argue, or are natuExamples like these abound; they show ease of learning ral abilities at work, as Pronats will maintain? Based at its most extreme (Gagn´e, 1998a, p. 416). on evidence presented in the last two sections of the In their rejoinder, Howe et al. (1998) completely ig- first part, it seems clear that children with precocious nored that critique. But it came back in the second tar- mental or physical development are perfect examples get article. Citing my Sarah Chang example above, Er- of giftedness’ trademarks: ease and speed in learning. icsson et al. (2007) argued that “such evidence is not In brief, Antinat spokespersons invoke indefensible arbased on reproducible observable performance but on guments to reject testimonial case studies of prodianecdotes that typically cannot be verified and in par- gies or other less extreme cases of exceptionally rapid ticular replicated under controlled test conditions. Such progress; their allegedly “parsimonious” theory based evidence is of little value to scientists and will not con- on deliberate practice cannot adequately account for tribute to sound empirical foundations” (p. 30). Again, that powerful collection of counterevidence. I reacted to this renewed refusal to acknowledge testimonial information: What a strange requirement to ask for controlled replication of publicly known achievements! Here is a short excerpt from Ms. Chang’s official biography (www. pittsburghsymphony.org/pghsymph.nsf/bios/Sarah+Chang): “Born in Philadelphia to Korean parents, Sarah Chang began her violin studies at age 4 and promptly enrolled in the Juilliard School of Music, where she studied with the late Dorothy DeLay. Within a year she had already performed with several orchestras in the Philadelphia area. Her early auditions, at age 8, for Zubin Mehta and Riccardo Muti led to immediate engagements with the New York Philharmonic and the Philadelphia Orchestra.” Here are my questions to Ericsson. 1. Are these accomplishments “verifiable” facts about her extremely rapid progress? 2. Do her performances at age 8 qualify as “expert” performance? 3. Do her 8-year old achievements compare favorably with those of most “expert” adult violinists studied by Ericsson? 4. Is this a clear exception to the 10-year rule? 5. And, especially, does Ms. Chang’s early progress exceed by “galactic”

Selection by Inclusion Antinat researchers also evade contrary evidence by reorienting the debate toward preferred areas, whether or not they are relevant. Here are three different applications of this strategy. Irrelevant mean effects. Howe et al. (1998) chose Ericsson’s “deliberate practice” construct as their preferred causal explanation of the emergence of talented performance. To demonstrate that construct’s explanatory significance, Antinats typically show that each new rung on the talent development ladder requires on average more deliberate practice than the preceding one. They use various samples to illustrate these mean differences, for instance by comparing novice musicians to progressively more advanced ones (Ericsson

7

Debating Giftedness

et al., 1993). They also buttress the role of deliberate practice with “the 10-year rule,” which refers to the minimum time they claim a novice needs to reach elite level in any occupational field. They even show graphs with progress curves from novice status to expert status (e.g., Figure 4 in Ericsson et al., 2007). Antinats argue that the difference between novice and expert status depends more on amount and quality of practice than on any other factor. One of the commentators (Sternberg, 1998) focused his critique on that particular type of evidence: Howe et al. make two main points. The first is uncontroversial, the second, unsupported by their evidence or arguments. The first point is that deliberate practice is necessary, or at least extremely desirable, for the development of expertise. Although Howe et al. spend a great deal of space making this point, no one I know would deny it, so there is not much point to discussing it. . ..The second point is that there is little or no documented evidence in favor of innate talents. Virtually all the evidence they review is irrelevant to their point, adding bulk but no substance to their article. The problem is their misunderstanding of what would constitute evidence in favor of a genetic basis for talents. The only available evidence relevant to claims about genetic bases of talent are documented heritability statistics (Sternberg, 1998, pp. 425– 426).

Sternberg goes on to explain how mean differences say literally nothing about individual differences, whereas the concept of natural abilities is all about individual differences. For instance, it is a well-accepted fact that the growth of obesity over the past decade has its origins in environmental sources. Yet genetic influences almost totally explain individual differences in weight. In other words, as Sternberg rightly points out, mean differences cannot solve the nature–nurture question for any human characteristic; only documented heritability statistics (based on individual difference comparisons) can answer that question relevantly. Interestingly, Ericsson et al. (2007) introduce the obesity analogy in reverse to defend the idea that “heritability does not imply immutability or unchangeability” (p. 36), adding that “there are other [than height] characteristics such as weight and body mass, which have high heritabilities (Speakman, 2004) yet can be externally controlled by diet and vigorous exercise” (p. 36). That is exactly Sternberg’s point: the environmental intervention of exercise and diet for some individuals or groups does not change the basic fact that, by and large, individual differences in weight have genetic origins. In summary, when Antinats accumulate mean differ-

185

ences on top of mean differences as if these were proofs against natural abilities, they are again sidestepping the core of the problem. Antinats often mix selective inclusion and omission in their discourse. For instance, Howe et al. (1998) completely ignored Sternberg’s (1998) central critique in their response to the commentators. They mentioned it as follows: “Sternberg goes further, suggesting that much of the evidence for and against talents is merely suggestive. He disputes neither our conclusion that there is little evidence for the talent account nor our view that no one source of evidence would be definitive” (p. 434). That summary of Sternberg’s comment completely misrepresents his strong message concerning the lack of relevance of their “proofs.” For one thing, by stating that “the only available evidence relevant to claims about genetic bases of talent are documented heritability statistics” Sternberg is directly disputing their “view that no one source of evidence would be definitive.” Moreover, after rejecting most of their evidence, he does not need to dispute their conclusion explicitly: the implicit denial is evident. But the story does not end there. Ericsson et al. (2007) announce at the beginning of their own target article that “throughout our paper we address a number of criticisms raised against the expert-performance approach by some theorists of giftedness (Gagn´e, 2005a; Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005; Simonton, 2005; Sternberg, 1996; von K´arolyi & Winner, 2005) as well as several commentators to the Howe et al.’s (1998) article” (p. 6). Yet they completely ignore that crucial criticism; just like Howe et al., they continue to pile irrelevant mean effects on top of irrelevant mean effects. What is missing from both texts is effect size measures: how much of the total variance do the between-group differences account for when compared with the within-group differences. These measures would precisely quantify the explanatory power of deliberate practice. As every scholar readily acknowledges, the values would no doubt be significant: practice does play an important role in talent development. But I am also convinced that a large part of the total variance would remain unexplained, that individual differences in amount and quality of practice within each level of performance (e.g., novice, intermediate, expert) would remain quite large. Neither Howe et al. (1998) nor Ericsson et al. (2007) offer that basic statistical information. In other words, if there is a “10-year rule,” a concept I will readily endorse

186

as an average, exceptions abound as witnessed by Lehman’s (1953) seminal work on the precocious rise to eminence of individuals from eighty (80) different occupational fields. Evidence for the negative impact of non-gifted natural abilities abounds even more from those who never reach elite performance well past the “20-year rule!” Convenient “straw men.” One commentator (Freeman, 1998) complained that Howe et al. (1998) introduced “straw men,” namely untenable beliefs or positions that they falsely attribute to Pronat defenders, then easily demolish. Freeman described two of them: They write that “some people believe that talent is based on an inborn ability that makes it certain that its possessor will excel” (sect. 1.1, para. 2). However, in all my many years of research in this field I have never heard or seen this supposed belief that excellence follows potential without the means to develop it. . ..It is widely assumed, they say, that talent “can be detected in early childhood” (sect. 1, para. 2). However, one might equally well say that there is a widespread assumption that it is never too late to develop unrecognised talent (p. 415).

I mentioned earlier (see DC-3) another example of straw men, namely Ericsson et al.’s (2007) repetitious allegations that specialists in gifted education present high natural abilities (gifts) as appearing suddenly or abruptly. A fourth straw man targets an alleged Pronat belief in the unmodifiability of “innate talents.” Here is a quote from Ericsson et al. (2007) containing both straw men: “We hope that the proponents of innate talent are challenged to identify any existing evidence on suddenly appearing reproducible abilities and other abilities that are necessary for attaining expert and elite levels of performance, particularly those that cannot be improved and acquired through training” (p. 45). I emphatically denied any substance to the first straw man, while Plomin (1998) rejected the second one. Howe et al. (1998) completely ignored Plomin’s clarification in their response; and it did not prevent Ericsson et al. to bring it back a decade later. Cluttering. This special Antinat muddling strategy consists in accumulating short descriptions of studies presented as evidence for their position. Few details are given save a statement that tries to link the stated “fact” to the paragraph’s line of argumentation. In a proper scientific context, each mention would require a careful description of the study’s relevance, of all appropriate data, of methodological and interpretative limits, and so forth. They include none of that. Pronat scholars know that each statement tells just a small part of the

F. Gagne´

“whole” truth, often not the most representative part. Each statement needs to be qualified, nuanced, and replaced in its proper context. That would require many more explanations than the original statement, almost a “Mission Impossible” within the limited space allocated to journal authors. Here is a typical example picked almost at random from Ericsson et al. (2007): Several theorists of genius and high ability have noted some curious findings. The children with the highest abilities do not grow up to become eminent (for a review see Freeman, 2000). Gardner (1993) argued that eminent individuals often have an unusual developmental history and individuals with highest ability in the domain were unlikely to produce innovations. Lykken (1998) and Simonton (1999b) argued that exceptional performance is not predictable from similarity with other family members and thus cannot be accounted for by simple independent genes. Instead they have proposed that the interaction of a unique combination of genes in a supportive environment lead [sic] to emergence of eminence. More recent research has shown, however, expert performance is no direct consequence of the same genetic endowment and environment. When identical twins engage in extended practice in the same domain the twins’ performance will not always be the same—in some cases it will differ significantly. For example, Klissouras et al. (2001) report an instance when one identical twin reached world class level whereas the other twin only reached a reliably lower level (p. 40).

In just half a paragraph, Ericsson et al. (2007) discuss three different subjects that allegedly challenge the existence of natural abilities: (a) highly intellectually gifted individuals do not become eminent nor produce innovations; (b) single genes do not predict exceptional performance, since eminence seems to emerge from unique combinations of genes; (c) however, even identical twins’ performances will differ between them. I believe that these three statements faithfully summarize the quote. Now let us comment each of them. Having not read Freeman’s review, I will assume that Ericsson et al. cited her correctly. The first statement attacks the predictive validity of IQ measures. The authors describe a situation in which both the predictor (high intellectual giftedness) and the criterion (eminence) constitute very rare phenomena. Within the DMGT, high intellectual giftedness (IQ ≥ 145) corresponds to a ratio of 1:1000 within the general population. As for eminence, still a fuzzily circumscribed concept (eminence in what?), the only person who dared operationalize it was Sir Francis Galton (1892/1962). He established its prevalence at 1:4000 among adult British males of his era. Expecting any level of predictive power within

7

Debating Giftedness

such a limited and stratospheric range of values makes no psychometric sense. For one thing, no IQ test can reliably measure individual differences within that rarefied level of exceptionality. Moreover, the DMGT shows that talent emerges from the interaction of many predictors; consequently, we cannot expect more than a moderate relationship between any one of them and a given criterion of talent. So, practically speaking, what are the chances of highly gifted individuals to produce innovations? Let us fix at 1:1000 the prevalence of highly intellectually gifted individuals within the general population (see DMGT description) and at 1:10,000 the prevalence of “innovators”—considering that eminence is not associated just with innovation—within that same population. Then, even with a perfect correlation between the two variables, only 10% of the highly gifted stand any chance of producing innovations. That is just basic statistics. In summary, the lack of a strong association between high giftedness and innovation proves absolutely nothing about the predictive power of general intelligence. With regard to the second theme, the mention of “simple independent genes” is another of these straw men I mentioned above, cleverly introduced here to muddle up the discussion. Of course, no single gene will ever be found that accounts for complex human behaviors, especially a complex behavior as fuzzy as eminence. Then, they mention (without naming it) Lykken, McGue, Tellegen, & Bouchard’s (1992) fascinating hypothesis of emergenesis, that extremely rare configuration—rather than a simple sum—of genes that could explain the equally very rare occurrence of diverse psychological phenomena that do not run in families (e.g., genius, inspirational leadership, exceptional parenting, or rare psychopathological syndromes). They just bring up that construct to confront it (they say “however”) with their third theme, the lack of perfect parallelism in life outcomes within pairs of twins. Concerning that third theme, I will first bring back my earlier argument about the moderate correlation between any predictor of talent and any corresponding criterion of performance. Within the DMGT’s framework (see Fig. 7.1), identical heredity is just one of many predictors of any talent. So, of course, identical twins’ performances will not “always” be the same. Moderate correlations leave ample room for outliers, individuals whose behavior places them far from the

187

regression line, and who thus contribute to lower that correlation. In other words, cases like the one reported by Klissouras are not at all surprising. As the proverb goes, “One swallow doesn’t make a summer.” Let me add two comments about the Klissouras example. First, what do they mean by “a reliably lower level”? If the other twin did not reach world class level, but achieved at a state or national level, would not that still be an exceptional achievement? Second, notice that Ericsson et al. (2007) supported their position with that same testimonial evidence they reject when Pronat scholars use it! Looking back at these last paragraphs of comments, readers should understand better what I meant by the challenge Pronat scholars face when they encounter Antinat cluttering. These comments also demonstrate how extensively the quoted excerpt—as do many others!—distorts and caricatures the facts to make them appear supportive of the Antinat thesis. My comments show that in fact they are not.

Biased Analysis and Interpretation of Data This second section focuses on systematic biases found in Antinat analyses and interpretations of empirical studies. I separated minor scholarly lapses from more serious ones. I will first present two forms of relatively minor bias in the examination of scientific information. I chose these two “minor” forms according to a criterion of commonality; it means that they appear occasionally in scientific publications. It does not mean that they cannot be avoided; it only recognizes that the human mind—and ego—is not always objective in controversial situations. Still, their accumulation in Antinat publications leaves me skeptical about the capacity of these researchers to maintain proper scientific distance from their strong ideological beliefs.

Different Admissibility Criteria One recurring criticism of Howe et al.’s (1998) target article was their tendency to judge more leniently and generously studies supporting their position than those offering contradictory evidence. Here are a few examples of such comments. “Howe et al. demand different criteria in evaluating studies that yield empirical evi-

188

dence pro and contra the talent concept. Findings favoring the talent construct are rejected on methodological grounds. Findings contrary to the talent construct are, on the other hand, readily accepted despite comparable shortcomings” (Heller & Ziegler, 1998, p. 417). “It is difficult to see why retrospective reports about unusual musical ability (as in the case of Mozart) or unusual language skills (as in the case study described by Fowler, 1981) should be less reliable than reports about the lack of early signs of excellence” (Schneider, 1998, pp. 423–424). “Howe et al. criticize others for relying on retrospective evidence, yet they rely on biographies to claim that the emergence of unusual skills in composers followed rather than preceded a period of high expectations and opportunity” (Winner, 1998, p. 431). Ericsson et al. (2007) manifest a similar biased leaning. Early in their target article, they devote a long section to criticisms of all forms of “evidence” based on subjective judgments (e.g., ratings, interviews, biographical information). Yet when that kind of information supports their views, they do not hesitate to introduce it. Here are a few examples. “Even biographies of very eminent individuals reveal that these individuals engaged in immense amounts of practice and their technique developed over time” (p. 32). “Biographies of the few successful prodigies reveal that these individuals took measures to ensure that they gained the knowledge and experience necessary to perpetuate their superiority” (p. 33). “Even studies using the subjective method of peer ratings (as we critically reviewed in the first section) found no significant Wechsler IQ differences between a more productive, creative group of female mathematicians as compared to a control group of other female mathematicians” (p. 38). The last quote is particularly interesting since the authors mention their own criticism of that type of information, yet use it to bolster their position!

One-Sided Interpretations Results from empirical studies frequently lend themselves to diverging interpretations. In such cases, researchers will propose two or three plausible explanations, weighing each of them carefully in order to choose the one that best fits the observed data and known theories. I found that interpretative caution to be often absent in these two Antinat publications. Here are two examples.

F. Gagne´

Practice-related physiological changes. Ericsson et al. (2007) devote many pages of their target article to the description of anatomical and physiological changes in the brain and body produced by months and years of intense training and practice. They describe some of these anatomical and physiological changes as follows: “For example, endurance runners are able to increase the pumping capacity of blood as a result of an increased size of the heart. This change emerges only after years of extended intense practice” (p. 23). These examples bring them to conclude as follows: “In summary, individual differences in anatomical and physiological characteristics that mediate expert performance (with the exception of height and body size,. . .) appear on the basis of the current evidence to be the results of a long series of adaptations induced by biochemical responses to the strain induced by specific practice activities” (p. 23). In that whole section, the authors never open the door to alternative interpretations, nor to contradictory factual data (selection by omission). They single mindedly focus on adding another brick—relevant or not—to the ideological edifice of deliberate practice. But does that body of knowledge lead unequivocally to their conclusion? I do not believe so, and here is why. First, no one with minimal biological knowledge would question the existence of these changes; indeed, they would consider them necessary outcomes of intensive skills training. As specified in an earlier section, anatomical and physiological structures constitute biological underpinnings of observed behavioral abilities, natural and systematically developed. Second, genetic influences target these same biological understructures to create large individual differences before any systematic training has taken place. I demonstrated in the preceding section the significant heritability of both biological endophenotypes and behavioral ability measures (see Bouchard et al., 1997; Entine, 2000, Chapter 19; MacArthur & North, 2005). Third, with regard to the core question, these studies on physiological changes suffer from the same lack of relevance with which Sternberg (1998) characterized a large part of the evidence in Howe et al.’s (1998) target article. They are irrelevant because the data consist of mean changes over time, whereas natural abilities express themselves through individual differences around means. Moreover, Ericsson et al. (2007) completely ignore the large body of research mentioned above on the presence of important individual differences in these anatomical

7

Debating Giftedness

and physiological structures prior to intensive training. They also ignore studies showing important individual differences in the pace of progress during intensive training, including the fact that these trainability differences have demonstrated genetic roots (Bouchard et al., 1997). The relative age effect (RAE) in sports. The second example concerns a phenomenon commonly called the relative age effect (RAE); it refers to multiple observations that elite young (and older) athletes in some sports are born more often in the first half of the year than in the second. Ericsson et al. (2007) briefly discuss the RAE within a long section called A critical review of the proposed evidence for unmodifiable mediating mechanisms of expert performance (note the straw man “unmodifiable”); that placement confirms its intended role as one more piece of Antinat evidence. Here is an excerpt from their description:

189

The Boucher & Mutimer (1994) study cited in the quote looked at two distinct populations of ice-hockey players: (a) all the elite players (N = 951) in Nova Scotia (Canada) from Novice to Midget level active during the 1988–1989 season; (b) all the Canadian-born players (N = 884) active in the National Hockey League (NHL) during the 1988–1989 season. Does that study present ratios of early vs. late birth dates between 3:1 and 6:1 as claimed by Ericsson et al. (2007)? Depending on the way we examine the data, we can indeed obtain such ratios. For instance, within the population of Nova Scotian players, 14.1% and 2.4% were born in January and December, respectively. The problem is that such microscopic monthly comparisons caricature the RAE phenomenon by exaggerating its “real” size over the whole year. Indeed, not a single one of all the scholarly studies I read on this subject cite single month comparisons. They use either ratios based on frequency comparisons between the first six and the last six months of the calendar year (since most coResearch on the efforts to identify talents in young athhort groupings are based on the calendar year), or quarletes show [sic] that can be changed to “athletes shows that”. the selection is systematically biased by factors unterly frequencies (e.g., Baxter-Jones, 1995; Boucher & related to innate talents. For example, professional athMutimer, 1994; Starkes, 2000). In their comprehenletes in soccer and ice hockey are born much more fresive review of RAE studies, Musch & Grondin (2001) quently (three–six times) in some months of the year than adopted semester ratios. In other words, comparing inin others (Boucher & Mutimer, 1994). The factors causing this ‘birth-date’ or ‘relative age’ effect are due to the dividual months is an unscholarly attempt to distort the grouping of young children together in age cohorts, such real size of the RAE effect in the direction of one’s— as children born between 1 January and 31 December. At Antinat—beliefs, especially when the real ratios given the age children start participating in sports, this means in the studies are omitted. If we use semester data to that some 6-year olds will be competing with 5-year olds. Coaches who do not know the children’s birth dates tend describe the Boucher and Mutimer data, we obtain a to perceive the oldest and most physically mature chilmuch more modest 2:1 ratio (65/35 in %) for both the dren within an age cohort as the most talented. The older Nova Scotian and NHL populations. children appearing more talented are given access to betHaving introduced the appropriate statistics, ter training resources that, in turn, accelerate their development. (. . .) Although it is not yet clear what spewe now can ask, How do these two 65/35 ratios cific cues coaches use during this identification process, compare with ratios from other studies? Musch & the early search for talent has powerful discriminatory efGrondin (2001) give the answer in a literature review fects when it selectively identifies more mature children that covers 25 studies spanning about 15 years. Their as being more “innately talented” (Ericsson et al., 2007, pp. 30–31). summary table presents 59 different ratios (including statements about lack of significant RAE) from 55 difIn this excerpt, Ericsson et al. (2007) appear confident ferent populations in 11 sports, but with 37 values from that they hold an Antinat “trump card.” They describe just two sports: soccer and ice hockey. My tabulation the RAE as a “systematic bias” whereby coaches “per- of these 59 ratios gave the following distribution: 19% ceive the most mature children within an age cohort as are below 55/45, thus judged non-significant; another the most talented.” That bias is powerful; athletes are 29% can be considered small effects (55%–59%). So, “born much more frequently (three–six times) in some null and small ratios account for almost half (48%) months of the year.” Consequently, they argue, a selec- of the total. The next 35% can be called moderate tion process that Pronat advocates present as based on effects (60%–69%), leaving 17% of the ratios (70%+) “innate talent” is in fact based on physical maturity. Let as strong effects. In 6 of the 11 sports represented us look more closely at the data behind that statement. (baseball, basketball, cricket, gymnastics, handball,

190

volleyball), I roughly computed average ratios of around 55/45; they definitely constrain the generalization of the RAE. By and large, the global average for the 59 values included in the table was 60/40, a ratio at the transition point between small and moderate effects. Even in the two sports with the largest number of indices, average ratios remain below 65%. In other words, this literature review shows the presence of a real, but modest RAE effect in some sports, and its absence in others. Ericsson et al. (2007) completely ignore that well-known and well-received literature review. In summary, starting with Ericsson et al.’s (2007) “sensationalist” ratios of 3:1 to 6:1, I first brought them down to 2:1 (65/35) just by using semester ratios from the Boucher & Mutimer (1994) study they cited. I then showed through the Musch & Grondin (2001) literature review that it could be lowered to a 60/40 average ratio over 55 different estimates from 25 different studies. This last estimate confirms the substantial significance of the RAE, yet its modest impact on the selection process; there is ample room left for physical gifts and other catalyst variables identified in the DMGT (e.g., parental finances, motivation, geographical access to training facilities) to exert their influence on that process. This more moderate view of the RAE differs sensibly from Ericsson et al.’s (2007) dramatic presentation. But it represents much more faithfully the accumulated results from that body of knowledge.

Major Lapses The last trio of deliberate malpractices goes well beyond biases and distortions. In the first two examples, Antinat spokespersons very briefly cite—not even quote—articles, extracting from them, totally out of context, marginal comments that they falsely present as a core statement from these authors, whereas the core message says the opposite. The third example is even more serious; it involves the selective presentation of favorable results from a study, with the deliberate omission of other results contradicting their Antinat thesis. The APA Publication Manual contains in its section on the ethics of scientific research a very clear admonition: “Errors of omission also are prohibited. Psychologists do not omit troublesome observations from their reports so as to present a more convincing story” (American Psychological Association, 2001, p. 348).

F. Gagne´

That admonition concerns not only the authors’ personal studies but their reporting of other researchers’ studies. The MacArthur and North literature review. In the section on the genetics of physical abilities I used two literature reviews, MacArthur & North (2005) and Entine (2000). The MacArthur and North review was particularly useful because it not only surveyed past familial studies, including dozens of results from the incomparable HERITAGE database, but also described more recent efforts to identify gene variants directly related to individual differences in human physical abilities. Did I find that literature review through normal computer searches in bibliographical databases? Not at all. When I analyzed Ericsson et al.’s (2007) manuscript, I noticed the following statement: “A recent review (McArthur & North, 2005) found that individual differences in attained elite performance in sports cannot, at least currently, be explained by differential genetic endowment” (p. 37). The cited article came from the journal Human Genetics. I was surprised that this type of journal would publish an article directly contradicting a large amount of evidence supporting the heritability of physical abilities. When I obtained the original article, I discovered that its content totally contradicted Ericsson et al’s citation. In fact, the contradiction was so complete, and the review so interesting for my own purpose, that it became a major source of information for my section on physical abilities. Let me recall a few statements made by MacArthur & North (2005) in the very first page of their review: Physical fitness is a complex phenotype influenced by a myriad of environmental and genetic factors, and variation in human physical performance and athletic ability has long been recognized as having a strong heritable component. . ..Recently, the development of technology for rapid DNA sequencing and genotyping has allowed the identification of some of the individual genetic variations that contribute to athletic performance. . ..Elite athletes, viz. athletes who have competed at a national or international level in their chosen sport, represent a rare convergence of genetic potential and environmental factors. . ..Most of us could never achieve elite athlete status, however hard we trained. . ..Elite athletic performance is a complex fitness phenotype substantially determined by genetic potential (p. 331).

These quotes clearly express the strong hereditary beliefs of MacArthur & North (2005). Moreover, the abstract clearly states their goal of reviewing three decades of accumulated positive evidence on the genetic roots of physical abilities. How can professional

7

Debating Giftedness

researchers turn upside down the gist of the message in their summary of an article’s content? In no way can it be an oversight, since they had to read the article very carefully in order to find toward the end the little cautionary sentence on which they based their citation. Readers will find that sentence included in the last two lines of my own summary of the MacArthur and North literature review. It cautions that “there is still no evidence that any of these variants have any substantial predictive value for prospectively identifying potential elite athletes” (p. 336). Read properly, that short sentence means that no researchers have yet published prospective longitudinal studies on the predictive power of identified gene variants for elite athletic performance. Considering the small number of published studies using that complex methodology, their absence in such a young field of inquiry should surprise no one. To repeat myself, the fact that this short sentence was almost hidden within a whole review of evidence in favor of “a strong genetic influence on human physical performance” (p. 331) clearly demonstrates that Ericsson et al. (2007) were well aware of that review’s content. Yet they deliberately decided to misrepresent its content, not only by presenting that cautionary note as a main message in MacArthur & North’s (2005) article but, more seriously, by totally ignoring that review’s incontrovertible evidence on the hereditary bases of physical endophenotypes and physical abilities. The Thompson and Plomin chapters. This second example illustrates a misrepresentation by Howe et al. (1998) of two well-known chapters (Plomin & Thompson, 1993; Thompson & Plomin, 1993) under the direction of Robert Plomin, a foremost scholar in behavioral genetics. The two texts overlap one another substantially. As their titles show, they focus on recent research (at the time!) aimed at demonstrating that heritability estimates obtained from populations in the normal range of IQ scores can be extrapolated to the intellectually gifted sub-population. In their target article, Howe et al. (1998) stated, Relatively little is known about the genetic origins of high-level ability (p. 403), and cited the Plomin & Thompson (1993) chapter as their source. Thompson & Plomin (1993) did indeed introduce a major section, called Quantitative Genetics and High Cognitive Ability, by stating that “much less is known about the origins of high ability [than about those in the normal range]” (pp. 107–108). But the rest of that second half of their chapter was

191

devoted to the presentation of evidence supporting the extrapolation of normal range heritability data to the gifted population. And these results brought them to conclude “that genetics plays a major role in the story [of general cognitive abilities], and our DF analysis [DeFries & Fulker’s 1985 technique to assess group heritability] indicates that high ability is strongly heritable” (p. 111). That conclusion directly contradicts the Howe et al.’s statement attributed to their chapter’s content. Not only do Howe et al. reproduce totally out of context a statement that conveys a message totally opposite to the core of the text, but, just like Ericsson et al., they deliberately omit to talk about the evidence that Plomin and Thompson introduce as proof “that high ability is strongly heritable.” What I consider even less acceptable is that this error was pointed out to them (Gagn´e, 1998a); yet they chose to ignore it in their rejoinder to the commentators. The Kliegl and Baltes studies. In his critique of the Howe et al. (1998) target article, Baltes (1998) called attention—very gentlemanly—to the fact that the authors had completely ignored a major result from one of his studies (Kliegl, Smith, & Baltes, 1990) designed to test the limits of systematic learning. The following quote briefly describes the study and then identifies Howe et al.’s major omission: Our focus was on exceptional memory performance, a domain that is often used as a candidate for exceptional talent (Baltes & Kliegl, 1992; Kliegl et al., 1990). When people participated in 36 sessions of intensive and organized training in a memory technique (the method of loci) that can be used to reach exceptionally high levels of memory performance, all of them benefitted from this intervention. If continued beyond 36 sessions (Kliegl et al., 1987) people reached levels approaching those of memory experts. This finding is consistent with those reported in Howe et al. This testing-the-limits work, however, produced an equally convincing second finding that highlighted the fundamental significance of individual differences. As subjects were pushed toward the limits (asymptotes) of their maximum performance potential, individual differences were magnified (Baltes & Kliegl, 1992). The conclusion is clear: the talent for being a memory expert reflects both experiential and individual-differences factors. In this case, because of the age association and extreme robustness of the individual difference finding, the likelihood is high that biology based factors are involved (see Lindenberger & Baltes, 1995, for further expositions). Howe et al. make some use of our work, but their interpretation is one sided (sect. 4.1). They select only one of the two main findings, that is, the finding of major training gains for all. The equally compelling evidence of

F. Gagne´

192

strangely. Completely ignoring the contradictory results presented, they focused on the last two sentences of the Rowe quote above saying, “as Rowe acknowledges, in some instances performance levels after practice bear little relation to performance prior to practice. This is further evidence against the importance of inRowe (1998) also mentioned a study similar to that of nate differences” (p. 435). Not only did they, again, toBaltes & Kliegl (1992) done with twins on the train- tally ignore the core of the critique, but, ignoring also ing of motor skills (Fox et al., 1996). Here is a brief Rowe’s sensible interpretation of the lack of correlation summary Rowe made of that study’s main results: between pre- and post-measures (from T. J. Bouchard’s personal communication), they blindly interpreted that Before training, twins varied widely in their performance on the “pursuit rotor” task (i.e., following a target on a rophenomenon as Antinat evidence. This reaction shows tating disk with a pen). The heritability of motor accuracy how entrenched their ideology is. was about 55%. . .After practice, the worst scoring perNow, what about Ericsson et al.’s (2007) reaction? son scored higher than the best scoring person had before It is a well-known fact that Anders Ericsson introduces practice As individuals differed in their level of improvement, variability of the accuracy scores also increased in most of his publications his early work on memwith training. Before practice, variance (s 2 ) equaled about ory training (Ericsson, Chase, & Faloon, 1980). He 100; after practice, it equaled about 400. The fourfold indid so again in the Ericsson et al. target article, tocrease in variance with practice means that practice actally ignoring both studies with a similar testing-thetually increased the range of individual differences. Heritability also increased after practice (from h 2 = .55 limit methodology. Even more seriously, he (and his to .65). Nonetheless, championship rotor pursuit perforco-authors) completely ignored the Baltes (1998) and mance was not very well predicted from initial perforRowe (1998) comments clearly mentioning these studmance (Bouchard, personal communication, 1997). One ies. explanation is that speed is particularly important among sizeable individual differences in acquisition curves and maximum performance potential is ignored. Moreover, they ignore that, contrary to their view (sect. 2.3), the correlation between the skill trained in this testing-the-limits experiment and a multivariate measure of intelligence was larger at the end of training (Baltes, 1998, p. 408).

highly skilled individuals, and the demand for speed was not apparent before training (p. 422).

The two studies mentioned by Baltes (1998) and Rowe (1998) constitute powerful contradictory evidence to Antinat positions. Both of them clearly show that intensive skills training—of the testing-the-limits type—does not bring everyone to an identical “expert” level. The large individual differences observed at the outset of both studies not only reappear at the end of the training, when subjects approach their maximum reachable performance, but show a significant increase. In the case of the Fox et al. (1996) study, the range approximately doubles (considering that the variance has quadrupled). Neither Howe et al. (1998) nor Ericsson et al. (2007) discussed these two crucial sets of results strongly favoring the Pronat perspective. How did they react? Let us look first at Howe et al.’s reaction toward the Baltes comment. Since they had quoted from the Baltes and Klieg’s work the main result that supported their position, it is hard to believe they had not noticed the other significant results contradicting their Antinat thesis. Even worse, the three authors completely ignored that criticism—as well as the contradictory data—in their rejoinder. Concerning Rowe’s (1998) mention of the Fox et al. study, they reacted even more

Summary I surveyed in the second part a diversified sample of professional misconducts by Antinat spokespersons. They include, among other things, (a) using indefensible motives to reject major bodies of contradictory evidence, like case studies of prodigies, (b) creating caricatured beliefs (straw men) that they falsely attribute to Pronat defenders, (c) showing unfair leniency and benevolence toward studies that favor their Antinat position, (d) extracting from published studies marginal comments which, presented out of context, appear to show a position opposite to the authors’ main position, and (e) selectively choosing from a published study the rare result that supports their thesis, while omitting to mention other results that strongly contradict that Antinat thesis. The last two examples constitute serious cases of scholarly malpractice. As noted earlier, the American Psychological Association formally prohibits the last one in its Publication Manual. Some might argue—as one reviser did—that they are not “really” deliberate or purposeful. They just ensue from the “overzealousness of busy people, big egos undervaluing alternate viewpoints, deluding

7

Debating Giftedness

themselves, and seeing themselves as righteous” (Confidential personal communication, April 7, 2007). I must disagree with that interpretation, not because the description is wrong, but because these alleged motives do not, in my view, mitigate the deliberateness of their behavior. We are speaking here of internationally renowned researchers with decades of scientific publications in major journals. They have to know the basic rules of their profession. Moreover, the deliberateness of their misconducts has less to do with the above examples than with the way these Antinat spokespersons reacted to explicit critiques of their work. I first refer to Howe et al.’s (1998) total disregard for the serious critiques made by many commentators, especially Baltes (1998), Detterman et al. (1998), Plomin (1998), Rowe (1998), and Sternberg (1998). They made a fully deliberate decision when they chose to ignore them in their response to the commentators, especially those that pointed out unethical behavior. These omissions are clearly cases of deliberate scholarly malpractice. As for Ericsson et al. (2007), the above arguments apply equally well to them. First, they made their own series of scholarly misconducts. Second, they were well aware of all the critiques expressed by Howe et al.’s (1998) commentators toward Antinat positions, and had even announced at the beginning of their target article that they would answer these critiques. They did not. For that too, they must share Howe et al.’s responsibility.

Conclusion This chapter pursued two main goals: (a) demonstrate that natural abilities—and their outstanding expression as gifts—really exist (the mainstream Pronat position) and that recent attacks by researchers who deny their existence (the Antinat position) can be easily countered with appropriate empirical evidence; (b) expose the scholarly misconduct of some Antinat researchers. As an introduction to these two tasks, I briefly described my Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), presenting it as my analysis framework, as well as a lexicon of clearly defined basic terms. About the first goal. Let me first remind readers that the first part of my chapter did not present “the” Pronat position. It is one among many. But I believe that most

193

of its content would rally a majority of scholars who identify themselves with the basic Pronat thesis: the existence of human abilities that (a) have significant genetic roots and (b) act as building blocks for systematically developed competencies in various fields of human activity. I began addressing the first goal by defining the concept of natural ability—and its outstanding manifestation as giftedness—around two essential characteristics (genetic roots, building blocks of systematically developed competencies) and four ensuing corollaries (informal development, field independence, predictive power, and constraints on competency development). The next two sections surveyed available evidence on the genetics and predictive power of the two natural abilities with the largest amount of relevant empirical research, namely general intelligence and physical abilities. I believe that I demonstrated how both of them easily meet my six defining criteria for natural abilities. In other words, they both represent indisputable examples of what Antinat researchers stubbornly keep calling “innate talent.” As I was writing the first part, I asked myself regularly how Antinat defenders would respond to specific position statements and pieces of evidence included in the various sections. How, for instance, would they view my six defining criteria of a natural ability? Do they represent an acceptable definition? Would they agree with my operationalization of the giftedness and talent concepts in the respective measures proposed? What would they have to say about the definition of general intelligence borrowed from the Mainstream Science on Intelligence (MSOI) declaration? Would they agree that IQ test scores represent that concept adequately? Would they acknowledge the moderate (.4– .6 in explanatory power) genetic roots of general intelligence? Would they agree with my description of general intelligence as a moderate predictor of academic achievement, job performance, and other significant life outcomes? Would they acknowledge that, because of the causal relationship between general intelligence and the three types of outcomes mentioned above, individual differences in general intelligence create important constraints to real-life achievements? I could add similar questions from my discussion of the physical ability domain, especially the genetic roots of these abilities and their predictive power for various athletic performances. The responses of Antinat defenders to the above questions would contribute

F. Gagne´

194

to clarify specific areas of disagreement. Readers could also ask themselves these same questions as a way to assess their level of agreement with my version of a Pronat position. About the second goal. Two observations influenced my decision to expose the scholarly misconducts of Antinat spokespersons. First, I observed that Pronat scholars adopted a general attitude of indifference toward these clear cases of deliberate malpractice; no one appeared motivated to say anything beyond an occasional critique of some of their evidence. Second, I observed that the Antinat message was rapidly spreading internationally through keynotes and highexposure publications; I frequently heard from colleagues and friends that many of their listeners and readers were influenced by the apparent strength of their arguments. The new frontal attack by Ericsson et al. (2007) became the straw that broke the camel’s back! To paraphrase a well-known Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale, I judged that the time had come to say loudly, “these researchers have no clothes.” Some will argue that by moving the center of hostilities from evidence confrontation to the more personal domain of scholarly behavior I have killed any remaining hope for an eventual meeting of minds between the two camps. Let us be realistic: the fact that they had to resort to such questionable scholarship to justify their Antinat thesis proves their lack of desire for an objective examination of scientific evidence. Their avowed goal remains to defend their entrenched ideology at all costs. That attitude emerges quite clearly in Ericsson et al.’s (2007) concluding remarks: The progress of science is closely linked to the accumulation of base of reproducible evidence. We hope that the proponents of innate talent are challenged to identify any existing evidence on suddenly appearing reproducible abilities and other abilities that are necessary for attaining expert and elite levels of performance, particularly those that cannot be improved and acquired through training. . .. The sooner that we can share a common body of valid reproducible evidence the faster our theorizing will develop to provide a comprehensive account of the fascinating domain of exceptional performance (p. 45).

These three short sentences enshrine the irreducible gap between the two opposing camps. First, they keep using the expression “innate talent” although they were told (Plomin, 1998) that this label misrepresents genetically rooted natural abilities. Then, their second sentence brings back two of their imaginary Pronat straw men: sudden appearance and immutability. They are

still bringing up these straw men even though they have been told repeatedly—as I did again in this chapter— that Pronat scholars have never maintained that natural abilities, even with their significant genetic roots, appear suddenly or that they are immutable. And to cap it all they even challenge Pronat defenders to identify “any existing evidence” of these imaginary straw men! Finally, concerning the third sentence, how can we ever “share a common body of valid reproducible evidence” when Antinat defenders keep either rejecting or ignoring the evidence Pronat defenders present? Acknowledgments I would like to thank very sincerely the editor, Dr. Larisa Shavinina, for her constant support, encouraging feedback, and generous delays during the writing of this chapter. My gratitude also goes to Dr. Larry Coleman, Dr. Jacques Forget, and Daniel Viens who offered constructive comments and suggestions on various parts of the manuscript. But I take full responsibility for any errors in the facts, interpretations, statements, and judgments expressed throughout the chapter.

References Accel-team. (2007). Employee motivation: Theory and practice. [On-line]. [Available at: www.accelteam.com/motivation/index.html 07-03-16]. American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Anastasi, A. (1980). Abilities and the measurement of achievement. In W. B. Schrader (Ed.), Measuring achievement: Progress over a decade (pp. 1–10). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Angoff, W. H. (1988). The nature-nurture debate, aptitudes, and group differences. American Psychologist, 41, 713–720. Atkinson, J. W. (1978). Motivational determinants of intellective performance and cumulative achievement. In J. W. Atkinson & J. O. Raynor (Eds.), Personality, motivation, and achievement (pp. 221–242). New York : Wiley. Baltes, P. B. (1998). Testing the limits on the ontogenetic sources of talent and excellence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 407–408. Baltes, P. B., & Kliegl, R. (1992). Further testing of limits of cognitive plasticity: Negative age differences in a mnemonic skill are robust. Developmental Psychology, 26, 121–125. Bartlett, F. (1958). Thinking. New York: Basic Books. Baxter-Jones, A. D. G. (1995). Growth and development of young athletes: Should competition levels be age-related? Sports Medicine, 20, 59–64. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: cognitive domain. New York: McKay. Bloom, B. S. (1982). The role of gifts and markers in the development of talent. Exceptional children, 48, 510–522.

7

Debating Giftedness

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1985a). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books. Bloom, B. S. (1985b). The nature of the study and why it was done. In B. S. Bloom (Ed.), Developing talent in young people (pp. 3–18). New York: Ballantine Books. Borland, J. (1999). The limits of consilience. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 137–147. B¨os, K., & Schneider, W. (1997). Vom Tennistalent zum Spitzenspieler; Eine Reanalyse von L¨angsschnittdaten zur Leistungsprognose im Tennis [From talented tennis player to toplevel player; A re-analysis of longitudinal data regarding the prognosis of tennis performance]. Hamburg: Czwalina Verlag. Bouchard, C., Leon, A. S., Rao, D. C., Skinner, J. S., Wilmore, J. H., & Gagnon, J. (1995). Heritage Family Study: Aims, design, and measurement protocol. Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise, 27, 721–729. Bouchard, C., Malina, R. M., & P´erusse, L. (1997). Genetics of fitness and physical performance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Bouchard, C, & Shepard, R. J. (1994). Physical activity, fitness, and health: The model and key concepts. In C. Bouchard, R. J. Shepard, and T. Stephens (Eds.), Physical activity, fitness, and health (pp. 77–88). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Boucher, J. L., & Mutimer, B. T. P. (1994). The relative age phenomenon in sport: A replication and extension with icehockey players. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 377–381. Brown, S. D. (1976). Self-control skills training: A manual for personal development and self-help. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Burfoot, A. (1992, August). White men can’t run. Runner’s World, 27, (8) 89–95. Burton, A. W., & Miller, D. E. (1998). Movement skill assessment. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Capouya, J. (1986, June). The art and science of jumping. Sport, 61. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, J. B. (1997). Psychometrics, intelligence, and public perception. Intelligence, 24, 25–52. Capron, C., & Duyme, M. (1989). Assessment of the effect of socio-economic status on IQ in a full cross-fostering study. Nature, 340, 552–554. Charness, N. (1998). Explaining exceptional performance: Constituent abilities and touchstone phenomena. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 410–411. Coetzer, P., Noakes, T. D., Sanders, B., Lambert, M. I., Bosch, A. N., Wiggins, T., et al. (1993). Superior fatigue resistance of elite Black South African distance runners. Journal of Applied Physiology, 75, 1822–1827. Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Robinson, R. E. (1986). Culture, time, and the development of talent. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 264–284). New York: Cambridge University Press. Damiani, J. (1999, February). “Bridge is a sport.” World Bridge News, 1. www.worldbridge.org/publications/wbnews/WBF news 99.pdf/

195 Damon, A. et al. (1962). Predicting somatotype from body measurements. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 20, 461–471. Deshaies, P., Pargman, D., & Thiffault, C. (1979). A psychobiological profile of individual performance in junior hockey players. In G. G. Roberts & K. M. Newell (Eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport—1978 (pp. 36–50). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Detterman, D. K., Gabriel, L. T., & Ruthsatz, J. M. (1998). Absurd environmentalism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 411–412. Durand-Bush, N., & Salmela, J. H. (2001). The development of talent in sport. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 269–289). New York: Wiley. Embretson, S. E. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 179–197. Entine, J. (2000). Taboo: Why Black athletes dominate sports and why we are afraid to talk about it. New York: Public Affairs. Ericsson, K. A. (1998). Basic capacities can be modified or circumvented by deliberate practice: A rejection of talent accounts of expert performance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 413–414. Ericsson, K. A. (2003). The search for general abilities and basic capacities. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The psychology of abilities, competencies, and expertise (pp. 93– 125). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A., Chase, W. G., & Faloon, S. (1980). Acquisition of a memory skill. Science, 208, 1181–1182. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-R¨omer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. Ericsson, K. A., Roring, R. W., & Nandagopal, K. (2007). Giftedness and evidence for reproducibly superior performance: An account based on the expert-performance framework. High Ability Studies, 18, 3–56. Feldman, D. H. (1986). Nature’s gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York: Basic Books. Feldman, D. H., & Katzir, T. (1998). Natural talents: An argument for the extremes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 414. Fox, P. W., Hershberger, S. L., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1996). Genetic and environmental contributions to the acquisition of a motor skill. Nature, 384, 356–358. Freeman, J. (1998). Inborn talent exists. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 415. Gagn´e, F. (1998a). A biased survey and interpretation of the nature-nurture literature. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 415–416. Gagn´e, F. (1998b). A proposal for subcategories within the gifted or talented populations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 87–95. Gagn´e, F. (1999a). Is There Any Light at the End of the Tunnel? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 191–234. Gagn´e, F. (1999b). My convictions about the nature of human abilities, gifts and talents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 109–136. Gagn´e, F. (2000). Understanding the complex choreography of talent development through DMGT-based analysis. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, et R. Subotnik (Eds.), In-

196 ternational Handbook for Research on Giftedness and Talent (2nd ed., pp. 67–79). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Gagn´e, F. (2003). Transforming Gifts into Talents: The DMGT as a Developmental Theory. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 60–74). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gagn´e, F. (2004). Transforming Gifts into Talents: The DMGT as a Developmental Theory. High Ability Studies, 15, 119– 147. Gagn´e, F. (2005a). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98–119). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gagn´e, F. (2005b). From noncompetence to exceptional talent: Exploring the range of academic achievement within and between grade levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 139–153. Gagn´e, F. (2007). Predictably, an unconvincing second attempt. High Ability Studies, 18, 67–69. Gagn´e, F. (2009). The differentiated model of giftedness and talent (DMGT). In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. McMillen, R. D. Eckert, & C. A. Little (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Gagn´e, F., B´elanger, J., & Motard, D. (1993). Popular estimates of the prevalence of giftedness and talent. Roeper Review, 16, 96–98. Gagn´e, F., & Blanchard, D. (2003). Beliefs of music educators and students concerning the major determinants of musical talent. In K. E. Behne, G. Kleinen, & H. de la MotteHaber (Eds.), Musikpsychologie. Jahrbuch der Deutschen Gesellschaft f¨ur Musikpsychologie, vol 17: Musikalische Begabung und Expertise (pp. 32–49). G¨ottingen, Germany: Hogrefe-Verlag. Gagn´e, F., Blanchard, D., & B´egin, J. (1998). Beliefs of trainers, athletes, professors and students in physical education, concerning the major determinants of talent in sports. Unpublished research report. Montreal : Universit´e du Qu´ebec a` Montr´eal, D´epartement de Psychologie. Gagn´e, F., Blanchard, D., et B´egin, J. (1999). Beliefs of American and Quebec educators and students concerning the major determinants of academic talent. In F. A. Dixon & C. M. Adams, (Eds.), 1999 Research Briefs (pp. 1–16). Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children. Gagn´e, F., & St P`ere, F. (2002). When IQ is controlled, does motivation still predict achievement? Intelligence, 30, 71–100. Galton, F. (1892/1962). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. New York: Meridian Books. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Glausiusz, J. (1999, January). The genes of 1998. Discover, 20, 33. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Gottfredson, L. S. (1997a). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24, 13–23. Gottfredson, L. S. (1997b). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24, 79–132. Gottesman, I. I., & Todd, D. G. (2003). The endophenotype concept in psychiatry: Etymology and strategic intentions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 636–645.

F. Gagne´ Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption. New York: Free Press. Harris, W. S., & Calvert, J. H. (2003, Autumn). Intelligent design: The scientific alternative to evolution. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 3(3), 531–561. Harrow, A. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain: A guide for developing behavioral objectives. New York: Mackay. Haskins, R. (1989). Beyond metaphor: The efficacy of early childhood education. American Psychologist, 44, 274–282. Heller, K. A., & Ziegler, A. (1998). Experience is no improvement over talent. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 417– 418. Heller, K. A., M¨onks, F. J., & Passow A. H. (Eds.). (1993). International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Heller, K. A., M¨onks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. (Eds.). (2000). International Handbook for Research of Giftedness and Talent (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Hemery, D. (1986). The pursuit of sporting excellence: A study of sport’s highest achievers. London: Willow Books. Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press. Hoare, D. (1996, Month). The Australian National Talent Search program. Coaching Focus, 31, 3–4. Hoare, D. (1998, Spring). Talent Search: A review and update. Sports Coach, 32–33. Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W., & Sloboda, J. A. (1998). Innate talents: Reality or myth? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 399–442. Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98. Jensen, A. R. (1998). The ‘g’ factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Preager. Kipfer, B. A. (1997). The order of things. New York: Random House. Kliegl, R., Smith, J., & Baltes, P. B. (1990). On the locus and process of magnification of age differences during mnemonic training. Developmental Psychology, 26, 894–904. Koertge, N. (Ed.). (1998). A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths about science. New York: Oxford University Press. Lazar, I., Darlington, R., Murray, H., Royce, J., & Snipper, A. (1982). Lasting effects of early education: A report from the Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 47(2–3, Serial No. 195). Lehman, H. C. (1953). Age and achievement (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 33). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lehmann, A. C. (1998). Historical increases in expert performance suggest large possibilities for improvement of performance without implicating innate capacities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 419–420. Lubinski, D., & Dawis, R. V. (1992). Aptitudes, skills, and proficiencies. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), The handbook of industrial/organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 1–59). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

7

Debating Giftedness

Lykken, D. T., McGue, M., Tellegen, A., & Bouchard, T. J. Jr. (1992). Emergenesis : Genetic traits that may not run in families. American Psychologist, 47, 1565–1577. MacArthur, D. G., & North, K. N. (2005). Genes and human elite athletic performance. Human Genetics, 116, 331–339. Malina, R. M. (1969). Growth and physical performance of American Negro and White children. Clinical Pediatrics, 8, 476–483. Malina, R. M. (1986). Genetics of motor development and performance. In R. M. Malina & C. Bouchard (Eds.), Sport and human genetics (pp. 23–58). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Malina, R. M. (1988). Racial/ethnic variation in the motor development and performance of American children. Canadian Journal of Sports Science, 13, 136–143. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. Jr., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebickova, M., Avia, M. D., et al.(2000). Nature over nurture: temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186. Moon, S. (2003). Personal talent. High Ability Studies, 14, 5–21. Morrow, J. R., Jackson, A. W., Disch, J. G., & Mood, D. P. (2005). Measurement and evaluation in human performance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Musch, J., & Grondin, S. (2001). Unequal competition as an impediment to personal development: A review of the relative age effect in sport. Developmental Review, 21, 147–167. Nagle, F. J., Morgan, N. P., Hellickson, R. O., Serfass, R. C., & Alexander, J. F. (1975). Spotting success traits in Olympic contenders. The Physician and Sports Medicine, 12, 31–34. North, K. N., Yang, N., Wattanasirichaigcon, D., Mills, M., Easteal, S., & Beggs, A. H. (1999). A common nonsense mutation results in a-actinin-3 deficiency in the general population. Nature Genetics, 21, 353–354. Nurnberger, J. I. Jr., & Bierut, L. J. (2007 April). Seeking the connections: Alcoholism and our genes. Scientific American, 296(4), 46–53. Piechowski, M. M. (2003). Emotional and spiritual giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 403–416). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Plomin, R. (1998). Genetic influence and cognitive abilities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 420–421. Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., McClearn, G. E., & McGuffin, P. (2001). Behavioral genetics (4th ed.). New York: Worth. Plomin, R., & Price, T. S. (2003). The relationship between genetics and intelligence. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 113–123). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Plomin, R., & Thompson, L. A. (1993). Genetics and high cognitive ability: In G. R. Bock & K. Ackrill (Eds.), The origins and development of high ability, (Ciba Foundation Symposium 178) (pp. 67–79). New York: Wiley. Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35–61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. President’s Challenge. (2007). President’s challenge normative data spreadsheet. [Available 07/03/12 at: http://www.presidentschallenge.org/educators/program details/physical fitness/qualifying standards.aspx]

197 Rankinen, T., Bray, M. S., Hagberg, J. M., P´erusse, L., Roth, S. M., Wolfarth, B., et al. (2006). The human gene map for performance and health-related fitness phenotypes: The 2005 update. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38, 1863– 1888. R´egnier, G., Salmela, J., & Russell, S. J. (1993). Talent detection and development in sport. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 290–313). New York: Macmillan. Rivera, M. A., Dionne, F. T., Simoneau, J. A., P´erusse, L., Chagnon, M., Chagnon, Y., et al. (1997). Muscle-specific creative kinase gene polymorphism and VO2max in the Heritage Family Study. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 29, 1311–1317. Roberts, D. F., & Bainbridge, D. R. (1977). Nilotic physique. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 12, 341–370. Rowe, D. C. (1997) Genetics, temperament, and personality. In: R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 367–386). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Rowe, D. C. (1998). Talent scouts, not practice scouts: Talents are real. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 421–422. Rutter, M. (1998). What can we learn from highly developed special skills? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 422–423. Sattler, J. M. (1988). Assessment of children (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: J. M. Sattler Publisher. Schader, R. M. (2001). Perceptions of elite female athletes regarding success attributions and the role of parental influence on talent development. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, School of Education. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. Schneider, W. (1998). Innate talent or deliberate practice as determinants of exceptional performance: Are we asking the right question? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 423–424. Schneider, W. (2000). Giftedness, expertise, and (exceptional) performance: A developmental perspective. In: K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 165– 177). Oxford: Pergamon. Schneider, W., B¨os, K., & Rieder, H. (1993). Leistungsprognose bei jugentliche Spitzensportler [Prediction of achievement in young elite athletes]. In: J. Beckmann, H. Strang, & E. Hahn (Eds.), Aufmerksamkeit und Energetisierung; Facetten von Konzentration und Leistung (pp. 277–299). G¨ottingen: Hogrefe. Seefeldt, V. (1988). The concept of readiness applied to motor skill acquisition. In F. L. Smoll, R. A. Magill, & M. J. Ash (Eds.), Children in sport (3rd ed., pp. 45–52). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Shermer, M. (2006). Why Darwin matters: The case against Intelligent Design. New York: Times Books. Silva, J. M., Shultz, B. B., Haslam, R. W., Martin, T. P., & Murray, D. F. (1985). Discriminating characteristics of contestants at the United States Olympic wrestling trials. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 16, 79–102. Simoneau, J. A., & Bouchard, C. (1995). Genetic determinism of fiber type proportion in human skeletal muscle. FASEB Journal, 9, 1091–1095.

198 Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude Theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5–32. Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1984). Toward a theory of cognitive aptitudes for learning from instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 347–376. Sokal, A. D., & Bricmont, J. (1998). Fashionable nonsense: Postmodern intellectuals’ abuse of science. New York: Picador. Sokal, A. D., & Lingua Franca editors (Eds.). (2000). The Sokal hoax: The sham that shook the academy. Lincoln, NB: U. of Nebraska Press. Starkes, J. (2000). The road to expertise : Is practice the only determinant ? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 431–451. Starkes, J., & Helsen, W. (1998). Practice, practice, practice—Is that all it takes? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 425. Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Handbook of human intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). If the key’s not there, the light won’t help. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 425–426. Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The theory of successful intelligence. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 39, 189–202. Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.) (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

F. Gagne´ Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (Eds.) (1986). Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tesch-R¨omer, C. (1998). Attributed talent is a powerful myth. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 427. Thompson, L. A., & Plomin, R. (1993). Genetic influence on cognitive ability. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 103–113). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Tranckle, P., & Cushion, C. J. (2006). Rethinking giftedness and talent in sport. Quest, 58, 265–282. Van Rossum, J. H. A., & Gagn´e, F. (2005). Talent development in sports. In F. A. Dixon, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The Handbook of Secondary Gifted Education (pp. 281–316). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Walberg, H. J. (1984, May). Improving the productivity of America’s schools. Educational Leadership, May, 41(8), 19–27. Webster, N. (1983). Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. In: J. L. McKetchnie (Ed.). (Deluxe 2nd edition). New York: Dorset & Baber. Winner, E. (1998). Talent: Don’t confuse necessity with sufficiency, or science with policy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 430–431.

Rejoinder to Ericsson et al.’s Postscript

This rejoinder follows the six main sections of Ericsson et al.’s (this volume) postscript. Concerning their introduction, I will let readers judge whether or not my chapter incites researchers to move away from a science of high ability, as the authors allege. On the other hand, I believe that my chapter clearly circumscribes a non-imaginary group of adversaries—not enemies— whose core position against the existence of genetically influenced “natural” abilities can rightly be labeled Antinat. Now, let us move to the heart of their postscript.

My “Unique” Reactions Ericsson et al. consider my reactions to be “unique” among those of premier researchers in the field. The term “reactions” is not particularly illuminating. According to their next sentence, it seems to mean that I was the only commentator who did not compliment them on their article. Unfortunately, I have not seen the other comments as I write these lines. Assuming this were the case, I would invoke two attenuating circumstances. First, when I wrote my short commentary, I had already accumulated most of the notes that led to the writing of my chapter, especially its second part. Needless to say I did not feel in a complimentary mood! Second, as a French-Canadian raised in Quebec within a French-Canadian community, I had little contact with the English-speaking minority until well after my doctorate studies. Only in my late twenties did I discover a typically British practice in oral and written communications. An English-speaking colleague and friend described it as the “sandwich theory.” He explained to me that it was customary in the English cul-

ture to “sandwich” any negative comments (the meat) between positively worded introductory and closing comments (the slices). I must confess that I have not yet mastered the technique. Gallic genetics, lack of deliberate practice, who knows? Still, I will be curious to look at the ‘meat’ in the 13 other comments to Ericsson et al.’s (2007) target article. More seriously, it seems that they were applauded almost unanimously for having advanced “the empirical foundation of a science of high ability” (p. 146). The reason for my disagreement with the alleged “enthusiasm” of the other commentators rests in our very different views of the nature of a “science of high ability.” This difference in views is also, I believe, at the heart of my alleged misunderstandings and misstatements (see the third section of their postscript). To avoid unnecessary repetitions, I will discuss these differences in the third section.

Avoiding Embarrassing Findings This second section starts bizarrely. The authors acknowledge that, as stated in my chapter, I did not see the other comments to their target article before writing my chapter, as well as this rejoinder. Yet in the very next sentence they complain that I did not read them carefully enough! Then, they contest my judgment that Antinat defenders regularly ignore embarrassing findings, in the present case on physical natural abilities as they manifest themselves differentially in black and white athletes. I confess that I have not read the first author’s papers cited as their rebuttal. But it is easy to imagine what these papers contain: not a single study in support of physical natural abilities, and everything

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 7, 

199

200

he could find as apparent support for the Antinat position. The crux of the problem lies in the extremist position adopted by Antinat researchers. The “nothing or else” Antinat thesis leaves absolutely no room for discussion, except, of course, to endorse it or not. In contrast, Pronat defenders recognize the existence and significant role of both genetic and environmental influences, as evidenced, for instance, in the DMGT. Differences in points of view among Pronat scholars lie essentially in the relative importance given to nature and nurture. They are convinced that the Antinat thesis of no genetic underpinnings for human abilities makes no sense scientifically. To complete this reaction to the authors’ second section, I will comment on one specific statement. The authors state that Entine (2000) “concedes that he knew of no solid evidence for individual genes that could reliably explain the superiority of runners with African ancestry” (p. 146). I briefly pointed out in my chapter (see Cluttering section, p. 186) that the “single gene” argument is one of these straw men repeatedly mentioned in both target articles by Howe et al. (1998) and Ericsson et al. (2007). Allow me to reiterate here a few basic principles from the field of quantitative behavioral genetics. First, human behavior is understood to be “highly polygenic and influenced as well by non-genetic factors” (Plomin et al. 1990, p. 247). The term polygenic means that individual behavioral (phenotypic) differences will eventually be explained by the combined influence of many genes, each accounting for only a small portion of the observed individual differences. In a recent update on the search for “IQ genes,” Plomin (2006) stated that “the substantial heritability of intelligence is likely to be due not to a concatenation of such monogenetic disorders but to many QTLs [quantitative trait loci, or genes], which implies that the average effect of these QTLs will be small” (p. 515). And he confirms that not a single gene has yet been pinpointed with enough replicability to be placed in a list of contributing QTLs. Should Antinat researchers jump on that information and brandish it as proof for their thesis? Not at all. Whether good QTLs are identified next week, in a year, or only in 10 years changes strictly nothing to the strength of the evidence in favor of the heritability of natural abilities. I repeat: strictly nothing! As Plomin et al. 1990 summarized it, “Genetic influence means only that genetic differences among individuals relate to behavioral differences observed among them;

Rejoinder to Ericsson et al.’s Postscript

no specific genetic mechanisms or gene-behavior pathways are implied” (p. 247). Said differently, hundreds of family, twin, and adoption studies have accumulated enough evidence to anchor solidly the partial genetic origin of both general intelligence and physical abilities. That is the evidence I briefly surveyed in the relevant sections of my chapter. No less than a decade ago, a premier scholar in behavioral genetics summarized as follows the Pronat vs. Antinat debate: That the debate now centers on whether IQ is 50% or 70% heritable is a remarkable indication of how the nature–nurture question has shifted over the past two decades. The anti-hereditarian position that there are no genetic influences on IQ has crumbled for want of any empirical data that would support such a radical view (McGue, 1997, p. 417).

In the face of so much positive evidence, it is hard to understand how Antinat researchers can maintain their entrenched position. It is also hard to understand their popularity among researchers and academics in the social sciences. Are there so few readers of the scientific literature?

My Alleged Misunderstandings The core of this third section concerns my alleged misunderstandings and misstatements of their position. Of course I disagree with these judgments, and will show why in the following paragraphs. I will examine here the two major misunderstandings Ericsson et al. identify. Misunderstanding their focus. They state that I overlooked their “extensive discussion earlier in the target article about how the research approach of studying general intelligence and its attempt to predict academic performance differs from the expert performance approach” (p. 146). As my pages of notes would confirm, I certainly did not overlook that discussion. In fact, that difference in perspective was one of the subjects I wanted to bring up in my chapter. Rereading my manuscript with their comment in mind, I realized that I had forgotten to discuss it in detail, only briefly alluding to it (see pp. 171–172). I must thank Ericsson et al. (this volume) for giving me an occasion to discuss that question in more detail. I intend to show how that difference in perspective—at least as I perceive it—demonstrates the limited relevance of the ex-

Rejoinder to Ericsson et al.’s Postscript

pert performance approach—also called elsewhere the “science of high ability”—in the scientific study of talent development. My demonstration will use the two validation perspectives proposed by Embretson (1983) and briefly described in my chapter (see pp. 171 and 180); they are called “construct representation” and “nomothetic span,” respectively. Recall that the first perspective aims to “identify specific information-processing components and knowledge stores needed to perform the tasks set by the test items” (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997, p. 135). Within that perspective, the researcher looks at the structure of the task itself, at the various developed abilities or skills that operationalize the construct under study. For instance, when researchers perform factor analyses of test items to determine whether or not they measure a single construct, they are trying to better represent their construct. Anastasi & Urbina (1997) mention “task decomposition” and “protocol analysis” as two typical procedures belonging to the construct representation approach; they even cite two of Ericsson’s publications (Ericsson, 1987; Ericsson & Simon 1993) as applications of protocol analysis. The second perspective, “nomothetic span,” is the more traditional approach to the validation of psychological constructs. It is concerned “with the relations of test performance within a ‘nomothetic network’ of other variables. Such relations are generally investigated through correlations of test scores with other measures, which may include criterion performance and other real-life data” (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997, p. 135). Concurrent and predictive validity studies of psychological tests constitute the “bread and butter” activities associated with that perspective. How does Embretson’s distinction bear on the present debate? Let us look at Ericsson et al.’s own description of the difference between predictive studies of general intelligence and their expert performance approach. They state that it rests on their focus on “the measurement of the essence of expertise” and on “specifying the mediating mechanisms that can be assessed by process-tracing and experimental studies” (p. 146). Toward the end of that section, they restate it as a focus on changes in “the structure of mediating mechanisms. . .as more complex mechanisms are acquired and transformed through deliberate practice” (p. 148). As I understand their description, their main interest lies in looking at the evolution of the structure and complexity of the skills (the mediating

201

mechanisms) as a learner moves from beginner status to a more advanced level, and eventually to expert status. That focus on skill transformation clearly belongs to the construct representation perspective. In other words, they look at what makes an expert an expert. They analyze in depth how experts solve problems related to their area of expertise, and they compare these more complex processes to the simpler process skills of beginners or less advanced learners. The construct representation approach is an attempt to dissect a construct into its building blocks, or more basic components. Another example would be efforts by researchers to understand the structure of general intelligence by doing factor analyses of various ability tests, just as Carroll (1993) did in his seminal study. By contrast, my own research perspective with the DMGT, as well as that of most scholars interested in talent development, belongs fully to Embretson’s “nomothetic span” perspective. Here, as defined above, the focus shifts toward the analysis of correlational and causal relationships between a group of constructs forming a network, just like they appear in the figural representation of the DMGT components (see Fig. 7.1). When scholars ask to what extent some variables (e.g., natural abilities, motivation, deliberate practice, coaching, parental support) contribute to the emergence of talent, they are working within that perspective. Here, talent becomes the dependent variable in a large network of potential independent— thus explanatory—variables, and the focus is on understanding which variables best explain individual differences on the dependent variable (in this case the level of systematically developed abilities). Simonton’s (1994) book Greatness represents a perfect example of the nomothetic span approach. Its subtitle Who Makes History and Why already announces that perspective, especially the “why.” It includes chapters on genetic influences, the drive to succeed, the role of creativity, the importance of intelligence or personality, and the significance of psychopathology. Each of these constructs is examined as a potential causal force in the emergence of greatness. Both perspectives are valuable, but none of them can answer the questions asked within the other perspective. There is definite value in examining the transformation of skills from novice behavior to expert performance. Understanding in what ways good problem solvers proceed through difficult tasks, or in what ways expert hockey players differ from less advanced ones,

202

might help teachers and coaches refine their teaching methods. On the other hand, the construct representation perspective typical of Ericsson’s expert performance perspective brings little light to the most fundamental question facing talent development scholars, namely “why” do some individuals reach expertise while most others remain in the average crowd? Among all the potential causal variables illustrated in the DMGT figure, which have a significant causal effect on talent emergence? Why is it that among all those students who enter school only a few will achieve exceptionally throughout their schooling? What made the National Hockey League players reach that top level whereas millions of hockey-playing peers never had their dream fulfilled, some of them becoming early “road kill” on the way to eminence, while others almost reached the top? Which early characteristics can we measure that will become effective predictors of outstanding achievements at a later date? These are all questions the expert performance approach cannot answer. But what about the “deliberate practice” construct? No doubt that it is a potential explanatory factor of talent emergence. It appears prominently in my description of the DMGT’s developmental process. The problem with it is that it has been introduced strictly within the construct representation perspective. That limit was pointed out by Sternberg (1998), and I clearly mentioned it in my chapter (see p. 185). Until we have good measures of individual differences in the amount of deliberate practice, and until these measures are introduced as explanatory factors to assess their predictive power, the deliberate practice concept will remain of little use within the nomothetic span perspective. Misunderstanding the expertise domain. The second point I seem to have misunderstood is the nature of a domain of expertise. As proof they note that school performance has nothing to do with expertise. Their allegation invites three comments. The first one concerns the prevalence of expertise, a question directly related to the definition of the concept of expert (Gagn´e, 1998b). Who can be labeled an expert, and who should not? From my reading of some of the expertise literature, I have found a lack of clarity as to the exact nature of that concept, not only as a level of performance but also as a universe of fields/domains (see Note 1, p. 157). For some time, I thought that the DMGT’s definition of talent overlapped significantly with the concept of expert. But the more I read, the

Rejoinder to Ericsson et al.’s Postscript

more I realized the much more selective character of the “expert” concept. Still, how much more selective remained elusive. No clear operational definition exists to my knowledge, and none is given in Ericsson et al.’s (2007) target article. The nature of expertise needs to be specified both in breadth and in depth. By breadth I mean the diversity of fields in which one can observe experts in action. In the DMGT, the concept of talent refers to outstanding performances that can be observed in most human occupations. By depth, I mean the normative intensity of the systematically developed skills necessary to confer the expert label. In the DMGT, the depth question is answered through the metric-based system of five progressively more selective levels of excellence, from mild to extreme (see p. 159). Some might disagree with my operational definitions, but one thing is clear: they are! Concerning the breadth of expertise, how large is the universe of fields of expertise? They state that schooling definitely does not belong. Then, they talk about “professional skills.” Does that mean that only professions belong to that universe? Can there be expert mechanics, gardeners, plumbers, graphic artists, nurses, teachers? I have not seen any clear answer to that question. Assuming that the breadth question has received an answer, the depth question remains. How good has one to be to be labeled an expert? What percentage of the population within any field of expertise would be labeled an expert? Could it be the top 10%, as is the case for the minimum threshold within the DMGT’s system of levels? Or is it reserved only the top 1%, or even the top 0.1%? Could there be fewer experts than that? I have yet to see an answer to that question. In their postscript, Ericsson et al. (this volume) use hours of deliberate practice to circumscribe the concept. But the numbers remain quite vague. On one page, they mention “the performance attained after 5,000 to 20,000 hours of deliberate practice” (p. 147); a few paragraphs later, the range of practice hours becomes 500–10,000. We have minimum values differing by a factor of ten, and ranges where the ratio of the top value to the bottom one is either 4:1 or 20:1; not a very enlightening answer! From examples given in their text, my own guess would be that experts constitute a very selective subgroup within a field, like Olympic-level athletes, chess grand masters, and internationally renowned musical soloists. Which brings me to my second comment.

Rejoinder to Ericsson et al.’s Postscript

The second comment concerns the scientific impact of a very selective definition of expertise. I briefly discussed that problem in my chapter (see Cluttering section, p. 186). Such a definition does not pose much problem within a “construct representation” approach. A typical study will gather a small sample of these experts within a given field, analyze in detail the nature of their high-level skills by observing them as they accomplish various tasks—or by using protocol analysis—and compare their problem-solving processes with those of less advanced individuals, or even beginners. Unfortunately, it is not very well adapted to the “nomothetic span” perspective. Why is that? The best predictive validation studies typical of that approach use large samples of individuals who, after being assessed on a number of “potential” predictors of excellence, are followed for some years until they can again be assessed in terms of their achievements. But how can we predict the predictive power of any potential causal variable when the target group is such a tiny selective population? There might not be even one of these future “experts” within the starting sample. So the more selective the concept of expert is, the more difficult its prediction will be, even with the best measures. The third comment concerns the exclusion of schooling as a field of expertise. Allow me to use just one example. Students in middle school have deliberately practiced the basic disciplines of language and mathematics for much more than the 500 minimum hours required by Ericsson et al. Among them, those few in grades 7 or 8 who obtain 600+ SAT scores through Talent Search programs (Lupkowski-Shoplik et al., 2003) could be considered “experts” when compared with same age peers. They certainly belong to a tiny elite of extremely high math achievers. Why cannot they fit within the expert performance approach? When Ericsson et al. close that section of their postscript by admonishing me to restrict my future counterexamples to cases involving “highly skilled performance,” I have to request a clearer definition of that concept. Finally, when they point out my explicit agreement that “high ability can only be attained after much extended deliberate practice,” I must disagree with their ambiguous terminology. They should use “high talent” instead of high ability; within the DMGT the term ability is an umbrella concept that characterizes both gifts (the natural

203

abilities) and talents (the systematically developed abilities).

Baltes and Kliegl’s Study I presented my Baltes and Kliegl critique as involving “the selective presentation of favorable results from a study, with the deliberate omission of other results contradicting their Antinat thesis” (p. 190); I mentioned at the same time an APA policy prohibiting errors of omission in the presentation of research results. The third paragraph of my quote from Baltes (1998) clearly states that Howe et al.’s (1998) “interpretation is onesided (sect. 4.1),” that they ignore “equally compelling evidence of sizeable individual differences. . .,” and, finally, that they ignore contradictory evidence in their Section 2.3. That third paragraph seems to me crystal clear evidence for my charge. I tried to contact Professor Baltes to discuss his comment. I discovered that he had passed away last year. On the other hand, I cannot see the relevance in Ericsson et al.’s (this volume) discussion of that study in their postscript. In my view, it completely sidesteps the ethical problem I raised.

My Lack of Reproducible Evidence I am accused of relying on non-verifiable evidence and on the cited “opinions” of scientists and—yuk!— journalists! It means that all three authors did not see my references to dozens of scientific studies. They first missed references to Plomin’s scientific literature reviews on the genetics of that natural ability “par excellence” called general intelligence. Neither did they see my mention of several scientific literature reviews on the strong predictive relationship between general intelligence and various easily measurable life outcomes like school achievement, occupational achievement, and stable employment. They also did not see my summary of Haskins’ (1989) broad scientific literature review of the short-term and long-term impact of early stimulation programs. In the section on physical abilities, it seems that they jumped directly to the final summary of “punchy” quotes, missing in the process my extended description of MacArthur & North’s (2005) scientific literature review, replete with citations of em-

204

pirical studies on the genetics of physical abilities. They also missed a series of quotes taken from Chapter 19 in Entine’s book where all kinds of empirical— thus reproducible—studies on genetic differences between black and white athletes are briefly described, among them the discovery of a “wimp gene.” They forgot to examine the section where I reviewed a variety of scientific studies on the predictive power of natural physical abilities with regard to performance in sports. How could they have missed so much? Earlier in their postscript, the three authors accused me of not having read carefully enough a series of texts that they knew I had not been given access to. When they affirm that my position rests on non-verifiable evidence and opinions, who are the careless readers? Or could it be a case of “None so blind. . .”? Finally, readers no doubt noticed that Ericsson et al. (this volume) begin that section of their postscript by using totally out of context my final summary of “punchy” statements on the relevance of physical abilities as “real” natural abilities. They quote it as “proof” that I rely on non-verifiable opinions to support my Pronat position, although the text itself includes empirical evidence for all major positions defended. This is one additional example of the deplorable Antinat habit I described in the second part of my chapter. This recidivism, just after being confronted with that type of improper behavior, shows little inclination on their part to mind their behavior.

The Guardian Genie’s Three Wishes The three authors will probably be surprised to discover that I endorse almost fully their three wishes. First, I share their hope that not only new researchers but all current professionals and scholars involved in the field of talent development will peruse the major texts targeted by the present debate. I am confident that only the strictest Antinat defenders will not be swayed toward the Pronat position. Second, trading sideswipes, I would slightly reformulate their second wish as a commitment to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Finally, I endorse the need

Rejoinder to Ericsson et al.’s Postscript

to avoid any ad hominem attacks. Because that third wish clearly targets the second part of my chapter, I will point out to them that I submitted my completed chapter to five outside readers, whose main task was to search for ad hominem attacks, namely accusations that were not supported by clear evidence. All of them gave it a clean bill of—ethical—health.

“My” Postscript That is my first and last contribution to this debate. Whatever else Antinat defenders write in the future, I will no longer respond because, as I said in my chapter, I consider this type of exchange a dialogue among mutes. From now on, I will focus on building the Pronat position, and enriching the DMGT. Still, I hope that other scholars in the field of talent development will keep a close watch for improper Antinat research behavior. I also hope that they will put aside the “sandwich theory” to expose it frankly.

Additional References Ericsson, K. A. (1987). Theoretical implications from protocol analysis on testing and measurement. In R. R. Ronning, J. A. Glover, J. C. Conoley, & J. C. Witt (Eds.), The influence of cognitive psychology on testing (pp. 191–226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Benbow, C. P., Assouline, S. G., & Brody, L. E. (2003). Talent searches: Meeting the needs of academically talented youth. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 204–218). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. McGue, M. (1997). The democracy of the genes. Nature, 388, 417–418. Plomin, R. (2006). Editorial: The quest for quantitative trait loci associated with intelligence. Intelligence, 34, 513–526. Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., & McClearn, G. E. (1990). Behavioral genetics: A primer (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman. Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York: Guilford Press.

Chapter 8

The Arbitrary Nature of Giftedness Nancy B. Hertzog

Abstract This chapter demonstrates the arbitrary nature of giftedness in the United States. It describes five ways in which labeling and identifying children for gifted programs is an arbitrary decision. It will make explicit the subjective decision-making and value systems that underlie most protocols for identifying gifted children and describe the implications that it has on policies and practices in gifted education. Finally, the chapter will propose a vision for the field of gifted education that recognizes and celebrates the diversity of children and supports the role of the gifted educator to develop and nurture the strengths of all students. Keywords Arbitrary nature of giftedness · Gifted education · Identification · Policy · Practice · Reliability · Validity of identification process

the criteria if there was a seat available. My children were labeled gifted in Urbana but not in Champaign. Borland referred to this phenomenon as “geographical giftedness” (2003, p. 111). The number of classrooms and teachers Champaign agreed to provide in any given year determined the number of gifted children who received services in self-contained classrooms. One year, 45 students in Champaign were labeled gifted and the next year, 63. They simply added a new selfcontained classroom. The generous inclusion by Urbana was largely a “feel-good” label since no services were provided. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the arbitrary nature of labeling and discuss the impact it has on gifted programs and gifted education. Most importantly, I will make explicit the subjective decisionmaking and value systems that underlie most protocols for identifying gifted children.

Introduction Almost every school district in the United States has its own way of defining and identifying gifted children. Moving from one school district to another illustrates the arbitrary way in which children are defined or labeled as gifted in public schools. My family moved 10 minutes away from Urbana to Champaign. Urbana schools identified 20% of their population as gifted and had no separate programs for identified gifted students. Champaign identified the top 5% as gifted and offered self-contained classrooms for those students who met N.B. Hertzog (B) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Definition of Arbitrary Arbitrary is defined as “based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles” (Encarta World English Dictionary, 1999). Arbitrary also means “not permanently fixed, but having a meaning or value that can only be established in relation to something else and will change according to circumstances or context” (Encarta World English Dictionary, 1999). The arbitrary nature of giftedness is related to the number and types of decisions that label children gifted which are not objective. I propose five key reasons why giftedness is intrinsically arbitrary in the United States:

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 8, 

205

206

1. Designing criteria for gifted programs involves individuals or small groups of people who have their own value systems and reasons why they select specific criteria. 2. Selecting “top” scores on any given performance measures requires a ranking that is relative to the group, as opposed to an absolute scale. 3. Offering services for gifted students is dependent upon the number of spaces available or resources of a given district. 4. Changing the tests or measures results in a different population of students identified as gifted. 5. Identifying giftedness is culturally influenced. In this chapter I present issues with the current status of identifying children for gifted programs and propose new visions for these policies and practices. The new vision recognizes and celebrates the diversity of children and supports the role of the gifted educator to develop and nurture their strengths.

Decision-Making Finding the “Right” Combination and Criteria Consider the example of one school district that is representative of others. All first graders take the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test as a screening tool. For students who perform above the 80th percentile, the gifted program coordinator notifies parents of their child’s high score and recommends further testing, specifically the Cognitive Abilities Test Third Edition. The scores of the three components of the test are entered into a decision matrix. The standardized scores are used as “points on the matrix.” In other words, if a student scores 96% on the quantitative portion of the Cognitive Abilities Test (Lohman, Hagen, & Thorndike, 2001), 96 points are entered on the matrix. These standardized scores are combined with teacher recommendations that are based on the Renzulli–Hartman scales (Renzulli, Smith, Callahan, White, & Hartman, 1976). The scores from the rating scales are weighted and on the matrix may get 5 points for being between 35 and 40 or 4 points for being between 30 and 34. Thus, although multiple criteria are used, the major portion of the decision is based on the standardized test scores.

N.B. Hertzog

The design of the matrix provides more value to standardized test scores than the teachers’ (or parents’) judgment. This decision to weight scores differently is arbitrary. Most school districts pay particular attention to children from low-income or minority backgrounds. The Chicago Public School details their process for identifying children who are English Language Learners (ELL) (ELL Outreach and Identification Procedures for Gifted and Talented Programs Modified Consent Decree Commitment 52, p. 4). For confidentiality purposes, the CPS selects each year one of the following screening instruments to screen students for the ELL regional gifted centers: (1) Bilingual Verbal Ability Test (BVAT), (2) Boehm Test of Basic Concepts (English/Spanish), (3) Raven Progressive Matrices, (4) Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT), (5) Otis Lennon School Ability Test (English/Spanish) (6) Cognitive Abilities Test (Level A only), Screening Assessment for Gifted Elementary Students Primary (SAGES-P) (Eng/Sp).

One can see that in any given year, the assessment system may change, possibly altering the characteristics or strengths recognized as gifted. Once children are assessed in the district, a committee scores and ranks the results. Each ranked group is relative to the pool of candidates tested or screened. In this example, the district states on its webpage how children are ranked, “High scores on the gifted screening are considered first, with the following criteria, which constitutes supporting data: (1) cumulative record card information, (2) report card information, (3) Teacher Checklist of Observable Behavior” (Chicago Public School Office of Academic Enhancement Gifted and Talented Programs, 2004). The example of the Chicago Public Schools is used to demonstrate the complexity and thoroughness by which personnel design non-biased and inclusive identification systems to find gifted children in all populations. However, it is clear that there appears to be a choice and a variety of avenues to select the “eligible children.” Nearly 20 years ago, Treffinger (1988) proposed a reexamination of the paradigm of gifted education, The central premise underlying gifted education is that gifted students can and should be distinguished or differentiated from the larger, non-gifted population, and once identified, should receive specialized services. This paradigm is strongly rooted in the psychometric tradition and draws upon the “medical model” by defining characteristics or “symptoms” of giftedness and developing

8

The Arbitrary Nature of Giftedness quantitative indices to precisely identify those students with that condition. The current paradigm is inadequate in three areas: (1) dimensions of ability are not fixed and predetermined in any person over time and circumstances, and cannot be predicted comprehensively by traditional intelligence tests; (2) identification practices are arbitrary and contrived; and (3) a single, fixed program is provided for gifted students, relying on a resource room model and thus not offering opportunities for all students to learn and apply powerful learning and thinking tools (Treffinger, 1988, p. 1).

207

The Relativity of an IQ Score

Over 25 years ago I taught a pull-out gifted program in a rural Connecticut town. I used 130 on an IQ test as the cutoff score for entrance into the gifted program to serve the “top” 5% of the population. When I moved to a small town outside Williamsburg, VA, only by going down to 117 as the cutoff score could I serve the top 5% in the gifted program. Most of my Virginia students missed the vocabulary word “hedge” (a row of bushes) Not much has changed in the field since 1988. A on their test. There were other terms and pictures they thorough discussion of the complexity of typical did not recognize. Robinson, Shore, & Enersen (2007) identification systems is discussed in Coleman and summarized the research on IQ tests and concluded, Cross’ chapter on identification (2005). The authors “tests are not biased in their later prediction of acadescribed three different school districts’ typical demic success” (p. 237); yet, few would refute the fact identification systems by detailing the definition, that standardized measures of ability or achievement screening procedures, and placement criteria. Coleman are culturally biased (Ford & Harris, 1999). Tannenand Cross concluded in their review that most school baum argued, districts’ systems converge on identifying children The social system rather than the test instrument harbors who typically have high abilities as measured by IQ prejudices, not only against racial and socio-economic tests. They maintained that it is a difficult dilemma minorities but also against groups classified by sex, still unresolved in the field of gifted education to age, education, geographic origin, and mental health. IQ identify the less traditionally gifted child—the child scores are sensitive to these differences. They represent one of the consequences, not causes, of bias in society with high creative or artistic abilities, or the child they by showing that some groups are denied a fair chance to described as coming from the non-modal gifted group achieve excellence. In other words, the test is only a re(Coleman & Cross, 2005). The authors stated, “If the flector, not a perpetrator, of bigotry (Tannenbaum, 1997, school program objectives are met, then the system is p. 32). appropriate” (p. 102). Robinson, Shore, & Enersen (2007) cited a study The dependence on the IQ test for identifying gifted from Patton, Prillaman, and VanTasse-Baska (1990) children perpetuates the under-representation of miwhich found that “more than 90% of states and territo- nority populations in gifted programs and not because ries used norm-referenced tests as their only or primary minority students are less bright. Indeed, intelligence method of identification for gifted programs, and only tests, according to Perry, Steele, and Hilliard, “are 40% indicated a lesser use of anything else” (p. 236). nothing more than ‘achievement tests’ that favor stuSilverman provides an extensive review of measures dents who have a privileged opportunity to be exposed of intelligence in her chapter within this text, and she to those things being measured on the tests” (2003, stated, “If we are comfortable that the children defined p. 135). Ford reminded us, “Tests exert a lot of power as gifted through the last century are the ones we want as they carry out the unpopular job of sorting students to continue to be able to identify, then tests based on g while a presumption of objectivity protects them. But like curricula, tests are value-laden—developed by are the most useful” (2007, this volume). The use of IQ tests has long been controversial be- humans—from the items selected to the test format, cause of the accusations that IQ tests are discrimina- to the response format, to the correct answer” (2003, tory. Furthermore, the use of the IQ scores as a mea- p. 149). In other words, the tests that identify children sure of giftedness assumes that intelligence is the defin- for gifted programs are also arbitrary. They may be ing characteristic of giftedness and is conceptualized changed or used in multiple ways to achieve different as high performance on a psychometric measure. Of- results. Sapon-Shevin stated, “In reality, identifying a cateten performance on the standardized test is used to rank students for high stakes decisions about involvement in gory of children as ‘gifted’ represents a decision. It is gifted programs. This ranking is relative and arbitrary. a decision to establish an arbitrary cutoff point along

208

a continuum of scores or behaviors and to then act as though those above that point are qualitatively rather than quantitatively different from those below” (SaponShevin, 1993, p. 27). Assigning an arbitrary “cutoff” score is not educationally, morally, or legally sound. It does not even guarantee that the highest scoring children will join the gifted program. In one local district, when parents of children above the cutoff score declined the placement in the full-time separate gifted classroom, the administrators moved down the list of students until they reached the number of spaces available, thereby changing the cutoff score to suit the logistics of the district. To combat the discriminatory practice of using standardized tests for determining who is in or out of gifted programs, the Javits projects (Piirto, 2007) yielded a plethora of alternatives (case study approach, performance tasks, student portfolios, and special preparatory programs). Borland summarized the categorization of students, “All of this strongly suggests that ‘the gifted’ and ‘the average’ rather than being preexisting human genera, are labels for socially constructed groups that are constituted, in both theory and practice, in ways that are far from consistent and, in many cases, anything but logical, systematic, or scientific” (2003, p. 112). Plucker & Barab (2005) support Borland’s claim and offer another example of subjectivity: For example, if 10 children in a specific school have high ability and high scores on achievement tests, and are consistently mentioned on teacher ratings and recommendations, educators will have little problem establishing the reliability and validity of their gifted identification process. However, if two or three students have decent scores, only occasionally score well on teacher rating scales, yet have exceptional samples of work in their portfolios, the conception of giftedness explored in this chapter suggests that second group of children are no less talented than the first group and would perhaps view the second group as providing evidence of giftedness, whereas the first group has not yet provided such evidence (p. 208).

All of these cases and authors illustrate that who is identified as gifted is more dependent on the people who are designing the protocols and making the decisions of what to include, how to weight the measures, and how to achieve equitable representation of diverse populations in a specific gifted program than on the children themselves. How useful is such a system of identification if indeed it is so variable? What does the eligibility criteria do to inform teachers about the child?

N.B. Hertzog

Usefulness of Labeling and Classifying Coleman and Cross stated, “Identification is primarily a classification process, not a diagnostic process, because the information obtained about a student is not specific enough to begin instruction in a subject area or field” (2005, p. 125). Ford also agreed that the identification system was a classification system and noted, “We have not been able to locate national data on how minority students are classified once identified as gifted. We often see an overrepresentation of minority students in the areas of creativity and visual and performing arts” (p. 187). The usefulness of the term gifted or the classification of giftedness is questioned here because the meaning affixed to the label may mask the exact nature of the strengths. With districts making their own decisions about who is gifted or who qualifies for gifted programs, teachers, families, and students themselves may question the meaning of the label and how it translates into learning needs. When 50 college students were interviewed about their prior experiences in gifted programs, most of them had no knowledge of the criteria used to place them in the gifted program and did not know why they were chosen (Hertzog, 2003). The literature on identification stresses the importance of matching identification to program options. Programming options across the country are as variable as how students get in them. Some programs are specifically designed to meet the needs of students who excel in math or science. Other programs are designed for advanced readers; still others address talents in the arts. In some school districts magnet schools cater to children with specific strengths. It is possible that students who are identified as gifted may not be placed in the program that develops their strength areas. It is also possible for gifted programs to accelerate content and serve children who do not need the acceleration. The students who described their gifted programs confirmed this variability. Some students recalled special pull-out classes that taught art or foreign language. Others described going to rooms and playing thinking games and working on creative activities. Still others shared their experiences in science and math competitions, reading clubs, and AP classes (Hertzog, 2003). Gifted programs that are designed to include more students from underrepresented groups often add program supports to help nurture those students to be successful in those programs. Borland, Schnur,

8

The Arbitrary Nature of Giftedness

and Wright (2000) identified key features that helped students from Project Synergy be successful in gifted programs, “transitional service classes, tutoring, parental support, and a message communicated to the students and their families that they were special” (as cited in Robinson, Shore, & Enersen, 2007, p. 257). The intervention of identifying the child as gifted may be enough to bring greater academic success to some students. The relationship of giftedness to “feeling special” illuminates why “despite the best of intentions, gifted education, as historically and currently practiced, mirrors, and perhaps perpetuates, vicious inequities in our society (Borland, 2003, p. 117). If “feeling special” resulted in higher achievement, would not all children benefit from that designation? Because the decisions that are made to select a specific group of students could be made in other ways, the access to those programs is also arbitrary. If gifted programs produce a higher quality of education and better outcomes for a group of students that is alterable under different conditions or definitions, then one could argue that those educational practices would improve outcomes for a variety of students. Certainly the students that were interviewed about their experiences in gifted programs felt that they received a better education than their peers who were not afforded opportunities to participate. I summarized their perceptions about the differences between their gifted and general education classes, “They spoke about differences such as activities that engaged them in higher level thinking, less emphasis on discipline, more content, and an overall better classroom atmosphere, all of which contributed to a better relationship between the teacher and the students” (Hertzog, 2003, p. 140).

209

cation had an instructional identity (Tomlinson, 1996, p. 155). The unfairness stems from the fact that according to students who have been in gifted programs the curriculum and instruction is generally more challenging, more hands-on, more meaningful, and more engaging than what is found in general education classrooms (Hertzog, 2003). The research on tracking supports those claims of differences between general education and higher level classes, especially in secondary schools (Oakes, 2005). There are other examples of where curriculum and instruction that is traditionally taught in gifted programs has benefited non-identified gifted students. The premise behind the Accelerated Schools is to offer to all students the type of educational opportunities that is generally offered to gifted students. Accelerated Schools are advertised on their website, “Imagine a school that treats all children as gifted and builds on their strengths through enrichment strategies, independent research, problem solving, science, writing, music, and art” (Accelerated Schools Plus, 2007). Studies on the effectiveness of the Accelerated Schools report that compared to teachers in control sites, teachers in the accelerated schools made greater changes in their instruction than those in the control schools. They used more hands-on activities, more community resources, provided opportunities for students to exhibit what they learned before an audience, and collaborated more with other teachers in other subjects (Accelerated Schools Plus, 2007). Likewise, research supports positive achievement gains for students in Accelerated Schools (ibid.). In my own research, project-based learning and other strategies that are more typically found in gifted programs have shown positive gains in achievement of students who have been underserved in gifted programs (Hertzog & Ganguly, 2004). Other researchers Repercussions of Arbitrary Decisions: have found strategies that were implemented to benefit Unfair Access to Learning Opportunities gifted students also benefited those in the classroom who were not identified (Reis, 2003). When children who are not identified as gifted benDifferences between children who are eligible for efit from the type of curriculum and instruction that is gifted programs are not necessarily distinct or discrete typically found in gifted programs, then the rationale from those who are not. Learning experiences that are typically found in gifted programs have also falters for why we provide gifted education to only benefited children not identified as gifted (Renzulli gifted children. The repercussion of such practices is & Reis, 1994). Tomlinson has argued that most the charge of elitism. To counter that charge, it must not be arbitrary instructional practices used in gifted education benefit to be gifted and access to gifted programs must be all learners and questioned whether or not gifted edu-

210

defensible. Tannenbaum’s conception of giftedness combined five factors that enabled people to achieve success. These included general ability, special aptitude, chance, environmental supports, and nonintellective requisites. In his model, “The objective is to elucidate the individuality of people and the uniqueness of the surrounds with which they interact, thus avoiding classification and labeling through standard methods” (1997, p. 30). Tannenbaum’s model recognized that giftedness was not defined as intelligence as measured on an IQ test. His theory valued children who were creative as well as academically ahead of their peers. He described potential giftedness in terms of producers and performers. Thus, Tannenbaum’s conception of giftedness, or rather his theories about how potential yields later adult achievement, demonstrates the complexities of designing systems to either predict or identify giftedness. In Tannenbaum’s model, people became gifted (either through products or performances) over time as they matured and chance played a factor. Rather than identify and sort children as gifted, Tannenbaum conceptualized the “making of gifted behavior” (p. 40). Renzulli (1978) also shifted the discussion of giftedness from being defined as a static cluster of inherent traits to an overlap of characteristics that interact to develop gifted behaviors. Talent development is now part of the discourse of the field (Renzulli, 1998). Some of the most notable research in the field of gifted and talented education is retrospective and investigates how giftedness is made. Bloom (1985) examined the circumstances that nurtured eminent artists and scientists to make significant contributions to society. Could these circumstances be repeated and replicated for more people—especially young people in school settings? There would be no arbitrariness about the subjects. By the time eminent people have displayed their talents, they are well known. No one questions their giftedness, talents, or abilities. They are labeled by their contributions to society. Tannenbaum believed luck played a role in their manifestations of giftedness. He said, “Chance factors should never be trivialized or neglected in the study of giftedness, especially given that so many eminent people place emphasis on their experiencing unpredictable events that help them reach the top” (Tannenbaum, 1997, p. 39). Chance as a factor in children’s capacity necessitates increasing opportunities (the chances) to develop their strengths and interests by creating environments

N.B. Hertzog

that nurture potential. Gifted education provides systematic instructional methods that focus on challenge and individual growth. There is nothing arbitrary about facilitating students’ inquiry in their interest areas or pursuing resources to help them reach their goals. If giftedness is contextual (Plucker & Barab, 2005), then teachers should be trained to provide those contexts where students’ interests, passions, and creativity emerge.

From Gifted Programs to Addressing Diversity Identifying strengths of all students does not eliminate the identification of strengths in students that have traditionally been identified as gifted. Instead, it allows for more specific instruction to occur in students’ strength areas and it eliminates the need to develop criteria for the gifted label that I have demonstrated to be flagrantly flawed. Piirto (2007) summarized research on adolescents with high ACT test scores, “good pedagogical practice in talent education would be to look at domain-specific talent rather than general academic ability” (p. 324). She maintained that when composite scores were used, students’ specific strength areas were often lost and therefore, they were not guided toward opportunities and coursework in their strength areas. Instead of defining the field by the students (who are arbitrarily labeled and identified as gifted), could we embrace a new vision of the field defined as areas of expertise—including assessment, pedagogy, curriculum development, creativity, and social and emotional development? Using the field of special education as an example, inclusive practices did not diminish the need for the expertise of highly trained teachers in special education. On the contrary, recognizing that children with learning disabilities are not all alike, or children with severe disabilities do not all need the same supports, special education teachers became active members of the child’s teaching team and helped classroom teachers modify or adapt the curriculum to increase the likelihood that the child would be successful in school. Inclusive classrooms need resource specialists with varying areas of expertise. Gifted educators could provide leadership and expertise that promote a higher quality education for all students, including those we believe have

8

The Arbitrary Nature of Giftedness

potential and those who are demonstrating strengths and talents beyond their age or grade-level peers. A conceptualization of gifted education emerges without arbitrary labels of giftedness. Like other authors have said (Borland, 2003), we have to stop unfair practices in gifted education and devise innovative ways that bring us closer to the goal of designing curriculum and instruction “predicated on students’ current educational needs” (Borland, 2005, p. 229). Since the first federal definition was defined as those children “who require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop such capabilities” (Marland, 1972), the whole focus in gifted education has been on providing programs outside the realm of the classroom to meet the students’ needs. The federal definition was adopted or adapted by all the states and guided state policies for funding separate gifted and talented programs. Advocates in the field of gifted education have pushed for separate programs for gifted children. Recently the state of Illinois reinstated language in its school code to provide requests for proposals for innovative gifted and talented programs. Districts will have to propose some way by which they select their gifted program participants. The state will prioritize allocating funding to those programs that identify and serve students from underrepresented populations. And so it goes, a “win” to reinstate gifted programs in the State of Illinois, but a “loss” because only some children deemed eligible by an arbitrary identification system will participate and benefit from the funding and the high-quality programs. Many people in and out of the field of gifted education have recognized the failures of our systems and policies and acknowledged the ways gifted programs have perpetuated inequities in schools (Borland, 2003; Ford, 2003; Sapon-Shevin, 2003). Yet, as demonstrated by the most recent re-enactment of school code language in Illinois, the concept of serving gifted students outside the typical school setting remains. Gifted education has become synonymous with separate programs, instead of being synonymous with appropriately challenging all students in their educational setting. Unlike our colleagues in special education who aim to provide supports for their students to be academically successful in the classroom, the current role for most gifted education specialists focuses on

211

developing high-quality learning experiences outside the classroom. What we know now in gifted education differs from what we knew in the 1950s when we selected children who excelled in math and science to protect our nation. We know that children with high test scores are not all alike, that identification systems are flawed, culturally biased, and value ladened, and that the curriculum we espouse for gifted children may also benefit children who did not meet criteria to be in a gifted program. We know a great deal about the arbitrary nature of giftedness and that whether or not a child is labeled gifted is more dependent upon a particular system in a district than the child himself/herself. Yet, high stakes decisions are made, in many cases for a student’s entire educational career, based on this arbitrary decision to label the child gifted. It is time for educators in the field of gifted education to follow our own traditions of problem solving and to think creatively about our own field. In Langer’s words, we must be mindful about our vision (Langer, 1997). When we are mindful, we implicitly or explicitly (1) view a situation from several perspectives, (2) see information presented in the situation as novel, (3) attend to the context in which we are perceiving the information, and eventually, (4) create new categories through which this information by may be understood (p. 111).

My vision for the field involves teaching for diversity. Recognizing that all children who are identified as gifted are still very diverse and that most of our classrooms are increasing in their diversity (e.g., linguistically, ethnically, and economically), I propose we focus on and spend our resources and energy in sharing what we know about how to make learning meaningful and challenging to all children. Tomlinson defined differentiation for general educators and it is much broader than its first meaning that distinguished curriculum that was appropriate for gifted and not appropriate for other students (Tomlinson, 1996). This notion to define the field differently is not new. Coleman, Sanders & Cross (1997) examined the field from three different modes of inquiry. These include the empirical-analytic mode, the interpretivist mode, and the transformative mode (p. 107). Depending on one’s mode of inquiry, one has different assumptions about the field. For example, the authors describe a basic premise,

212 The purpose of the field of gifted education is to identify gifted children in order to place them into programs with appropriate curriculum and with teachers who possess the necessary characteristics and skills for maximizing each student’s potentials (p. 107).

As the authors stated, the fact that “there is a definable group, is a foundation of the empirical-analytic mode” (p. 108). In the two other modes, there is no such definable group. Rather there would be different definitions and different contexts in which to attribute traits of giftedness. Culture, class, gender, and values would influence definitions of giftedness. Although Coleman, Sanders, and Cross concluded that people would never agree on conceptions of giftedness, they gave researchers lenses for exploring differences in viewpoints. These lenses bring greater tolerance and understanding for accepting the different viewpoints in the field and provide a multitude of possibilities for conducting research. Borland (2003) called for a paradigm shift which entailed getting rid of the term “giftedness,” identification systems, and separate programs and instead focusing on differentiating the curriculum. He concluded,

N.B. Hertzog minority student underrepresentation in gifted education from “How can we identify more minority students?” to “How can we provide opportunities and rewards for students of all degrees of ability from all backgrounds so that all will realize their full potentials? (p. 157).

Of course, to teach for diversity requires great teaching. It requires that all teachers focus on how children learn best. Whitaker (2004) acknowledged the important role of teachers, “We can spend a great deal of time and energy looking for programs that will solve our problems. Too often, these programs do not bring the improvement or growth we seek. Instead, we must focus on what really matters. It is never about programs; it is always about people” (p. 9). I refer now to a new vision, one that is void of arbitrary labeling, but rich with expertise in designing meaningful and challenging learning experiences. In the new vision of gifted education, the people are teachers, students, and families. The field is not just defined by a group of students labeled gifted. Instead, the field is defined by the learning that occurs in interactions between students and teachers. Both are learners. The teachers in the field of gifted education unThus, not only would making differentiated curriculum derstand the principles set forth in Brandt’s work on and instruction the norm for all students go a long way Powerful Learning (1998) and especially the principle toward meeting the needs of students traditionally labeled that “People learn more when they accept challenging “gifted,” it would make schooling more effective and hubut achievable goals” (p. 6). The teachers who specialmane for many students labeled “disabled” as well as those students thrown together in that great agglomeraize in gifted education would focus their instructional tion known as the “normal” or “average,” a group that, in strategies on challenge and growth. They would adapt practice, is largely educationally undifferentiated but that, the curriculum to be culturally responsive and personin reality is remarkably diverse (p. 119). ally interesting to foster engagement and inquiry. They Teachers need to be responsive to the great diversity would be instructional leaders in their buildings who of learners that they now have in their classrooms. would bring teachers together to inquire about ways to Tomlinson & McTighe (2006) describe the meaning of improve their overall instruction so that they maximize teaching responsively, the potential of all of their students. As instructional leaders, they would facilitate on-going professional deResponsive teaching suggests a teacher will make velopment in collaborative inquiry groups (Bray, Lee, modifications in how students get access to important ideas and skills, in ways that students make sense of and Smith, & Yorks, 2000) that engaged teachers in critical demonstrate essential ideas and skills, and in the learning and reflective thinking about the relationship between environment—all with an eye to supporting maximum teaching and learning. They would use student work success for each learner (p. 18). samples to examine the products of differentiated curAs Borland described (2003), gifted education would riculum and instruction. take place in inclusive schools with curricula and inI amend my first articulation of a redefinition for struction that are responsive to the diverse needs of gifted education and my original description of the individual students—schools in which the labels “nor- gifted education specialist (Hertzog, 1998). Instead mal,” “disabled,” and “gifted” not only are eschewed of being most concerned with those children needing but make no sense” (p. 120). more challenge, my new vision supports the role of the gifted education specialist as the advocate for Ford (2003) implored educators in the field to rethink our questions, We must rephrase the persistent question of all children to develop their talents, including those

8

The Arbitrary Nature of Giftedness

who have already demonstrated their need for more advanced or accelerated curriculum. In the new vision for the field, gifted education is woven into the thread of everyday instruction for all students. The focus on all students relates to the fact that potential for developing talents is unknown and not predetermined. Resiliency studies prove that children who are given chances, opportunities, and high expectations to succeed, do so. Krovetz (2003) wrote, “No professional development program, no new instructional materials, and no infusion of technology will make a lasting effect on student learning if the key adults in the student’s life do not believe in the potential of each and every student” (p. 23). Challenges and special programs based on interests should be options for all students, and not just given to a predetermined arbitrary group. The gifted education specialist works in collaboration with all teachers to modify, adapt, design, and develop appropriately engaging and challenging experiences for all of his/her students. The gifted specialist is part of the moral framework of the school that supports the highest quality and most authentic learning opportunities for all students. This does not mean there are no more advanced level courses; instead the gifted specialist is needed to help prepare students for those courses. It does not mean that students who need acceleration will flounder in the general education classroom; gifted education, including acceleration, will be provided as needed to support students in all of their learning environments. Supporting and nurturing potential of all students from all backgrounds is the goal of American education and must be the expertise of those in the field of gifted education.

References Bloom, B. (1985). Developing talent in young people. NY: Ballantine Books. Borland, J. H. (Ed.). (2003). Rethinking gifted education. NY: Teachers College Press. Borland, J. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children: The case for no conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.) (pp. 1–19). Cambridge University Press. Bray, J. N., Lee, J., Smith, L. L., & Yorks, L. (2000). Collaborative Inquiry in Practice: Action, reflection, and meaning making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Chicago Public School Office of Academic Enhancement Gifted and Talented Programs (2004, May). ELL

213 Outreach and Identification Procedures for Gifted and Talented Programs. (Modified Consent Decree Commitment 52) retrieved March 19, 2007 from http://www.cps.k12.il.us/AboutCPS/deseg reports/#a52704. Coleman, L. J. & Cross, T. L. (2005). Being gifted in school. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc. Coleman, L. J., Sanders, M., & Cross, T. L., (1997). Perennial debates and tacit assumptions in the education of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(3) 97–103. c (1999) Microsoft CorEncarta World English Dictionary  poration. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing. Ford, D. Y. (2003). Desegregating gifted education: seeking equity for culturally diverse students. In J. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 143–158). NY: Teachers College Press. Ford, D. Y. & Harris, J. J., III. (1999). Multicultural gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press. Hertzog, N. B. (1998). The changing role of the gifted education specialist. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30, 39–43. Hertzog, N. B. (2003). The impact of gifted programs from the students’ perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 131–143. Hertzog, N. B. (2005). Equity and access: Creating general education classrooms responsive to potential. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(2), 213–257. Hertzog, N. B., & Ganguly, R. (2004, April). Serving underrepresented groups better: What the data don’t say. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association. San Diego, CA. Krovetz, M. (2003). Expecting all students to use their hearts and minds well. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Langer, E. J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Lohman, D. F., Hagen, P., & Thorndike, R. L. (2001). Cognitive Abilities Test: Third Edition. Marland, S. P. Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education and background papers submitted to the U.S. Office of Education, 2 vols. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (Government Documents Y4.L 11/2: G36). National Center for the Accelerated Schools Plus (2007). Retrieved March 29, 2007, from www.acceleratedschools.net/ Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd Ed.). New Haven: CT: Yale University. Perry, T., Steele, C., & Hillliard, A. III (2003). Young, gifted and black. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Plucker, J., & Barab, S. A. (2005). The importance of contexts in theories of giftedness: learning to embrace the messy joys of subjectivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 201–216). New York: Cambridge University Press. Piirto, J. (2007). Talented children and adults (3rd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Reis, S. M. (2003). Reconsidering regular curriculum for high achieving students, gifted underachievers, and the relationship between gifted and regular education. In J. H. Borland (Ed). Rethinking gifted education (pp. 186–200). New York: Teacher’s College Press.

214 Renzulli, J. R. (1978). What makes giftedness? Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 2–6. Renzulli, J. R., (1998). A rising tide lifts all ships. Developing the gifs and talents of all students Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 104– 111. Renzulli, J. R., Smith. L. H., Callahan, C. M., White, A. J., & Hartman, R. K. (1976). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. R., & Reis, S. M. (1994). Research related to the schoolwide enrichment model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 2–14. Robinson A, Shore, B. M., & Enersen, D. L. (2007). Best practices in gifted education. An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc. Sapon-Shevin, M. (1993). Gifted education and the protection of privilege: Breaking the silence, opening the discourse. In L. Weiss & M. Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices (pp. 45–73). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

N.B. Hertzog Sapon-Shevin, M. (2003). Equity, Excellence, and school reform: Why is finding common ground so hard?. In J. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 127–142). NY: Teachers College Press. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1997). The meaning and making of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 27–42). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Tomlinson, C. A. (1996). Good teaching for one and all: Does gifted education have an instructional identify? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 155–74. Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction + understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Treffinger, D. J. (1988). Programming for giftedness: Reexamining the paradigm. Paper presented at the 96th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta: GA. ED305787. Whitaker, T. (2004). What great teachers do differently. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Chapter 9

Gifted and Thriving: A Deeper Understanding of Meaning of GT Michael F. Sayler

Abstract Gifted and talented children one day become adults and the experiences of their pre-adult years at home, in their various communities, and in school settings impact both their success and their happiness as adults. While development, education, and life experiences affect all individuals, it is in the interactions of high ability, ability-related performance, and what can best be called wisdom that the gifted and talented individual will find happiness. This chapter explores the dynamics related to the transformation of gifts into personal thriving. Talent has been called the development of the gifts into high-level performances, thriving begins with talent development but looks beyond highlevel performance to deep satisfaction and what allows the gifted and talented to flourish across their life span. The notion of thriving includes academic and career success and adds the goal of personal happiness. Thriving is explored through the aspects of the psychology of human strengths, subjective well-being, strength of character, integrity, wisdom, the interaction of ability– interests–accomplishments, spirituality and faith, and positive personal relationships.

Keywords Gifted education · Talent development · Lifespan development · Thriving · Flourishing · Wasting · Happiness · Virtues · Character · Integrity · Positive psychology

M.F. Sayler (B) University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction To be gifted or talented is not a phenomenon or condition that suddenly appears during K-12 education, although the label often is. Parents and others who interact with the gifted child can observe signs of giftedness such as high intellectual functioning, advanced verbal performance, intense interest, and unusual creativity at early ages (Sayler, 1999). Intellectual, social, emotional, and personality predispositions are present even before birth (Reiss, Neiderhiser, Hetherington, & Plomin, 2000), needing only time and environmental factors to be displayed and come to fruition (Reichlin, 1997). Nor does giftedness end with high school. Through out adulthood and to the ends of their lives these individuals continue to be gifted (Holahan, Sears, & Cronbach, 1995). Both remarkable constancy and remarkable change characterize the life span development of each gifted person. The goals, beliefs, and values held by the gifted, formed in childhood and identifiable in adolescence, remain in many ways the same values they have as adults and continue to influence they way they live and act (Lubinski, Schmidt, & Benbow, 1996). Looking back across a lifetime, outside observers and the older gifted individuals themselves can see clear antecedents of today in their childhood and youth (Holahan, Sears, & Cronbach, 1995). They also see the tremendous changes and refinements that have occurred across their lifetime. The development of the gifted individual is an iterative process involving personal change to the gifted person and the changes they engender in their parents and siblings, classmates, friends, teachers, mentors, coaches, colleagues, spouses, children, and all the institutions

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 9, 

215

216

and communities they encounter along their life path (Lerner, 2002). Life span development looks at change across the entire life course from conception onward and at the lifelong adaptive processes of acquisition, maintenance, transformation, and attrition in psychological structures and functions (Baltes, Staudinger, & Lindenberger, 1999). The model of giftedness and thriving takes a comprehensive view of the entire life of the gifted individual. The model’s insights will guide actions and decisions of the gifted person and of their parents, teachers, mentors, and others, all those who know them and those whose lives they influence. A vital life goal is to transform the gifted person’s natural abilities and predispositions into talents and talented performances (Gagn´e, 1985, 2005). The model of gifted and thriving includes talent development, but looks beyond the goal of high-level talent performance to the development of strong character, an integrated life, deep personal satisfaction, and happiness. The model shows how the gifted and talented can flourish from early childhood to the last moments of their life. It explores thriving through the aspects of facilitative psychological and philosophical dispositions, habits leading to strength of character, positive personal relationships, personal integrity, talent development, wisdom, spirituality, and faith.

A Life Span Model of Gifted Thriving A life span model for thriving by gifted individuals must accurately reflect and guide thriving for the indi-

Fig. 9.1 The model of gifted and thriving

M.F. Sayler

vidual as a young child, school student, talented adult, and in the maturity of their lives. It provides guidance on how to attain the good life, a life of talent development, personal flourishing, and happiness. Growth in skills, knowledge, confidence, and in a sense of security in personal relationships builds happiness; especially when the growth process challenges the individual to struggle beyond their current level of functioning and comfort in learning and in overcoming life’s challenges (Carver, 1998). The gifted have an exceptional ability to select and attain difficult life goals that fit their interests, abilities, values, and contexts (Moon, 2003). The model of gifted and thriving (Fig. 9.1) illustrates graphically the model’s component parts and their relationships. In the model high levels of natural abilities, temperaments, and predispositions are transformed over time by personal and environmental catalysts into personal flourishing This model complements and expands Gagn´e’s (1985, 2005) Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT, see Chapter 5). It provides a parallel, inter-related, but more comprehensive model of the total life span development of the gifted individual. The thriving model incorporates and expands the goals of the DMGT to address all aspects of the gifted individual’s life. It includes their talent development and the development of their psychological, emotional, personal, physical, and spiritual well-being. Gifted individuals who are thriving build the common good of society by populating it with wise and talented individuals oriented to a coherent life of service to others as well as to their personal development (Lerner, 2002). The specific manifestations of thriving

9

Gifted and Thriving

will vary across the individual’s life span, but with a remarkable stability over time (Reiss, Neiderhiser, Hetherington, & Plomin, 2000). Both models give the name gifts to the untrained, spontaneously expressed natural abilities and predispositions in at least one ability domain. They share the idea of desirable but not necessarily accomplished transformation and application of abilities into something greater (talent and thriving). This transformation occurs through normal development and through systematic learning which use and refine the person’s abilities. Both models recognize the catalytic effect of intrapersonal and environmental catalysts on this transformation. The models diverge, but do not separate in the outcome dimension described. In the DMGT, the outcome predicted or sought is talent. Talents are well-trained and systematically developed skills in a particular area of activity or performance (Gagn´e, 2005). In the model of gifted and thriving the outcome sought is also talent development, but with the addition of seeking high levels of thriving or flourishing. Talent development is not restricted to domains where success results in high financial rewards, high social prestige, or high technical, artistic, or athletic prowess. While some gifted will develop their talents in fields and domains where these consequences follow, others will choose to develop talents that are less noticeable. Such talents include such domains as parenting, teaching, health care, farming or gardening, service to a community, or a religious vocation. To thrive, the gifted individual must develop talents, but they may do so in any area of legitimate work or skill provided they do the work very well and at a high level of proficiency. The systematic transformation of natural abilities into personal well-being and happiness is the developmental process followed by all people. Well-being correlates with competency, success, personal thriving, and happiness (Lerner, 2002). Thriving is the sum effect of positive personal development in physical, cognitive, psychological, and spiritual dimensions. Most people are relatively happy (Diener & Diener, 1996) and have achieved some level of thriving. Some people are very happy, others are very unhappy, and their relative levels of thriving vary accordingly (Diener & Seligman, 2002). The potential manifestation of thriving stretches from the high levels to very low levels. Flourishing is the name given to the positive end of the

217

thriving continuum in this model. Wasting is very low levels or a complete lack of thriving. Desirable movement along the thriving continuum toward flourishing happens when the individual develops their gifts into talents, lives a life of integrity built on strong character and virtues, maintains close longlasting and mutually beneficial personal relationships, and pursues an active spiritual or faith life. Without integrity, talent development becomes self-serving and reduces the level of thriving attainable by the individual. In some cases this lack of integrity leads to serious problems for the person and those around them. Gifted individuals can flourish and become wise when they are self-reflective, self-controlled, concerned with others, honest with themselves about themselves, prudent in seeking guidance, and strong in making required changes or adjustments to how they act or think (Sayler, 2005). Flourishing is desirable and attainable from childhood to the end of a person’s life. It is psychologically and physically robust enough that it emerges for an individual even under less than ideal conditions. Even individuals who have faced disasters, suffering, or oppression may retain character, wisdom, and happiness; they can flourish in at least some aspects of their lives (Frankl, 1963; Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003). Wasting is the opposite of flourishing on the thriving continuum. It is associated with sadness, failure, depression, passivity, social estrangement, morbidity, and mortality. In an almost counter intuitive twist, some talented individuals live lives on the wasting end of this continuum. These talented but unhappy individuals have well-trained and systematically developed skills in their talent domains. They may have achieved success, fame, wealth, or power, but they lack integrity, well-developed character, and strong long-lasting personal and spiritual relationships. Consequently, they move toward wasting despite their apparent talent successes. Wasting does not happen all at once nor is it necessarily permanent or fatal although it may become so. Change from a state of wasting is possible, and a level of flourishing is then attainable. The gifted individual’s intellectual strength of reasoning is an asset in this change if they are honest in their self-reflection, seek guidance from wise mentors, and are not blinded by own apparent success to an extent that they do not see the problems in their lives (Sayler, 2005).

218

Human beings have an innate drive to do well and experience deep pleasure in this striving (Meier, 1993). This deep pleasure of working hard and doing things well is experienced by the gifted only when they are challenged and must work hard to solve problems or find answers (King, 2001). Working intensely at something enjoyable brings additional benefits such as increased flow experiences. A person fully immersed in what he or she is doing engenders a pleasing and desirable mental state called flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Flow experiences are more likely when there is an appropriate balance between a person’s skills and abilities and the challenge of the activity (Moneta & Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Unless the gifted apply their high levels of natural abilities to appropriately challenging tasks, they do not flourish. The gifted possess a faster speed of processing, greater ease of knowledge acquisition, more frequent use of metacognition, and the more facile application of efficient learning strategies accelerating the transformation of abilities into talents (Steiner & Carr, 2003). Unfortunately, with these high levels of natural and developed abilities they often find school too easy and the work unchallenging (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004). A lack of appropriate academic challenge and the subsequent loss of interest and motivation may have lifelong negative consequences for the gifted, reducing their level of thriving and in some cases deflecting them from even normal levels of professional and personal success (Gross, 2004a). The work in which an individual engages must challenge them or the activity will not develop into a lifelong passion (Peterson, 2006). Rawls (1971) postulates that when all other things are equal, human beings find satisfaction in developing their innate capacities into realized performances. The more an individual’s capacity is realized or the greater the complexity of the task undertaken, the greater the enjoyment. The gifted individual needs intellectual, creative, emotional, and physical challenges to thrive and become passionate about their lives (Rogers 2004; Robinson, 2004; Gross, 2004b). The need for these challenges exists whether the person is in and out of school whether they are children, youth, or adults. In the movement toward flourishing, a gifted individual who is self-reflective, honest in his or her self analysis, and who consciously internalizes virtues will gradually acquire wisdom (Sayler, 2005). There is not one clear or commonly accepted meaning of wisdom,

M.F. Sayler

but Heng and Tam (Chapter 31) give a good overview of several approaches to defining wisdom. These approaches that have strong potential for guiding research and conceptual understanding of wisdom as it relates to the gifted and talented. Wisdom grows from acting and then reflecting on those actions (See Heng and Tam, Chapter 31 for an extended discussion of the value of self-reflection), learning from the mistakes, and coming to a greater understanding of how to live a life shaped by such qualities as compassion, respect, and honesty (Bohlin, Farmer, & Ryan, 2001). The realization of talents does not a guarantee that the gifted and talented individual will be wise (Sternberg, 2000). Poorly guided gifted individuals, even those who are very successful, can fail to assess themselves and their performances accurately (Sternberg, 2001). These self-assessment failures come from an unrealistic optimism, egocentrism, a false sense of omniscience, unchecked power, and a sense of invulnerability. The development of wisdom is purposeful and lies in the interaction among the gifted person’s personal abilities and performances, the tasks they undertake, and the situations they find or place themselves (Sternberg, 2003). Someone who is wise in one context (e.g., work) may not necessarily be wise in another context (e.g., personal life). Some people may be wise more often than others may, but no one is wise all the time (Sternberg, 2004). Parents, educators, coaches, and mentors all guide and instruct gifted children and youth, but to what purposes? Obviously, these adults and the gifted themselves have goals for the acquisition of knowledge and skills so that they can make good use of their natural abilities in productive and satisfying ways. This is a good baseline expectation, but the adults in a gifted child’s life must also expect more than this. A more comprehensive set of goals is to have the young person become an adult whose life is characterized by actualized talent (Gagn´e, 2005), acquisition of strong moral dispositions (Lapsley & Narvaez, 2006), sustained happiness (Seligman, 2002), wise actions and thoughts (Sternberg, 2003), a habit of service to others (Winner, 2000), and understanding of what is important in life (Urry et al., 2004). The roles played by parents, educators, and other mentors change as the gifted child grows and matures through adulthood. Parenting practices that facilitate well-being are authoritative (Baumrind, 1971; Gray & Steinberg, 1999) and encourage a shift from direct

9

Gifted and Thriving

guidance and decision making by the adult to autonomy, freedom, and self-direction for the gifted child or youth (Ryan & Deci, 2000). At first, this freedom occurs within the boundaries of the family beliefs and rules, but opens to complete autonomy as the gifted child matures. Teachers who have strong expectations for their students, who are fair, set rules, and are not negative in their interactions, facilitate the motivation and success of their students (Wentzel, 2001). Analysis of the longitudinal data from the National Survey of Families and Households suggests that healthy parent–adolescent relationships such as those marked by increased freedom within a clear family structure and beliefs facilitate their flourishing as young adults (Aquilino & Supple, 2001).

Intrapersonal Catalysts Affecting Thriving Dispositions, Virtues, Character, and Integrity Dispositions are developed personality characteristics and are related to, but different from, temperaments (Keirsey, 1998). Dispositions are developed traits for acting to exhibit frequently, consciously, and voluntarily a pattern of behavior directed toward a broad goal. Temperament is biological and represents the sum of a person’s biological inclinations related to personality. The right dispositions facilitate the development of virtues. Virtues are trait-like habits, not fixed by genetics. They represent more than an absence of bad character habits (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Some scholars use the term character strength to means virtues (Peterson, 2006). Specific cultures define some virtues, but there is a ubiquitous core of character strengths across cultures and times (Dahlsgaard, Peterson, & Seligman, 2005). These virtues are basic to everyone’s progress in finding personal individual satisfaction and happiness (Ryff & Singer, 2000). Character can be developed in the gifted and talented, and Socratic methods are promising approaches to use in this training (see Ferrari, Chapter 54). Virtues play a series of important catalytic roles in the development of a life of integrity and personal flourishing. They carry moral weight that is valued in

219

its own right (Peterson, 2006). There are individuals who show a striking embodiment of one or more virtues but character strengths or virtues are lacking in other individuals (Sarros & Cooper, 2006). They elevate others who witness the person exhibiting the virtues (O’Toole & Isaacson, 2005). These are habits deliberately sought after by institutions such as finance, medicine, business, the military, and politics (e.g., Ciulla, 2003; Glover, 1999; Fischman, Solomon, Greenspan, & Gardner, 2004). The world has seen sad examples historically (Simons & Riedy, 1969) and in the contemporary news (e.g., Toner, 2000; Bernat, 2002; Staubus, 2005) of talented individuals without character strengths, values, or personal integrity who cause problems, sometimes small and sometimes great, for others and for themselves. The value and role of virtue are very broad; it is an excellent guide for researchers (Harvey & Pauwels, 2004) and individuals (Starker, 1989) trying to understand flourishing and the ways to optimize human living. It is possible to trivialize and douse virtues with pop psychology or to study them scientifically, searching for causal relationships. Virtues give a practical measure to clarifying the best personal and professional practices for obtaining that life and provide a framework around which to teach and guide individuals in achieving the good life (Fowers, & Tjeltveit, 2003). Virtues are also stable across time (Lapsley & Narvaez, 2006). Each character strength has obvious negative opposites (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).Virtues often represent a golden mean between two extremes of character weakness (Aristotle, as cited in McKeon, 1992). For example, the virtue of prudence or good judgment is the positive catalytic virtue between the two bad habits or the negative catalytic character weakness of thoughtless rashness and snap judgments at one extreme and constantly thinking about a question or issue but never making a decision at the other extreme. Character is a configuration of enduring positive dispositions and virtues that frame the total pattern and quality of an individual’s behavior (Peterson, 2006). The word character comes from a Greek word charassein that means to mark permanently or engrave as on stone tablets. Character includes all those habits of an individual’s personality more or less indelibly engraved upon it. A person’s character is the basis of their personal integrity. Character is the organizing personality principle that integrates behavior, attitudes, and

220

values (Lapsley & Narvaez, 2006). It provides an indelible mark of consistency and predictability to the individual’s life and influences the individual’s choices, actions, and reactions. Living a flourishing life for the gifted requires developing dispositions that facilitate and support the formation and maintenance of virtues. The consistency in living these virtues or character strengths leads to a life of integrity. The life of integrity built on virtues is the key to the highest levels of happiness and flourishing. Integrity is the most widely desired character strength for ethical business leaders (Sarros & Cooper, 2006). Integrity is a uniformity of beliefs and actions. It is personal wholeness based on a life of character. The word integrity itself comes from the Latin integer, which means whole, complete, or entire. According to Erikson, the final stage of development is integrity, a total integration of the person bringing with it a sense or feeling that his or her life is meaningful and worthwhile. The alternative end point according to Erikson is despair (Erikson, 1959). Flourishing is the result of the gifted individual developing and using their innate talents and strengths, developing a life of virtue and character, living a life of consistency and integration, and being self-reflective. Wasting results from the poor development or integration of these same things. Dysfunctional dispositions and disordered habits lead the individual to a life of increasing wasting, morbidity, and in some cases death. Values are the principles, standards, or qualities that guide human actions and are measurable and distinct from other intrapersonal catalytic factors (Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2004). Values are enduring beliefs that some goals are better than others (Rokeach, 1979). Individuals acquire values through direct experiences; they serve a shared social purpose; and they define a person’s self-image (Hiltin & Piliavin, 2004). They serve the purposes of guiding an individual’s choices and actions and suggesting paths which are more or less important to the individual and ways to evaluate whether the decisions made or actions taken were good (Hansson, 2001). Having common values helps individuals fit into groups. Individuals are constantly looking at their values and those of the people and communities around them. A person’s values interact with the various communities’ values. Sometimes these outside or peer values can override previously held personal ones; this shift can have a positive or a negative effect on the person and on the community. The values

M.F. Sayler

a person lives tell the world and the person themselves who they are and what is most important to them. For example, the virtue or habit of prudence guides the individual as he or she determines which values to hold on to and which to change or adjust. Prudence directs the individual to gather data from those individuals and sources that are reliable and sound and then to make a decision based on the information and insights gathered. A person’s specific beliefs and values relate in causal and reactive ways to their behavior (Russell, 2001a). People want to do the right thing, however they define that (Peterson, 2006). Values, though, go beyond what we would like to do and deal with what we believe we should do (Rokeach, 1979). They are not biological imperatives, interests, preferences, duties, moral obligations, desires, wants, goals, pleasures, orientations, attitudes, or evaluations. Values are less related to specific behaviors than are attitudes. They are stable and trait-like. Universal value structure includes achievement, benevolence, conformity, hedonism, power, security, self-direction, stimulation, tradition, and universalism. Lickona (2004) suggests 10 essential virtues necessary for the development of character in childhood and adolescence: wisdom, justice, fortitude, self-control, love, positive attitude, hard work, integrity, gratitude, and humility. The collaborative group calling themselves Values in Action (VIA) has identified a set of common core values for moral behavior and for living the good life that were ascribed to by moral philosophers and religious thinkers around the world and across time (Dahlsgaard, Peterson, & Seligman, 2005). These authors examined philosophical and religious traditions in China (Confucianism and Taoism), South Asia (Buddhism and Hinduism), and the West (Athenian philosophy, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). They found these virtues common to all: wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence. Others beginning with Cattell (1945) used factor analysis of personality descriptors to describe virtuelike factors in personality. This approach created clusters of traits that were then given names. Over time and with different rotation matrices five factors emerged, researchers call these factors the “Big-Five.” While the exact names given by various researchers vary slightly, the five factors are generally extraversion, agreeability, conscientiousness or dependability, emotional sta-

9

Gifted and Thriving

bility, and culture or openness (Goldberg, 1999). Although not often mentioned in terms of talent development, an essential aspect of thriving is developing a disposition of care of and benevolence toward others (Schwartz, Meisenhelder, Ma, & Reed, 2003). This altruistic disposition supports the individual as they serve others in diverse fields such as in good parenting (Ackerman, Zuroff, & Moscowitz, 2000); in dedicated lives to the service of others such as lived by religious sisters (Danner, Snowden, & Friesen, 2001), and in the daily opportunities within all talent fields for the gifted to serve others (Bevan-Brown, 2005; Winner, 2000).

Environmental Aspects or Catalysts Things external to the gifted individual also affect who he or she becomes. The people, events, and external catalysts help form or deform the person. A large part of the environmental catalysts that affect gifted children and youth relate to school and other forms of training, mentoring, or coaching. These catalysts have long-term effects on the cognitive, psychological, and emotional development of the gifted individual (Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst, & Guerin, 1994). The effect is especially strong when those experiences are provided at a level appropriate to the gifted individual’s readiness (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004). It is through the appropriate education and training that the gifted individual moves to deeper levels of knowledge, skills, and dedication to the work allowing the development of substantial skills and performances in all talent domains (e.g., Bloom, 1985; Gagn´e, 1985; Campbell, Wagner, & Walberg, 2000; Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002; Jørgensen, 2002). The people who interact with the gifted individual such as parents, siblings, friends, teachers, mentors, coaches, and others may exert a positive or negative catalytic effect on the development of the person. The places and activities in which the gifted person finds him or herself such as a specific home, community, school, classroom, or gifted program have positive or negative catalytic effects. Macro events or even chance events and conditions are catalytic for the individual. The events and conditions in the gifted person’s country or even continent, whether they live in a time of economic plenty or one of deprivation, whether this is a time of peace or war, accidents, health, the death of a parent, or other important person in their lives, or the

221

winning of some content or recognition, all speed up or slow down the transformation of abilities into talents and personal thriving. Understanding the kinds and effects of environmental catalysts is important and well described by Gagn´e (1985, 2005). Understanding the mechanisms for why the environmental catalysts act the way they do is also important for understanding talent and thriving development. Gifted children react positively to the simplest modifications in their regular classrooms, more positively to pull-out classes and enrichment activities, and the most positively to accelerated options or special schools for the gifted (Delcourt, Loyd, Cornell, & Goldberg, 1994). Although the empiric data on long-term effects of enriched activities shows modest effects (Kulik, 2004), gifted students like them. Despite the common doubts among educators and parents about accelerative options (Southern & Jones, 2004), the gifted who are accelerated thrive and those who do not coast or even begin wasting. After attending a 2- or 3-week summer program for the gifted, many participants express enthusiasm for the experience and say things like, “I can survive an entire year back in my regular school if I can be here for a couple of weeks in the summer.” What is it that makes the responses of the gifted to appropriate gifted programming so positive? How can they bounce back so quickly from the negative experiences they often have in regular school? The resilience provided by eliciting positive emotions provides one possible answer. Positive emotions not only feel better, they help a person recover more quickly from stress such as that which manifests itself physically in increased heart rate, peripheral vasoconstriction, and blood pressure (Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). Positive emotions experienced in the environment change the person’s responses to a stressful environment immediately and facilitate long-term motivation, enthusiasm, and success across other environments. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001) predicts that positive emotions are useful in long-term thriving. Appropriate curricular differentiation for the gifted increases and enhances their exposure to advanced content and processes. This exposure allows the gifted to learn and do things earlier than other children or to access opportunities usually available only to adults. These kinds of experiences are typically more challenging to the gifted and thereby bring

222

them greater satisfaction. Anyone who has watched a gifted child or youth enjoying a challenging activity can attest to their enthusiasm; they have fun. Even when the individuals return to more mundane or less stimulating activities, they retain some of the motivation, the fondness for the content, materials, and the people involved in the experience, and they seek to return to similar kinds of experiences (Dai, Moon, & Feldhusen, 1998; Purcell, 1993; Adams-Byers, Moon, & Whitsell, 2004). Another possible factor influencing the effect of environmental catalysts is the psychological state of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Flow contributes to flourishing and life satisfaction but is not the same as satisfaction (Vittersø, 2003). Flow is characterized by a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity, an enjoyment of what is being done, of working to full capacity. During periods of flow the person experiences a high degree of concentration, a total absorption in the activity with the person’s sense of time being lost. Sustained flow occurs when the person experiences an optimal balance of skill and challenge in the talent domain. There are examples of this in many talent domains; e.g., sports (Russell, 2001b), computers and online learning (Shin, 2006), medical professionals (Shanafelt, 2005), or in the business world (Vogt, 2005). These flow experiences seem to have a cumulative and building effect on the person so that events that cause even small flow experiences were desirable to adolescents (and probably everyone) and were sought after again (Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider, & Shernoff, 2003). If gifted programming or life’s work brings about more flow experiences, the gifted will want to engage in them and will seek them out. While real flow facilitates thriving, there is also junk or faux flow. These are engaging and fun experiences, but ones that are not intellectually challenging (Peterson, 2006). Faux flow experiences leave the person weary and unsatisfied. Playing video games or watching TV provide clear examples of faux flow. Some gifted program activities also provide faux flow experiences. These courses and programs for the gifted are fun, but empty of real content, deep processing, or integrative thought (Sawyer, 1988). Such programs deceive parents, students, and school officials about the quality of the education the gifted are receiving (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004). Faux flow is better than no flow and this may be why gifted students

M.F. Sayler

appreciate even weak gifted programs, minimally challenging classes, or distractions such as video games. The external catalysts in the gifted person’s life also generate emotions that profoundly influence performance today and in the future. Too often for the gifted, formal schooling elicits negative emotional responses and a lack of effort. Negative emotions facilitate survival through generating the adaptive flight response to stress and danger. They incline the person to narrow their responses, act quickly to stop whatever is signaling danger, and to avoid that thing that causes the negative emotion in the future if possible (Plutchik, 1980). The gifted child or youth often feel these negative emotions in their experiences with school (Reis & Renzulli, 2004). Consequently, even for those who do not act out or become underachievers, gifted programs that elicit negative feelings have a dampening effect on their motivation. This dampening comes from their negative emotional reactions to repetitive review of things they already know, to hours spent practicing for tests, to friends who do not value learning, to teachers who do not listen to their ideas or suggestions, and to content well below their level of understanding and comprehension. Positive emotions signal the body that this is a safe and good person, place, or activity. Having positive emotional responses to environmental stimuli broadens attention, increases working memory, enhances verbal fluency, and improves openness to new information (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005). Deep engagement in the learning engenders enjoyment, hope, and pride; it increases the person’s motivation, use of good learning strategies, accessing of cognitive resources, selfregulation, and academic achievement (Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, & Perry, 2002). Young gifted children start school with great interest in things and a desire for engaged learning (Smutny, 2004). Good education and appropriate pacing for gifted learners increase the positive emotions and deepens their urge to engage in greater exploration (Fredrickson, 2000). Contentment such as that provided by appropriate gifted education elicits positive autonomic nervous system responses as the child, youth, or adult savors and integrates the learning (Levenson, 2003). Love for the topic or for the person teaching or mentoring sparks a recurring cycle of these positive urges within the gifted individual providing another mechanism of effective and positive environmental catalysts.

9

Gifted and Thriving

Spirituality, Religion, and Faith Understanding the development of flourishing gifted individuals must address the effects of their spirituality, religion, and faith. The very core or essence of what makes our species human is its quest for metaphysical understanding and meaning. Since the dawn of humanity, people have sought the sacred. This quest suggests Homo religious is at least an accurate name as Homo sapiens (Albright & Ashbrook, 2001) . The separation of spirituality and religion is a recent phenomenon (Hill et al., 2000). Both share the core goal of search for the sacred (Zinnbauer, Pargament, & Scott, 1999). Spirituality can be a form of philosophy and is generally know as metaphysics. Spirituality is a universal and phenomenological exploration and response to “mystery” whose ultimate aim is living of a life of compassion (Emmons & Paloutzian, 2003); for some it may have an eternal orientation. The domains of spirituality have been thought of as a personal or experiential search for individual purpose and meaning; identifying and seeking specific values or beliefs; transcendence and awareness of realities beyond the self; connecting to others, some higher power, God, Spirit, Divinity, or nature; and a reflection on personal experiences and behavior to better understand yourself (Martsolf & Mickley, 1998). There are no clear or agreed upon operational definitions of spirituality (Moberg, 2002). Even with this lack of operational definition, spirituality has a clear role to play in thriving. Gifted children from very young ages ask unusually mature questions about God, life, the universe, death, or their own mortality (Shavinina, 1999). Recent reviews of successful aging, for example, show a strong connection between spirituality and markers of happiness and thriving in old age (Sadler & Biggs, 2006). Married couples who see their marriage as oriented to the divine reported greater levels of satisfaction, more constructive problem solving, less marital conflict, and greater commitment to their relationship than couples who did not see the sacred in their married life (Mahoney et al., 1999). A simple but useful definition of religion is “a covenant faith community with teachings and narratives that enhance the search for the sacred and encourage morality” (Dollahite, 1998, p. 5). Religion also begins with a belief in God or a higher power and includes organizational or institutional beliefs and

223

practices such as church membership or affiliation. Most individuals who describe themselves as religious also say they are spiritual, but there are a smaller number who see themselves solely as spiritual (Zinnbauer, Pargament, & Scott, 1999). Religion is organized spirituality and often involves private and communal prayer. Regular prayer is related to overall mental health, self-monitoring, empathy, moral insight, and other positive behaviors but negatively correlated to depression, impulsivity, and risky behaviors (Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2001). Brain scans during prayer and meditation show significant frontal activity (McNamara, 2002). Religious commitment plays a positive role in preventing mental and physical illness, improving how people cope with mental and physical illness, and facilitating recovery from illness (Matthews, 1998). Being religious as an adolescent is associated with thriving correlates such as holding pro-social dispositions and behavior and inversely related to non-thriving correlates such as related to suicide ideation and attempts, substance abuse, premature sexual involvement, and delinquency (Donahue & Benson, 1995). Faith is the reasonable, not irrational, personal assent to God. Epidemiological and clinical research supports some relationship between religion (e.g., frequency of religious attendance, private religious involvement, and relying on one’s religious beliefs as a source of strength and coping) and health (Myers, 2000). This relationship is more description of persons of faith than of those for whom religion and spirituality is more pro forma. Longitudinal data on religiousness and fear of death and dying found little or no relationship to general religiousness, but did find a stronger connection between the firmness of beliefs and practices consistent with faith (Wink & Scott, 2005).

Thriving Continuum Flourishing vs. Wasting Thriving is the name given to a continuum composed of the sum of a person’s positive personal, psychological, and spiritual well-being. The direction on the continuum and the degree of thriving rest on the gifted

224

individual’s development of their natural abilities into talents and their development of dispositions, virtues, character, and integrity. As a person attains more of these talents or character integrity, his or her level of confidence and happiness increases. This process is self-perpetuating and self-intensifying. For the gifted person, a too easy life or underchallenging academic or professional experiences may actually be counterproductive to immediate and lifelong thriving. The positive extreme on the continuum of thriving is called flourishing. An individual who is flourishing is one who has developed his or her talents and whose life is consistently based on virtues and character; one of happiness, satisfaction, and peace; a life lived fully even if the events and circumstances and environment around him or her are not ideal or even bad. The other extreme of flourishing is wasting. Individuals who lack integrity develop dysfunctional dispositions and bad habits, suffer underachievement and sadness, and can even experience talent development and a life of social isolation, despair, or “hell on earth.” Ultimately, a life of wasting leads to emotional, psychological, or even physical decline, self-destructive behaviors, or even death. While no one starts out to live a life of wasting, the final state is the outcome of many small personal decisions and events and people external to the person. The wasting process begins with small inappropriate acts or omissions, bad choice, laziness, carelessness, etc. and when these continue over time, they lead to bad habits. Bad habits become serious vices that in turn lead to greater and deeper states of wasting when they remain unidentified and their elimination not seriously pursued. Many related terms and concepts have emerged for this positive flourishing including psychological wellbeing, subjective well-being, happiness, and quality of life (Urry et al., 2004). The capacity to love and to be loved is an inherently human tendency with powerful lifelong effects on well-being (Peterson, 2006). Good relationships with others may be the single most important source of life satisfaction and emotional well-being, across different ages and cultures (Reis & Gable, 2003). Having close personal relationships is central to flourishing. People who lacked ties to others were two to three times more likely to have died 9 years earlier than those who were socially connected and people who lack of social support will increase risk of various diseases as well as reduce length of life (Ryff & Singer, 2000). Having good and deep

M.F. Sayler

friends is a consistently correlated to life satisfaction and well-being (Peterson, 2006). Greater happiness characterizes the flourishing end of the thriving continuum. Happiness is most commonly used in everyday talk and in the popular literature to describe intrapersonal flourishing. A widely used definition of happiness is a subjective well-being made up of life satisfaction, a cognitive evaluation of one’s overall life, the presence of positive emotional experiences, and the absence of negative emotional experiences (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). The feeling of happiness accompanies a person’s behavior when the behavior reflects accomplishments consistent with the person’s potential (Waterman, 1993). Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics (McKeon, 1992) postulated that eudaimonia, literally “’having a good guardian spirit” or more generically, happiness is highest good achievable. To have or live eudaimonia is to flourish. Happiness is the total sum of all of our good feelings minus the total sum of our bad feelings (Peterson, 2005). Happiness has numerous positive effects for the individual, families, communities, and the society (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005). The benefits of being happy include earning a higher income and having superior work outcomes (e.g., greater productivity and higher quality of work); larger social rewards (e.g., more satisfying and longer marriages, more friends, stronger social support, and richer social interactions); more activity, energy, and flow experiences and overall better health (e.g., a bolstered immune system, lowered stress levels, and less pain); and longer life (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). Happy individuals are more creative, helpful, charitable, and self-confident, have better self-control, and show greater self-regulatory and coping abilities. Cumulative biological risk, called allostatic load, is an emerging method of assessing the biological effect of factors such as those found in flourishing. Sustained positive personal relationships are associated with lower allostatic load for mature men and women especially those with more social integrated and emotional support (Seeman, Singer, Ryff, Love, & LevyStorms, 2002). Although often assumed, happiness and good mood are not associated with having higher incomes (Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade, Schwarz, & Stone, 2006). People with above-average income are relatively satisfied

9

Gifted and Thriving

with their lives, but are barely happier than others are. On the other hand, they are more likely to experience tension and do not spend any more time in enjoyable activities than do those who earn less. Moreover, any positive effect of income on life satisfaction is usually evanescent. Understanding happiness in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood requires an understanding of those factors that are associated with happiness. These factors differ in their order of their correlational magnitude with happiness (Peterson, 2006). The correlates most important to a theory of how to live a life of thriving are those that are amenable to personal choice and can be developed through the efforts of gifted person themselves with the support and guidance of their parents, teachers, mentors, directors, colleagues, and friends. Other correlates of happiness are not within the control of the gifted person or those around him or her. Luckily, these correlates tend to be small in effect. Demographic factors have an effect on happiness. This includes variables such as intelligence, age, gender, ethnicity, and physical attractiveness. Additionally, controllable factors such as education, having children, and income are correlated with happiness. The correlations between all of these factors and happiness are significant, but small, in the range of ±0.2. Moderate correlations (±0.3) to happiness exist for several things about which the gifted person often has a choice or can to some extent control or facilitate. These include number of friends they have, being married, religiousness, having leisure activities, physical health, conscientiousness, extraversion (or at least extraverted activity), and having an internal locus of control. There is also a moderate, but inverse relationship between happiness and neuroticism. Large correlates (±0.5 and above) to happiness exist for another set of several things about which the gifted person often has a choice or can to some extent control or facilitate. These include having a strong sense of gratitude, optimism, and self-esteem. Having a job is a strong correlate of happiness. Interestingly though, the highest correlation to happiness and the only variable that distinguished very happy people from happy people was having close relationships with others. Quality of life is a specific way to assess personal happiness. Quality of life is an overarching personal assessment of a one’s life taking into consideration all

225

emotions, experiences, appraisals, and expectations (Huebner, Drane, & Valois, 2000; Park, 2004; Peterson, 2006). Subjective well-being is more specific than quality of life and is the individual’s current evaluation of his or her happiness. Life satisfaction is another concept and is a measure of subjective well-being. This is an overall judgment of the goodness of one’s life. Assessments of life satisfaction tend to be more stable over time than measure of momentary quality of life or happiness while still capturing changes in life circumstances of the individual. Childhood well-being is the absence of behavior problems and the presence of behaviors that lead to academic, interpersonal, athletic, and artistic success (Benson, Leffert, & Blyth, 2000). Because of the pervasive use of heterogeneous grouping and instruction in school gifted children and youth often have opportunities for doing OK academically and interpersonally, but many do not experience opportunities to be successful at the level of their abilities in many school settings (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004). The lack of appropriate challenge lessens the gifted child’s or adolescent’s well-being. The Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (Jackson & Davis, 2000) found being intellectually reflective, ethical, healthy, and having a life vision facilitated the well-being of youth. The level and type of their giftedness, the educational fit between the child’s abilities and the school activities, and child’s personality characteristics affect the well-being of school-aged gifted individuals (Neihart, 1999). Perceptions of cognitive and intrapersonal functioning, physical health, and mental health are the building blocks of adult well-being (Moore & Keys, 2003). The individual’s success and integration of these areas results in greater productivity and makes activities more enjoyable (Zaff et al., 2003). The integration of physical, cognitive, and social-emotional functioning assists in forming and keeping healthy social relationships and this integration allows the individual to overcome any psychosocial or environmental difficulties that come along (Berk, 2004). The greater an individual’s sense of well-being, the more likely he or she is to flourish. A lack of a sense of well-being acts to reduce the overall happiness and thriving an individual experiences. Wellbeing and a sense of satisfaction are associated with fulfilling one’s potential (Bornstein, Davidson, Keyes, & Moore, 2003).

226

M.F. Sayler

Conclusion

age peers (Sayler & Boazman, 2006). The model of gifted and thriving will have value if it is accurate and if helps understand and guide parents, teachers, coaches, Personal flourishing is the goal presented by this model mentors, and the gifted themselves in the specifics of for the gifted individuals across their entire life span. daily life at home, in school, and in their early, middle, Flourishing results when the young pre-school gifted and late adulthood to find and live the good life. child explores, creates, learns, and questions his or her world and those in it in an atmosphere of tenderness and love. The gifted students flourish when they are academically challenged, develop appropriate dispoReferences sitions toward work, life, and other people, find and embrace one or more talent fields, and have fun and friendships. In adulthood, the gifted individuals flour- Ackerman, S., Zuroff, D. C., & Moscowitz, D. S. (2000). Generativity in midlife and young adults: Links to agency, comish when they have developed and now use their talmunion, and subjective well-being. International Journal of ents, live a life of virtue and integrity, finding happiAging and Human Development, 50, 17–41. ness and peace in their spirituality, spouse and children Adams-Byers, J., Moon, S. M., Whitsell, S. S. (2004). Gifted students’ perceptions of the academic and social/emotional or other personal relations, and their avocational intereffects of homogenous and heterogeneous grouping. Gifted ests. Child Quarterly, 48, 5–20. One of the main tasks of the gifted is to discover Albright, C. R., & Ashbrook, J. B. (2001). Where God lives in the human brain. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks. their abilities, find a purpose and vision for their lives, and develop and apply both in ways that bring them Aquilino, W. S., & Supple, A. J. (2001). Long-term effects of parenting practices during adolescence on well-being outand others happiness and thriving. Thriving requires comes in young adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 22, the development of character and an acceptance that 289–308. each life has meaning and purpose. Once the gifted in- Baltes, P. B., Staudinger, U. M., & Lindenberger, U. (1999). Lifespan psychology: Theory and application to intellectual dividuals find their purpose and vision, they must folfunctioning. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 471–507. low it with all their energy and strength, but without Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Dea self-serving orientation. Instead, the flourishing pervelopmental Psychology Monograph, 4, 132–142. sons learn to take care of and serve others. In doing so Berk, L. (2004). Development through the lifespan. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. they make their work a joy, they bring joy and comfort Bernat, J. L. (2002). Ethics and the humanities: The diagnosis. to others through their work, and they become wise and [review of the book Ethics and the humanities: The Diagnoflourishing humans. sis]. Medical Ethics, 9, 5. The model described here has its basis in many em- Bevan-Brown, J. (2005). Providing a culturally responsive environment for gifted Maori learners, International Educational piric studies of various aspects of gifted individuals Journal, 6, 150–155. and in positive psychology. It addresses some of the Bloom, B. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: major ideas related to living a good life, but has inBallantine. evitably missed others. The model is flexible enough Bohlin, K. E., Farmer, D., & Ryan, K. (2001). Building Character in Schools Resource Guide. San Francisco, CA: Josseyto incorporate new conceptual elements and to have Bass. the model itself modified as data tests and verifies the Bornstein, M., Davidson, L., Keyes, C., & Moore, K. (Eds.). theories and relationships within the model. The indi(2003). Well-being: Positive development across the life course. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. vidual pieces generally have a sound psychometric basis, but the entire model is unconfirmed empirically. Campbell, J. R., Wagner, H., & Walberg, H. J. (2000). Academic Competitions and Programs Designed to Challenge the ExSpecific empiric study and proximal and longitudinal ceptionally Talented. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternvalidation are needed for the model, its component berg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 523–535). Oxford: Pergamon. parts, and their relationships. For example initial data Carver, C. S. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models, and from the base year of a longitudinal study of gradulinkages. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 245–266. ates of an early college entrance program found signif- Cattell, R. B. (1945). The description of personality: Principles icantly higher and powerful differences in life satisfacand findings in a factor analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 58, 69–90. tion, well-being, success in careers, and self-efficacy for the graduates and their non-gifted non-accelerated Ciulla, J. B. (Ed.). (2003). The ethics of leadership. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

9

Gifted and Thriving

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Collins. Dahlsgaard, K., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Shared virtue: The convergence of valued human strengths across culture and history. Review of General Psychology, 9, 203–213. Dai, D. Y., Moon, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Achievement motivation and gifted students: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 45–64. Danner, D. D., Snowden, D., & Friesen, W. V. (2001). Positive emotions in early life and longevity: Findings from the nun study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 804–813. Delcourt, M. A. B., Loyd, B., Cornell, D. G., & Goldberg, M. L. (1994). Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on student learning outcomes. Monograph of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (No. 94107). Storrs: University of Connecticut. Diener, E., & Diener, C. (1996). Most people are happy. Psychological Science, 7, 181–185. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13, 80–83. Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R., & Smith, H. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–303. Dollahite, D. C. (1998). Fathering, faith, and spirituality. Journal of Men’s Studies, 7, 3–15. Donahue, M. J., & Benson, P. L. (1995). Religion and well-being in adolescents. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 145–160. Emmons, R. A., & Paloutzian, R. F. (2003). The psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 377–402. Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and life cycle. In G.S. Klein (Ed.), Psychological issues (pp. 1–171). New York: International Universities Press. Fischman, W., Solomon, B., Greenspan, D., & Gardner, H. (2004). Making good: How young people cope with moral dilemmas at work. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Fowers, B. J., & Tjeltveit, A. C. (2003). Virtue obscured and retrieved Character, community and practices in behavioral science. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 387–394. Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s Search for Meaning. New York: Washington Square Press. Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300–319. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226. Fredrickson, B. L. (2000). Cultivating positive emotions to optimize health and well-being. Prevention and Treatment, 3. Retrieved January 25, 2006, from http://www.unc.edu/peplab/publications/cultivating.pdf Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, B. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 313–332. Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. (2003). What good are positive emotions in crises? A

227 prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 365–376. Gagn´e, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103–112. Gagn´e, F. (2005). From gifts to talents. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98– 119). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Glover, J. (1999), Humanity: a moral history of the twentieth century. New Haven: Yale University Press. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad–bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower–level facets of several five–factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., & Guerin, D. W. (1994). Gifted IQ: Early developmental aspects. The Fullerton longitudinal study. New York: Plenum. Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and their development in Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 172–204. Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 574–587. Gross, M. U. M. (2004a). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Gross, M. U. M. (2004b). Radical acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G., Assouline, and M. U. M. Gross, (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (pp. 87–96). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Hansson, S. O. (2001). The structure of values and norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harvey, J. H., & Pauwels, B. G. (2004). Modesty, humility, character strength, and positive psychology. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 620–623. Hill, P. C., Pargament, K. I., Wood, R. W., McCullough, M. E., Swyers, J. P., Larson, D. B., et al. (2000). Conceptualizing religion and spirituality: Points of commonality, points of departure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30, 51–77. Hiltin, S., & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 359–393. Holahan, C. K., & Sears, R. R., & Cronbach, L. J. (1995). The gifted group in later maturity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Huebner, E. S., Drane, W., & Valois R. (2000). Levels and demographic correlates of adolescent life satisfaction reports. School Psychology International, 21, 281–292. Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning Points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York: Teachers College Press. Jørgensen, H. (2002). Instrumental performance expertise and amount of practice among instrumental students in a conservatoire. Music Education Research, 4, 105–119. Kahneman, D. Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N. & Stone, A. A. (2006, June 30). Would you be hap-

228 pier if you were richer? A focusing illusion. Science, 312, 1908–1910. Keirsey, D. (1998). Please understand me II. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. King, L. A. (2001). The hard road to the good life: The happy, mature person. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41, 51–72. Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M. E., Larson, D. E. (2001). Handbook of religion and health. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Kulik, J. A. (2004). Meta-Analytic Studies of Acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (pp. 13–22). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Lapsley, D. K., & Narvaez, D. (2006). Character Education. In Vol. 4 (A. Renninger & I. Siegel, volume eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (W. Damon & R. Lerner, Series Eds.) (pp. 248–296). New York: Wiley. Lerner, R. M. (2002). Concepts and theories of human development (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Levenson, R. W. (2003). Blood, sweat, and fears: The autonomic architecture of emotion. In P. Ekman, J. J. Campos, R. J. Davidson, & F. B. M. de Waal (Eds.), Emotions inside out: 130 years after Darwin’s The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 1000, pp. 348–366). New York: New York Academy of Sciences. Lickona, T. (2004). Character matter: How to help our children develop good judgment, integrity, and other essential virtues. New York: Simon & Schuster. Lubinski, D., Schmidt, D. B., Benbow, C. P. (1996). A 20-year stability analysis of the study of values for intellectually gifted individuals from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 443–451. Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. A., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855. Lyubomirsky S., Sheldon, K.M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9,111–131. Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Jewell, T., Swank, A. B., Scott, E., Emery, E., et al. (1999). Marriage and the spiritual realm: The role of proximal and distal religious constructs in marital functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 321–338. Martsolf, D. S., & Mickley, J. R. (1998). The concept of spirituality in nursing theories: Differing world-views and extent of focus. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27, 294–303. Matthews, D. A., McCullough, M. E., Larson, D. B., Koenig, H. G., Swyers, J. P., & Milano, M. G. (1998). Religious commitment and health status: A review of the research and implications for family medicine. Archives of Family Medicine, 7, 118–124. McKeon, R. (1992). Introduction to Aristotle. NY: The Modern Library. McNamara, P. (2002). The motivational origins of religious practices. Zygon, 37, 143–160. Meier, A. (1993). Towards an integrated model of competency: Linking White and Bandura. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 7, 35–47.

M.F. Sayler Moberg, D. O. (2002). Assessing and measuring spirituality: Confronting dilemmas of universal and particular evaluative criteria. Journal of Adult Development, 9, 47–60. Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The effect of perceived challenges and skills on the quality of subjective experience. Journal of Personality, 64, 266–310. Moon, S. M. (2003). Personal talent. High Ability Studies, 14, 5–21. Moore, K. A., & Keys, C. L. M. (2003). A brief history of the study of well-being in children and adults. In M. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. Keys, & K. Moore. (Eds.), Well-being: positive development across the life course (pp. 1–11). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55, 56–67. Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22, 10–17. O’Toole, J., & Isaacson, W. (2005). Creating the good life: Applying Aristotle’s wisdom to find meaning and happiness. Emmaus, PA: Rodale. Park, N. (2004). The role of subjective well-being in positive youth development. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 25–39. Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 603–619. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91–105. Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York: Oxford University Press & Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. New York: Harper & Row. Purcell, J. H. (1993). The effects of the elimination of gifted and talented programs on participating students and their parents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 177–187. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Reichlin, M. (1997). The argument from potential: A reappraisal. Bioethics, 11(1), 1–23. Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2003). Toward a positive psychology of relationships. In C. L. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: The positive person and the good life (pp. 129–159). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Reis, M. R., & Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Current research on the social and emotional development of gifted and talented students: good news and future possibilities. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 119–130. Reiss, D., Neiderhiser, J. M., Hetherington, E. M., & Plomin, R. (2000). The relationship code: Deciphering genetic and social influence on adolescent development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Robinson, N. M. (2004). The academic effects of acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G., Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross, (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s bright-

9

Gifted and Thriving

est students (pp. 59–67). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Rogers, K. B. (2004). Effects of academic acceleration on the social-emotional status of gifted students. In N. Colangelo, S. G., Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross, (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (pp. 47–57). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Rokeach, M., (Ed.). (1979). Understanding human values: Individual and societal. New York: Free Press. Russell, R. F. (2001a). The role of values in servant leadership. The Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 22, 76–83. Russell, W. D. (2001b). An examination of flow state occurrence in college athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 83–107. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–87. Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2000). Interpersonal flourishing: A positive health agenda for the new millennium. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 30–44. Sadler, E., & Biggs, S. (2006). Exploring the links between spirituality and ‘successful ageing.’ Journal of Social Work Practice, 20, 267–280. Sarros, J. C., & Cooper, B. K. (2006). Building character: A leadership essential. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 1–22. Sawyer, R. (1988). In defense of academic rigor. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 5–19. Sayler, M. F. (1999). Things this young child has done. In L. Porter (Ed.), Gifted young children: A Guide for teachers and parents (pp. 282–286). Sydney, AU: Allen and Unwin. Sayler, M. F. (2005, April). The development of the gifted through self-examination leading to character and wisdom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, QB, Canada. Sayler, M. F., & Boazman, J. (2006, November). The well-being of early-college entrants: Initial longitudinal study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Charlotte, NC. Schwartz, C. E., Meisenhelder, J. B., Ma, Y., & Reed, G. W. (2003). Altruistic social interest behaviors are associated with better mental health. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65, 778–785. Seeman, T. E., Singer, B. H., Ryff, C. D., Love, G. D., & LevyStorms, L. (2002). Social relationships, gender, and allostatic load across two age cohorts. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 395–406. Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Free Press. Shanafelt, T. D. (2005). Finding Meaning, Balance, and Personal Satisfaction in the Practice of Oncology. The Journal of Supportive Oncology, 3, 157–164. Shavinina, L. V. (1999). The psychological essence of the child prodigy phenomenon: Sensitive periods and cognitive experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 25–37. Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms

229 from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 158–176. Shin, N. (2006). Online learner’s ‘flow’ experience: An empirical study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 705–720. Simons, J., & Riedy, J. (1969) Wisdom’s child: Exploring adult immaturity. New York: Herder & Herder. Smutny, J. F. (Ed.). (2004). Designing and developing program for gifted students: A service publication of the National Association for Gifted Children. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Southern, W. T, & Jones, E. D. (2004). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In N. Colangelo, S. G., Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (pp. 5–12). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Starker, S. (1989). Oracle at the supermarket. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Staubus, G. J. (2005). Ethics failures in corporate financial reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 5–15. Steiner, H. H., & Carr, M. (2003). Cognitive development in gifted children: Toward a more precise understanding of emerging differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 215–246. Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Wisdom as a form of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 252–260. Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Why should schools teach for wisdom: The balance theory of wisdom in educational settings. Educational Psychology, 36, 227–245. Sternberg, R. J. (2003). WICS: A theory of wisdom, intelligence, and creativity, synthesized. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Words to the wise about wisdom? A commentary on Ardelt’s critique of Baltes. Human Development, 47, 286–289. Toner, J. H. (2000). Morals under the gun: The cardinal virtues, military ethics, and American society. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 320–333. Urry, H. L., Nitschke, J. B., Dolski, I., Jackson, D. C., Dalton, K. M., Mueler, C. J., et al. (2004). Making a life worth living. Psychological Science, 15, 367–372. Vittersø, J. (2003). Flow versus life satisfaction: A projective use of cartoons to illustrate the difference between the evaluation approach and the intrinsic motivation approach to subjective quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 201–233. Vogt, C. P. (2005). Maximizing human potential: Capabilities theory and the professional work environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 111–123. Waterman, A. (1993). Two concepts of happiness: Contrast of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 678–691. Wentzel, K. R. (2001). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73, 287–301.

230 Wink, P., & Scott, J. (2005). Does religiousness buffer against the fear of death and dying in late adulthood? Findings from a longitudinal study. Journal of Gerontology Journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60, 207–214.

M.F. Sayler Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist, 55, 159–169. Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., & Scott, A. B. (1999). The emerging meanings of religiousness and spirituality: problems and prospects. Journal of Personality, 67, 889–920.

Chapter 10

A Unique Type of Representation Is the Essence of Giftedness: Towards a Cognitive-Developmental Theory Larisa V. Shavinina To Professor Marina A. Kholodnaya, whose ideas found further development in this chapter

Abstract This chapter presents the cognitivedevelopmental theory that seeks to explain the very essence of giftedness. According to the theory, the structural organization of giftedness is presented at the six interrelated levels: (1) the neuropsychological foundation of giftedness, (2) its developmental foundation, mainly formed by sensitive periods, which significantly accelerate a child’s development, (3) the cognitive basis of giftedness, and (4–6) three levels of the manifestations of giftedness: intellectually creative, metacognitive, and extracognitive (i.e. specific feelings, senses, intuition, preferences, and intentions) abilities, respectively. The cognitive basis of giftedness is the specific cognitive experience of the gifted that manifests itself in their unique type of representations. It means that gifted individuals see, understand, and interpret everything differently. The gifted’s unique type of representations or their unique picture of the world or their unique vision is the essence of giftedness.

has been guiding my research since then. Many good theories of giftedness have been offered over the last three decades (see Colangelo & Davis, 2003; Heller, Monks, Sternberg, & Subotnik, 2000; Sternberg & Davidson, 1986, 2005; as well as many chapters included in this volume). However, some essential pieces of the puzzle are still missing. This chapter presents the cognitive-developmental theory that seeks to explain the fundamental nature of giftedness by thus answering the above-mentioned question. Based on a synthesis of findings from the psychology of high abilities, developmental, cognitive, and educational psychology, and especially on research of Marina Kholodnaya and Lev Vygotsky, the theory states that giftedness is formed by the six interrelated levels or layers, each of which provides a basis for the subsequent level or layer. The model presents the structural organization of giftedness as follows (see Fig. 10.1). The first layer is the neuropsychological foundation of giftedness, mostly connected to the exceptional neuKeywords Cognitive experience · Unique representa- ral plasticity of the brain of the gifted. The second level tions · Child prodigies · Sensitive periods · Conceptual is the developmental foundation of giftedness, mainly structures · Subjective mental space · Accelerated de- formed by sensitive periods, which significantly accelerate a child’s mental development through the actualvelopment ization of his or her intellectual and creative potential and the growth of the individual’s cognitive resources resulting in the appearance of a unique cognitive expeIntroduction rience (Shavinina, 1997, 1999). This experience is the cognitive basis of giftedness, the third layer in its struc“What is the essence of giftedness?” is the question tural organization. The specific cognitive experience of that captured my attention at the age of 15 years and the gifted manifests itself in their unique type of representation of everything what is going on around them (i.e. any event, idea, problem, etc.). It means that the L.V. Shavinina (B) gifted see, understand, and interpret the world around Universit´e du Qu´ebec en Outaouais, Gatineau, Qu´ebec, Canada them in a different manner than the rest of people. The e-mail: [email protected]

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 10, 

231

232 Fig. 10.1 The model of the internal structure of giftedness

L.V. Shavinina

Extracognitive manifestations of giftedness

Metacognitive manifestations of giftedness

Intellectually-creative manifestations of giftedness

Cognitive basis of giftedness

Developmental basis of giftedness

Neuropsychological basis of giftedness

gifted’s unique individual picture of the world is the essence of giftedness and high abilities as a whole. Another aspect of the uniqueness of the gifted’s intellectual picture of the world is their objectivization of cognition. It means that the gifted are able to see the world “as it was, as it is, and as it will be in its objective reality” (Kholodnaya, 1990, p. 128; Shavinina, 1996). The gifted’s specific cognitive experience provides a basis for three levels of manifestations of giftedness (i.e. its various characteristics and traits). In other words, all multiple manifestations of giftedness can be categorized in three main groups. These three levels—intellectually creative, metacognitive, and extracognitive manifestations—represent the fourth, fifth, and sixth levels in the structural organization of giftedness, respectively (see Fig. 10.1). Taken together, these six levels describe the nature of giftedness.

In the sections that follow I will consider each of the levels. In the context of my analysis of the developmental foundation of giftedness, I will discuss the child prodigy phenomenon. As this is the only chapter in this volume that considers child prodigies, I will therefore review the existing literature in this area.

Neuropsychological Foundation of Giftedness John Geake (this volume) reviewed the field of the neuropsychology of giftedness and demonstrated that the brain of the gifted functions differently. Larry Vandervert et al. (this volume) suggested that the extraordinary achievements of the gifted in general and child

10

A Unique Type of Representation Is the Essence of Giftedness

prodigies in particular are the result of domain-specific high attentional control learned beginning in infancy and modulated between the prefrontal cortex and the cerebellum. They concluded that this high attentional control accelerates the production of high intellectual processes in a spontaneous version of deliberate practice (Ericsson et al., this volume). This is an interesting hypothesis. It looks like Layne Kalbfleisch (this volume) is currently the most close to the explanation of the neuropsychological basis of giftedness. Specifically, she argued that the neuropsychological foundation of giftedness is associated with the exceptional neural plasticity of the brain of the gifted. That is, giftedness is a type of neural plasticity that manifests itself in specific states of mind of the gifted. The “state of mind” concept is similar to the concept of a unique type of representations of the gifted briefly mentioned above. It is interesting to see how both neuropsychology and psychology of giftedness are independently going in the same direction. As Kalbfleisch comprehensively analysed neural plasticity and state of mind in her chapter, I will not review them here. I will only mention that neural plasticity provides a foundation for the developmental basis of giftedness discussed in the next section.

Developmental Foundation of Giftedness My explorations of the developmental basis of giftedness are related to my research on the child prodigy phenomenon. Specifically, I found that this phenomenon is a pure developmental phenomenon. As nobody in this volume considers the child prodigy phenomenon, I will therefore analyse it in detail. In my opinion, any discussion of the developmental foundation of giftedness requires the examination of the child prodigy phenomenon.

What Do We Know About Child Prodigies Today? People have always been interested in very young children who demonstrate extraordinary abilities and ex-

233

ceptional talents. It appears to be unbelievable, but it has been and remains a reality: prodigies can be found in every generation of children. Prodigies’ gifts and talents are fascinating and amazing to everyone. Similar exceptional abilities in adults are not so impressive. The very essence of the child prodigy phenomenon is hidden right here. In fact, human beings have always been astonished by one thing: child prodigies are able to do something that is usually attributed to adults. Hence, a key to the understanding of the prodigy phenomenon should be sought in the age of prodigies. Age implies development and, consequently, the process of the development of child prodigies must be analysed. The importance of the notion of age for the understanding of the essence of the prodigy phenomenon was reflected in Feldman’s (1986b) definition of prodigy. He stated that “a prodigy is a child who, before the age of 10, performs at the level of an adult professional in some cognitively demanding field” (Feldman, 1986b, p. 161). Using such an age boundary (i.e. 10 years), this definition can be slightly changed to the following definition: a prodigy is a child who, before the age of 10 years,1 displays extraordinary intellectual-creative performance and/or achievements in any type of a real activity2 (i.e. intellectual, musical, or artistic activity, etc.).3 The

1 Note that both growing-up prodigies (i.e. those above the age of 10 years) and individuals who are simply gifted will be mentioned below. The chapter deals with a new and almost unstudied age phenomenon in the development of the gifted—sensitive periods—and, because of that, any evidence in favour of these periods is very important. From this viewpoint, it does not matter whether the signs of sensitive periods are manifested in child prodigies, growing-up prodigies, prodigies of the past (i.e. geniuses and outstanding people), or in various types of gifted at any age. 2 This definition is rather broad, but such a definition is appropriate for the current stage of research on the prodigy phenomenon where scientific studies of this phenomenon are not numerous and understanding of its nature is not very advanced. 3 It should be emphasized that this definition has nothing in common with the understanding of prodigies as children of exceptionally high IQ. For the most part IQ tests are based on the assumption that what is measured should be universal and unchangeable for an individual in the process of his or her development. However, the existing findings about sensitive periods, advanced levels of intellectual development, and asynchronous mental development (considered below) do not correspond to such an assumption.

234

difference between “prodigy” and “the very gifted” consists mainly in the age boundary (i.e. 10 years). All prodigies are mental prodigies, because all of them manifest certain intellectually creative performance or/and achievements in various fields of human endeavour. I suggested that rather conventionally, prodigies in art, chess, and music can be considered as special type of prodigies. Correspondingly, prodigies who display advanced levels of thinking can be referred to as a general type of prodigies (Shavinina, 1999). In the individual development (cognitive, intellectual, emotional, personality, psychomotor, and social) of everyone and especially of children, there are certain age periods of heightened sensitivity, which are known as sensitive periods (Vygotsky, 1956; Leites, 1971). The underlying mechanism of the prodigy phenomenon that actualizes the potentially extraordinary abilities of a child should be seen in sensitive periods. My research presents a new approach to the understanding of the nature of the prodigy phenomenon, which is based on the sensitive periods and unique cognitive experience of a child (Shavinina, 1997). In this section, I will analyse thoroughly the developmental process of child prodigies, because its basis—sensitive periods—is common for other types of giftedness. First of all, I will critically examine the existing explanations of the child prodigy phenomenon. Second, I will analyse the nature of a child’s sensitivity and sensitive periods. Third, I will discuss the specificity of the functioning of sensitive periods in prodigies. The purpose of my explorations of the child prodigy phenomenon is more to understand the inner/fundamental mechanism of the prodigy phenomenon than various external factors or forces (e.g., social or historical) that can increase the probability of the appearance of prodigies. To understand the inner/fundamental mechanism of the prodigy phenomenon means to understand how this phenomenon develops within the child. Social environment is important, but it is only an external factor in the development of prodigies. Any external factors or forces do not provide scientific explanations of the prodigy phenomenon. Hence, the analysis of the existing studies on child prodigies will be made according to how the real nature (i.e. inner mechanism) of the prodigy phenomenon is interpreted in these studies.

L.V. Shavinina

Explanations of the Nature of the Prodigy Phenomenon4 Revesz’s (1925) research on a 7-year-old music prodigy and Baumgarten’s (1930) study of nine child prodigies were the first psychological studies of the prodigy phenomenon. These studies were entirely descriptive and focused mainly on the listing of children’s characteristics and traits. Any field of science began from descriptive stages of its development. However, listing the various musical, intellectual, emotional, personality, and other characteristics of prodigies constitutes the traditional trait approach in the psychology of giftedness (Shavinina, 1995), which reveals little about the essence of the prodigy phenomenon. This approach is not a productive one, because it is unknown whether the child’s various traits predetermine his or her prodigious potential, or whether the latter leads to a specific reorganization of the prodigy’s mind and personality that result in his or her exceptional performance and achievements. In the late 1950s Natan Leites began his research on child prodigies in the former Soviet Union. He found that the prodigy phenomenon can be explained by high mental activity, well-functioning self-regulation, and a child’s age sensitivity or developmental sensitivity. High mental activity includes the ability to pursue mental work for a long period of time, a permanent need for intellectual activity, extraordinary curiosity, and a wide range of interests (Leites, 1960, 1971, 1996). Leites’s understanding of self-regulation is identical to regulatory processes in the structure of metacognition, which are responsible for planning, monitoring, and executive control (Brown, 1978, 1984; Flavell, 1976; Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996; Shore & Dover, 1987; Shore & Kanevsky, 1993; Sternberg, 1986a). High mental activity and well-functioning self-regulation can be viewed as important manifestations of the prodigy phenomenon, but not as its inner mechanism. Leites’s

4 Sometimes one can find statements such as the following: “The literature contains only three systematic scientific studies of child prodigies” (Morelock & Feldman 1993; p.162), which refer to studies of Ravesz, Baumgarten, and Feldman. This is not true, since in this case Leites’s research was not taken into account. Unfortunately, his investigations are absent from the American literature and rarely cited in most European publications published in English.

10

A Unique Type of Representation Is the Essence of Giftedness

concept of age sensitivity has a potential to advance psychological knowledge about the nature of the prodigy phenomenon (to be considered below).

Feldman’s Co-incidence Theory As a result of his study of six child prodigies, Feldman (1986b) proposed a co-incidence theory of the prodigy phenomenon. Co-incidence means “the melding of the many sets of forces that interact in the development and expression of human potential” (Feldman, 1986b, p. 11). Among such forces, he distinguished biological qualities, individual psychological qualities, proximal context (i.e. childs external surrounding), intermediate context (i.e. family structure and its traditions), domain and the surrounding field (a key aspect of Feldmans theory), and distinct context (i.e. social–historical factors). The prodigy phenomenon is a result of a concordance of the forces of co-incidence leading to the exceptional manifestation of an individual’s potential. In my opinion, this theory has serious shortcomings. It seems that Feldman’s theory can explain everything: the nature of giftedness, talent, genius, creativity, intelligence, and wisdom. Furthermore, it can be applied with the same success to a wide range of brilliant manifestations of the human mind (e.g. various intellectual traits and characteristics). Feldman asserted that the co-incidence theory seeks to explain all human achievement, not only the prodigy phenomenon. Nevertheless, this is not entirely correct, because the above-mentioned phenomena—according to the existing research—are not the same. Intelligence is not identical to creativity, giftedness is not equal to wisdom, nor is talent or genius the same.5 All 5 Sternberg’s studies of “implicit” theories of giftedness, intelligence, creativity, and wisdom have demonstrated that even ordinary individuals had clear distinctions between giftedness, intelligence, creativity, and wisdom (Sternberg, 1985, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c, 1993b; Sternberg et al., 1981). “Implicit theories are constructions by people that reside in the minds of these people. They thus constitute people’s folk psychology. Such theories need to be discovered rather than invented because they already exist, in some form, in people’s heads” (Sternberg, 1990c, p.142). It is interesting to note that Sternberg’s implicit theory of giftedness (Sternberg, 1993a, 1993b) is different from his explicit theory of giftedness (Sternberg, 1986a). On the other hand, explicit theories and definitions of giftedness, talent, intelligence, creativity, genius, and wisdom provided

235

these psychological phenomena are different and therefore cannot be explained by a single theory. Even if we suppose that differences in their natures are not particularly large, the same theoretical framework is insufficient for understanding them, because it is always possible to find something that would be different for each case, as, for example, the level of manifestations. That is, manifestations of wisdom are not identical to those of giftedness, and so on. Therefore, Feldman’s claim about the capacity of the co-incidence theory to explain all human achievement is not correct. In fact, his conclusions are correct in a slightly different sense: namely that the forces of co-incidence are indeed important factors and probably necessary conditions for the emergence of any human achievement, including a prodigy’s performance. However, they can be viewed only as factors or conditions, not as something universal that can explain everything. On the other hand, the following question arises: Are all Feldman’s factors sufficient for the exceptional development of human potential (as, e.g. in the case of prodigies)? The answer is not particularly clear. For

by professional psychologists also show distinction in the understanding of these phenomena (Detterman, 1993; Feldman, 1982, 1986b; Gagn´e, 1993, 1995; Gruber, 1982; Heller, 1993; Miller, 1996; Morelock & Feldman, 1993; Renzulli, 1986; Shavinina, 1998; Sternberg, 1986b, 1988a, 1988b, 1990a, 1990b; Tannenbaum, 1986, 1993; Wallace, 1985). For example, Feldman (1982, 1986) presented different definitions of giftedness, talent, genius, and child prodigy. Gagn´e (1993, 1995, this volume) proposed different interpretations of giftedness and talent. Similarly, Wallace (1985) wrote on the conceptual differences between giftedness and creativity. Such examples can be continued. Similarly, psychologists differentiate between intelligence and creativity (Detterman, 1994; Runco & Albert 1990; Sternberg, 1985, 1988b, 1990a; Sternberg & Detterman, 1986). For example, the well-known definition of creativity as the ability to generate something new, original, and appropriate (Mumford, 1996) is completely different from the existing definitions of intelligence (see, for instance, Sternberg & Detterman’s [1986] volume devoted to experts’ definitions of intelligence). The investigations of Sternberg, who is actively working in these fields, also support the distinction between intelligence and creativity. His triarchic theory of human intelligence (1985, 1990a) is not identical to his conception of creativity (1988a) or his investment theory of creativity (Sternberg & Lubart, 1995, 1996). Finally, although explicit conceptions of wisdom are close to the psychological understanding of intelligence, their authors, however, differentiate between wisdom and intelligence (Baltes, Staudinger, Maercker & Smith, 1995; Staudinger & Baltes, 1996; Sternberg, 1990b).

236

instance, there are many families providing good external conditions (i.e. proximal and intermediate contexts) for the development of their children. Suppose these children have the necessary individual psychological qualities (in the sense of Feldman). Finally, assume that all the social and historical factors are favourable. Nonetheless, these children are not prodigies. Therefore, something else predetermines the development of prodigies.

The Socio-cultural and Multidimensional Approaches The socio-cultural and multidimensional perspectives can be found in the research literature about child prodigies. The main methodology of these studies is related to the application of the case study method to famous people who were prodigies in the past. Investigations in the framework of the socio-cultural approach mainly concentrate on the study of social and cultural factors (i.e. family, school, society, and other related environments) contributing to the appearance of child prodigies (Goldsmith, 1990; Howe, 1990, 1993; Radford, 1990). In fact, these studies continue Feldmans tradition by explaining the prodigy phenomenon via his co-incidence theory or its elements. Certainly, it is interesting to know all possible factors that facilitate the expression of the prodigy’s potential, but they are no more than circumstances in which some children become outstandingly accomplished at an early age. Definitely, research on the prodigy phenomenon conducted within the framework of the socio-cultural paradigm contains helpful conclusions for nurturing and education of the gifted. However, the first and the most important question “What is the nature of the prodigy phenomenon?”— does not have answers in Goldsmith’s conception or in Radford’s (1990) and Howe’s (1993) studies. The multidimensional perspective refers to the analysis of the prodigy phenomenon from different intersected views (e.g. developmental, cognitive, creative, personality, and social; Bamberger, 1982, 1986; Gardner, 1982; 1993a, 1993b). In this case, the inner mechanism of the prodigy phenomenon is generally understood as a sum of various character-

L.V. Shavinina

istics. Thus, Gardner in his theoretical explorations is a follower of Feldman’s theory. In this light, he does not bring anything new to the explanation of the nature of the prodigy phenomenon. Gardner (1993a) conducted his research of the famous prodigy Picasso from interactive and developmental perspectives. Gardner’s (1993a) important finding consists in the demonstration of Picasso’s totally egocentric behaviour during his whole life, which can be explained by Picasso’s extraordinary gifts and talents: Picasso enjoyed the benefits and liabilities of a prodigious start. His gifts and energies meant that, with few exceptions, he was able to do whatever he wanted, whenever and wherever he wanted, throughout his life. His virtuosity was never seriously challenged, let alone vanquished... Picasso was not able to think beyond his gift. In many ways he remained childish... (Gardner, 1993a, p. 184).

Therefore, Gardner pointed out the necessity of personality development for prodigies. His interesting conclusion is that there is a strong contrast between the adult creators (who must discover their own styles of creativity and the domain in which they can excel, and are formed as personalities by their family) and the child prodigy (who must construct a creative personality, having his or her domain as given by the birthright) (Gardner, 1993b). Bamberger’s (1982, 1986) research on the prodigy phenomenon is mainly carried out in the framework of a cognitive-developmental perspective. Studying musical prodigies, she found a “midlife crisis” in their development: the period of the extremely important cognitive reorganization when new forms of internal representations of musical structure appear. This is an interesting finding directly related to the main thesis of this chapter about cognitive experience as a psychological basis of giftedness and an individual’s unique type of representations as the essence of giftedness. In general, the studies on the prodigy phenomenon within the multidimensional perspective are certainly not numerous. Nonetheless, they reveal some significant findings (e.g. “midlife crisis”), which definitely contribute to the psychological explanation of the fundamental mechanism of this phenomenon. I would predict the appearance of further investigations on child prodigies within the framework of the multidimensional approach. To sum up, early research on the prodigy phenomenon described various manifestations (i.e.

10

A Unique Type of Representation Is the Essence of Giftedness

external traits, characteristics, qualities, properties, and features) of child prodigies. Contemporary studies explore either favourable social factors, which increase the probability of the appearance of prodigies, or a combination of these factors and the numerous manifestations of child prodigies. The review of the existing investigations on the prodigy phenomenon demonstrates that they do not reveal its inner mechanism. It seems that sensitive periods constitute such a mechanism.

A New Approach to Understanding the Specific Development of Prodigies: Sensitive Periods

237

development” (Silverman, 1993, p. 634). The interpretation of giftedness as synonymous with asynchronous development indicates the importance of such a development for the understanding of the nature of giftedness. Columbus group’s approach to giftedness is also a strong evidence of the uneven and periodical development of prodigies. However, this specificity of the development of the gifted and prodigies has only been described, not explained. Probably, a key to the understanding of the uneven, asynchronous, dyssynchronous, and, therefore, unique and unusual prodigious development should be seen in a childs age sensitivity.

Age Sensitivity and the Prodigy As I mentioned above, the prodigy phenomenon is first Phenomenon of all an age phenomenon because it is based on specific features of a child’s age. This phenomenon is a result of the unique development, and, consequently, the key to its understanding should be found in the process of the individual growth of a child. Many transformations take place along the way from birth to adulthood (i.e. to age maturity). Nevertheless, something unusual happens that in some cases leads to the prodigy phenomenon. What exactly? In my opinion, the psychological account is the following.

Unusual Development of the Gifted Individual development is not a smooth process. Instead, it has certain stages or periods. Many scientific findings, both in general and developmental psychology, testify to it (Ananiev, 1957; Case, 1984a, 1984b; Fischer & Pipp, 1984; Flavell, 1984; Piaget, 1952; Sternberg, 1990a; Vygotsky, 1956, 1972; Wallon, 1945), especially research on giftedness in the framework of the developmental approach, which reveals an uneven development of the gifted (Bamberger, 1982, 1986; Feldman, 1982, 1986a; Gruber, 1982, 1986; Shavinina, 1997; Silverman, 1993, 1994, 1997; Terrassier, 1985, 1992). In this context, the most interesting ideas can be found in the studies on the asynchronous (Silverman, 1993, this volume) and dyssynchronous (Terrassier, 1985) development of gifted children. Moreover, the Columbus group views giftedness in general as an “asynchronous

Following Leites (1971), I suggested that a child’s sensitivity plays a central role in the emergence of prodigies (Shavinina, 1997). Age sensitivity is defined as a specific, heightened, and very selective responsiveness of an individual to everything what is going on around him or her (Leites, 1996; Shavinina, 1999). Such a definition might seem rather general; however, it appears to be appropriate at the current stage of research on prodigies’ sensitivity, when the amount of data is restricted. Indications that age sensitivity takes a certain place in the appearance of prodigies and gifted children can be found in the literature (Feldman, 1986b; Jellen & Verduin, 1986; Leites, 1960, 1971, 1996; Kholodnaya, 1993; Piechowski, 1979, 1986, 1991; Silverman, 1993, 1994, 1997; Sternberg, 1986a). Leites (1971) asserted that the child’s sensitivity and sensitive periods are critical phenomena in the development of prodigies. Kholodnaya (1993) viewed prodigy phenomenon as a result of the specific development of a child during the early years. Piechowski (1991) considered sensitivity as an individual’s heightened response to selective sensory or intellectual experiences. He pointed out that unusual sensitivity reveals the potential for high levels of development, especially for self-actualization and moral vigour (Piechowski, 1979, 1986; Piechowski et al., this volume). Feldman (1986b) included unusual sensitivity in his theory of prodigy phenomenon, in the “individual psychological qualities” component.

238

Sternberg (1986a) considered “sensitivity to external feedback” as one of the metacomponents of his theory of intellectual giftedness. Sensitivity is one of the main elements in Jellen and Verduin’s (1986) conception of giftedness. I distinguish between cognitive (i.e. sensitivity to any new information), emotional (i.e. sensitivity to one’s own inner world and to the inner words of other people), and social kinds of sensitivity, which intersect with one another, forming mixed kinds of sensitivity (Shavinina, 1997). Leites (1971) emphasized that each child’s age is characterized by one or numerous kinds of sensitivity. Vulnerability, fragility, empathy, and social responsiveness are the manifestations of sensitivity. Cognitive sensitivity is extremely important in a child’s development in general and in the development of the gifted in particular. Thus, the first years of a child’s life are characterized by the ease and stability of the formation of many abilities, skills, and habits (e.g. linguistic abilities; Leites, 1996). Probably, because of cognitive sensitivity, children’s knowledge acquisition is very quick; it may take place even from the very first experience. This is especially applicable in the case of the gifted and prodigies (examples given below).

L.V. Shavinina

able to read well and even a lot. At that time, he began to write and was able to write quite correctly. By 3 years of age, he had started to solve mathematical problems designed for 8-year-old children. He knew quite well the natural world of our planet (i.e. plants and animals). At 5 years of age, Serge saw textbooks on geography and history written for 11-year-olds. He learned all the Russian Czars and governors in chronological order, as well as the wars in which Russia participated and the stages of the French Revolution. At that point, the period of classification and systematization began, which can be considered a sensitive period. Serge drew tables on paper and put into the columns everything he knew (countries, their capitals, big cities, historical personalities, animals, plants, cars, and people’s names). The child used various principles to create columns: his columns corresponded to continents, states, alphabetical or chronological order, and so on. All newly acquired information was immediately put into the tables in the corresponding columns. Very often the same information was placed in many different tables. He spent all his time classifying and systematizing almost everything. After some time, however, this period ended and a period of interest in foreign languages started, which can be considered a new sensitive period. Serge learned the Latin alphabet in 2 days and could read Latin, German, and English words. He Sensitive Periods as a Determinant of Prodigy asked his parents to teach him foreign languages. InDevelopment dividual differences in sensitivity are therefore a real phenomenon. A child’s sensitivity is not always the same; it changes Sensitive periods demonstrate the uniqueness of cerwith age. Special age periods of the child’s heightened tain stages in a child’s development and the tremendous sensitivity are defined as sensitive periods.6 Excep- potential of childhood. Sensitive periods provide temtionally favourable inner conditions and extraordinary porary favourable conditions for accelerated intellecpossibilities for cognitive and intellectual development tual development. Such periods occur in each child’s are presented during sensitive periods (Leites, 1996). age, even at the earliest years. For example, Skuse, The early years of language acquisition by children are Pickles, Wolke, & Reilly (1994) found that the first few a widely cited example of sensitive periods (Shavin- postnatal months constitute a sensitive period for the ina, 1997). Examples of sensitive periods are especially relationship between growth and mental development. impressive in the case of prodigies.7 It seems that childhood periods prepare and temporarFive-and-a-half-year-old Serge learned the alphabet ily conserve favourable internal possibilities for the dewhen he was only 2 years old. At the age of 3, he was velopment of exceptional early abilities. Another example of a child at a sensitive period is three-and-a-half-year-old Alexei. He began to read 6 Certainly, such a definition of sensitive periods is rather general and other definitions of this construct can also exist in psychol- when he was only two and can now read rather well. ogy. But the current state of the research on the sensitive periods The child especially likes numbers and is extraordiof the gifted is not very advanced; therefore, this definition seems narily good at memorizing them. He remembers the to be appropriate. 7 These examples of gifted children sensitive periods are taken numbers of buildings, apartments, cars, and the like. Alexei’s answers to the question “What time is it now?” from Leites (1996).

10

A Unique Type of Representation Is the Essence of Giftedness

are always correct. The parents reported that they had not taught their son to write numbers and the alphabet; the child learned the digits and letters himself, just memorizing them and writing them down. A few days ago, another manifestation of his unusual mental development appeared: adults told him any date (e.g., January 19, February 5, or March 27) and Alexei could say what day of the week it was (Monday, Friday, etc.). He was always right. One can see that each child is sensitive in his or her own way. Based on such examples of sensitive periods in prodigies, Leites (1971, 1996) concluded that the specificity of a child’s mind depends on the age period in which minds qualities appear. He found that in childhood years, the specific “temporary states”— sensitive periods—emerge at each age stage, which manifest significant opportunities for advanced mental development. Zaporozhets (1964) pointed out that “each period of a child’s development has its own age sensitivity, and because of that learning... is more successful in the early years, than in the elder ones” (p. 678). Rosenblatt (1976) also noticed the existence of sensitive periods and emphasized that all behavioural development (both in people and in animals) is divided into sensitive periods, among which there are internal relations and mutual transitions. He found that the rapidity of the appearance, effectiveness, and duration of a sensitive period depended on the specificity of the previous periods. Moreover, Rosenblatt has shown that certain stages of development appear within a sensitive period itself. The change of sensitive periods interrupts and, at the same time, continues the course of the individual’s development. Alexander displayed his unusual abilities at a very early age. He started to read very well and to calculate before he was 4 years old. His interest in numbers probably indicated the fist sensitive period. The boy continually demanded that all adults around him set up simple arithmetic tasks for him; he was hungry for them. In this period, he also liked to write various numbers. The number seven (7) was especially attractive for Alexander: he wrote it everywhere in different forms and sizes painted in various colours. This “digital” period eventually came to the end. Just over four, Alexander had a new sensitive period—the “geographical” one. He read a lot about continents, countries, cities, seas, mountains, and rivers. All his questions to adults concerned only

239

geographical issues. He asked his parents to buy geographical books for him and looked for geographical articles in the newspapers. He watched TV programmes that were about travels around the globe and weather forecasts so that he could see a map of his country. As a result, his acquired knowledge of geography was very impressive. Nevertheless, his new sensitive period did not consist only of the acquisition of new knowledge of geography. All Alexander’s cognitive activity was directed to achieve one clear goal: to make a map of the world. All his time was devoted to this task. He prepared the map, conveying shapes and names of geographical objects (i.e. continents, countries, etc.) with amazing accuracy. Such an activity certainly required his artistic skills in drawing and painting, which were significantly developed during this period. In a few months, Alexander’s second— “geographical”—sensitive period was almost over. Such examples of sensitive periods in the gifted and prodigies demonstrate that a child’s heightened level of sensitivity is extremely important for the understanding of prodigious development. Vygotsky (1956) acknowledged the existence of sensitive periods and asserted that in these periods certain influences have big impact on all course of the individual development by provoking one or other deep changes. In other periods, the same influences can be neutral or even give opposite impact on child development. Sensitive periods coincide fully with... the optimal terms of learning (p. 278).

Daniel (an 8-year-old boy) once learned from science fiction that there might be a tenth planet in the solar system. The planet has the same size and moves along the same orbit as the Earth. However, this planet is invisible from the Earth because it is always behind the sun. This information immediately provoked a spark of Daniel’s intellectual activity. He could not resist thinking about this planet all the time. He imagined people living on the planet and he began to invent their languages (i.e. new alphabets). The period of geographical discovery on the planet was next. The boy left the shapes of the continents on the planet the same as on the map of the Earth, but the mountains, seas, rivers, countries, and cities were reinvented. At that point, he applied all his knowledge of geography. Furthermore, Daniel realized that his mathematical skills could also be used. He began to calculate how many people would live on this planet in 10, 20, or 50 years. His initial knowledge of geometry was used to measure

240

the territories of the continents, states, cities, and seas. All his time was devoted to this activity. Interestingly, his parents noted that never before their son had been so impressed by any reading, although he had read a lot earlier. They also pointed out that Daniel had never before been involved in such an intense mental activity. The unusual 3-week period of intensive and nonchild questioning (about God, life, the Universe, death, her own mortality, and similar questions) in four-anda-half-year-old Jennie studied by Morelock and described by Silverman (1993) is another example of a prodigy’s sensitive period. This period of questioning can be explained by a 3-week period of heightened sensitivity to everything unknown to her (Shavinina, 1997). It should be added that the following stage in Jennie’s mental development was also a clearly distinct period, with a change in her external behaviour (e.g. she became quiet) and an incredible shift in her reading ability. Probably, it was her second sensitive period that explains Jennie’s transformed behaviour. The change of sensitive periods was very positive for her intellectual development, since Jennie reached new levels of cognition. It is not surprising that psychologists use a “cognitive leap” notion to describe her brilliant cognitive growth (Silverman, 1993). Such impressive and numerous cases of sensitive periods in prodigies and highly gifted children allowed Leites (1996) to conclude that even a child’s age sensitivity itself can be considered a specific kind of giftedness. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the changes of age bring unrepeatable determinants of the individual development: sensitive periods. Sensitive periods mean a qualitatively new strengthening of the possibilities for mental growth, which appear during the early childhood years. The strengthening of such possibilities leads to the general heightening of a child’s cognitive resources (as, e.g., in the cases of Alexander, Alexei, Daniel, Jennie, and Serge). Therefore, the above considered findings demonstrate that sensitive periods are indeed a very real developmental phenomenon. It is not a fiction, nor a general psychological category for the combination of all the necessary conditions for the development of child prodigies8 and the gifted.

8

Of course, the following question can arise: “What is behind a child’s sensitivity and sensitive periods?” The scientific analysis of this question leads me to the consideration of the specificity of the development of the nervous system of children. The

L.V. Shavinina

The Dynamics of Sensitive Periods: Developmental Losses and Individual Gains The favourable opportunities for the development of a child’s mind provided by sensitive periods can be seen very clearly in the gifted and in prodigies (see the above described cases of Alexander, Alexei, Daniel, Jennie, and Serge). However, the sad thing is that later such favourable possibilities for individual development will weaken at a fast or slow rate (Leites, 1971). The following questions arise: if I assert that such periods should be considered as an inner mechanism of the prodigy phenomenon and of the development of the gifted, can a child be named as a prodigy or as the gifted if he or she had one or a few sensitive periods? Similarly, can sensitive periods experienced by a child be the predictors of his or her intellectually creative productivity in adulthood? Definitely, sensitive periods indicate that exceptional development can be possible. Nevertheless, it is not enough. The answer to these questions will be “yes” only if two important requirements are fulfilled in the individual development of a child. First, all developmental capacities (i.e. new abilities, habits, skills, qualities, traits, and characteristics acquired during sensitive periods; these capacities can be called developmental capacities or acquisitions because sensitive periods are a developmental phenomenon in the life of a child; a manifestation of a child’s development) should be transformed into the stable individual acquisitions. Second, these acquired individual capacities should, in turn, be transformed into the unique cognitive experience of a child. Although all stages of childhood can be distinguished by the heightened sensitivity of a child, sensitive periods have their own “life story.” Sensitive periods emerge, exist, and even disappear during a child’s development (Leites, 1971). What is important is what remains in the child at the end of sensitive period(s) when these periods are already over and

neurological, physiological, physical, and genetic specificity of child development constitutes the “biological mechanism” underlying the emergence of sensitivity and sensitive periods. Biological correlates of sensitivity and sensitive periods will not be discussed in this chapter (except the neurological basis of giftedness briefly mentioned at the beginning), because its aim is to mostly consider the psychological essence of sensitivity and sensitive periods (i.e. their “psychological mechanism”). The issue of biological correlates of sensitivity was briefly analysed by Leites 1996) and Henderson & Ebner (1997).

10

A Unique Type of Representation Is the Essence of Giftedness

favourable opportunities for mental development are getting weak either suddenly or gradually. It seems paradoxical, but it is a fact: the favourable possibilities opened up by sensitive periods allow a child to advance significantly in his or her intellectual development by acquiring something new and valuable (i.e. knowledge, skills, habits, etc.), but he or she can also lose these acquisitions when a sensitive period is over. This is a real problem of sensitive periods. Psychologists differentiate between developmental and individual aspects of sensitive periods (Leites, 1996). If at the end of a sensitive period a child loses almost all the exceptional capacities that he or she acquired during the given period, then one can assert that these capacities were mainly a developmental phenomenon (i.e. developmental capacities). That is, a certain stage in the development of a child is over and all the extraordinary acquisitions accumulated during this stage via sensitive period(s) are lost. It is a key to the explanation of why so many gifted individuals who manifested exceptional abilities in their childhood become ordinary adults who do not express extraordinary talents and outstanding creativity. Gifted children lose their unusual abilities and talents in the process of their own individual development. At the same time, sensitive periods are also a foundation for the powerful individual acquisitions. If new extraordinary capacities acquired during a certain sensitive period remain in the developing child after this period, then one can assert that these capacities have been transformed into the individual acquisitions. Only in this case one can assume to a significant extent that the child can be called a prodigy or a gifted and that he or she has the potential to be an intellectually creative adult. Let us get back to the example of Alexander. When he was a five-and-a-half-year-old boy, a 7-year-old girl began to live temporarily in their family. She was admitted to school and a new educational period started for Alexander. The children did exercises together, solved mathematical problems, and learned poems by heart. Alexander started to go to kindergarten. His teacher was impressed by both Alexander’s mental development and his artistic abilities in drawing and painting. The accuracy of the presentation of even the smallest details was a distinguishing characteristic of his paintings. When he was seven, Alexander successfully passed all examinations and was admitted

241

directly from the kindergarten into the fourth-grade class of school for 11-year-old students. All of his school grades were “excellent.” At that time, the third sensitive period started, which can be called an ornithological” period. At the age of seven, Alexander read three volumes of Brem’s book for university students, entitled The Life of Animals. This was the beginning of his interest in zoology; birds were especially attractive to him. The essence of a new sensitive period consisted of his writing (or, more precisely, creating) a book about birds. Alexander wrote down the summary of the corresponding chapters of Brem’s volumes and made many illustrations for them. He also used two lengthy articles about birds that he found. The scale of his work was impressive: the manuscript ran more than 300 pages with more than 100 drawings. The text was divided into chapters, and all chapters were interconnected with an internal integrity. Alexander had an extensive vocabulary. His linguistic abilities manifested themselves in the absence of mistakes in the writing of his manuscript, which included many foreign words and biological terms. Alexander continued to read a lot, preferring scientific literature. He often used encyclopaedias and dictionaries of foreign languages. It is interesting to mention what happened once: a psychologist, an expert on giftedness, opened the first chapter of Alexander’s manuscript and began to read the description of a bird. Alexander had not looked at this chapter for a few months. Then, the psychologist asked Alexander to continue the description. The boy recalled the subsequent text by heart correctly and in detail. Note that he used other words to express the essence of the text (not the same words that he had used to write this chapter). This clearly testifies to his completely conscious work (in contrast to simple memorization). Alexander’s drawings of birds were not copies of those he had already seen; they were his drawings based on the verbal descriptions of birds. In other words, all his reading about birds was immediately transformed into drawings of birds. Alexander’s manuscript had more illustrations than three volumes of Brem. The psychologist emphasized that the boy had a strongly developed visual memory and the visual (i.e. external) descriptions of birds were the main characteristic of Alexander’s “ornithology.” He was not much interested in birds’ instincts and their way of life; instead, he was very interested

242

in form and size of beak, colour of feather, and so forth. He constantly drew and re-drew the birds for his book. When Alexander visited the zoo or zoological museum, he also made many drawings. There were so many drawings in the manuscript of his book that the psychologist concluded that they probably are the essence of his work: the drawings were not the illustrations to the text, but rather the text was the illustration to the drawings. The order of Alexander’s activity supported this conclusion: the boy first made drawings of birds and then he wrote the text. In summer, being in a country village, Alexander was fascinated by birds and butterflies. (He had read the book Life of Insects before summer, which probably stimulated his new interest.) The boy gathered a large collection of various kinds of butterflies and made numerous and accurate drawings of them. His ability to see even the small differences in the colour and form of butterflies was as obvious in these drawings as in his drawings of birds. Probably, it was Alexander’s fourth sensitive period. Nevertheless, his previous “ornithological” sensitive period also continued. Alexander’s knowledge of birds was getting more differentiated and enriched by his personal natural observations. In summer, the boy constantly observed birds in the forest and drew pictures of them. Using his own accumulated knowledge, he began to recognize birds in nature (according to their songs, colour, etc.). Every day he observed the behaviour of birds for many hours. He also found their nests and fed small birds. Remember that at that time Alexander was only a 7-year-old child.

The Essence of Sensitive Periods in Prodigies and the Gifted

L.V. Shavinina

opinion, this depends on the kind of sensitivity (i.e. cognitive, emotional, or social). Perhaps emotional sensitivity, more than any other kind of sensitivity, remains in the individual during his or her life, whereas cognitive sensitivity changes periodically (but certainly it does not disappear in prodigies and the gifted). Such characteristics of the gifted as sensitivity to a new experience and openness of mind (i.e. manifestations of cognitive sensitivity) can be regarded as evidence of this tendency of cognitive sensitivity. Perhaps the availability of cognitive sensitivity throughout the lifespan determines the exceptional mental abilities of an individual. If sensitivity remains in prodigies and the gifted for a long time, then it is possible to assert that new capacities acquired during a certain sensitive period will also remain in prodigies and the gifted for a long time. These capacities are fortified and developed later, and finally they are transformed into really individual acquisitions that have a potential to remain in the person throughout the lifespan. Consequently, one can predict the transition of a child prodigy into an outstanding adult who will be able to produce extraordinarily high intellectual and creative performance(s) and achievement(s). Alexander must be mentioned briefly once again. At fourteen and a half years of age, he graduated from the school with “excellent” grades. He graduated with equal success from the biological faculty of the Moscow State University and became a distinguished scientist. He participated in many expeditions, mainly to the North, related to the investigations of various birds. His adult life was characterized by the ability to work very hard, an intense interest in learning, the talent to make good drawings (especially of birds), high capacity to learn foreign languages, and an extremely clear and detailed memory. He was a great ornithologist.9 Alexander’s colleagues wrote, He was characterized by a combination of abstract think-

ing with deep knowledge of ecology and birds that he had The case of Alexander and the other cases presented learned during his numerous expeditions... He had strong above indicate the chain of sensitive periods in the will, excellent memory, and was able to work hard... He gifted and prodigies, which allows me to assume that was also able to read in many European languages includthe prodigies’ sensitivity does not disappear coming Scandinavian languages; he was perfect in English. Alexander was an excellent scientist, untiring, purposeful, pletely. In this light, Silverman’s (1993) conclusion and persistent. He could make an instant draft of a bird or concerning emotional sensitivity seems to be correct. She asserted that “extraordinary levels of sensitivity and compassion do not disappear with maturity. A 9 Unfortunately, Alexander died at the age of 43 when he concapacity for rich, intense emotions remains in the tracted a fatal disease in one of his numerous scientific trips to personality throughout the lifespan” (p. 642). In my Siberia.

10

A Unique Type of Representation Is the Essence of Giftedness landscape... He had an unlimited ability to work... He created his own scientific school (Leites, 1996, p. 156).

What is impressive is a complete coincidence of the description of 43-year-old Alexander as a scientist by his colleagues with the description of Alexander as a prodigy provided by the psychologist (Leites, 1960, 1996). The case of Alexander demonstrates that his developmental capacities (i.e. those new capacities acquired during sensitive periods in childhood) were indeed transformed into powerful individual abilities that remained throughout the lifespan. Therefore, all the above written concerning sensitive periods demonstrates that they are not a factor, condition, characteristic, feature, or trait in a child’s development. They should be understood as an inner mechanism of prodigious development and the development of the gifted.

Understanding Exceptional Kinds of the Development in the Gifted It looks like any development leading to the significant expression of an individual’s potential (in the forms of giftedness, creativity, extraordinary intelligence, or genius) and resulting in any human achievement is influenced by a number of periods of heightened sensitivity. Perhaps the stages or levels of the gifted’s development (Feldman, 1982, 1986a; Gruber, 1982, 1986) as well as prodigies’ “mid-life” crisis (Bamberger, 1986) and “crystallizing experience” phenomenon (Walters & Gardner, 1986) correspond to certain sensitive periods (Shavinina, 1997). Moreover, if we ask ourselves, what is behind “asynchrony” and “dyssynchrony,” the answer probably is “sensitive periods.” It is interesting to note that there are some indications to sensitive periods in the definition of giftedness given by the Columbus group,10 for example, “advanced” (that means that something might not be advanced) and “heightened” (correspondingly, something might not be heightened).

243

Furthermore, the asynchrony term itself is also connected to the very essence of sensitive periods in the following way: asynchrony assumes the emergence and disappearance (i.e. beginning and end) of certain qualities forming to some extent a disproportionality in child development. Sensitive periods also have a beginning and end.

Explaining Prodigies’ Extraordinary Performance Sensitive periods predetermine prodigious development as a fundamental mechanism: that is, they greatly accelerate and, therefore, advance intellectual development of prodigies. But do sensitive periods directly determine prodigies’ incredible achievements? What permits a childhood prodigy to be at the level of the professional performance of an adult before the age of 10, as it was asserted in the above-mentioned definition of prodigy? I assumed that prodigies’ unique cognitive experience (i.e. experience of the cognitive interaction of an individual with the external world) is responsible for their extraordinary performances (Shavinina, 1999). The cognitive experience forms the cognitive basis of giftedness, which I will consider in detail in the next section. After that I will get back to providing a thorough account of prodigies’ extraordinary performance. Before starting to analyse the cognitive basis of giftedness, I would like to emphasize a need in paradigm change in addressing the fundamental issue of the nature of giftedness.

Paradigm Change in Addressing the Issue of the Nature of Giftedness

Prior to analysing the cognitive basis of giftedness, it is important to discuss the following. It seems that the main difficulty in understanding the nature of giftedness is that the external manifestations of giftedness (e.g. personality characteristics, traits, and qualities) 10 According to this definition, “giftedness is asynchronous de- in any real activity have been the subject of psychovelopment in which advanced cognitive abilities and heightened logical research; but the psychological basis (or psyintensity combine to create inner experiences and awareness that chical carrier) of these manifestations has not been are qualitatively different from the norm. This asynchrony increases with higher intellectual capacity” (Silverman, 1993, p. studied. Understanding the nature of any psychologi634). cal phenomenon using only its own characteristics is

244

unproductive. Contradictions and crises in psychology testify to it (Vekker, 1981). An entirely new research direction is needed that looks at giftedness as the unity of its two important parts: the manifestations of giftedness (i.e. traits, characteristics, qualities, properties, etc.) and the psychical carrier of these manifestations (that is, the psychological basis of giftedness). It means that there is a need to fundamentally reexamine the question of the nature of giftedness as a psychological phenomenon. That is, psychologists should not answer the question “What is giftedness?” by listing its various traits and characteristics (i.e. its external manifestations). Rather, they should answer the question, “What is the basis (a carrier) of those traits and characteristics associated with giftedness?” From this fundamentally changed point of view, researchers should examine the subjective experience of an individual and first of all his or her cognitive experience: the experience of the cognitive interaction of a person with the world around him or her, which is the psychological basis of giftedness or the psychological carrier of its manifestations (Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996).

Cognitive Basis of Giftedness The analysis of the existing approaches to the understanding of the nature of giftedness demonstrates that they touch the concept of “individual subjective experience” to a certain extent. For example, Sternberg’s conception of intellectual giftedness includes processes in the areas of the “internal” and “external” experience of an individual (1986). The concept of “experience” can also be found in the creative approach. For instance, the existing definitions of creativity might be read in a slightly different way, such as creativity is the saturation of an individual’s experience by a new content (Stein, 1967) or creativity is the process of the reorganization of experience (Mednick, 1962). Shavinina & Kholodnaya (1996) suggested that the cognitive experience of an individual is responsible for the ability to generate new and original ideas. Although the number of publications is not very large yet, research into the topic of experience began in developmental, cognitive, and expertise approaches. Walters & Gardner’s (1986) investigation of the phe-

L.V. Shavinina

nomenon of “crystallizing experience” seems to be important. They define “crystallizing experience” as remarkable and memorable unusual encounters between a developing person and a particular field of endeavour (p. 307). This phenomenon manifests itself in changes in “an individual’s concept of the domain, his performance in it, and his view of himself” (p. 309). This reorganization of the individual experience later becomes a foundation for creative discoveries. DeGroot’s (1978) pioneering study allowed him to conclude that any creative product is not a consequence of a magical intuition, miraculous inspiration, or inborn genius. Rather, it is a result of a specific selfdevelopment of an individual, which is connected to rapid accumulation of fertile, differentiated, and useful experience in a certain field of human activity. Gruber (1986) asserts that human extraordinariness in its important creative achievements is a consequence of “protracted and repeated encounters of the creative person with the task he or she has undertaken” (p. 252). He notices that these encounters “deal rather with some ideas about the construction of social relations and of the self,” than with the changes in cognition (p. 254). In this period the possibility of extraordinary creative solutions depends on surrendering himself or herself to the requirements of the task and self-mobilization of every personal resource. Representatives of the expertise approach, such as Horgan and Morgan (1990), have shown that one of the important results of their longitudinal study of child chess experts is that improvement in chess skill significantly correlates with experience. Albert and Runco (1986) emphasize that noncognitive early family experiences are involved in the achievement of eminence. They found in their longitudinal study of exceptionally gifted boys and their families that experience-selecting agents play an important role in the development of giftedness, which itself is creative and an experience-producing phenomenon. Therefore, the available research on experience in the area of giftedness (Albert, 1992; Albert & Runco, 1986; DeGroot, 1978; Gruber, 1986; Horgan & Morgan, 1990; Sternberg, 1986; Walters & Gardner, 1986) allowed Kholodnaya (1993) and Shavinina & Kholodnaya (1996) to conclude that a subjective experience of an individual plays an important role in the understanding of the nature of giftedness. Kholodnaya (1993) suggested that cognitive experience—and

10

A Unique Type of Representation Is the Essence of Giftedness

especially its structural organization—is a psychological basis of giftedness or a psychical carrier of all manifestations of giftedness.

Cognitive Experience and the Gifted’s Unique Representations: The Essence of Giftedness Cognitive experience is formed by conceptual structures (i.e. conceptual thinking), knowledge base, and subjective mental space (Kholodnaya, 1993). Why do conceptual structures, knowledge base, and mental space compose cognitive experience? The importance of conceptual structures is determined by scientific findings that indicate that conceptual thinking is the integrated cognitive formation (i.e. a form of the integrated functioning of human intelligence). The more conceptual thinking is a form of the integrated work of intelligence, the better organization of an individual’s intellectual activity will be (i.e. intelligence perfectly functions; see Kholodnaya, 1983; Vekker, 1981). The knowledge base is the second component in the structure of cognitive experience. Many psychologists stress the important role of the knowledge base in the development of intellectual giftedness (Bjorklund & Schneider, 1996; Chi & Greeno, 1987; Chi & Greeno, 1987; Chi & Koeske, 1983; Kholodnaya, 1993; Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987; Rabinowitz & Glaser, 1985; Schneider, 1993; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996; Shore & Kanevsky, 1993; Sternberg, 1985, 1990a). It was demonstrated that the quantity and quality of specialized knowledge play a critical part in highly intellectual performance and in the process of acquiring new knowledge (Bjorklund & Schneider, 1996). For example, productive problem solving cannot occur without relevant prior knowledge (Chi & Ceci, 1987). The knowledge base can facilitate the use of particular strategies, generalize strategy use to related domains, or even diminish the need for strategy activation (Schneider, 1993). The gifted are distinguished by an adequate, well-structured, well-functioning, and elaborate knowledge base, which is easily accessible for actualization at any time (Kholodnaya, 1993; Rabinowitz & Glaser, 1985). Moreover, this rich knowledge base can sometimes compensate for overall lack of general cognitive

245

abilities (Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987; Schneider, 1993). Conceptual structures and knowledge base generate subjective mental space, the third component in the structural organization of cognitive experience. Individual differences in flexibility, differentiation, integration, and hierarchy of the boundaries of the mental space influence a persons cognitive attitude to the world around and, therefore, predetermine his or her intellectual abilities. Cognitive experience—formed by these three components—expresses itself in a specific type of the objective representations of reality (i.e. how an individual sees, understands, and interprets what is going on in the surrounding reality and in the world around him or her). It was shown that an individual’s type of representations is the basic phenomenon of human intelligence (Kholodnaya 1990, 1997; to be considered in detail in my chapter on the identification of intellectual giftedness in this volume). The gifted see, understand, and interpret everything around them by constructing an individual intellectual picture of the world (of event, action, situation, idea, problem, and any aspects of reality) in a manner different from the rest of the people. In other words, the gifted have a unique intellectual picture of the world; that is, a unique point of view or a unique vision. This is exactly the essence of giftedness. In my experimental study of the individual cognitive experience of gifted adolescents and those who were not identified as gifted I indeed found that there are some essential differences in the cognitive experience of the two groups of adolescents. Specifically, differences in the degree of the development of their intellectual giftedness manifest themselves in their individual representations: the representations of the world as a whole, the representations of future events, and conceptual representations. For example, gifted adolescents’ specificity of the individual representations of the reality as a whole consists in the predominance of categorical (generalized) cognition. The gifted groups representations of the future are characterized by the differentiation of the vision of future events. Gifted adolescents are also distinguished by more complex and rich conceptual representations (i.e. their representations are rather unfolded and articulated phenomena). Furthermore, the correlation and factor analysis demonstrated a special character of correlations and a relative independence of the factor structural

246

components in the cognitive sphere of the gifted group. This is the evidence of a specific integration of the cognitive experience of the gifted. To sum up, the cognitive experience of the gifted has more categorized, integrated, differentiated, and unfolded organization than the cognitive experience of those who were not identified as gifted. This specific structural organization of the cognitive experience of the gifted determines their unique intellectual picture of the world. Taken together, these findings provide further evidence that cognitive experience is a psychological basis of giftedness, which manifests itself in the gifted’s unique type of representation of everything what is going on around them. It should be noted that the mechanisms of the construction of these unique representations of the gifted play a key role in the organization of their experience, that is, those cognitive mechanisms, which are responsible for the construction of an individual’s more categorical, differentiated, integrated, and conceptually complex intellectual picture of the world. It is appropriate to mention here that the nature of cognitive experience (i.e. the individual differences in the extent of the development of this experience) is an important factor in the identification of gifted individuals (to be considered in my chapter on the identification of the gifted, this volume). The most important aspect of the uniqueness of the gifted’s intellectual picture of the world is the objectivization of their cognition. It means that gifted individuals see, understand, and interpret everything in highly objective manner. The significance of the gifted in society “should be seen not only in that they solve problems well and create new knowledge, but mainly in the fact that they have the ability to create an intellectuallyobjective picture of the world, i.e. they can see the world as it was, as it is, and as it will be in its reality” (Kholodnaya, 1990, p. 128; italics added). The objectivization of the cognition of the gifted will be analysed in detail in my chapter on scientific talent in this volume.

L.V. Shavinina

prodigies—appear. The age or developmental foundation (i.e. exceptional opportunities for the accelerated individual development determined by age sensitivity) is a key to this explanation. It seems that in prodigies and the gifted—as a result of advanced development— the overlapping of age sensitivity occurs. In this case, sensitivity originates from different (i.e. previous, current, and subsequent) childhood periods. The description of Alexander’s summer life in his childhood supports this assumption. At that time, he had at least two sensitive periods: the “bird” period and the “butterfly” period. His interest in birds can be considered a previous (his intense interest at the age of seven), current (his summertime interest in the observation of birds), and subsequent (his renewed intense interest as a variation on his previous interest makes it new) sensitive period at the same time. A new—and also current— sensitive period was the period of his interest in butterflies. One can see the coexistence of two sensitive periods. Such an overlapping of a child’s sensitivity determines duplication and even multiple strengthening of the foundations for the rapid intellectual growth that finally leads to the appearance of prodigies and the gifted. Because of the overlapping of age sensitivity, a child prodigy or the gifted is always distinguished by cognitive sensitivity or any other kind of sensitivity. In this case, the probability of the transformation of all developmental acquisitions (i.e. all new capacities of a child’s cognitive experience that are acquired during sensitive periods) into the stable individual abilities is getting high. In other words, the gifted and prodigies are almost always in sensitive periods that actualize their cognitive potential and accelerate their mental development. The latter implies rapid accumulation of prodigies cognitive resources and the construction of those resources into the unusual cognitive experience that continues to enrich itself in the process of the further advanced development governed mainly by a heightened cognitive sensitivity. Prodigies’ and the gifted’s cognitive experiences most likely will quickly become differentiated, integrated, and unfolded phenomena (Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). Correspondingly, the character of Explaining the Prodigy Phenomenon their representations will be generalized, categorical, and the Nature of Giftedness conceptually rich, and complex from the very early years. This allows child prodigies and the gifted In this section I will put all the pieces of the puzzle to- to have a unique “intellectual picture of the world,” gether and will explain how it happens that the gifted— which expresses itself in their exceptional performance and in some cases even the extremely gifted: child and achievement. For example, although Alexander’s

10

A Unique Type of Representation Is the Essence of Giftedness

“ornithological” sensitive period was very long, his cognitive experience was certainly different in each stage of childhood. For instance, his initial drawings of birds were based on verbal descriptions from books because Alexander’s initial ornithological knowledge was from books, whereas his “summer” drawings were based on his personal experience of natural observations. As mentioned above, at that time his knowledge of birds reached a new level. Because of this, one can assert that Alexander had, in fact, a few “ornithological” sensitive periods. These periods can be considered as previous, current, and subsequent sensitive periods at the same time. The proposed explanation of the nature of the prodigy phenomenon and of giftedness as whole—via the specificity of a child’s age, which manifests itself in sensitive periods, and cognitive experience—is supported by the following psychological findings. For example, Silverman (1993) concluded that the heightened emotional sensitivity and responsiveness of the gifted are “directly related to their advanced cognitive development” (p. 637). The Columbus group also pointed out that asynchronous development increases with higher intellectual capacity (Silverman, 1993). Similarly, Roedell (1984) asserted that highly gifted children will be more vulnerable with increased intellectual advancement. Therefore, the presented theory of the child prodigy phenomenon and of giftedness states that the key to the explanation of their nature should be seen in the hidden possibilities of a child’s age. The prodigy phenomenon and giftedness should be explained by their inner mechanisms. They cannot be understood in terms of various forces and factors, which are in fact social influences. According to the proposed explanation, the prodigy phenomenon and giftedness in general are consequences of a specific development of a child. This specificity consists in the uneven, asynchronous, dyssynchronous, and, hence, unusual development, beyond which there are periods of heightened cognitive sensitivity. Sensitive periods accelerate a child’s mental development through the actualization of his or her intellectual potential and the growth of the individual’s cognitive resources, which leads to the appearance of a unique cognitive experience. The latter expresses itself in prodigies’ and the gifted’s unrepeatable intellectual picture of the world or their unique point of view and is responsible for their exceptional performance and/or achievements.

247

It should be emphasized that this account is true with respect to all types of giftedness. The only difference is that a specific cognitive experience, which manifests itself in unique representations, is the most important in the case of the gifted, whereas the accelerated development during early childhood is the most important in the case of prodigies. This is why the child prodigy phenomenon is a pure developmental phenomenon. Consequently, the proposed approach to the understanding of the essence of the prodigy phenomenon and giftedness as a whole explains both the process/dynamic aspect of these phenomena (i.e. prodigious and gifted development) and their productive or resulted aspect (i.e. exceptional prodigies’ and the gifted’s achievements and performances).

Manifestations of Giftedness The previous sections provided a detailed analysis of the developmental and cognitive foundations of giftedness. As Fig. 10.1 shows, according to the cognitive-developmental theory of giftedness, there are three main levels of the manifestations of giftedness. An individual’s cognitive experience is the psychological basis or carrier of these manifestations. The first level is the level of intellectual abilities and it is composed by intellectual productivity, individual specificity of intellectual activity, and creativity (Kholodnaya, 1997; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). Intellectual productivity includes three types of the properties of intelligence: level properties, combination properties, and process properties. In other words, all properties of intelligence identified by psychological science were categorized by Kholodnaya (1990) into these three types. The level properties characterize the achieved level of the development of cognitive functions, both verbal and non-verbal. These properties form a basis for such cognitive processes as rate of perception, capacity of short- and long-term memory, concentration of attention, and vocabulary. Typical examples of the level properties of intelligence are those intellectual properties assessed by the Wechsler intelligence scales. The combination properties characterize the ability to find out various links, connections, and relations.

248

This is the ability to combine the components of experience in various ways (spatial, verbal, etc.). These intelligence properties are measured by tests of verbal analogies or Raven’s Progressive Matrices, as well as reading comprehension tests and so-called sorting tests. The process properties characterize the elementary processes of information processing, as well as operations and strategies of intellectual activity. For example, Jean Piaget’s theory describes such properties of intelligence. Standardized intelligence tests may be used to measure process properties of intelligence (e.g. the Wechsler intelligence scales, the Stanford-Binet intelligence scales, Raven’s Progressive Matrices, and others). Individual specificity of intellectual activity manifests itself in cognitive styles of an individual. It was found that gifted adolescents are distinguished by better developed intellectual control because their reflectivity cognitive style (i.e. reflectiveness) is predominant in comparison with impulsivity style (i.e. impulsiveness). The smaller number of errors that they make in the situation of multiple choice according to the Matching Familiar Figures (MFF) Test (Kagan, Rosman, Day, Albert, & Phillips, 1964) testifies to this. This result demonstrates the gifted’s accurate analysis of visual space up to the moment of making decisions. Probably the gifted are more careful in evaluating alternatives, hence making few errors, whereas those who were not identified as gifted presumably hurry their evaluations and thereby make numerous mistakes. The active character of visual scanning by the gifted indicates to their ability to delay or inhibit a solution in MFF tasks containing response uncertainty, as well as to their ability to differentiate unimportant and essential features of the external stimulus (Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). Creativity refers to an individual’s ability to generate new, original, and appropriate ideas, and thus characterizes fluency and flexibility of thinking (Kholodnaya, 1997; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). For instance, it was demonstrated that gifted adolescents generate more original ideas with respect to the future than the adolescents, which were not identified as the gifted, did. I will not discuss the topic of creativity here, as it is well presented in this volume by the chapters of Kaufman et al., Kim, and van Tassel-Baska.

L.V. Shavinina

The second level of the manifestations of giftedness is formed by metacognitive abilities (i.e. metacognitive awareness and regulatory processes). Metacognitive awareness includes (a) a system of knowledge about the basic manifestations of intellectual activity in general and about ones own cognitive set-up, (b) the ability to evaluate the strong and weak aspects of his or her own intellectual functioning, and (c) the ability to manage his or her mental activity using various stimulation methods. Regulatory processes mean planning, guiding, monitoring, and co-ordinating one’s own cognitive processes (Kholodnaya, 1990; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). It is definitely important to know what you know. However, it is equally important to know what we do not know and how to compensate for a lack of knowledge in something. The compensatory mechanisms are therefore an essential part of metacognition. The gifted are characterized by highly developed metacognitive abilities and wellfunctioning compensatory mechanisms. As Shore et al. (this volume) comprehensively analysed metacognition in the gifted, I therefore will not discuss it here. Finally, the third level of the manifestations of giftedness is presented by extracognitive11 abilities, which refer to four interrelated—and at the same time obviously different—components:

r

r r r

Specific feelings: feelings of direction (in one’s own activity and in search of mentors), harmony, and style, including senses of destiny, good ideas, promising and elegant solutions, and feelings of being right, being wrong, or having come across something important. Specific beliefs and intentions (e.g. belief in elevated standards of performance and in hard work). Specific preferences and intellectual values (e.g. the “inevitable” choice of the field of endeavour and internally developed standards of working). Intuition (Shavinina, 1994, 2004; Shavinina & Ferrari, 2004; Shavinina & Sheeratan, 2004).

The frequently used word “specific” embodies the uniqueness of these abilities in the intellectual

11

The word extracognitive is probably not the best one, but it seems appropriate for the description of a wide range of phenomena at the current stage of research when scientific studies are not numerous and psychologists only relatively recently began to study extracognitive abilities.

10

A Unique Type of Representation Is the Essence of Giftedness

functioning of gifted individuals. It is interesting to note that other psychologists also use the word “specific” in their accounts of the intellectually creative processes at the highest level. For example, Marton, Fensham, and Chaiklin (1994) wrote about a “specific form” of the feeling of being right and made reference to other “specifics” in their study of scientific intuition in Nobel Prize winners (to be analysed in my chapter on scientific talent, this volume). It was found that the gifted possess highly developed extracognitive abilities. This is true for intellectually gifted adolescents, exceptional scientific talents, including Nobel laureates, and gifted entrepreneurs (Shavinina, 2003, 2004, 2006a; to be considered below, as well as in my other chapters in this volume). It was concluded that extracognitive abilities represent the highest level in the intellectually creative development of the gifted (Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). It is interesting to note that researchers working in the area of high abilities rarely studied extracognitive abilities. Besides Kholodnaya’s (1993) and Shavinina’s (1994, 2003, 2004; Shavinina & Ferrari, 2004) research just a few scholars analysed these phenomena. Thus, Gruber studied intellectual intentions of Darwin and demonstrated that they played an important role in his scientific discoveries. Renzulli et al. (this volume) wrote about a sense of destiny that characterizes gifted children (see also Dai, this volume).

The Extracognitive Abilities in the Cases of Fulfilled and Developing Giftedness This section will present the findings of the study of the extracognitive abilities in the case of Vladimir I. Vernadsky, a famous Russian scientist-genius of Nobel calibre and in three intellectually gifted adolescents in physics and mathematics.

The Extracognitive Abilities in an Outstanding Scientist

249

many scientific theories like the theory of the biosphere and the theory of the noosphere. I have investigated Vernadskys extracognitive abilities by studying relevant autobiographical materials (such as his letters and diaries). I found the following components in the structure of his extracognitive abilities. First, Vernadsky’s aspiration to harmony and beauty in everything (in cognition, in science, and in life as a whole) should be pointed out. His feeling of harmony and beauty is seen in various spheres of his life and work. Let me mention just a few examples to illustrate. (a) In the field of cognition, he asserted, “...Looking for clarity where there is scarcely harmony.” “...There is a strong mathematical dependence in the shape of crystals; having measured 4–5 angles you can find out all the harmony.” “The idea is becoming clearer and clearer and I begin to recognize the beauty—the harmony. . . and I have a feeling that I will sort out everything soon...” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 105; italics added). (b) As to his versatile interests in the arts, Vernadsky (1988) noticed, “...According to my present mood... I prefer theatre, rather than novels and tales. There is something in the former which is not worth looking for in the latter... This is the beauty of construction, the beauty of architecture. You feel the real whole beauty in the shape of this creation as in good architecture or sculpture...” (p. 91; italics added). (c) With regards to his private life, he wrote, for example, to his wife, “. . .I greatly appreciate that you possess a beautiful harmony of thoughts and that you live in harmony with thoughts...” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 115; italics added). (d) In life as a whole, Vernadsky, admitting the fact that beauty and harmony exist, tried to understand what they are all about and tried to find in them something more general. Therefore, he asked himself, “Is it not the case that beauty is in thought, in the belief in truth...?”

According to Vernadsky, the creation of harmony in the Universe is only possible through the work of the Vladimir I. Vernadsky was a famous geologist, bio- human mind. He claimed, “Thought is the background chemist, geochemist, geobiochemist, philosopher, and of personality... It is deathless... It is the creator of harhistorian of science. He was a founder of such sciences mony in Universal chaos...” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 78; as geochemistry, biochemistry, geobiochemistry and of italics added). He also wrote,

250 How important is the purity of thought! It seems to me that it is more important than anything else in life, because through it we experience the desire to seek harmony. The feeling of harmony is brought about this way. One must not think about the negative, or distract oneself with everyday problems and anxieties when all around there is so much areas in which to think more harmonic, more beautiful, more important thoughts... (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 113; italics added).

Vernadsky’s well-developed “feeling of style” is related to his harmonious vision of reality. He noticed, for example, in his diary, “I am reading the books of Marcus Aurelius with great pleasure. They are so wonderful, there is so much humanity, strength...” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 63; italics added). In one of his letters, he pointed out, “...What a wonderful book–Don Quixote! There is so much humanity!” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 112; italics added). It seems possible to conclude that Vernadsky had a harmonious vision of the world around him and an esthetic vision of life as a whole. His aspiration to harmony and beauty—and this should be especially emphasized—had a generalized character as it was directed to “life as a whole.” The second component in the structure of the extracognitive abilities of Vernadsky is his understanding of the value of mind work, the consideration of Thought (Vernadsky wrote this word with a capital letter) as the most important thing in the life of human beings. He was convinced that Thought is the most important thing in the whole life of human beings. It means everything. Goodness, dedication and feelings have a meaning for the life of individual persons.... Of course, it is impossible to live without them... But for the whole society and for all the people Thought replaces everything. I clearly and very strongly feel that it is very important and I am distressed by everything that could possibly restrict Thought... (Vernadsky, 1988, pp. 75–76; italics added).

L.V. Shavinina important than the power of the idea: it drives everything...” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 107; italics added).

The third component of the extracognitive abilities of Vernadsky is his feeling of “the eternal.” For instance, he wrote, “It seems to me that I feel the pulse of eternity in each place and everywhere...” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 260; italics added). As mentioned above, Vernadsky also saw the beauty of life in its “eternal change.” A special manifestation of the feeling of eternity is Vernadsky’s feeling of “historical process.” He pointed out, “I now have a very strong feeling... of historical process” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 249; italics added). Vernadsky was interested in history as a whole and in the history of various scientific disciplines for a very long time. He tried to consider every single scientific event or problem from a historical perspective and in all aspects of its historical connections. The fourth element in the structure of the extracognitive abilities in Vernadsky’s mental functioning is related to his aspiration to the “endlessness” in his cognition of the essence of cosmogony, biochemistry, and other sciences as the most objective events in the world. For example, he wrote, “It seems to me, I have a subconscious understanding of scientific cosmogony problems. Once again, my mind longs for the endlessness” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 230; italics added). The fifth component in the structure of the extracognitive abilities in Vernadsky’s intellectual activity is his aspiration to seek clarity in everything. In this connection he pointed out, “I often seek the clarity there, where there is no harmony...” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 81). One of the distinctive characteristics of Vernadsky’s cognitive experience was his wish to understand the absolutely unknown puzzles of the world, of human origins, accompanied by his reflections about the obvious. For example, he wrote,

Vernadsky could not endure the fact, that “Thought is not yet accessible for everyone.” For instance, he It seems to me so clear that it is not worth writing about. However, usually everything which is most clear is the wrote, “...There is no mental search, there are no source of delusions of all kinds, because the human mind doubts for the majority of people. They have a quiet thinks very little about these issues; they seem obvious. . . family life... far from eternal and profound, but at the (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 142). same time beautiful problems, which are proposed by human history...” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 116; italics Therefore, the extracognitive abilities in Vernadadded). His strongly developed faith in the power of sky’s intellectual functioning were characterized by a ideas is the special manifestation of his extracognitive unique combination of his feelings, preferences, intenabilities. He was convinced that tions, beliefs, and intuitive processes. They guided his mental activity on the way to his outstanding scientific There is one power and one strength—an idea... (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 115). “...I think that there is nothing more discoveries.

10

A Unique Type of Representation Is the Essence of Giftedness

251

The Extracognitive Abilities in Gifted Adolescents

interested in new ideas?” he answered, “I get interested if it seems to me that the idea is correct. And I reject it if I believe that the idea is wrong... The extracognitive abilities in the case of developing Perhaps, it is not generally correct, but personally giftedness were studied in three gifted adolescents in for me it seems correct... A new idea is great if I physics and mathematics (Shavinina, 1994). These feel it in my heart...” boys had real-life achievements like participation in local, national, and international Olympiads in physics (b) The next component of the extracognitive in the mental functioning of this student is his underand mathematics, as well as winning first prizes in standing of the high value of the human mind per these Olympiads. They were studying in a special se, that is one of his specific intellectual values. physics–mathematics school, the only one in Ukraine, In particular, he believes that “...Thought alone and were evaluated by teachers as “the most gifted.” makes a human being. If Thought dies, then the They were in the ninth or tenth grade and were 15–16 person will also die....” His answer to a question years old. about his life slogan also shows the extremely imPsychological methods for studying the extracogniportant status of Thought in his intellectual activtive abilities do not exist at present. It is well known ity. He said, “Think! It is very simple, because if that the initial research on any new scientific pheyou think—you exist. If you do not think—you do nomenon lacks adequate methods. For this reason the not exist...” method used by Max Wertheimer in his research on Albert Einstein’s way of thinking, which led to the eventual discovery of the theory of relativity, was adopted. The third student’s extracognitive profile consisted of, That is, conversations with gifted adolescents were (a) The feeling of direction: for example, to the quesused in the same way Wertheimer used discussions tion “Who is your ideal in science?” he answered, with Einstein (Wertheimer, 1959). During long con“I do not know... But I feel at the same time, that I versations I questioned students about the characterisaspire to something.” tics of their thinking and cognitive experience. None (b) Special beliefs: for instance, his answer to the of my questions was directly related to the extracogniquestion “What kind of feeling do you have when tive abilities. These findings arose indirectly during the new ideas come to your mind?” was the followconversations. The results of the research showed that ing: “When ideas come, I think about their practhe following components of the extracognitive were tical realization. Sometimes such ideas come into typical of these gifted students. my mind, although I do not know how to put them In the first of the boys, there was a very significant into practice... At the same time I very strongly manifestation of the extracognitive in his aspiration to want to do this. I believe that it will happen in the harmony, which had a multidirectional character in its future...” application to different aspects of his life. For example, (c) The feeling of truth, which is objectively correct and true: When asked whether it was easy for him (a) In the field of his scientific interests, he asserted, to become interested in new ideas, he replied, “I “...Each physicist is... a lyric poet in the depth get interested easily, if the idea looks promising. I of the soul... The physicist feels the harmony in get a feeling of whether it is correct or wrong...” shape, in form, and in a nice theory...” (b) Of his daily life he pointed out, “...It is essential to try to reach harmony... Daily life should not be very modest, but it should encourage activity and stimulate only the positive... It should be in harmony with a person...”

These findings demonstrate a fascinating similarity of the components of the extracognitive abilities in gifted adolescents and in distinguishing scientist, Vernadsky. Mental functioning of gifted adolescents is also influenced by the extracognitive. It would be wrong to assert Two components of the extracognitive were found that extracognitive abilities play an extremely important role only in the intellectual activity of outstandin the second student. ing creators in science and art. In his investigation of (a) One of them can be classified as “beliefs.” For ex- intuitive processes in famous scientists, Miller (1996) ample, to the question “Is it easy for you to get noted that it is impossible to reveal such processes

252

in individuals other than adults. The above findings clearly demonstrate that such processes also exist in adolescents. Both intellectually gifted adults and adolescents are distinguished by (1) A specific feeling of direction in their creativity and in their life as a whole. In this respect the study of the extracognitive abilities of such individuals is closely related to current research on the subconscious and unconscious processes of creativity. Hence, the study of the extracognitive can be viewed as instrumental in advancing the research on high ability as a whole. (2) Specific beliefs. The world of these beliefs is very diverse and mainly includes the feeling of truth and faith in the power of ideas. (3) Specific preferences and intentions, including the aspiration to harmony and beauty, the understanding of mind work as very valuable, and the consideration of Thought as an important aspect of human life. The feeling of the “eternal,” the aspiration to “endlessness,” and clarity in everything are among these preferences. The results of these case studies allowed me to conclude that extracognitive abilities play an exceptionally important role in intellectual functioning of gifted individuals, both adults and adolescents (Shavinina, 1994).

Was Einstein Gifted as a Child? It seems now appropriate to consider the case study of genius in the light of the proposed theory. Specifically, I will briefly analyse high abilities of Albert Einstein. The cognitive-developmental theory—and particularly sensitive periods—is essential for the understanding of the origins of his scientific genius. Today everyone knows Einstein as a brilliant scientist, the greatest mind of the twentieth century. But what in his childhood or youth predicted the later manifestations of genius? As a child, young Albert did not say a word until the age of 2 or 3 years, was a late and quite a slow speaker, and was a loner: he often played alone even when other children were around as well as was a poor student and was expelled from the Munich school (Gardner, 1993a; Isaacson, 2007; Kuznetsov, 1979; Neffe & Frisch, 2007). Can we say that Einstein was gifted as

L.V. Shavinina

a child? According to traditional understanding of giftedness, the answer to this question is a firm “No.” It is clear that he was a typical underachiever. Later Albert Einstein himself wrote in his autobiography that “my intellectual development was retarded” (Einstein & Infeld, 1949). In accordance with the cognitivedevelopmental theory of giftedness that I am presenting in this chapter, the answer is a definitive “Yes”: young Albert was a gifted underachiever characterized by uneven development in childhood that can be explained by sensitive periods (Shavinina, 2006b). The biggest problem with children like Einstein is that potential or hidden giftedness might not be usually expressed in a child’s day-to-day life, and, as a result, parents and other proximate caregivers cannot notice it. Potential or hidden giftedness is seen even more rarely in a traditional school environment, because schools are oriented to acquiring knowledge, not to developing each child’s talents. My research on Einstein’s potential or hidden giftedness reveals the following early manifestations of his high abilities. First, while little Albert was unhappy and an underachiever in school, he was an enthusiastic learner in some subjects which he liked. For example, once his uncle Jakob introduced him to geometry, he eagerly studied it on his own. Second, young Einstein did not hesitate to argue with the geometry book, when proofs made no sense to him. Authorities do not exist for the gifted. Third, he exhibited a strong dislike of the regimentation that characterized most German schools at the time. This can be considered a common feature of all high-able individuals. What do these three simple manifestations mean? From the point of view of the cognitive-developmental theory of giftedness presented in this chapter, the first manifestation of Einstein’s high abilities in childhood is the evidence of his intense intellectual motivation. The second indicates that his intellectual work from an early age was determined by subjective, internally developed standards, norms, and orientations, which can be thought of as intellectual intentions or extracognitive abilities discussed above. Although serious, his intentions were not in synch with the expectations of a conventional school system. The third testifies to the obvious fact that even as a child, Albert was characterized by a strongly negative reaction to any attempts to impose external standards on his intellectually creative behaviour. The Gymnasium in Munich was not a place where he was able to explore what he wanted

10

A Unique Type of Representation Is the Essence of Giftedness

and needed to explore. This is another evidence of his strongly developed from early age specific intellectual intentions or extracognitive abilities. As concluded above based on my research on many gifted children, adolescents, and adults, such intentions or abilities are a powerful predictor of real giftedness with subsequent outstanding intellectually creative achievements. It is not therefore surprising that from early years Einstein developed a unique sense of his own direction in everything that is one of the components of extracognitive abilities. It means that if his extracognitive abilities originate from childhood, then the sense of direction take its genesis from childhood as well. Later in life, Albert Einstein, in discussions with Max Wertheimer (1959) about the development of the theory of relativity and the way of thinking, which led to it, emphasized that

253

fied in little Albert. The first was the compass that his father showed him at the age of 4 or 5 years. It had a strong impression on the young child. Many years later Einstein recollected that great impact, which this compass had on his subsequent development. The second sensitive period began when his uncle Jakob gave him geometry book. Geometry fitted nicely the boy’s developed visual abilities. The book provoked a feeling of profound wonder and the child spent many hours on solving mathematical problems presented in that book. These sensitive periods during childhood generated a sense of wonder in Einstein, an unusual curiosity about everything around him leading to the development of an ability to pose interesting questions and then ponder them at length. His developmental capacities (e.g. sense of wonder) were indeed transformed into the stable individual acquisitions (e.g. a long-standing curiosity). . . .during all those years there was the feeling of direcOne can therefore conclude that Albert Einstein was tion, of going straight toward something concrete. It is, truly gifted in his childhood, but because of his uneven of course, very hard to express that feeling in words; but it was decidedly the case, and clearly to be distinguished development and twice exceptionality (i.e. a pure unfrom later considerations about the rational form of the derachiever at school while a devoted learner in the solution (p. 228; italics added). subjects of his interest) his potential or hidden giftedMy research also demonstrates that the major indicator ness was not recognized at all and he was not considof Einstein’s hidden or potential giftedness is his strong ered as the gifted (Shavinina, 2006b). visual imagery that clearly manifested itself from early childhood. According to many accounts, young Albert assimilated information by forming mental pictures, Summary with a minimal use of complex terminology (Gardner, 1993; Miller, 1996). He thus processed informa- According to the cognitive-developmental theory of tion in images. His visual abilities certainly dominated giftedness presented in this chapter, the nature of giftedness is explained by its neuropsychological, over his verbal abilities. I also found the two important behavioural mani- developmental, and cognitive foundations. The neufestations of Einstein’s uneven development in child- ropsychological foundation of giftedness is mainly hood. First, although usually little Albert was quiet and connected with high plasticity of the brain of the gifted thoughtful, sometimes he exhibited powerful tantrums. (Kalbfleisch, this volume), which is the basis of their For instance, once he hurled a chair at a tutor. Second, unusual sensitivity. The first years of a child’s life young Einstein very much disliked school subjects re- are characterized by a number of sensitive periods— quiring rote learning and revealed his contempt by act- periods of a child’s heightened and very selective ing defiantly in class. Thus, once his teacher said that responsiveness to everything what is going on around Albert had undermined the respect of the entire class him or her. Sensitive periods—which constitute the by his rude behaviour. As I pointed out above, uneven developmental foundation of giftedness—accelerate development is an essential characteristic of the devel- the child’s mental development through the actualopmental process of gifted and talented children. In ac- ization of his or her intellectual potential and the cordance with the cognitive-developmental theory of growth of the individual’s cognitive resources. The giftedness, this development can be explained by sen- advanced intellectual development of the gifted during sensitive periods explains why gifted development sitive periods. Based on the available (auto) biographical sources, is the uneven, asynchronous, or dyssynchronous, at least two powerful sensitive periods can be identi- and, hence, unusual development. Periods of height-

254

ened (cognitive, emotional, and social) sensitivity are beyond this specific development of the gifted (Shavinina, 1997, 1999). The accelerated intellectual development of the gifted leads to the appearance of their unique cognitive experience. This experience—which consists of conceptual structures, knowledge base, and subjective mental space—is a cognitive basis of giftedness (Kholodnaya, 1993; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). This uniqueness consists in a more complex, rich, integrated, differentiated, and unfolded structural organization of the cognitive experience of the gifted in comparison with the cognitive experience of those who were not identified as gifted (Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). The cognitive experience manifests itself in a specific type of objective mental representations (i.e. how an individual sees, understands, and interprets everything what is going on in the surrounding reality; Kholodnaya, 1993). It means that gifted individuals have a unique intellectual picture of the world (Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996), which is responsible for their exceptional performance and/or achievements. In other words, the gifted see, understand, and interpret everything differently. The unique type of representations is the essence of giftedness. This is true for all categories of the gifted, including child prodigies, talented scientists of Nobel calibre, and great entrepreneurs (Shavinina, 2003, 2004, 2006a, 2006b). The cognitive experience serves as a psychological basis for the three main levels of the manifestations of giftedness (i.e. its various characteristics, traits, properties, and qualities): intellectually creative, metacognitive, and extracognitive abilities, respectively (Kholodnaya, 1993; Shavinina, 1994; Shavinina & Ferrari, 2004). That is, the gifted individuals’ highly developed intellectually creative, metacognitive, and extracognitive abilities are the manifestations of their unique cognitive experience (Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996; Shavinina & Sheeratan, 2004). Well-developed extracognitive abilities testify to the highest level of the development of giftedness (Shavinina, 1995, 2004). Therefore, according to the cognitive-developmental theory of giftedness, giftedness is a result of the protracted inner process of the construction and growth of the individual’s cognitive resources leading to a unique cognitive experience beyond which there are periods of heightened cognitive sensitivity. The

L.V. Shavinina

unique cognitive experience manifests itself in the gifted’s unique intellectual picture of the world. The essence of giftedness is all about a unique point of view, a unique vision of gifted individuals. One of the most important aspects of this uniqueness is their ability to see everything in a highly objective manner. Consequently, the cognitive-developmental theory of giftedness presented in this chapter unifies both the feminine perspective on giftedness and the achievement-oriented perspective (Silverman et al., this volume). This is possible because the theory explains the process or dynamic aspect of giftedness (i.e. gifted development) and its productive or resulted aspect (i.e. the gifted individual’s exceptional achievements and/or performance).

References Albert, R. S. (1992). A developmental theory of eminence. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius & eminence (pp. 3–18). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1986). The achievement of eminence: a model based on a longitudinal study of exceptionally gifted boys and their families. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 332–357). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ananiev, B. G. (1957). About the system of developmental psychology. Voprosi psichologii, 5, 112–126. Baltes, P. B., Staudinger, U. M., Maercker, A., & Smith, J. (1995). People nominated as wise: A comparative study of wisdom-related knowledge. Psychology & Aging, 10(2), 155–166. Bamberger, J. (1982). Growing-up prodigies: The midlife crisis. In D. H. Feldman (Ed.), Developmental approaches to giftedness (pp. 61–77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bamberger, J. (1986). Cognitive issues in the development of musically gifted children. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 388–413). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baumgarten, F. (1930). Wunderkinder psychologische untersuchungen. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth. Bjorklund, D. F., & Schneider, W. (1996). The interaction of knowledge, aptitude, and strategies in children’s memory development. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 59–89). San Diego: Academic Press. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Advances in instructional psychology (Vol.1, pp. 77– 165). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognition, executive control, selfregulation, and other even more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and learning (pp. 60–108). West Germany: Kuhlhammer.

10

A Unique Type of Representation Is the Essence of Giftedness

Case, R. (1984a). Intellectual development: A systematic reinterpretation. New York: Academic Press. Case, R. (1984b). The process of stage transition: A neoPiagetian view. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Mechanisms of cognitive development (pp. 19–44). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Chi, M. T. H., & Ceci, S. J. (1987). Content knowledge: Its role, representation and restructuring in memory development. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 91–142). Orlando: Academic Press. Chi, M. T. H., & Greeno J. G. (1987). Cognitive research relevant to education. In Sechzer J. A. & Pfafflin S. M. (Eds.), Psychology and educational policy (pp. 39–57). New York: The New York Academy of Sciences. Chi, M. T. H., & Koeske, R. D. (1983). Network representation of a child’s dinosaur knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 19(1), 29–39. Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. (2003). Handbook of Gifted Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. DeGroot, A. D. (1978). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague: Mouton. Detterman, D. K. (1993). Giftedness and intelligence: One and the same? In G. R. Bock & K. Ackrill (Eds.), The origins and development of high ability (pp. 22– 43). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons (Ciba Found. Symp. 178). Detterman, D. K. (1994). (Ed.). Current topics in human intelligence. Vol. 4. Theories of intelligence. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Einstein, A., & Infeld, A. (1949). Autobiographical notes. In P. A. Schlipp (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher and scientist (pp. 3–49). New York: The Library of Living Philosophers. Feldman, D. H. (1982). A developmental framework for research with gifted children. In D. H. Feldman (Ed.), Developmental approaches to giftedness and creativity (pp. 31–45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. Feldman, D. H. (1986a). Giftedness as a developmentalist sees it. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 285–305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Feldman, D. H. (1986b). Nature’s gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York: Basic Books. Fischer, K. W., & Pipp, S. L. (1984). Processes of cognitive development: Optimal level and skill acquisition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Mechanisms of cognitive development (pp. 45– 80). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231– 235). Hillside, N.J.: Erlbaum. Flavell, J. H. (1984). Discussion. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Mechanisms of cognitive development (pp. 187–209). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Gagn´e, F. (1993). Constructs and models pertaining to exceptional human abilities. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 69–87). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Gagn´e, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the language of the field. Roeper Review, 18(2), 103–111.

255

Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind, and brain. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1993a). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1993b). The relationship between early giftedness and later achievement. In G. R. Bock & K. Ackrill (Eds.), The origins and development of high ability (pp. 175– 185). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons (Ciba Found. Symp. 178). Goldsmith, L. T. (1990). The timing of talent: The facilitation of early prodigious achievement. In M. J. A. Howe (Ed.), Encouraging the development of exceptional skills and talents (pp. 17–31). Leicester: British Psychological Society. Gruber, H. E. (1982). On the hypothesized relation between giftedness and creativity. In D. H. Feldman (Ed.), Developmental approaches to giftedness and creativity (pp. 7–29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers. Gruber, H. E. (1986). The self-construction of the extraordinary. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 247–263). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heller, K. (1993). Structural tendencies and issues of research on giftedness and talent. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 49–67). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Heller, K. A., Monks, F., Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. (2000). The International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Henderson, L. M., & Ebner, F. F. (1997). The biological basis for early intervention with gifted children. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3&4), 59–80. Horgan, D. D., & Morgan, D. (1990). Chess expertise in children. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 109–128. Howe, M. J. A. (Ed.). (1990). Encouraging the development of exceptional skills and talents. Leicester: British Psychological Society. Howe, M. J. A. (1993). The early lives of child prodigies. In G. R. Bock & K. Ackrill (Eds.), The origins and development of high ability (pp. 85–105). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons (Ciba Found. Symp. 178). Isaacson, W. (2007). Einstein: His Life and Universe. New York: Simon & Schuster. Jellen, H., & Verduin, J. R. (1986). Handbook for differential education of the gifted: A taxonomy of 32 key concepts. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Kagan, J., Rosman, B., Day, D., Albert, J., & Phillips, W. (1964). Information processing in the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs, 78(1, Whole No. 578). Kholodnaya, M. A. (1983). The integrated structures of conceptual thinking. Tomsk: Tomsk University Press (in Russian). Kholodnaya, M. A. (1990). Is there intelligence as a psychical reality? Voprosu psichologii, 5, 121–128. Kholodnaya, M. A. (1993). Psychological mechanisms of intellectual giftedness. Voprosi psichologii, 1, 32–39. Kholodnaya, M. A. (1997). The psychology of intelligence. Moscow: IPRAN Press. Kuznetsov B. G. (1979). A. Einstein: Life, death, immortality. Moscow: Nauka. Leites, N. S. (1960). Intellectual giftedness. Moscow: APN Press.

256 Leites, N. S. (1971). Intellectual abilities and age. Moscow: Pedagogica. Leites, N. S. (Ed.). (1996). Psychology of giftedness of children and adolescents.Moscow: Academia. Marton, F., Fensham, P., & Chaiklin, S. (1994). A Nobel’s eye view of scientific intuition: Discussions with the Nobel prize-winners in physics, chemistry and medicine (1970– 86). International Journal of Science Education, 16(4), 457–473. Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232. Miller, A. (1996). Insights of genius: Visual imagery and creativity in science and art. New York: Springer Verlag. Morelock, M. J., & Feldman, D. H. (1993). Prodigies and savants: What they have to tell us about giftedness and human cognition. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 161–180). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Mumford, M. D. (1996). Insight, creativity, and cognition. Creativity Research Journal, 9(1), 103–107. Neffe, J., & Frisch, S. (2007). Einstein: A Biography. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press. Piechowski, M. M. (1979). Developmental potential. In N. Colangelo & R. T. Zaffrann (Eds.), New voices in counseling the gifted (pp. 25–27). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Piechowski, M. M. (1986). The concept of developmental potential. Roeper Review, 8(3), 190–197. Piechowski, M. M. (1991). Emotional development and emotional giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 285–306). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive Strategies: Good strategy users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development: Vol. 4 (pp. 89–129). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Rabinowitz, M., & Glaser, R. (1985). Cognitive structure and process in highly competent performance. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented. Developmental perspectives (pp. 75–97). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Radford, J. (1990). The problem of the prodigy. In M. J. A. Howe (Ed.), Encouraging the development of exceptional skills and talents (pp. 32–48). Leicester: British Psychological Society. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: a developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Revesz, G. (1925). The psychology of a music prodigy. New York: Harcourt Brace. Roedell, W. C. (1984). Vulnerabilities of highly gifted children. Roeper Review, 6, 127–130. Rosenblatt, J. S. (1976). Sensitive periods in development: A problem of continuity/discontinuity in development. InProceedings of XXI International Congress of Psychology. Paris. Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (Eds.). (1990). Theories of creativity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

L.V. Shavinina Schneider, W. (1993). Acquiring expertise: Determinants of exceptional performance. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 311–324). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Shavinina, L. V. (1994). Specific intellectual intentions and creative giftedness. European Journal for High Ability, 5(2), 145–152. Shavinina, L. V. (1995). The personality trait approach in the psychology of giftedness. European Journal for High Ability, 6(1), 27–37. Shavinina, L. V. (1996). The objectivization of cognition and intellectual giftedness. High Ability Studies, 7(1), 91–98. Shavinina, L. V. (1997). Extremely early high abilities, sensitive periods, and the development of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 8(2), 245–256. Shavinina, L. V. (1998). On Miller’s insights of genius: What do we know about it? Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 843– 845. Shavinina, L. V. (1999). The psychological essence of the child prodigy phenomenon: sensitive periods and cognitive experiences. Gifted Child, 43(1), 25–38. Shavinina, L. V. (2003). Understanding scientific innovation: The case of Nobel Laureates. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 445–457). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Shavinina, L. V. (2004). Explaining high abilities of Nobel laureates. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 243–254. Shavinina, L. V. (2006a). Micro-social factors in the development of entrepreneurial giftedness: The case of Richard Branson. High Ability Studies, 17(2), 225–235. Shavinina, L. V. (2006b). Was Einstein gifted as a child? Invited lecture at the Canadian Museum of Nature on the occasion of the opening of a special exhibition on Albert Einstein (23 November, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada). Shavinina, L. V., & Ferrari, M. (Eds.). (2004). Beyond Knowledge: Extracognitive Aspects of Developing High Ability. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum Publishers. Shavinina, L. V., & Kholodnaya, M. A. (1996). The cognitive experience as a psychological basis of intellectual giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(1), 4–33. Shavinina, L. V., & Sheeratan, K. (2004). Extracognitive phenomena in the intellectual functioning of creative and talented individuals. In L. V. Shavinina & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Beyond Knowledge: Extracognitive Aspects of Developing High Ability. Mahwah, New Jersey, USA: Erlbaum Publishers. Shore, B. M., & Dover, A. C. (1987). Metacognition, intelligence and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 37–39. Shore, B. M., & Kanevsky, L. S. (1993). Thinking processes: being and becoming gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 133–147). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Skuse, D., Pickles, A., Wolke, D., & Reilly, S. (1994). Postnatal growth and mental development: Evidence for a “sensitive period.” Journal for Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(3), 521–545. Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling needs and programs for the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 631–647). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

10

A Unique Type of Representation Is the Essence of Giftedness

Silverman, L. K. (1994). The moral sensitivity of gifted children and the evolution of society. Roeper Review, 17(2), 110–116. Silverman, L. K. (1997). The construct of asynchronous development. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3&4), 36–58. Staudinger, U. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1996). Interactive minds: A facilitative setting for wisdom-related performance? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 71(4), 746–762. Stein, M. I. (1967). Creativity and culture. In R. L. Mooney & T. A. Razik (Eds.), Explorations in creativity (pp. 109–119). New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A new theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1986a). A triarchic theory of intellectual giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 223–243). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1986b). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607–627. Sternberg, R. J. (1988a). A three-facet model of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 125–147). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.) (1988b). The nature of creativity: contemporary psychological perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1990a). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1990b). Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1990c). Wisdom and its relations to intelligence and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development (pp. 142–159). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1993a). The concept of giftedness: a pentagonal implicit theory. In G. R. Bock & K. Ackrill (Eds.), The origins and development of high ability (pp. 5–21). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons (Ciba Found. Symp. 178). Sternberg, R. J. (1993b). Procedures for identifying intellectual potential in the gifted: A perspective on alternative “Metaphors of mind.” In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 185–207). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Sternberg, R. J., Conway, B. E., Ketron, J. L., Bernstein, M. (1981). People’s conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 37–55. Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.) (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

257

Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.) (2005). Conceptions of giftedness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Detterman, D. K. (Eds.) (1986). What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (1995). Defying the crowd: cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: The Free Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51(7), 677–688. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Giftedness: a psychosocial approach. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 21–52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1993). History of giftedness and gifted education in world perspective. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 3–27). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Terrassier, J.-C. (1985). Dyssynchrony – uneven development. In J. Freeman (Ed.), The psychology of gifted children (pp. 265–274). New York: John Wiley. Terrassier, J.-C. (1992). Gifted children: Research and education in France. In F. J. M¨onks, M. W. Katzko, & H. W. Boxtel (Eds.), Education of the gifted in Europe: Theoretical and research issues (pp. 212–216). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger. Vekker, L. M. (1981). Psychical processes. Vol. 3. Leningrad: Leningrad University Press. Vernadsky, V. I. (1988). Diaries and letters. Moscow: Molodaya Gwardiya (in Russian). Vygotsky, L. S. (1956). Selected papers. Moscow: APN Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1972). A problem of age periods in child development. Voprosi psichologii, 2, 53–61. Wallace, D. (1985). Giftedness and the construction of a creative life. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented children (pp. 361–385). Washington: American Psychological Association. Wallon, H. (1945). Les origines de la pens´ee chez l’enfant. Paris: P.U.F. Walters, J., & Gardner, H. (1986). The crystallizing experience: discovering an intellectual gift. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 306–331). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Zaporozhets, A. V. (1964). Child psychology. Moscow: Pedagogica.

Part III

The Neuropsychology of Giftedness

Chapter 11

Neuropsychological Characteristics of Academic and Creative Giftedness John G. Geake

Gifted children process information more rapidly and with less attenuation than others. Such individual differences can be attributed to neurophysiological differences that affect neuronal efficiency. Geake (1997, p. 28)

Abstract Evidence for interpretable neural correlates of giftedness comes from two main lines of enquiry. First, studies comparing the neural functioning of gifted children with age-matched peers not identified as gifted consistently report that gifted subjects display enhanced frontal cortical activation and inter-hemispheric functional connectivity. Second, studies which compare the neural function and structure of high-IQ adults with those of average IQ consistently report that high-IQ subjects display relatively enhanced inferior lateral prefrontal cortical (PFC) activations, together with relatively enhanced activations in a network of other cortical regions including the inferior parietal cortex. The salience of PFC activations is supported by neuroanatomical studies in which the grey matter densities of high-IQ subjects in frontal regions are significantly higher than average. These data can account for enhanced executive capability as one important neuropsychological characteristic of gifted people and a more efficacious working memory as another.

Introduction It seems to be stating the obvious that gifted children have comparative neurophysiological advantages. However, this was not the case even a decade ago when educational discourse was reluctant to embrace the deliberations of cognitive neuroscience, including evidence for the neural basis of learning, memory, motivation, and individual differences in cognitive abilities (Geake & Cooper, 2003). Now we are fortunate in having available convergent evidence for the neurobiological basis of individual differences in academic performance and intellectual potential, including giftedness (Kalbfleisch, 2004). The aim of this chapter is to review evidence for such differences in neural function and structure that can account for high levels of cognitive abilities. The evidence is mostly drawn from cognitive neuroscientific studies employing contemporary neuroimaging technologies1 : functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),2 positron emission tomography 1

Keywords Neuropsychology of giftedness · Neural structure · Neural function · Frontal cortex · Parietal cortex · Fronto-parietal network · Executive function

J.G. Geake University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia e-mail: [email protected]

For a more detailed description of these neuroimaging techniques see the relevant sections of either the Oxford Companion to the Mind 2nd Edition (Gregory, 2004), the Handbook of Functional Neuroimaging of Cognition (Cabeza & Kingstone, 2001), or Van Horn’s chapter on Cognitive Neuroimaging in The Cognitive Neurosciences III 3rd Edition (Van Horn, 2004). 2 Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) images blood oxygen level changes in active areas of the brain using the interaction of pulsed (RF) resonant energy with a very strong magnetic field (typically 1.5 or 3.0 T). These changes involve neurally induced dilations of local vasculature resulting in a dilation of concentrations of (slightly paramagnetic)

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 11, 

261

262

(PET),3 and event-related potential encephalography (ERP).4 At the outset it has to be stated that there are important caveats to the claims of any neuroimaging research which depend on the strengths and limitations of the method employed. Foremost is the validity of the various surrogate variables (e.g. haemodynamic fluctuation, rate of local glucose metabolism, and relative electric dipole strength) for measuring neural activity. In fMRI or PET, it could be that suppression rather than activation of metabolism in some places is important, but this might not be seen in the resulting images. In EEG, electrical emissions from one location in the brain can be detected by many electrodes (and the converse), making the source of the signals difficult to determine. Other potential restrictions include experimental and analytic limits to spatial and temporal

deoxygenated haemoglobin, generating the blood oxygen leveldependent (BOLD) response. The BOLD response measures stimulus-induced reductions in signal distortion. However, because vasculature changes are relatively sluggish, fMRI is uninformative about the relevant temporal dynamics. As a non-invasive technique, fMRI can be used to image the spatial neural correlates of high-level cognition. Because this method of neuroimaging has no known deleterious effects, it can be employed for repeated measure designs, and random presentation of contrasting stimuli over long time periods. The main drawback is that the subject experience can be somewhat uncomfortable, with loud noises and potential claustrophobia. 3 Positron emission tomography (PET) images metabolism in active areas of the brain using emissions of a radioactive tracer injected into the blood. The radioactive tracer is usually an unstable isotope of oxygen within molecules of glucose. Metabolism in response to stimuli increases the rate of radioactive decay of positrons, which interact with nearby electrons to produce gamma radiation which is detected by a radiation counter surrounding the brain. Because the half-life of the radiation is short, for safety reasons, the presentation of experimental stimuli is restricted to block design over a shorter time period than with fMRI. Repeated subject designs are not conducted, again for safety reasons. 4 Event-related potentials (ERP) are a particular form of electroencephalography (EEG). EEG records the electrical field through the scalp of the neural activity of the cortex beneath. These data are recorded by sensitive electrodes on the scalp. EEG recordings are usually categorised into different frequency bands, from high frequency (gamma waves) to low frequency (alpha waves). ERP data consist of changes in the EEG in response to experimental stimuli. The waveforms of interest typically occur 100, 300, or 400 ms after the stimulus onset. In other words, ERP data are temporally sensitive. However, as the extrascalp electrical field is a result of widespread neural activity, the technique is insensitive to spatial correlates. Many neuroscience imaging laboratories now combine ERP and fMRI data by using non-metallic EEG electrodes in the MRI scanner. Because EEG is a passive technique, it is suitable for use with young children.

J.G. Geake

resolution; the statistical nature of activation data; constraints on the type and extent of tasks that subjects can undertake while being imaged; and subject selection. Most neuroimaging subjects are screened to be right handed so that individual data can be combined for a more statistically powerful group effect, on the assumption that 95% of right-handed people have a similar distribution of functional areas in their brains. This is more likely with males. Left-handed people only have about a 60% chance of similar functional distribution (Kolb & Wishaw, 1996). This in turn imposes limits on generalisability. Another effect which is less often acknowledged is the subjective experience of being imaged, and its possible effects on cognition (Geake & Kringelbach, 2007). Whereas the definition of giftedness in academic and creative domains has been contested over the years (e.g. Gagn´e, 1985; Renzulli, 1986; Kanevsky, 1995), in neuroscientific studies giftedness is operationalised as either achieving high levels of general intelligence on standardised IQ tests (usually the Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM), or batteries from either the WISC/WAIS or Stanford-Binet III or IV), or demonstrating precocious levels of performance, usually in formal educational settings. And whereas in recent decades IQ has been generally disregarded by educationists as an impoverished measure of intellectual ability, in the laboratory the IQ offers several advantages as an independent variable to be correlated with neural variance: (1) for younger subjects IQ scores are age-normed, controlling for the covariance of age, although not always as well with gifted subjects (Gross, 2004); (2) full IQ scores or g capture the common variance shared by all cognitive abilities (Carroll, 1993), thus controlling for individual differences in talent areas enhanced by experience (the counter-examples of savants and prodigies, where IQ is no predictor of performance, not withstanding); (3) psychophysical data on significant (inverse) correlations between temporal response (e.g. reaction time (RT), inspection time) and IQ (Chen & Buckley, 1988) suggests that IQ can act as a surrogate measure of some putative global neurophysiological attribute such as neural processing speed. For example, Lehrl and Fisher (1990) found significant correlations (around r = −0.60) between the basic period of information processing, defined as the time period to process one bit of information, and global IQ. That is, about one third of the variance in general intelligence estimates could be accounted for by

11

Neuropsychological Characteristics of Academic and Creative Giftedness

measures of neurophysiological efficacy, independent of task content. Such findings, however, beg the question: neurophysiological efficacy at what exactly? Johnson, ImBolter, and Pascual-Leone (2003) have argued that to understand the development of cognitive abilities in children, including gifted children, information processing speed needs to be coupled with capacities for attention and efficiency of inhibition. They point out that differences in RT between gifted and non-gifted children increase with task complexity and can actually disappear on trivial tasks (to which a similar observation could be made about many classroom activities). That said, the search for neural correlates of giftedness is constrained by the nonlinearity of neural structure–function relationships in general and the range of neural attributes which contribute to the manifestation of intelligence (Gray, Chabris, & Braver, 2003; Fuster, 2003; Jung & Haier, 2007). These include the following:

r r r r

The cytoarchitecture (gyri and sulci) of cortex in key areas of functionality The interconnectivity of functional modules that enable information transfer The density and distribution of grey matter and white matter that enable information processing The efficacy of modular functions, especially those in the lateral prefrontal cortex.

r

263

The cerebellum in enabling physical and mental coordination during performance (Vandervert et al., this volume).

Thus, a gifted child might be expected to have superior neurophysiology in some or all of the above. The evidence to date, while supportive of such a prediction, is necessarily partial, given that the task of mapping the neural correlates of the vast repertoire of human cognitive behaviours, much less giftedness, is still in its early days. In contrast, the cognitive characteristics of gifted children have been well catalogued and described (Clark, 1997). Among these are the following:

r r

r r

Intellectual precocity (high IQ being normed to chronological average), as demonstrated in performance on above-age school tests An ability for rapid information processing, gifted children requiring less repetition for comprehension, but sometimes paradoxically requiring more time for classroom answers, presumably due to processing larger quantities of information A preference for top-down understanding, gifted children preferring big-picture, abstract styles of description, as well as harbouring a zealous passion for knowledge A predilection for creative thinking, gifted children often making original connections between different ideas.

Consequently, many brain structures and functions contribute (presumably in synchrony) to all acts of These cognitive characteristics can be used to make predictions about the collective differences in the neuintelligence (Fuster, 2003), not least: rology of gifted children when compared with their r The lateral prefrontal cortex in supporting working (not identified as gifted) peers, such as the following: memory (WM) (Baddeley & Sala, 1998; Rypma, r Denser intra-cortical white matter (enabling more Prabhakaran, Desmond, Glover, & Gabrieli, 1999) r The hippocampus and entorhinal cortex in enrapid information processing) r Denser focal cortical grey matter (enabling greater abling long-term memory storage (Shapiro & knowledge storage) Eichenbaum, 1997) r The orbitofrontal cortex in enabling decision- r Greater prefrontal efficacy (enabling, amongst many things, higher levels of abstract and creative making (Rolls, 1999) r The limbic subcortex in generating emotional methinking) r Earlier maturation of frontal cortices (enabling diation (LeDoux, 1998) r The fusiform gyrus and temporal lobe in sequencabove-age academic performance and high IQ scores). ing symbolic representations including language (Howard, 1997) r The parietal lobe in generating conceptual inter- The remainder of this chapter reviews evidence in suprelationships (Luria, 1973) port or otherwise for these predictions.

264

Neuroanatomy and IQ Several neuroimaging studies report neuroanatomical correlates with IQ, with quantitative and qualitative differences between high-IQ subjects and subjects with average IQ in the focal density of both white and grey matter. In Russia, Orzhekhovskaia (1996) conducted post-mortem analyses on people whose personal records (from the era of the Soviet Union) included IQ test results. The results showed IQ-related differences in the neurophysiology of frontal areas. In fact, the density of neurons and gliocytes and the thickness of cortical layers in the lateral frontal areas were more than double in people with high IQ than in the brains of people with average measures of IQ. Moreover, this result was consistent across age groups. Given that neural information processing is dependent on the extensive interconnectivity of cortical neurons, typically of the order of 10,000 synapses with neighbouring neurons (Kolb & Wishaw, 1996), a doubling of the number of neurons in a focal region implies a massive advantage in potential computational power. Orzhekhovskaia’s finding has been replicated more recently with live subjects using voxel-based morphometry (VBM)5 to measure brain cell density (Haier, Jung, Yeo, Head, Alkire, 2004). About 6% of the grey matter volumes which correlated with IQ were distributed in the brain, with different patterns for males and females in both grey and white matter clusters. Whereas most were in the frontal lobes, significant numbers of the IQ-correlated voxels were also found in the parietal lobes, particularly for older subjects, and in the temporal lobes, particularly for younger subjects. In other words, the neuroanatomical expression of intelligence is dynamic. Moreover, the neuroanatomical development of intelligence is dynamic. In a longitudinal MRI study of intellectual ability and cortical development in 300 children and adolescents (Shaw et al., 2006), data

5 Voxel-based morphometry (VBM) uses high-resolution MRI to compare cell density in the tissues of the brain. MRI can distinguish between the different types of cerebral tissue, particularly grey matter (unmyelinated) and white matter (myelinated), through the differing quantum resonance responses of the protons in the water in the tissue. In VBM, each voxel (a small 3D volume of brain tissue, typically a few cubic millimetres cubed) is classified as grey matter, white matter, CSF, and so on. These data are then combined to give regional or whole-brain estimates of tissue density.

J.G. Geake

sampled over 6 years indicated that the trajectory of change in the thickness of the cerebral cortex, rather than cortical thickness itself, was most closely related to levels of intelligence. Most interestingly, the thickness of the cortex was thinner in the high-IQ group when these children were young, but rapidly grew so that by the time the gifted children had reached their teens, their cerebral cortices were significantly thicker than average, especially in the prefrontal cortex. Thus, it could be speculated that the neural dynamics of gifted children’s brains, at least in the frontal cortices, are different from those of their peers. This seems consistent with previous evidence that the precocious academic performance of gifted children can be attributed to an early maturation of their frontal lobes. In an ERP comparison of highly gifted (top 0.5% of IQ distribution) students from the Iowa study of mathematically precocious youth (CY-TAG) (mean age approximately 13 years) with age-matched peers on a chimeric faces preference task (chimeric faces are created by swapping halves of two photographs, one smiling, the other neutral, to elicit laterality bias from responses as to which seems the happier, information from each visual field being processed in the contralateral hemisphere), there were significant differences in frontal EEG recordings of the gifted group (O’Boyle, Benbow, & Alexander, 1995), suggesting that [E]hanced frontal activity is a uniquely important characteristic of intelligent (perhaps gifted) brain functioning. (p. 438)

As executive cognitive control in the form of attentional focus and selective inhibition (albeit mostly unconscious) is a central function of the lateral areas of the frontal lobes (Baddeley & Sala, 1998), a main benefit of relatively enhanced frontal activity for gifted children is . . . a finely tuned capacity for activating (or inhibiting) the very brain regions known to play (not play) specialized roles in the performance of a given task. . . . That is, precocious individuals are especially facile at knowing [sic] what steps to take in solving a given intellectual problem. (p. 438)

Accounting for such a difference in neural function seems to presume a concomitant difference in development, as evidenced by Shaw et al. (2006). And this in turn could account for the improved learning outcomes for gifted children when they are timetabled to

11

Neuropsychological Characteristics of Academic and Creative Giftedness

265

attend classes (with older children) according to their activated in their original PET study. To explain this prior knowledge and current learning needs – both in result, Duncan (2001) suggested that primary/elementary school (Ryan & Geake, 2003) and [T]hroughout much of the prefrontal cortex . . . the rein secondary/high school (Fardell & Geake, 2003). sponse properties of single neurons are highly adaptable. In a follow-up study, Alexander, O’Boyle and Ben. . . Any given cell has the potential to be driven by many bow (1996) compared the (resting alpha power) EEG different kinds of input – perhaps through the dense inof 30 gifted adolescents from the CY-TAG programme terconnections that exist within the prefrontal cortex. In a particular task context, many cells become tuned to code with 30 age-matched peers and 30 college students. information that is specifically relevant to this task. In this The main contrast of interest was between the gifted sense, the prefrontal cortex acts as a global workspace or adolescents and the college students. While there were working memory. (p. 824) differences in alpha band power over the temporal and parietal lobes, Such adaptability, Duncan argued, implies selective attention or emphasis on relevant inputs while filtering . . . there were no differences in alpha power at the frontal and occipital lobe locations between gifted adolescents out irrelevant inputs, a high facility for which is a charand college age subjects suggesting that the two groups acteristic of gifted brain functioning (O’Boyle et al., have a similar level of brain maturation for these regions. 1995). Moreover, Duncan (2001) speculated that such (p. 30) focussed frontal information processing supports inforIn this case, the frontal lobes of the young gifted mation processing in other relevant areas of the brain, subjects seemed to be operating with the equivalent the combined effect of which is to create a tempomaturity of students some 5 years older already in rary dominant active state of concern towards that paruniversity. It was speculated that one source of contrib- ticular problem. As this regional involvement is stautory variance to such precocious neural development tistical, it increasingly recruits overlapping regions of could be differential prenatal exposure to testosterone, the frontal cortex as problem engagement continues. one of several neurotaxic hormones which mediate In other words, sustained and focussed thinking reepigenetic brain organisation (O’Boyle & Benbow, quires high working memory demand. By this model 1990). it is clear why enhanced working memory capacity, as These findings about the neural development of supported by efficacious frontal functioning and strucgifted children are consistent with the results of studies ture, is a hallmark of intellectual giftedness, enabling of the neural correlates of intelligence in general gifted people to achieve superior measures in IQ tests, populations, such as the PET study of the neural as well as high levels of creative intelligence through correlates of general intelligence (g) conducted by task adaptation and selectivity (described more fully Duncan et al. (2000) at the University of Cambridge. below). Exploiting the fact that in an IQ test the difficulty of While it might be noted parenthetically that this each individual item is directly correlated with the could be interpreted as yet more evidence against the final IQ score (g-loading), Duncan’s group contrasted notion of multiple intelligences, Duncan’s work (Dunthe activations of subjects attempting both high-g and can et al., 2000; Duncan & Owen, 2001; Duncan, 2001) low-g-correlated IQ test items. The contrast of high-g also provides a basis for explaining talent. Kalbfleisch over low-g items revealed bilateral inferior prefrontal (2004), from her review of the neural basis of incortical activations for both spatial and verbal tasks. telligence, creativity, and expert performance, defined In other words, high general intelligence requires talent as “the maximal and productive use of either efficacious frontal cortical functioning. In order to or both of one’s high level of general intelligence or better understand the nature of the frontal cortical domain-specific ability” (Kalbfleisch et al., this book). neurophysiology involved in undertaking high-g tasks, This raises a critical issue: what is the relationship beDuncan and Owen (2000) conducted a meta-analysis tween these two drivers of talent? How can a high of 20 neuroimaging studies of cognition: inductive level of general intelligence generate an outstanding reasoning, deductive reasoning, arithmetic reasoning, domain-specific ability? The issue is taken up towards linguistic reasoning, etc. Interestingly, the centres of the end of the chapter after first considering some reactivation of all of these studies fell within the same search about the neural characteristics of talented indiregions of bilateral inferior prefrontal cortex that were viduals.

266

Neural Interconnectivity and Talent In an information processing study of musical coherence in precocious young musicians, Geake (1996) found that despite the obvious requirement that musical information has to be processed first in its order of perception – serially for melody and simultaneously for harmony – it was executive cognitive control processing that was most important for predicting outstanding musical ability. He concluded that

For gifted young musicians, it is their superior use of executive or metacognitive strategies [mediated by the frontal cortex], such as inward-directed attention, that contributes most towards their remarkable abilities. (p. 41)

A notable characteristic of Geake’s study cohort, 12-year-olds who were performing at professional or near professional standards, was their enthusiasm for practice, typically every afternoon after school when most of their peers were letting off steam outside. Three common behaviours were evident. First, hours of practice were necessary to achieve high levels of performance. Second, practice was very efficient. Whole pieces were learnt quickly and correctly; occasional mistakes were overlooked and certainly not rehearsed. Third, these modern-day Mozarts enjoyed learning and enjoyed music making. There was strong positive affective feedback. These behaviours are all consistent with a high efficacy of frontal functioning. Positive (and negative) emotions, generated in the subcortical limbic areas of the brain, support motivation by way of inputs (both distal neuronal and dopaminergic) to the frontal cortical areas responsible for sustaining focussed attention (LeDoux, 1998; Rolls, 1999). The manifestation of talent, then, is not just dependent on giftedness and practice, but is much driven by positive affect. Consistent with Geake’s conclusion, in an EEG study of musically talented vs. normal adults, Birmbaumer, Lutzenberger, Rau, Braun, and Mayer-Kress (1996) found that the greatest contrast in the complexity (Hausdorff dimension) of the frontal EEG was in talented college musicians listening to pseudo-classical music compared with other college students not identified as musically talented (by self-report) listening to pseudo-pop music. The researchers remarked that

J.G. Geake Complex music produces complex brain activity in complex people, simple music excites simple brain activity in simple people. (p. 268)

Although this summary might seem rather abrasive at first read, their point is that talent development is also dynamic: a neurophysiological advantage (or potential) can turn into a significant performance or talent advantage through a positive feedback cycle. It could be noted that Porter (1997) has modelled this cycle by adding a cognitive feedback loop to Gagn´e’s model of talent actualisation (Gagn´e, 1985). Importantly, it would be incorrect to infer from the above that all of the variance contributing to high intelligence resides exclusively in functioning of the frontal regions. Frangou, Chitins, and Williams (2004) found IQ correlates in regions of the non-cortical hindbrain, the cerebellum (Vandervert et al., this volume). The VBM study of Haier et al. (2004) (noted above) found that regions of cell density which correlated with IQ were distributed throughout the brain, particularly within the parietal cortices as well as the frontal. Interestingly, the spatial distribution of such neural activity seems to be independent of cognitive load (Haier, White, & Alkire, 2003). By comparing neural responses to watching soap-opera videos, this fMRI study showed that differences in g predicted brain functioning on non-reasoning tasks. Prosaically, high-IQ people think about “dumb stuff” differently from average-IQ people, which could help explain why gifted children prefer to socialise with other gifted people (Gross, 2004), especially with older gifted children and gifted adults (Shavinina, 2006). Recent reviews of this literature have concluded that high intelligence is supported by frontal functioning, not in isolation, but within a fronto-parietal network (Gray et al., 2003; Jung & Haier, 2007). Direct evidence for this network model comes from Lee et al. (2006) in Korea who replicated Duncan’s study using fMRI, but with two groups of participants: adolescents from the Korean national academy for the gifted (RAPM > 99%) and an aged-match control group from local high schools. As with Duncan, high-g-loaded tasks specifically increased activity in bilateral prefrontal regions. But for the gifted subjects, there was a stronger activation in the anterior cingulate, a region involved in emotionally weighted decision-making (Rolls, 1999), and the posterior parietal cortices, regions involved in forming concep-

11

Neuropsychological Characteristics of Academic and Creative Giftedness

tual inter-relationships, especially of a quasi-spatial representation (Fuster, 1999; Luria, 1973), where the BOLD (see Note 2) response correlated positively with RAPM measures of g. Lee et al. concluded that These results suggest that superior-g may not be due to the recruitment of additional brain regions but to the functional facilitation of the fronto-parietal network particularly driven by the posterior parietal activation. (p. 578)

This could be regarded as a particular instance of Duncan’s (2001) model (reviewed above) wherein adaptive frontal functioning maintains task commitment through persistent activation of relevant inputs from other brain areas. The extent to which such neural support is more extensive and focussed for gifted individuals is a manifestation of greater working memory efficacy (Geake & Dodson, 2005), or in other words, a more efficient dynamic workspace (described below) (Dehaene, Kerszberg, & Changeux, 1998). Consistent evidence for a frontal-parietal network as a feature of the gifted brain comes from an fMRI study by O’Boyle et al. (2005) of mathematically gifted male adolescents engaged in mental rotation. Whereas previous studies had shown mental rotation to be more of a right parietal activity, O’Boyle et al.’s gifted subjects demonstrated bilateral activation of the parietal lobes and frontal cortex, along with heightened activation of the anterior cingulate, during mental rotation. The researchers conjectured that

267

right-sided inputs are processed in the left hemisphere. Significantly higher recognition scores or tapping rates for one side or other would indicate a processing preference for the contralateral hemisphere. The results here showed that the usual left hemisphere bias was not evident for these math-gifted subjects. In other words, math-gifted children seemed to be utilising their right hemispheres much more than their peers. In sum, [E]nhanced development and subsequent processing reliance on the specialized capacities of the right hemisphere, coupled with a fine-tuned ability for rapid and coordinated exchange of information between the hemispheres, are hypothesized to be unique processing characteristics of the mathematically gifted brain. (p. 676)

This is consistent with an earlier PET study (Haier and Benbow, 1995) of college students with high vs. average scores on the SAT Math (university selection exam) where for the high-SAT-M group, there were no (temporal lobe) hemispheric differences in glucose metabolism while undertaking a set of 23 SATM maths problems. Interestingly, the characteristic of relatively enhanced bilaterality might not be restricted to abilities at mathematics. Studies of the neural development of language in infants show that the greater the vocabulary, the higher the degree of bilaterality of its instantiation (Mills, Plunkett, Prat, & Schafer, 2005). Since variance in vocabulary is a measure of how well an infant learns from its lexical environment, [I]t may be that enhanced (and bilateral) activation of the as well as an indicator of the relative richness of parietal lobes, frontal cortex, and the anterior cingulate that environment, recourse to bilateral brain function are critical parts of an all-purpose information processing network, one that is relied upon by individuals who might be a way in which gifted children allocate more are intellectually gifted, irrespective of the nature of their neural resources to support their prodigious learning. exceptional abilities. (p. 586) As many aspects of language production become Further evidence for enhanced bilaterality as a neu- lateralised by adolescence, such a conjecture would ral characteristic of mathematical giftedness is sum- imply that the neural development of gifted children marised by Singh and O’Boyle (2004). Such evidence follows a different trajectory from the norm (Giedd includes the results from psychophysical studies aimed et al. 1999), as Shaw et al. (2006) also concluded. to elicit laterality biases in gifted subjects from the CYFurthermore, if the neural correlates of giftedness TAG programme, using such experimental probes as involve a bilateral fronto-parietal network, then the efsplit (left and right) visual field word reading, dichotic ficacy of the long-distance white matter tracts between listening (different words simultaneously presented to the hemispheres, and between frontal and parietal corleft and right ears), and concurrent left and right finger tices, and other regions, becomes paramount. There is tapping while word reading (O’Boyle, Gill, Benbow, evidence for denser intra-cortical white matter tracts & Alexander, 1994), as well as psychological profiling in gifted people. In the ERP study of a sample of (O’Boyle & Benbow, 1990). The logic behind the psy- highly gifted students from the CY-TAG on a chimeric chophysical laterality bias methods, as noted above, is faces preference task noted above, the gifted subjects that sensory information is processed contralaterally: showed more bilateral frontal and right parietal actileft-sided inputs are processed in the right hemisphere; vation, with the gifted girls showing higher bilateral

268

frontal activity than the boys, while the gifted boys’ left temporal activity was significantly inhibited (higher alpha band power) (O’Boyle, Alexander, & Benbow, 1991). As these lateralised activations were synchronised, it was suggested that another characteristic of gifted subjects might be a high level of development of inter-hemispheric interconnectivity allowing for rapid interactions between the two cerebral hemispheres. As inter-hemispheric interactions are primarily conducted via the most prominent white matter tract in the brain, the corpus callosum, this conclusion is consistent with gifted subjects having denser white matter tracts enabling more substantial information transfer and processing. It could also be noted that evidence for the cooperative interaction of the cerebral hemispheres stands in firm contrast to one of the prevailing neuromyths (at least at the time of writing) in education that there is separate left- or right-brain thinking, a misinterpretation of laboratory studies (historically with split-brain patients) seeking spatial correlates of the functional modularity which supports higher level cognition, especially language. As Singh and O’Boyle (2004) point out when introducing their report on a local–global letter task comparison of gifted vs. average-ability students, which again demonstrated the absence of hemispheric differences in the gifted group, Functional asymmetry and processing specialisation of the left hemisphere (LH) and right hemisphere (RH) are well-documented characteristics of the human brain. Yet, as compelling as these hemispheric propensities may be, the brain does not consist of two hemispheres operating in isolation. In fact, the different cognitive specialities of the LH and RH are so well integrated that they seldom cause significant processing conflicts in neurologically normal individuals. Thus, hemispheric specialisation cannot be conceptualised as a static difference in the processing capacity of two independent and isolated hemispheres, but rather consists of a dynamic interactive partnership between the two. (p. 671)

Their point has particular salience for limitations on interpretation of neuroimaging studies arising from subject selection, noted at the beginning of this chapter. By far the majority of subjects in neuroimaging experiments have been male, mainly because of a greater predilection for lateral asymmetry in male brains. In Singh and O’Boyle (2004) and O’Boyle et al. (2005), all subjects, including the gifted, were male. This makes the finding that the gifted (males) demonstrated significant hemispheric symmetry all

J.G. Geake

the more remarkable, prompting Haier and Benbow (1995) to propose that high (maths) ability males “have a different way of mathematical reasoning from everyone else” (p. 411). Further evidence for greater synchronised recruitment of both hemispheres by gifted individuals comes from a diffusion tensor imaging (DTI)6 study of the white matter correlates of creativity, as measured by the Torrence Test of Creative Thinking (Samco, Caplovitz, Hsieh, & Tse, 2005). Creative individuals had more organised white matter in frontal networks subserving semantic processing, working memory, and attention. In contrast, less creative individuals had more organised white matter in a predominantly left temporal network involving syntactic processing and memory retrieval. This finding, consistent with Duncan’s (2001) model of adaptive frontal functioning, could also explain the results of an earlier ERP study by Carlsson, Wendt and Risberg (2000) which found significant differences in frontal activity between high- and low-creative subjects: the high-creative group utilised bilateral prefrontal regions, while the low-creative group used frontal functions predominantly on the left side. It could be noted that such bilateral utility for the highly creative is consistent with the bilateral model of mathematical giftedness proposed by O’Boyle (Geake & O’Boyle, 2000; Singh & O’Boyle, 2004; O’Boyle et al., 2005). As Geake (2006) has argued, gifted mathematical thinking involves a high degree of creativity. Mathematical talent can be manifested in an intrinsically motivated student with high task commitment engaging in challenging mathematical activities through the application of unusual divergent thinking towards high-quality outcomes. Importantly, the underlying necessary cognitive abilities fall into two independent factors: academic and creative (Livne, N., Livne, O. & Milgram, 1999). Academic mathematical ability is related to general intelligence and is manifest in computational accuracy, symbolic manipulation, memory for number facts, and so on. Creative mathematical ability is related to measures of creative thinking,

6 Diffusion weighted MRI or diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) is an MRI technique in which the directions of movement of water in white matter tracts, such as the corpus callosum connecting the two hemispheres, are compared. Significant directional biases (fractional anisotropy) are indicative of a more robust interconnectivity of those tracts.

11

Neuropsychological Characteristics of Academic and Creative Giftedness

involving fluidity in mathematical ideas such as finding multiple solutions to a problem, or engaging in real-world problem solving. That mathematical thinking requires contributions from both academic and creative abilities might explain some popularised extremes in mathematical performance. First there are the autobiographical reports of some great mathematicians, such as Benoit Mandelbrot of fractals fame, who performed relatively poorly at primary school arithmetic, where opportunities for creative input were largely absent. In contrast, it is certainly the case that calculation savants (as portrayed in the film Rain Man) cannot do mathematics in the constructive and creative manner that professional mathematicians do. Such a dichotomy is suggestive of a neural double dissociation – evidence that academic and creative mathematical abilities rely largely on separate brain systems. Geake (2006) has reviewed evidence for such a double dissociation, with computation being more reliant on posterior functioning, while creative and innovative mathematical thinking is more reliant on frontal functioning. Importantly, both types of thinking involve networks of functional modules from both hemispheres. For example, it has been conjectured that symbol–object mapping requires both the left (for symbols) and the right (for objects) fusiform gyri (Geake, 2005b). This inter-hemispheric integration is all the more so for gifted mathematical performance, as shown by O’Boyle’s neuroimaging studies, where both hemispheres contributed to the information processing of his gifted mathematical subjects. In other words, for the gifted mathematician, the academic or computational and creativity dimensions of mathematical cognition are seamlessly integrated through highly efficacious intermodular communication. In contrast to the dissociated stereotypes above, there are many professional mathematicians who are “calculating geniuses”, perhaps the best know being Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in theoretical physics (Gleick, 1992).

269

explanations, insightful questions, elegant proofs, original creations, and quirky humour. Such a basket of behaviours begs the question of an underlying cognitive generator, and hence some delineating neural correlates. At the cognitive level, a productive approach has been to conceptualise intelligence as analogy-making, and hence creative intelligence as fluid analogy-making (Hofstadter, 1995; Holyoak & Thagard, 1995; Geake & Dodson, 2005). As William James (1895) wrote over a century ago, A native talent for perceiving analogies is . . . the leading fact in genius of every order. (p. 530)

Certainly a characteristic of good teachers and gifted students is their ability to create analogies for explanation and clarification. It has been suggested that fluid analogy-making underpins creative human intelligence (Hofstadter, 2001; Mitchell, 1993), because fluid analogising is the process which working memory (WM) employs to access the differing forms of information from other parts of the fronto-parietal network, including sensory afferents, and long-term memory (LTM) retrieval (Geake & Dodson, 2005). This suggestion is consistent with accounts of the evolution of intelligence wherein hominid brains evolved as modular multifunctional organs in which the separate cognitive modules did not interact in an analogical manner – hence the intellectual stasis of pre-homo sapiens hominids (Mithen, 1996; 2005). The intellectual progress of homo sapiens is, in contrast, distinguished by intermodular information flow, enacted by the analogising processes of WM, enabled by the adaptive neurons of the lateral prefrontal cortices (Duncan, 2001). There is evidential support for such an account (Dehaene et al., 1998). To control information processing, the brain can be conceptualised as having, alongside specialised processors, a distributed neural system or “workspace” “with long-distance connectivity that can potentially interconnect multiple specialised brain areas in a co-ordinated, though variable manner” (Dehaene et al., 1998, p. 14529). Importantly, this dynamic workspace provides a common “communication protocol”, which allows communiCreative Intelligence and Working cation between modular systems that do not directly Memory interconnect. Such intense mobilisation of neural resources gives rise to the subjective phenomenon of For many educators in the field of gifted education, conscious effort. This neural synchronisation allows the most endearing characteristic of gifted children is possible inter-relationships between problem and their creative intelligence: their capacity for original context to be explored by fluid analogising with

270

the resultant variance iteratively creating temporary solutions in WM (Fuster, 2003). Presumably, then, this process is more efficacious in the brains of the gifted (Geake, 2005a). There is evidence for a relatively greater neural synchronisation in gifted subjects. In an ERP study of the information processing involved during a visual search task with gifted and average school children in China, the interaction effect between task and comparative neural efficiency as determined by P3 amplitudes and latencies was explained by a more spatially and temporally coordinated neural network operating in the gifted children (Zhang, Shi, Luo, Zhao, & Yang, 2006). A better coordinated neural network would presumably enable creatively intelligent individuals, with a greater neural activation in WM (Carlsson et al., 2000; Gray et al. 2003), to consider more analogical combinations (Fuster, 2003). The key concept here is “consideration”, that is, how long can various competing ideas and concepts be kept active in WM. There is evidence that creatively gifted people can keep ideas longer “in mind” before discarding them. Carson, Peterson, and Higgins (2003) found a significant relationship between the various indicators of creativity and reduced latent inhibition, holding online, rather than rejecting a priori, a greater number of creative insights or solution trajectories. That latent inhibition is relatively depressed in creatively intelligent individuals is consistent with the findings of Johnson et al. (2003) that gifted children, compared with children not identified as gifted, did not show greater capacities for inhibition. Rather, the gifted showed relatively developed abilities for task attention. Moreover, intellectually creative people are characteristically highly task motivated (Clark, 1997), so continually refresh their WM with the problem, context, and candidate solutions (Geake, 1997). Selection criteria are both hedonic and knowledge based (Baddeley & Sala, 1998). As noted above, sources of relevant inputs to WM or dynamic workspace include long-term memory store, effective coding of knowledge being another cognitive characteristic of gifted individuals (Clark, 1997). However, it is information prioritising that becomes critical for successful task completion, and this in turn utilises feelings associated with similar tasks in the past as criteria by which critical selection for relevance is made (LeDoux, 1998), a notable facility which is observed in gifted people (Geake, 1997; see also Piechowski et al., this book). This is consistent

J.G. Geake

with findings that enhanced capacity of WM is associated with increasing familiarity as a result of acquired experience (Cowan, 2005). To the extent to which this leads to an increase in processing speed, assumed to be due largely to the development of enhanced connections between and within neural systems (Gray et al. 2003), it could explain the significant correlations between IQ and RT noted at the beginning of the chapter. The above characteristics of giftedness have been combined into a neuropsychological model of creative intelligence proposed by Geake and Dodson (2005), in which creative thinking is the output of the dynamic workspace (Dehaene et al., 1998; Duncan, 2001), which in turn is underpinned by a process of fluid analogising (Mitchell, 1993). Geake and Dodson’s model features a number of nested feedback cycles which enable WM to drive analogical combinations and re-combinations of new perceptions and extant knowledge from LTM within the dynamic workspace in order to monitor task progress and maintain task motivation. Creatively gifted individuals exhibit superior performance in WM through a process of neural Darwinism (Geake, 1997) involving the internal generation of greater mental variance (more varied thoughts of potential solutions), and/or more combinations of those thoughts, and/or relatively enhanced latent inhibition of discarding outlier thoughts too early (Carson et al., 2003), and/or a more sensitive appreciation of the social milieu in which creative output must find acceptance (Csikszentmihalyi, 1998). Certainly, successful gifted scientists (of whom Richard Feynman and Karl Frederick Gauss are two outstanding exemplars) display creative intelligence in their scientific work: in the research questions that they pose, in the innovative design of the experiments that are employed to bring relevant evidence to bear on the problem, and in the rigorous analysis that they subject their experimental results to (Gleick, 1992; Steptoe, 1998). There is neuroimaging evidence to support fluid analogising as the core process in Geake and Dodson’s model. In an fMRI study of subjects whose IQ scores ranged from above-average to well-above-average, Geake and Hansen (2005) had subjects process fluid analogy letter strings derived from the Copycat AI program of Hofstadter (1995) and Mitchell (1993). Importantly, the responses were recorded in terms of plausibility, as a measure of creative thought, rather than as correct or incorrect. Activations were found in a fronto-parietal network, a similar pattern to those

11

Neuropsychological Characteristics of Academic and Creative Giftedness

found in other fMRI studies of the neural correlates of working memory. However, Geake and Hansen also found two areas of left frontal cortex where neural activity during fluid analogising correlated with verbal IQ as determined by knowledge of irregular words. In other words, IQ as determined by a measure of crystallised intelligence predicted neural activation in regions for working memory engaged in a fluid or creative analogy task. A wider knowledge base, it seems, can support a greater facility for fluid thinking, at least in high-IQ subjects. More recently, Geake & Hansen (2006) have demonstrated that fluid analogical thinking across analogy types recruits the same fronto-parietal network highlighted by Gray et al. (2003), Haier et al. (2004), and Jung and Haier (2007) in their reviews of the neural bases of general intelligence. For the stimuli in the 2006 fMRI study, Geake and Hansen created analogues of the Copycat letter strings with number and polygon strings. Despite these different types of informational format, the fronto-parietal activation patters were statistically identical for processing fluid analogies incorporating letters, numbers, and geometric shapes. This result is further evidence in support of the claim for fluid analogising as a core cognitive process. Moreover, Geake and Hansen (2006) found an area of the right frontal cortex where neural activity during fluid analogising across types positively correlated with scores on the RAPM, a high-demand spatial processing task. Together with the previous result involving a correlation of left frontal cortex activations with IQ as determined by the NART, a language processing task (Geake & Hansen, 2005), these results suggest that the gifted person’s success at creative intellectually demanding tasks is significantly determined by how well their brain enables fluid analogising as a fundamental cognitive process (Gentner, 1983). Consistently, in a classroom-based eye-tracking study, Vigneau, Caissie, and Bors (2006) reported that differences in intelligence predicted student’s strategies at analogical reasoning. Higher intelligence students were better at analogical reasoning due to reliance on constructive matching of information to task goal; lower ability students fared worse due to their limited matching of proximate information to task goal, an interpretation consistent with the DTI creativity study of Samco et al. (2005) reported above.

271

Conclusion These results converge to suggest that the “gifted brain” is characterised by high-level prefrontal cortical functioning within a bilateral fronto-parietal network (Haier et al. 2004; Singh & O’Boyle, 2004). The network can be conceptualised as providing a dynamic workspace in which information is processed; the greater efficiency and extent of the network in the brains of gifted people support their superior capacity for information processing (Geake, 2005a). This neural instantiation of giftedness supports a relatively enhanced executive capability, with a more efficacious working memory (Geake & Dodson, 2005). Specific high-level executive functioning cognitive abilities and WM attributes of gifted children (and adults) include: focussed attention (Geake, 1996), evaluative selection (Geake, 1997), creative analogising (Geake & Hansen, 2005; 2006), delayed closure (Carson et al., 2003), and comprehensive information processing (O’Boyle et al., 1995), with attendant differences in their neural developmental dynamics (Shaw et al., 2006). Importantly, these neural differences are structural (Haier et al., 2004); talented performance arises from functional plasticity enhanced through positive feedback. In other words, gifted kids cannot help being gifted, and therefore cannot help learning like gifted kids, because of and as a result of their “gifted brains”. Acknowledgments Support from the British Academy in the preparation of this chapter is gratefully acknowledged.

References Alexander, J. E., O’Boyle, M. W., & Benbow, C. P. (1996). Developmentally advanced EEG alpha power in gifted male and female adolescents. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 23, 25–31. Baddeley, A., & Sala, S. D. (1998). Working memory and executive control. In A. C. Roberts, T. W. Robbins, & L. Weiskrantz (Eds.), The prefrontal cortex: Executive and cognitive functions (pp. 9–21). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Birbaumer, N., Lutzenberger, W., Rau, H., Braun, C., & MayerKress, G. (1996). Perception of music and dimensional complexity of brain activity. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 6(2), 267–278. Carlsson, I., Wendt, P. E., & Risberg, J. (2000). On the neurobiology of creativity. Differences in frontal activity between high and low creative subjects. Neuropsychologia, 38, 873–885.

272 Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2003). Decreased latent inhibition is associated with high-functioning individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 499–506. Chen, A. C. N. & Buckley, K. C. (1988). Neural perspectives of cerebral correlates of giftedness. International Journal of Neuroscience, 9(41), 115–125. Clark, B. (1997). Growing up gifted (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cowan, N. (2005). Working memory capacity. Psychology Press: New York. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1998). Creativity and genius: A systems perspective. In A. Steptoe (Ed.), Genius and the mind: Studies of creativity and temperament (pp. 39–64). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dehaene, S., Kerszberg, M., & Changeux, J.-P. (1998). A neuronal model of a global workspace in effortful cognitive tasks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 95, 14529–14534. Duncan, J. (2001). An adaptive coding model of neural function in prefrontal cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(11), 820–829. Duncan, J., & Owen, A. M. (2000). Common regions of the human frontal lobe recruited by diverse cognitive demands. Trends in Neurosciences, 23, 475–483. Duncan, J., Seitz, R. J., Kolodny, J., Bor, D., Herzog, H., & Ahmed, A., et al. (2000). A neural basis for intelligence. Science, 289, 457–460. Fardell, R., & Geake, J. G. (2003). Vertical semester organisation in a rural secondary school as a vehicle for acceleration of gifted students, Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 11(2), 16–30. Frangou, S., Chitins, X., & Williams, S. C. (2004). Mapping IQ and gray matter density in healthy young people. NeuroImage, 23(3), 800–805. Fuster, J. M. (2003). Cortex and mind: Unifying cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Pres. Gagn´e, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(3), 103–112. Geake, J. G. (1996). Why Mozart? An information processing account of musical abilities. Research Studies in Music Education Journal, 7, 28–45. Geake, J. G. (1997). Thinking as evolution in the brain: Implications for giftedness. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 6(1), 27–33. Geake, J. G. (2005a). The neurological basis of intelligence: Implications for education – An abstract. Gifted and Talented, 9(1), 8. Geake, J. G. (2005b). An fMRI study of fluid analogical reasoning: Towards an understanding mathematical thinking.Symposium on mathematical and scientific education. Copenhagen: Learning Lab Denmark, December. Geake, J. G. (2006). Mathematical brains. Gifted and Talented, 10(1), 2–7. Geake, J. G., & Cooper, P. W. (2003). Implications of cognitive neuroscience for education. Westminster Studies in Education, 26(10), 7–20.

J.G. Geake Geake, J. G., & Dodson, C. S. (2005). A neuro-psychological model of the creative intelligence of gifted children. Gifted & Talented International, 20(1), 4–16. Geake, J. G., & Hansen, P. (2005). Neural correlates of intelligence as revealed by fMRI of fluid analogies, NeuroImage, 26(2), 555–564. Geake, J. G., & Hansen, P. C. (2006). Functional neural correlates of high creative intelligence as determined by abilities at fluid analogising, Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, October 17. Geake, J. G., & Hansen, P. C. (submitted). Neural correlates of high creative intelligence as determined by abilities at fluid analogising. Geake, J. G., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2007). Imaging imagination: Brain scanning of the imagined future. In I. Roth (Ed.), Imaginative minds. London: Proceedings of the British Academy, 147, 307–326. Geake, J. G., & O’Boyle, M. (2000). On Educating the very able in mathematics: A sampling of current empirical research. Proceedings of Mathematics 2000 Festival, 10–13 January, University of Melbourne, pp. 153–156. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170. Giedd, J. N., Blumethal, J., Jeffires, N. O., Castellanos, F. X., Liu, H., & Zijdenbois, A., et al. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence: A longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2(10), 861–863. Gleick, J. (1992). Genius: Richard Feynman and modern physics. Abacus. Gray, J. R., Chabris, C. F., & Braver, T. S. (2003). Neural mechanisms of general fluid intelligence. Nature Neuroscience, 6(3), 316–322. Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Farmer. Haier, R. J., & Benbow, C. P. (1995). Sex differences and lateralisation in temporal lobe glucose metabolism during mathematical reasoning. Developmental Neuropsychology, 11(4), 405–414. Haier, R. J., Jung, R. E., Yeo, R. A., Head, K., & Alkire, M. T. (2004). Structural brain variation and general intelligence. NeuroImage, 23(1), 425–433. Haier, R. J., White, N. S., & Alkire, M. T. (2003). Individual differences in general intelligence correlate with brain function during nonreasoning tasks. Intelligence, 31(5), 429–441. Hofstadter, D. (1995). Fluid concepts and creative analogies. Basic Books, New York. Hofstadter, D. (2001). Analogy as the core of cognition. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 499–538). Cambridge MA: MIT Press,. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Howard, D. (1997). Language in the human brain. In M. D. Rugg (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience (pp. 277–304). Hove UK: Psychology Press. James, W. (1895/1950). The principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt. Johnson, J., Im-Bolter, N., & Pascual-Leone, J. (2003). Development of mental attention in gifted and mainstream children:

11

Neuropsychological Characteristics of Academic and Creative Giftedness

The role of mental capacity, inhibition, and speed of processing. Child Development, 74(6), 1594–1614. Jung, R. E., & Haier, R. J. (2007). The Parieto-Frontal integration theory (P-FIT) of intelligence: Converging neuroimaging evidence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30, 135–154. Kalbfleisch, M. L. (2004). Functional neural anatomy of talent. The Anatomical Record Part B: The New Anatomist, 277B(1), 21–36. Kanevsky, L. S. (1995). Learning potentials of gifted students. Roeper Review, 17, 157–163. Kolb, B., & Wishaw, I. Q. (1996). Fundamentals of human neuropsychology (4th ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman & Co. LeDoux, J. (1998). The Emotional Brain. New York: Phoenix. Lee, K. H., Choi, Y. Y., Gray, J. R., Cho, S. H., Chae, J.-H., & Lee, S., et al. (2006). Neural correlates of superior intelligence: Stronger recruitment of posterior parietal cortex. Neuroimage, 29(2), 578–586. Lehrl, S., & Fisher, B. (1990). A basic information psychological parameter (BIP) for the reconstruction of concepts of intelligence. European Journal of Personality, 4, 259–286. Livne, N. L., Livne, O. E., & Milgram, R. M. (1999). Assessing academic and creative abilities in mathematics at four levels of understanding. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 30(2), 227–242. Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain. New York: Basic Books. Mitchell, M. (1993). Analogy-making as perception: A computer model. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Mills, D. L., Plunkett, K., Prat, C., & Schafer, G. (2005). Watching the infant brain learn words: Effects of vocabulary size and experience. Cognitive Development, 20, 19–31. Mithen, S. (1996).The prehistory of the mind: The cognitive origins of art and science. London: Thames and Hudson. Mithen, S. (2005).The singing neanderthals. London: Phoenix. O’Boyle, M. W. (2000). Neuroscientific research findings and their potential application to gifted educational practice. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 9(1), 6–10. O’Boyle, M. W., Alexander, J. E., & Benbow, C. P. (1991).Enhanced right hemisphere activation in the mathematically precocious: A preliminary EEG investigation. Brain Cognition, 17(2), 138–153. O’Boyle, M. W., & Benbow, C. P. (1990). Enhanced right hemisphere involvement during cognitive processing may relate to intellectual precocity. Neuropsychologia, 28(2), 211–216. O’Boyle, M. W., Benbow, C. P., & Alexander, J. E. (1995). Sex differences, hemispheric laterality, and associated brain activity in the intellectually gifted. Developmental Neuropsychology, 11(4), 415–443. O’Boyle, M. W., Cunnington, R., Silk, T., Vaughan, D., Jackson, G., & Syngeniotis, A., et al. (2005). Mathematically gifted male adolescents activate a unique brain network during mental rotation. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 583–587.

273

O’Boyle, M. W., Gill, H. S., Benbow, C. P., & Alexander, J. E. (1994). Concurrent finger-tapping in mathematically gifted males: Evidence for enhanced right hemisphere involvement during linguistic processing. Cortex, 30(3), 519–526. Orzhekhovskaia, N. S. (1996). The cytoarchitectonic characteristics of the frontal fields of the brain in gifted people. Morfologiia, 109(3), 7–9. Porter, L. (1997). A proposed model describing the realisation of gifted potential. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 6(2), 33–43. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press. Rolls, E. T. (1999). The brain and emotion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ryan, M., & Geake, J. G. (2003). A study of a vertical curriculum in mathematics for gifted primary pupils, Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 11(2), 31–41. Rypma, B., Prabhakaran, V., Desmond, J. E., Glover, G. H., & Gabrieli, J. D. (1999). Load-dependent roles of frontal brain regions in the maintenance of working memory. NeuroImage, 9, 216–226. Samco, M. R., Caplovitz, G. P., Hsieh, P.-J., & Tse, P. U. (2005). Neural correlates of human creativity revealed using diffusion tensor imaging [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 5(8), 906. Shapiro, M. L., & Eichenbaum, H. (1997). Learning and memory: Computational principles and neural mechanisms. In M. D. Rugg (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience (pp. 77–130). Hove UK: Psychology Press. Shavinina (2006). Personal communication. October 2006. Shaw, P., Greenstein, D., Lerch, J., Clasen, L., Lenroot, R., & Gogtay, N., et al. (2006). Intellectual ability and cortical development in children and adolescents. Nature, 440(7084), 676–679. Singh, H., & O’Boyle, M. W. (2004). Interhemispheric interaction during global-local processing in mathematically gifted adolescents, average-ability youth, and college students. Neuropsychology, 18(2), 671–677. Steptoe, A. (Ed.) (1998). Genius and the mind: Studies of creativity and temperament. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vigneau, F., Caissie, A. F., & Bors, D. A. (2006). Eye-movement analysis demonstrates strategic influences on intelligence. Intelligence, 34, 261–272. Zhang, Q., Shi, J., Luo, Y., Zhao, D., & Yang, J. (2006). Intelligence and information processing during a visual search task in children: An event-related potential study. Neuroreport, 17(7), 747–752.

Chapter 12

The Neural Plasticity of Giftedness M. Layne Kalbfleisch

Abstract Based on known types of neural plasticity such as phantom limb, pediatric hemispherectomy, and synesthesia, this chapter proposes that giftedness is a type of neural plasticity not well understood. Three questions guide the exploration of this idea. First, how does state of mind contribute to the acquisition and demonstration of giftedness? Second, what is the contribution of stress to the acquisition or demonstration of expertise? Finally, what are the contributions of sensory, perceptual, and motivational mechanisms to superlative higher level cognition and resulting performance state(s)? A larger paradigm is required to integrate existing empirical and theoretical information to guide the exploration of the potential nature of individual differences, human performance, and creativity on an elaborate scale. This chapter will reconcile these topics and issues into a general theory of giftedness as another type of neural plasticity. Keywords State of mind · Neural plasticity · Fluid intelligence · Reasoning · Cerebellum · Basal ganglia · fMRI · Domain general ability

Introduction Structural changes in the human brain over the course of typical development are becoming well documented with neuroimaging and genetics studies (Geidd et al., 1999; Sowell, Thompson, Holmes, Jernigan, & Toga, M.L. Kalbfleisch (B) George Mason University, Arlington, VA, USA e-mail: [email protected]

1999; Sowell, Thompson, Tessner, & Toga, 2001; Posthuma, de Geus, & Boomsma, 2001; Posthuma, Mulder, Boomsma, & de Geus, 2002; De Geus & Boomsma, 2002; Thompson et al., 2002; Wright, Sham, Murray, Weinberger, & Bullmore, 2002; Shaw et al., 2006). Further, emerging evidence indicates that individuals with superior intelligence experience different developmental patterns of white matter growth in the brain than their intellectually average or even above-average peers (Shaw et al., 2006) – a suggestion that the historical precedent of the bell-curved psychometric classification of intelligence may be appropriately described. A clarification is necessary as to why the field of cognitive neuroscience refers to developmental states as ‘typical’ or ‘atypical’ rather than ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’? It is a neutral descriptor which encapsulates the variance of normative development and provides a way to refer to ‘other’ aspects of development. Traditionally, atypicality refers to medically defined alterations in brain development in cases such as autism, dyslexia, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Gilger and Kaplan, 2001). Atypicality is a construct further complicated by burgeoning information from heritability studies which suggest the influence of genetics on cognitive development (Posthuma et al., 2001, 2002; De Geus & Boomsma, 2002; Thompson et al., 2002; Wright et al., 2002). In particular, this chapter broadens the definition of atypicality to include neuroscientific aspects of a ‘gifted’ brain and to refer to individuals whose brains are simultaneously disabled and enabled, sometimes labeled ‘paradoxical learners’ (Tannenbaum & Baldwin, 1983) or ‘twice exceptional’ (Whitmore, 1980; Whitmore & Maker, 1985; Kalbfleisch and Iguchi, 2007; Lupart et al., this volume).

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 12, 

275

276

To date, the relationship between aspects of the structural development of the brain and its function fail to account for vast ranges we see in the realms of behavior and performance. A larger paradigm is required to integrate these works to guide the exploration of the potential nature of individual differences on an elaborate scale. This chapter will reconcile these issues into a general theory of giftedness as a type of neural plasticity and highlight structural and functional aspects of the human brain that contribute to behavior and performance we ascribe to ‘giftedness’ in twice exceptional children (Kaufman, Kalbfleisch, & Castellanos, 2000; Craggs, Sanchez, Kibby, Gilger, & Hynd, 2006, Kalbfleisch, VanMeter, & Zeffiro, 2006, 2007; Kalbfleisch and Iguchi, 2007; Kalbfleisch and Banasiak, 2007). A fundamental aspect of this chapter will press the reader to consider the difference between examining processes of the brain and states of mind which characterize giftedness. Studies of brain plasticity in children who have undergone hemispherectomy – the removal of a hemisphere of the brain to halt epileptic seizures – (Boatman, Vining, Freeman, & Carson, 2003; Chen, Cohen, & Hallett, 2002; Pulsifer et al., 2004; Johnston, 2004; Battaglia et al., 2006; Werth, 2006) and in adult amputees (Ramachandran, RogersRamachandran, & Stewart, 1991; Ramachandran & Rogers-Ramachandran, 1996; Borsook et al., 1998; Ramachandran, 2005) illustrate that the capabilities of the human brain have been grossly underestimated. Based on the multiple ways that ‘giftedness’ is defined or accounted for to date, this chapter proposes that giftedness is a type of neural plasticity that we do not yet fully understand (Kalbfleisch, 2004). Neuroscientist, Ira Black, defines plasticity as ‘brain mutability and flexibility, which underlies the alteration of structure and function over time in response to environmental change’ (1997, p.5). With the publication of the structural study by Shaw and colleagues (2006), there is now empirical evidence to support the notion that differences in brain structure and their patterns of development are related to psychometrically measured levels of superior intelligence. An understanding of cognitive functions which support giftedness is suggested by models described in this chapter (Jung and Haier, 2007; Schmithorst and Holland, 2006; Kalbfleisch et al., 2006, 2007; Schmithorst & Holland, 2007) and others (see chapters by Geake and

M.L. Kalbfleisch

Vandervert and Liu in this volume), but even these have yet to be tested in samples of highly gifted adults and, most importantly, highly gifted children. As Einstein once said in relation to his own gifted mind, Sometimes I ask myself how it came about that I happened to be the one to discover the theory of relativity. The reason is, I think, that the normal adult never stops to think about space and time. Whatever thinking he may do about these things he will already have done as a small child. I, on the other hand, was so slow to develop that I only began thinking about space and time when I was already grown up. Naturally, I then went more deeply into the problem than an ordinary child (Doctorow, 2006, pp. 160–161).

Indeed, one hallmark of creative giftedness is the ability to remain resilient and child-like, to suspend reason or entertain multiple forms of it during the intentional (volitional) wrestling with a thought and the unintentional (incubatory, non-volitional) tumbling of ordinary bits of knowledge while awake and asleep (Hobson & Pace-Schott, 2002; Peigneux et al., 2003; Kalbfleisch, 2004; Fischer, Drosopoulos, Tsen, & Born, 2006) that amalgamate in the moment of ‘aha!’ Thus, while we have begun to theorize with greater certainty about the physical nature of certain forms of giftedness, due to the addition of methods that permit the noninvasive interrogation of human neural systems such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI enables us to spatially map neural systems involved in specified cognitive tasks), magnetoencephalography (MEG enables us to spatially and temporally map neural systems involved in specific cognitive tasks), and electroencephalography (EEG allows us to measure the time course of neural activity in a specific region of the brain or globally detect patterns of the brain’s electrical charge as they change in relation to cognitive activity during certain tasks), the open challenge to verify and replicate the qualitative differences we might see in specific indications of giftedness still stands. If we are nearing the point where we have a recipe of sorts for various cognitive processes (attention, working memory, audition, visual perception) and the knowledge of the neurobiology supporting their function, we still do not have knowledge of ‘it.’ What is ‘it?’ ‘It’ is the special combination of factors that are not just cognitive, but also emotional, motivational, and inspirational which combine to enable innovation, creativity, and superlative performance. ‘It’ is the neural plasticity of giftedness. A person’s intelligence quotient or ‘IQ’ (based on the measure of

12

The Neural Plasticity of Giftedness

cognitive substrate abilities such as working memory, visual perception, and reasoning) does not necessarily pre-determine chances for a successful display of giftedness. In fact, IQ negatively correlates with creative performance above a measure of 120 (Amabile, 1996; Barron, & Harrington, 1981), which brings me to a fundamental departure from current aspects of the neurobiological investigation of giftedness. While cognitive neuroscience methods are becoming competent at documenting cognitive processes in the brain, the construct which requires innovative methods and needs to be much better understood is state of mind. To set the stage between distinguishing cognitive process from state of mind, one neuroimaging study demonstrates two separate properties of cognitive processing. Sakai and Passingham (2006) refer to the role of the prefrontal cortex as it facilitates preparation and readiness to perform a task (what they call ‘set’) separate from handling the direct cognitive requirements of a task. This neural activity shows up as sustained neural activation in certain parts of frontal and parietal cortex throughout the task separate from other neural activity related to executing the task. In similar fashion, emotion, motivation, and inspiration occur as processes in the brain, but also facilitate an internal context and special sort of ‘readiness’ or ‘set’ that determines state of mind. For example, someone can either be motivated and excited about solving math equations or be paralyzed by anxiety at the thought of it. In each case, the individual may possess the ability or have learned the skill needed to solve the problem, but the state of mind surrounding the exercise determines a fundamentally different experience for the individual and a different outcome (Beilock, Bertenthal, McCoy, & Carr , 2004; Beilock, Kulp, Holt, & Carr, 2004; Beilock & Carr, 2005). This chapter will argue that state of mind watermarks the neural plasticity of giftedness by exploring the following questions: First, how does state of mind contribute to the acquisition and demonstration of giftedness? Second, to a certain extent, what is the contribution of stress to the acquisition or demonstration of expertise? Finally, what are the contributions of sensory, perceptual, and motivational mechanisms to skilled higher level cognition and the resulting performance state(s)?

This chapter will argue that whether stress is a negative factor or a positive factor to an individual is based upon subjective perception and may or may not be

277

impacted by feedback. When a gifted person performs, risk taking can exert a positive influence on executing a novel process or a performing a familiar process in a novel environment or circumstance. This perception may bias the neural systems that balance cognitive and motivational elements, driving those systems in a state of ‘positive risk’ (facilitated by orbitofrontal, pre-limbic systems in frontal cortex) rather than the systems most traditionally characterized in studies of emotional perception and stress (amygdala-driven systems in limbic cortex). The recruitment of these neural systems may differentiate the states in which someone perceives stress to be a positive enhancing factor to performance or a negative limiting factor and impact the demonstration of giftedness. From my point of view, we cannot fully characterize factors that contribute to cognitive processing and states of mind bearing on giftedness until we can control for contributions from fundamental neural processes, map their binding sites (intersections in the brain where they interact and connect with one another), and estimate the time courses of functional connectivity in the human brain. A new paradigm is required to integrate these component questions to guide the exploration of individual differences (from typical to atypical) on an elaborate scale. Ultimately, this chapter may generate more questions than answers. That being said, cognitive neuroscience has matured to a point where asking more questions, and potentially the most important ones, is now possible. It is an exciting time to be exploring the nature of human ability, creativity, and expertise.

Intelligence, Domain General Ability, and Giftedness It is important to note the incongruities of historical definitions of ‘g’ or general ability. One prominent fissure in the definition of intelligence surrounds the question of whether we are smart because we think fast or because we think well? One view purports that general ability is based on processing speed as measured by reaction time (Eysenck, 1986; Vernon, 1987; De Geus & Boomsma, 2002). In keeping with this, expert performance is characterized by greater automaticity and less effort (Beilock, Wierenga, & Carr, 2002; Beilock, Bertenthal et al., 2004). Yet, imaging studies of expertise have shown on a limited scale that some

278

forms of expertise require more of the brain during execution, not less (Landau & D’Esposito, 2004; Moore et al., 2006; Bor & Owen, 2007). Furthermore, other research has shown that possessing expertise hastens its development (Tervaniemi, Rytkonen, Schroger, Ilminiemi, & Naatanen, 2001; Palmeri, Wong, & Gauthier, 2004). The chapter by Geake in this volume postulates on this relationship. Our understanding of giftedness is complicated by the fact that intelligence, like giftedness, and to which some forms of giftedness are ascribed, defies unitary definition. Another fissure in the historical definition of intelligence lies in the differences between general intelligence and fluid reasoning. Blair (2006) presents evidence for distinguishing between what he terms ‘fluid cognition’ and psychometrically assessed general intelligence. He defines ‘fluid cognition’ as ‘all purpose cognitive functioning not necessarily associated with any specific content domain’ and is comprised of three primary processes: information encoding and maintenance, attention shifting, and interference resolution. These are abilities encompassed within the separate neuropsychologically defined constructs ‘working memory’ (Baddeley, 1968), ‘executive function’ (Norman & Shallice, 1980), and ‘cognitive control’ (Posner & Snyder, 1975). In a quite comprehensive review of the psychological and neuroimaging literatures, Blair lays out a well-defined array of neurobiological systems which undergird the brain’s ability to deploy various neural systems (working memory, attention, emotional regulation, response to stress) to achieve a goal we would term ‘higher level thinking.’ Blair suggests that the Flynn effect (a year by year rise of IQ scores by approximately three points) (Flynn, 1984, 1987) can account for the dissociation between fluid cognition and crystallized knowledge, explaining that subtests related to fluid cognition are responsible for the considerable gains seen over the past century, and that if you examine subtest analyses related to those measuring crystallized intelligence (an index of stored knowledge and memory), the gains are much smaller. Blair concludes from Dickens and Flynn (2001) that aspects of parenting, nutrition, and educational influences have enhanced fluid abilities and not necessarily promoted the enrichment and increase of overall IQ. Similar to Damasio’s Somatic Marker hypothesis (1996), Blair offers another point of clarification from studies in three populations who exhibit changes in fluid performance without impaired IQ: patients with

M.L. Kalbfleisch

frontal lesions (Duncan, Burgess, & Emslie, 1995; Waltz et al., 1999), patients with schizophrenia (Kremen, Seidman, Faraone, & Tsuang, 2001; Amminger et al., 2000; Gunnel, Harrison, Rasmussen, Fouskakis, & Tynelius, 2002) and patients with phenylketonuria, or PKU, a genetic disorder related to the dopamine system characterized by an inability of the body to synthesize phenylalanine (Diamond and Herzberg, 1996; Diamond, Prevor, Callendar, & Druin, 1997). The review goes on to catalogue studies that show evidence of fluid cognition impacting academic achievement by exploring its absence in cases of reading disability in children and adults (McCandliss & Noble, 2003; Pugh et al., 2001; Shaywitz et al., 2002). Furthermore, a recent diffusion tensor-imaging study (DTI assesses the status and growth of axonal white matter tracts in the brain measured by fractional anisotropy – an index of the direction of water diffusion across neuronal membrane boundaries) demonstrates that working memory abilities supporting reading are dependent upon the integrity and development of white matter tracts in the frontal areas of the brain separate from posterior parietal brain areas which support processes more directly associated with reading (Niogi & McCandliss, 2006). Ultimately, Blair’s review includes several commentaries which raise both praise and controversy over his presentation. The overriding story, regardless of whether or not you accept Blair’s construction of the argument, is that this quality of ‘fluid cognition’ is extremely important and appears to determine the extent of someone’s ability to demonstrate their potential. The extant literature includes experiments that have begun to illuminate certain aspects of high cognitive ability related to general intelligence (Duncan, Emslie, Williams, Johnson, & Freer, 1996; Duncan et al., 2000; Duncan & Owen, 2000; Gray, Chabris, & Braver, 2003; Duncan 2003; Haier, White, & Alkire, 2003; Geake & Hansen, 2005), Spearman’s g (Colum, Jung, & Haier, 2006), and domain-specific expertise (O’Boyle, Benbow, & Alexander, 1995; Kaufman et al., 2000; Craggs et al., 2006). An attempt to articulate the direct relationship between brain structure and high-ability brain function is elaborated in a review of 37 neuroimaging studies by Jung and Haier (2007) which resolves these works in a presentation of the Parietal–Frontal Integration Theory (P-FIT), a synthesis aiming to provide an account of the neural systems that centrally support cognitive abilities related to

12

The Neural Plasticity of Giftedness

279

Fig. 12.1 Brodmann’s areas designated for measured intelligence (dark grey) according to the P-FIT model (Jung and Haier, in press). Emerging evidence shows Brodmann’s Area 25, the

subcallosal gyrus (see arrow), as an area of frontal cortex that is ‘pre-limbic’ and facilitates state of mind during cognitive processing

individual differences in intelligence test scores. The P-FIT model includes areas present in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (BAs 6, 9, 10, 45, 46, 47), the inferior parietal lobe (BAs 39/40), the superior parietal lobe (BA7), the anterior cingulate gyrus (BA32), the temporal lobe (BA21 and 37), and occipital lobes (BA18 and 19). ‘BA’ is short for ‘Brodmann’s Area’ a term designated by Korbinian Brodmann (1909) who parsed the brain into functional regions and then assigned them according to a numerical system (Fig. 12.1). Today, this system is still widely held as a common convention for annotating specific areas of the brain. Jung and Haier (2007) submit that these areas comprise a broad neural network engaged during tests which psychometrically assess intelligence such as the Wechsler Scales of Intelligence and the Raven’s Progressive Matrices. These studies are pioneering our early understanding of the biological basis of intelligence. An important caveat, however, is that many of them report findings based only in the neocortex. As the name suggests, these are the newest layers of cortex in the human brain (layers I–VI). While, unarguably, the neocortex facilitates complex forms of behavior, its function is driven by other subcortical areas of the brain which contain our memory (hippocampal complex and basal ganglia) and motor systems (basal ganglia and cerebellum) and the chemical engines and regulators (hypothalamus, brain stem) which drive higher level function from a more primitive base. In order to have a true understanding of the neurological basis of behavior, these models must seek to integrate findings which show meaningful connectivity between subcortical and neocortical areas.

Jung and Haier (2007) submit that these neocortical areas are exclusively detected in these studies because they are the areas which vary according to individual differences as measured by psychometric instruments. Whereas, subcortical areas are less open to variation because they are of critical importance to the maintenance and homeostasis of the body. Another factor potentially limiting these data relates to the methods used to acquire functional images during fMRI scanning. Sometimes, a scientist opts to only collect images in certain parts of the brain based upon their hypotheses and previous findings. By doing so, they limit their findings to the areas that they scanned and acquired data from. The cognitive neuroscience literature on intelligence has been influenced by the broad assumption that the frontal cortex is what differentiates intelligent behavior in humans by enabling working memory, conflict resolution, and emotional control. Forthcoming discussion in this chapter is based on data acquired in the whole brain and demonstrates the integration of neocortex and subcortical areas during fluid reasoning, argued here as the ability that fundamentally allows one to turn latent potential into demonstrated expertise.

Fluid Intelligence, State of Mind, and Giftedness The cognitive neuroscience literature reports significant gain on the topic of sex differences in intelligence reported in tissue volume and correlates of intelligence (Haier, Jung, Yeo, Head, & Alkire, 2005), brain structure correlates of intelligence (Haier, Jung, Yeo,

280

Head, & Alkire, 2004), chemical correlates of intelligence in frontal lobe white matter (Jung et al., 2005), intelligence and higher cognitive function in children (Schmithorst, Wilke, Dardzinski, & Holland, 2005; Schmithorst & Holland, 2006), and interhemispheric connectivity and measures of intelligence (Schmithorst & Holland, 2007). Based on findings from functional neuroimaging, I submit that the conditions under which someone reasons, pays attention, or performs some other cognitive operation effect which neural systems support those functions (Kalbfleisch et al., 2006, 2007). This is a relevant distinction because there are current assumptions about the neurobiology of learning, performance, and decision making which have been biased by the imaging methods themselves and have limited our ability to understand and characterize human cognition on a natural level, something that is paramount to understanding the phenomenon of giftedness. It is unclear under what conditions an ‘expert’ has a flexible intelligence that is capable of jumps in logic, or a rigid one. In the publication, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (1999), the National Research Council outlines features of expert behavior: (1) Experts notice features and meaningful patterns of information that are not noticed by novices. (2) Experts have a depth of content knowledge organized in ways that reflect a deep understanding of the domain. (3) Expert knowledge reflects applicability and cannot be reduced to isolated sets of facts. (4) Experts are able to flexibly retrieve important aspects of their knowledge with little attentional effort. (5) Experts may know their domain thoroughly but still be unable to teach others. (6) Experts have varying levels of flexibility in their approach to new situations. (p.19). One way to explore the natural deployment of cognition is through studies of fluid reasoning. Fluid reasoning is a type of learning ability influencing how fast and how much someone learns, and their ability to manipulate and use information in the reasoning process. Nonverbal matrix tests (i.e., Ravens Progressive Matrices) serve as an index of fluid reasoning because they are comprised of non-specific geometric pictures. They are commonly used to measure ability in persons whose success on IQ tests would most often be

M.L. Kalbfleisch

limited due to issues with second language, cultural bias, or lack of educational enrichment/achievement. They are appropriate to study fluid reasoning because they have been shown to represent reasoning in other content domains (Goel, Gold, Kapur, & Houle, 1997, Goel, Gold, Kapur, & Houle, 1998, Osherson et al., 1998, Goel, Buchel, Frith, & Dolan, 2000, Goel & Dolan, 2001, Prabhakaran, Rypma, & Gabrieli, 2001, Luo et al., 2003, Ruff, Knauff, Fangmeier, & Spreer, 2003) and other strategies (Rao et al., 1997, Koechlin, Basso, Pietrini, Panzer, & Grafman, 1999, Wharton et al., 2000, Goel & Dolan, 2003, van den Heuvel et al., 2003, Goel & Dolan, 2004). Thus, fluid reasoning measured with matrix analogies tests suggests a fundamental signature for the abilities that comprise this form of intelligence and underlie other forms as well. One fMRI study (Kalbfleisch et al., 2006, 2007) examined processes of fluid reasoning on portions of a contemporary matrix reasoning test (Fig. 12.2), the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (Naglieri, 1997), to show that under natural conditions, this type of problem solving is supported by the cerebrocerebellar system (one of the three divisions of the cerebellum), a subcortical system that has not been functionally well characterized despite historical appreciation for its role in higher level cognition (Kim, Ugurbil, & Strick, 1994; Middleton, & Strick, 1994, 2000; Schmahmann and Pandya, 1995; Karatekin, Lazareff, & Asarnow, 2000; Molinari, Filippini, & Leggio, 2002), and, especially, mental dexterity (Leiner, Leiner, & Dow, 1986). Specifically, a neural network comprised of the following Brodmann’s areas (BA) was identified for fluid reasoning on this task: left and right middle frontal gyrus (BA6), right superior parietal lobule (BA7), left inferior parietal lobule (BA40), left lingual gyrus (BA19), and left cerebellum (Lobule VI). These are a subset of areas identified in the larger P-FIT model of general intelligence (Jung and Haier, 2007). The corticostriatal system (one of five loops of the basal ganglia) is the neural system traditionally affiliated with and reported in fMRI studies of high-level problem solving. The basal ganglia support skill learning and procedural memory and are often reported in studies where higher level skilled thinking is required (White, 1997; Graybiel, 1998; Middleton & Strick, 2000). But, the conditions of this study required participants to perform high-level reasoning under conditions of uncertainty and time pressure. Participants

12

The Neural Plasticity of Giftedness

281

Fig. 12.2 An example of the NNAT serial reasoning items used in the NNAT-SRT fMRI task of fluid nonverbal reasoning (Kalbfleisch et al., 2006, 2007).

were not pre-trained to an expert level to solve these task items prior to participating in the fMRI experiment (Fig. 12.2) and were under a strict time deadline to choose the solution. It is common practice to train volunteers to a point of expertise prior to an imaging study in order to maximize the power of the neural signal in the moment of response. But, this practice biases results and, in the examination of higher level cognition and fluid reasoning, is akin to giving the brain a hard post test rather than a challenging and novel problem that the brain must solve ‘on the fly.’ Under the conditions of uncertainty and time pressure, the brain instead appears to utilize the cerebrocerebellar system to support fluid reasoning when the natural condition of ambiguity (induced by deadline and novelty) is preserved in the experimental paradigm. One notion derived from this experiment was that the brain appears to know when it is solving a problem correctly (identified by the neural network for successful problem solving on the task) even when the individual does not. Participants in this experiment were not given any feedback on their performance. Indeed, the cerebellum has been shown to facilitate decision making under uncertain conditions (Blackwood et al., 2004). This hints at a balance required for cognitive processing between imposing an internal model or pattern on new information and knowing when to allow new information to reshape the model. Perhaps giftedness is a particular biological adaptation based on the brain’s implicit sense of when to organize according to each rule. Neurologist and scientist

Vilayanur Ramachandran (Ramachandran et al., 1991; Ramachandran & Rogers-Ramachandran, 1996; Ramachandran, 2005) studies neural plasticity related to phantom limb syndrome, sensations that persist when one loses a limb to amputation. In his work, patients who have lost an arm to amputation place their existing arm in a mirror box, tricking their brain into thinking that they have two arms (Ramachandran and RogersRamachandran, 1996; Ramachandran, 2005). He documents a number of diverse reactions in his patients that range from perceiving new feeling in the phantom limb to emotional release as phantom pain is relieved. Based on his work, he poses two reasons for a paradigm shift in the field of neurorehabilitation (2005). First, the adult brain holds a tremendous amount of nascent potential based on this plasticity. Second, the brain should be thought of as a set of interacting networks that maintain homeostasis through dynamic interaction with the environment instead of as a hierarchy of processes that combine to create higher level cognitive function. How, then, does this insight bear on the idea that state of mind is as important to giftedness as superlative cognitive processing? Another finding emerged from the experiment by Kalbfleisch and colleagues (2006, 2007) that speaks to this idea. The subcallosal gyrus (BA25) in the orbitofrontal cortex was identified in association with the interaction between task difficulty and task correctness (Fig. 12.1). Several imaging experiments explain that the subcallosal gyrus is involved in decision making and reinforcement under conditions of uncertainty that resolve in a positive outcome (Elliott, Frith, & Dolan,

282

1997, Kilts et al., 2001, Paulus, Hozack, Frank, & Brown, 2002, Rogers et al., 2004) and ‘hot’ or emotional reasoning (Goel and Dolan, 2003). In this study, that positive outcome was getting the difficult reasoning problem correct under deadline pressure. This finding extends our thinking about the cognition of expert performance from stress management to uncertainty management. Indeed, some of the traits of giftedness and certainly of creativity are the ability to tolerate intellectual ambiguity, take risks, and remain persistent in the face of difficulty. The compelling suggestion from this experiment is that the brain has an internal detection mechanism for managing uncertainty and determining success in the absence of overt external feedback. Furthermore, this is a system supported by the orbitofrontal cortex separated from the classically defined amygdala-driven, limbic stress response system (Davidson, 2002). Even when we are uncertain on a conscious level about our performance, the brain has an internal monitoring system that knows when it is getting it right. This may represent the neural system that supports the ‘expert sense’ or tacit knowledge observed in giftedness and illustrates that the brain has alternative systems for managing uncertainty that can enhance cognitive processing. Understanding the cognitive and neural routes which support states of mind during information processing in the gifted is necessary to fully characterize the trajectories that lead to this specialized demonstration of expertise. The psychological literature refers to ‘tacit knowledge’ to describe the condition when someone has a natural feel for a domain or a skill. It is associated with practical intelligence, the ability to use knowledge or skill in circumstantially appropriate ways, or fluid intelligence, the ability to solve unique problems and use knowledge in novel situations (Wagner, 2000). In his seminal work, The Savage Man, Claude Levi-Strauss (1966) defined the concept of ‘bricolage’ to describe odd jobs. Berry and Irvine (1986) adapted this idea to individuals who are capable of completing a task with whatever resources are available to them (they assess and then improvise) and called them ‘bricoleurs.’ Some individuals are ‘bricoleurs’ and others possess a ‘tacit knowledge’ that makes them more comfortable with specific abilities and more certain in some environments. A beginner/novice may experience a learning environment through an emotional lens (governed by a stress response), while an expert (someone who trained and/or has a tacit knowledge for the domain) processes

M.L. Kalbfleisch

it in a higher cognitive context where he or she is able to evaluate task logistics and surroundings more logically (managing uncertainty and staying open and flexible) in a state which can be likened to the ‘flow’ of creative production (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Perhaps, cognitive processes supported by the orbitofrontal cortex underlie this ‘tacitness?’ In other words, having enriched frontal neural circuitry may be a necessary condition for the expression of giftedness but not a sufficient one. Related to this possibility, giftedness may be characterized by this tacit confidence enabled by a neural plasticity of cognitive systems supported by both motor systems (cerebellar and striatal) in the brain and a reward system which, via the subcallosal gyrus (BA25), nourishes the frontal cortex during uncertainty. The historical literatures established by scholars such as Piechowski (1979) and Dabrowski (1979) use the term ‘excitabilities’ to characterize the heightened sensitivity experienced by the gifted in sensory, perceptual, and emotional realms. These excitabilities (described under the categories of psychomotor, sensual, intellectual, imaginational, and emotional), in turn, influence state of mind. This is where the plasticity of giftedness resides. The manifestation of the neural plasticity of giftedness is a multi-faceted interaction between cognitive systems that are in some combination enhanced by genetics, shaped by experience, and sometimes strengthened by a focal disability; and the state of mind that allows the person to demonstrate their potential. For example, would not state of mind be the difference, between obsessive, unproductive fixation, and genius? State of mind is also an aspect of plasticity impacted by developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are as much disturbances of state of mind (for example, the internal perseveration of autism, the heightened perception of external sensory stimuli present in attention deficit disorders) as they are of certain aspects of cognitive processing. Cerebellar dysfunction related to fluid processing abilities has been described as a central characteristic of disorders such as autism (Ravizza & Ivry , 2001; Baron-Cohen, 2004; Courchesne, Redcay, Morgan, & Kennedy, 2005), schizophrenia (Andreasen et al., 1996; Rapoport, Van Reekum, & Mayberg, 2000), and attention deficit disorders (Berquin et al., 1998; Castellanos et al., 2002). As the study by Kalbfleisch and colleagues (2006, 2007) suggests, the construct of ‘state’ needs to be further explored and

12

The Neural Plasticity of Giftedness

defined in the cognitive realm. Giftedness should be added to the ‘atypicality’ continuum and must also be explored and defined on the axes of cognitive processing and state of mind. The overarching goal of neuroscientific inquiries into giftedness is to more realistically characterize the intersections of cognition and motivation and the functional neural systems which modulate not only the overt cognitive performance but also the subtle performance states associated with fluid cognition. We already know these factors overlap, but we understand little about the edges and boundaries where these processes are optimally dynamic and ripe for inhibition, intervention, or enhancement. Thus, the remaining questions are not only what are the neural systems that support giftedness, but in what state do they occur and how are they related? It is these systems that I hypothesize universally support the state of mind and the mental dexterity underlying giftedness in its many forms.

Creative Giftedness Creativity is a boundary condition. Sometimes physicists and geologists refer to a boundary condition in the context of something called a phase transition zone. A phase transition zone is a space where the matter contained within it is malleable, adaptable, and changeable; a dynamical system. Many have described the brain as a dynamical system (Singer, 1995). An act of creativity is like this or like the paradox of the second law of thermodynamics which implies that everything is heading toward disorder and entropy. Creativity is the disintegration of a known structure that retains the useful content of that structure and permits new input which, in turn, resolves the structure into something new. It reaches its own point of criticality, when something will collapse and re-organize as a part of the homeostasis of the condition itself, like an avalanche or like the Sand Pile Problem in Michael Waldrop’s book Complexity (1992), in which a sand pile in an hourglass is self-organizing as it experiences iterations of small collapses to keep its form. Thus, creativity is a boundary condition because it is that state of criticality where the balance is tipped toward the formation of something new and consequential. It is also a boundary condition because (1) there are cognitive processes and divergent thinking strategies that

283

scholars have attempted to capture psychometrically (Torrance, 1966), and then (2) there are processes of memory consolidation that occur during sleep to make room for insight and transformation to emerge from the complexities caused by shifts in cognitive processing that occur during REM sleep and dreaming (Hobson & Pace-Schott, 2002; Peigneux et al., 2003; Kalbfleisch, 2004; Fischer et al., 2006). In this way, sleep may factor largely into the neural plasticity of creativity. E.L. Doctorow’s book, Creationists: Selected Essays: 1993–2006 (2006), begins with the following statement about creativity: This gathering of essays is a modest celebration of the creative act. It acknowledges composition as the reigning enterprise of the human mind; it affirms that we know by what we create . . . A novel or a play has its origins in the peculiar excitements of the writer’s mind. These are powerfully felt, even inspired, responses to what may be the faintest or most fleeting stimuli – an image, the sound of a voice, a kind of light, a word or phrase, a bar of music. Or there may be an idea for which the writer has a strong sense of recognition, so strong that it becomes his to deal with as his domain . . . Of course, not all – in fact very few – of the writer’s states of arousal are resolved as finished works . . . (p. ix).

Doctorow observes that creativity is both a process (which may or not resolve into something the world recognizes as big C creative) and a product. What he terms ‘states of arousal,’ Piechowski and Dabrowski would call excitabilities, and are what I mean by boundary conditions. A fundamental component (another necessary but not sufficient) of creative achievement is intrinsic motivation. Motivation is a state of biological relevancy. When an individual is interested in learning or performing something new, he or she feels a desire, an excitement, and a surge of energy toward that goal. This surge of energy and excitement is often accompanied by an increase in heart rate, a person may be flushed, and he or she may sweat or tingle at the thought of starting the endeavor. These physical sensations result from the release of adrenalin and dopamine. Adrenalin, an excitatory chemical in the brain, prepares the body for performance. Dopamine, an inhibitory chemical in the brain, accomplishes two things. First, it dampens extraneous environmental stimuli bombarding the brain and allows the person to focus on the desired goal at hand. Second, it bathes a portion of the limbic system called the nucleus accumbens. The nucleus accumbens facilitates the

284

brain’s response to reward (Pennartz, Groenewegen, & DaSilva, 1994). These neural systems emerge over the course of adolescent development (Graber, & Petersen, 1991; Geidd et al., 1999; Thompson et al., 2000; Giedd et al., 2006). Dopamine pathways also connect the subcallosal gyrus (BA25) to the limbic system serving as a way station for the interaction of emotion and cognition that supports cognitive function under uncertain or ambiguous (like incubation) conditions (Rogers et al., 1999). In this way, emotions drive performance. They help produce a physical state in the body that makes it easier to perform when there is something that is subjectively relevant to the person. Arousal (Martindale, Anderson, Moore, & West, 1996), ‘flow’, and ‘excitability’ are important to the exercise of creativity. A heightened state of arousal and ‘flow’ is often reported as a positive consequence of mania in the discussion of the relationship between manic depression and creativity (Jamison, Gerner, Hammen, & Padesky, 1980; Jamison, 1985). Highly creative individuals have greater access to both hemispheres of the brain during certain types of mental production (Carlsson, Wendt, & Risberg, 2000), suggesting that ‘flow’ is due, in part, to enhanced accessibility of brain networks during creative production. An fMRI study of mental rotation abilities in mathematically precocious adolescents also revealed enhanced bilateral activity in frontal and parietal cortices, lending further support for this idea (O’Boyle et al., 2005). In the nonverbal fluid reasoning study by Kalbfleisch and colleagues (2006), participants’ Wechsler Full Scale IQ scores correlated with their scores on the psychometric version of the NNAT but did not correlate with their performance on the fMRI task, demonstrating a dissociation between psychometrically measured ability and behavioral performance. In his book, On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand, Jerome Bruner (1979) says that the creative process is a result of the ‘conversion of impulse.’ His language is a beautiful metaphor for what happens in the creative moment – how intuition becomes action, action performance, and performance transcendent. The human capacity for creativity, insight, and innovation demonstrates the loosely fixed, dynamical complexity of the brain. The creative process is the system’s ability to add fresh structure to whatever is emerging in the moment. Work such as Vandervert’s and Liu’s presented in this volume has exciting potential

M.L. Kalbfleisch

to advance our understanding of how our bodies and minds spur creativity. Creativity is a novel response to a problem or a need or a transformation of the known to fit the novel (Feldman in sternberg (Ed.), 1999). Feldman discusses creativity as a universal, a point where someone performs beyond learning and convention and, also, the role of dreams in realizing a creative idea (1994). Creativity is the result of a specialized deployment of fluid ability during both effortful and implicit thought, occurring while awake, facilitated by sleep.

Domain-Specific Ability, Twice Exceptionality, and Giftedness Thus far, this chapter has advocated for a general theory of giftedness based on neural plasticity related to fluid cognition (based on evidence from studies of nonverbal reasoning, mental rotation, and creativity). But, there are specific instances when giftedness is concomitant with a diagnosed learning disorder such as dyslexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or asperger’s syndrome (Kalbfleisch and Iguchi, 2007; Kalbfleisch and Banasiak, 2007; Lupart et al., this volume). Some of the consequences of this ‘twice exceptionality’ are cognitive strengths observed in domain-specific contexts (Whitmore, 1980; Whitmore & Maker, 1985). Sometimes these individuals are referred to as ‘paradoxical learners’ (Tannenbaum & Baldwin, 1983) because they fail at basic processes or tasks, but excel at more complex intellectual levels. Ramachandran, who studies phantom limb, also studies a phenomenon called ‘synesthesia.’ Synesthesia is another type of plasticity linked to more specific cognitive processes which yield specific cognitive strengths (Ramachandran & Hubbard, 2001). The omnipresent online encyclopedia Wikipedia catalogues the different types of synesthesia (grapheme > color; music > color, number form; personification; lexical > gustatory) and defines synesthesia as: . . . a neurological condition in which two or more bodily senses are coupled. In the most common form of synesthesia, known as grapheme → color synesthesia, letters or numbers are perceived as inherently colored, while in ordinal linguistic personification, numbers, days of the week and months of the year evoke personalities. In spatial-sequence, or number form synesthesia, numbers, months of the year, and/or

12

The Neural Plasticity of Giftedness days of the week elicit precise locations in space. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia#Associated cognitive traits).

Negative aspects of synesthesia involve reported difficulties with writing and mathematics. Synesthetes are also reported to be extremely sensitive to external stimuli (Cytowic, 2002) – again, a nod toward plasticity linked to ‘excitability.’ Positive aspects of synesthesia involve superior memory (Smilek, Dixon, Cudahy, & Merikle, 2002) and high creativity (Rich, Bradshaw, & Mattingley, 2005). While there is high variability in this population (Hubbard & Ramachandran, 2005), despite individual differences, the extraordinary sensory capabilities of synesthetes is a superlative example of twice exceptionality and the potential which lies in this type of brain. This and other examples such as a savant’s extraordinary calculation abilities in mathematics or facility for instrumental music hint that there are distinct aspects of cognition that can be positively influenced by something that is medically characterized as a disorder (Heaton & Wallace, 2004). There is also now biological precedent for enhanced visual spatial ability in dyslexia. A study of a large family with superior IQ levels and developmental dyslexia has resulted in the detection of a specific structural change in the parietal operculum, an area of the brain known to support visual and spatial function (Craggs et al., 2006). Specifically, the planum temporale, a sulcus, or fissure, along the parietal neocortex is significantly altered in these family members who demonstrate superior visual and spatial abilities (Eikhoff, Amunts, et al., 2006; Eikhoff, Schleicher, et al., 2006). Examination of Einstein’s brain reveals similar alterations (Witelson, Kigar, & Harvey, 1999). Consequentially, these atypicalities in the morphology of visual and parietal cortex may lead to enhanced support for visual and spatial functions subserved by these areas of the brain. While the idea for enhanced visual spatial processing in dyslexia has been previously suggested (Winner, 2001; Winner et al., 2001), this is the first direct neurological evidence to lend empirical support for those observations. Similarly, in relation to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), there are observations that heightened perception to external stimuli caused by ADHD are the basis for enhanced divergent thinking capabilities in this population. There is limited but promising evidence of this from an EEG study

285

performed in boys who were both gifted and ADHD, but the precedent is still ripe for deeper investigation (Kaufman et al., 2000). One fMRI study shows evidence of alterations in areas of temporal and parietal cortex in ADHD (Vaidya et al., 2005). The authors submit that these areas are compensatory, assisting the ADHD brain with processes typically subserved by frontal–striatal systems. Additionally, in some studies, ADHD children have preferentially activated right inferior parietal cortex (Rubia et al., 1999; Durston et al., 2003) corresponding to evidence of increased gray matter in ADHD children (Sowell et al., 2003). Taken together, these data suggest that posterior areas of the brain are maturationally or functionally altered in ADHD. In the case of twice exceptionality, this may result in a bias toward positive cognitive function and intellectual strength. An fMRI study of visual spatial processing in children with autism revealed that function in parietal cortex was preserved in spite of compromised function in frontal areas of the brain (Silk et al., 2006). Results were less robust in their fMRI study of ADHD, but still showed a trend toward the engagement of posterior areas (Silk et al., 2005). A review of the functions of posterior and visual areas in autism also suggests a model of enhanced perceptual processing that may underlie the special abilities of savants and those with Asperger’s syndrome (Mottron, Dawson, Soulieres, Hubert, & Burack, 2006). A PET imaging study performed by Haier and colleagues (2003) found altered patterns of activity in posterior visual and parietal brain areas in people with high IQ’s (BA19 and 37) even when they were engaged in simpler, more passive intellectual tasks (i.e., video watching). This lends further support for the idea posed here that enhanced sensory capabilities in posterior areas of the brain may give rise to twice exceptional abilities when the disability resides in a person with a psychometrically measured high IQ. Summarily, in cases of twice exceptionality, future studies of brain maturation may reveal specialized developmental trajectories that give rise to these disabilities, but that also, consequentially, result in focal neuro-cognitive strengths. Eventually, these atypicalities will be as well documented as synesthesia, giving rise to information about plasticity in twice exceptional individuals that we now only observe on a behavioral level.

286

Conclusion The development of Theory of Mind, a child’s ability to distinguish himself and his own beliefs and desires from those of others, relates to children’s ability to deceive (Talwar and Lee, 2002a 2002b; Wilson, Smith, & Ross, 2003). For example, first-order beliefs (beliefs that are different from the actual event, the denial of information or a simple lie) and second-order beliefs (knowledge of what information should be withheld in order to deceive) are necessary precursors to a child’s ability to deceive. Some children 3 years of age and most children 4 years of age are capable of firstorder beliefs, while the ability to hold second-order beliefs typically develops around 6 or 7 years of age. In one study, children between the ages of 3 and 7 were placed in staged scenarios of lying (Talwar and Lee, 2002a, 2002b). When na¨ıve parent observers watched the tapes of these scenarios play out, they were unable to detect deception from the nonverbal behavior of the children. It was only when they heard the verbal interactions that they were able to discern clues about who was lying. Saxe, Carey, and Kanwisher, (2004) put forth evidence to support the existence of a specific system for Theory of Mind which is distinct from other systems that support attentional control and syntactic processes associated with language. They argue that systems which help one reason about goals and actions are separate from a system for representing belief attributions. Further, these systems develop early in childhood. Around the ages of 3 or 4, children begin to use beliefs to explain actions. As they explain in their review, the false belief task (Wimmer & Perner, 1983) is a standard way to test this ability in children. During the task, children are told a story where the character’s belief about the location of a target becomes false when the object is moved out of place without the character’s knowledge. To elaborate: In Wimmer and Perner’s original version, Maxi’s mother moves the chocolate from the green to the blue cupboard while Maxi is outside playing. The children are then variously asked to report the content of the character’s belief (Where does Maxi think the chocolate is?), to predict the character’s action (Where will Maxi look for the chocolate?), or sometimes to explain the complete action (Why did Maxi look for the chocolate in the green cupboard?). The critical feature of the false belief task is that the correct answers to all three of these questions – even the ones that do not specifically query a belief content –

M.L. Kalbfleisch require the child to pay attention to Maxi’s belief, and not to the actual location of the chocolate. (Saxe et al., 2004, p. 30).

The compelling issue goes beyond the fact that this ability emerges at such as young age. What does this kind of success indicate? Two possibilities that are currently debated are (1) that children undergo a significant change that permits this kind of conceptualization to occur, or (2) that this ability is already intact, but masked by immaturities in sensory (inhibitory control) and language (syntactical) systems. Saxe and colleagues argue the first premise. Other scholars suggest that this is only one way of examining belief and that it cannot completely characterize the concept of belief. For example, Bartsch and Wellman (1995) investigated children’s spontaneous talk about beliefs (when sentences incorporate ‘think’ and ‘know’ that highlight differences between individuals, or truth and fiction) and found that these references appear about 6 months earlier than when children tend to explain actions in terms of beliefs. Why bring up abilities related to belief attribution in children in a chapter discussing the neuroscience of giftedness? Because children who are gifted display these traits, other cognitive skills, and emotional range (cognitive control, capability for deception, ability to strategize and perform meta-cognition) at much earlier ages than their intellectually average peers. Gifted children do not fit the developmental molds that account for what children can do, how they do it, and when. Short of observation and determination of IQ (where measures to adequately characterize high function fall short), we lack ways of normatively characterizing their idiosyncrasies – seemingly an oxymoron. In a previous publication (Kalbfleisch, 2004), I pose the idea that research with gifted children might be a way to further explore the Somatic Marker hypothesis (SM) in people free from disease and injury (Damasio, 1996). Not all gifted children experience problematic dissociation between their emotional development and their cognitive development, but the topic has received treatment in the gifted literature (CathelineAntipoff, & Poinso, 1994; Winner, 2001). More recent work has explored and challenged the validity of the SM hypothesis (Suzki, Hirota, Takasawa, & Shigemasu, 2003; Maia, & McClelland, 2004; Garon and Moore, 2004; Overman, 2004; Bechara, Damasio, Tranel, & Damasio, , 2005; Dunn, Dalgleish, & Lawrence, 2006). Some studies have documented sex

12

The Neural Plasticity of Giftedness

differences in how the task is performed (Overman, 2004; Garon and Moore, 2004) and offered alternative but competing explanations for decision making on the Iowa Gambling Task, the task at the base of SM (Suzki et al., 2003; Maia & McClelland). Rigorous exploration of this paradigm turns rich ground for exploring emotional influences on higher level cognition in gifted populations. There is a paucity of research on highly gifted children as a group on many levels ranging from epidemiological, to developmental, to neuroscientific. In general and in cases of twice exceptionality, they are the other end of ‘atypical’ from medical characterizations of developmental disabilities that impact cognitive and neurological function. It is a good time to round out the continuum to include knowledge about the human condition in ways that reflect not only disability, but also ability, and the relationship between the two. This chapter attempted to address three questions: (1) what contribution does state of mind make to acquiring and demonstrating giftedness? (2) what role does stress play in acquiring and demonstrating giftedness, and (3) what are the contributions of sensory, perceptual, and motivational processes to higher level cognition and states of mind? I have argued that the neural plasticity of giftedness encompasses both processes of the brain and states of mind. This view is expanded from evidence of existing types of neural plasticity such as pediatric hemispherectomy, phantom limb, fluid reasoning, synesthesia, the Somatic Marker hypothesis, and belief-attribution in children. The ability to proceed in the endeavor to define the neural plasticity of giftedness requires that we begin to view this work as transdisciplinary and not just interdisciplinary. What do I mean by this? Indulge one final story to make my point. Hideaki Koizumi is a gifted scientist and visionary (Igawa et al., 2001; Yamashita, Maki, & Koizumi, 2001; Taga, Asakawa, Maki, Konishi, & Koizumi, 2003; Sato et al., 2006). He published one of the world’s earliest papers on near-infrared spectroscopic imaging (NIRSI), another non-invasive method for physiologically measuring cognitive activity in the brain from the top of the scalp (Maki et al., 1995). He holds multiple patents and additional research interests that range from cognitive development in infants and children to human spirituality. To that end, he has had audiences with Pope John Paul II and the Dalai Lama. I met Dr. Koizumi at a meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark during the winter of 2006 where he

287

presented data from Japanese scientists demonstrating task-specific brain activation in a comatose patient. This patient was hooked up to a NIRSI instrument and was asked to try to move his fingers. In response, the appropriate areas of the premotor cortex activated. The patient was asked to try to speak and to imagine a story. In response, appropriate temporal areas of the brain activated. The implications of this demonstration could alter how medicine defines consciousness, let alone modern science, and hints that human brain function operates on a scale where we have only barely scratched the surface. In turn, contemporary methods of neuroscience are now becoming sophisticated enough to detect and characterize the metabolism and energetics of the brain with more certainty, enhancing our ability to capture dynamic states of the brain on chemical as well as physiological and electrical levels (Shulman, Rothman, Behar, & Hyder, 2004). In a short essay in the journal Endocrinology Letters, Koizumi distinguishes between interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary inquiry (2001). The key difference between the two is that in the first instance, multiple fields collaborate and combine their efforts to address an area of interest. In the second instance, two or more fields combine in such a way that a new field emerges. Just as Ramachandran appeals for a paradigm shift in the field of neurorehabilitation, one is needed also to guide the inquiry of questions related to the fundamentals of human potential and greatness. Contemporary and futuristic research must become transdisciplinary in order to fully characterize ‘atypicality’ and discern the types of neural plasticity underlying giftedness.

References Andreasen, N. C., O’Leary, D. S., Cizadlo, T., Arndt, S., Rezai, K., & Ponto, L. (1996). Schizophrenia and cognitive dysmetria: A positron-emission tomography study of dysfunctional prefrontal-thalamic-cerebellar circuitry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 93(18), 9985–9990. Amabile, T. (1996).Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Amminger, G. P., Schlogelhofer, M., Lehner, T., Looser Ott, S., Friedrich, M. H., & Aschauer, M. (2000). Premorbid performance IQ deficit in schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 102, 414–422. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

288 Baron-Cohen, S. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of autism. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 75(7):945–948. Barron, F., & Harrington, D.M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476. Bartsch, K., & Wellman H. M. (1995). Children talk about the mind. London: Oxford University Press. Battaglia, D., Chieffo, D., Lettori, D., Perrino, F., Di Rocco, C., & Guzzetta, F. (2006). Cognitive assessment in epilepsy surgery of children. Child’s nervous system, 22(8), 744–759. Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A.R. (2005). The Iowa gambling task and the somatic marker hypothesis: Some questions and answers. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(4):159–164. Beilock, S. L., Bertenthal, B. I., McCoy, A. M., & Carr, T. H. (2004a). Haste does not always make waste: Expertise, direction of attention, and speed versus accuracy in performing sensorimotor skills. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(2), 373–379. Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail: Working memory and ‘choking under pressure’ in math. Psychological Science, 16, 101–105. Beilock, S. L., Kulp, C. A., Holt, L. E., & Carr, T. H. (2004b). More on the fragility of performance: Choking under pressure in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 584–600. Beilock, S. L., Wierenga, S. A., & Carr, T. H. (2002). Expertise, attention, and memory in sensorimotor skill execution: Impact of novel task constraints on dual-task performance and episodic memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology, 55(4), 1211–1240. Berquin, P. C., Giedd, J. N., Jacobsen, L. K., Hamburger, S. D., Krain, A. L., & Rapoport, J. L., et al. (1998). Cerebellum in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A morphometric MRI study. Neurology, 50, 1087–1093 Berry, J. W., & Irvine, S. H. (1986). Bricolage: Savages do it daily. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Practical Intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world (pp. 271–306). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Black, I. (1997). Trophic interactions and brain plasticity. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Blackwood, N., Ffytche, D., Simmons, A., Bentall, R., Murray, R., & Howard, R. (2004). The cerebellum and decision making under uncertainty. Cognitive Brain Research, 20, 46–53. Blair, C. (2006). How similar are fluid cognition and general intelligence? A developmental neuroscience perspective on fluid cognition as an aspect of human cognitive ability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 109–160. Boatman, D., Vining, E. P., Freeman, J., & Carson, B. (2003). Auditory processing studied prospectively in two hemidecorticectomy patients. Journal of Child Neurology, 18(3), 228–232. Bor, D., & Owen, A. (2007). Cognitive training: Neural correlates of expert skills. Current Biology, 17(3): R95–97. Borsook, D., Becerra, L., Fishman, S., Edwards, A., Jennings, C.L., & Stojanovic, M. et al. (1998). Acute plasticity in

M.L. Kalbfleisch the human somatosensory cortex following amputation. Neuroreport, 9(6), 1013–1017. Bransford, J., Brown, A. L.,& Cocking, R. L. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press Bruner, J. (1979). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carlsson, I., Wendt, P. E., & Risberg, J. (2000). On the neurobiology of creativity. Differences in frontal activity between high and how creative subjects. Neuropsychologia, 38, 873–885. Castellanos, F. X., Lee, P. P., Sharp, W., Jeffries, N. O., Greenstein, D. K., & Clasen L. S., et al. (2002). Developmental trajectories of brain volume abnormalities in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. JAMA, 288, 1740–1748. Catheline-Antipoff, N., & Poinso, F. (1994). Gifted children and dysharmonious development. Archives of Pediatrics, 1(11), 1034–1039. Chen, R., Cohen, L. G., & Hallett, M. (2002). Nervous system reorganization following injury. Neuroscience, 111(4), 761– 773. Colum, R., Jung, R. E., & Haier, R. J. (2006). Distributed brain sites for the g-factor of intelligence. NeuroImage, 31, 1359– 1365. Courchesne, E., Redcay, E., Morgan, J. T., & Kennedy, D. P. (2005). Autism at the beginning: Microstructural and growth abnormalities underlying the cognitive and behavioral phenotype of autism. Development and Psychopathology, 17(3), 577–597. Craggs, J. G., Sanchez, J., Kibby, M. Y., Gilger, J. W., & Hynd, G. W. (2006). Brain morphology and neuropsychological profiles in a family displaying dyslexia and superior nonverbal intelligence. Cortex, 42(8), 1107–1118. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row. Cytowic, R. E. (2002). Synesthesia: A union of the senses (2nd ed). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dabrowski, K. (1967). Personality-shaping through positive disintegration. Boston: Little Brown. Damasio, A. R. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 351(1346), 1413–1420. Davidson, R. J. (2002). Anxiety and affective style: Role of prefrontal cortex and amygdala. Biological Psychiatry, 51, 68–80. De Geus, E. J. C., & Boomsma, D. I. (2002). A genetic neuroscience approach to human cognition. European Psychology, 6(4), 241–253. Diamond, A., & Herzberg, C. (1996). Impaired sensitivity to visual contrast in children treated early and continually for phenylketonuria. Brain, 119, 523–538. Diamond, A., Prevor, M. B., Callendar, G., & Druin, D. P. (1997). Prefrontal cognitive deficits in children treated early and continuously for PKU. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 62(4), Serial No. 252. Dickens, W. T., & Flynn, J. R. (2001). Heritability estimates versus large environmental effect: The IQ paradox resolved. Psychological Review, 108, 346–369.

12

The Neural Plasticity of Giftedness

Doctorow, E. L. (2006). Creationists: Selected essays: 1993– 2006. Mississauga, ON: Random House Duncan, J. (2003). Intelligence tests predict brain response to demanding task events. Nature Neuroscience, 6(3), 207–208. Duncan, J., Burgess, P., & Emslie, H. (1995). Fluid intelligence after frontal lobe lesions. Neuropsychologia, 33, 261–268. Duncan, J., Emslie, H., Williams, P., Johnson, R., & Freer C. (1996). Intelligence and the frontal lobe: The organization of goal-directed behavior. Cognitive Psychology, 30(3), 257– 303. Duncan, J., & Owen, A. M. (2000). Common regions of the human frontal lobe recruited by diverse cognitive demands. Trends in Neuroscience, 23(10), 475–483. Duncan, J., Seltz, R. J., Kolodny, J., Bor, D., Herzog, H., & Ahmed, A., et al. (2000). A neural basis for general intelligence. Science, 289(5478), 399–401. Dunn, B. D., Dalgleish, T., & Lawrence, A. D. (2006). The somatic marker hypothesis: A critical evaluation. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 30(2), 239–271. Durston, S., Tottenham, N. T., Thomas, K. M., Davidson, M. C., Eigsti, I. M., & Yang, Y., et al. (2003). Differential patterns of striatal activation in young children with and without ADHD. Biological Psychiatry, 53(10), 871–878. Eikhoff, S. B., Amunts, K., Mohlberg, H., & Zilles, K. (2006). Human parietal operculum. II. Cytoarchitectonic mapping of subdivisions. Cerebral Cortex. 16(2), 268–279. Eikhoff, S. B., Schleicher, A., Zilles, K., & Amunts, K. (2006). Human parietal operculum. I. Cytoarchitectonic mapping of subdivisions. Cerebral Cortex, 16(2), 254–267. Elliott, R., Frith, C. D., & Dolan, R. J. (1997). Differential neural response to positive and negative feedback in planning and guessing tasks. Neuropsychologia, 35, 1395–1404. Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Toward a new model of intelligence. Personality and individual differences, 7, 731–736. Feldman, D. H. (1999). The development of creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), The handbook of creativity (pp. 169–186). New York: Cambridge University Press. Feldman, D. H., Czikszentmihalyi, M., & Gardner, H. (1994). Changing the world: A framework for the study of creativity. Westport, CT: Praeger. Fischer, S, Drosopoulos, S, Tsen, J, & Born, J. (2006). Implicit learning – explicit knowing: A role for sleep in memory system interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(3), 311–319. Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932–1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 29–51. Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 171–191. Frangou, S., Chitins, X., & Williams, S. C. R. (2004). Mapping IQ and gray matter density in healthy young people. NeuroImage, 23, 800–805. Garon, N., & Moore, C. (2004). Complex decision-making in early childhood. Brain and cognition, 55(1), 158–70. Geake, J. G., & Hansen P. (2005). Neural correlates of intelligence as revealed by fMRI of fluid analogies, NeuroImage, 26(2), 555–564. Geidd, J. N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N. O., Castellanos, F. X., Liu, H., & Zijdenbos A., et al. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence: A longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2(10), 861–863.

289 Giedd, J. N., Lenroot, R., Greenstein, D., Wallace, G. L., Ordaz, S., & Molloy E.A., et al. (2006). Puberty-related influences on brain development. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, 254–255:154–162. Gilger, J. W., & Kaplan, B. J. (2001). Atypical brain development: A conceptual framework for understanding developmental learning disabilities. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20(2), 465–481 Goel, V., Buchel, C., Frith, C., & Dolan, R. J. (2000). Dissociation of mechanisms underlying syllogistic reasoning. Neuroimage, 12, 504–514. Goel, V., & Dolan, R. (2001). Functional neuroanatomy of threeterm relational reasoning, Neuropsychologia, 39(9), 901– 909. Goel, V, Dolan, R. J. (2003). Reciprocal neural response within lateral and ventral medial prefrontal cortex during hot and cold reasoning. NeuroImage, 20, 2314–2321. Goel, V., Dolan, R. J. (2004). Differential involvement of left prefrontal cortex in inductive and deductive reasoning. Cognition, 93, B109–B121. Goel, V., Gold, B., Kapur, S., & Houle, S. (1997). The seats of reason? An imaging study of deductive and inductive reasoning. Neuroreport, 8(5),1305–1310. Goel, V., Gold, B., Kapur, S., & Houle, S. (1998). Neuroanatomical correlates of human reasoning.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 293–302. Graber, J. A., & Petersen, A. C. (1991). Cognitive changes at adolescence: Biological perspectives in brain maturation and cognitive development. In K. R. Gibson & A. C. Petersen (Eds.) Brain maturation and cognitive development: Comparative and cross-cultural perspectives. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Gray, J. R., Chabris, C. F., & Braver, T. S. (2003). Neural mechanisms of general fluid intelligence. Nature Neuroscience, 6(3), 316–322. Graybiel, A. M. (1998). The basal ganglia and chunking action repertoires. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 70(1– 2), 119–136. Gunnel, D., Harrison, G., Rasmussen, F., Fouskakis, D., & Tynelius, P. (2002). Associations between premorbid intellectual performance, early life exposures, and dearly onset schizophrenia. British Journal of Psychiatry, 181, 298–305. Haier, R. J., Jung, R. E., Yeo, R. A., Head, K., & Alkire, M.T. (2004). Structural brain variation and general intelligence. NeuroImage, 23, 425–433. Haier, R. J., Jung, R. E., Yeo, R. A., Head, K., & Alkire, M. T. (2005). The neuroanatomy of general intelligence: Sex matters. NeuroImage, 25(1), 320–327. Haier, R. J., White, N. S., & Alkire, M. T. (2003). Individual differences in general intelligence correlate with brain function during nonreasoning tasks. Intelligence, 31(5), 429–441. Heaton, P., & Wallace, G. L. (2004). Annotation: The savant syndrome. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 45(5), 899–911. Hobson, J. A., & Pace-Schott, E. F. (2002). The cognitive neuroscience of sleep: Neuronal systems, consciousness, and learning. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3, 679–693. Hubbard, E. M., & Ramachandran, V. S. (2005). Neurocognitive mechanisms of synesthesia. Neuron, 48(3), 509–520. Igawa, M., Atsumi, Y., Takahashi, K., Shiotsuka, S., Hirasawa, H., & Yamamoto R., et al. (2001). Activation of vi-

290 sual cortex in REM sleep measured by 24-channel NIRS imaging. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 55(3), 187–188. Jamison K.R. (1995). Manic-depressive illness and creativity. Scientific American, 272(2), 62–67. Jamison, K. R., Gerner, R. H., Hammen, C., & Padesky, C. (1980). Clouds and silver linings: Positive experiences associated with primary affective disorders. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(2), 198–202. Johnston , M. V. (2004). Clinical disorders of brain plasticity. Brain & Development, 26(2), 73–80. Jung, R. E., & Haier, R. J. (2007). The Parieto-Frontal Integration Theory (P-FIT) of Intelligence: Converging neuroimaging evidence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(2), 135– 154. Jung, R. E., Haier, R. J., Yeo, R. A., Rowland, L. M., Petropoulos, H., & Levine, A. S., et al. (2005). Sex differences in N-acetylaspartate correlates of general intelligence: An 1HMRS study of normal human brain. Neuroimage, 26(3), 965– 972. Kalbfleisch, M. L. (2004). The functional anatomy of talent. The Anatomical Record, Part B: The New Anatomist, 277(1), 21– 36. Kalbfleisch, M. L., & Banasiak, M. (2007). ADHD. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical Issues and Practices in Gifted Education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press (pp. 15– 30). Kalbfleisch, M. L., & Iguchi, C. (2007). Twice Exceptional Learners. In J. A. Plucker, & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press (pp. 685–696). Kalbfleisch, M. L., VanMeter, J. W., & Zeffiro, T. A.. (2006). The influences of task difficulty and response correctness on neural systems supporting fluid reasoning. Cognitive Neurodynamics, online first – DOI 10.1007/s11571-006-9007-4/ ISSN 1871-4080 (Print) 1871-4099 (Online). Kalbfleisch, M. L., Van Meter, J. W., & Zeffiro, T. A. (2007). The influences of task difficulty and response correctness on neural systems supporting fluid reasoning. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 1(1), 71–84. Karatekin, C., Lazareff, J.A., & Asarnow, R. F. (2000). Relevance of the cerebellar hemispheres for executive functions. Pediatric Neurology, 22(2), 106–112. Kaufman, F., Kalbfleisch, M. L., & Castellanos, F. X. (2000). Gifted and ADHD: What do we know? Monograph for Senior Scholars Series: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Storrs, CT. Kilts, C. D., Schweitzer, J. B., Quinn, C. K., Gross, R. E., Faber, T. L., & Muhammad, F., et al. (2001). Neural activity related to drug craving in cocaine addiction. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, 334–341. Kim, S., Ugurbil, P., & Strick, P. (1994). Activation of a cerebellar output nucleus during cognitive processing. Science, 265, 949–951. Koechlin, E., Basso, G., Pietrini, P., Panzer, S., & Grafman, J. (1999). The role of the anterior prefrontal cortex in human cognition. Nature, 399, 148–151. Koizumi, H. (2001). Trans-disciplinarity. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 22, 219–221. Kremen, W. S., Seidman, L. J., Faraone, S. V., & Tsuang, M. T. (2001). Intelligence quotient and neuropsychological pro-

M.L. Kalbfleisch file in patients with schizophrenia and in normal volunteers. Biological Psychiatry, 50, 453–462. Landau, S. M., & D’Esposito, M. (2004). Implicit sequence learning in pianists and nonpianists: An fMRI study of motor expertise. Society for Neuroscience, abstract 774.11. Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. London: Weidenfield and Nicholson. Leiner, H. C., Leiner, A. L., & Dow, R. S. (1986). Does the cerebellum contribute to mental skills? Behavioral Neuroscience, 100, 443–454. Luo, Q., Perry, C., Peng, D., Jin, Z., Xu, D.,& Ding, G., et al. (2003). The neural substrate of analogical reasoning: An fMRI study. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 527–534. Maia, T. V., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). A reexamination of the evidence for the somatic marker hypothesis: What participants really know in the Iowa gambling task. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 101(45), 16075– 1680. Maki, A., Yamashita, Y., Ito, Y., Watanabe, E., Mayanagi, Y., & Koizumi, H. (1995). Spatial and temporal analysis of human motor activity using noninvasive NIR topography. Medical Physics, 22(12), 1997–2005. Martindale, C., Anderson, K., Moore, K., & West, A. N. (1996). Creativity, oversensitivity, and the rate of habituation. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 423–427. McCandliss, B. D., Noble, K. G. (2003). The development of reading impairment: A cognitive neuroscience model. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 9, 196–205. Middleton, F. A., & Strick, P. L. (1994). Anatomical evidence for cerebellar and basal ganglia involvement in higher cognitive function. Science, 266, 458–461. Middleton, F. A., & Strick, P. L. (2000). Basal ganglia and cerebellar loops: Motor and cognitive circuits. Brain Research Reviews, 31, 236–250. Molinari, M.., Filippini, V., & Leggio, M. G. (2002). Neuronal plasticity of interrelated cerebellar and cortical networks. Neuroscience, 111(4), 863–870. Moore, C. D., Cohen, M. X., & Ranganath, C. (2006). Neural mechanisms of expert skills in visual working memory. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26(43), 11187–11196. Mottron, L., Dawson, M., Soulieres, I., Hubert, B., & Burack, J. (2006). Enhanced perceptual functioning in autism: An update, and eight principles of autistic perception. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36(1), 27–43. Naglieri, J. (1997). The naglieri nonverbal ability test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Niogi, S. N., & McCandliss, B. D. (2006). Left lateralized white matter microstructure accounts for individual differences in reading ability and disability. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2178– 2188. Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1980). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behaviour. Reprinted in M. Gazzaniga (Ed.) (2000) Cognitive neuroscience: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell. O’Boyle, M. W., Benbow, C. P., & Alexander, J .E. (1995). Sex differences, hemispheric laterality, and associated brain activity in the intellectually gifted. Developmental Neuropsychology, 11(4), 415–443.

12

The Neural Plasticity of Giftedness

O’Boyle, M. W., Cunnington, R., Silk, T. J., Vaughan, D., Jackson, G., & Syngeniotis, A., et al. (2005). .Mathematically gifted male adolescents activate a unique brain network during mental rotation. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(2), 583–587. Osherson, D., Perani, D., Cappa, S., Schnur, T., Grassi, F., & Fazio, F. (1998). Distinct brain loci in deductive versus probabilistic reasoning. Neuropsychologia, 36, 369–376. Overman, W. H. (2004). Sex differences in early childhood, adolescence, and adulthood on cognitive tasks that rely on orbital prefrontal cortex. Brain and Cognition, 55, 134–147. Palmeri, T. J., Wong, A. C.-N., & Gauthier, I. (2004). Computational approaches to the development of perceptual expertise. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(8), 378–386. Paulus, M. P., Hozack, N., Frank, L., & Brown, G. G. (2002). Error rate and outcome predictability affect neural activation in prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate during decisionmaking. Neuroimage, 15(4), 836–846. Peigneux, P., Laureys, S., Fuchs, S., Destrebecqz, A., Collette, F., & Delbeuck X. et al. (2003). Learned material content and acquisition level modulate cerebral reactivation during posttraining rapid-eye-movements sleep. Neuroimage, 20(1), 125–134. Pennartz, C., Groenewegen, H., & DaSilva, F. (1994). The nucleus accumbens as a complex of functionally distinct neuronal ensembles: An integration of behavioral, eletrophysiological, and anatomical data. Progress in Neurobiology, 42, 719–761. Piechowski, M. M. (1979). Developmental potential. In N. Colangelo & R. T. Zaffrann (Eds.), New voices in counseling the gifted. Dubuque, IW: Kendall Hunt. Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Posthuma, D., de Geus, E. J. C., & Boomsma, D. I. (2001). Perceptual speed and IQ are associated through common genetic factors. Behavior Genetics,31(6), 593–602. Posthuma, D., Mulder, E., Boomsma, D. I., & deGeus, E. J. C. (2002). Genetic analysis of IQ, processing speed and stimulus-response incongruency effects. Biological Psychology, 61, 157–182. Prabhakaran, V., Rypma, B., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2001). Neural substrates of mathematical reasoning: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of neocortical activation during performance of the necessary arithmetic operations test. Neuropsychology, 15(1), 115–127. Pugh, K., Mencl, W., Jenner, A., Katz, L., Frost, S., & Lee J., et al. (2001). Neurobiological studies of reading and reading disability. Journal of Communication Disorders, 34, 479– 492. Pulsifer, M. B., Brandt, J., Salorio, C. F., Vining, E. P., Carson, B. S., & Freeman J. M. (2004). The cognitive outcome of hemispherectomy in 71 children. Epilepsia, 45(3), 243–254. Ramachandran, V. S. (2005). Plasticity and functional recovery in neurology. Clinical Medicine, 5(4), 368–373. Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Psychophysical investigations into the neural basis of synaesthesia. Pro-

291 ceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B Biological Science, 268(1470), 979–983. Ramachandran, V. S., & Rogers-Ramachandran, D. (1996). Synaesthesia in phantom limbs induced with mirrors. Proceedings Biological Sciences, 263(1369), 377–386. Ramachandran, V. S., Rogers-Ramachandran, D., & Stewart, M. (1991). Perceptual correlates of massive cortical reorganization. Science, 252(5014), 1857–1860. Rao, S. M., Bobholz, J. A., Hammeke, T. A., Rosen, A. C., Woodley, S. J., & Cunningham, J. M., et al. (1997). Functional MRI evidence for subcortical participation in conceptual reasoning skills. Neuroreport, 8(8), 1987–1993. Rapoport, M., Van Reekum, R., & Mayberg, H. (2000). The role of the cerebellum in cognition and behavior: A selective review. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 12(2), 193–198. Ravizza, S. M., & Ivry R. B. (2001). Comparison of the basal ganglia and cerebellum in shifting attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(3), 285–297. Rich, A. N., Bradshaw, J. L., & Mattingley, J. B. (2005). A systematic, large scale study of synaesthesia: Implications for the role of early experience in lexical-colour associations. Cognition, 98(1), 53–84. Rogers, R., Ramnani, N., Mackay, C., Wilson, J., Jezzard, P, & Carter, C., et al. (2004). Distinct portions of the anterior cingulate cortex and medial prefrontal cortex are activated by reward processing in separable phases of decision-making cognition. Biological Psychiatry, 5(6), 594–602. Rogers, R. D., Everitt, B. J., Baldacchino, A., Blackshaw, A. J., Swainson, R., & Wynne, et al. (1999). Dissociable deficits in the decision-making cognition of chronic amphetamine abusers, opiate abusers, patients with focal damage to prefrontal cortex, and tryptophan-depleted normal volunteers: Evidence for monoaminergic mechanisms. Neuropsychopharmacology, 20(4), 322–339. Rubia, K., Overmeyer, S., Taylor, E., Brammer, M., Williams, S. C., & Simmons A., et al. (1999). Hypofrontality in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder during higher-order motor control: A study with functional MRI. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 156(6), 891–896. Ruff, C. C., Knauff, M., Fangmeier, T., & Spreer, J. (2003). Reasoning and working memory: Common and distinct neuronal processes. Neuropsychologia, 41, 1241–1253. Sakai, K., & Passingham, R. E. (2006). Prefrontal set activity predicts rule-specific neural processing during subsequent cognitive performance. Journal of Neuroscience, 26 (4), 1211–1218. Sato, H., Kiguchi, M., Maki, A., Fuchino, Y., Obata, A., & Yoro, T., et al. (2006). Within-subject reproducibility of near-infrared spectroscopy signals in sensorimotor activation after 6 months. Journal of Biomedical Optics, 11(1), 14–21. Saxe, R., Carey, S., & Kanwisher, N. (2004). Understanding other minds: Linking developmental psychology and functional neuroimaging. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 87– 124. Schmahmann, J.D., & Pandya, D. N. (1995). Prefrontal cortex projections to the basilar pons in rhesus monkey: Implications for the cerebellar contribution to higher function. Neuroscience Letters, 199, 175–178.

292 Schmithorst, V. J., & Holland, S. K. (2006). Functional MRI evidence for disparate developmental processes underlying intelligence in boys and girls. Neuroimage, 31(3), 1366–1379. Schmithorst, V. J., & Holland, S. K. (2007). Sex differences in the development of neuroanatomical functional connectivity underlying intelligence found using Bayesian connectivity analysis. Neuroimage, 35(1), 406–419 (January 11 – E-pub ahead of print). Schmithorst, V. J., Wilke, M., Dardzinski, B.J., & Holland, S. K. (2005). Cognitive functions correlate with white matter architecture in a normal pediatric population: A diffusion tensor MRI study. Human Brain Mapping, 26(2), 139–147. Shaw, P., Greenstein, D., Lerch, J., Clasen, L., Lenroot, R., & Gogtay, N., et al. (2006). Intellectual ability and cortical development in children and adolescents. Nature, 440(7084), 676–679. Shaywitz, B., Shaywitz, S., Pugh, K., Mencl, W., Fulbright, K., & Skudlarski, P., et al. (2002). Disruption of posterior brain systems for reading in children with developmental dyslexia. Biological Psychiatry 52, 101–110. Shulman, R. G, Rothman, D. L., Behar, K. L., & Hyder, F. (2004). Energetic basis of brain activity: Implications for neuroimaging. Trends in Neurosciences, 27(8), 489–495. Silk, T., Vance, A., Rinehart, N., Egan, G., O’Boyle, M., & Bradshaw, J. L., et al. (2005). Fronto-parietal activation in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, combined type: Functional magnetic resonance imaging study. British Journal Psychiatry, 187, 282–283. Silk, T. J., Rinehart, N., Bradshaw, J. L., Tonge, B., Egan, G., & O’Boyle, M. W., et al. (2006). Visuospatial processing and the function of prefrontal-parietal networks in autism spectrum disorders: A functional MRI study. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(8), 1440–1443. Singer, J. (1995). Mental processes and brain architecture: Confronting the complex adaptive systems of human thought (an overview). In H. Morowitz & J. Singer (Eds.), The mind, the brain, and CAS. Addison-Wesley, New York. Smilek, D., Dixon, M. J., Cudahy, C., & Merikle, P. M. (2002). Synesthetic color experiences influence memory. Psychological Science, 13(6), 548–555. Sowell, E. R., Thompson, P. M., Tessner, K. D., & Toga, A. W. (2001). Mapping continued brain growth and gray matter density reduction in dorsal frontal cortex: Inverse relationships during postadolescent brain maturation. The Journal of Neuroscience, 21(22), 8819–8829. Sowell, E. R., Thompson, P. M., Welcome, S. E., Henkenius, A. L., Toga, A. W., & Peterson, B. S. (2003). Cortical abnormalities in children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Lancet, 362(9397), 1699–1707. Sowell, E. R., Thompson, P. N., Holmes, C. J., Jernigan, T. L., & Toga, A.W. (1999). In vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in frontal and striatal regions. Nature Neurosciense, 2(10), 859–861. Suzki, A., Hirota, A., Takasawa, N., & Shigemasu, K. (2003). Application of the somatic marker hypothesis to individual differences in decision making. Biological Psychiatry, 65, 81–88. Taga, G., Asakawa, K., Maki, A., Konishi, Y., & Koizumi, H. (2003). Brain imaging in awake infants by near-infrared opti-

M.L. Kalbfleisch cal topography. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 100(19), 10722–10727. Talwar, V., & Lee, K. (2002a). Emergence of white-lie telling in children between 3 and 7 years of age. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48, 160–181. Talwar, V., & Lee, K. (2002b). Development of lying to conceal a transgression: Children’s control of expressive behavior during verbal deception. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 436–444. Tannenbaum, A. J., & Baldwin, L. J. (1983). Giftedness and learning disability: A paradoxical combination. In L. H. Fox, L. Brody, & D. Tobin (Eds.), Learning-disabled gifted children: Identification and programming (pp. 11–36). Baltimore: University Park Press. Tervaniemi, M., Rytkonen, M., Schroger, E., Ilminiemi, R.J., & Naatanen, R. (2001). Superior formation of cortical memory traces for melodic patterns in musicians. Learning and Memory, 8, 295–300. Thompson, P., Cannon, T.D., & Toga, A.W. (2002). Mapping genetic influences on human brain structure: A review. Annals Medicine, 34(7–8), 523–536. Thompson, P. M., Giedd, J. N., Woods, R. P., MacDonald, D., Evans, A.C., & Toga, A.W. (2000). Growth patterns in the developing brain detected by using continuum mechanical tensor maps. Nature, 404(6774), 190–193. Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Lexington, MA: Personnel Press, Ginn and Company. Vaidya, C. J., Bunge, S. A., Dudukovic, N. M., Zalecki, C. A., Elliott, G.R., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2005). Altered neural substrates of cognitive control in childhood ADHD: Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(9), 1605–1613. van den Heuvel, O. A., Groenewegen, H. J., Barkhof, F., Lazeron, R.H., van Dyck, R., & Veltman, D. J. (2003). Frontostriatal system in planning complexity: A parametric functional magnetic resonance version of Tower of London task.NeuroImage, 18, 367–374. Vernon, P. A. (1987). Speed of information processing and intelligence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Wagner, R. K. (2000). Practical intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 380–395). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity. New York: Simon and Schuster. Waltz, J. A., Knowlton, B. J., Holyoak, K. J., Boone, K. B., Mishkin, F.S., & Santos, M., et al. (1999). A system for relational reasoning in the human prefrontal cortex. Psychological Science, 10, 119–125. Werth, R. (2006). Visual functions without the occipital lobe or after cerebral hemispherectomy in infancy. European Journal of Neuroscience. 24(10), 2932–2944. Wharton, C. M., Grafman, J., Flitman, S. S., Hansen, E. K., Brauner, J., & Marks, A., et al. (2000). Toward neuroanatomical models of analogy: A positron emission tomography study of analogical mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 173–197. White, N. M. (1997). Mnemonic functions of the basal ganglia. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 7, 164–169. Whitmore, J., & Maker, C. J. (1985). Intellectual giftedness in disabled persons. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

12

The Neural Plasticity of Giftedness

Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Wilson, A. E., Smith, M. D., & Ross, H. S. (2003). The nature and effects of young children’s lies. Social Development, 12, 21–45. Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition 13, 103–128. Winner, E. (2001). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist, 55(1), 159–169. Winner, E., von Karolyi, C., Malinsky, D., French, L., Seliger, C., & Ross, E., et al. (2001). Dyslexia and visual-spatial talents: Compensation vs deficit model. Brain Lang, 76(2), 81–110.

293 Witelson, S. F., Kigar, D.L., & Harvey, T. (1999). The exceptional brain of Albert Einstein. The Lancet, 353, 2149–2153. Wright, I. C., Sham, P., Murray, R. M., Weinberger, D. R., & Bullmore, E. T. (2002). Genetic contributions to regional variability in human brain structure: Methods and preliminary results. NeuroImage, 17(1), 256–271. Yamashita, Y., Maki, A., & Koizumi, H. (2001). Wavelength dependence of the precision of noninvasive optical measurement of oxy-, deoxy-, and total-hemoglobin concentration. Medical Physics, 28(6), 1108–1114.

Chapter 13

Working Memory, the Cognitive Functions of the Cerebellum and the Child Prodigy Larry R. Vandervert

Abstract During the past 20 years the study of cognitive functions of the cerebellum has become an indispensable part of the neurosciences. In the vein of this growing body of research, Vandervert and Vandervert, Schimpf and Liu proposed that working memory and the adaptive functions of the cerebellum collaborate to produce high intellectual achievements in discovery and innovation. The present chapter extends this framework to a new explanation of the fundamental dynamic of the child prodigy, what Winner refers to as the “rage to master.” It is argued that the extraordinary achievements of child prodigies are the result of domain-specific high-attentional control learned beginning in infancy and constantly modulated between the prefrontal cortex and the cognitive-modeling functions of the cerebellum. It is concluded that this highattentional control in child prodigies accelerates the production of high intellectual processes in a spontaneous version of deliberate practice as espoused by Ericsson and his colleagues.

necting the cerebral cortex and the cerebellum) contribute to the skillful manipulation of ideas: It has often been remarked that an explanation is required for the threefold to fourfold increase in the size of the cerebellum that occurred in the last million years of evolution (Washburn & Harding, 1970). If the selection pressure has been strong for more cerebellum in the human brain as well as for more cerebral cortex, the interaction between the cerebellum and the cerebral cortex should provide some important advantages to humans. Because the cerebellum is traditionally regarded as a motor mechanism (Holmes, 1939), these cerebrocerebellar interactions are usually thought to confer [only] a motor benefit on humans, such as increased dexterity of the hand (Tilney, 1928). But...a detailed examination of cerebellar circuitry suggests that its phylogenetically newest parts may serve as a fast information-processing adjunct of the association cortex and could assist this cortex in the performance of a variety of manipulative skills, including the skill that is characteristic of anthropoid apes and humans, the skillful manipulation of ideas. (p. 444)

Since this quote was written, the study of the cognitive functions of the cerebellum has become a large and indispensable part of the cognitive neurosciences Keywords Attentional control · Cerebellum · Child (Ackermann, Mathiak & Ivry, 2004; Blackwood prodigies · Deliberate practice · MOSAIC · Long-term et al., 2004; Cabeza & Nyberg, 2000; Chein, Ravizza working memory · Mental models · Working memory & Fiez, 2003; Desmond & Fiez, 1998; Imamizu, Higuchi, Toda & Kawato, 2007; Ito, 1993, 1997, 2005; Kelly & Strick, 2003; Leiner, Leiner & Dow, 1989; Middleton & Strick, 2001; Ramnani, 2006; SchmahIntroduction mann, 1997, 2004; Thach, 1996). Vandervert (2003a, 2003b) sketched a preliminary Two decades have passed since Leiner, Leiner and theory of how creativity and innovation arise through Dow (1986) proposed that the phygenetically newest the collaboration of working memory and the cognitive cerebro-cerebellar loops (looping neural pathways con- functions of the cerebellum. Vandervert’s working memory/cerebellar theory of creativity was more recently elaborated along with commentaries in VanL.R. Vandervert (B) American Nonlinear Systems, Spokane WA, USA dervert, Schimpf and Liu (2007a; 2007b). The overe-mail: [email protected] arching premise of the working memory/cerebellar L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 13, 

295

296

theory of creativity and innovation is, as Leiner et al. (1986, 1989) suggested that just as the cerebellum adaptively improves the execution of physical acts that are repeated, the cerebellum also adaptively improves the execution of thought processes that are repeated in the recursive loops of working memory: The hypothesis states that in the human brain the newest cerebrocerebellar loops could contribute to skilled mental performance in much the same way that the older loops contribute to skilled motor performance. In both cases, when incoming data are processed repeatedly (italics added) in these neural loops, it becomes possible for the cerebellum to learn new programs for carrying out skilled activities. (Leiner et al., 1986, p. 443)

This initial, early idea proposed by Leiner et al. (only a hypothesis at the time) was soon corroborated and greatly elaborated, especially as to the mechanisms behind the adaptive “skilled manipulation of information and ideas” (e.g., Imamizu et al., 2007; Ito, 1997; Schmahmann, 1997,2004). In a nutshell, Vandervert (2003b) and Vandervert et al. (2007a) proposed the following research and theoretical framework: (a) High intellectual productivity (including creativity and innovation) is the result of the continuously repetitive processes of working memory (central executive, visuo-spatial sketchpad, speech loop; Baddeley, 1992; Baddeley & Logie, 1999; Cowan, 1999) that are learned in the form of adaptive cognitive control and modulation models in the cerebellum (e.g., Ito, 1997). (b) These adaptive cerebellar models (Ito, 1997; 2005) consist of multiple-paired predictor (forward) and controller models within the MOdular Selection and Identification for Control (MOSAIC) and hierarchical MOSAIC (HMOSAIC) cerebellar architectures1 that explore, test, and adapt to problem-solving requirements (Haruno, Wolpert, & Kawato, 1999, 2001; Imamizu et al., 2007; Wolpert, Doya, & Kawato, 2003). (c) When resulting, newly formed, more abstractive predictor/controller models are subsequently fed 1 The acronyms “MOSAIC” and “HMOSAIC” have the same origins among scientists studying the cerebellum and may be thought of as interchangeable for the purposes of this chapter. The “H,” standing for “hierarchical,” was added at a later date to indicate that the MOSAIC structure is arranged in layers of abstraction learned over time.

L.R. Vandervert

forward to the cerebral cortex to more efficiently modulate the operations of working memory, they are blended with existing cortical strategies (Imamizu et al., 2007) and thereby lead to new conceptions and new problem-solving tactics. All of the above-cited lines of research will be reviewed briefly below. Before moving on, it should be noted that while one might imply from the foregoing introduction that a creativity theory of the child prodigy phenomenon is presented, this is not the case. The tremendous volume of newer research on the cognitive and affective functions of the cerebellum, some of which is cited above, is so broad as to indicate that everyday cognition, creativity (including both Winner’s (1996) little-c and big C creativities), crystallized and fluid intelligence, learning, long-term memory, language, and much of personality, for example, are all governed and modulated to various degrees by aspects of the reciprocal collaboration of working memory and the cognitive/affective functions of the cerebellum. (Schmahmann (2004) is succinctly instructive in regard to affective functions.) In this chapter, Vandervert’s (2003a, 2003b) theory of the modeling capacities of working memory and the adaptive influence of the cerebellum are applied directly to a theory of the extraordinarily skilled manipulation of information and ideas by child prodigies in its own right.

Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to extend Vandervert’s (Vandervert, 2003b; Vandervert et al., 2007a) working memory/cerebellar creativity theory to an explanation of the fundamental dynamic characteristic of child prodigies, what Winner (1996) called the “rage to master”: Gifted children are intrinsically motivated to make sense of the domain in which they show precocity. They exhibit an intense and obsessive interest, an ability to focus sharply [italics added], and what I have come to call a rage to master. They experience states of “flow” [italics added] when they are engaged in learning in their domain – optimal states in which they focus intently [italic added] and lose sense of the outside world. (pp. 3–4)

13

Working Memory, the Cognitive Functions of the Cerebellum and the Child Prodigy

297

Fig. 13.1 Flattened view of cerebellar surface illustrating that the anterior lobe and intermediate parts of the posterior lobe are related to “motor and somatosensory functions,” whereas the lateral posterior cerebellum is related to “cognitive functions.” To orient properly to the anterior/posterior axis of the flattened view, the viewer should keep in mind that anterior/posterior refers to what is actually a substantially convex cerebellar surface (see smaller drawing to left). Arrows at (a) indicate difference between “motor” (note modularity of somatotopic maps at top and

bottom) and “cognition” found in previous neuroimaging studies. Arrows at (b) indicate modularity within the lateral posterior cerebellum for two different cognitive functions. In lower right corner note that right hand movements activate ipsilateral right hemisphere of cerebellum. In the cerebral cortex motor control is contralateral. Note. Imamizu et al. (2003). Copyright 2003 by Hiroshi Imamizu. Reprinted with Permission

The overall theoretical premise of this chapter is that (a) Winner’s description of the prodigy’s rage to master fits, precisely, high cerebellar forward control of attention (Akshoomoff, Courchesne & Townsend, 1997) in working memory, (b) this high level of forward control of attention had been modularized toward a specific domain through learning early infancy in the posteriorlateral cerebellum, see Fig. 13.1 (Imamizu, Kuroda, Miyauchi, Yoshioka, & Kawato, 2003), and (c) within the high-attentional frameworks of a and b, the high productivity of the prodigy is effected by a spontaneous deliberate practice (Vandervert, 2007) which is mediated by the accelerated blending of already-learned mental models of the cerebral cortex and forward models of the cerebellum (Vandervert, 2008). Since certain juxtapositions of research topics presented in this chapter may be new to readers, it will be helpful to first review pertinent specifics of working memory, the cognitive functions of the cerebellum and their connections with the prefrontal cortex, and related ideas from the area of conceptual development in early infancy proposed by Mandler (1988, 1992a, 1992b, 2004). Following these discussions a more detailed theoretical position, which will be referred to as “The Child Prodigy Hypothesis,” will be provided. Finally, this more detailed position will be examined via the analysis of pertinent case

reports. We now turn to a brief review of the major research areas involved.

Working Memory: The Ongoing Stream of Cognitive Consciousness Working memory consists of a collection of cognitive functions that is engaged whenever we are doing what most people would call “thinking” – that is, whenever we are carrying out both simple and complex everyday cognitive tasks. When, for example, we read an chapter in the newspaper (or a scientific journal), mentally rearrange the furniture in our living room to make room for a new sofa, compare and contrast the attributes of several new cars before making a purchase, give directions to our home, or even make change at the grocery store, we are using working memory (Miyake & Shah, 1999, Chapter 1). Working memory is also at “work” in the high-level performances of experts in all fields (mathematical calculators, chess and music masters, on-the-feet thinking of seasoned university professors, and so on) (Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995; Ericsson, 2003a). Because working memory in such experts involves a good deal of readily accessible long-term memory material that has

298

been acquired over many years of study and practice, Ericsson and Kintsch (1995) refer to their approach to working memory as long-term working memory.2 We will have occasion to return to Ericsson’s work later in this chapter. Of course, Vandervert (2003a,2003b) proposed that the naturally repetitious processes or working memory lead, through collaboration with the cerebellum, to creativity. Another interesting, but not often mentioned, example of working memory occurs whenever a person responds to items in a psychological test of, for example, personality, creativity, or, of course, intelligence (including tests of fluid intelligence).

L.R. Vandervert Working memory refers to cognitive processes that retain information in an unusually accessible state [italics added], suitable for carrying out any task with a mental component. The task may be language comprehension or production, problem solving, decision making, or other thought. (Cowan, 1999, p.62)

The key to understanding the cognitive processes of working memory is that they have the purpose of bringing forth and retaining information from memory stores (both short-term and long-term memory) within a mentally graspable range during thought. Nearly all working-memory theorists agree that the working-memory components that accomplish this information selection and maintenance task include a central executive function (attentional control) and two repetitive (refreshing) slave functions: a visuospaWorking Memory Consists of Repetitive tial sketchpad and a speech loop (Baddeley, 1992; Baddeley & Logie, 1999; Cowan, 1999). Mental Processes To illustrate the dynamic operation of these three components of working memory any of the everyday Cowan (1999) provided the following definition of examples cited earlier could be used – all require the working memory; this definition is in close general various kinds of thinking mentioned above in Cowan’s agreement with definitions provided by most other definition of working memory. The example of readleading working-memory theorists (see Miyake & ing a newspaper will be used. First, attentional control 3 Shah, 1999, pp. 450–452) : in reading and thinking about various newspaper chapters is carried on by working memory’s central execu2 It is important to note that Ericsson and his colleagues found tive functions. Attentional functions of the central exthat experts and exceptional performers deliberately avoid ex- ecutive supervise, schedule, and integrate information clusive automaticity, or preprogrammed skill patterns in their from different memory sources. In order to accomplish abilities by engaging in problem solving about how to constantly improve their skills at each level of mastery (Erics- this supervision, the central executive controls anticson, 2002, 2003a). In fact, quite to the contrary to reliance exclu- ipatory attention shifting and attention orienting in a sively on automaticity, Ericsson (2002, 2003a, 2003b) has shown rapid, sequenced manner as the newspaper is read. The how deliberate practice (defined as practice aimed toward convisuospatial sketchpad and the speech loop are, respecstantly elevated levels of performance) leads to the development of high-level skills in both responding to novel situations and tively, manipulation and rehearsal processes for retainmanufacturing novel behavior. This deliberate practice of con- ing appropriate visuospatial images and speech inforstantly new levels of problem solving behavior, like all other mation that are needed (have been brought under attenregularly practiced routines, is itself (as a patterned regime of tional control) for the online comprehension, decision behavior) apparently made constantly more efficient through the collaboration of working memory and the cerebellum. That is, making, and thinking about the contents of the various deliberate practice is itself a mental model which is modeled newspaper chapters. To maintain information in a conadaptively in the cerebellum. Such increasing levels of problem solving are supported by the development of hierarchical levels in the HMOSAIC cerebellar architecture. 3 Miyake & Shah (1999) combined 10 definitions of working memory provided by leading theorists in the following allencompassing definition: Working memory is those mechanisms or processes that are involved in the control, regulation, and active maintenance of task-relevant information in the service of complex cognition, including novel as well as familiar, skilled tasks. It consists of a set of processes and mechanisms and is not a fixed “place” or “box” in the cognitive archi-

tecture. It is not a completely unitary system in the sense that it involves multiple representational codes and/or different subsystems. Its capacity limits reflect multiple factors and may even be an emergent property of multiple processes and mechanisms involved. Working memory is closely linked to LTM [long-term memory], and its contents consist primarily of currently activated LTM representations, but can also extend to LTM memory representations that are closely linked to activated retrieval cues and, hence, can be quickly activated. (p. 450)

13

Working Memory, the Cognitive Functions of the Cerebellum and the Child Prodigy

scious, “online” state so that these mental tasks can be completed, the central executive employs the visuospatial sketchpad and the speech loop in a continual process of repetitive manipulation, rehearsal, and updating of memory information that makes sense of what is being read. In sum, in order to maintain memory information in the “unusually accessible state” described above by Cowan and to constantly flow forward (in a patterned anticipatory manner) in the service of problem solving, decision making, and so forth, the three above components of working memory are constantly regenerated through active repetition. That is, central executive attention is constantly scanning, selecting, shifting, and orienting in a variety of learned patterns. Under this forward-flowing executive attentional supervision, the two slave components are constantly refreshing and updating (looping) visuospatial and linguistic information (Baddeley & Andrade, 2000). The cerebellum’s important adaptive involvement in all of these repetitive activities is indicated in neuroimaging studies (Cabeza & Nyberg, 2000; Chein et al., 2003).

The Cognitive Functions of the Cerebellum Due to the fact that much of the research on the cognitive functions of the cerebellum is not only relatively new, but particularly new to perhaps the typical reader of this journal, neuroscience jargon related to the study of the cerebellum will be kept to a minimum. Since cerebellum research pertinent to the purposes of this chapter tends to be spread over many sub-areas of theory and investigation, a more lengthy discussion than was the case with working memory will be necessary. There has been an attempt to organize the several necessary subsections on the cerebellum in a manner that will provide an overall view of the pertinent ideas.

299

playing computer games, or playing basketball), a person soon becomes able to execute the required tasks more quickly and precisely, and in a myriad of novel ways. People in all walks of life rely on this fact. It is well established that, across the board, these adaptive increases in efficiency are the result of control routines that are learned in the cerebellum and subsequently fed back to control improved timing and sequencing of the operations of the movement-generating (motor) portions of the brain’s cerebral cortex (Bloedel, Dichgans & Precht, 1985; Ito, 1984a, 1997; Kornhuber, 1974; Thach, 1996). These increases in efficiency and adaptability, in part, also lead to automaticity of behavior (Ito, 1997, 2005; Leiner et al., 1986, 1989; Kihlstrom, 1987), in that, the more often the physical acts are repeated and the more skilled the movements become, the more automatically (unconsciously) they are executed. And, at the same time, the increases in efficiency and adaptability equally lead to the development of creative and innovative cerebellar control routines for the cerebral cortex – one may think of the unique signature moves that many professional athletes develop – moves that occasionally change the way the game is played or an Olympic sport is scored (Leiner et al., 1986, 1989). More will be said below in the section titled The Role of the Cerebellum in the Manipulation of Thought Via Mental Models: Conscious and Unconscious Control in Working Memory on how these two seemingly contrary control outcomes (automaticity and novelty) complement one another.

The Newer Conception of the Cerebellum Includes Cognitive Functions

In the past 20 years, understandings of the cerebellum have moved far beyond the earlier, more traditional idea that its functions are limited to motor control. A number of newer and converging lines of research and theory, especially those arising from neuroimaging studies, demonstrate that the cerebellum provides a fast computational system for the timing, sequencing, and modeling aimed at the rapid manipulation of The Traditional Role of the Cerebellum both motor and cognitive processes, including those of working memory (Ackermann et al., 2004; AkIt is a common experience that in the course of every- shoomoff et al., 1997; Blackwood et al., 2004; Cabeza day repetitive physical activities (for example, learning & Nyberg, 2000; Chein et al., 2003; Desmond & movement skills required in a new job, driving a car, Fiez, 1998; Doya, 1999; Haruno et al., 1999, 2001;

300

Houk & Wise, 1995; Imamizu et al., 2007, 2003; Ito, 1993, 1997, 2005; Ivry, 1997; Leiner & Leiner, 1997; Leiner et al., 1986, 1989; Molinari, Petrosini, Misciagna & Leggio, 2004; Ramnani, 2006; Restuccia, Marca, Valeriani, Leggio, & Molinari, 2006; Schmahmann, 1997, 2004).4

L.R. Vandervert

Klein et al., the cerebellum enlarged by an astonishing three to four times and that the cerebro-cerebellar system (the extensive hardwiring between the cerebral cortex and the cerebellum) became more elaborately and extensively interconnected. Central to the arguments of the present chapter, Leiner et al., as noted at the beginning of this chapter, also proposed that the cerebellum had, during this evolutionary time, become involved in the skilled manipulation of ideas. The The Evolution of Cognitive Functions skillful manipulation of ideas, of course, is precisely in the Cerebellum the job of the retrieval structure of working memory – the evolution of the huge capacity of human working It appears that both overall human memory and memory and the three- to fourfold increase in the working memory assumed much of their present sys- size of the cerebellum over the past million years are tems of components (including the central executive, undoubtedly closely related. In a follow-up chapteryears later, Leiner et al. (1989) visuospatial sketchpad, speech loop discussed above) extended their findings and arguments to include the during the past million years of hominid evolution (Baddeley, 1993; Baddeley & Andrade, 2000; Klein, skillful manipulation of language functions: Cosmides, Tooby & Chance, 2002). A decade and We conclude that the phylogenetically newest circuitry a half before Klein et al. proposed their somewhat in the human cerebro-cerebellar system enables the cerebellum to improve the speed and skill of cognitive and detailed explanation of the evolutionary selection of language performance [particularly circuitry connected the retrieval structure of memory, Leiner et al. (1986) with Brodmann areas 44 and 45, which constitute part speculated that the cerebellum contributed to such of Broca’s language area], in much the same way that mental skills. In their foundational publications on the the phylogenetically older circuitry enables the cerebellum to improve the speed and skill of motor performance. cognitive functions of the cerebellum, Leiner et al. (p. 999) pointed out that during the same million years cited by Leiner et al. (1986, 1989) also proposed that decisional and search skills (functions of the central 4 According to the computational scheme for mental modexecutive and the same memory control skills proposed els set for originally by Ito (2005) and extensively elaboby Klein et al., 2002) are learned in the cerebellum rated by Johnson-Laird (1983), thought processes construct predictive models that are imitative, small-scale computational through its extensive feedback loop connections with representations of the external world that retain the external the prefrontal areas of the brain. The ensuing 15 years world’s relation-structure. Mental models discussed throughout of human neuroimaging studies of the activities of this chapter are characterized by both Ito (1997, 2005) and Badthe cerebro-cerebellar system has born out Leiner deley & Andrade (2000) as the Johnson-Laird type. Craik described how the preserved relation structure of the model is com- et al.,’s (1986, 1989) preliminary evolutionary arguputationally parallel in its predictive ability to that which it imi- ments and evidence of extensive reciprocal feedback tates: modulation between the cerebellum on the one hand, and language and a variety of other mental skill areas A calculating machine, an anti-aircraft “predictor”, and Kelvin’s tidal predictor all show the same ability. In all of the cerebral cortex, including those associated with of these cases, the physical process, which it is desired to working memory on the other (Ackermann et al., 2004; predict, is imitated [by preserving the relation-structure] Cabeza & Nyberg, 2000; Chein et al., 2003; Desmond by some mechanical device or model which is cheaper, & Fiez, 1998; Doya, 1999; Schmahmann, 1997, 2004). quicker, or more convenient in operation. (1943, p. 52) Thus, today, there is ample evidence that, indeed, In the case of modeling by the cerebellum, models (forward and controller) are composed from of mental models operat- working memory and the cerebellum have, over the ing in the cerebral cortex, including those of working memory. course of human evolution, come to collaborate in Thus, Ito (2005) suggests the relation-structure of the cerebellar making all online thought processes increasingly more model captures the fundamentals of predictive operation of menefficient and adaptive (see Ito, 1997 for a thoroughgotal models employed in the cerebral cortex; the cerebellar model thereby makes the operations of the cortical models faster, “neu- ing treatment of the adaptive role of the cerebellum in rologically cheaper,” and adaptive. a variety of levels of human and animal brain function).

13

Working Memory, the Cognitive Functions of the Cerebellum and the Child Prodigy

For the Cerebellum, Movement and Thought Are Identical Control “Objects” In order to understand the logic of how the cerebellum’s role in the manipulation of ideas need not be differentiated from its manipulation of movement, Ito (1993, 1997, 2005) pointed out that, at the neurological level, movements and thoughts can be shown to be identical “control objects” (control objects are things we intentionally manipulate or imagine manipulating): In thought, ideas and concepts are manipulated just as limbs are in movements. There would be no distinction between movement and thought once encoded in the neuronal circuitry of the brain; therefore, both movement and thought can be controlled with the same neural mechanisms. (1993, p. 449)

The control of the components of working memory in solving problems, for example, reading a newspaper, or mentally rearranging the furniture to make room for a new sofa, and so on is not different in neurological principle from the control of limbs in solving problems, for example, lifting a cup of coffee to the lips, or using the feet, legs, arms, and hands to execute shooting a basketball into a hoop. Both thoughts and limbs can be “moved around” by the same neural mechanisms. (Also, see Rosenbaum, Carlson and Gilmore (2001) for a more recent and far-ranging version of this argument.) Thus Ito (1993, 2005) has shown how, as the use of either thought or limb components is repeated, the cerebellum acts to make the manipulations smoother, faster, more efficient, more appropriately adaptive, and automatic.

The Enormous Computing Capacity of the Cerebellum Following Leiner et al.’s (1986, 1989, 1991) early foundational arguments on the evolution of the functions of the cerebellum, Leiner and Leiner (1997) suggested that the evolutionary selective advantage of the greatly enlarging cerebellum was that cerebellar computing capacities were being selected as an “operating system” (determining the which, when and where of cerebro-cerebellar information flows) for the evolving, yoked complexities of human

301

movement, language, and thought. The Leiner’s computer-operating system metaphor appears to be an apt one. The million or so years of rapid evolution of cerebro-cerebellar circuitry would have included, of course, operating system adaptive control of the central executive, visuospatial sketchpad, and speech loop of human working memory (Cabeza et al., 2000; Chein et al., 2003). To provide a view of the leap forward for mental life of this very rapid evolutionary advance, Leiner and Leiner (1997) described the huge computing capacity of neural connections between the human cerebellum and the cerebral cortex at some 40 million nerve tracts – greater than the number of optic nerve tracts. In addition, the cerebellum itself contains approximately 100 billion neurons; this is more than the rest of the entire brain (Andersen, Korbo & Pakkenberg, 1992). Furthermore, although the cerebellar anatomy of most of these 100 billion neurons is nearly uniform throughout, through evolution, functions have been organized topographically in the cerebellum. That is, specific areas in the cerebellum are interconnected, in a bi-directional manner, with specific functional areas in the cerebral cortex, including those of working memory (Schmahmann, 1996, 2004). The details of this enormous amount of dedicated cerebro-cerebellar connectivity are beyond the scope of this chapter, but it is significant to recognize that the influence of the cerebellum in the attentional, linguistic, and spatial/temporal adaptive control in the internal world of the brain might be considered to rival, in the modulation of motor and mental skills, the influence of the nerve tracts of the visual system on the perceived spatial and temporal dimensions of the external visual world (see Leiner & Leiner, 1997, pp. 542–547; Leiner et al., 1986, 1989; Schmahmann & Pandya, 1997; Schmahmann, 2004). It will be helpful to keep these powerful “computational” ideas in mind when, later in this chapter, we examine the internal experiential worlds of the child prodigy and of Albert Einstein.

How Cerebellar Control Models Influence Working Memory Processes Toward Higher Levels of Abstraction Everyday, we are confronted with a myriad of movement and mental situations, some of which may

302

arise unexpectedly and require out-of-the-ordinary responses. In terms of movement, it may be as simple as needing to catch (or divert) a falling cup of coffee that is headed for freshly completed draft of a research paper, or, mentally, for a teacher, it might be trying to calmly engage an over argumentative student (or colleague) with novel counter arguments. For working memory to meet such a variety of situations in a quick, smooth, and appropriately adaptive manner, “dynamics” control models are learned in specialized neural circuitry in the cerebellum (see footnote 4). The key to the adaptability of these dynamics models is that they do not learn specific movement and thought patterns but rather abstract the dynamics of such movement and thought (Imamizu et al., 2003; Ito, 1997; Kawato, 1999). By virtue of this type of abstractive construction, the resulting dynamics models are adaptable to a broad variety of future situations that share the same general state space of the original movement and thoughts (Ito, 1984a, 1984b, 1993, 1997). Neurological details describing how cerebellar dynamics models are learned are beyond the scope of this chapter but can be simplified for purposes here in the following manner. The abstraction (or “redescription”) of activity of the cerebral cortex into cerebellar dynamics models can be described in terms of convergence ratios of incoming movement and thought information (neural connections) onto cerebellar Purkinje cells and their resulting classification of these inputs into distilled patterns of movement and thought – each Purkinje cell is contacted by approximately 200,000 diverse inputs (for a discussion see Houk & Wise, 1995). This convergence-driven abstraction of movement/thought information (based on error signals during repetitive learning) results in abstracted dynamics models (see Ito, 1997, 2005). One may think of the resulting state space of the dynamics model as a three-dimensional problem space of previously learned movements or conceptual thought patterns (like those, for example, confabulated in repetitive working memory processing) (Haruno et al., 1999, 2001; Imamizu et al., 2003; Ito, 1997). This state-space of possible movement or thought tendencies is available at a mostly unconscious level and is triggered automatically. It is a common experience for people to automatically respond with great speed and deftness, often to their own surprise, to both of the situations described above involving the falling cup of coffee or the overly argumentative student. More will be said of

L.R. Vandervert

the learning of this “automaticity” of response in the next section.

The Role of the Cerebellum in the Manipulation of Thought via Mental Models: Conscious and Unconscious (Automatic) Control in Working Memory In repetitive-learning processes, the cerebellum acquires two types of dynamics models, namely, forward (predictor) models and inverse (controller) dynamics models. A forward model predicts the outcome of a movement or thought; the prediction is confirmed by the sensory consequences of the forward action, either motor or mental. For example, everyone has had the experience of assuming the predictive “hypothesis” that, for example, a particular cup of coffee was full when actually empty. Then, when the cup is lifted, the discovery is made that the hypothesis was in error as the cup overshoots the expected degree of lift. The point is that the cerebro-cerebellar system had used a forward model of the situation that turned out to be in error. On the other hand, inverse dynamics models are defined as neural representations of the motor commands related to control objects necessary to achieve movement goals, just the opposite of the forward models (see, Ito, 1997, p. 481; Kawato & Gomi, 1992, pp. 445–446). This may sound a little complicated, but in everyday language this differentiation simply means that predictor (forward) models permit behavioral/mental predictions associated with rapid, skilled movement/thought at a conscious level, while cerebellar controller (inverse) models (learned from repetitive forward models) permit the motor cortex to be bypassed, thus allowing rapid, skilled movement/thought to take place at an unconscious level. When we are first learning to shoot baskets, drive a car, or solve problems in working memory (for example, make change in a foreign currency) each conscious attempt is controlled by a predictor (forward) model, and error signals indicate the appropriateness of the predictor model. After much practice (repetition) and the predictor model is established, a controller (inverse) model is formed as practice continues so that the task can be accomplished automatically without conscious effort (Ito, 2005). For-

13

Working Memory, the Cognitive Functions of the Cerebellum and the Child Prodigy

ward models often generate novel or creative behavior and cognition; inverse models show how practice (either conscious practice or state-space generated) leads to automaticity of behavior and cognition. For simplicity, forward and inverse dynamics models may hereafter be thought of as predictor and controller models. Ito (1997) provided an example of the respective operation of predictor and controller models that can be used to describe the learning of mental models of working memory activity by the cerebellum: According to the psychological concept of a mental model (Johnson-Laird, 1983) [see endnote 3], thought may be viewed as a process of manipulating a mental model formed in the parietolateral association cortex by commands from the prefrontal association cortex. A cerebellar microcomplex [consisting of a Purkinje cell and so forth as described above] may be connected to neuronal circuits involved in thought and may represent a dynamics [predictor] or an inverse dynamics [controller] model of a mental model. In other words, a mental model might be transferred from the parietolateral association cortex to the cerebellar microcomplex during repetition of a thought. By analogy to voluntary movement, one may speculate that formation of a dynamics [predictor] model in the cerebellum would enable us to think correctly [and rapidly] in a feedforward manner, i.e., without the need to check the outcome of the thought. This may be the case when one performs a quick arithmetical calculation [accomplished, of course, in working memory]. . ..However, an inverse dynamics [controller] model in the cerebellum would enable us to think automatically without conscious effort. (p. 483)

303

cerebellar models are thought to operate in multiple, tightly coupled pairs which can decompose, reorganize, and newly combine aspects of the thought processes of working memory.

Multiple Pairs of Predictor and Controller Cerebellar Models: The Basis of Synthesis in Thought

Wolpert and Kawato (1998) proposed multiple-paired predictor (forward) and controller (inverse) models for motor and thought-related imagery control. Within this cerebellar architecture, a relatively small number of separate but interconnected pairs of predictor and controller models have been shown to cover an enormous range of learning and control contexts, including both motor and cognitive tasks such as those associated with working memory (Haruno et al., 1999, 2001; Imamizu et al., 2003; Kawato, 1999). As indicated in the Introduction to this chapter, this overall adaptive cerebellar architecture is referred to as MOdular Selection and Identification for Control (MOSAIC/HMOSAIC) (Haruno et al., 2001; Imamizu et al., 2003; Wolpert et al., 2003). In the MOSAIC/HMOSAIC cerebellar architecture each of several paired models (each with a predictor and a controller model) that is brought to bear on a Ito’s above speculation that forward mental models particular behavioral/mental situation has a particular learned in the cerebellum, then fed back to the cere- “responsibility” predictor function associated with bral cortex, would allow us to think correctly in a feed- it. This responsibility predictor determines the pair’s forward manner has been born out by more recent re- contribution to the current movement or thought search on the cognitive-modeling functions of the cere- situation. The responsibility predictor of each pair of bellum (Blackwood et al., 2004; Haruno et al., 1999; models is probabilistic, based on its history of learning Imamizu et al., 2007, 2000, 2003; Wolpert et al., 2003). errors in that context. For example, in a case where It is important to recognize here that Ito is talking about working memory is repetitiously culling and mulling a cerebellar model of a mental model being used in over information in a problem situation, the responsiworking memory of the cerebral cortex. bility predictor function would result in the activation How many predictor (forward) and controller of some predictor (forward) models of the several (unconsciously manipulated) mental models might the pairs and not others. The activation of these predictor cerebellum abstract from working memory processes? (forward) models would be experienced in working What drives the speed and domain selection for the memory as situation-related imagery, the execution “rage to master” described by Winner (1996)? How do of situation-related overt behavior, and would also the new, more efficient cerebellar models become part include imagery associated with stimulus-independent of the dynamics of working memory? thought (e.g., contemplation, reflection, daydreaming, To begin to answer these questions and address how Teasdale et al., 1995), and “internal speech” (Ackerthey might be related to the child prodigy phenomenon, mann et al., 2004). As attentional control in working we will now examine how predictive and controller memory processing continued moment-by-moment,

304

the details of the mental situation would change, and responsibility would accordingly shift to other predictor (forward) models as various pairs’ appropriateness to the situation also changed. In addition, when working memory is manipulating different ideas with unknown collective dynamics, the cerebellum simultaneously runs multiple predictor models to test hypotheses concerning their appropriateness to the problem at hand (Wolpert et al., 2003, p. 596). That is, each predictor model can be thought of as a hypothesis tester for the problem situation being addressed in working memory (see Blackwood et al., 2004). The multiple-paired models in the MOSAIC/HMOSAIC architecture have the following properties that, when combined, are especially salient, depending on the level of attentional control in working memory, to the synthesis of variant ideas, to wholly new ideas, to the acquisition of ideas learned from others or from the environment at large, and to the level of abstraction achieved with these ideas. First, the predictor (forward) model of each pair is used to adaptively simulate the imaginary manipulation of thoughts/ideas (Imamizu et al., 2003; Wolpert & Kawato, 1998) in stimulus-independent thought in working memory. In addition, multiple predictor (forward) models can be combined to produce an enormous repertoire of such adaptive mental imagery. Second, multiple pairs of models can represent decomposed motor/conceptual primitives (Haruno et al., 1999; Imamizu et al., 2003; Wolpert & Kawato, 1998). This allows complex problems to be broken down into smaller sub-problems, each learned by a separate pair of models or collection of paired models. Below, the special relevance of this property of decomposition to the world of the child prodigy will be discussed in terms of Mandler’s (2004) work on the origin and nature of conceptual primitives. Third, each pair of multiple-paired models generalizes to novel objects (either motor or conceptual primitives) whose dynamics lie within the problem space of already-learned dynamics (Blackwood et al., 2004; Haruno et al., 2001; Wolpert & Kawato, 1998). Thus the responsibility predictor function, along with the above features of the paired-models architecture, has the potential to act to explore both previously learned and newly formed problem spaces. Fourth, segments of the entire foregoing framework of adaptive modifications to cortical models can be repeatedly mulled over in working memory and thus be further modeled

L.R. Vandervert

in MOSAIC/HMOSAIC and thereby be further abstracted/redescribed toward higher and higher levels of abstraction. In addition to the above properties of MOSAIC/HMOSAIC, as learning beginning in infancy progresses, concepts are derived on top of established movement and thought repertoires at different levels of abstraction, and a hierarchy of responsibility control for these different levels develops. This is the hierarchical aspect of the HMOSAIC cerebellar architecture (Haruno et al., 2001; Imamizu et al., 2003; Wolpert et al., 2003). Responsibility control for movement and thought can be shifted up and down the learned layers in the HMOSAIC architecture. For example, imageschematic conceptual primitives learned in early infancy (a foundational layer of HMOSAIC) can be interpreted as powerfully influencing the development of language modeling in a bottom-up direction (Mandler, 2004; Vandervert et al., 2007b), and high-level language abstractions learned later in development can downwardly influence the ongoing decomposition of these same image-schematic conceptual primitives for use in the visuospatial sketchpad of working memory to solve highly abstract problems (those associated with higher level layers of HMOSAIC). It will be argued in the final section of this chapter that all of the above properties of paired models within the HMOSAIC architecture allows analysis, in terms of imagery control, of the constantly shifting working memory world of the child prodigy in the same way HMOSAIC allows the analysis of the detailed control operations of the worlds of movement and cognition in general (see Oztop et al., 2005; Wolpert et al., 2003).

The Theoretical Bases for Working Memory/Cerebellar Accounts of the Child Prodigy’s “Forward-Modeling,” Unique Experiential World The term “forward modeling,” is used in this chapter to capture the meanings of Winner’s (1996) “rage to master” characterizations of case accounts of child prodigies. “Forward modeling” incorporates a variety of inherited and learned “forward” tendencies that arise from the working memory/cerebellar reciprocal

13

Working Memory, the Cognitive Functions of the Cerebellum and the Child Prodigy

305

organisms with advanced nervous systems.5 Perhaps for highly mobile vertebrates the most common daily selective situations requiring fast-paced, forwardmodeling, predictive responses are prey–predator skirmishes. A wolf can be imagined chasing a rabbit, each of them following a respective zigzag pursuit or escape path through a complex environment with some moments unexpectedly favorable to either. These daily skirmishes, of course, usually end by being deadly or reaffirming and thus, for both animals, strongly favor the selection of swift, appropriate and highly coordinated perceptual-motor control, memory search, and decisional processes. An inherited capacity in the nervous systems of such skirmishing animals (including humans) to quickly learn and then Evolutionary Context errorlessly execute escape, avoidance, and/or pursuit responses to novelty-laden patterns of behavior on the Before embarking on the discussion of the child parts of other animals in such skirmishes would have prodigy’s unique experiential world, we must address been constantly selected – it would have been a (if two interrelated theoretical issues that are critically not the) prime selector of the nervous system’s higher important to understanding the neurophysiological cognitive control functions. bases upon which we will interpret it. First, what evoSpecifically to this point, as part of their lutionary selection led to the progressive collaboration foundational evolutionary arguments on the cogof working memory and the cerebellum in regard to nitive functions of the cerebellum (portions of progressively forward-exploring modeling of behavior which were presented earlier in this chapter), Leiner and cognition? Second, within this evolutionary et al. (1986) proposed how cerebellar modulation of context, what was the experiential advantage bestowed by the forward-exploring three components of working memory (the central executive and its two recursive 5 The entire scenario of a typical prey-predator skirmish would (rehearsing) slave systems, the speech loop and the require both the prediction and the initiation of a series of nonlinvisuospatial sketchpad)? An account of the details of ear events (each subsequent move of the predator/prey being an the adaptive evolution of the probable categories of attempt at “novelty”). For example, Ito (2005) pointed out that: “Since the dynamics of organism movements and their interacthe experiential world of these three components and tions with the dynamics of other organisms and with the environhow they are modulated by the MOSAIC/HMOSAIC ment are usually nonlinear phenomena, rapid simulation is the cerebellar architectures will allow us to get “inside,” only available approach to prediction and hence behavior conby way of the attentional control of mental models, ducive to survival” (pp. 160–161). The neurological substrates of the prefrontal lobes as connected with the cerebellum that surthe child prodigy’s early age-sensitivity, and “rage to vived countless generations of such nonlinear selection would, master.” as Leiner et al. (1986) suggested, no doubt entail capacities for relationship, and variously means, depending on the operational context, forward modeling, forward exploring, or forward driven. This is an important conception in the neurosciences and is one which is implicit in the study of memory of all types, the integrative, goal-oriented, “planning” and future-oriented roles of the prefrontal areas of the brain (Blackwood et al., 2004; Ingvar, 1985; MacLean, 1991; Miller & Cohen, 2001), and the “adaptive” modeling roles of the cerebellum (Ito, 1997, 2005). It has been commented upon at length by many neuroscientists.

The Evolutionary Premise for the Collaborative Forward Modeling of Working Memory and the Cerebellum The requirements for forward-modeling cognition and behavior arise in the vagaries of the everyday novelty-laden (nonlinear) survival situations of all

forward and automatic simulations (modeling) of probabilistic predictions of events about to unfold. Directly along this line, Ito (2005) argued that the collective-modeling functions of the cerebellum essentially comprise a future-state simulator. This is a fruitful way of looking at the cerebellum, for it must be recognized that the integrative memory functions of the prefrontal lobes, the memory functions of the hippocampus (Miller & Cohen, 2001), and the anticipatory modeling of the cerebellum (all bi-directionally interconnected) were selected for the advantage of predicting future states in a threatening, rapidly changing environment. In sum, an organism only has an evolutionary need for memory of any kind if it has an evolutionary need to anticipate and predict the course of future moments and the movements they will likely require.

306

conceptual information would be a critical selective advantage in novel situations: In confronting a novel situation, the individual may need to carryout some preliminary mental processing before action can be taken, such as processing to estimate the potential consequences of the action before deciding whether to act or to refrain from acting. In such decisiongenerating processes, the prefrontal cortex is activated (Roland, 1984) [see Miller & Cohen, 2001]. This cortex, via its connections with the cerebellum, could utilize cerebellar preprogramming to manipulate conceptual data rapidly. As a result, a quick decision could be made. This could then be communicated to the motor areas (Goldman-Rakic, 1992), including the supplementary motor area. (p. 448)

In addition to the prefrontal cortex, such preliminary mental processing (forward modeling) would occur in conjunction with, for example, (1) frontal motor imagery areas where imagined movements are activated, (2) both cognitive and emotional adaptive functions of the cerebellum (Schmahmann, 2004), and (3) emotional functions of the limbic system and functions of many other brain areas (Miller & Cohen, 2001; Roland, 1984; Wolpaw, Birbaumer, McFarland, Pfurtscheller & Vaughan, 2002). (Also see footnote 5.)

L.R. Vandervert

that constitutes the internal environment of the brain. The prefrontal cortex acts as an executive cortex [the central executive functions of working memory] and manipulates the mental models represented in the internal environment [consisting of the visuospatial sketchpad and language loop of working memory], and this is thinking. Based on a formalistic analogy between movement and thought, the author views a thought to be the control of a mental model, just as a voluntary movement is the control of a motor apparatus (Ito, 1991, 1993). In movements and thoughts, the objects to be controlled are very different from each other in nature, but they are equivalent to each other as control objects. Thus. . .while the executive cortex manipulates a mental model, the cerebellum copies it to form a forward [italics added] model and thereafter, the executive cortex can perform the thought by manipulating the internal model. The inverse model [also called a “controller” model] control system for voluntary movements. . .can also apply to the inverse control [automatically performed without consciousness] of thought. If the forward and inverse model controls are combined, an interesting possibility emerges that the cerebellum conducts the entire process of thinking [within certain sub-areas of thought]. . .which will not come up to the level of consciousness. This may explain our daily experience that, after repeated trials of learning, a correct answer pops out readily without a conscious effort. (Ito, 2005, p. 102)

The Cerebellum Is Critical in the Composition, Rate of Acquisition, and Forward Drive of the Developing Child’s Working Memory Store of Mental Models

The Developmental Floor of HMOSAIC as an Unconscious “Driver” of Attentional Control in Working Memory

Masao Ito (2005), a recipient of the Japan Prize, described the sequence of events through which the cerebral cortex and the cerebellum jointly participate in the mental confabulation of the mental models of phenomenal experience. Ito’s following description of this construction (mental modeling) of the experiential world begins in infancy, certainly by age 6–12 months (Colombo, 2001; Mandler, 2004) and would apply to both typical children and to child prodigies: When we think, the object to be controlled is a mental model, more concretely, a visual image or an abstract concept or idea. . ..Mental models are formed in the neuronal circuit of the cerebral cortex by associating various pieces of information received through the sensory cortex or arising from other areas of the cerebral cortex, and stored in the temporoparietal cortex

Of course, not only are collections of individual mental models acquired in the fashion described above by Ito. In the same manner, accompanying “regimes” of attentional control models are learned in the central executive of working memory beginning in infancy (Akshoomoff et al., 1997). How the cerebellum’s adaptive architecture of control is imparted to such regimes through learning was described earlier in this chapter as consisting of multiple-paired models (each pair, consisting of a forward model and a controller model) within hierarchical MOdular Selection and Identification for Control (HMOSAIC) (Haruno et al., 1999, 2001; Wolpert et al., 2003). These cognitive control regimes drive the confabulation of a complex, consistent internal experiential world in the mind of any child.

13

Working Memory, the Cognitive Functions of the Cerebellum and the Child Prodigy

To what degree is the cerebellum involved in copying prefrontal cortex models of attentional control regimes and adaptively modulate them? Through the copying of working memory’s central executive processes the cerebellum is a full partner, with the prefrontal cortex and temporoparietal cortex, in the early infant’s HMOSAIC regime-establishing process – we might refer to the adaptive purpose of these regimes as “the attentional control architecture of the mind.” Akshoomoff et al. (1997) have concluded that attentional control in the cerebellum responds selectively in advance of stimulation, as opposed to merely enhancing general responsiveness. Because Akshoomoff et al. illustrate how attentional control (via the HMOSAIC architecture) ties together the working memory world, we quote their conclusions at length: A recent attempt to account for a whole range of physioanatomical facts theorizes that the cerebellum is a master computational system that adjusts responsiveness in a variety of networks to attain a prescribed goal (Courchesne, 1995; Courchesne et al., 1994c). These networks include those thought to be involved in declarative memory, working memory, attention, arousal, affect, language, speech, homeostasis, and sensory modulation as well as motor control. This may require the cerebellum to implement a succession of precisely timed and selected changes in the pattern or level of neural activity in these diverse networks. We hypothesized that the cerebellum does this by encoding (“learning”) temporally ordered sequences of multi-dimensional information about external and internal events (effector, sensory, affective, mental, autonomic), and, as similar sequences of external and internal events unfold, they elicit a readout of the full sequence in advance of the real-time events. This readout is sent to and alters, in advance, the state of each motor, sensory, autonomic, attentional, memory, or affective system which, according to the previous “learning” of this sequence, will soon be actively involved in the current real-time events. The results from our neurobehavioral and neurophysiological studies showing deficits in shifting and orienting attention in patients with cerebellar damage, as well as new fMRI studies showing cerebellar activation during focused attention and shifting attention in normal adults, suggest that the cerebellum plays an important role in several aspects of selective attention. (1997, pp. 592–593)

Following directly in line with Akshoomoff et al.’s above findings and conclusions, it is proposed that (1) a unique cerebellar attentional control architecture (HMOSAIC) is set up very early in each child through repetitive learning, (2) the resultant system of attentional sensitivities and anticipatory capacities drives the composition, acquisition rate, and forward drive

307

characteristics and levels of the working memory mental modeling regime of the child’s internal world, and (3) that it does this through cortical plasticity (e.g., Buonomano & Merzenich, 1998). In this view, the cerebellum can be looked upon as the “cortical plasticity driver” for the exceptional performance of the prodigy. That is, the cortical plasticity(s) of working memory are driven toward higher capacities by adaptive cerebellar modeling (e.g., Blackwood et al., 2004; Haruno et al., 1999, 2001; Wolpert et al., 2003). The foregoing three-part proposal comprises the overarching neurophysiological premise for the hypotheses which will be presented below. Before moving to the final section and the formal hypotheses of this chapter a brief account of conceptual learning in infancy will be presented. This account will place under a micro scope the infant’s seemingly silent learning of attentional control regimes as described above by Akshoomoff et al. and as placed within the HMOSAIC cerebellar control architecture. It is the contention of this chapter that this early learning of attentional control regimes is the most important differentiating precursor of the typical child from the child prodigy, much as, and based on the same brain mechanisms, years of deliberate practice (Ericsson, 2002) can differentiate typical from expert performance.

The Birth of the Central Executive of Working Memory Working in the area of early conceptual development in infancy, Mandler (1988, 1992a, 1992b, 2004) proposed that repetitive perceptual analytic processes occurring during infancy (as early as three months) “redescribe” perceptual information into conceptual primitives (primitive mental models), which in turn underlie the later acquisition of the relational aspects of language. The following abstract from Mandler (1992b) provides a handy synopsis of the tenets of her position: The theory proposes that perceptual analysis redescribes perceptual information into meanings [italics added] that form the basis of an accessible conceptual system. These early meanings are represented in the form of image-schemas that abstract certain aspects of the spatial structure of objects and their movements in space. Image-schemas allow infants to form concepts such as animate and inanimate objects, agents, and containers.

308 It is proposed that this form of representation serves a number of functions, including providing a vehicle for simple inferential and analogical thought, enabling the imitation of actions of others, and providing a conceptual basis for the acquisition of the relational aspects of language. (p. 273)

The critical feature of Mandler’s theory is perceptual analysis, which more recently she calls perceptual meaning analysis (Mandler, 2004) to emphasize that it is a framework of meanings that is extracted by the process. Within Mandler’s theory, perceptual meaning analysis “redescribes” (recodes) perceptual information (both visual and kinesthetic) into spatial meanings, and thus initiates the beginnings of concept formation. In the context of this chapter these earliest spatial meanings erect the foundational floor or level of the infant’s developing cerebellar HMOSAIC attentional control architecture. Strongly supportive of this notion, Mandler (1992b) also proposed that the “redescription” process begins whenever the infant attentively “notices” (not merely looks at) some aspect of the environmental/bodily stimulus array. “Noticing,” of course, signals endogenous (willful) forward modeling of attentional control on the part of the infant. Mandler indicates that the redescription of perceptual information results in a simplified form of information that is of less detail, but of “distilled meaning” (Mandler, 1992a, p. 277). Although Mandler did not propose brain mechanisms as part of her theory, “distilled meaning” can readily be interpreted to mean that, in conjunction with the prefrontal cortex, repetitive perceptual meaning analysis employs abstractive cerebellar modeling (both forward and controller models) as described earlier in this chapter. Mandler’s model can be usefully interpreted as a picture of the awakening operation of working memory starting in infancy. In this interpretation, the central executive of working memory arises from biases that first manifest in the infant’s innately driven perceptual meaning analysis. The resulting image-schematic meanings (originally erected through the central executive and cerebellar modeling) provide the neurological platform that drives the imagery of working memory’s visuospatial sketchpad. The system of meanings inherent in the visuospatial sketchpad provides a distilled, perceptual/cognitive structure upon which advanced phonological (speech) information and language is mapped (Mandler, 2004).

L.R. Vandervert

Accordingly, it can be hypothesized from this point of view that the evolution of language (in both phylogeny and ontogeny) provided the selective advantage that the central executive, with constant cerebellar modulation, could further organize, control, and accelerate the flow of imagery in thought and, of course, during communication. Put a slightly different way, the advantage of language evolution was to control, further decompose and re-compose, organize, and speed the flow of imagery in adaptive ways (these are the management properties of multiple pairs of cerebellar models within the HMOSAIC architecture listed earlier in this chapter; Haruno et al., 1999, 2001; Wolpert et al., 2003). This squares with the three- to fourfold increase in the size of the cerebellum during the past million years of hominid evolution noted by Leiner et al. (1986) and cited at the beginning of this chapter. Language would be represented in a higher level (more abstract) layer of HMOSAIC than the more fundamental image-schemas (conceptual primitives) proposed by Mandler. Thus Mandler’s image-schemas would provide the bottom-up meaning basis for the visuospatial sketchpad in a foundational layer of HMOSAIC, while language would act to decompose and reorganize the multiple-paired models of image-schemas in a top-down fashion to construct an unending world of abstract conceptions, while still retaining the image-schematic grounding in meanings. Examples of such bi-directional control in the HMOSAIC architecture are provided by Wolpert et al., (2003). In the next section we will have occasion to discuss how Albert Einstein conceived of “thinking” as originating in the floor of image-schemas.

Working Memory/Cerebellar Child Prodigy Hypothesis We have now prepared the research and theoretical groundwork for a formal and rigorous hypothesis for the origins and mechanisms that lead to the exceptional intellectual and artistic performances of the child prodigy. In general, the child prodigy behavior to be explained is as described in the following case report excerpt cited by Shavinina (1999). In the excerpt, examples of both Shavinina’s (1999) concept of agesensitivity and Winner’s (1996) idea of the “rage to master” are readily apparent:

13

Working Memory, the Cognitive Functions of the Cerebellum and the Child Prodigy Alexander expressed his unusual abilities at a very early age. He started to read very well and to calculate before he was four years old. His interest in numbers probably indicated his first sensitive period. The boy continually demanded that all adults around him set up simple arithmetic tasks for him; he was hungry for them. In this period, he also liked to write various numbers. The number seven (7) was especially attractive for him: he wrote it everywhere in different forms and sizes painted in various colors. This “digital” period eventually came to an end. Just over four, Alexander had a new sensitive period – the “geographical” one. He read a lot about continents, countries, cities, seas, mountains, and rivers. All his questions to adults concerned only geographical issues. He asked his parents to buy geographical books for him and looked for geographical chapters in the newspapers. He watched TV programs that contained travels around the globe and meteorological news (in this case, he could always see a map of his country). As a result, his acquired knowledge of geography was very impressive. However, his new sensitive period did not consist only of the acquisition of new knowledge on geography. All Alexander’s cognitive activity was directed to achieve one clear goal: to make a map of the world. All his time was devoted to this task. He prepared the map, conveying shapes and names of geographical objects (i.e., continents, countries, etc.) with amazing accuracy. Such an activity certainly required his artistic skills in drawing and painting, which were significantly developed within this period. In a few months, Alexander’s second – “geographical” – period was almost over. (Shavinina, 1999, p. 30)

309

inition of deliberate practice, and see Ericsson, Roring, and Nandagopal (2007). It is further proposed that this heightened attentional control accelerates the blending of already-learned cortical models with cerebellar internal models as found by Imamizu et al. (2007) and this, in turn, produces higher rates of internal forward and controller paired model formation in the cerebellum (in the HMOASIC architecture) and thus the rage to master in the child prodigy..

The Forward-Modeling, Anticipatory “Triggering” of the Child Prodigy’s Exceptional Performance

Based on the research and theory presented earlier in this chapter, the foregoing child prodigy hypothesis is now applied to Shavinina’s (1999) case description of Alexander. First, it should be recognized that by the time of Alexander’s first period of exceptional performance (numbers) and apparent “rage to master” (he was hungry for arithmetic tasks), his unique heighten attentional propensities for this domain of information had likely already been developing for perhaps 3 years. This contention is based on the necessary development of the attentional floor of conceptual primitives in the This report clearly illustrates a persistent “rage to mascerebellar HMOSAIC architecture as described earter” first numbers and then geographical topics that, lier (Akshoomoff et al., 1997; Colombo, 2001; Mancombined, extend across three sensitive periods. We dler, 2004). This means the development of the unique will return to short excerpts from this report below. attentional control propensities of the central executive in Alexander’s working memory and cerebellar forward models thereby included specific knowledge domains that had quite early been undergoing preparation The Child Prodigy Hypothesis to drive forward in the acquisition of particular categories of information (see Fig. 13.1b). Hypothesis: It is proposed that the exceptional accomIt is important to recall here that the entire plishments of child prodigies are the result of heightened attentional control learned beginning in early infancy and framework of attentional control is anticipatory and originating jointly through bi-directional circuitry congoal directed (see Akshoomoff et al., 1997; Leiner necting prefrontal-parietal lobe cognitive control (cenet al., 1986, 1989; Miller & Cohen, 2001) and that tral executive of working memory) and cerebellar attenthe adaptive thrust of cerebellar models is forward or tional forward and controller modeling. Heighten attentional control, depending on the experiential history of the anticipation oriented (Ito, 1997, 2005). While the child infant, becomes specific to knowledge domains, see modprodigy may have attentional control propensities only ularity of cognitive functions Fig. 13.1b. The working in a particular knowledge domain, the origin of which memory/cerebellar induced “heightened attentional conwould be traceable to domain-related patterns in the trol” and resultant accelerated drive in forward/controller model production (“rage to master”) are thus spontaprodigy’s infant experiences (including perceptual neously triggered as the child develops, and follow a longmeaning analysis as described by Mandler), he or she term working memory developmental course as a spontamay well have learned multiple domain propensities, neously initiated (but seemingly “deliberate”) and acceland may, by the same early learning, also be higher erated form of the strategy of deliberate practice as described by Ericsson (2002, 2003a), see footnote 2 for defin attentional control in general than the typical child.

310

Fig. 13.1b illustrates how the learning of differing cognitive domains may be modularized in the cerebellum. In passing, it should be noted that the research that led to the finding that learned cognitive tasks were spatially segregated in the cerebellum (Fig.13.1b) also concluded that the finding supported the MOSAIC cerebellar architecture (Imamizu et al., 2003).

Around What Modules Are the Early Infant’s First Attentional Sensitivities Organized? Following the argument of the foregoing section, as described earlier Mandler (1992a) proposed specific conceptual primitives that are learned through perceptual meaning analysis scanning in early infancy. These learned conceptual primitives (or image-schemas) include the schemas of animacy, agency, causality, containment, path (or trajectory),links (among things,

Fig. 13.2 Pictorial representations of Mandler’s image-schemas (conceptual primitives)

L.R. Vandervert

events), and support (see Fig. 13.2). Attentional control propensities around these conceptual primitives would be the first modeled in the prefrontal cortex and the cerebellum (as a result of repetitious perceptual meaning analysis) and thereby begin to set up an overall attentional control regime in the individual that includes differential propensities across the various primitives as learned “conceptual domains” or “modules” (Fig. 13.1b). In regard to Shavinina’s (1999) report of Alexander’s sensitivity to or fascination with numbers, because numbers, per se, can be reduced to series (path) and linkages, it can be speculated that the conceptual primitives of path andlink may be the earliest conceptual basis for an accelerated forward modeling of the numbers domain. Thus, in the infant Alexander’s developing working memory system, these primitive modules would not only comprise the individual’s foundational layer of hierarchical Modular Selection and Identification Controller (HMOSAIC), but the foundational layer of attentional control in the prefrontal cortex and the accompanying passion

13

Working Memory, the Cognitive Functions of the Cerebellum and the Child Prodigy

or emotional component of the rage to master (see Schmahmann, 1998, 2004 in connection with the passion or emotional components). It is the position of this chapter that as Alexander continues to develop even small differences in the attentional control propensities in these earliest prefrontal/HMOSAIC layers would differentially forward model experiences into the further, hierarchical layers by way of the HMOSAIC abstraction process. These prefrontal/HMOSDAIC layers embody the control parameters for working memory. In this scenario small differences in attentional propensities in Alexander’s early infancy would soon become very large ones. In this manner, it is believed this process is the beginning of a “spontaneous” version of deliberate practice as described by Ericsson et al. (2007). In deliberate practice one endures solitary practice (with very high attention) involving “repeated practice attempts to reach beyond one’s current level with frequent failures” (Ericsson et al., 2007, p. 18). To explain the cumulative power of deliberate practice, Ito (2005) cited Imamizu et al. (2007) findings that when encountering a new challenge the brain attempts to cope by blendingin output from cerebellar models previously learned. The prefrontal and parietal areas of the cerebral cortex contribute to this blending (see also the quote by Ito, 2005, page XX this chapter p. 29 of this ms). Vandervert argued that the high-attentional control and proliferation of cerebellar models in the child prodigy accelerates this blending process producing the “faster speed, superior selection of actions, and more precise motor execution” (Ericsson, 2003b, p. 100) obtained through deliberate practice. Alexander’s precocity would therefore be accounted for as high-attentional control-induced (spontaneous) deliberate practice.

311

swer this question, we will examine Albert Einstein’s lucid, phenomenological account of thinking. Einstein was quite interested in mental processes related to advances in theoretical physics and to science and mathematics in general (Holton, 1979). For example, in talking about mental events occurring in his own mind he referred to “psychical entities” and how thinking arose from “combinatory play” (Hadamard, 1945). And, he often mentioned “intuition” and its indispensable role in the discovery of mathematical and scientific axioms (self-evident truths) (Einstein, 1956). In his “Autobiographical Notes” (Einstein, 1949) he focused on the psychical entities and processing structure of his own internal world. In this 1949 discussion, Einstein offered an account of visual–spatial imagery (a process of working memory) in a sequence of mental events that brings forth a new “ordering element.” The mental sequence leading to this new ordering element can be viewed as the generation of a new attentional control parameter in cerebellar HMOSAIC architecture that is then blended, as described above, into working memory. Einstein referred to the mental process that produced the ordering element as “thinking”: What, precisely, is “thinking”? When, at the reception of sense-impressions, memory-pictures emerge, this is not yet “thinking.” And when such pictures form series, each member of which calls forth another, this too is not yet “thinking.” When, however, a certain picture turns up in many such series, then – precisely through such return – it becomes an ordering element for such series, in that it connects series which in themselves are unconnected. Such an element becomes an instrument, a concept. I think that the transition from free association or “dreaming” to thinking is characterized by the more or less dominating role which the “concept” plays in it. It is by no means necessary that a concept must be connected with a sensorily cognizable and reproducible sign (word); but when this is the case thinking becomes by means of that fact communicable. (Einstein, 1949, p. 7)

In Einstein’s phenomenological account of thinking (perhaps in the mathematical context of possible Working Memory Phenomenology and Cerebellar HMOSAIC Development During equations being used to solve a problem) each pair of forward (predictor) and controller cerebellar modSpontaneous Deliberate Practice els would represent a “trajectory” of “memory-picture series” related to a hypothetical solution. In the termiIt would be valuable to supplement Alexander’s behav- nology of deliberate practice, the “problem” might be ioral account of the formulation of concepts of num- that of reaching the next level of desired performance. bers and geography with a phenomenological account In any case, these trajectories of memory-picture series of high-attentional control-induced deliberate practice. would include conscious/unconscious-level decompoCan we track the conceptual events that take place dur- sitions and recombinations of working memory maing spontaneous deliberate practice? To attempt to an- terial from several levels of the learned HMOSAIC

312

architecture (Vandervert et al., 2007a), very significantly including the foundational-level, learned conceptual primitives (image-schemas) described by Mandler (1992a, 2004).

L.R. Vandervert

learned (most fundamental) layer of image-schemas (see Fig. 13.2). It is also suggested that it is because the new concept development (as Einstein calls it) is ultimately guided by image-schematic conceptual primitives, which are precursors to language, that the new concept may or may not, as Einstein observes, be connected with words. What Drives the Cognitive Picture Series In sum, the state of image-schematic primitives in Toward the Solution of Problems? the lower levels of Einstein’s personal HMOSAIC architecture would act to guide the adaptive error calcuIn Einstein’s memory-picture description, the picture lations of his three “competing” hypothetical predicseries would be activated by working memory’s cen- tor imageries toward the constructive selection of the tral executive attentional control of its visual-spatial new ordering element (see Haruno et al., 1999). Thus sketchpad. As suggested earlier in the case of Alexan- a new level of abstraction is achieved in the HMOder, the higher the attentional control, the more rapid SAIC hierarchy of control parameters. Since the new would be the repetitions in working memory slave sys- cerebellar model is fed forward to and blended with tems in retrieving memory information, and, thus, the the cortical areas of working memory, this new level more rapid the developmental growth of the cerebellar constitutes a new capacity for thought (and/or movement) in the frontal and prefrontal cortices. It is a new HMOSAIC architecture. For simplicity of illustration, let’s say there are three stage in the capacity to think that has been achieved sets of memory-picture series running repetitiously through “practice” (Einstein’s mulling of ideas). It is in Einstein’s working memory. Simultaneously in believed that precisely the same constructive process the cerebellum these picture series consist of pairs of occurs in the development of new stages of capacity forward (predictor) and controller models exercising through deliberate practice. That is, the collaboration modulation of adaptive control (Ito, 1997, 2005). of working memory and the paired forward/controller Each of these three collaborative cerebro-cerebellar models of the cerebellum is a general workhorse protrajectories may be thought of as running hypotheses cess that builds the structure of the thought process concerning the problem situation at hand (see Wolpert in a stage-wise manner in all people. High attention, et al., 2003, p. 596). Then, in his description, Ein- repetitive learning can build this structure of thought to stein says a certain picture turns up in many series, adaptively operate more quickly and accurately and to and this certain picture thereby serves as an order- a higher level. ing element. In the multi-paired model/HMOSAIC analysis, this ordering-element picture would be a new “least error” image arising from the mix of the three forward/controller model series that was Does Heightened Attentional Control evolving in an online fashion in Einstein’s working Trigger Exceptional Intellectual memory (Blackwood et al., 2004; Wolpert et al., 2003; Performance? Attention Capacity Imamizu et al., 2003). What would guide the selective emergence of the new least error forward (predictor) and Fluid Intelligence model? Recall, as argued in the previous section, that working memory/cerebellar control operations Following from Einstein’s conception of thinking it is are, within the present theory, ultimately based on of considerable relevance to (and corroborative supthe system of image-schematic primitives (basic port for) the heightened attentional control hypothemeanings) learned in infancy (Mandler, 1992a, 2004). sis presented in this chapter that attentional capacity This means that with other and more abstract layers in in working memory has been heavily investigated and the HMOSAIC architecture are also ultimately “error- shown to be an important driver of fluid intelligence. guided” by these foundational conceptual primitives, Over the past several decades a close relationship has the new concepts that will connect the most varied been proposed, first between short-term memory and sources of observations will be based on the originally intelligence, and subsequently between working mem-

13

Working Memory, the Cognitive Functions of the Cerebellum and the Child Prodigy

ory and intelligence – see Hanbrick, Kane and Engle (2005) for a history and review. Most recently, Engle and his colleagues from several working memory research labs have demonstrated that individual differences in working memory capacity (differences in the ability to control attention) are highly related to fluid intelligence (Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin & Conway (1999); Heitz, Unsworth & Engle (2005); Kane, Bleckley, Conway & Engle, 2001). Engle and his colleagues have convincingly argued that the prefrontal cortex provides the critical (but not only) cerebral cortical substrate for the executive attention control associated with working memory capacity and fluid intelligence (Kane & Engle, 2002). Cowan (2005), a major developer of working memory theory and whose definition of working memory was cited earlier in this chapter, has proposed that adjustable-attention processes are key to understanding individual differences in working memory capacity and fluid intelligence. Cowan argues that a flexible attention system can zoom in to hold onto a goal (despite attentional interference) or zoom out (in the absence of interference) to apprehend more information to account for working memory capacity and fluid intelligence within and across individuals. Cowan (2005) includes parietal lobe functions (cp. Ito, 1997, 2005) as the seat of this attention, whereas he feels the frontal lobes are more involved in its control. While the arguments of the present chapter are in general agreement with foregoing attention-based approaches of Engle and his colleagues and with Cowan, the present discussion of working memory and intelligence departs from theirs in three extremely important ways. First, the mental modeling aspects of working memory are emphasized (`a la Baddeley, 1993). This emphasis permits attentional control of working memory to be related to the leading modelbased theoretical approaches to cognitive processes in both the prefrontal cortex and the cerebellum. Second, the working memory/cerebellar attentional control approach offers an explanation for domainspecific exceptional intellectual performance by way of modularity of cognitive/attentional functions in the cerebellum (Fig. 13.1b). Third, the working memory/cerebellar approach to the child prodigy, while critically involving the prefrontal and parietal lobes of the cerebral cortex, shifts much of the explanatory burden for high intellectual ability to the reciprocal learning relationships between the anticipatory,

313

adaptive cognitive affective and attentional-modeling functions of the cerebellum and those of the cerebral cortex. In closing, it must be said that, in a very real sense, explanations of either the intelligence or the child prodigy without strong reference to the adaptivemodeling functions of the cerebellum seem to be like the patient with cerebellar damage who shows gross dysmetria of thought. Dysmetria of thought is a collection of cognitive and emotional manifestations of the “cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome” proposed by leading cerebellum researcher Jeremy Schmahmann (1988, 2004) and his colleagues: It [dysmetria of thought] is characterized by (1) disturbances of executive function, which includes deficient planning, set-shifting, abstract reasoning, working memory, and decreased verbal fluency; (2) impaired spatial cognition, including visual-spatial disorganization and impaired visual-spatial memory; (3) personality change characterized by flattening or blunting of affect and disinhibited or inappropriate behavior; and (4) linguistic difficulties, including dysprosodia, agrammatism and mild anomia. The net effect of these disturbances in cognitive functioning was a general lowering of overall intellectual function. (2004, p. 371)

Conclusion During the explosive enlargement of the cerebellum over the last million years of hominid evolution, working memory required new, more complex attentional control for the faster-than-real time manipulation of pre-language and language that has alerted us to the cerebellum’s role in all aspects of high-level thought. Creativity, fluid intelligence, expert performance, and the exceptional abilities of child prodigies are all implicated. When examined in the context of conceptual learning in early infancy, the necessity of attentional control modeling by working memory’s central executive (prefrontal cortex cognitive control) and the cerebellum becomes apparent. The collaboration of working memory and the cognitive cerebellum builds a powerful attentional control platform (HMOSAIC) that is domain specific and that serves working memory throughout life. The hierarchical levels of HMOSAIC, while developing throughout life, always retain a solid footing in those first conceptual primitives of relations among objects, space, and time learned in infancy.

314

As Fox (1988) pointed out, since the movements of organisms in their survival relation to the movements of other organisms and the environment usually nonlinear, the selective evolution of attentional control must always be anticipatory; it is always about the probabilities of future circumstances (see endnote 5). The main high-level thrust of the human nervous system, as seen in the finely articulated bi-directional control between the prefrontal cortex and the cerebellum, is anticipatory forward modeling. In the case of high intellectual performance though extended deliberate practice, even though every mind is wrapped in the protection of advanced culture, the power of this extended forward modeling shows through. Ericsson found that “the essence of expert performance is a generalized skill at successfully meeting the demands of new situations and rapidly adapting to changing conditions” (Ericsson, 2002, p. 41). In light of the accelerated modeling produced by the cognitive control of the prefrontal cortex and the attentional control functions of the cerebellum, the entire powerful theoretical framework of Ericsson’s deliberate practice can be pushed back to a point beginning in early infancy. This, it is believed, is true in the case of the accelerated extraordinary performance and “rage to master” of the child prodigy, except the prodigy is usually limited to figurative processing or what Winner (1996, 2000) refers as little-c creativity (not domain altering). This limitation is dependent, perhaps, upon the stage (preoperational) reached in the development of prefrontal cortex cognitive control and coordinate levels of cerebellar HMOSAIC when the heightened attentional control finds a suitable domainspecific outlet – Einstein was certainly not limited to little-c creativity.

References Ackermann, H., Mathiak, K., & Ivry, R. B. (2004). Temporal organization of “internal speech” as a basis for cerebellar modulation of cognitive functions. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3, 14–22. Akshoomoff, N., Courchesne, E., & Townsend, J. (1997). Attention coordination and anticipatory control. In J.D. Schmahmann (Ed.), The cerebellum and cognition (pp. 575–598). New York: Academic Press. Andersen, B., Korbo, L., & Pakkenberg, B. (1992). A quantitative study of the human cerebellum with unbiased stereological techniques. The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 326, 549–560.

L.R. Vandervert Baddeley, A. (1992, January 31). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559. Baddeley, A. (1993). Working memory and conscious awareness. In A. Collins, S. Gathercole, M. Conway, & P. Morris (Eds.), Theories of memory (pp. 11–28). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Baddeley, A., & Andrade, J. (2000). Working memory and the vividness of imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 126–145. Baddeley, A., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 28–61). New York: Cambridge University Press. Blackwood, N., Ffytche, D., Simmons, A., Bentall, R., Murray, R., & Howard, R. (2004). The cerebellum and decision making under uncertainty. Cognitive Brain Research, 20, 46–53. Bloedel, J. R., Dichgans, J. & Precht, W. (1985). Cerebellar functions. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Buonomano, D., & Merzenich, M. (1998). Cortical plasticity: From synapses to maps. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 21, 149–186. Cabeza, R., & Nyberg, L. (2000). Imaging cognition II: An empirical review of 275 PET and fMRI studies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(1), 1–47. Chein, J. M., Ravizza, S. M., & Fiez, J. A., (2003). Using neuroimaging to evaluate models of working memory and their implications for language processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 16, 315–339. Colombo, J. (2001). The development of visual attention in infancy. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 337–367. Cowan, N. (1999). Embedded-processes model of working memory. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 62–101). New York: Cambridge University Press. Cowan, N. (2005). Understanding intelligence: A summary and an adjustable-attention hypothesis. In O. Wilhelm & R.W. Engle (Eds.), Handbook of understanding and measuring intelligence (pp. 469–488). London: Sage Publications. Craik, K. (1943). The nature of explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Desmond, J., & Fiez, J. (1998). Neuroimaging studies of the cerebellum: Language, learning and memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 355–362. Doya, K. (1999). What are the computations of the cerebellum, the basal ganglia and the cerebral cortex? Neural Networks, 12, 961–974. Einstein, A. (1949). Autobiographical notes. In A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-scientist (Vol. 1, pp. 1–95). La Salle, IL: Open Court. Einstein, A. (1956). Lettres a` Maurice Solovine. Paris: GauthierVillars. Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory and general fluid intelligence: A latent variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309–331. Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: Insights from the study of expert performance. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence through education (pp. 21–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

13

Working Memory, the Cognitive Functions of the Cerebellum and the Child Prodigy

Ericsson, K. A. (2003a). The acquisition of expert performance as problem solving. In J.E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 31–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A. (2003b). The search for general abilities and basic capacities: Theoretical implications from the modifiability and complexity of mechanisms mediating expert performance. In R. J. Sternberg & E. I. Grigorenko (Eds.), The psychology of abilities, competencies, and expertise (pp. 93– 125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245. Ericsson, K. A., Roring, R., & Nandagopal, K. (2007) Giftedness and evidence for reproducibly superior performance: An account based on the expert performance framework. High Ability Studies, 18, 3–56. Fox, R. (1988). Energy and the evolution of life. New York: Freeman. Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1992, September). Working memory and the mind. Scientific American, 267, 111–117. Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. New York: Dover. Hanbrick, D., Kane, M., & Engle, R. (2005). The role of working memory in higher-level cognition: Domain-specific versus domain-general perspectives. In R. Sternberg & J. E. Pretz (Eds.), Cognition and intelligence: Identifying the mechanisms of the mind (pp. 104–121). New York: Cambridge University Press. Heitz, R., Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. (2005). Working memory capacity, attentional control, and fluid intelligence. In O. Wilhelm & R.W. Engle (Eds.), Handbook of understanding and measuring intelligence (pp. 61–78). London: Sage Publications. Haruno, M., Wolpert, D., & Kawato, M. (1999). Multiple paired forward-inverse models for human motor learning and control. In M. S. Kearns, S. A. Solla & D. A. Cohn (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 31–37). Cambridge: MIT Press. Haruno, M., Wolpert, D., & Kawato, M. (2001). MOSAIC model for sensorimotor and learning control. Neural Computation, 13(10), 2201–2220. Holton, G. (1979). Constructing a theory: Einstein’s model. The American Scholar, 48, 309–339. Houk, J., & Wise, S. (1995). Distributed modular architectures linking basal ganglia, cerebellum, and cerebral cortex: Their role in planning and controlling action. Cerebral Cortex, 2, 95–110. Imamizu, H., Higuchi, S., Toda, A., & Kawato, M. (2007) Reorganization of brain activity for multiple internal models after short but intensive training. Cortex, 43, 338–349. Imamizu, H., Kuroda, T., Miyauchi, S., Yoshioka, T., & Kawato, M. (2003). Modular organization of internal models of tools in the cerebellum. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 100(9), 5461–5466. Imamizu, H., Miyauchi, S., Tamada, T., Sasaki, Y., Takino, R., & P¨utz, B., et al. (2000). Human cerebellar activity reflecting an acquired internal model of a new tool. Nature, 403, 192–195. Ingvar, D. (1985). “Memory of the future”: An essay on the temporal organization of conscious awareness. Human Neurobiology, 4, 127–136.

315

Ito, M. (1984a). The cerebellum and neural control. New York: Raven Press. Ito, M. (1984b). Is the cerebellum really a computer? Trends in Neurosciences, 2, 122–126. Ito, M. (1991). Neural control as a major aspect of high-order brain function. In J. C. Eccles & O. Creutzfeldt (Eds.), The principles of design and operation of the brain (Experimental Brain Research Supplement, Vol. 20, pp. 281–292). New York: Springer-Verlag. Ito, M. (1993). Movement and thought: Identical control mechanisms by the cerebellum. Trends in Neurosciences, 16(11), 448–450. Ito, M. (1997). Cerebellar microcomplexes. In J. D. Schmahmann (Ed.), The cerebellum and cognition (pp. 475–487). New York: Academic Press. Ito, M. (2005). Bases and implications of learning in the cerebellum–adaptive control and internal model mechanism. In C. I. DeZeeuw & F. Cicirata (Eds.), Creating coordination in the cerebellum (Progress in Brain Research, Vol. 148, Chapter. 9, pp. 95–109). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science. Ivry, R. (1997). Cerebellar timing systems. In J. D. Schmahmann (Ed.), The cerebellum and cognition (pp. 555–573). New York: Academic Press. Johnson-Laird, P. (1983). Mental models. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kane, M., Bleckley, K., Conway, A., & Engle, R. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 169–183. Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 637–671. Kawato, M. (1999). Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 9, 718–727. Kawato, M., & Gomi, H. (1992). The cerebellum and VOR/OKR learning models. Trends in Neuroscience, 15, 445–453. Kelly, R., & Strick, P. (2003). Cerebellar loops with motor cortex and prefrontal cortex of a nonhuman primate. Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 8432–8444. Kihlstrom, J. (1987). The cognitive unconscious. Science, 237, 1445–1452. Klein, S. B., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., & Chance, S. (2002). Decisions and the evolution of memory: Multiple systems, multiple functions. Psychological Review, 109, 306–329. Kornhuber, H. (1974). Cerebral cortex, cerebellum, and basal ganglia: An introduction to their motor functions. In F. Schmitt & F. Worden (Eds.), The neurosciences: Third study program (pp. 267–280). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Leiner, H., & Leiner, A. (1997). How fibers subserve computing capabilities: Similarities between brains and machines. In J. D. Schmahmann (Ed.), The cerebellum and cognition (pp. 535–553). New York: Academic Press. Leiner, H., Leiner, A., & Dow, R. (1986). Does the cerebellum contribute to mental skills? Behavioral Neuroscience, 100, 443–454. Leiner, H., Leiner, A., & Dow, R. (1989). Reappraising the cerebellum: What does the hindbrain contribute to the forebrain? Behavioral Neuroscience, 103, 998–1008. Leiner, H., Leiner, A., & Dow, R. (1991). The human cerebrocerebellar system: Its computing, cognitive, and language skills. Behavioral Brain Research, 44, 113–128.

316 MacLean, P. (1991). Neofrontocerebellar evolution in regard to computation and prediction: Some fractal aspects of microgenesis. In R. Hanlon (Ed.), Cognitive microgenesis (pp. 3–31). Berlin: Springer. Mandler, J. (1988). How to build a baby: On the development of an accessible representational system. Cognitive Development, 3, 113–136. Mandler, J. (1992a). How to build a baby II: Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99, 587–604. Mandler, J. (1992b). The foundations of conceptual thought in infancy. Cognitive Development, 7, 273–285. Mandler, J. (2004). The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Middleton, F., & Strick, P. (2001). Cerebellar projections to the prefrontal cortex of the primate. Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 700–712. Miller, E., & Cohen, J. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202. Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. New York: Cambridge University Press. Molinari, M., Petrosini, L., Misciagna, S., & Leggio, M. G. (2004). Visuospatial abilities in cerebellar disorders. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 75(2), 235–240. Oztop, E., Wolpert, D., & Kawato, M. (2005). Mental state inference using visual control parameters. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 129–151. Paulin, M. (1997). Cerebellar involvement in neural representations of moving systems. In J. Schmahmann (Ed.), The cerebellum and cognition (pp. 515–533). New York: Academic Press. Ramnani, N. (2006). The primate cortico-cerebellar system: Anatomy and function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 511–522. Restuccia, D., Marca, G., Valeriani, M., Leggio, M., & Molinari, M. (2006). Cerebellar damage impairs detection of somatosensory input changes. A somatosensory mismatchnegativity study. Brain, 124, 757–768. Roland, P.E. (1984). Organization of motor control by the normal human brain. Human Neurobiology, 2, 205–216. Rosenbaum, D., Carlson, R., & Gilmore, R. (2001). Acquisition of intellectual and perceptual-motor skills. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 453–470. Schmahmann, J. (1996). From movement to thought: Anatomic substrates of the cerebellar contribution to cognitive processing. Human Brain Mapping, 4, 174–198. Schmahmann, J. (Ed.). (1997). The cerebellum and cognition. New York: Academic Press. Schmahmann, J. (1998). Dysmetria of thought: Clinical consequences of cerebellar dysfunction on cognition and affect. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2, 362–371.

L.R. Vandervert Schmahmann, J. (2004). Disorders of the cerebellum: Ataxia, dysmetria of thought, and the cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 16, 367–378. Schmahmann, J., & Pandya, D. (1997). The cerebrocerebellar system. In J. D. Schmahmann (Ed.), The cerebellum and cognition (pp. 31–60). New York: Academic Press. Shavinina, L. (1999). The psychological essence of the child prodigy phenomenon: Sensitive periods and cognitive experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(1), 25–38. Teasdale, J., Dritschel, B., Taylor, M., Proctor, L., Lloyd, C., & Nimmo-Smith, I., et al. (1995). Stimulus-independent thought depends on central executive resources. Memory & Cognition, 23, 551–559. Thach, W. T. (1996). On the specific role of the cerebellum in motor learning and cognition: Clues from PET activation and lesion studies in man. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19(3), 411–431. Vandervert, L. (2003a). How working memory and cognitive modeling functions of the cerebellum contribute to discoveries in mathematics. New Ideas in Psychology, 21, 159–175. Vandervert, L. (2003b). The neurophysiological basis of innovation. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.) The international handbook on innovation (pp. 17–30). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science. Vandervert, L. (2007) Cognitive functions of the cerebellum explain how Ericsson’s deliberate practice produces giftedness. High Ability Studies, 18(1), 89–92. Vandervert, L. (2008). The evolutionary basis of accelerated learning in the child prodigy. Manuscript submitted for publication. Vandervert, L., Schimpf, P., & Liu, H. (2007a) How working memory and the cerebellum collaborate to produce innovation and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 1–18. Vandervert, L., Schimpf, P., & Liu, H. (2007b). Rejoinder: Authors’ responses to commentaries. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 59–68. Winner, E. (1996) Gifted children: Myths and realities, (New York, Basic Books). Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist, 55, 159–169. Wolpaw, J. R., Birbaumer, N., McFarland, D. J., Pfurtscheller, G., & Vaughan, T.M. (2002). Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113, 767–791. Wolpert, D. M., Doya, K., & Kawato, M. (2003). A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 358, 593–602. Wolpert D. M., & Kawato M., (1998). Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Networks 11, 1317–1329.

Part IV

Developmental and Cognitive Foundations of Giftedness

Chapter 14

Developmental Trajectories of Giftedness in Children Christoph Perleth and Annett Wilde

Abstract Our article focuses on the development of giftedness in children. First, we outline demands for a model that wants to describe giftedness development and introduce the Munich Dynamic Ability-Achievement Model. Second, we summarize and review current approaches that explain how giftedness in children develops, e.g., genetic psychology, cognitive psychology, expertise research, or research with focus on interest, personality, family, or learning environment. The genetic approach for instance shows that there are various interactions between innate aspects and environmental factors. Expertise research on the contrary concentrates on practice. Other approaches try to identify factors of the child like motivation, attribution, or curiosity. Special attention will be directed at gender differences. One problem is that giftedness in girls is more often overlooked. Reasons like different expectations from parents and educators or different performances by boys and girls shall be explored. Finally, we shortly point out some ways to promote gifted children. Keywords Children · Development · Expertise · Gender · Giftedness model · Influences on giftedness development

Introduction Since Terman (1925) and Terman & Oden (1947) marked the beginning of giftedness research a major C. Perleth (B) Rostock University, Rostock, MV, Germany e-mail: [email protected]

aim in this field is the prognosis of later extraordinary achievement in specific domains. While society is interested in the identification of individuals who have high potentials for later excellence, parents are more interested in information on environmental factors which foster an optimal development of the abilities of their children. From both points of view it would be highly welcome to be able to identify or foster the respective children as early as possible. However, there are disappointing few studies which investigated the development of gifted pre-school children. Most longitudinal studies start with primary school children or – as Terman states – even later (see e.g., Heller, M¨onks, Sternberg, & Subotnik, 2000; Subotnik & Arnold, 1994). Apart from general problems to collect samples in pre-school age or even earlier (in Germany, for example, most pre-school teachers are a little hostile to empirical investigations using quantitative methods), there are many problems from the issue itself which make research in (probably) gifted pre-schoolers troublesome and difficult: Above all, the low stability of personality and ability factors in early age causes lots of methodological problems, therefore research in gifted pre-school children is either impossible or extremely expensive (see Perleth, Schatz, & M¨onks, 2000). In this chapter we first try to sum up our rationale on the early and later development of gifted children. Therefore, we will introduce the Munich Dynamic Ability-Achievement Model (MDAAM) which is characterized by the integration of different aspects of giftedness and a developmental focus. Then we discuss findings on factors that determine the development of gifted children and give a short outlook on the role of gender for the development of gifted children.

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 14, 

319

320

A Comprehensive Model for the Development of Giftedness and Achievement Demands for Such a Model During the last decade of the 20th century there was an intensive discussion dealing with exceptional achievement between two antagonistic streams of psychological research. While giftedness research emphasized that important contributions to society are made by individuals who must have exceptional gifts, expertise research stressed that this could be done by any individual or by individuals with a wide range of ability who, however, are willing to concentrate on a long- and hard-learning and practice process. A major attack from expertise research was conducted by Ericsson (Ericsson & Charness, 1994, 1995) who strictly denied the traditional giftedness assumption that it is necessary to have exceptional levels of talent for high achievement. The main argument for Ericsson and colleagues was (and is until today, see Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, this volume) that (innate) giftedness or intelligence is totally unimportant for exceptional achievement. Instead the role of experience is stressed, in the terminology of Ericsson “deliberate practice,” which involves task commitment, motivation, and self-control. These competencies are regarded as key characteristics for the development of the expertise that is needed for exceptional achievement. Gardner (1995) defended the traditional giftedness conceptualization and counterattacked the Ericsson position (see also the discussion during the symposium of the CIBA foundation in Bock & Ackrill, 1993). A closer analysis, however, shows that there is a considerable overlap between giftedness and expertise conceptualizations. These two approaches result from different accents and not from unbridgeable opposite standpoints. Perleth (1997; 2000) points out that expertise and giftedness represent different aspects of the same reality from different points of view. And no giftedness researcher would deny that deliberate practice is a prerequisite for extraordinary achievement. Which elements should be taken into account when constructing a model of giftedness that can integrate relevant findings from diverse fields of psychology? Expertise as well as giftedness researchers agree for ex-

C. Perleth and A. Wilde

ample that the analysis of giftedness and achievement has to be done in a domain-specific manner. Models such as the Munich Model of Giftedness and Talent (Heller, Perleth, & Lim, 2005; Perleth & Heller, 1994) or the Gagn´e model (Gagn´e, 1993) stress this point explicitly. The following criteria have to be considered when constructing a model for giftedness development: 1. Extraordinary performance has to be conceptualized as domain specific As can be seen from Fig. 14.1, the Munich Dynamic Ability-Achievement Model stresses the domain specificity of giftedness and achievement factors as well as the role of personality and environmental factors that moderate the relationship between ability and achievement. 2. The model must show that the development of extraordinary achievement needs long periods of practice Giftedness and expertise researchers agree that an extraordinary achievement level can be reached only if one is ready to undertake a long, laborious, aimrelated learning process with the aims always in view. This long phase of deliberate practice explains why most individuals produce extraordinary achievement in only one domain. With the exception of Gagn´e’s (1993) model that stresses learning processes in school, most models of giftedness do not reflect this demand. 3. Separation of knowledge and general competencies Expertise as well as intelligence research shows that a rich domain-specific knowledge is a central prerequisite for exceptional achievement. Reflecting this demand, Perleth and Ziegler (1997) modified the Munich Model of Giftedness and Talent (Perleth & Heller, 1994) by explicitly referring to the long time that is needed to acquire specific knowledge and competencies. 4. The quality of the learning process A decisive prerequisite for reaching a high level of expertise is the maintenance of an active and aim-related learning process (“deliberate practice” sensu Ericsson) over a long period of time. Exceptional achievement demands an active learner who is permanently ready to overcome barriers hindering the acquisition of the next expertise level. Such achievement requires the individual to push himself to his limits. Expertise and giftedness researchers agree about the fundamental importance of personality characteristics for individuals who want to reach high levels of performance.

14

Developmental Trajectories of Giftedness in Children

321

Fig. 14.1 The Munich Dynamic Ability-Achievement Model (MDAAM) (Heller & Perleth, 2004; Perleth, 1997)

5. Giftedness as a dynamic construct Ericsson and Charness (1994) claim that intelligence tests measure nothing than learned knowledge. Even if one does not agree, it is clear that good achievement in intelligence tests requires a solid knowledge base. In other words, experiences are important for the development of both intelligence and giftedness. From this perspective we have to differentiate between giftedness factors (in the sense of traits) as prerequisites for achievement and innate dispositions (see next point). As already pointed out even extreme expertise researchers accept the importance of motivational personality characteristics: A high level of expertise can be achieved only after a long and partly laborious activity in a specific domain, for which a high degree of motivation and a positive attitude toward achievement are necessary (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-R¨omer, 1993; Gruber, Weber, & Ziegler, 1996). Therefore, excellence has to be regarded as a product of giftedness and

personality factors as well as personality characteristics and characteristics of the learning environment. 6. Taking into account innate characteristics An integrative model of giftedness and achievement cannot ignore the recent findings of genetic psychology. Plomin (1994) provides convincing evidence of the interrelations between genetic gifts and learning environment. Scarr and McCartney (1983) and Plomin (1994) describe three types of this interrelation: a)

b)

Passive correlations between gifts and environment are found because children and parents share genetic and environmental influences. If, for example, a child inherits some musical ability from his parents, it is also likely that musical parents will provide a family environment in which music plays a prominent role (e.g., the family of Mozart). Correlations because of reactive gifts– environment–relationships occur when the

322

c)

C. Perleth and A. Wilde

environment (namely, teachers in school or other adults) reacts to the gifts of the children and offer learning opportunities in which the talents can be developed (e.g., Gauss, the son of a poor cobbler, whose teacher detected his extraordinary mathematical ability and recommended the boy to the Duke of Brunswick). Finally, active gifts–environment–relationships are caused by the fact that gifted children actively shape their environment according to their wishes and needs by seeking out friends with similar interests (e.g., musical children choose friends who prefer musical activities).

The Munich Dynamic Ability-Achievement Model (MDAAM) as an Integrating Framework for Giftedness Research Perleth (1997; 2000; 2001a) attempted to bridge the gap between the more process-oriented fields of cognitive research and expertise research in the development of the Munich Dynamic Ability-Achievement Model (MDAAM). This model is presented in Fig. 14.1; it attempts to integrate the above-discussed important perspectives of expertise and giftedness research and to put them into a common and consistent framework. Even if at the first glance the model might produce an opposite impression, it is meant to hold an appropriate level of complexity so that it is convincing to teachers as well as parents of gifted children and youth (fulfilling one of Sternberg’s, 1990, criteria for a good definition of giftedness). The seeming complexity is due to the examples that were chosen to illustrate the different groups of variables. (No examples for the expertise domain were given because no selection seems adequate with respect to the nearly unlimited possibilities.) Individual characteristics or traits such as aspects of attention and attention control, habituation, memory efficiency (speed of information processing), aspects of working memory, level of activation, perception, or motor skills can all be seen as innate dispositions or prerequisites (left side of the model). Perleth et al. (2000) regard these characteristics as representing the basic cognitive equipment of an individual. The model distinguishes between three or four stages of achievement or expertise development that are related to the main phases of school and

vocational training: pre-school, school, and university or vocational training. These stages can be roughly characterized by the classification Plomin (1994) uses to distinguish passive (pre-school age), reactive (primary school age), and active (adolescence and older) genotype–environment relations. The fourth phase of professional activities is only indicated in the model and has to be completed by conception (see Ackerman, 1988). Surely it has to be expected that deviations from this sketched “normal” development will occur, especially with gifted individuals. There are different learning processes attached to each of these stages. They serve the buildup of knowledge and competencies and are symbolized by the grey triangles. These triangles open to the right which indices growth of abilities, knowledge, or competencies. The left corner of the triangles shows when the respective learning process begins (different tones of grey are used to make the figure clearer):

r

r r

During pre-school years the formation of general domain-related competencies is assumed. These are abilities or talents that are depicted in the model as giftedness factors. Examples are intellectual or creative abilities, social competencies, and musical or motor abilities. The development of these competencies is contrasted even in this early age by the accumulation of knowledge (nature, reading, writing, calculation). During school years the formation of knowledge in different areas is predominating, and this knowledge has to be acquired in active, goal-oriented learning processes (“deliberate practice”). The stage of university or vocational training is the phase of increasing specialization and the development of expertise in a domain. Depending on the domain, this specialization can also start considerably earlier. Professional musicians or high-performance athletes, for example, often begin to occupy themselves with their domains as early as pre-school or primary school years (symbolized by the respective long triangles in Fig. 14.1).

The model not only identifies ability factors and knowledge domains as well as the respective learning processes but also highlights personality (motivational) characteristics that are important for the development of achievement and expertise. As shown in the model, these traits develop during pre-school and the first years of primary school (see also Helmke, 1997),

14

Developmental Trajectories of Giftedness in Children

323

and they are conceptualized as being relatively stable later on. Finally, aspects of the learning environment are emphasized in the model. Different factors for the three main stages of development are specified for the development of achievement and expertise (see Fig. 14.1 for more details). All in all, the influence of the family dominates in the first years, and then the characteristics of the school’s learning environment gain more and more influence (e.g., extra courses for the fostering of the gifted, school and class climate, and extracurricular activities). At the same time, the importance of friends and like-minded fellows increases. A more detailed description of the model is provided by Perleth (1997; 2001a).

hered (see Perleth, 2001b). These innate determinants of intellectual functioning do hardly respond to practice; they constitute, as it were, the hardware of our mental system. These are among others (see Perleth, Schatz, & Gast-Gampe, 2001 for the following sections):

Influences on the Development of Giftedness

r

Different and sometimes directly opposed approaches try to explain how giftedness in children originates and develops (see also the chapter of Moltzen, this volume). We focus here on the five most common approaches to explain the development of giftedness: genetic psychology, cognitive psychology, expertise research, research with focus on interest and personality, and research with focus on family and learning environment.

r r r

r

r

Genetic Psychology Approach During the past years genetic psychology has given interesting new impetus and enriched the field of giftedness research. It is in the first place the work of Plomin (1994) that convinces with a sophisticated view on the interactions between genetic dispositions and environmental factors. His approach goes far beyond the last decades’ simple attempts to estimate percentages of genetic dispositions and environment. Following Scarr and McCartney (1983), Plomin (1994) described three types of disposition–environment correlation: passive, reactive, and active interaction between dispositions and environment (see above). Most scientists agree that perceptional, cognitive, and motoric characteristics of the individual are in-

r

Memory efficiency which refers to the velocity of cognitive processes. This speed of information processing can be compared with the clock speed of a computer. Processing capacity applies to the amount of information an individual can deal with simultaneously. This would be the random access memory (RAM) in our computer analogy. Memory capacity is the amount of information that can be stored in the long-term memory or, in computer language, the hard disc storage unit. Activation level refers, in technical terms, to the working voltage of an individual. Gender differences in childhood for example such as differences in aggressive behavior can be explained with different activation levels of boys and girls. There are different perceptional channels like vision, hearing, olfaction (sense of smell), or tactile sense. How precise the perception with these different senses works and how good one can calibrate information from different perceptual channels is important for giftedness development. Attention and attention control also contribute to giftedness development. Is the attention concentrated on a wide array of environmental cues or on a limited field? It is a vantage if the attention can be zoomed in on a broader or narrower section of the environment depending on the demands of a task. A narrow field of attention (like a telephoto lens) is useful with strongly restricted tasks such as memorizing a poem whereas a wide field of attention (“wide angle lens”) is useful with tasks that require paying attention to as much information as possible (e.g., driving a car). Habituation means how fast children adapt to novel stimuli and how quickly they recognize familiar stimuli. Consequently habituation can be regarded as an indicator for learning speed. In recent years researchers tried to measure habituation in very young infants and to predict later giftedness. However, this prediction is quite limited as the research results show. Correlations with developmental tests in later

324

r

infancy are rather low and long-term predictions until school age nearly impossible. Finally, aspects of the motor function are inhered as well, such as muscles, bones, and nerve tracts and can influence giftedness development.

It is worth noting, however, especially in the context of giftedness development in pre-school age that innate attributes can be influenced. We can take the perfect pitch as an example. The psychologist and expert for musical talent John A. Sloboda and his colleagues assert that more children than expected can develop the perfect pitch (Sloboda, 1991, 1996). We understand by perfect pitch the ability of an individual to exactly determine the tone pitch of a heard tone. A person with perfect pitch can clearly distinguish between different notes. Children with perfect pitch (and good memory for melodies) are able to intone a melody in exactly the same pitch as heard before. It was without controversy for a long time that this rare ability is inhered. But Sloboda and colleagues found that pre-school children who had musical instruments available at home (especially keyboard instruments like piano) developed a perfect pitch more often. We can assume therefore that this special musical talent only develops in children if certain innate auditive characteristics and memory aspects concur with beneficial learning stimulation in the family environment. That a psychological characteristic is innate does not mean that it is unchangeable. In contrast, in modern genetic psychology nobody argues if child development depends on environment or genes. Scientists like the psychologist Robert Plomin rather try to find out how genetic dispositions and social environment interact during the mental development. We can conclude that even if abilities and temperaments are determined by genetic dispositions they are malleable and can be affected by socialization and education. The learning opportunities that are provided in the environment of the child are crucial for giftedness development.

Cognitive Psychology As an example for a cognitive intelligence model we want to introduce the model of Campione and Brown (1978) because it is most useful to explain performance development in children, even if it

C. Perleth and A. Wilde

was originally derived from research with retarded children. According to the authors the identification of problems learning-disabled children face can raise our awareness of important but otherwise overlooked aspects of giftedness. Contrary to other researchers the authors do not assume that intelligence can be defined by one single factor. The basic concept of Campione and Brown’s model is the differentiation between the architectural “hardware” level and the higher “executive” system. Whereas the “hardware” is neither changeable nor trainable developmental processes underlie the executive system, therefore it can be improved by training measures. The hardware level consists of a three-storage space memory model (sensory register, short-term memory, and long-term memory, see Wessells, 1984 for a summary). The characteristics of these memory parts (capacity, duration, and efficiency) do not underlie developmental processes; therefore, they are not malleable and not related to intelligence. The operative efficiency of the cognitive system on the contrary, that is, the speed of information processing and retrieval, does correlate to parameters of intellectual functioning (see Swanson, 2006). The components of the executive system can also be influenced by practice. These components are for instance knowledge base, rules and strategies, or executive meta-cognitive control processes. Meta-cognitive control processes are used in the regulation of memory tasks, comprehension processes, or complex problem solving. Following Campione, Brown, and Ferrara’s (1982) practice generally plays an important role for the development of intelligence. Intelligence could even be defined by learning speed or the ability to transfer knowledge to other areas. While Campione and Brown (1978) originally developed the model for retarded children, Borkowski and Peck (1986) modified it in a way that conclusions can be drawn about the characteristics of gifted children. Comprising research literature and own empirical studies they found that gifted children outclass their peers in various components of the model (for cognitive characteristics of gifted children see also Gross, this volume). An important difference between gifted children and children with average intellectual abilities seems to be the superior knowledge base and the higher information processing speed of gifted children. In contrast,

14

Developmental Trajectories of Giftedness in Children

the findings with respect to meta-cognitive components as well as learning and problem-solving strategies are unclear. While some researchers found indicators for superior strategies of gifted children in these areas (Borkowski & Peck, 1986; Kurtz & Weinert, 1989), others did not (see Perleth, 1994). Nevertheless the approach of Campione and Brown (1978) seems convincing for various reasons. First, the authors succeeded in establishing a link between giftedness and expertise research by highlighting the importance of the knowledge base. Reading or calculating in young age can be explained very well by the model. Second, they differentiate between inhered aspects of intelligence which are not malleable and parameters that can be changed by practice. Finally, the approach can be considered as an attempt to get a clearer picture on how exactly a gifted child becomes an expert.

Expertise Research In the 1990s a novel approach, expertise research, disturbed the traditional giftedness research by partly radically denying the importance of intelligence and talent for performance development. Trying to comprise various definitions, Gruber (1994) defines an expert as an individual who permanently excels in a given area. Beyond question the most radical position in expertise research in the last years is adopted by Ericsson and colleagues. On the basis of the controversy between Ericsson and Charness (1994; 1995) and Gardner (1995) we want to elaborate the positions of the expertise approach. It is important to note that Ericsson and Charness (1994) explicitly focus on individuals with high performance or extraordinary expertise level. On the basis of their literature review the authors conclude that there is no evidence that high performance or expertise in various areas like chess, sports, and music or manual tasks such as typing is determined by talent in the sense of innate dispositions (see also Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, 2005). In contrast, it is important to recognize that even basic determinants of cognitive functioning like extent and speed of perception, motoric parameters, reaction times and also physical characteristics like the size of heart and lung, the strength of bones, or flexibility depend on practice. Therefore, giftedness characteristics (in the traditional

325

psychometric sense) have no predictive validity for high performance; this is especially true for the relevant psychometric tests that measure giftedness. According to the authors these measures for (innate) abilities pose significant methodological problems because they inextricably mix up cognitive dispositions and acquired knowledge, they conclude that these tests measure mainly acquired knowledge. Elaborating on these statements Ericsson and Charness (1994) say that with the usual tests performance can be predicted at best in a restricted area (including school performance) and over a short period of time, but in either case before achieving a high expertise level. However, the reasoning of Ericsson and colleagues falls back on a rather simple and very traditional understanding of intelligence when equating talent or intelligence with general intelligence. To strengthen the case against the effects of disposition on performance and expertise development, Ericsson and colleagues argue with the exceptional performances of young experts or child prodigies. These children excel in very early life in areas like chess or music. Following Feldman (1986), Ericsson and Charness (1994) say that these children pass through the same developmental learning stages like other children but the relevant stages faster and in younger age. In contrast it could be shown that the performance level of precocious children is directly related to intensive promotion from teachers and parents. Most adults who show high expertise were not labeled precocious as children but engaged early and intensely in their later area of expertise. The experience gained during the learning process is according to Ericsson et al. the fundamental motivation for the development of expertise. However, not every experience leads to expertise but the learning has to be active and purposeful. Ericsson, Krampe and TeschR¨omer (1993) refer to this learning process as “deliberate practice.” Deliberate practice is characterized by the following criteria (see Perleth, 1997):

r

Specialization in one single area: Examples show that knowledge in different areas grows rapidly and that there are hardly people who gain expertise in more than one domain. Therefore, Ericsson and Charness (1994) conclude that expertise refers to the specialization in one single area, an expert has to dedicate all of his time to his area of expertise.

326

r

r

Early outset and dedication of much time over many years: The achievement of expertise on an international level needs at least 10 years of intensive engagement in an activity (10-year rule). Therefore, it is useful to engage as early as possible in an area of expertise. Though initial progress is much bigger when the engagement in practice activities starts in later age, the late beginners can hardly catch up with the early beginners because the achievement curve runs asymptotically. As Ericsson and Charness (1994) outline differences in expert performance can be explained by differences in practice extension and starting point of engagement in an activity. But it is important to notice that the correlation between practice time and performance improvement decreases with increasing performance level. Deliberate practice: Various studies show that experience cannot be accumulated in any manner but it is crucial that competent, experienced, and motivated teachers facilitate the learning process. These teachers have not only to support and guide the learners and to focus the activity on important aspects but also to give constant feedback on the performance. Deliberate practice is usually not motivating in itself but has to be considered as hard work. This work must be distinguished from ordinary work and other activities because of the following reasons:

Fig. 14.2 Stages of performance development (adapted from Bloom, 1985)

C. Perleth and A. Wilde

◦ It is targeted on performance improvement by overcoming present obstacles and performance plateaus. ◦ Contrary to ordinary work it does not lead to immediate social or monetary rewards, the future expert must be able to delay the fulfillment of needs. ◦ Most people use deliberate practice only until a certain level of performance is achieved and are not interested in further enhancement.

r

Stages toward expert performance: According to Bloom (1985) individuals have to go through three stages to achieve expert performance (see Fig. 14.2). If we take as an example how individuals attain high expertise status in the field of music, the first stage in childhood is characterized by engagement in the domain through play. If parents regard their child as talented, they might engage a teacher and the child will engage in deliberate practice, at first on a limited scale. At this stage it is important that the parents support and motivate the child and take care that it practices regularly. The second stage is reached when after some years the young expert can increase performance only by notably intensifying efforts and engaging full time in the area of expertise. At that time the hobby turns into profession. The amount of deliberate practice is extended again and the young expert

14

Developmental Trajectories of Giftedness in Children

327

will look for teachers with outstanding abilities. threshold model his view on the relation of talent, pracFinally the individual becomes an expert and tice, and performance: professional in his or her domain. The final state r High basal abilities are neither sufficient nor neceswhich according to Bloom (1985) is not taken by every expert is characterized by the effort to r sary for expertise performance development. If the basal abilities exceed a certain threshold or advance ones performance further and contribute limit than noncognitive learning, prerequisites such eminent achievements to the domain. That in turn as commitment, perseverance, concentration, and will ideally contribute to the advancement of the success orientation as well as factors of the family area of expertise as well. and school environment will determine what performance level will be achieved. r This threshold must not be in the realm of high Only a few who started a promising career will fiability (normally more than two standard deviations nally reach the expert level or deliver outstanding conabove average) but can sometimes be at a surpristributions to their domain. Most people will have to be ingly low level. content with the performance level at the second stage. r The relevance of basal abilities seems to increase For this reason parents and educators are very interwith growing complexity of the domain. ested to obtain indicators that allow predicting the performance of the future expert. As Ericsson and CharGruber (1994) agrees that differences in expert ness (1994) highlight (see above), talent does not play performance cannot be explained without factoring in a role for this prediction, the only important prognostic abilities based on dispositions. He proves this with the variables are motivation and interest. noticeable performance differences some years ago Gardner (1995) agrees in his comment on Ericsson between the best chess players in the world, Kasparov and Charness’s (1994) article on the structure and ac- and Karpow, and the other international grand masters. quisition of expert performance that deliberate prac- It is not likely that these performance differences are tice is essential for expert performance. He argues fur- due to practice differences. And even with intensive ther that the constellation of motivation, interest, and practice not every person succeeds in becoming a temperament that Ericsson and Charness (1994) intro- chess expert. duce as main determinant for expertise development (together with cognitive characteristics) can be interpreted as talent as well. But Gardner (1995) disputes their suggestion that the development of expertise in a Interest and Motivational Characteristics given domain does not fundamentally differ between experts and people who do not reach expert status. He As research shows certain motivational and personalsays that in order to explain their “skilled memory” ap- ity characteristics of the child can be beneficial for proach expertise research should be able to show that giftedness development. These are for instance curioschildren can become experts in randomly assigned ar- ity, special interests, certain attribution styles, achieveeas, something that has not been proven yet. Finally ment, and intrinsic motivation (see Howe, 1990; JohnGardner (1995) critically comments that it cannot be son & Beer, 1992; Rost, 1993). In children, even in the aim of research to explain solely extremely high young age, curiosity and interests manifest itself in performances while losing sight of “normal” high per- exploratory behavior (as described in the paragraph formance. To focus more on the latter could even have on expertise). During the cognitive development exmore practical implications for the promotion of talents ploratory behavior becomes more and more elaborated. The assessment of motivational variables in young than the study of extreme populations. Schneider (1992) acknowledges that various stud- children is difficult because interest and motivation deies in the context of expertise research support the im- velop little by little and consolidate not until primary portance of deliberate practice for expert development. school age. Besides it is difficult to find tests that reliBut this does not allow concluding that basal intel- ably measure these traits in young infants (see also Perlectual abilities are not important for performance de- leth et al., 2000). Consequently more results are availvelopment. Schneider (1992; 1993) summarizes in his able for children in primary school age. Rost (1993)

328

found in his longitudinal study on gifted children (Marburg Giftedness Project) that gifted children positively differ from children with average abilities with regard to achievement motivation, causal attribution, and dealing with failure (see also Perleth et al., 2000). At the end of primary school gifted children have been found to show higher intrinsic motivation (Gottfried & Gottfried, 1996). Compared to high-achieving peers gifted middle school students had higher general self-concept and attributed (social) success more on ability and effort (Bain & Bell, 2004). Pruisken (2005) reanalyzed the data of the Marburg Giftedness Project with regard to interest differences between gifted and primary school children with intellectual abilities in the average range (control group). While she found massive gender differences (in both groups), there existed nearly no differences between gifted and control students. The only exception of the eight interest domains explored (e.g., music, construction, biology, or arts) was the greater interest of gifted children in mathematics and languages/reading, however, the effect sizes of these differences were rather small. Furthermore the gifted children possessed significantly more books than their peers from the control group (irrespective of the socioeconomic status of their parents) and spent more time on reading. The superior exploratory skills and curiosity of the child are favorable in dealing with complex information in unstructured play situations, in the long run they are advantageous for the development of cognitive abilities and the building of a complex knowledge base, better problem solving and meta-cognition (see the model of Campione and Brown above or Perleth et al., 2000). Since curiosity and exploratory behavior are important for giftedness development the social environment of the child (in the first place parents and teachers) should seek to satisfy the child’s curiosity and make room for exploratory behavior. Research shows that meta-cognitive strategies such as dealing with obstacles during problem solving or the modification of strategies are acquired during the interaction with significant others. Therefore, it is crucial in which manner parents and educators react on the child’s curiosity. Especially helpful for the acquirement of meta-cognitive strategies are verbal and nonverbal cues from interaction partners. If these cues are appropriate for the child and comply with the child’s abilities, the child can adopt these strategies. Mothers of gifted children have been found to promote the development of meta-

C. Perleth and A. Wilde

cognitive strategies by pointing out to the child important relations between problem aspects (“A piece of the puzzle is missing here, that has at least two tabs”). Mothers of less-gifted children in contrast seem to give more often direct advice in order to solve a problem (“This piece fits in here”).

Family Environment Giftedness development strongly depends on the good interaction of individual characteristics and environmental factors. Families provide learning experiences and opportunities that are crucial in order to transform gifts and talents into achievement. When the child gets older, not only parents but also teachers, other mentors, or gifted peers serve as role models (see Perleth et al., 2000). Certain characteristics can be seen as typical for families with gifted children:

r

r

r

Socio-economic background: Children identified as gifted often stem from wealthy and intellectual middle and upper class families (Birx, 1988; Howe, 1990). These families provide the children with the monetary as well as intellectual resources for giftedness development. Social family variables: Howe (1990) found that successful scientists (e.g., Nobel Prize winners) came from intact families and reported a happy childhood. Other research indicates that gifted children were planned children and pregnancy and birth went without difficulties (Berger, 1984). Educational style and family climate: These variables are inextricably tied to the before mentioned socio-economic and family variables. An educational style that favors motivation development has to balance freedom and pressure. A medium level of control and discipline has to be compared with high positive emotional regard (Perleth et al., 2000; for contrary findings see Rost, 1993). Dwairy (2004) compared the family climate in families of gifted and adolescents not identified as gifted (control group) and found that parents of gifted adolescents were more authoritative and less authoritarian. Furthermore, an authoritative parental style was positively correlated with the mental health of the gifted and the students of the control group.

14

Developmental Trajectories of Giftedness in Children

An authoritarian style on the contrary was only for gifted students negatively correlated with mental health. In contrast, Schilling, Sparfeldt and Rost (2006) did not find differences in family climate, parental style, or intellectual–cultural orientation between families of gifted German adolescents and the respective control group of students in the middle range of the distribution (up to one standard deviation below and over the mean).

329

be motivational problems and off-task behavior of good students and self-concept problems, demotivation, and dropout of students with poor performance. In the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), it was found that German elementary school teachers tend to offer high-performing students more of the same instead of offering them tasks that match the students’ competence level and interests (Bos et al., 2003). Another example for sometimes quite subtle mechanisms is teachers’ attribution of students’ performance. Research and observations in the classroom show (e.g., Ziegler, 1999) that teachers attribute good performance of girls in mathematics or School Environment science on effort and the good performance of boys on ability. Conversely, poor performance of girls in this As Tannenbaum (1992) pointed out, many children area is rather attributed to a lack of ability and that of who showed indicators of giftedness in early years lose boys on a lack of effort. their head start compared to their peers until the end of primary and the beginning of secondary school (see also Hotulainen & Schofield, 2003). One reason for Gender Differences this development might be found in the learning enGenerally boys slightly outnumber girls in the samples vironment provided by family and school. The first important tasks of schools and their prede- of the most studies on giftedness, regardless of the cessors like kindergarten and play school is to identify method of sampling (see Benbow, Lubinski, Shea, & talents. They accomplish what was described above as Eftekhari-Sanjani, 2000; Perleth & Sierwald, 2001; reactive interaction between dispositions and environ- Rost, 2000; Swiatek & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2000). ment, which means the environment (in this case the In the Marburg Giftedness Project an unselected teachers) reacts on the talents of the child. This is es- sample of more than 7000 primary school children pecially important for children with parents who can- was screened with respect to intelligence (Rost, 1993, not detect (for various reasons) the giftedness of their 2000), here the final sample consisted of 56% boys child. Furthermore, teachers and educators can con- and 43% girls. Another large German longitudinal tribute to the promotion and development of giftedness study, the Munich High Ability Study, found at least by mentoring gifted children, helping them to find new among the very high intellectual gifted more boys than fields of interest, or enabling them to perform activities girls (Perleth & Sierwald, 2001). Furthermore, girls in their favorite domain or field of interest. Often this were more often selected as gifted because of their exceeds the possibilities the child has at home. Educa- high music or social abilities. In the United States in tional institutions, especially such with special gifted the 1970s the Study of Mathematically Precocious programs, can also provide opportunities to meet like- Youth (SMPY) was started, a longitudinal study minded people and to grow into a community of excel- running until today (for an overview, see Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). As part of a talent search students lence. However, a barrier with regard to an adequate took the SAT (mathematics and verbal). While no promotion of giftedness at school is the lack of gender differences were found on the verbal test there individualization. The educational schedule is not appeared stable gender differences in mathematical specific enough for children’s individual talents and reasoning with a ratio of 12.9 to 1 in the highest levels interests. Teachers have difficulties in managing (Benbow et al., 2000). This research already gives the impression that gifts the variety of talents and learning conditions of the children and orient toward the average which leads and talents of boys and girls lie in different areas. to inadequate performance requests for both students Boys are found to be more spatially or mathematiwith good and poor performance. Consequences can cally gifted whereas girls’ talents are found more often

330

in languages (see also Brody, Barnett, & Mills, 1994; Eccles & Harold, 1992; Swiatek, Lupkowski-Shoplik, & O’Donoghue, 2000). Gender differences are even more pronounced when it comes to interests and activities (see Benbow et al., 2000; Pruisken, 2005; Rost & Hanses, 1992; Schober, Reimann & Wagner, 2004). These differences always go in a traditional direction with boys being more interested in science and mathematics and girls preferring art, humanities, and languages. In this regard gifted children do not differ from their peers with average abilities. The picture is more mixed however when it comes to gender differences in self-concept and motivational variables among gifted children. Generally differences in these variables tend to be not so large and pronounced like the differences in interests and preferences mentioned above (Finsterwald & Ziegler, 2002; Perleth & Sierwald, 2001; Rost & Hanses, 2000; Sch¨utz, 2004). Finsterwald and Ziegler (2002) conducted a meta-analysis on gender differences in variables such as motivation, attribution, locus of control, self-concept, and anxiety. In neither of these variables a clear effect of gender could be found. More recent research shows the same picture. So did Rost and Hanses (2000) for instance report an equally high self-concept of gifted boys and girls while other research reports lower self-concept of girls as well as more effort for achievement and less-optimistic control beliefs (Dresel & Haugwitz, 2005; Hong & Aqui, 2004). Schober, Reimann and Wagner (2004) compared the self-concepts of adolescent boys and girls. While they did not find differences in actual test performance, gender differences appeared in various self-concept variables. Girls had a lower mathematical self-concept, scored higher on helplessness, and girl’s parents had lower achievement expectations. While these students attended “normal” classes a second research sample consisted of boys and girls taking part in a special gifted school program. Here as well gender differences were found. Again, girls had a lower mathematical self-concept, besides and different to the first study they showed lower aspiration level and a lower motivation to succeed. Even if gender differences in self-concept and motivational variables are found they do not always go in the same direction. The research reported so far indicated better outcomes for boys, however, some exceptions are found. Generally girls have better grades at school, gifted or not (Reis, 2002). Schober et al. (2004)

C. Perleth and A. Wilde

found gifted girls who took part in a special gifted school program to have a higher general academic selfconcept, a more positive attitude toward school, and a higher intrinsic motivation than gifted boys. Hotulainen and Schofield (2003) tested Finnish children at pre-school age and after 10 years of school. The children identified as gifted performed better at school then the children with average abilities, however, this effect was more pronounced for girls. The authors conclude that during school time gifted boys succeeded much less than girls in realizing their potential. If gender differences exist (as with different areas of giftedness or different interests and preferences of boys and girls) research remains divided however on the question to what extent these differences are inhered. Some scientists (e.g., the American psychologist Sandra Scarr) regard hormonal influences as the main reason for gender differences in science and mathematics. Others (like the Munich research group of Heller and colleagues) see an important part of gender differences rooted in socializational and educational influences from parents and educators. Because boys are expected to be more mathematical than girls they adopt this view and develop in consequence more science-related interests. From adolescence on this is reflected in better performance in science both in school and tests (see for instance Nagy, Trautwein, Baumert, K¨oller, & Garrett, 2006). In primary school boys and girls perform equally well in mathematics but even then girls underestimate their mathematic abilities (Stipek & Gralinski, 1991; Tiedemann & Faber, 1995). In addition, typical games like building with Lego bricks and also climbing on trees foster the development of mathematical and spatial skills. Because of their higher activation level boys rather than girls tend to turn to such male activities (see above). This, again, shows the complex interaction of environment and dispositions for giftedness development. The superior verbal skills of girls that are found sometimes can be attributed to their stronger preoccupation with games such as role play, where manifold verbal skills are needed. This ranges from verbally establishing and settling the rules of the game to the communication during the game itself. Typical topics of these role plays are “playing house,” “marriage,” or reenacting stories and fairy tales. It might be useful to have a closer look on parents and teachers expectations for boys and girls because this is the point where change can begin. While gender

14

Developmental Trajectories of Giftedness in Children

differences in attributes of the children are rather small (just like gender differences in other domains, usually gender differences are smaller than differences between individuals), popular beliefs about gender differences in giftedness are quite persistent and can through parental expectations influence children’s self-perceptions and performance (see Reis, 2002). This is reflected among others in the smaller number of girls who are recommended for identification measures like tests. Parents as well as teachers have such stereotyped expectations (see Busse & Dahme, 1986; Endepohls-Ulpe, 2004; Perleth & Stave, 2006; Perleth, S¨uhlfleisch-Thurau, & Joswig, 2004). One reason for the strong association of giftedness with boys might be gender stereotypes and gender role expectations. Gender stereotypes are beliefs about the attributes of men and women (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1979). Following Prentice and Carranza (2002) they have a prescriptive (how men and women should be) and a descriptive (what characteristics men and women typically have) aspect. Feminine attributes such as being affectionate, sensitive, or kind are considered more typical of women; attributes such as being aggressive, strong, or logical are considered more typical of men (see Williams, Satterwhite, & Best, 1999). Even if the roles of men and women have changed in the last decades gender stereotypes have remained relatively stable (see Prentice & Carranza, 2004). From the perspective of social role theory (Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000) stereotype content is rooted in the division of labor. Men’s concentration in leadership and other high-power roles leads to the assumption that men have agentic characteristics (e.g., self-assertion, dominance); women’s concentration in subordinate and caretaking roles leads to the assumption that they have communal characteristics (e.g., kind, supportive). In a 5-year longitudinal study Trautner and colleagues (Trautner, 1992; Trautner et al., 2005) examined the development of children’s gender stereotypes. Already at the age of 4 years children knew which behavior and characteristics are typical for men and women, this knowledge was especially pronounced for sex-typed behavior. Between 4 and 8 years this knowledge was characterized by a rigid attribution of traits; feminine traits and behaviors were considered to be typical for women, but not for men and masculine traits were supposed to be typical for men but not women. From the age of 6 years on children’s stereotypes be-

331

came more and more flexible, that is, the children knew that men and women can posses both masculine and feminine characteristics. The phase of rigidity concerning gender stereotypes reached its peak around the age of 6 years, from then on flexibility grew continuously. As Geis (1993) pointed out, gender stereotypes can act as self-fulfilling prophecies. Based on their stereotypes people develop expectations (in this case about the intellectual abilities, talents, and interests of boys and girls) and behave according to these expectations. Children then might in turn adapt their self-perceptions or behavior accordingly. This can for instance result in different toy and activity preferences between boys and girls (see Maccoby, 1998; Trautner, 1995) (of course parents’ expectations is just one factor to explain gender differences in play behavior). As the model of Trautner (1995) on the development of gender stereotypes pointed out, children pass through a developmental stage of rigid gender stereotypes. Especially during this stage children might be quite open-minded about and easily influenced by the gendered expectation of significant others.

Conclusions In the beginning we gave important demands for a model that wants to describe giftedness development which were taken up and elaborated in the Munich Dynamic Ability-Achievement Model. We then described factors that influence giftedness development: innate characteristics, personality factors, and aspects of the environment. From this we can draw useful conclusion about an optimal promotion of gifted children. Domain specificity of talent has to be taken into account. Even if there can be identified central personal characteristics as memory or speed of information processing which underlie different forms of giftedness, there is no such thing as “The gifted” but rather different areas of giftedness must be differentiated. This means that the environment should offer opportunities for children to find out where their talents lie. Furthermore, giftedness development must be seen as a dynamic interaction process between innate dispositions, personality factors (such as motivation), and characteristics of the learning environment. It is especially expertise research that stresses the importance of competencies and personality charac-

332

teristics like task commitment, motivation, and selfcontrol. Because long phases of deliberate practice are necessary to excel in an area such motivational competencies have to be fostered. Parents and educators have to be aware that for excellent achievement deliberate practice must be initiated and maintained over long periods of time. Finally, it is not just talent and practice but also rich domain-specific knowledge which is acquired in long learning processes: here the necessary learning opportunities have to be provided to acquire this knowledge. Innate characteristics must be regarded as important, however, when promoting children it has to be kept in mind that there are various kinds of interaction possible between innate characteristics and environment. To better understand giftedness development in children appropriate methods of analyzing longitudinal data should be applied. It would be very fruitful to follow the suggestions of Singer and Willett (2003) as described in the framework of the multilevel model for change. Instead of analyzing giftedness development at group level grow curve modeling can be used to examine individual developmental trajectories of gifted children, for instance with respect to cognitive functioning or personality factors such as mentioned above. In the next step one might identify distinctive groups of individual trajectories and find out whether interindividual variation is systematically related to context variables.

References Ackerman, P. L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: Cognitive abilities and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 288–318. Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1979). Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theory: Toward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization. Sex Roles, 5, 219–248. Bain, S. K., & Bell, S. M. (2004). Social Self-Concept, Social Attributions, and Peer Relationships in Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Graders Who Are Gifted Compared to High Achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 167–178. Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (2000). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: Their status 20 years later. Psychological Science, 11, 474– 480. Berger, M. (1984). Klassenbeste – eine Untersuchung bei 10j¨ahrigen Sch¨ulern [The best of class – a study in 10-yearold students]. In G. Nissen (Ed.), Psychiatrie des Schulalters (pp. 101–118). Bern: Huber.

C. Perleth and A. Wilde Birx, E. (1988). Mathematik und Begabung [Mathematics and giftedness. Evaluation of a fostering program for mathematically gifted high school students]. Hamburg: Kr¨amer. Bloom, B. S. E. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books. Bock, G. R., & Ackrill, K. E. (Eds.). (1993). The origins and development of high ability. Chichester: Wiley & Sons. Borkowski, J. G., & Peck, V. A. (1986). Causes and consequences of metamemory in gifted children. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 182– 200). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bos, W., Lankes, E.-M., Prenzel, M., Schwippert, K., Walther, G., & Valtin, R. (2003). Erste Ergebnisse aus IGLU. Sch¨ulerleistungen am Ende der vierten Jahrgangsstufe im internationalen Vergleich [Initial results of IGLU. Comparison of elementary school students’ academic achievement at the end of the 4th grade]. M¨unster: Waxmann. Brody, L. E., Barnett, L. B., & Mills, C. a. (1994). Gender differences among talented adolescents. In K. A. Heller & E. A. Hany (Eds.), Competence and responsibility. The Third European Conference of the European Council for High Ability held in Munich (Germany), October 11–14, 1992. Volume 2: Proceedings of the conference (pp. 204–210). Goettingen: Hogrefe & Huber. Busse, T. V., & Dahme, G. (1986). Teacher perceptions of highly gifted students in the United States and West Germany. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(2), 55–60. Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1978). Toward a theory of intelligence: Contributions from research with retarded children. Intelligence, 2, 279–304. Campione, J. C., Brown, A. L., & Ferrara, R. A. (1982). Mental retardation and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (pp. 392–490). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Dresel, M., & Haugwitz, M. (2005). The relationship between cognitive abilities and self-regulated learning: Evidence for interactions with academic self-concept and gender. High Ability Studies, 16(2), 201–218. Dwairy, M. (2004). Parenting Styles and Mental Health of Arab Gifted Adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(4), 275–286. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1992). Gender differences in educational and occupational patterns among the gifted. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Amronson (Eds.), Talent Development: Proceedings form the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (Vol. 3–29). Unionville, NY: Trillium Press. Endepohls-Ulpe, M. (2004). Wie stellen Grundschullehrkr¨afte sich hochbegabte Sch¨uler/innen vor? – Der Einfluss pers¨onlicher Erfahrung in der Unterrichtung Hochbegabter [Elementary school teachers’ images of a gifted student – Effects of personal experience in teaching gifted children]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 51(2), 126–135. Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49, 725– 747.

14

Developmental Trajectories of Giftedness in Children

Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1995). “Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition”: Reply. American Psychologist, 50, 803–804. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-R¨omer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. Ericsson, K. A., Nandagopal, K., & Roring, R. W. (2005). Giftedness viewed from the expert-performance perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(3), 287–311. Ericsson, K. A., Nandagopal, K., & Roring, R. W. (2009). An Expert-Performance Approach to the Study of Giftedness. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), International Handbook of giftedness, 129–154. Feldman, D. H. (1986). Nature’s Gambit. Child Prodigies and the Development of Human Potential. New York: Basic Books. Finsterwald, M., & Ziegler, A. (2002). Geschlechtsunterschiede in der Motivation: Ist die Situation bei normal begabten und hoch begabten Sch¨uler(inne)en die gleiche? [Gender differences in motivation: Is the situation comparable for average and gifted school students?]. In H. Wagner (Ed.), Hoch begabte M¨adchen und Frauen. Begabungsentwicklung und Geschlechtsunterschiede. Tagungsbericht (pp. 67–83). Bad Honnef: Bock. Gagn´e, F. (1993). Constructs and models pertaining to exceptional human abilities. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 69–87). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Gardner, H. (1995). “Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition”: Comment. American Psychologist, 50, 802–803. Geis, F. L. (1993). Self-fulfilling prophecies: A social psychological view of gender. In A. E. Beall & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender. (pp. 9–54): Guilford Press. Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (1996). A longitudinal study of academic intrinsic motivation in intellectually gifted children: Childhood through early adolescence. Gifted-ChildQuarterly. Special Issue: Motivation and Giftedness., 40, 179–183. Gross, M. U. M. (2009). Highly gifted young people: Development from childhood to adulthood. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), International Handbook of giftedness, 337–352. Gruber, H. (1994). Expertise. Modelle und empirische Untersuchungen [Expertise. Models and empirical studies]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Gruber, H., Weber, A., & Ziegler, A. (1996). Einsatzm¨oglichkeiten retrospektiver Befragungen bei der Untersuchung des Expertiseerwerbs [Possibilities of using retrospective interviews in studies of acquistition of expertise]. In H. Gruber & A. Ziegler (Eds.), Expertiseforschung. Theoretische und methodische Grundlagen (pp. 150–168). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Heller, K. A., M¨onks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.). (2000). International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon. Heller, K. A., & Perleth, C. (2004). Adapting Conceptual Models for Cross-cultural Applications. In J. R. Campbell, K. Tirri, P. Ruohotie, & H. Walberg (Eds.), Cross-cultural Research: Basic Issues, Dilemmas, and Strategies (pp. 81–101).

333 H¨ameenlinna, Finland: Research Center for Vocational Education (RCVE). Heller, K. A., Perleth, C., & Lim, T. K. (2005). The Munich Model of Giftedness designed to identify and promote gifted students. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 172–197). New York: Cambridge University Press. Helmke, A. (1997). Individuelle Bedingungsfaktoren der Schulleistung – Ergebnisse aus dem SCHOLASTIK-Projekt [Individual determinants of academic performance: Literature review, results from the SCHOLASTIK project]. In F. E. Weinert & A. Helmke (Eds.), Entwicklung im Grundschulalter (pp. 203–216). Weinheim: Beltz. Hong, E., & Aqui, Y. (2004). Cognitive and motivational characteristics of adolescents gifted in mathematics: Comparisons among students with different types of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 191–201. Hotulainen, R. H. E., & Schofield, N. J. (2003). Identified pre-school potential giftedness and its relation to academic achievement and self-concept at the end of Finnish comprehensive school. High Ability Studies, 14(1), 55–70. Howe, M. J. A. (1990). The origin of exceptional abilities. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Johnson, L., & Beer, J. (1992). Specific and diversive curiosity in gifted elementary students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 463–466. Kurtz, B. E., & Weinert, F. E. (1989). Metamemory, memory performance, and causal attributions in gifted and average children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 45–61. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–343. Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press. Moltzen, R. (2009). Talent development across the lifespan. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), International Handbook of Giftedness, 353–380. Nagy, G., Trautwein, U., Baumert, J., K¨oller, O., & Garrett, J. (2006). Gender and course selection in upper secondary education: Effects of academic self-concept and intrinsic value. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 323–345. Perleth, C. (1994). Strategy use and metamemory in gifted and average primary school children. In K. A. Heller & E. A. Hany (Eds.), Competence and responsibility. The Third European Conference of the European Council for High Ability held in Munich (Germany), October 11–14 (Vol. 2, pp. 46– 52). Goettingen: Hogrefe & Huber. Perleth, C. (1997). Zur Rolle von Begabung und Erfahrung bei der Leistungsgenese. Ein Br¨uckenschlag zwischen Begabungs- und Expertiseforschung [The role of giftedness and experience in the genesis of achievement. A bridge over the gap between giftedness and expertise research]. M¨unchen: LMU. Perleth, C. (2000). Neue Tendenzen und Ergebnisse in der Begabungs- und Intelligenzdiagnostik [New trends and results in giftedness and intelligence diagnostics]. In H. Joswig (Ed.), Begabungen erkennen – Begabte f¨ordern (pp. 35–64). Rostock: Univ. Rostock.

334 Perleth, C. (2001a). Follow-up-Untersuchungen zur M¨unchner Hochbegabungsstudie [Follow-up results of the Munich Longitudinal Study of Giftedness]. In K. A. Heller (Ed.), Hochbegabung im Kindes- und Jugendalter (pp. 357–446). G¨ottingen: Hogrefe. Perleth, C. (2001b). M¨oglichkeiten und Grenzen der Begabungsdiagnose bei Vor- und Grundschulkinder [Possibilities and limits of giftedness diagnosis in pre-school and elementary school children]. In Arbeitsstab Forum Bildung (Ed.), Finden und F¨ordern von Begabungen. Fachtagung des Forums Bildung am 6. und 7. M¨arz 2001 in Berlin (Vol. 7, pp. 80–98). Bonn: Forum Bildung. Perleth, C., & Heller, K. A. (1994). The Munich longitudinal study of giftedness. In R. Subotnik & K. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 77–114). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Perleth, C., Schatz, T., & Gast-Gampe, M. (2001). Die pers¨onliche Begabung entdecken und st¨arken. Unter Mitarbeit von Daniel Ringhand [Discover and encourage individual talents. In collaboration with Daniel Ringhand]. Berlin: Urania-Ravensburger. Perleth, C., Schatz, T., & M¨onks, F. J. (2000). Early indicators of high ability. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook for giftedness and talent (pp. 297–316). Oxford: Pergamon. Perleth, C., & Sierwald, W. (2001). Entwicklungs- und Leistungsanalysen zur Hochbegabung [Analyses of development and achievement of the gifted]. In K. A. Heller (Ed.), Hochbegabung im Kindes- und Jugendalter (pp. 171–355). G¨ottingen: Hogrefe. Perleth, C., & Stave, U. (2006). “Wir k¨onnen auch anders”: Das Klientel der Beratungsstelle im Rostocker Odysseus-Projekt [Clients of the giftedness center of the Rostock Odysseusproject]. Journal f¨ur Begabtenf¨orderung., 6, 37–44. Perleth, C., S¨uhlfleisch-Thurau, U., & Joswig, H. (2004). Zwei Jahre Begabungspsychologische Beratungsstelle “OdysseusProjekt” an der Universit¨at Rostock – Konzeption, Ergebnisse und Erfahrungen [Two years counseling center for giftedness “Odysseus-Project” at Rostock University – conceptional design, results, and experiences]. In H. Joswig & H. Drewelow (Eds.), Begabungsf¨orderung: Von der Einzelfallberatung zur Lernkultur (pp. 173–200). Rostock: Universit¨at Rostock. ¨ Perleth, C., & Ziegler, A. (1997). Uberlegungen zur Begabungsdiagnose und Begabtenf¨orderung in der Berufsaus- und Weiterbildung [Considerations on diagnosis and promotion of gifted in personnel training and vocational education]. In U. Kittler & H. Metz-G¨ockel (Eds.), P¨adagogische Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht (pp. 100–112). Essen: Die Blaue Eule. Plomin, R. (1994). Genetics and experience. The interplay between nature and nurture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269–281. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2004). Sustaining Cultural Beliefs in the Face of Their Violation: The Case of Gender Stereotypes. In M. Schaller & C. S. Crandall (Eds.), The psychological foundations of culture (pp. 259–280). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

C. Perleth and A. Wilde Pruisken, C. (2005). Interessen und Hobbys hochbegabter Grundschulkinder [Interests and hobbies of gifted elementary school students]. M¨unster: Waxmann. Reis, S. M. (2002). Gifted females in elementary and secondary school. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 125–135): Prufrock Press. Rost, D. H. (1993). Lebensumweltanalyse hochbegabter Kinder [Analysis of living circumstances of gifted children]. G¨ottingen: Hogrefe. Rost, D. H. (2000). Hochbegabte und hochleistende Jugendliche. Neue Ergebnisse aus dem Marburger Hochbegabtenprojekt [Gifted and high-performing adolescents]. M¨unster: Waxmann. Rost, D. H., & Hanses, P. (1992). Spielzeugbesitz und Spielzeugnutzung bei hochbegabten Jungen und Maedchen [Toy ownership and toy use among gifted children]. Zeitschrift fuer Entwicklungspsychologie und Paedagogische Psychologie, 24, (2) 91–114. Rost, D. H., & Hanses, P. (2000). Selbstkonzept [Self-concept]. In Hochbegabte und hochleistende Jugendliche (pp. 211– 278). M¨unster: Waxmann. Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype-environment effects. Child Development, 54, 424–435. Schilling, S. R., Sparfeldt,. R., Jr, & Rost, D. H. (2006). Families with gifted adolescents. Educational Psychology, 26(1), 19–32. Schneider, W. (1992). Erwerb von Expertise. Zur Relevanz kognitiver und nichtkognitiver Voraussetzungen [The acquisition of expertise: On the relevance of cognitive and noncognitive prerequisites]. In E. A. Hany & H. Nickel (Eds.), Begabung und Hochbegabung. Theoretische Konzepte, empirische Befunde, praktische Konsequenzen (pp. 105–122). Bern: Huber. Schneider, W. (1993). Acquiring expertise: Determinants of exceptional performance. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 311–324). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Schober, B., Reimann, R., & Wagner, P. (2004). Is research on gender-specific underachievement in gifted girls an obsolete topic? New findings on an often discussed issue. High Ability Studies, 15(1), 43–62. Sch¨utz, C. (2004). Leistungsbezogenes Denken hochbegabter Jugendlicher [Achievement-related cognitions in gifted adolescents]. M¨unster: Waxmann. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press. Sloboda, J. A. (1991). Musical expertise. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 153–172). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sloboda, J. A. (1996). The acquisition of musical performance expertise: Deconstructing the “Talent” account of individual differences in music expressivity. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: the acquisition of expert performance in the arts and science, sports and games (pp. 127–166). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

14

Developmental Trajectories of Giftedness in Children

Sternberg, R. J. (1990). What constitutes a “good” definition of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 96–100. Stipek, D. J., & Gralinski, J. H. (1991). Gender differences in children’s achievement-related beliefs and emotional responses to success and failure in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 361–371. Subotnik, R., & Arnold, K. D. (1994). Longitudinal study of giftedness and talent. In R. Subotnik & K. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 1–23). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Swanson, H. L. (2006). Cognitive processes that underlie mathematical precociousness in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93(3), 239–264. Swiatek, M. A., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2000). Gender differences in academic attitudes among gifted elementary school students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23(4), 360–377. Swiatek, M. A., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., & O’Donoghue, C. C. (2000). Gender differences in above-level EXPLORE scores of gifted third through sixth graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 718–723. Tannenbaum, A. (1992). Early signs of giftedness: Research and commentary. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15(2) 104–133. Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Mental and physical traits of 1000 gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

335 Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). The gifted child grows up. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Tiedemann, J., & Faber, G. (1995). M¨adchen im Mathematikunterricht: Selbstkonzept und Kausalattributionen im Grundschulalter [Gender differences in elementary school children’s self-concept and attributions in mathematics]. Zeitschrift f¨ur Entwicklungspsychologie und P¨adagogische Psychologie, 27, 61–71. Trautner, H. M. (1992). The development of sex-typing in children: A longitudinal analysis. German Journal of Psychology, 16(3), 183–199. Trautner, H. M. (1995). Boys’ and girls’ play behavior in samesex and opposite-sex pairs. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 156(1), 5–15. Trautner, H. M., Ruble, D. N., Cyphers, L., Kirsten, B., Behrendt, R., & Hartmann, P. (2005). Rigidity and flexibility of gender stereotypes in childhood: Developmental or differential? Infant and Child Development, 14(4), 365–381. Wessells, M. G. (1984). Cognitive psychology. New York: Harper & Row. Williams, J. E., Satterwhite, R. C., & Best, D. L. (1999). Pancultural gender stereotypes revisited: The five factor model. Sex Roles, 40, 513–525. Ziegler, A. (1999). Motivation [Motivation]. In C. Perleth & A. Ziegler (Eds.), P¨adagogische Psychologie. Grundlagen und Anwendungsfelder (pp. 107–117). Bern: Huber.

Chapter 15

Highly Gifted Young People: Development from Childhood to Adulthood Miraca U.M. Gross

Abstract Highly gifted children and adolescents are students at risk because they differ so significantly from their age-peers in many aspects of their cognitive and affective development. The cognitive strategies they employ are not readily understood by classmates or, often, by teachers. In the elementary school years, their strong intrinsic motivational orientation is at variance with the “reward” philosophy of many classrooms. Their conceptions and expectations of friendship differ strongly from those of age-peers and more closely resemble those of older students. Their moral reasoning tends to be more akin to that of students some years older. Longitudinal studies which have traced these young people’s development through adolescence and adulthood have identified strongly positive academic and social outcomes of various forms of academic acceleration, including, for exceptionally and profoundly gifted students, thoughtfully monitored programs of radical acceleration which allow graduation from high school three or more years earlier than usual. Keywords Acceleration · Affective development · Altruism · Cognitive strategies · Friendships · Grouping · Highly gifted · Humor · Moral reasoning · Motivational orientation

Highly gifted children are students at risk and many scholars over the last 80 years have argued that those in the very highest ranges of cognitive development may be the group at greatest risk M.U.M. Gross (B) The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia e-mail: [email protected]

(Hollingworth, 1926, 1942; Silverman, 1993; Terman, 1925). Many of the difficulties these young people experience in school arise from teachers’ lack of awareness of the enormous range of ability within the intellectually gifted population. Many teachers assume that giftedness “begins at” an IQ of 130 and that students within this top two percent comprise, in terms of their capacity to learn, a relatively homogeneous group. For highly gifted students, this misconception can lead to seriously inadequate curriculum provision and inappropriate grade placement (Gross, 2004). Silverman (1989, p. 71) defines the highly gifted as “those whose advancement is significantly beyond the norm of the gifted.” Within the broader classification of “highly gifted,” however, are sub-categories of students with increasingly differentiated cognitive characteristics, and more specific terminologies have been developed to classify and describe these children. Intellectually gifted children can be classified as mildly, moderately, highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted. Levels of intellectual giftedness, as defined by IQ ranges, and the level of prevalence of such children in the general population, appear as follows:

Level

IQ range

Prevalence

Mildly (or basically) gifted Moderately gifted Highly gifted Exceptionally gifted Profoundly gifted

115–129

1:6–1:40

130–144

1:40–1:1,000

145–159 160–179

1:1,000–1:10,000 1:10,000–1:1 million Fewer than 1:1 million

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 15, 

180+

337

338

In recent years Gagn´e (for example, 2003) has proposed a different and somewhat idiosyncratic five-level hierarchy (mildly, moderately, highly, exceptionally, and extremely gifted), based on the metric system, with the four highest levels each having a range of only 10 IQ points and with individuals of IQ 165 and above subsumed in a single category of “extremely” gifted. However, as I will discuss in this chapter, significant differences have been found, in both cognitive and affective development, between young people in the lower and upper levels of Gagn´e’s “extremely gifted” categorization. Indeed, this might be expected; variability is greater at the extremes of any curve of ability. Goldstein, Stocking and Godfrey (1999), show that the range of scores of children in the top 1% on IQ – from 135 to more than 200 – is as broad as the range of scores from the 2nd percentile (IQ 64) to the 98th (IQ 132). In terms of intellectual capacity, the profoundly gifted student of IQ 190 differs from moderately gifted classmates of IQ 130 to an even greater degree than the latter differ from intellectually disabled students of IQ 70. This chapter will use the broad term “highly gifted” to define students scoring above IQ 145 – young people who appear in the population at a ratio of fewer than 1:1000 – but will use the more precise terminologies of “exceptionally gifted” and “profoundly gifted” when discussing findings that relate specifically to these subpopulations.

Cognitive Characteristics of Highly Gifted Students Few large-scale comparative studies have been undertaken of differences between the cognitive functioning of moderately and highly gifted children, in part because of the relative scarcity of the highly gifted. However some interesting findings have emerged from such studies as have been conducted.

Cognitive Style and Strategies Cognitive style was defined by Rogers as “consistencies in the unique manner in which a learner acquires or processes information” (1986, p. 19). A wide range

M.U.M. Gross

of studies have found that intellectually gifted children tend to differ in cognitive style from age-peers of average ability. For example, intellectually gifted children prefer to study independently rather than in mixedability groups, display intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivational orientations, and dislike being given responsibility for the learning achievements of classmates (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1981; Ricca, 1984; Ristow & Edeburn, 1985). Findings on motivational orientation and study preferences will be discussed in a later section dealing with affective differences between moderately and highly gifted students. In Canada, Kanevsky (1994) compared differences between the problem-solving strategies used by young children of average ability (mean IQ 104) and those used by highly gifted age-peers (mean IQ 153) when attempting the Tower of Hanoi puzzle and found differences in motivational orientation which appeared to be strongly ability related. The highly gifted children were more likely to display intrinsic motivation – a delight in mastery of the task – rather than extrinsic motivation – pleasure in the instructor’s praise at their success. Indeed these highly gifted youngsters actively sought to enhance their own enjoyment of the problem-solving exercises by monitoring and sustaining the levels of challenge they were able to build in to the task. By contrast, children of average ability presented as more extrinsically motivated by the researcher’s interest in their progress. Studies have identified quite striking differences between the cognitive strategies selected and employed by highly gifted and average ability students not only in structured problem solving but also in daily tasks. Rogers (1986) notes that gifted students use higherorder (metacomponential) information processing strategies more frequently and more effectively than do average-ability age-peers. These include the swift and spontaneous generation of a series of steps toward the resolution of a problem, the setting of priorities, the systematic monitoring of progress and solutions, a longer period of thoughtful pre-analysis of the problem before beginning the attempt toward its solution, and the representation of information through structures more usually employed by an expert in the field. As a child, Ian Baker, a member of Gross’s longitudinal study of young Australians of IQ 160+, whose ratio IQ on the Stanford-Binet L-M was in excess of 200, was fascinated by cartography. By age nine this profoundly gifted young lad could identify and clas-

15

Highly Gifted Young People

sify, in terms of his state’s Department of Roads descriptors, any major or minor road in his home city of one million people. Before he was 12, he began a correspondence with the State Transport Authority (STA) in his home state regarding his theories (demonstrated by self-drawn maps) of how the road systems and traffic flow of various suburbs could be improved. In addition he synthesized the bus, train, and streetcar timetables produced by the STA to provide more effective service linkages (Gross, 1992). The SAT urban planners with whom he communicated by mail were unaware that the young man whose suggestions they were thoughtfully analyzing was a child. Ian’s fascination with structural analysis and the strongly spatial orientation of his problem-solving strategies were apparent in every area of his schoolwork and throughout his leisure pursuits. He was extremely reluctant to use narrative text, explaining that the detail and subtleties of the schemas he was developing were much more comprehensively explained diagrammatically than he could possibly achieve using words that, for him, were an imprecise and subjective vehicle of communication. As his mother explained: “Everything his teacher or parents asked him to do, he would convert into a diagram, a maze, a flow-chart, a timetable or a calendar; Everything had to be set out and analyzed” (Gross, 1992, p. 123–124). Sternberg (1981) has noted significant differences between gifted and non-gifted learners in tasks involving analogical thinking and in the acquisition of new information, the retrieval from storage memory of information previously required, and the application of a range of problem-solving heuristics across a range of problems. Ian Baker’s skills in translating verbally expressed concepts into spatial form to represent their inter-relationships more clearly can be viewed as a manifestation of Sternberg’s “transfer components,” the skills required for generalizing concepts from one context to another (Sternberg, 1981). Humor arises, in part, from an appreciation of relationships between ideas, for example, an appreciation of incongruities. A keen sense of humor in young children has often been noted as an indicator of intellectual giftedness but the degree of sophistication of that humor increases with the level of ability. David, another member of Gross’s study of children of IQ 160+ had, at age 9, a difficult relationship with his sister which was characterized both by sibling rivalry and by widely differing hobbies and interests. David was playing with

339

a globe of the world which a relative had given him for his birthday when his sister came into the room. “See that, Jess,” he said, spinning the globe on its axis “That’s us – poles apart with a world of difference separating us!” Even more impressively, Silverman (1989) describes the 2-year-old who was playing beneath his mother’s bed and when told she was trying to have a rest, spontaneously explained, “Does that mean I’m under arrest?” The analogical reasoning noted by Sternberg (1981) and the capacity to transfer ideas between contexts at early ages and with unusual facility can help to explain the delight in puns and wordplay which seems to characterize highly gifted children even in the early years. A striking characteristic of exceptionally and profoundly gifted children is their capacity for “dual processing” – the seeming ability to process two sets of information simultaneously and in parallel. In this writer’s experience, both the prevalence and the quality of this are significantly more marked in children in the upper reaches of Gagn´e’s “extremely gifted” category – children of IQ 175 or above. Christopher Otway was assessed on the Stanford-Binet (L-M) at the age of 11 and passed virtually every item on the test, right up to Superior Adult Three. He scored at the ceiling of the test; however, a ratio calculation gave him an IQ of 200. The psychologist’s assessment included some interesting analyses of Chris’s styles of processing information. (Christopher) works hard at trying to put every piece of information or every problem which he has to solve into some sort of category. Perhaps at his level of intellectual activity this is the most efficient way of handling the multitude of information and ideas which he handles each day. I have also observed (as have his parents) that Christopher is one of the few people who truly seems to be able to handle information in parallel. For instance, when he was working on quite a difficult question in the assessment, and was obviously thinking and talking on that particular problem, he suddenly interrupted himself to produce the solution to a previous problem which he felt he could improve on (Gross, 1993, p. 15).

When Chris was 11 he discussed with me the process – to the degree that he could consciously analyze it – which allowed him to work on two sophisticated mathematics problems in parallel. As he described it, he seemed to be able to sense the point at which one set of predictions/speculations/calculations (Problem 1) was nearing the point of resolution. At that time he would put that problem on hold and bring Prob-

340

lem 2 to the forefront of his mind, aware that his subconscious mind was simultaneously working in parallel on Problem 1. When Problem 1 had attained resolution it would explode back into his conscious mind as an “aha!” moment which would bring the keenest intellectual and emotional pleasure. The solution would remain with Chris in detail and with complete clarity while he continued to work on Problem 2. The extremely complex and effective cognitive processing strategies which characterize exceptionally and profoundly gifted children, including the capacity for sophisticated and sustained analysis and synthesis, must be an important element in this capacity to process information in parallel. Chris’s younger brother, Jonathon, who also ceilinged out on the Stanford-Binet (L-M) at the age of 8 years 4 months, obtaining a ratio IQ of 170, has a similar cognitive style, although, as the psychologist found, this often manifests itself differently through Jonathon’s puckish sense of humor. Jonathon’s verbal responses (were) of exceptionally high quality. He is a very fluent and articulate sort of child, who has highly developed abstract reasoning skills. It was also obvious that Jonathon has a well-developed sense of humour, too, and often he handled test items on two levels. Firstly he would answer the test question exactly as it was given at a very high level, but then he would give me a supplementary and much more humorous answer or interpretation of the item which he had just completed (Gross, 1993, p. 17–18).

Affective Characteristics of Highly Gifted Students Motivational Orientation As discussed earlier, Kanevsky’s comparative study of the problem-solving strategies employed by young children of average intellectual ability and a group of highly gifted age-peers noted that the highly gifted children were characterized by high levels of intrinsic motivation (Kanevsky, 1994). In a later, Australian, study of motivational orientation, Gross (1997), comparing intellectually gifted 7th grade students with an unselected population of age-peers, found that the gifted students were significantly more task oriented. However Gross also examined a third group; highly and exceptionally gifted students in a school for the

M.U.M. Gross

academically gifted who were telescoping 7th–12th grade into 5 years rather than the customary 6 years, a synthesis of fulltime grouping and acceleration. These students were very significantly more task oriented than even the moderately gifted group, and, as the assessment of motivational orientation was made in the first few days after entry to the special program, it seems likely that their unusual degree of task orientation predated their enrolment. Indeed, students who are intrinsically motivated and stimulated by intellectual challenge would probably be more attracted to a program which allows them to progress much faster than is usually permitted, in the company of classmates who are similarly gifted, than would students who are extrinsically motivated and stimulated by external rewards. In the United States, the Fullerton Study found that, as early as age 7, intellectually gifted children displayed stronger academic intrinsic motivation than did age-peers of average ability and showed a stronger orientation to test themselves against challenging and rigorous tasks (Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst, & Guerin, 1994). Indeed, over the course of this longitudinal study intrinsic motivation has presented so strongly as a characteristic of intellectually gifted students that the Fullerton team has now proposed “motivational giftedness” as a construct in itself (Gottfried, Gottfried and Guerin, 2006).

Study Preferences A number of studies (e.g. Diezmann & Watters, 2001) have suggested that intellectually gifted children prefer to work alone, or with one other student of similar ability, rather than in small or larger mixed-ability group settings. Mulryan (1992) noted that gifted students placed in cooperative learning groups may withdraw and become passive. Robinson (1990) argued against the placement of gifted students in mixed-ability cooperative learning groups on the grounds that all too often the gifted student was, effectively, made responsible for the learning and performance of the other members of the group. The study which traced the academic and social development of highly gifted students enrolled in a special school who were also telescoping 6 years of schooling (7th–12th grade) into 5 (Gross, 1997) also

15

Highly Gifted Young People

reported a substantial shift in the students’ attitude toward collaborative work (Muznieks, 2000). Many of the students reported that in elementary school they had strongly disliked working on a common task in small groups of mixed-ability as they felt they were placed in something of a forced-choice dilemma. If they resisted the temptation to correct or improve the contributions of the other students, the quality of the work presented by the group would be significantly below what they would have achieved on their own; however, if they contributed suggestions or corrections, the other students would all too often abrogate their own responsibilities and the highly gifted students would be left with the majority – or sometimes the entirety – of the work. By contrast, in the ability grouped and accelerated setting, in which all were academically gifted, group work was truly collaborative with everyone contributing amicably and productively. The students’ attitudes toward collaborative work improved significantly over the 5 years of the program to the point where they developed a range of individual and group study “strategies” which they would happily employ according to the strategies’ effectiveness in different work settings.

341

measures her achievements against the level of her previous performance and interprets “advancement“ as the degree to which she has improved on her own standards, through to a norm-referenced perspective from which she compares her achievements against those of her peers. However, this shift in perspective is much more closely linked to mental age than to chronological age; thus a highly gifted child of 4 or 5 years may already have reached a stage of norm-referenced behavior which her age-peers of average ability may not achieve until the age of 7 or 8 years. Because of this early onset of the ability to make social comparisons, highly gifted children may become aware, at an early age, that they are “different,“ in many ways, from the other children around them. However, contrary to popular belief, this rarely leads to arrogance or feelings of superiority. Rather, gifted children may act swiftly to change their behavior in order to conform to the social and behavioral norms of their age-group. Many highly gifted children enter school with the reading accuracy and comprehension of children several years their senior (Terman & Oden, 1947, Gross, 1993). If the teacher does not recognize this precocity and respond to it appropriately, the highly gifted young child may stop reading, or deliberately decrease the quality and quantity of her reading, after only a few The Onset of Norm-Referencing and the weeks in school, as happened with a substantial perAwareness of Difference centage of Gross’s subjects of IQ 160+ (Gross, 1993). The highly gifted child who is anxious to “fit in” with Earlier we discussed the common misconception her classmates may mimic their academic and social among educators that, while gifted students differ behavior so successfully that the teacher who is relyfrom their age-peers of average ability in terms of their ing only on behavioral indicators of possible giftedness capacity to learn, they are relatively homogeneous in may have little chance of detecting her remarkable abilterms of levels and styles of cognitive functioning. ities. Hollingworth made clear her conviction that the difThis is often coupled with a lack of awareness of the degree to which intellectually gifted students ficulties in peer relationships experienced by highly differ from their age-peers in aspects of their affective gifted children did not arise from deficiencies within development and the degree of difference within the the children themselves but through the unlikelihood gifted population. In fact, affective differences among of their easily finding others who share their abilities the gifted can become evident, not only to adults but and interests. to the children themselves and to their classmates, at surprisingly early ages. This can lead, quite early, to This difficulty of the gifted child in forming friendships difficulties in peer relationships. is largely a result of the infrequency of persons who are like-minded. The more intelligent a person is, regardless As children move through the pre-school and of age, the less often can he find a truly congenial comprimary years the egocentricity of early childhood panion. The average child finds playmates in plenty who gradually gives way to an awareness of the opinions, can think and act on a level congenial to him, because attitudes, and abilities of others. The child moves there are so many average children (Hollingworth, 1936 p. 79.). from a self-referenced perspective, from which she

342

Studies of Friendship Several studies have compared the peer relationships of moderately and highly gifted children. Gallagher (1958), comparing the friendship patterns of gifted children scoring below and above IQ 165, noted that the very high scoring group tended to have greater problems of social acceptance than did children scoring between IQ 150 and 164. DeHaan and Havighurst (1961) examined the differences between what they termed “second-order” (IQ 125–159) and “first-order” (IQ 160+) gifted children. They believed that second-order gifted children achieve good social adjustment because they have sufficient intelligence to overcome minor social difficulties, but are not “different” enough to induce the severe problems of salience encountered by the exceptionally gifted. Unlike the longitudinal studies of Hollingworth and Terman, however, these studies were of short duration; no attempt was made to trace the emotional development of the subjects through their school careers. A few studies have investigated aspects of the social and emotional development of groups of exceptionally and profoundly gifted children. Gallagher and Crowder (1957) investigated a group of 36 such students in primary school and found that one quarter had considerable emotional difficulties. Selig (1959) studied the personality structure of 27 New York elementary school students of mean IQ 180, as revealed by the Rorshach technique. In this group the incidence of emotional and social maladjustment was five times the estimated incidence among children generally. Sheldon (1959) found that 15 of his sample of 28 children of IQ 170+ reported feelings of isolation and rejection; however he concluded that an extremely high IQ is not in itself a sufficient cause for perceptions of isolation; he agreed with Hollingworth that the negative self-perceptions of his subjects arose in part from the unfortunate reactions of classmates. A significant contribution to the research on extremely gifted students was made in the early 1980s by Janos, who compared the psychosocial development of 32 children aged 6–9 with IQs in excess of 164 with that of 49 age-peers of moderately superior intellectual ability (Janos, 1983). Although the exceptionally gifted were generally rated higher in terms of their academic performance, they were more isolated than their age-peers and had greater problems of social develop-

M.U.M. Gross

ment. However, like Sheldon, Janos emphasized that the social isolation experienced by these children was not the clinical isolation of emotional disturbance, but was caused by the absence of a suitable peer group with whom to relate. There are virtually no points of common experience and common interest between a 6-year-old with a mental age of 6 and a 6-year-old with a mental age of 12. Hollingworth would doubtless have agreed; she emphasized that when exceptionally gifted children who have been rejected by age-peers are removed from the inappropriate grade placement, and are permitted to work and play with intellectual peers, the loneliness and social isolation disappear and the child is accepted as a valued classmate and friend (Hollingworth, 1942). A study by Janos, Marwood, and Robinson (1985) compared two groups of children centering on age 8, an exceptionally gifted group of IQ 163+ (mean IQ 167.9) and a group of age-peers of IQ 125–140 (mean IQ 131.2). Exceptionally gifted children were significantly more likely to report that most of their friends were older. Interestingly, very few children stated that they had difficulties in making friends; however, the exceptionally gifted were significantly more likely to say that they had too few friends and that being smart made making friends harder. Parents of the exceptionally gifted children were more likely to report that their child had only one close friend, or no close friends at all. Gross’s longitudinal study of 60 Australian children of IQ 160+, commenced in 1983, found that those children who were retained in the inclusion classroom with age-peers, or permitted a “token” grade advancement of a single year, experienced significant and ongoing difficulties with peer relationships. Many reported that they had few friends, or no friends at all, despite deliberate and prolonged academic underachievement in efforts to gain acceptance, or at least tolerance, from age-peers. By contrast, as will be discussed later in this chapter, the 17 students who were radically accelerated, and who entered university aged between 11 and 15, reported warm and fulfilling friendships with the older students with whom they learned and socialized through their childhood and adolescence (Gross, 1993, 2004, 2006). In a study of students selected not on IQ but on mathematical or verbal aptitude, Dauber and Benbow (1990) compared the popularity, peer acceptance, and peer interaction of extremely gifted students who

15

Highly Gifted Young People

had scored 700 or more on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (Mathematical) or 630 or more on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (Verbal) before age 13 (an achievement placing them at the top 1 in 10,000 among their age-peers) with those of moderately gifted students who scored at the 97th percentile on a grade-level math or verbal achievement test. Moderately gifted students were viewed both by themselves and by their age-peers as being more popular, more socially active, and more socially valued than were the extremely gifted students. Students with extreme verbal talent rated themselves as having the lowest social standing of the four groups, a finding which Dauber and Benbow perceptively attribute both to society’s higher valuing of mathematical talent than verbal talent and to the fact that while extreme mathematical ability may be less obvious on social occasions, students who are extremely talented verbally may be conspicuous due to their sophisticated vocabulary. It could also be noted that students who wish to mask or partly conceal their exceptional mathematical ability for peer acceptance need to moderate their achievements principally in math classes, while students who wish to conceal extreme linguistic precocity have to be much more consistently on guard against “breaking cover.” The strain of keeping up a false front to one’s peers is hardly conducive to the establishment of the openness and trust which are necessary precursors to the development of an intimate friendship (Gross, 1998). Many highly gifted students find themselves in a “forced-choice dilemma” (Gross, 1989). If they wish to satisfy their drive for excellence, they must risk sacrificing the attainment of intimacy with their agepeers. If the pursuit of intimacy is their primary need, they must moderate their standards of achievement, conceal, to some extent at least, their intellectual interests, and conform to a value system that may be seriously at variance with their own level of moral development, to retain the approval of the group into they wish to be accepted. Hollingworth (1926) defined the IQ range 125–155 as “socially optimal intelligence.” She found that, in general, children scoring within this range were balanced, confident, and socially adept individuals who were able to win the confidence and friendship of their classmates. By contrast, it was above the level of IQ 160 that the difference between the exceptionally gifted child and his or her age-mates was so great and so obvious that it led to special problems of

343

development linked to social isolation. Disturbingly, those difficulties appeared early and Hollingworth affirmed that they seemed particularly acute at ages 4–9. Previous international studies have found that children’s conceptions of friendship develop in stages and are hierarchical and age related (see, for example, Bigelow & LaGaipa, 1975; Selman, 1981). More recently, an empirical study undertaken with 700 children aged 5–12 explored whether children’s conceptions of, and expectations of, friendship are determined primarily by chronological age or by mental age (Gross, 2000, 2002) and whether intellectually gifted children have conceptions of friendship which are more mature than those held by their age-peers. The study surveyed, through a standardized questionnaire, conceptions of friendship held by three groups of children aged 6–12: children of average intellectual ability, moderately gifted children, and exceptionally gifted children. The study confirmed that children’s conceptions of friendship do indeed form a developmental hierarchy of age-related stages, with expectations of friendship, and beliefs about friendship, becoming more sophisticated and complex with age. The five stages appear in order as follows, from the lowest to the highest level in terms of age and conceptual complexity: Stage 1: “Play Partner”: In the earliest stage of friendship, the relationship is based on “playpartnership.” A friend is seen as someone who engages the child in play and permits the child to use or borrow her playthings. Stage 2: “People to chat to”: The sharing of interests becomes an important element in friendship choice. Conversations between “friends“ are no longer related simply to the game or activity in which the children are directly engaged. Stage 3: “Help and encouragement”: At this stage the friend is seen as someone who will offer help, support, or encouragement. However, the advantages of friendship flow in one direction; the child does not yet see himself as having the obligation to provide help or support in return. Stage 4: “Intimacy/empathy”: The child now realizes that in friendship the need and obligation to give comfort and support flows both ways and, indeed, the giving of affection, as well as receiving it, becomes an important element in the rela-

344

tionship. This stage sees a deepening of intimacy, an emotional sharing and bonding. Stage 5: “The sure shelter”: The title comes from a passage in one of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. “A faithful friend is a sure shelter: whoever finds one has found a rare treasure” (Ecclesiasticus, 6:14). At this stage friendship is perceived as a deep and lasting relationship of trust, fidelity, and unconditional acceptance. As a highly gifted 12-year-old described it: “A real friend is a place you go when you need to take off the masks. You can say what you want to your friend because you know that your friend will really listen and even if he doesn’t like what you say, he will still like you. You can take off your camouflage with a real friend and still feel safe.” The study found, however, that what children look for in friends is dictated not so much by chronological age but by mental age. A strong relationship was indeed found between children’s levels of intellectual ability and their conceptions of friendship. In general, intellectually gifted children were found to be substantially further along the hierarchy of stages of friendship than were their age-peers of average ability. Gifted children were beginning to look for friends with whom they could develop close and trusting friendships, at ages when their age-peers of average ability were looking for play partners. However, the differences between gifted children and their average ability age-peers were much larger in the primary and early years of elementary school than in the later years. In grades 3 and 4, even moderately gifted children have the conceptions of friendship which characterize average-ability children at least 2 years older. Significant differences were observed between exceptionally and profoundly gifted children; both groups held conceptions of friendship which do not normally develop till several years later but some profoundly gifted children in the early years of school had expectations of friendship that normally do not appear until the years of early adolescence. These children face almost insurmountable difficulties in their search for friendship, at an age when most children view a friend as a companion for casual play. As discussed earlier, highly gifted children tend to look for friends among other gifted children of approximately their own age or older children of above average ability (Gross, 1993; Hollingworth, 1926;

M.U.M. Gross

Janos, Marwood, & Robinson, 1985). The present study (Gross, 2002) suggests that these children may not only be seeking the intellectual compatibility of mental age-peers but also be looking for children whose conceptions and expectations of friendship are similar to their own. Hollingworth (1926) noted that the social isolation experienced by many highly gifted children was most acute between the ages of 4 and 9 years. The present study supports Hollingworth’s findings. Exceptionally gifted children (children of IQ 160+) tend to begin the search for “the sure shelter” – friendships of complete trust and honesty – 4 or 5 years before their age-peers even enter this stage. Indeed, in this study exceptionally gifted girls aged 6 and 7 already displayed conceptions of friendship which do not develop in children of average ability until age 11 or 12 years. Substantial gender differences were noticed. At all levels of ability, and at all ages, girls presented as significantly higher on the developmental scale of friendship conceptions than boys. Exceptionally gifted boys who begin the search for intimacy at unusually early ages may be at even greater risk of social isolation than girls of similar ability. Such are the differences in the friendship conceptions held by average and gifted students in the earlier years of primary school that it is at this level that gifted children are most likely to have difficulty in finding other children who have similar expectations of friendship. The results of this study raise, once again, the question as to why schools in Australia and the United States so often reserve programs of ability grouping for students in the upper years of elementary school, and why teachers are so reluctant to allow young gifted children to accelerate. This study suggests that it is in the lower, rather than the upper, grades that placement with chronological peers, without regard to intellectual ability or emotional maturity, is more likely to result in the gifted child experiencing loneliness or social isolation. Ability grouping and grade advancement can be of invaluable assistance in the early years of school to young gifted children whose accelerated conceptions of friendship are urging them to seek the sure shelter of a relationship of trust, fidelity, and authenticity, at ages when their age-peers are seeking playmates or casual conversation. In the case of exceptionally and profoundly gifted children, it is difficult to justify, either

15

Highly Gifted Young People

345

educationally or socially, the inclusion of these chil- Gifted students’ motives for desiring to develop their dren in classes comprised of age-peers whose concep- personal strengths were significantly more altruistic tions of friendship are so radically different from theirs. and philanthropic than the motivations of the comparison group with the differences being particularly notable in gifted girls. The Gifted Education Research, Resource and InMoral Reasoning and Altruism formation Centre (GERRIC) at the University of New South Wales in Sydney offers to 20 gifted students aged Several studies have found significant correlations 14–16 a program entitled Young Leaders of Change between scores on individual or group tests of in- (YLOC). Participants are assisted, over a 6-month petelligence and high scores on measures of moral riod, to identify a social issues project which they can development, while several studies have noted un- develop and implement in their own setting with help usually accelerated levels of moral development in from adult mentors. The course explores the meaning highly gifted children. Quite early in his longitudinal of leadership and assists the young people to monitor study Terman reported that the average 9-year-old and evaluate the success of the community assistance in his sample (IQ 153) scored, on tests of “trustwor- projects they have designed. Assessment with O’Leary’s DSPQ at the start and thiness” and “moral responsibility”, at levels more usually attained by children at least 5 years older close of the 6-month program found that while even (Terman, 1925). Thorndike (1940) found that the at the start of the program a primary motivation for moral development of 50 highly gifted children aged engaging in it was students’ strong altruistic belief that 9–12 correlated much more highly with their mental they should give to others, this perception strengthages than with their chronological ages. Using the ened significantly over the course of the program Defining Issues Test (Rest, 1979) as a measure of (Rogers, 2006). It was surprising and gratifying to the moral judgment, Janos and Robinson (1985) compared GERRIC team that, at an age when adolescents are 24 radically accelerated university students aged often so inwardly focussed on their own development 11–18 years with two groups of gifted high school and social needs, the YLOC group was focussed on students who had not been accelerated and with a third their enjoyment in helping others and their strong group of typical university students. All three gifted belief that it was important that they should do so (see groups exhibited significantly higher levels of moral Rogers, this volume). Terman reported, in the earliest volumes of his judgement than did the typical undergraduates. longitudinal study, the propensity of the parents of Gross (1993) assessed eight 11–13-year-olds of IQ his gifted group to become involved with community 160 on the Defining Issues Test (DIT); all scored above organizations – often charities which support children the mean for American Junior High School students with special needs or families in difficulties – to which and four scored above the American high school mean. they gave voluntary service, often over many years Reassessment 10 years later, when the young people were in their 20s, found their DIT scores were still sig- and often as unpaid administrators. In later volumes nificantly beyond the scores for graduate students al- his research team described how, as the gifted group though, in most cases, ceiling effects on the instrument young people grew up, many of them continued this precluded an assessment of the full degree of advance- “tradition” of service. “Their roles as volunteers often included responsibility and influence comparable ment. An Australian study comparing 400 students in 9th to those of many paid occupations” (Holahan & through 11th grade identified as gifted with age-peers Sears, 1995, p. 97). Gross (2004) has reported similar findings with the not so identified found significantly higher scores parents of her subjects of IQ 160+. As with Terman’s for the gifted students on the Defining Issues Test (O’Leary, 2004). Through an instrument developed parents, they tend to demonstrate a talent for organizafor the study, the Development of Personal Strengths tion and leadership and are thus often elected to leadQuestionnaire (DPSQ), the study also investigated ership positions in the community organizations they students’ interest in developing their personal strengths serve, spending much of their free time in voluntary and their motivations for wanting to develop these. and unpaid service. Many of them are involved in or-

346

ganizations which support children with intellectual or physical disabilities. This stands in striking contrast to the stereotyped perception of parents of the gifted as over-ambitious and selfish individuals whose only concern is to promote the interests of their own children! Like Terman’s subjects, many of Gross’s exceptionally and profoundly gifted young people have followed the lead of their parents in becoming involved in service organizations. Details of this can be found in Gross (2004).

Highly Gifted Children Growing Up Longitudinal studies are one of the most timeconsuming forms of research – but they are invaluable in allowing us to trace the development of young people of remarkable potential as they develop through the years of adolescence, adulthood, and later maturity.

The Terman Study Almost half of Terman’s subjects could read before school entry (Terman, 1925) and on standardized tests of academic achievement they consistently scored, on average, 40% ahead of their age-peers as they progressed through school. Twenty percent were permitted to skip all or part of first grade and by the time they graduated from high school 10% had skipped two grades and a further 23% had skipped one (Terman & Oden, 1947). In high school, despite so many of them being younger than their classmates, they consistently scored in the top 10% of their classes in achievement. They enjoyed school – many of them, in middle age, spoke reminiscently about the support and encouragement they had received both from their families and from their teachers – and many more went on to college than was customary at that time. Indeed, around 65% of the men and almost 60% of the women went on to take further degrees. Laycock (1979) points out how remarkable this is because most were undertaking tertiary studies during the economic depression of the 1930s when the proportion of women graduating from college was very much smaller. Students who had accelerated in primary or secondary school were more likely to enter postgraduate

M.U.M. Gross

study than equally gifted students who were not, and they were also more likely to complete postgraduate study successfully. A survey undertaken in 1977, when the average age of the group was 67 years, asked them to look back on their lives and rate the satisfaction they had found in various areas. The responses of people who had been accelerated were generally more positive than those who had not. Accelerands reported significantly greater satisfaction in their work, in recreational activities, and, interestingly, in social activities and friendships than did non-accelerands (Cronbach, 1996). Terman and his colleagues concluded that, in general, academically gifted students of IQ 140 or above “should be promoted sufficiently to permit college entrance by the age of 17 at latest and that a majority in this group would be better off to enter at 16” (Terman & Oden, 1959, p. 72). Certainly, as we will discuss later, for highly gifted children this seems to be sound advice. As with education, the careers of the Terman group reflect the era in which the study was set. By the time of the 1957 survey more than half the women were housewives with no steady outside employment. Of those who did have jobs, the largest group was in teaching and the next largest in business, as secretarial or administrative assistants. The women who did have professional careers tended to do extremely well; there were women with distinguished careers in science, art, education, writing, and business. In 1954 Terman recorded the accomplishments of his group showing that by age 40 they had written 67 books, more than 1,400 articles in professional or research journals and more than 400 short stories or plays. He pointed out that this was 10–30 times as large as could be expected for 800 randomly chosen people of the same age (Terman, 1954). In the middle and later years of the study, Terman’s research team compared men who were rated as “most successful” and “least successful” in their careers. One of the strongest findings was that the “most successful” group had, as children, parents who themselves had significantly higher education than was usual for the time and who passed on a strong valuing of education to their children, while the families of the “least successful” group had much less encouragement and valued education less. Another strong but unsurprising difference is that the “most successful” had a much stronger drive to achieve than did the least successful group. There is no evidence, however, that these

15

Highly Gifted Young People

groups were distinguishable, in childhood, in terms of motivation. The most recent report of the study, undertaken when the Terman group were in the years of later maturity, has re-emphasized the degree to which the higher intellectual ability of the Terman children influenced so many aspects of their development as young people. Throughout the school years and into adolescence these children’s interests, attitudes and knowledge developed in correspondence with their mental age rather than with their chronological age. Their academic achievement as measured by tests, their interest and liking for various future occupational careers, their knowledge about and interest in games, their choice of recreational reading materials, and their moral judgments about hypothetical conduct were all characteristic of older non-gifted children whose mental age-range was approximated by this much younger and brighter group. Even the intellectual level of their collections was more mature than that of their chronological age-mates (Holahan & Sears, 1995, p. 16).

The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) The best known and most extensive longitudinal study of modern times is the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) which was initiated by Julian Stanley in the early 1970s. Stanley’s associates, principally Camilla Benbow and David Lubinski of Vanderbilt University, are in the fourth decade of a planned 50 year study of 5,000 mathematically or verbally gifted adults who scored, as adolescents, on the Maths or Verbal scales of the Scholastic Aptitude Tests, at a level that would place them in the top 1% of the population. The study has produced a wealth of findings, some of which bear out and extend many of the findings of previous scholars; others which open up important new areas for discovery and debate. Brody, in this volume, provides an extensive account of the conduct and findings of the SMPY and CTY (Center for Talented Youth) programs. Children who are highly gifted mathematically or verbally use problem-solving strategies that do not seem to develop in children of average ability until some years later. It is not only that they are talented in math or language, it is that they seem to engage with, and manipulate, math or language in ways that are more characteristic of students several years older.

347

These young people tend to possess an internal locus of control, accepting that they themselves are largely responsible for their academic successes or difficulties. They are less likely than their age-peers to attribute difficulties to external factors and are somewhat more likely to accept that they do indeed have unusual math or verbal talents and that this, together with motivation and effort, has contributed significantly to their academic success. Talent Search participants tend to retain, and use, their high abilities. An investigation of one cohort of Talent Search participants when they were in their early 30s found that 90% of them had Bachelor’s degrees, while fully 25% held doctoral degrees (as against 1% of the American population as a whole) (Benbow, Lubinski, Shea & Eftekhari-Sanjani, 2000). Men and women in the study had equal educational attainments. As with the Terman Study, the picture for these young people in adulthood is very far from the stereotyped “early ripen, early rot“ predictions for exceptional childhood talent. The highest achievers in the Talent Searches tend to maintain their superiority in adult life. In the late 1990s Lubinski, Webb, Morelock, & Benbow (2001) surveyed Talent Search students from the early 1980s who had scored, on the SAT, at levels achieved by fewer than 1 in 1,000 in the population. More than 50% of these young people were already pursuing doctorates. Even though they were only in their twenties, many had published several articles or secured patents for their inventions. A sizeable number had already won prestigious awards in their fields. However, Talent Searches have also identified that achievement and success are by no means built in for gifted students. Where schools have not provided structured opportunities for talent development, these students perform, in school, and in later life, at levels significantly below their true capacity. Even remarkably high ability is not by itself sufficient; exceptional ability does not develop into exceptional achievement unless the educational system accepts its responsibility to actively facilitate this process. Talent searches have noted significant differences in the adult achievements of equally gifted students whose schools have or have not provided special opportunities. One intervention has proved effective beyond any other for Talent Search participants. Cronbach (1996) points out that, although a remarkable range of studies have been undertaken over the last 50 years on

348

the short-term and long-term outcomes of acceleration, one finding is consistent, regardless of the era of the study or the modes of acceleration employed. Where accelerands are compared, on academic or socioaffective variables, to equally gifted students who have not been permitted acceleration, and where differences have been found, they favor accelerands.

An Australian Longitudinal Study Since 1983 Gross has traced the education, careers, and personal lives of 60 young people of IQ 160. This study’s findings have been reported in several publications (e.g. Gross, 1992, 1993, 1998, 2004, 2006) and we will address, here, only issues related to the usage, or rather the underusage, of acceleration with these remarkably gifted young people. The positive or negative influences of educational decisions extend far beyond the classroom. As Feldhusen has commented (1985), rather than worrying about the consequences of accelerating gifted students, we should turn our attention to the consequences of not accelerating them. The 60 young Australians in Gross’s study are among the most intellectually gifted young people ever discovered. There is little doubt that all of them would have benefited from academic acceleration; instead, the majority were retained with age-peers for their entire schooling or permitted a single grade advancement. In several cases schools justified the decision not to accelerate these students on the grounds that it would be unfair to offer an “advantage” to one child that could not be offered to all. The mother of one such student was informed by the school principal that it would be a violation of the principles of social justice if her son was given any work that could not be mastered by the majority of students in his class. “A Nation Deceived” a two volume report on the history, structure, and research underpinning acceleration (Colangelo, Assouline & Gross, 2004) identifies and describes 18 forms of acceleration. Radical acceleration is usually defined as any combination of accelerative procedures which results in a student graduating from high school 3 or more years earlier than is customary. It is very rare indeed for radical acceleration to comprise a single, 3-year, gradeskip. Usually the grade advancements are separated by periods of

M.U.M. Gross

consolidation. Obviously, radical acceleration is rarely practised, first because it is suitable only for extremely gifted students who are very mature socially and emotionally and who are eager to move much more speedily through school, and second because most schools will not even consider it as an option. However, when thoughtfully planned and carefully monitored it is a highly successful intervention for highly gifted students who are also socially and emotionally mature. When the 60 young adults in Gross’s study are grouped in terms of the degree of acceleration permitted, some interesting patterns appear. A B C D

Young people who have been radically accelerated. Who accelerated by 2 years. Who accelerated by 2 year. Who were retained with age-peers for the whole of their schooling.

Group A: Radical Accelerands Seventeen of the 60 young people in Gross’s study were allowed to radically accelerate through school. None regrets their acceleration. Those who say that they would in retrospect, have changed things, affirm that they would probably have preferred to accelerate still further or that they would have preferred to start earlier. This exactly parallels the views expressed by the extremely gifted young Americans in the SMPY study who were surveyed in their 30s by Lubinski et al. (2001). Some of the young people had a less than fortunate start to school but things improved for them later. Hadley Bond, who became Australia’s youngest school dropout at age 5 after 2 weeks of stultifying boredom being “introduced” with the other 5-year-olds to “reading readiness” although he had been reading since age 2, is one of these; when he re-enrolled a few months later at another school the principal allowed an immediate grade skip – and he met and worked with other avid readers. Others were fortunate enough to enrol, right from the start, in schools where a teacher or school administrator recognised their remarkable abilities and argued for a strongly individualised program. All 17 are characterised by a passionate love of learning and almost all have gone on to take PhDs.

15

Highly Gifted Young People

Despite being some years younger than their classmates, the majority topped their state in specific academic subjects, won prestigious academic prizes, or represented their country or state in Math Physics, or Chemistry Olympiads. Several won scholarships to attend prestigious universities in Australia or overseas. In every case, the radical accelerands have been able to form warm and lasting friendships. They believe that this was made possible because their schools placed them, relatively early in their schooling, with older students to whom they tended to gravitate in any case. The few who experienced social isolation say that it disappeared after the first gradeskip. Two of the radical accelerands are married with children, two others are engaged to be married, and the majority are in permanent or serious love relationships.

Group B: Two-Year Accelerands The six young people who accelerated by 2 years report as much, or almost as much, personal satisfaction with their education as do the radical accelerands – although most say they would have preferred to do another gradeskip. None has any regrets about accelerating. They are less likely to do Ph.D. study than Group A, but the majority have taken Bachelor’s Honours degrees. They are almost as likely as Group A to report satisfactory personal and love relationships. However, those who were not permitted acceleration until later in their schooling tend to find socializing rather more difficult. Exceptionally and profoundly gifted students should have their first acceleration in the early years of school before they experience the social rejection which seems to be a significant risk if they are retained in mixed-ability classes. The skills of friendship building (rather than just playing together) are first learned in the early years of school, and children who are rejected by their classmates may miss out on these early and important lessons in forming relationships.

349

isfied with their education. They would have loved to accelerate by more than 1 year. After the euphoria of having new, challenging work, school became just as boring as it had been before. Despite the first acceleration having been so successful, these students’ schools were afraid that further acceleration might lead to social rejection or emotional damage. In two cases the school was concerned for the self-esteem of other students because the accelerated student was performing so much better than they were! This group has tended to take undergraduate degrees but not go further into postgraduate study. Although these young people certainly have the capacity to pursue research degrees, they have never had the experience of pitching themselves successfully, and over a period of time, at work which is truly challenging. They therefore have no idea of the full extent of their capacities; indeed, they have tended to enrol in undemanding academic courses and have consequently found university intellectually unchallenging. It is with this group that a serious dissatisfaction with friendships and love relationships starts to appear.

Group D: Students Not Permitted Acceleration

The remaining 33 young people were retained in a lockstep curriculum with age-peers in the mixedability classroom for the entirety of their schooling. With few exceptions, they have very jaded views of their education. Two dropped out of high school and a number have dropped out of university. Several more have had ongoing difficulties at university – not because of lack of ability but because they find it difficult to commit to undergraduate study which is less than stimulating. Several of the non-accelerands have serious and ongoing relationships problems. These young people find it very difficult to sustain friendships because, having been, to a large extent, socially isolated at school, they have had much less practice, in their formative years in the “give and take” of social relationships. Roger says wryly: “Socially, I have three feet; two left feet and the Group C: One-Year Accelerands third one that I seem to put in my mouth every time I open it.” A number have sought counselling to assist Four of the young people were permitted a single grade with their social difficulties. Two have been treated for advancement. These young people are not deeply sat- severe depression.

350

Conclusion As we discussed in the introduction to this chapter, highly gifted children differ from their age-peers on a wide range of cognitive and affective variables. They have many more differences than commonalities with the children with whom they will be placed for the purposes of instruction and, ironically, for the purposes of socialisation. They differ in their cognitive styles and strategies, in their approach to learning and in their motivation for learning. They differ in the style and maturity of their sense of humor; it is ironic that, for gifted children, shared laughter, which should lead to social bonding, can often be withheld from them because their age-peers have not yet “grown into” the ideas which gifted students find amusing. They differ in their motivational orientation and their study preferences and, because they are able, rather earlier than their classmates, to engage in social comparisons, they may be poignantly aware of many of these differences. Even their conceptions and expectations of friendship can set them apart from their peers. Highly gifted students require a curriculum that is differentiated in content, pace, level, and degree of complexity. However, the delivery of such a curriculum in the mixed-ability classroom can be problematic; with whom can the highly gifted student work on this enriched and enhanced material? The highly gifted student may be placed in a forced-choice dilemma; work on material that meets your learning needs but do so alone – or work in collaboration with other students but at a stage or level you have already passed through. Ability grouping and acceleration are interventions that we should and must provide for highly gifted students. For exceptionally and profoundly gifted students the greatest gift of all may be an individually tailored, thoughtfully designed, and monitored program of radical acceleration.

References Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (2000). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning: Their status 20 years later. Psychological Science, 11, 474–480. Bigelow, B. J., & LaGaipa, J. J. (1975). Children’s written descriptions of friendship: A multidimensional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 11, 857–858.

M.U.M. Gross Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City: University of Iowa. Cronbach, L. J. (1996). Acceleration among the Terman males: Correlates in midlife and after. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.) Intellectual talent (pp. 179–191). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Dauber, S. L., & Benbow, C. P. (1990). Aspects of personality and peer relations of extremely talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(1), 10–14. DeHaan, R. F., & Havighurst, R. J. (1961). Educating gifted children. (Revised edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2001). The collaboration of mathematically gifted students on challenging tasks.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 7–31. Dunn, R., Dunn. K., & Price, G. E. (1981). Learning styles: Research vs. opinion. Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 645–646. Feldhusen, J. F. (1985). Excellence in educating the gifted. Denver: Love. Gagn´e, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.), (pp. 60–74). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gallagher, J. J. (1958). Peer acceptance of highly gifted children in the elementary school. Elementary School Journal, 58, 465–470. Gallagher, J. J., & Crowder, Y. (1957). The adjustment of gifted children in the classroom. Exceptional children. 23, 306–319. Goldstein, D., Stocking, V. B., & Godfrey, J. J. (1999). What we’ve learned from talent search research. In N. Colangelo & S. G. Assouline (Eds.) Talent Development III: Proceedings from the 1995 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development. Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press. Gottfried, .W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., & Guerin, D. W. (1994). Gifted IQ: early developmental aspects: The Fullerton longitudinal study. New York and London: Plenum Press. Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., & Guerin, D. W. (2006). The Fullerton longitudinal study: A long-term investigation of intellectual and motivational giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(4), 430–450. Gross, M. U. M. (1989). The pursuit of excellence or the search for intimacy? The forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth. Roeper Review, 11(4), 189–194. Gross, M. U. M. (1992). The early development of three profoundly gifted children of IQ 200. In P. N. Klein & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.) To be young and gifted (pp. 94–140). New Jersey: Ablex. Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Exceptionally Gifted Children. London: Routledge. Gross, M. U. M. (1997). How ability grouping turns big fish into little fish – or does it? Of optical illusions and optimal environments. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 6(2), 18–30. Gross, M. U. M. (1998). The “Me” Behind the mask: Intellectually gifted children and the search for identity. Roeper Review, 20(3), 167–174. Gross, M. U. M. (2000). From “play partner” to sure shelter“: A comparison of conceptions of friendship between children of average ability, moderately gifted and highly gifted chil-

15

Highly Gifted Young People

dren. Unpublished keynote address: Fifth Wallace International Research Symposium on Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa, May 19. Gross, M. U. M. (2002). Gifted children and the gift of friendship. Understanding Our Gifted, 14(3), 27–29. Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Gross, M. U. M. (2006). Exceptionally gifted children: Long-term outcomes of academic acceleration and nonacceleration. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(4), 404–429. Holahan, C. K., & Sears, R. R. (1995). The gifted group at later maturity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hollingworth, L. S. (1926) Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York: Macmillan. Hollingworth, L. S. (1936). The development of personality in highly intelligent children. National Elementary Principal, 15, 272–281. Hollingworth, L. S. (1942) Children above IQ 180: Their origin and development. New York: World Books. Janos, P. M. (1983). The psychological vulnerabilities of children of very superior intellectual ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York University. Janos, P. M. and Robinson, N. M. (1985). ‘Psychosocial development in intellectually gifted children’, in F. D. Horowitz and M. O’Brian (Eds.) The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives. pp. 149–195. Washington, DC: American Psychogical Association. Janos, P.M., Marwood, K. A., & Robinson, N. N. (1985). Friendship patterns in highly intelligent children. Roeper Review, 8(1), 46–49. Kanevsky, L. K. (1994). A comparative study of children’s learning in the zone of proximal development. European Journal of High Ability, 5(2), 163–175. Laycock, F. (1979). Gifted children. Glenview. Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Co. Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: a 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 718–729. Mulryan, C. M. (1992). Student passivity during cooperative small groups in mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 261–273. Muznieks, C. (2000). Psychosocial and academic outcomes for selective high school students undertaking a program of cohort acceleration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. O’Leary, K. (2004) The development of personal strengths and moral reasoning in gifted adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

351 Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Ricca, J. (1984). Learning styles and preferred instructional strategies of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 121– 126. Ristow, R. S., & Edeburn, C. E. (1985). Learning preferences: A comparison of gifted and above-average middle grades students in small schools. Roeper Review, 8, 119–124. Robinson, A. (1990). Point-counterpoint: Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9–27. Rogers, K. B. (1986). Do the gifted think and learn differently? A review of recent research and its implications for instruction. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(1), 17–39. Rogers, K. B. (2006). The impact of leadership training on the self-efficacy and self-directedness of gifted adolescents. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 15(2), 16–26. Selig, K. (1959). Personality structure as revealed by the Rorschach technique of a group of children who test above 170 IQ on the 1937 edition of the Stanford-Binet. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University. Selman, R. L. (1981). The child as a friendship philosopher. In S. R. Asher & J. M. Gottman (Eds.) The development of children’s friendships (pp. 242–272). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sheldon, P. M. (1959). Isolation as a characteristic of highly gifted children. The Journal of Educational Sociology, January, 215–221. Silverman, L. K. (1989). The highly gifted. In J. F. Feldhusen, J. VanTassel-Baska, & K. Seeley (Eds.), Excellence in educating the gifted (pp. 71–83). Denver: Love. Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver: Love. Sternberg, R. (1981). A componential theory of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 86–93. Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius (Vol. 1). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Terman, L. M. (1954). The discovery and encouragement of exceptional talent. American Psychologist, 9, 221–230. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H.(1947). Genetic studies of genius: Volume IV: The gifted child grows up. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius (Vol. 5), The gifted group at mid-life Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Thorndike, R. (1940). Performance of gifted children on tests of developmental age. Journal of Psychology, 9, 337–343.

Chapter 16

Talent Development Across the Lifespan Roger Moltzen

Abstract The systematic study of the lives of extraordinary individuals is a relatively new science. This work has taken two main approaches. One method has been to track gifted children from childhood to adulthood. The other approach has been to focus on the life stories of eminent adults. The findings from the longitudinal investigations demonstrate that many gifted young people fall short of the expectations held of them by their teachers and parents, while the retrospective studies reveal that many eminent adults were perceived as anything but gifted in childhood. It is generally recognised that those who achieve greatness start with some genetic advantage; however, the interaction of this potential with environmental circumstances is a complex and a somewhat mystifying phenomenon. In addition, the process of talent development is unique to each individual. Nonetheless, studies in this field do offer some pointers as to the conditions that may enhance the likelihood of potential translating into performance. Keywords Gifted · Talented · Development · Lifespan · Eminence · Longitudinal · Retrospective · Marginalisation · Birth order

Introduction The number of new biographies and autobiographies that are published each year are testimony to the fact that people are interested in learning about eminent individuals. This interest goes well beyond learning R. Moltzen (B) University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected]

of these luminaries’ actual accomplishments, as these are often well known and fully documented elsewhere. What seems to sell the books (and what attracts people to other sources such as television documentaries) is the ‘human side’ of these people. There appears to be a universal fascination with discovering the person behind the accomplishments. For many of us, part of this is also an interest in factors that might help to explain an individual’s rise to prominence to gain a better understanding of how talent develops. Throughout history people have had a love–hate relationship with the extraordinary among them (Gardner, 1997). On the one hand, we value and benefit from their contributions, while at the same time ‘we entertain misgivings about those who have been endowed with great gifts and those who exert a profound influence on our lives’ (Gardner, 1997, p. 2). In the first instance, we are often reluctant to recognise their achievements, and then, when these have been acknowledged, we often search for signs of weakness, or flaws, that may redress a perceived imbalance. ‘Even as we esteem our heroes, we mortals equally love to denigrate them’ (Gardner, 1997, p. 3). Some researchers view history as biography and contend that the history of the world is simply a history of outstanding individuals (Simonton, 1984). In this view, history is moulded by the personalities and accomplishments of individuals in two major ways. The first are the creators, those who ‘make lasting contributions to human culture, whether as scientists, philosophers, writers, composers or artists’ (Simonton, 1984, p. 1). The second are the leaders, ‘who transform the world by their deeds, rather than their ideas or emotional expression’ (Simonton, 1984, p. 1). Many civilisations are defined by the achievements of their most able. Throughout history, there

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 16, 

353

354

are numerous examples of talented individuals being singled out so that their abilities could be nurtured and developed. Early records show that the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Chinese and Japanese nurtured outstanding abilities and talents for the good of the state. In Renaissance Europe, governments encouraged and supported creative artists and the church provided sponsorships for artists, sculptors and musicians. In 18th century Europe, royalty and nobility often sponsored those with notable gifts. However, the first systematic attempt to explain the phenomenon of outstanding achievements did not occur until the 19th century and was undertaken by the English scientist Sir Francis Galton. Galton’s (1869) study, followed in the next century by the work of Alfred Binet (e.g. Binet & Simon, 1905), Lewis Terman (e.g. Terman, 1925) and Leta Hollingworth (e.g. Hollingworth, 1926), laid the foundation for a modern interest in gifted children. From the early part of the last century to the present day, gifted children have been studied extensively. Most of the research attention directed towards these young people has been related to their education, resulting in the publication of numerous books and articles positing the type of environment most likely to translate into adult achievement.

Changes in Notions of Giftedness One of the enduring issues in this area, and one that is central to any investigation of giftedness and talent, is a conceptual one. Debates around the meaning of the term ‘gifted’ and how this might be used to define and identify a specific sector of the population are features of the literature in this field. This literature is replete with alternative definitions, with one reviewer reporting having identified 213 different interpretations of the concept (George, 1997). McAlpine (2004) noted that the concept is dynamic and changes over time. He reported that From a rather narrow concept based on intelligence and the IQ, it has become increasingly developed into a multicategory concept based on a wide range of abilities including academic aptitude, creativity, social leadership, and more recently ‘wisdom’, as a form of ‘meta talent’. (McAlpine, 2004, p. 33)

The development of ideas about giftedness very closely mirror changes in notions of intelligence.

R. Moltzen

Galton (1869) argued that intelligence was related to sensory ability – the keenness of vision, smell, hearing, taste and touch. His approach to measuring intelligence involved testing visual and auditory acuity, tactile sensitivity and reaction time. These were the first systematic and scientific attempts to test intelligence, and although his thesis was soon to prove inadequate, it did pave the way for later efforts by others. As far as Galton was concerned, intelligence was a fixed trait and something that remained constant from birth to death. Although the words ‘nature and nurture’ were first put together in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Galton (1869) can be credited with introducing the terms into behavioural science and with starting the nature–nurture controversy. The Frenchman, Alfred Binet, rejected the notion that intelligence could be measured by focusing on elementary cognitive processes (Binet & Simon, 1905). He believed that to study intelligence, it was essential to focus on complex mental processes and his test of intelligence assessed 10 ‘mental functions’: memory, imagery, imagination, attention, comprehension, suggestibility, aesthetic appreciation, moral sentiments, muscular force (will power) and motor skill. Binet did not see these abilities as independent and unrelated, but as specific abilities that contributed to an underlying general ability. Terman (1925) developed an American version of the Binet and Simon intelligence test and used this to identify 1528 gifted children for his longitudinal study. To Terman, giftedness was synonymous with high general intelligence (he put the level at an IQ of 130 or more) and he maintained that the most valid and reliable way of determining levels of general intelligence, or ‘g’, was the intelligence or IQ test. Gottfredson (2003, p. 26) defined g as, ‘the ability to learn, think abstractly, reason, and to solve problems’. She maintained that, ‘a highly general intelligence factor forms the common core for all mental abilities yet studied. It is therefore likely that a favourable g level forms an essential foundation for most, if not all, highly valued forms of cultural achievement’. However, Gottfredson (2003) also pointed out that even if a high level of g is necessary for outstanding performance, it does not guarantee it and that personal traits and opportunities can be critical factors. Terman’s approach, equating giftedness with high general intelligence, dominated thinking in education

16

Talent Development Across the Lifespan

and psychology for most of the 20th century. However, in the early 1970s, ideas about intelligence began to change, and the notion of intelligence as an innate, unitary, fixed and measurable trait came under threat. In a similar manner, concepts of giftedness began to shift and the first formal outworking of this change appeared in the Marland Report to the Congress of the United States Commissioner of Education (1972). This definition extended the notion of giftedness from general intelligence to include specific academic aptitude, creative and productive thinking, leadership ability, visual and performing arts and psychomotor ability. Since that time others have taken a similar approach. A more recent development has been the idea of multiple intelligences. Sternberg (1985) proposed three intelligences: academic, creative and practical. Gardner (1983) argued for the following eight different intelligences, none of which single out ‘general’ intellectual ability: linguistic, logical– mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily kinaesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalist. Both Sternberg and Gardner have asserted that their models of intelligence can be directly applied to defining giftedness. As the concept of giftedness expanded, the term ‘gifted and talented’, rather than ‘gifted’ became more widely used. In most instances ‘gifted and talented’ is used as a single definition, implying synonymy, although some writers do differentiate between ‘gifted’ and ‘talented’ (e.g. Gagn´e, 1985). Gottfredson (2003) suggested that these broader approaches have become popular because they imply that everyone can be smart in some way. She claimed that many researchers have for many years searched for major mental abilities that are independent of g but are yet to discover a single one. Carroll (1993) concluded that at least four of Gardner’s ‘intelligences’ (linguistic, logical–mathematical, visual–spatial and maybe musical) consist primarily of g and Gottfredson (2003) argued that while there may be different kinds of giftedness, these different gifts do not represent different intelligences. ‘Rather, they are more like differently flavored ice creams – wonderfully different but all depending on the same basic ingredient’ (Gottfredson, 2003, p. 28). Most definitions of intelligence have their roots in Western European culture. Terms such as ‘intelligence’ and ‘giftedness’ actually function in discourse to promote or endorse certain actions. In Western

355

societies the common descriptors of intelligence are very closely connected to the traits that are considered important to succeed in education, including ‘clever, sensible, careful, methodical, inventive, prudent, acute, logical, witty, observant, critical, experimental, quickwitted, cunning, wise, judicious, and scrupulous’ (Serpell, 2000, pp. 549–550). In societies without a history of formal schooling, the notion is likely to be associated with different meanings. For example, Serpell (2000) reported that among rural African communities, intelligence is more related to wisdom, skill, an ability to take responsibility, obedience, understanding, attentiveness and trustworthiness. In many cultures, intelligence is only esteemed in an individual if it is deployed in a socially responsible manner. The Baganda and Batoro peoples of Uganda, for example, view intelligence as socially oriented behaviour that contributes to the collective good (Wober, 1974). Bevan-Brown (2004), in a comprehensive overview of Maori notions of special ability, made a similar point, noting that, ‘There is an inherent expectation that a person’s gifts and talents will be used to benefit others’ (Bevan-Brown, 2004, p. 179). Giftedness, therefore, is a social construct and is interpreted differently from one time in history to another and from one cultural context to another. In countries with a devolved system of educational administration, where schools are largely autonomous, such as in New Zealand, schools can take very different approaches to giftedness. In schools, those who are identified as gifted and therefore, who gain access to special or differentiated programmes, will be determined by how the school defines the concept. In research, any findings that are offered about the gifted must be interpreted in the light of participant selection criteria, which will inevitably be an expression of how the concept is conceived. In the context of trying to understand how talent develops, issues associated with the myriad of interpretations of terms such as giftedness, talent, eminence, genius and prodigy make a complex task even more challenging.

Studying Talent Development Most scientists who have researched human behaviour have been more interested in the ‘patterns’ among individuals than in the ‘differences’ that might distinguish

356

some from others (Gardner, 1997). As Gardner (1997) pointed out, the ‘science of the extraordinary’ is an emerging science and our knowledge in this area is still very limited. He suggested that extraordinary individuals might lead lives that are so different that no generalisations can emerge from intensive studies of their individual characteristics. On the other hand, scientists may find no striking differences between ‘the Charles Darwins and the James Smiths’ (Gardner, 1997, p. 4). However, as Gardner also stated, it would be presumptuous to draw either conclusion without trying to discover whether there are parallels in the lives and personalities of the extraordinary among us. Since the first systematic study of eminent adults conducted by Galton (1869), numerous other researchers have attempted to explain the development of talent. Their studies have employed a range of methods but these can be generally classified according to two main approaches. The retrospective approach draws mainly on autobiographies, biographies and other documented evidence, information obtained directly from talented individuals themselves and from others with knowledge about them. Longitudinal studies generally involve tracking a cohort of gifted individuals over a number of years. The retrospective studies can be further classified into two main groups. The first involves studying people of eminence who are no longer living. Here, researchers draw on autobiographies, biographies, diaries, historical records, recorded interviews and other documented sources. This ‘literary’ approach to the study of eminence dominated the early retrospective research in this area (e.g. Cox, 1926; Galton, 1869). The second approach involves studying ‘living’ luminaries and here researchers work with eminent individuals personally but may also draw on other sources, both human (e.g. parents, siblings, mentors and teachers) and documentary (e.g. biographies, autobiographies, articles and recorded interviews) (e.g. Bloom, 1985; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Roe, 1952). The longitudinal approach to studying giftedness has its roots in the work of the Stanford psychologist, Lewis Terman. In the 1920s, Terman selected a group of 1528 children with high IQs and traced their development from childhood to midlife and beyond (Burks, Jensen & Terman, 1930; Oden, 1968; Terman, 1925; Terman and Oden,1947, 1959). This longitudinal method of studying high achievement has been used to test the hypothesis that gifted children become gifted

R. Moltzen

adults. Accordingly, following the developmental pathways of gifted children is thought to offer reliable insights into the antecedents of high achievement. Most longitudinal studies involve repeated personal contact between researcher and participant. Although this represents the primary source of information for the researcher, many triangulate their methods by combining participant interviews with observations, interviews with family members, biographical material and the like. The proponents of the longitudinal approach argue that it provides a much more complete picture of an individual, that there is the opportunity to obtain detailed contextual information and that the complexities of an individual’s life can be best captured through multiple contacts over time (Subotnik & Arnold, 1994). Researchers using the longitudinal method maintain that the researcher/participant relationship becomes much closer and the data provided much richer by virtue of the heightened rapport that develops over time. However, the time and resources needed to obtain such detailed information can present some real challenges for the researcher. While the retrospective studies usually require less time and money to undertake than longitudinal studies, there are also some limitations associated with this method. For example, studies that draw on biographical data will be significantly affected by the quality of that material. The researcher is also limited by the scope of the material available and this may severely limit his or her ability to explain the ‘process’ of development. Cox (1926), for example, found that someone as eminent as Shakespeare had almost nothing of value recorded about his childhood and youth. Where information is available, it may be difficult to ascertain its reliability. Simonton (1994, p. 143) contended that Sometimes even when we possess rich information about a historical figure’s childhood, we cannot always trust it . . . After someone becomes world-renowned, there is often no shortage of parents, siblings, teachers, friends, and neighbors who saw the critical event that propelled the soul towards glory!

Simonton (1994) also maintained that ‘hindsight bias’ is a factor that can impact on the reliability of retrospective accounts: ‘Judging from the evidence, the victims of hindsight bias are sincerely duping themselves, reconstructing their recollections to comply with actual events. To a large extent, hindsight bias is a memory distortion’ (Simonton, 1994, p. 73). Although history might be suspicious of memory and seek to suppress

16

Talent Development Across the Lifespan

and destroy it (Nora, 1989), life history researchers all begin with the assumption that it is helpful to remember (Tierney, 2000). Becker (1997) claimed that, ‘The linear approach to historical writing so frequently employed in the twentieth century gives the impression that human experience moves sequentially, act by act, with each experience slightly more significant than the past’ (p. 344). Tierney (2000) believed that the problem with this approach is that no two people engage time in the same way. Life history, he pointed out, is not just valuable because it adds voices to what already exists but it also has the ability to refashion identities. Longitudinal studies of talent development of necessity involve issues of definition. Most studies of this type have used IQ tests to select the participant group. However, in some cases this has not been the only approach. For example, Terman only tested students after teachers had identified those whom they felt were possible candidates for inclusion in the study. The conceptual debates about the nature of giftedness and talent are much less relevant to participant selection in retrospective studies. Retrospective studies look for evidence of outstanding achievement and here the challenge is not about ‘potential’ but defining the level of ‘performance’ that constitutes eminence, greatness, giftedness or talent and deciding on the domains of achievement for inclusion. This usually results in the study of achievement across a very broad range of human endeavours. For example, Galton (1869) included judges, military commanders, writers, scientists, poets, musicians, painters, clergymen, scholars, oarsmen and wrestlers. For others, such as Goertzel and Goertzel (1962), categories were largely irrelevant and performance was the primary criterion for inclusion. As a consequence, their group included greats from an extremely diverse range of activities.

357

importance of hereditary factors. Eysenck (1995) was of the view that this generation-to-generation sequence was ambiguous and said it could be argued that eminence was due to genetic or environmental factors. However, he did concede that the ‘emergence of genius from poor soil is difficult to account for except in terms of segregation of genes, and hence speaks powerfully for heredity’ (p. 14). In examining the backgrounds of a group of mathematicians he claimed were the most famous of all times, Eysenck reported a distinct absence of mathematical ability in any of their close relatives. For example, Pascal’s father was a civil servant, the fathers of Newton, Laplace and Gauss were peasants or small farmers, Monge’s a peddler and Boole’s a shopkeeper. According to Eysenck, there is a difference between talent and genius. He believed that few of Galton’s group could be considered geniuses but were better described as talented, and according to Eysenck, evidence exists for family clustering of talent. He cited evidence of family clustering of talent in music, art, sport and in particular in mathematics. However, the emergence of genius is unique and ‘demands a very unusual segregation of genes which would be so unlikely to occur that we would look in vain for anything resembling it in the family of the genius’ (Eysenck, 1995, p. 15). To support this contention, he pointed out that there is no record in history of a genius giving birth to a genius. Further, he argued that the laws of ‘regression to the mean’ Would invalidate any genetic tendency for genius to cluster as Galton thought: not only intelligence, but also all other genetic tendencies contributing to genius and eminence, such as creativity, motivation and persistence would regress to the mean, leaving a much less distinguished progeny, on the average. (Eysenck, 1995, p. 15)

Like Eysenck, Simonton (1994) also considered that Galton underestimated the impact of environment in determining achievement. Clearly, belonging to a Explaining Outstanding Achievement distinguished family means much more than inheriting a genetic disposition towards achieving distinction. Biological Explanations The accessibility of education, the exposure to role models, the provision of mentors and the greater The idea that talent has a genetic base is one of the social resources available are but a few of the benefits oldest and most universally accepted notions in the of belonging to such families. While in hindsight, world (Simonton, 1994). Galton (1869) was in no many of Galton’s ideas seem na¨ıve, he did lay the doubt that his discovery of a generation-to-generation foundation for the field now known as ‘behavioural sequence of eminence was a clear indication of the genetics’ and many of Galton’s techniques provided

358

the basis for inquiry in this discipline. Arguably, the most significant of these involves the study of twins. Behavioural geneticists have for many years studied twins in an attempt to estimate the relative influence of heredity and environment. Typically, this has involved comparing monozygotic twins, who are genetically identical, with dizygotic twins, who are on average 50% genetically the same (Thompson & Plomin, 2000). Most of the research in this area involves scientists using a statistic called ‘hereditability’ to describe the proportion of variance in behaviour that can be accounted for by genetics (H2). Environmental influences are generally divided into shared (C2) and nonshared. The shared influences include the experiences that all family members are exposed to. However, in all families individual members are exposed to unique experiences that contribute to dissimilarity. These are called non-shared environmental factors (E2). Thompson and Plomin (2000, p. 158) reported that, ‘Developmental behavioural genetic studies have consistently suggested that as children mature from infancy through adolescence the magnitude of H2 increases and C2 decreases’. Researchers such asThompson and Plomin (2000) claimed that although intelligence is a complex trait and is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors, ‘quantitative geneticists have demonstrated that individual differences in intelligence are highly heritable’ (p. 162). Even if we accept that heredity is a significant factor in determining general intelligence, to what extent does this necessarily apply to achievement? ‘Social potency’, the self-perceived ability to influence, lead or dominate others, has been found to be closely matched in monozygotic twins, whether raised together or apart (Lykken, 1982). Using the approach of the behavioural geneticists, it would seem reasonable to predict that if one of a pair of dizygotic twins evidenced this disposition, there should be a 50% chance the other twin would share the trait. Yet Simonton (1994) reported that in terms of ‘social potency’ dizygotic twins are no more likely to be similar than any two individuals randomly selected from the population. One explanation for this somewhat confusing finding can be found in the concept of ‘emergenesis’ (Lykken, 1982). Inherited traits are often considered to result from the separate contributions of many genes. This is an ‘additive model’, where the contribution of one gene is regarded as independent of the contribution of another. Yet some traits may require all the genes to participate

R. Moltzen

if that trait is to appear. Simonton (1994) suggested ‘social potency’ may fit this description. The emergence of this trait may depend on some degree of physical attractiveness, confidence, assertiveness and charisma, and if one element is missing ‘social potency’ may not emerge. Emergenesis provides one explanation as to why some of Galton’s group were the children of parents who were anything but eminent and why others failed to produce offspring that came close to achieving their parents’ level of greatness (Lykken, 1982; Simonton, 1994). It also helps explain why it is usually only one child in a family who achieves eminence. If creative achievement depends on the complex interaction of a cluster of traits, then even if these traits do run in family lines, it is highly unlikely that more than a very small proportion of its members will inherit the complete set. It is quite clear from the research in this field that the environments of high achievers share some very specific elements. This is certainly considered by many to support the environmentalist position. However, this evidence may in fact support the hereditarian view (Simonton, 1999a). The reasoning here is that the dispositions of the parents cause them to act in a particular way. For example, intelligent parents generally have a need for intellectual and cultural stimulation. They will purchase books, join libraries, visit museums and galleries and engage in other activities and experiences to satisfy this need. Their children are likely to inherit a need for a similar level of intellectual and cultural stimulation and will take advantage of the opportunities available to them. Simonton (1999a) argued that the environmentalist researcher could look at this pattern and falsely conclude that it was the enriched environment that stimulated the children’s intellectual growth. In fact, if the parents had not catered for this need in their homes, these intellectually able youngsters would probably have sought out stimulation elsewhere. Children with innate talents often exert pressure on the environment to meet their need for stimulation. Parents, at least those with the resource capacity, will often respond and offer an environment that more closely matches their children’s talents. Again, it would be easy to conclude that it was the environment that was influential in shaping the child’s talents, where in reality it was the child who shaped the environment. The literature on child prodigies contains many examples of those who insisted on pursuing specific interests in spite of parental discouragement.

16

Talent Development Across the Lifespan

359

It is tempting to dismiss hereditarianism out of hand in this context, and a major motivation for doing this is because the environmentalist explanation offers a far more optimistic view of talent development. However, as illustrated above, what may appear to be able to be explained as environmental influences may actually be more closely connected to innate dispositions. Simonton (1998, p. 154) contended that, ‘We cannot deny that biology provides a critical underpinning of both giftedness and genius’ but that ‘contemporary research has teased out some complications . . . not foreseen by either Galton or Terman’.

cally. Julius Caesar and Genghis Khan could be considered small or even frail and Napoleon was a mere 5 2 (Simonton, 1994). One of the explanations offered for this is that human warfare is much more sophisticated than that of other primates and the development of techniques to ‘kill from a distance’ mean size is of limited consequence. In fact, size may even be a disadvantage in warfare of this type, as it presents the enemy with a larger target. Nor are these military leaders prolific reproducers. Galton (1869) noted the relative infertility of great soldiers in his study. It could be that the military leader is simply away from home too often to produce an abundance of offspring.

Sociobiological Explanations

Learning Explanations

To the sociobiologists, patterns of interactions and social structures are products of evolutionary processes (Simonton, 1994). These theorists refer to the most powerful male in a primate group as the ‘alpha male’. This male is the group’s leader, has privileged access to food and sex, and in return leads in physical conflict. Typically, the ‘alpha male’ is physically strong and experienced and has usually fought to achieve his status and will be constantly challenged to defend it. History’s eminent leaders may simply be ‘alpha males’. Certainly many leaders throughout history have acquired reputations for sexual prowess (Simonton, 1994). Some research suggests that even a leader’s physical height is an important antecedent to his or her success. For example, among American presidential candidates there are only a few exceptions to taller candidates being preferred to their shorter opponents (Simonton, 1994). Those considered by scholars to be the greatest presidents – Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt – were all over 6 1 in height. There also seems to be a suggestion that popularity as a political leader is associated with participation in aggressive activities prior to entering politics. According to Simonton (1994), this trend can be observed in absolute monarchs, American presidents and modern exemplars of charismatic leadership, who are often seen as leading their respective nations to military victory. Unfortunately this argument is weakened when we consider how many effective leaders do not fit the ‘alpha male’ template. For example, some of history’s greatest leaders were anything but impressive physi-

Learning explanations, while not identical, are characterised by the view that learning involves A stable change in a person’s potential to behave; therefore, development means increase of potential to perform and behave . . . The potential to perform higher order activities is not the result of spontaneous orgasmic growth, but is the outcome of learning appropriate techniques. (Monks & Mason, 2000, p. 142)

From a behavioural perspective, the drive to achieve greatness can be linked to reinforcement. As an individual achieves a degree of recognition for achievement from family, teachers and peers and experiences the tangible rewards that often accompany this, the likelihood he or she will continue to strive is increased. Accompanying this may be a lack of reinforcement when the person is perceived to have fallen short, or not produced, which diminishes the likelihood of these behaviours being repeated. Certainly experimental research has shown how creative outputs can be increased through reinforcement. In an experiment conducted by Glover and Gary (1976) eight children were given 10 min to list ‘all possible uses’ for an object. Reinforcement was provided over a 5-day period. These researchers reported that elaboration, originality, fluency and flexibility increased with reinforcement. Other researchers have demonstrated similar trends in children’s painting (Goetz & Salmonson, 1972), block building (Goetz & Baer, 1973) and drawing (Holman, Goetz & Baer, 1977). The creative product becomes the operant and the recognition of others, prizes, awards and the like, the reinforcers.

360

In contrast, Amabile (1983) maintained that intrinsic motivation is conducive to creativity but extrinsic motivation is detrimental. Simonton (1999a) contended that Amabile’s conclusions have been drawn from work undertaken in laboratory simulations, and he argued that when the lives of illustrious creators are examined it is much less clear if extrinsic reinforcement is counterproductive. However, there do appear to be some serious limitations to the idea that great accomplishments can be explained by reinforcement and reward (Simonton, 1999a). First, the feedback available to achievers is often inconsistent and the early ideas and products of great creators are rarely universally applauded. Second, reinforcement, both positive and negative, and punishment are not stable over time. While one achievement may be lauded, others may be ignored or rejected. Third, even where the feedback is consistent and stable it rarely offers anything but minimal information about the basis for success or failure. In reviewing the relevant findings in this area, Simonton (1999a) reported that it is almost impossible for a creator to make inferences from feedback that would have any consequence. He claimed that this holds for both scientific and artistic products. Reinforcement may be far more influential in some talent domains than in others. For those, such as performers and political leaders, who have chosen the public arena to express their abilities and for whom the public determine the measure of their success, recognition and reinforcement may be very powerful influences. While one can only speculate as to the extent to which public attention is their primary motivation, there is no doubt public reaction ‘shapes’ their behaviour in specific ways. West (1984) studied public reaction to candidates’ speeches during the 1980 United States’ presidential campaign. He found that the more successful candidates took cognisance of the feedback they received from their audiences and adjusted their subsequent speeches accordingly. While there is certainly evidence that training over a long period of time is a necessary prerequisite for the realisation of talent in some areas (see Bloom, 1985), it is widely accepted that the behavioural view fails to offer a comprehensive explanation of talent development. One criticism of learning explanations generally is that they ignore the influence of innate abilities and the diversity of human characteristics (Monks & Mason, 2000).

R. Moltzen

Cognitive Explanations In the past, cognitive approaches to explaining high performance assigned primacy to perception. Rather than seeing the mind as a ‘black box’ that mediates between stimuli and responses to stimuli, cognitively oriented psychologists were interested in the sequences of mental operations used to solve various kinds of problems. The difference between lower and higher achievers was believed to be in the speed and accuracy with which relevant cognitive processes were executed. The reasoning was that high achievement is associated with high intelligence and those supporting this connection pointed to studies that indicated that people with higher measured intelligence process information more rapidly than those with lower measured intelligence (e.g. Hunt, 1978; Jensen, 1982; Sternberg, 1977). This view had fallen from favour by the 1980s and the focus shifted away from a general-process view. Many researchers now maintain that a key difference between the expert and the novice is in the way information is organised in the memory. Sternberg (2000, p. 56) contended that, ‘abilities take the form of various information processes operating upon mental representations at varying levels of experience to, shape, and select environments’. In his view, more intelligent people are fundamentally superior at acquiring, organising and utilising information. Sternberg has developed a model of ‘developing expertise’ based on the notion that these abilities are flexible rather than fixed, and are to some extent modifiable. He acknowledged that both inherited and environmental influences impact on the development of expertise and that people can become gifted by developing various kinds of expertise (Sternberg, 2000). To Sternberg, expertise involves the acquisition, storage and utilisation of two kinds of knowledge: explicit and implicit. Explicit knowledge is knowledge of the facts, formulae, principles and the major ideas in an area. Implicit knowledge is the knowledge needed to attain success in a field. The Developing Expertise Model (Sternberg, 2000) involves the following six elements, which are critical to the development of high performance in any area: 1. Metacognitive skills. Understanding and controlling one’s own cognition 2. Learning skills. Acquiring explicit and implicit knowledge and skills

16

Talent Development Across the Lifespan

3. Thinking skills. Processing information analytically, creatively and practically 4. Knowledge. Acquiring declarative (facts, concepts, principles, laws, etc.) knowledge and a procedural tacit (how systems function) knowledge 5. Motivation. Having achievement motivation and competence (self-efficacy) motivation 6. Context. Attaining meaning from a context In explaining why some individuals achieve much more highly than others, Sternberg (2000) pointed to the different abilities of people to learn from what is taught. Connected to this is ‘practicing’ what is learned and he suggested that those with more ability may practice more, although he did concede that practice may play a lesser role in the development of creative giftedness. Some psychologists have proposed that it takes a minimum of 10 years for the novice to master a domain (e.g. Gardner, 1983; Simon & Chase, 1973). The process by which practice leads to increasing expertise ranges from ability as a function of the number of hours of practice (Ericsson & Charness, 1994; Sloboda, 1996) to more talent-based explanations (Sternberg, 1996; Winner,1996). Gardner (1995, p. 15) stated, ‘Our understanding of the nature and processes of leadership is most likely to be enhanced as we come to understand better the arena in which leadership necessarily occurs – namely, the human mind’. In this context, leadership extends to any person ‘who significantly influences the thoughts, behaviours, and/or feelings of others’ (Gardner, 1995, p. 6). While not dismissing the significance of culture in leadership, Gardner saw leadership as a process that occurs in the minds of individuals who live in a culture. His focus was on ‘stories’, including the ability to create stories and to understand and evaluate these stories. Gardner believed that there are several factors that are fundamental to an understanding of leadership. The first is related to our primal heritage. In contrast to most other species, the order of primates is hierarchical. There is competition for place or position in the hierarchy and some members become dominant over others. The dominant males according to Gardner, ‘exhibit characteristic patterns of neurotransmitters . . . such as a greater production of serotonin, and lower overall levels of stress’ (p. 23). He noted that these physiological characteristics shift with changes of position in the hierarchy. There is also a proclivity in primates to imitate. The critical issue is what to im-

361

itate and when. However, lower status primates invariably imitate higher status primates. These ‘dominance processes’, Gardner proposed, are observable in nonhuman primates and can also be readily seen in the social behaviour of quite young children. For example, dominant young children in a group will often control the toys, limit access to equipment and decide who is included in games and the rules governing the games. It is clear that size, strength, intelligence, physical attractiveness and gender play a role in who occupies what position in a hierarchy (Gardner, 1995). According to Gardner, as primates we generally expect social structures to comprise leaders and followers. The second factor influencing roles in society, according to Gardner, is early socialisation. One aspect of this is the establishment of a secure bond between child and caregiver. This is believed to affect how an individual reacts to authority. ‘Comfort in the presence of others [or] one’s estrangement from others contributes powerfully to how one aligns oneself in later life with members of one’s own group or with more remote groups’ (Gardner, 1999, p. 24). Also important are the development of a sense of self and the appreciation of how one is similar to certain other individuals. Gardner observed that children imitate others from an early age, but that this imitation develops in time into a sense of identification where the child feels much more akin to an older person or role model. Over time the child does not just imitate this role model, he or she begins to learn how their role model would respond in certain situations. Gardner noted that most children identify with role models in their immediate environment, but reported that a ‘marker’ of future leaders is that they are more likely to identify with a more distant authority figure. Children as young as 5 years of age Can appreciate simple stories and, indeed, even create simple patterned narratives of their own . . . they already have assumed positions (still relatively flexible ones) within various dominance hierarchies and are becoming proficient at recognising signals of leading, following, and relating to equals in peer-peer interactions. (Gardner, 1999, p. 26)

The third element crucial to the development of leadership, said Gardner, is the attainment of expertise in various domains. Some domains are mandated and this differs from culture to culture. For example, most Jewish boys raised in Russia were expected traditionally to play the violin and to master chess. Other domains are optional but are governed by culture, time, family

362

interests and resources, the school and the interests and abilities of the individual. In the past, others made the decision as to the option or options an individual would pursue. More recently, at least in Western European cultures, individuals themselves usually make these decisions. As an individual develops to the level of expert in a domain, he or she begins to appreciate the achievements of the masters in the domain. Gardner suggested that historically, early talent identification has been limited to intellectual ability and scholastic achievement, or talent in a specific domain, such as music, art, sport or mathematics. Some societies have valued interpersonal and intrapersonal abilities, those who are ‘exquisitely sensitive to the needs and interests of others, and/or individuals who are correlatively sensitive to their own personal configuration of talents, needs, aspirations, and fears’ (Gardner, 1999, p. 31). There have been few systematic studies conducted to identify the early ‘markers’ of leadership (see Rogers, this volume). However, Gardner reported that some generalisations have been proposed. It is important at this point to be reminded that Gardner’s ideas relate to both direct and indirect leadership. The direct leaders address their public face-to-face; the indirect leaders exert impact through the works they create. Gardner believed his cognitive explanation provided a new perspective on how both forms of leadership develop. The leader is in essence a storyteller.

R. Moltzen

that may be produced from a creator’s mind. These developmental experiences can be direct or indirect. The direct ‘are those that expand the intellectual capacity for remote association and divergent thinking – the very cognitive processes that produce ideational variations’ and the indirect ‘are those that may encourage the development of the Darwinian personality that optimally supports engagement in the variational process’ (Simonton, 1999a, p. 113). Simonton pointed to Terman’s study to illustrate this notion. Terman’s group of 1500 young people had high levels of intelligence. Intelligence is a primary Darwinian trait required for general success in any area. The majority came from highly supportive and resource-rich homes. In most cases the parents of these children were well educated and placed a high value on learning. Such home environments are often promoted as the ideal for the development of exceptional achievement and there is no doubt that early stimulation enhances children’s development. Yet, while Terman himself was convinced that his ‘Termites’ had become outstanding adult achievers, commentators such as Simonton have challenged this claim. Simonton proposed that the development of creative talent requires experiences that ‘encourage the diversification of the intellect’ (Simonton, 1999a, p. 113), an element, he argued, was missing from the experiences of most of Terman’s group. A similar rationale can be applied to Arnold’s (1995) valedictorians, promising students When one thinks of the leader as a storyteller, whose stofrom predominantly middle class backgrounds whose ries must wrestle with those that are already operative in the mind of an audience, one obtains a powerful way of adult achievements were generally unspectacular. conceptualising the work of leading. It is important for The degree of diversity of home environments necleaders to know their stories, to get them straight, to comessary to produce exceptional achievement may vary municate them effectively, and, above all, to embody in across the different domains of creativity. Schaefer and their lives the stories they tell. Anastasi (1968) studied male high school students in (Gardner, 1999, p. xv) the United States who demonstrated creative talent in either science or art. Compared with a control group Darwinian Explanations of less-talented students, this group came from homes where the parents were better educated, read more, Simonton believed that creative genius could be best valued creativity and supported their children’s talents. understood as a Darwinian process of variation and While these homes provided stimulation for both selection (1999a). The focus here is on isolating ‘the talent areas, the homes of the young artists were much individual-difference variables that might facilitate a more environmentally diverse than those of the young person’s ability to engage in the creative process . . . scientists. The young artists were more likely to have Similarly, certain kinds of environmental experiences travelled more and to have lived in a greater number may be more likely to enhance an individual’s capacity of states. Their parents were more likely to have been for Darwinian creativity’ (Simonton, 1999a, p. 112). born in a country, city or state different from where He asserted that some experiences are likely to in- the family currently resided. The families of the young crease the number and range of ‘ideational variations’ scientists were much less mobile, and their parents

16

Talent Development Across the Lifespan

were much more likely to have pursued conventional careers. The Darwinian view offers an explanation for the contrasting educational experiences reported across the studies in this field. While school performance seems to be reliable in predicting adult success in some areas, Simonton (1999a) reported that it has no predictive value in others, particularly those requiring higher levels of creativity. The lack of a correlation between school performance and later achievement is most pronounced in artistic creativity, and artistic creators are much more likely to hold negative attitudes towards their school experiences than scientific creators (Simonton, 1999a). It is also clear that an advanced formal education is not necessary for creative achievement, particularly in artistic areas where it may be considered irrelevant. In fact, there is a suggestion that formal education may increase the probability of attaining creative success, but only to a certain point and that beyond this it may lessen the likelihood (Simonton, 1999a). The location of this threshold varies according to the domain, but Simonton assessed that for creators in the arts and humanities this point is reached in the last 2 years of an undergraduate programme. For scientific creators, he speculated, it may be nearer to the first year or two of a postgraduate programme. To succeed educationally generally requires a relatively high degree of conformity to conventional thinking and approaches, and in addition, the longer individuals stay in ‘the system’ the more specialised their focus becomes. Both these factors may result in a narrowing of the ideational variations that a person can conceive. However, self-education may have the opposite effect and compensate for the limitations imposed by formal education. Although formal education does not seem to closely correlate with creative development, those who create at the highest levels are almost always engaged in self-education (Simonton, 1999a). Some researchers have pointed out that the experience of trauma or loss in childhood can exert a positive influence over talent development. There is certainly evidence that incidence of physical and sensory disabilities (Goertzel & Goertzel, 1962) and chronic illness (Roe, 1952) may be greater among eminent creators than it is for the population generally. There is also evidence of many eminent individuals being raised in homes characterised by economic hardship or dra-

363

matic changes in fortune, sometimes to the point of bankruptcy or poverty (Simonton, 1999a). Most explanations of how traumatic events may ultimately influence achievement are centred on the notion that such events must have a ‘dramatic’ effect on the individual. The divergent-developmental hypothesis does not presume that the events are necessarily sensational. In fact, Simonton (1999a) suggested that a number of small events might yield the same results ‘which is to set the talent on a developmental path that sets him or her apart from the crowd’ (p. 117). Simonton pointed out that the incidence rates for trauma and adversity vary across domains of creative achievement and because domains differ markedly in terms of the amount of Darwinian creativity required, there should be a correlation between the two. There is certainly some evidence to support this contention. For example, a study by Berry (1981) found that orphanhood among Noble Prize winners for literature was eight times higher than those who received the same award for physics. From this perspective, the experience of marginalisation could also serve to increase an individual’s ability to generate ideational variations. Simonton (1999a), in further explaining the failure of Terman’s sample of gifted children to achieve to the level expected, reports that, on the whole, the group represented white, AngloSaxon, Protestant America. These young people were the best of the mainstream and to a very significant extent they became involved in activities that reflected mainstream values. There is a reasonable body of evidence to suggest that creativity may be nurtured by being marginalised. Park (1928), for example, in explaining the significant place of immigrants in innovation, noted that these people had to straddle two cultures and ‘the “cake of customs” is broken and the individual is freed for new enterprises and new associations’ (p. 81). Campbell (1960, p. 391) noted that those who have been, ‘uprooted from traditional culture, or have been thoroughly exposed to two or more cultures, seem to have an advantage in the range of hypotheses they are able to consider, and through this means, in the frequency of creative innovation’.

Attitudes, Beliefs and the Influence of Culture Kroeber (1944) contended that culture takes primacy over the individual in any explanation of human

364

beliefs, emotions and actions and that eminence is no exception to this principle. In his study of outstanding achievers, Kroeber presented his greats, not by domain of achievement, but first by nationality and then in strict chronological order. His intention was to disprove Galton’s genetic theory of genius. He maintained that genius did not appear in isolation but rather a genius tended to cluster with others in adjacent generations. His demonstration of such ‘clustering’ presented a serious challenge to the notion of inherited ability. If genius is simply a product of genetic inheritance, there should be a relatively even distribution of outstanding achievement from one generation to the next. Kroeber, and others since him, provided fairly clear evidence that this does not occur. He explained clustering of accomplishment this way: Genius is fostered by emulation, and it is now envy, now admiration, which kindles imitation, and, in the nature of things, that which is cultivated with the highest zeal advances to the highest perfection; but it is difficult to continue at the point of perfection, and naturally that which cannot advance must recede. And as in the beginning we are fired with the ambition to overtake those whom we regard as leaders, so when we have despaired of being able either to surpass or even to equal them, our zeal wanes with our hope; it ceases to follow what it cannot overtake, and abandoning the old field as though pre-empted, it seeks a new one. (Kroeber, 1944, p. 18)

Kroeber argued that race or ethnicity exerts no influence upon human creativity, maintaining that the culture within which an individual lives is the sole determinant. This view is compatible with contemporary ideas about imitation and social learning (Simonton, 1994). Walberg, Rasher and Parkerson (1980), in their study into the biological antecedents of fame, found approximately 82% of those studied were exposed to many adults in their childhood and about 68% came into contact with adults who were working in areas where these children would achieve eminence as adults. Simonton (1984) believed that this exposure to creative role models could be essential to the development of genius. He pointed out that an intergenerational influence may not need to be in the form of personal contact and that ‘growing up in times of exceptional intellectual or aesthetic vitality may be conducive to creative development all by itself’ (Simonton, 1984, p. 35). As Isaac Newton said of his own outstanding accomplishments, ‘If I have seen farther than other men, it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants’.

R. Moltzen

As noted earlier, anthropologist Alfred Kroeber sought to disprove Galton’s ideas of genius as a genetically endowed ability and to demonstrate that it was more a socio-cultural phenomenon. His evidence showed that outstanding achievement does tend to cluster into cultural configurations. Galton certainly saw clusters of genius associated with different cultures but his explanation was one of racial superiority. Whereas Galton’s emphasis on the individual has a bias towards European culture, Kroeber’s focus on chronology and domains saw the inclusion of achievements from a much broader range of cultures and civilisations. In the previous discussion of Kroeber’s ideas, the principles of emulation, admiration and imitation were explained. Simonton (1999a) found that generational time-series analyses have consistently demonstrated that the number of eminent creators in one generation is a positive function of the number in the preceding generation who have succeeded in the same or related fields. The influence of mentors, role models and other predecessors is thus extremely influential in success in a domain. However, having contemporaries is also important. In both the arts and the sciences there is ample evidence to show that eminent individuals are more likely to emerge when they can connect or form relationships with others working in the same or related fields (Simonton, 1999a). Another cultural factor that is influential in outstanding achievement is a society’s ‘intellectual receptiveness’. Simonton gave the example of Charles Darwin to illustrate this point. He proposed that if Darwin had lived during the middle ages, when the cost of heretical ideas could have resulted in death, it is unlikely his ideas would have been anywhere near as influential. During the period Darwin was developing his ideas, others such as Mill and Spencer were challenging widely held views in different areas. While Darwin may not have been part of these philosophical movements, he was certainly aware of and undoubtedly influenced by the more widespread challenge that was being mounted against intellectual hegemonies. It seems that, ‘when a civilisation is characterised by conspicuous ideological diversity – the presence of numerous rival philosophical schools – then creativity tends to increase, even in those domains that have relatively little to do with intellectual trends’ (Simonton, 1999a, pp. 212–213). There is definitely evidence that great achievements do tend to cluster

16

Talent Development Across the Lifespan

culturally but there are numerous examples of geniuses emerging in relatively dark periods in a nation’s history.

Zeitgeist Studies of eminent individuals clearly demonstrate that there have been times and places where outstanding achievement is much greater than at other times or in other places. Simonton (1994) provided numerous examples of a ‘clustering’ of talent, where two or more individuals working separately arrive at the same idea at around the same time. Some commentators have pointed to such events to suggest that creative ideas are the product of the ‘zeitgeist’ or the spirit of the times. The zeitgeist is believed to reveal itself in patterns or regularities that are manifest by historical events over time. While some see this as a cyclic process others believe it is progressive, ensuring that societies advance and progress (Simonton, 1984). Simonton pointed out that advances can be both cyclic and progressive and that the two processes can be complementary. Creativity is not an autistic activity, but occurs within a social context (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). For example, creative individuals must be able to effectively communicate their ideas with others. A number of studies have attempted to ascertain how an individual’s creativity may have been helped or hindered by specific types of social interactions (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Jackson & Padgett, 1982; Price, 1965; Simonton, 1984). Simonton (1999b) concluded that the influences from Zeitgeist fall into four categories: 1. Cultural factors (e.g. the prevailing disciplinary or aesthetic milieu) 2. Societal factors (e.g. population growth, social structures and the position of minority groups) 3. Economic factors (e.g. prosperity and investment) 4. Political factors (e.g. the impact of war) Simonton (1984) claimed that political fragmentation is the most reliable predictor of creativity. His analysis of Western civilisation from 700 BC to AD 1839 led him to conclude that growing up in an environment characterised by numerous sovereign states increases the likelihood of creative productivity, whereas greater political unification with an emphasis on homogenisa-

365

tion is associated with a decline in creative expression. In his view, creative development could well depend on exposure to cultural diversity. However, rebellion against the influences of ‘imperial homogenisation’ is ‘strongly associated with the resuscitation of ideological diversity’ (Simonton, 1984, p. 145). Furthermore, he argued that most historians have propounded the notion that economic prosperity is the foundation for socio-cultural achievements. He maintained, however, that few historiometric inquiries have tested the notion that prosperity and creativity go together and in fact, on some occasions extreme wealth was associated with very little in the way of cultural activity. However, there have been a number of studies examining the circumstances and the emergence of different ideologies. Sorokin (1947) drew attention to the relationship between religion and economical prosperity and depression, showing that religious activity is generally associated with economic decline. Simonton (1984, p. 143) noted that, ‘In times of economic insecurity people seem to need something definite to believe in – whether it be a dogmatic religion, irrational superstition, or a strong authoritarian leader’. The salient question in this context is the extent to which the zeitgeist is influential over the individual. Is genius subordinate to the situation? Tolstoy’s position on this issue was very clear: A king is history’s slave. History, that is, the unconscious, general, hive life of mankind, uses every moment of the life of kings as a tool for its own purposes . . . In historic events the so-called great men are labels giving names to events, and like labels they have but the smallest connection with the event itself. Every act of theirs, which appears to them an act of their own will, is in an historical sense involuntary and is related to the whole course of history and predestined from eternity. (Tolstoy, 1942, pp. 666–667)

Simonton (1984) examined the lives of 342 European monarchs and found some evidence to support Tolstoy’s eponymic explanation: ‘The more battles, revolts, reforms, laws, and the like, the greater the eponymic value of the ruler, and hence the larger the ruler’s distinction’ (p. 148). He noted that it mattered little whether the events were positive or negative, what did matter was that they were recorded in history. Nor did it seem to matter whether or not the monarch had personal control of the events that counted towards his or her fame. However, Simonton rejected the idea that zeitgeist alone could account for a leader’s status,

366

and he argued that individual intelligence, morality and leadership ability play just as crucial a role. In an examination of the eminent philosophers and zeitgeist, Simonton (1984) proposed that the greatest thinkers in the Western philosophical tradition have not been representative of their time. Nor have they been ahead of their time. Rather than being ahead of their times, Simonton said that the most notable thinkers have been a product of the previous generation’s zeitgeist, or the zeitgeist of their youth. The great thinkers are more likely to emerge in times of intellectual inactivity and are less likely to develop during periods of political instability or anarchy. The presence of role models in the previous generation has a negative impact on the development of outstanding thinkers, where the second generation is more characterised by discipleship rather than leadership. Simonton (1984) identified three individual characteristics that distinguished the more-illustrious philosophers from their less-auspicious peers. First, the most eminent philosophers embraced a much broader perspective than less-celebrated thinkers. Second, they were much more likely to hold extreme views and third, they were able to present their ideas in original ways. Simonton concluded that the greatest philosophers were not typical of their times and often rose above the influences of the zeitgeist. Of course another possible explanation here is the interactionist perspective, or as Simonton (1984, p. 165) put it, ‘being the right person, in the right place at the right time’. Stewart (1977) examined the relationship between birth order and achievement and concluded that the different developmental experiences of an only child, a first-born son, a middle-born son and a last-born son prepared the adult leader for different political environments. The only child is likely to rise to leadership in times of social upheaval and civil conflict; the first-born son during times of international crisis and war; the middle born during times of peace, where fine-tuning of internal affairs is demanded; and the last born when revolution is required.

R. Moltzen

interactions with others (Rosenberg, 1979). We learn to see ourselves as others see us. Those who achieve highly in society have probably grown up around other highly successful individuals. The less successful have arguably spent more time around others who have not achieved great heights. The language used to describe the abilities and achievements of children growing up shape how they define themselves. For example, children who are told they are ‘gifted’, that their efforts are ‘clever and creative’, will undoubtedly see themselves quite differently from those whose abilities and efforts attract ambivalent or negative responses. A more recent development in this area is the ‘narrative’ approach, which considers the self from the perspective of a story (Hermans & Poulie, 2000). The assumption here is that the events of one’s life receive meaning as part of a narrative structure. Hermans & Poulie (2000, p. 279) stated that When a talented person succeeds in realising his or her ability, creativity, and motivation in one or more performance areas or, on the contrary, is not able to do so as a result of obstacles, the resulting achievements or failures are understood as positively or negatively experienced events in an organised self-narrative.

Simonton (1998) claimed, however, that this interpretation cannot tell the whole story. For example, how does this explanation account for the luminaries who saw themselves as different from most others? History is full of examples of innovators whose original ideas were rejected by their peers. Yet these greats persisted, holding to a self-view that was in complete contrast to the opinion of others.

Realising Talent: What Seems to Count

Gardner (1997) defends the inquiry into extraordinary talent and points out that such a ‘science’ must pursue the ‘apartness’ of extraordinary lives, yet at the same time embrace their ‘non-distinctiveness’. This task is enormous, and currently our ability to be able to explain the talent development process with any precision means that the capacity to predict who might be destined to succeed is extremely limited. The converse Symbolic Interactionism is equally true, and any teacher or parent who thinks or claims that a child will never amount to anything Proponents of this view contend that the self is not de- great needs to read the life stories of some of history’s fined by intrapsychic processes but is the product of most eminent individuals. Numerous stereotypical

16

Talent Development Across the Lifespan

attitudes about success exist, which see one ‘type’ of child viewed as a potential success and another ‘type’ as a potential failure. These views are persistent and pervasive and probably held unconsciously by many parents and teachers. While some children rise above the low expectations of others, and achieve in spite of these (and sometimes even in response to them), one can only speculate how many others succumb to what influential adults have perceived as their destiny. Numerous studies of eminent adults report that many of them failed to achieve to a level in childhood or adolescence that might have predicted the degree of success they were to achieve as adults (e.g. Bloom, 1985; Ludwig, 1995; Moltzen, 2005). The findings from studies of talented individuals, particularly the retrospective studies, clearly demonstrate that teachers and parents need to be very tentative in determining who is, and who is not, gifted. It is clear that even the most comprehensive and multi-faceted used to identify potential talent frequently overlook significant numbers of future high achievers. There are a number of reasons for this. First, talent emerges at different times and under different conditions, and some future greats offer few indicators in childhood of their potential for success. Second, there is often no relationship between what schools offer and the domains that some adults achieve in and thus no context within which to demonstrate their exceptionality. Third, how some of the more creative abilities are manifest at school may be interpreted as anything but an indication of the potential to achieve creative eminence. An implication of this is that teachers and schools need to start from a position where all students are seen as potentially gifted. This is not to advocate a lessening of provisions for those readily identified as exceptionally able. What is important is that schools offer multiple opportunities across multiple contexts for children and young people to discover and evidence their special abilities. The gifted group should be seen as fluid rather than fixed. This is a challenge to schools and teachers as there is a tendency that when ‘a’ group has been identified as gifted, that it is then perceived as ‘the’ gifted group within the school. While the findings from studies designed to explain how talent develops over time offer some insights into the process, to view these as a template or recipe for success would be spurious in the extreme. Moltzen’s (2005) life history study illustrates the individuality of the talent development process. He reported that the

367

life stories told by his luminaries were each unique and the differences between them much more of a feature than their similarities. These differences related to almost all aspects of the participants’ developmental pathways. Outstanding achievers are born different and each possesses a distinctly unique genetic makeup. How these heredity factors impact on their subsequent development seems best explained by the notion of ‘emergenesis’ (Lykken, 1982), an ‘interactive’ rather than an ‘additive’ model of genetic influence. If the influence of our genes is interactive, as is proposed here, it is little wonder that individuals born to the same parents and raised in similar environments turn out to be so different. This approach to understanding the relationship between nature and nurture helps to explain why none of the parents or siblings of Moltzen’s participants appeared to reach the heights of the family’s most acclaimed member. With the possible exception of monozygotic twins, even our prenatal environments are different, and when we consider differences in family, education, culture and numerous other influences and experiences, it is not surprising that most researchers in this area stop well short of offering any definitive guidelines for success.

Birth Order Many studies that have focused on high achievers have reported a relationship between birth order and achievement. The findings in this area are relatively consistent and suggest that birth order exerts an influence over the degree of achievement, as well as the domain of achievement. In 1874, Galton surveyed 200 notable English scientists and one of his findings was that first borns were disproportionately represented among this group (Galton, 1874). Since Galton, other investigators have identified a similar birth order effect (e.g. Cox, 1926; Goertzel & Goertzel, 1962; Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst, & Guerin,1994; Ludwig, 1995; Roe, 1952; Terman and Oden, 1947). Based on analysis of 196 birth order studies, Sulloway (1996) reported that first borns are more conforming, traditional, achievement oriented, organised, responsible, intense, assertive, extraverted and more upset by failure. Grosse (2003) maintained that first borns as a group tend to be goal-setters, high achievers,

368

perfectionists, responsible, rule keepers, determined and with an eye for detail. These traits, together with a reasonable amount of talent, would seem to be a solid foundation on which to structure a highly successful life. However, such traits may improve the first born’s opportunities for success in some areas but they may impose severe limitations for success in others. As and Goertzel and Goertzel (1962) discovered, first borns tend to succeed within the mainstream. It is the later-born children who are more likely to be found on the margins, or involved in ‘fringe’ activities, where they may be challenging the very conventions the first borns are intent on preserving. This birth order effect is well captured in the title of Grosse’s (2003) book, Why first borns rule the world and why last borns want to change it. One explanation for this phenomenon is related to intelligence and achievement. If, as has been suggested by many researchers in this area, there is a relationship between intelligence and achievement, and if levels of intelligence vary according to birth order, this could account for a birth order effect on achievement. A Dutch study involving 400,000 participants demonstrated a decline in intelligence from first borns to last borns (Belmont & Marolla, 1973). This trend was said to be independent of family size and socio-economic class. A study in the United States of 800,000 students who sat the National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test confirmed the findings from the study undertaken in the Netherlands, with a steady decline in IQ performance from first-born to last-born children (Breland, 1974). Simonton (1994) reported that first borns are also overrepresented among child prodigies. He maintained that, ‘primogeniture implies intellectual superiority’ and that first borns are conspicuous among the notables because, ‘they have brains on their side’ (Simonton, 1994, p. 147). Cross-sectional studies have tended to report that the higher the place in the family the higher the intelligence, which may not be altogether surprising where the tool used to assess intelligence is an IQ test. If first borns are more likely to be more convergent and conservative in their thinking, they will understandably do well on tests that reward responses of this type. It has long been argued that creative and divergent thinking is unrewarded by IQ tests. Zajonc (1986) proposed the confluence model, where the ordinal position of a child dictates the level of intellectual stimulation that can be accessed. The

R. Moltzen

first-born child is exposed to the ‘mature’ interactions of two adults, but the quality of this interaction is ‘watered down’ as subsequent siblings arrive and the home environment is increasingly influenced by the less-mature activities of older siblings. This model, it is suggested, explains the success of two groups of later-born siblings, namely, those who lost an older sibling early in their childhood and those with a large age gap between them and their older siblings. However, as Simonton (1994) pointed out, there are some problems with this explanation. First, it does not explain why last-born children are also overrepresented among high achievers. Second, there are domains where a high level of intelligence is not a significant factor in success, yet where first borns as a group maintain superiority over later borns. A contrasting explanation of the relationship between birth order and intelligence is found in the admixture hypothesis (Page & Grandon, 1979). They argue that other factors, such as parental intelligence and socio-economic status, may account for large families and low IQ and suggest that those with lower IQ scores have more children, thus making it appear as if IQ lessens with every subsequent sibling birth. This could explain why some longitudinal studies of birth order have reported no relationship between place in the family and IQ (Berbaum & Moreland, 1980; Retherford & Sewell, 1991; Rodgers, Cleveland, van den Oord, & Rowe, 2000; Schooler, 1972). Alfred Adler provided an interesting explanation for the overachievement of first borns. To Adler (1938), social interactions in early childhood were very significant in shaping an individual’s personality. Adler maintained that first-born children never get over the birth of other siblings and when a brother or sister enters the family the first born becomes a dethroned king. From that moment on, this child is driven by the desire to regain his or her former preferential position and does this by continuous attempts to win parental affection. From an Adlerian perspective, this drive to win approval sets the first born on a path towards high achievement. However, while this theory may have some currency in explaining the achievement of first borns, the reasoning would be somewhat weakened if ‘only’ children achieved to a similar level of adult success to the first born in families of two or more children. Interestingly, there do seem to be some patterns of difference between the achievements of first born and only children. For example, very few US presidents

16

Talent Development Across the Lifespan

have been only children, yet many have been first-born children, while a number of vice presidents have been only children (Simonton, 1994). Adlerian psychology also offers an explanation for the achievements of later-born children. While the first born may resent the attention and affection given to his or her younger brother/s or sister/s, the later-born siblings envy the special status of the first born and consequently rebel against all that the eldest sibling represents. The further away a sibling is from the first born, the greater the intensity of this resentment and rebellion (Simonton, 1994). This also may explain why later-born siblings achieve lower scores of ability and achievement. It may be less a reflection of their intelligence and more a reflection of their disdain for authority and conformity (Simonton, 1994). It is certainly true that many later borns can be found among the more Bohemian personalities, the artistically creative, the political revolutionaries and the leaders of religious movements (Simonton, 1994). Another theoretical explanation for this birth order effect centres on intrauterine or congenital factors (e.g. Adams, 1972; Ernst & Angst, 1983). There is a suggestion that first borns may be exposed to a richer uterine environment. First borns could be exposed to more trauma and injury during labour and delivery than later borns, and this may result in parents being more protective and indulgent and thus restricting the development of independence and autonomy. There are also powerful historical, cultural and economic factors associated with birth order. Primogeniture is of significance from who gets to sit on the throne to who inherits the family business. In many cultures, at least historically, the first-born male of a family has had birthright advantages and opportunities later-born siblings rarely receive. The various explanations for the impact of birth order over achievement, both in determining the level and the direction of attainment, generally refer to unconscious forces playing out in the individual (e.g. Simonton, 1999a). This might explain why no participants in a study by Moltzen (2005) saw their position in the family as a particularly significant influence on either the degree or the domain of their accomplishments. In this study of a group of exceptional adult achievers, the participants were asked to account for their successes. Only a small percentage of participants mentioned their family position as having any significance in the development of their abilities from child-

369

hood to adulthood, and within this group no one saw it making any more than a minimal contribution. In this study, siblings were not identified as playing a particularly significant role in the participants’ achievements. The birth order effect was more a feature of the findings of early research studies in this field. It is possible that changes in family life, such as smaller families, have weakened the influence of birth order over achievement. In addition, as an increasing number of families are reconstituted, a child’s place in a family may change, sometimes within a very short space of time and sometimes on a number of occasions. In addition, many children in reconstituted families will occupy a different place among his or her ‘siblings’ as they move from one family context to another.

The Gifted Personality The relationship between personality and achievement has been extensively studied and to do full justice to this area requires much more depth of examination than this chapter allows. Terman and Oden (1947) identified a group of 150 high-achieving adults and a group of 150 low-achieving adults from within Terman’s greater group of 1528. The personality traits of both groups were self-rated, spouse rated and parent rated. They concluded from this comparison that personality was extremely influential to achievement. Successful individuals, they reported, were less moody, impulsive and conformist. These people demonstrated higher self-confidence, sociability, perseverance, integration towards goals, commonsense and an absence of inferiority feelings. However, these findings must be interpreted in the light of criticisms made previously about the relative homogeneity of this research group. More recently, researchers have suggested differences between the personality characteristics of scientists and artists. Feist (1999) reported on research that showed artists to be more anxious, emotionally labile and impulsive, with a disposition towards intense affective experience. Russ (1993, p. 67) said that, ‘One of the main differences between artistic and scientific creativity may be the importance of getting more deeply into affect states and thematic material in artistic creativity’. Feist believed because artistic production involves introspection and science an external focus, it is not surprising that artists are more sensitive to and

370

expressive of internal emotional states than scientists. Another identified difference between the two groups is in the areas of socialisation and conscientiousness. Artists tend to rate lower than the general population on ‘socialisation’, ‘communality’, ‘tolerance’ and ‘responsibility’ (Feist, 1999). Scientists, in contrast, tend to be more conscientious and orderly. From his studies of creative achievers Csikszentmihalyi (1996) identified ‘complexity’ as what makes their personalities different from others. By this I mean that they show tendencies of thought and action that in most people are segregated. They contain contradictory extremes – instead of being an ‘individual’, each of them is a ‘multitude’. Like the color white that includes all the hues in the spectrum, they tend to bring together the entire range of human possibilities within themselves. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p. 57)

He proposed the following 10 pairs of apparently antithetical traits, which he said that highly creative people vacillate between, as indicative of this complexity of personality: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Energy and activity versus quiet and rest Smart versus na¨ıve Playful versus disciplined Imagination and fantasy versus reality Extroversion versus introversion Humility versus pride Masculine versus feminine Rebellion and independence versus traditional and conservative 9. Passion versus objectivity 10. Suffering and pain versus enjoyment Csikszentmihalyi believed that these 10 pairs of contrasting personality traits were possibly the most telling characteristics of creative people. To some people, this fragmentation of personality represents a very artificial explanation of the relationship between personality and the development of talent. The humanist psychologist Abraham Maslow (1970) offered a much more holistic approach to understanding the character of eminent individuals and his study of self-actualisers was aimed at presenting a more optimistic picture of humanity. Maslow’s self-actualisers included politicians, reformers and humanitarians, scientists and inventors, philosophers and thinkers, poets and essayists, painters, and composers and musicians. He concluded that as a group, self-actualisers are more efficient, more comfortable

R. Moltzen

in accepting ‘reality’, more accepting of themselves and others, and acknowledge flaws yet still ‘appreciate’. They tend to exhibit simplicity, naturalness and spontaneity in their interactions and avoid the artificial or contrived. They are empathetic and have a strong sense of right and wrong. Their character tends to be democratic rather than authoritarian. They value autonomy, independence and freedom. There is a tendency to focus on issues outside themselves and generally these individuals are much less self-absorbed or ego driven, characteristics Maslow considered prerequisite to creative productivity. Most can identify a defining moment or moments, a peak experience, which became a primary motivator in their lives. Virtually all studies of eminent individuals have demonstrated that motivation, persistence, perseverance and hard work characterise extraordinary achievers. What is very clear from these studies is that there is no substitute for effort. As Cox (1926) concluded, less than the highest levels of intelligence may be compensated for by a high degree of persistence and perseverance. However, she maintained that the reverse does not hold true, and that there is no substitute for drive and determination. This may help explain why some gifted students fail to reach the heights expected of them and why those whose early abilities were more modest surprise many with what they achieve. What is much less clear from any of the studies in the field is, first, the source of this tendency to strive and, second, how it might be encouraged and developed. Many outstanding achievers were raised in homes where at least one parent exhibited high levels of drive (Cox, 1926; Goertzel & Goertzel, 1962; Moltzen, 2005; Streznewski, 1999). These parents not only espoused hard work, persistence and perseverance as virtues, even more importantly, they modelled these in their own attitudes and actions. There is also evidence that teachers who model these behaviours have a positive influence on achievement (e.g. Csikszentmilhalyi, Rathunde & Whalen, 1993). However, exposure to hard-working role models and being reinforced for displaying this trait would seem an inadequate explanation for levels of drive required to achieve excellence in a field. Freud believed that many people sublimate or divert excess libidinal energy into socially acceptable activities (Jones, 1953). Others, such as Fairbain (1938)

16

Talent Development Across the Lifespan

and Segal (1957), suggested that creative drive was associated with a need to atone for unconscious destructive or aggressive urges. Rogers (1954) considered that drive was synonymous with a motivation to fulfil one’s potential. According to Rogers, this drive for self-actualisation is present in everyone, but to be fully expressed it needs to occur in a context of selfevaluation rather than a concern with the evaluation of others. Other theorists have argued that what is crucial to sustaining motivation and drive is a deep love for and enjoyment of the tasks being undertaken. This is often referred to as intrinsic motivation, what Collins and Amabile (1999, p. 299) described as, ‘motivation to engage in an activity primarily for its own sake, because the individual perceives the activity as interesting, involving, satisfying, or personally challenging; it is marked by a focus on the challenge and enjoyment of the work itself’. Rawls (1971) offered an explanation for the pleasure and enjoyment that some people derive from what others would consider the tedium of hard work. According to Rawls, the Aristotelian principle suggests that, ‘Other things equal, human beings enjoy the exercise of their realized capacities (their innate or trained abilities), and this enjoyment increases the more capacity is realized, or the greater its complexity’ (p. 426). Murray (2003) stated that, ‘Exercising our realized capacities is, in the truest sense of the word, enjoyable’ (p. 386). In Maslow’s words,

371

I have been put on earth to do is more likely to accomplish great things than someone who doesn’t’ (p. 391). Across the longitudinal studies tracking gifted children, there are examples of extremely promising young people who seemed to fail to realise their early potential. Terman’s study has been referred to early in the chapter to cast doubt on his claim that gifted children, almost as a matter of course, will become gifted adults. Also noted earlier was Arnold’s (1995) study of high school valedictorians whose accomplishments as adults were less spectacular than their achievements in adolescence might have predicted. Dylan Thomas contended that, ‘There’s only one thing that’s worse than having an unhappy childhood, and that’s having a too-happy childhood’ (Thomas cited in Ferris, 1977, p. 49). Some recent commentators suggest that this can account for the fact that children brought up in a very stable, supportive and affirming environment are very good at running the world, but are unlikely to change it. There may be another explanation for this apparent under-representation of some groups of gifted children among the greats of history. Duskin Feldman (2000) suggested that those identified as being gifted at a young age have early experience of success and, therefore, exposure to the rewards that accompany it. She speculated that some gifted young adults may deliberately reject the widely accepted ‘symbols of success’ and ‘status seeking’ and are more attracted to the pursuit of autonomy and self-actualisation. An issue that has not been explored to any extent in this chapter is A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet notions of success. Any conclusions drawn from the must write, if he is to be ultimately happy. What man can findings of studies of talent development need to be be, he must be . . . This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become considered against multiple interpretations of success. everything one is capable of becoming. In most studies, the indices of success in adulthood involve accomplishment that is widely acknowledged as (Maslow, 1943, p. 383) outstanding. The gifted person who has devoted his or To Murray (2003), this drive is not just about plea- her life in service to others, and is doing this in relative sure, it is also about purpose. He argued that, ‘A major obscurity, could be included by researchers among the stream of human accomplishment is fostered by a cul- gifted who did not deliver on their early promise. In ture in which the most talented believe that life has a the opinions of some, however, such an individual may purpose and that the function of life is to fulfill that pur- represent the very highest level of accomplishment. What is also relevant to consider in this context pose’ (p. 391). As Murray pointed out, while fame can is the extent to which the personality traits associcome easily, excellence is almost always accompanied ated with achievement may be timeless and, as such, by extremely hard work that demands a single-minded intensity. The willingness to make such a commitment, will continue to predict high accomplishment in the according to Murray, is usually associated with a sense future. It is difficult to imagine that such qualities of vocation. In many instances this sense of purpose would ever become redundant. However, researchers will not be ascribed to any source, but Murray main- such as Goleman (1995) have proposed that those who tained that, ‘A person with a strong sense of this is what succeed in many areas in today’s world are those with

372

well-developed interpersonal skills, as well as expertise, self-discipline and a strong work ethic. Goleman (1995) has argued that an individual working in isolation to achieve a notable breakthrough is largely a former phenomenon. In recent times, he contended, achieving the highest level of success demands the ability to work effectively with others. It is not enough, he claimed, to be capable and committed. In today’s world, and arguably even more so in the future, to achieve eminence in some fields will require a person to be an effective team player. It may be as common in the future to talk about gifted groups, as it now is to talk about gifted individuals. This notion has implications for practice in gifted education, where an emphasis on collaboration and cooperation should arguably replace the traditional emphasis on individualisation and competition.

Nurturing Talent in the Family A significant number of investigations into the family backgrounds of talented adults have found that the middle and upper class families are overrepresented. Both Roe (1952) and Moltzen (2005) concluded that the critical element in nurturing ability is the provision of an enriched home environment, which is not necessarily the preserve of the more affluent. The reason why the homes of the middle and upper classes offer an environment that may be more conducive to the development of special abilities is likely to be connected with tradition, education and to a lesser degree resources. Middle class parents are more likely to have grown up in more enriched early environments themselves. They are probably better educated and more familiar with the conditions that promote achievement than their contemporaries from lower socio-economic groups. This educational ‘edge’ probably equips them with a richer understanding of children’s development and of the longer-term benefits of some specific approaches to child rearing. These parents possess, in large measure, the cultural capital important to success. They may also have greater access to the resources to provide their offspring with an enriched environment. Moltzen (2005) reported that a greater number of his participant group were raised in poverty than were raised in privilege, with only a small number growing up in what might be considered resource-rich, middle

R. Moltzen

and upper class families. Nonetheless, these individuals considered their home environments to be rich. Their childhood households were characterised by a love of learning and a love of books. There was a free flow of ideas, and the children in many of these families were exposed to these exchanges and were encouraged to participate in them. In spite of the fact that many of their parents had not received a higher education themselves, they placed a high value on education and although they lacked formal educational qualifications, their love of learning meant that they were well educated. As parents, they modelled a strong work ethic and expected the same of their children. Their children were not shielded from difficult experiences and with high expectations often came high demands. Most parents were less concerned about their offspring being ‘well rounded’ and encouraged and supported the development of specialised interests and abilities. The parents’ views generally were more liberal than conservative, and some accorded their children high levels of freedom. Many adult achievers enjoyed a childhood where they were encouraged to challenge and to question, to explore and to inquire and some were even encouraged to be contentious. An early environment of the type described above is clearly no guarantee of a high level of success in childhood, adolescence or adulthood, any more than the exclusion of any or all these elements precludes the emergence of talent. It must also be pointed out that children interact with their environments and from a very young age shape their parents’ responses (Gottfried et al., 1994; Simonton, 1999a). The traits typical of many young gifted children will invariably demand a home environment that is different from their lessable peers (Porter, 2004). According to Porter, young gifted children achieve developmental milestones early, learn quickly, show advanced preferences for books and films, have a quick and accurate recall, are imaginative and creative, understand abstract concepts early and are often active in eliciting stimulation from their environment. For children to achieve highly nowadays, however, generally requires much more input from parents than simply modelling and reinforcing a desire to excel and providing an enriched and stimulating early environment. As Bloom (1985) illustrated, to reach the very highest level in many disciplines requires many years of training and expert mentoring, and in some fields success in adulthood is contingent upon accessing this

16

Talent Development Across the Lifespan

support when a child is quite young. Thus, in the initial stages of talent development at least, children’s parents play a vital facilitative and supportive role. Children born into families where the parents are not willing or not able to make this level of commitment will be precluded from reaching the top echelons in some fields of endeavour. History offers many examples of people who have emerged from relative obscurity to a level of outstanding success, and at times a lack of background in a field can appear to act as an advantage. While this phenomenon will no doubt continue in the future, it is probable that cases of individuals achieving meteoric success from limited experience or training in a field will become increasingly rare.

Nurturing Talent at School The findings here, as one might expect, are mixed. On the one hand, history is well represented by outstanding figures whose school performances were unremarkable or even dismal. For example, the study by Goertzel and Goertzel (1962) reported that approximately 60% of their eminent adults hated school. The majority of those who had positive experiences at school found fame in science or politics. On the other hand, Terman’s group were very positive about their schooling and Goertzel, Goertzel and Goertzel (1978) reported that among renowned achievers in ‘modern’ times, one-fifth were honour students. While high academic achievement at school is certainly no guarantee of success, many of those who do well in school continue that pattern into adult life. According to Simonton (1994), to make sense of these contradictory findings, it is important to consider the nature of an individual’s educational experience. Whether or not a future luminary does well in school can depend very much on the specific school environment and the teaching methods employed. There seems to be general agreement across numerous research studies in this area that approaches to education that encourage curiosity, independence, autonomy, creativity and the pursuit of individual interests are better suited to more able students and to stimulating outstanding achievement. These values are more characteristic of classrooms today than even a decade or two ago. The classrooms of more than 50 years ago were typically much more formal, took limited cognisance

373

of individual differences, drew on a much narrower curriculum and there was little flexibility to allow for the pursuit of interests that fell outside the curriculum. It is little wonder then that a high proportion of bright and creative students of a few generations ago recalled their school experiences with some revulsion. As Einstein said, It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mostly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wreck and ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by a means of coercion and a sense of duty. (quoted in Schlipp, 1951, p. 17)

Csikszentmihalyi (1996) painted a rather cynical picture of the school experiences of creative achievers and suggested that frequently school had little effect, or in fact threatened to extinguish the interest and curiosity that had been developed and nurtured beyond the school gates. ‘The record is rather grim, especially considering how much effort, how many resources, and how many hopes go into our formal educational system’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p. 173). He noted that although schools rarely received a mention as a source of inspiration, individual teachers did. These teachers, he said, were influential because they, ‘noticed the student, in his or her abilities and cared [and] showed care by giving the child extra work to do, greater challenges than the rest of the class received’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p. 174). He reported that this type of recognition and support was much more likely to be given to mathematically and scientifically able students than those with ability in the humanities or the arts. Memorable teachers seemed to also be those who had an enthusiasm for their subjects, something that appeared to be lacking in other teachers’ classes. Some eminent adults in Csikszentmihalyi’s study could not identify a single teacher they would rate above mediocre. Simonton (1994) revisited Cox’s (1926) data to gauge the relationship between formal education and training, and success. He found through this analysis that fame as a leader was negatively correlated to education. The most famous leaders in Cox’s study had the least formal education. The relationship between education and creative achievement was less linear and more curvilinear. Those who achieved highly as creators tended to benefit from education but only to a certain point, and beyond this threshold additional

374

education and training seemed to decrease the likelihood that eminence might be achieved. Simonton reported that these trends had been confirmed in other, more recent studies. With respect to leadership, there appears to be relationships between levels of education, dogmatism and eminence. Simonton (1984) found that dogmatism could be the product of little formal education, but also of a high level of education. He maintained that dogmatism and creativity represent ‘opposite ends of a bipolar dimension’ (p. 66). The mixed findings of the relationship between educational experience and educational attainment and later success also reflect the complex nature of talent development. What does seem consistent across numerous studies is that those who achieve in mathematics and science-related areas tend to do better within formal education and are much more likely to recount their educational experiences in positive terms. However, early high achievement in these areas is by no means a predictor of success later on (Simonton, 1994). Creators and leaders are much more likely to recall their educational experiences negatively, and their educational attainments are sometimes anything but outstanding. This may reflect a mismatch between what schools offer and value and the interests and values of these individuals. There may be benefits, though, to creative students becoming disillusioned with formal education and opting out, because as Simonton (1994, pp. 164–165) pointed out, ‘Getting the breadth is probably conducive to achievement, whereas increased specialization may impair the creative mind’. What seems to mediate the school experience across many areas of accomplishment is the quality of that experience (Moltzen, 2005). Where there is a goodnessof-fit between the interests and abilities of the able student and what school encourages and provides for, the experience is much more likely to be viewed positively. In Moltzen’s study, academically able students who attended academically oriented schools reported that they were accepted by both their teachers and their peers and that they felt no pressure to mask their abilities to fit in. It may not be inconsequential that many in this group attended single-sex schools. It is the highly creative child who seems to have the greatest difficulty fitting into the school system; or that the school finds the greatest difficulty accommodating. Traditionally, schools have placed a high value on and rewarded convergent thinking and convergent ways of behav-

R. Moltzen

ing. A good example of this is the value placed on results from standardised tests, such as IQ tests. Torrance (1981) maintained that the abilities of the majority of creative children are completely missed when using such a measure of ability. Often creative students display behaviours that are less acceptable to their teachers, parents and peers, behaviours that may be viewed as inappropriate. The behaviours that can result in creative students conflicting with teachers and others, include questioning and challenging of authority, resistance to routine and repetition, indifference to social conventions, limited interest in things perceived as unimportant, uncooperativeness, stubbornness and cynicism (Torrance, 1981). Arnold’s (1995) research provides a good example of the limitations of placing such a high value on conformity. Her group of valedictorians, the best and brightest students in their respective schools, had high grades, continued to do well at university, but in their post-education lives Arnold found that they were best suited to running the world, but not to changing it. In other words, these leading lights were more imitators than innovators and more disposed towards reproduction than transformation. Reflecting on the results of her study Arnold questions whether or not schools are in fact rewarding the right people as its highest achievers. This question is not just applicable to schools, with some creators reporting that university fell short of their expectations and tended to reflect similar values and approaches to that of their high schools (Moltzen, 2005). It could be that, like many schools, universities are better at nurturing convergent thinkers and less successful at providing for divergent thinkers or creatively oriented students. Studies of talented adults yield some compelling reasons for schools to consider identifying and supporting talent across a wide range of ability areas and taking a more liberal approach to conceptualising giftedness. Not only do these approaches accommodate a wider range of talent areas, they are also more responsive to different cultural interpretations and expressions of exceptional ability (Bevan-Brown, 2004). Moltzen (2005) asked the participants in his study to single out the teachers who supported their talents and to identify the characteristics that these teachers possessed that made them different. This group of adult achievers valued teachers who knew their subject matter, were enthusiastic about it, offered challenge and inspired their students to learn. They took a personal

16

Talent Development Across the Lifespan

interest in their talented students and provided opportunities for them to pursue areas of special interest and ability. That these outstanding adults could readily identify a teacher who made a difference underscores the vital role teachers play in supporting exceptional ability. What is also important to note is how few could recall a teacher of significance.

Marginalisation and the Development of Talent The experience of being an outsider seems common to many extraordinary achievers. This marginalisation can take many forms, including ethnic, economic, religious, gender, sexual orientation and professional. Many of the participants in Moltzen’s (2005) study talked of being an outsider and spoke of an emotional sensitivity and intensity that set them apart, something many writers have claimed is consistent with the gifted personality. Feist (1999), for example, in a comprehensive review of studies in this area, claimed that those in the artistic professions are indeed more emotional and sensitive than non-artists. He concluded that, ‘The creative personality does exist and personality dispositions regularly and predictably relate to creative achievement in art and science’ (Feist, 1999, p. 290). However, he also pointed out that how these dispositions develop and exert an influence over each other is little understood. We can speculate on the basis of this and other studies that achievement generally, and creative productivity in particular, might be enhanced by the experience of marginality. Some, like Gardner (1997) and Simonton (1999a), have suggested that feeling totally comfortable, secure and part of the mainstream of society tends to constrain achievement and creative productivity. There are a number of explanations for how being an outsider may benefit an individual in terms of achievement and creativity. It is clear that the perspective from ‘outside’ the mainstream of society is somewhat different and this unique view may be necessary to produce something distinctive and original. The experience of being on the outside may raise an individual’s consciousness to issues of exclusion, bigotry, disparity, inequity and prejudice. This may act as a catalyst to action that speaks against social injustice. Another possibility is that a lack of acceptance or rejec-

375

tion or simply feeling different may result in increased resolve, determination and drive, in the same way that early adversity is thought to influence achievement. Finally, the marginalised person may feel so apart from others that any rejection that could occur as a result of their intense interest or exceptional abilities is of little consequence, as they are already an outsider. It is possible that for every child who is marginalised and who succeeds there are many more whose progress is negatively affected by being on the outer. Gardner (1997) maintained that those who have been marginalised and who achieve great things have made the most of their differences. They have seen this as strength and have exploited it. This would seem to have implications for parents and teachers of the gifted. Rather than putting energy into trying to help the gifted fit in, it may be far more appropriate and advantageous to help them to appreciate their differences and use these to their advantage. Encouraging, coercing or even forcing the gifted to join the mainstream may rob them and us of the contribution that those with a view from the margins might be able to make. The challenge for teachers and parents is to ensure that it is safe for the gifted child to occupy a place on the fringe of society. Where the family and the school is strongly committed to conservative values and convergent ways of perceiving and responding, operating on the outer can be a high-risk activity.

Conclusion Investigating the lives of talented individuals, both children and adults, is a most engaging experience and, unlike some other research topics, interests laypersons and experts alike. This wide range of interest is reflected in the diversity of implicit and explicit explanations for why some individuals achieve such lofty heights while most of us, even with grand ideas and hard work, achieve much more modest levels of success. For some researchers, including this writer, their interest in talent development has grown out of work with gifted children. Teachers always take an interest in their former students and are intrigued why some of them seemed to fail to deliver on their childhood promise, while others, who demonstrated little ability or motivation at school, achieved great things later in life.

376

This is a relatively new science and the number of significant studies undertaken in this area is few. However, we are indebted to the likes of Galton, Terman, Cox, Roe, Bloom and the Goertzels, and latterly to people like Gardner, Csikszentmilhalyi and Simonton, who have laid a strong foundation in this area. However, most of the substantive studies in the field were undertaken some time ago. These early studies also tended to focus almost exclusively on eminent males and although increased attention has been paid to gifted women recently (see Reis et al., this volume; Silverman et al., this volume), this imbalance still remains. Additionally, almost all of the existing studies are monocultural and little work has been undertaken to examine how talent develops in diverse cultural and ethnic groups. We know what is recognised as a gift or talent varies from one culture to another. It is also clear that differences exist between cultures in how a gift or talent is expressed. What we are much less knowledgeable about is how these abilities are developed within different cultural contexts. Not surprisingly, the research confirms that the process of talent development is unique to every individual. The way talent develops also appears to be different within different domains of achievement. For example, the development of talent in the arts appears to be quite different to the development of scientific and mathematical abilities. It is now widely accepted that inherited dispositions and environmental conditions interact in complex and unique ways to shape a person’s abilities, which largely remain a mystery. For example, the childhood environments of many gifted adults are characterised by a love of reading and a love of learning, where children are encouraged to question, inquire and to engage with ideas. Is this an artefact of being raised in a family with more intelligent parents, whose offspring may be similarly endowed? Or does such an environment really make a difference? Or could it be that more able children demand such levels of stimulation and thus shape their own environment? A consistent finding across studies of eminent individuals is that they are extremely motivated and exhibit high levels of persistence and perseverance (see also Friedman et al., this volume). In fact, many achievers attribute their successes almost exclusively to these attributes (Moltzen, 2005). Such people seem less concerned with being well rounded and often exhibit what Duskin Feldman (2000) referred to as a ‘divine discontent’. This almost obsessive quality is characterised by

R. Moltzen

a very blurred line between what constitutes work and what constitutes pleasure, with many viewing these as one and the same. If such high levels of drive and determination (obviously combined with a degree of ability) are essential to outstanding performance, should we not be paying more attention to developing these traits in childhood? Where do today’s generation of children learn to persist and persevere? Could it be that for many children, at least in Western societies, life is ‘too’ comfortable, gratification ‘too’ instant and the experience of failure ‘too’ rare? Is it possible that our well-intentioned efforts to keep children safe, to protect their self-esteem and to ensure that they experience the good life are shielding them from the very experiences that grow the traits necessary to achieve excellence. Finally, it is unquestionable that some of our potential greats, those with the ability to transform our world, will grow up on the margins of society. For some, their entire family will be seen as different. For others, the marginalisation will be associated with ethnicity, religion, politics, economic circumstances, appearance, or with just being different, and seeing and responding to the world in novel ways. We must learn to value these young people more, to acknowledge and affirm their abilities and perspectives. In schools, we must make it safe to be different and become preoccupied with producing well-rounded and solid citizens who will run the world and create space for those with intense interests, the propensity to challenge and with the ability and inclination to make a difference.

References Adams, B. N. (1972). Birth order: A critical review. Sociometry, 35, 411–439. Adler, A. (1938). Social interest. London: Faber & Faber. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. Arnold, K. D. (1995). Lives of promise. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Becker, M. (1997). When I was a child I danced as a child, but now that I am old I think about salvation. Rethinking History, 1, 345–355. Belmont, L., & Marolla, F. A. (1973). Birth order, family size and intelligence. Science, 182, 1096–1101. Berbaum, M.L., & Moreland, R.L. (1980). Intellectual development within the family: A new application of the confluence model. Developmental Psychology, 16, 500–515. Berry, C. (1981). The Nobel scientists and the origins of scientific achievement. British Journal of Sociology, 34, 837–852.

16

Talent Development Across the Lifespan

Bevan-Brown, J. (2004). Gifted and talented Maori learners. In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen (Eds.), Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 171–197). Palmerston North: Kanuka Grove Press. Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). Methodes nouvelles pour le diagnostic du niveaux intellectuel des anormaux. L’Ann´ee Psychologique, 11, 191–244. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine. Breland, H. M. (1974). Birth order, family-configuration, and verbal achievement. Child Development, 45, 1011– 1019. Burks, B. S., Jensen, D. W., & Terman, L. M. (1930). Genetic studies of genius: Volume 3. The promise of youth. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 27, 380–400. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytical studies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297–312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cox, C. (1926). Genetic studies of genius: Volume II. The early mental traits of three-hundred geniuses. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins. Csikszentmilhalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press. Duskin Feldman, R. D. (2000). Whatever happened to the Quiz Kids? The perils of growing up gifted. Lincoln, NE: Backinprint.com. Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49, 725–747. Ernst, C., & Angst, J. (1983). Birth order. New York: SpringerVerlag. Eysenck, H. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fairbain, W. R. D. (1938). A prolegomena to a psychology of art. British Journal of Psychology, 28, 288–303. Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 273–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, P. (1977). Dylan Thomas. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Gagn´e, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103–112. Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: Macmillan. Galton, F. (1874). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. London: Macmillan. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1995). Leading Minds. New York: Basic Books.

377 Gardner, H. (1997). Extraordinary minds: Portraits of exceptional individuals and an examination of our extraordinariness. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Books. George, D. (1997). The challenge of the able child. London: David Fulton Publishers. Glover, J., & Gary, A. L. (1976). Procedures to increase some aspects of creativity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 79–84. Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, M. G. (1962). Cradles of eminence. Boston: Little, Brown. Goertzel, V., Goertzel, M. G., & Goertzel, T. (1978). Three hundred eminent personalities: A psychosocial analysis of the famous. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Goetz, E. M., & Baer, D. M. (1973). Social control of form diversity and the emergence of new forms in children’s blockbuilding. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 209–217. Goetz, E. M., & Salmonson, M. M. (1972). The effect of general and descriptive reinforcement on “creativity” in easel painting. In G. Semb (Ed.), Behavior analysis in education (pp. 53–61). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books. Gottfredson, L. (2003). The science and politics of intelligence in gifted education. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 24–40). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., & Guerin, D. W. (1994). Gifted IQ: Early developmental aspects. The Fullerton Longitudinal Study. New York: Plenum. Grosse, M. (2003). Why first borns rule the world and last borns want to change it. Australia: Random House. Hermans, H. J. M., & Poulie, M. F. (2000). Talent and selfnarrative: The survival of an underachieving adolescence. In C. F. M. van Lieshout & P. G. Heyman (Eds.), Developing talent across the lifespan (pp. 177–298). Hove: Psychology Press. Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York: Macmillan. Holman, J., Goetz, E. M., & Baer, D. M. (1977). The training of creativity as an operant and an examination of its generalization characteristics. In B. C. Etzel, J. M. LeBlanc, & D. M. Baer (Eds.), New developments in behavioral research: Theory, method, and application (pp. 441–471). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hunt, E. B. (1978). Mechanics of verbal ability. Psychological Review, 85, 109–130. Jackson, J. M., & Padgett, V. R. (1982). With a little help from my friend: Social loafing and the Lennon-McCartney songs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 672–677. Jensen, A. R. (1982). Reaction time and psychometric g. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model for intelligence (pp. 93–132). New York: Springer-Verlag. Jones, E. (1953). The life and work of Sigmund Freud, Volume I. New York: Basic Books. Kroeber, A. L. (1944). Configurations of culture growth. Berkley: University of California Press. Ludwig, A. M. (1995). The price of greatness: Resolving the creativity and madness controversy. New York: Guilford.

378 Lykken, D. (1982). Research with twins: The concept of emergenesis. Psychophysiology, 19, 361–373. Marland, S. P. Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented, Volume 1. Report to the Congress of the United States by the US Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 371–396. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. McAlpine, D. (2004). What do we mean by gifted and talented? Concepts and definitions. In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen (Eds.), Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 33–65). Palmerston North: Kanuka Grove Press. Moltzen, R. I. (2005). Realising potential: Investigating the life stories of gifted New Zealand adults. Unpublished PhD, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Monks, F. J., & Mason, E. J. (2000). Developmental psychology and giftedness: Theories and research. In K. Heller, F. Monks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of research on giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 141–155). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Murray, C. (2003). Human accomplishment. New York: HarperCollins. Nora, P. (1989). Between memory and history: Les lieux de m´emoire. Representations, 26, 7–25. Oden, M. (1968). The fulfillment of promise: 40-year follow-up of the Terman gifted group. Genetic Psychology Mongraphs, 77, 3–93. Page, E.B., & Grandon, G. (1979). Family configuration and mental ability: Two theories contrasted with U.S. data. American Educational Research Journal, 16, 257–272. Park, R. E. (1928). Human migration and the marginal man. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 881–893. Porter, L. (2004). Giftedness in early childhood. In D. McAlpine & R. Moltzen (Eds.), Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 199–238). Palmerston North: Kanuka Grove Press. Price, D. J. de Solla. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149, 510–515. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Retherford, R.D., & Sewell, W.H. (1991). Birth order and intelligence: Further tests of the confluence model. American Sociological Review, 56, 141–158. Rimm, S. (2003). Underachievement: A national epidemic. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 424–443). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Roe, A. (1952). The making of a scientist. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Rogers, C. (1954). Towards a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 11, 249–260. Rodgers, J.L., Cleveland, H.H., van den Oord, E., & Rowe, D.C. (2000). Resolving the debate over birth order, family size and intelligence. American Psychologist, 55(6), 599–612. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books. Russ, S. W. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in the creative process. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

R. Moltzen Schaefer, C. E., & Anastasi, A. (1968). A biographical inventory for identifying creativity in adolescent boys. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 42–48. Schlipp, P. (1951). Albert Einstein: Philosopher scientist. New York: Tudor. Schooler, C. (1972). Birth order effects: Not here, not now! Psychological Bulletin, 78, 161–175. Segal, H. (1957). A psychoanalytic approach to aesthetics. In M. Klein, P. Heiman, & R. Money-Kyrle (Eds.), New directions in psychoanalysis (pp. 384–405). New York: Basic Books. Serpell, R. (2000). Intelligence and culture. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 549–577). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simon, H. A., & Chase, W. G. (1973). Skill in chess. American Scientist, 61, 394–403. Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity and leadership. Historiometric inquiries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York: Guilford Press. Simonton, D. K. (1998). Gifted child, genius adult: Three lifespan developmental perspectives. In R. C. Friedman & K. B. Rogers (Eds.), Talent in context: Historical and social perspectives on giftedness (pp. 151–175). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Simonton, D. K. (1999). The origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford University Press. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity from a historiometric perspective. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 116–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sloboda, J. A. (1996). The acquisition of musical performance expertise: Deconstructing the “talent” account of individual differences in musical expressivity. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 107–126). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Sorokin, P. A. (1947). Society, culture, and personality. New York: Harper. Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Costs of expertise. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 347–354). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Sternberg, R. J. (2000). The concept of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stewart, L. H. (1977). Birth order and political leadership. In M. G. Herman (Ed.), The psychological examination of political leaders (pp. 205–236). New York: Free Press. Streznewski, M. K. (1999). Gifted grownups: The mixed blessing of extraordinary potential. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Subotnik, R. F., & Arnold, K. D. (1994). Longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 1–23). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

16

Talent Development Across the Lifespan

Sulloway, F.J. (1996). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics and creative lives. New York: Pantheon Books. Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Volume I. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius: Volume 4. The gifted child grows up. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius: Volume 5. The gifted group at midlife: Thirty-five years’ followup of a superior group. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Thompson, L. A., & Plomin, R. (2000). Genetic tools for exploring individual differences in intelligence. In K. Heller, F. Monks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of research on giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 157–164). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Tierney, W. G. (2000). Life history and the postmodern challenge. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 537–554). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

379 Tolstoy, L. (1942). War and peace. London: Macmillan. Torrance, E. P. (1981). Non-test ways of identifying the creatively gifted. In J. C. Gowan, J. Khatena, & E. P. Torrance (Eds.), Creativity: Its educational implications (2nd ed., pp. 165–170). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Walberg, H. J., Rasher, S. P., & Parkerson, J. (1980). Childhood and eminence.Journal of Creative Behavior, 13, 225–231. West, D. M. (1984). Cheers and jeers: Candidate presentations and audience reactions in the 1980 presidential campaign. American Politics Quarterly, 12, 23–50. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children. Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books. Wober, M. (1974). Towards an understanding of the Kiganda concept of intelligence. In J. W. Berry & P. Dasen (Eds.), Culture and cognition (pp. 261–280). London: Methuen. Zajonc, R. B. (1986). The decline and rise of Scholastic Aptitude Test scores: A prediction derived from the confluence model. American Psychologist, 41, 862–867.

Chapter 17

Creative Cognition in Gifted Youth Katherine N. Saunders Wickes and Thomas B. Ward

Abstract We focus on the cognitive processes that gifted adolescents bring to bear on creative tasks, particularly open-ended tasks that involve generating novel, candidate ideas and developing those ideas into creative products. We use the Geneplore model of creative cognition as an orienting framework and focus on processes of divergent production, problem finding and construction, and retrieval of conceptual stored knowledge at different levels of abstraction. We consider the extent to which gifted individuals employ those processes differently than individuals who have not been so identified. However, we also incorporate findings regarding motivation, the proclivity toward innovative action, implicit theories, and creative selfconcept because, although a complete understanding of creative cognition in the gifted requires attention to cognitive processes, it also requires a consideration of factors outside the purely cognitive realm.

tional, skilled individuals who do so. Although there are no data we are aware of to support the claim that these robot inventors come disproportionately from the population of adolescents who have been identified in their schools as gifted, they nevertheless present a classic gifted picture of bright, creative individuals who are motivated by challenges, as fictionalized in a recent combat-robot episode of the popular teen show, Zoey 101. What factors differentiate gifted individuals who choose to tackle difficult problems and generate creative solutions from others who either shy away from difficult problems or are unable to generate novel solutions? To answer this question, we will focus on specific cognitive processes and on the creative self-image of individuals who have been identified as gifted. These factors represent two of the “four Ps” that are needed to fully characterize creativity, namely processes and the attributes of the creative person Keywords Creativity · Creative cognition · Giftedness (Mooney, 1963; Rhodes, 1961; Taylor, 1988). The two · Implicit theories · Creative self-image · Creativity in remaining Ps, the product and peripheral influences or “press,” will be given less attention, though the gifted adolescents latter is well covered in other contributions to this volume. The process approach examines the mental mechIntroduction anisms people use while engaged in creative and noncreative acts. Research within this broad approach The broadcast of several robotic combat shows on focuses on basic cognitive processes involved in various television channels, which pit robot creation accessing and applying knowledge, such as problem against robot creation, has inspired a growing number finding, retrieval of task-relevant information, conof individuals to construct their own combative robots ceptual combination, evaluative or critical thinking, and has popularized the image of brainy, if unconven- and metacognitive functioning (Brown, 1989; Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992, Mumford, Reiter-Palmon, & Redmond, 1994; Runco & Chand, 1995; Sternberg T.B. Ward (B) & Lubart, 1999; Ward, 1994; 1995; Ward, Smith, & University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA Finke, 1999a). e-mail: [email protected]

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 17, 

381

382

The person approach is largely concerned with the attributes of people who would be characterized as being creative and what differentiates them from people who show lower levels of creativity (Mooney, 1963; Taylor, 1988). This approach focuses on the study of personality and motivational factors, and coincides with much of the early research on the “creative personality” (Mooney, 1963; Taylor, 1988). Such research has indicated that the creative person is one who has a positive sense of self, a tolerance for ambiguity, and who is open, intelligent, introverted, and attracted to complexity (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). For this chapter we will concentrate mainly on two distinct but interrelated lines of research we have been pursuing. To illustrate the process perspective, we will outline the creative cognition approach (Finke et al., 1992) as an orienting framework and then describe studies concerned with generative thinking processes, focusing in particular on research on the processes people use when generating novel ideas (e.g., Ward et al., 1999a). To illustrate the person approach, we will focus more narrowly on our research concerned with implicit theories of creativity, including a consideration of creative self-image, how implicit theories might link to the motivation to behave creatively, and the extent to which they are associated with the tendency to engage in real-world creative activities.

Creative Cognition in the Gifted One question to be asked initially is whether or not gifted adolescents show particularly high levels of creative performance on a range of tasks. In a way, the answer may depend on how one conceptualizes and identifies giftedness. Research on the gifted has long sought to define creativity as one of the special skills or attributes that the gifted possess (Brown, 1989; Renzulli, 1986; Winner, 2000). This research has found that the gifted often perform well on cognitive and metacognitive measures of creative ability, demonstrating greater abilities in divergent thinking, problem finding, idea evaluation, metamemory, attentional focus, and generative thinking than either adults or their more average peers (Groboroz & Necka, 2003; Mumford, Baughman, Costanza,

K.N. Saunders Wickes and T.B. Ward

Uhlman, & Connelly, 1993; Runco, 1986a, 1986b; 1987; 1993; Schwanenflugel, Stevens, & Carr, 1997; Sternberg & Lubart, 1993; Wakefield, 1985; Ward, Saunders, & Dodds 1999b). Rather than focus on the breadth of differences in creative functioning, our approach has been to concentrate in depth on particular aspects of that functioning. Our attack on the issue derives from the creative cognition approach (Finke et al., 1992; Ward et al., 1999a), which views creativity as emerging from the application of fundamental cognitive processes to existing knowledge structures which results in ideas that are novel and useful. Importantly, the processes that are most involved in producing such ideas are within the capabilities of most, if not all, normal people. In effect, the potential for creative thought is normative, rather than rare for humans. However, noting that people are capable of performing the mental operations needed to develop creative ideas is not the same as saying that we all use our creative capabilities productively most of the time. It is also not the same as saying that there are no individual differences in creative capacity. Indeed, if we take seriously the idea that gifted individuals are more likely than others to display creative behavior, one attribute that may distinguish the gifted is that they are more likely to spontaneously deploy basic processes in ways that result in creative outcomes. There is little doubt that novel and useful ideas emerge from mental operations performed on existing knowledge, but the true value of the creative cognition approach is that it goes beyond that generality to describe specific processes and their specific interactions with existing knowledge that are particularly relevant to creative functioning. In doing so, the approach provides a way of characterizing ways in which highly creative individuals, whether they be gifted adolescents or not, differ from their less-creative peers. Within the creative cognition approach, a particularly useful heuristic framework is the Geneplore model, which differentiates between phases of creative activity (Finke et al., 1992; Ward et al., 1999a). The model posits that most creative accomplishments can be seen as involving a generative phase in which candidate ideas are brought to mind and an exploratory phase in which those ideas are evaluated, expanded, revised, or otherwise developed (Finke et al., 1992; Ward et al., 1999a). The initial candidate ideas, sometimes called preinventive ideas, are not seen as either creative or noncreative, but merely as having more or

17

Creative Cognition in Gifted Youth

less creative potential. It is only through exploration that the potential in preinventive ideas is brought to fruition. The production of a truly creative idea may require several iterations between the generative and exploratory phases.

Generating Divergent, Original Candidate Ideas With the Geneplore model as a framework, we begin by considering work relevant to early generative stages. A number of studies have assessed how differences in intellectual ability in general, and giftedness in particular, may link to very early phases of generative or divergent thinking. The studies have used measures, such as the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1972; 1974), and tasks derived from Wallach and Kogan (1965). The former has verbal and figural forms and can be scored for fluency (the number of ideas produced), flexibility (the number of different categories of ideas produced), and originality (the extent to which a response is unique to the person responding) among other things. The latter yields similar scores and includes a range of tasks, such as Instances (list as many round things as you can), Similarities (how are a mouse and cat alike), and Uses (uses for a shoe) as verbal items and Pattern Meanings and Line Meanings (list what a given pattern or line might be) as figural items. Because the tasks are primarily concerned with listing initial ideas rather than developing them into complete creative products, they can be thought of as indicators or the earliest generative processes in the Geneplore framework. In one very early study, Feldhusen, Treffinger, Von Mendfrans, & Ferris (1971) tested students of varying levels of academic achievement on the TTCT under a variety of task conditions, including standard instructions and instructions that fostered a more game-like atmosphere. In addition to the scores from the TTCT, the investigators had access to the previous year’s grades in the areas of English, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. TTCT performance was broadly predictive of academic grades across a range of test conditions and domains of achievement, but the most consistent predictor was TTCT verbal flexibility scores. Importantly, the correlations held even when variance due to IQ was controlled. Although high achievement in school is not

383

synonymous with giftedness, the results provide an important hint that the processes that underlie the initial production of diverse responses are associated with intellectual accomplishment, independently of their possible link to intelligence. Runco (1986b; see also Runco, 1984) directly compared the performance of fifth- through eighth-graders who had been identified as gifted or talented or neither. For purposes of group assignment, gifted individuals were those who had been nominated by teachers to the gifted and talented program, who also had IQs greater than 130. Talented were those individuals who had been nominated to the program, but whose IQ scores were below 130. The control group was composed of children who had not been nominated for the program. All children were administered five of the Wallach and Kogan (1965) divergent thinking tasks, including three verbal ones (Instances, Uses, and Similarities) and two figural ones (Line Meanings and Pattern Meanings). In a standard instructions condition, which imposed no time limits, characterized the tasks as games, and emphasized that there were no right or wrong answers, the raw mean fluency, flexibility, and originality scores for the gifted children exceeded those of the other two groups on all five tasks. A multivariate analysis showed a significant overall advantage for gifted children over those who had not been identified as either gifted or talented, whereas the talented individuals and those not identified as such did not differ from one another. Teachers may nominate individuals as gifted for a variety of reasons, but whatever traits they are sensitive to it appears that the combination of teacher nominations and high IQ may be critical markers that can help to signal the capacity for generating a range of ideas potentially applicable to new situations. A particularly intriguing feature of the Runco (1986b) paper is that the study also included an instructional manipulation. For some items, participants were given instructions to “be creative,” which consisted of encouragement to give original responses (ones that nobody else would think of) that were also worthwhile. Fluency and flexibility actually decreased in the “be creative” condition, whereas originality increased. More importantly, the gifted children were less influenced by the creativity instructions than were the other two groups. In fact, their originality scores were slightly lower that those of the other two groups in that condition. What the results suggest is that gifted children naturally approach divergent thinking tasks,

384

and by extension, other tasks for which generating novel ideas might be useful, as ones that can benefit from the application of creative strategies. They do not need special instructions to cue them in to the idea that certain situations call for generating novel and useful ideas. We will revisit this idea in the section on problem finding, where we will consider other results which suggest that gifted individuals conceptualize problem situations in ways that differ from their average peers. Albert & Runco (1989) also reported data that reveal differences between different groups of gifted individuals. They compared three groups of gifted boys, two of which were characterized as exceptionally gifted. The exceptionally gifted adolescents either had IQ scores greater than 150 and were identified in the Mentally Gifted Minors programs or were identified as being at the 99th percentile or beyond in math–science abilities. The “ordinary” gifted boys had mean IQ scores of 133. The main focus of the Albert & Runco (1989) work was a potential connection between independence and creativity, but of most interest in the present context, they administered three items from each of Wallach and Kogan’s (1965) Instances, Uses, and Similarities divergent thinking tasks. The mean fluency scores for the high-IQ, high-math–science, and control-gifted groups were 46.4, 45.3, and 30.7, respectively. Clearly, both groups of exceptionally gifted boys generated more ideas than their nominally gifted peers. One cautionary note is that the exceptionally gifted boys were tested in their homes, whereas the control-gifted group was tested in a school setting. It is possible that some aspect of the test setting influenced performance. On the other hand, the differences in fluency are quite large and it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the difference is due to ability or propensity over and above any difference due to test conditions. Consistent with the Runco (1986b) findings, giftedness does seem to be associated with advantages in the processes that underlie initial idea generation. Importantly however, pervasive differences between gifted children and those not so identified are not always found on divergent thinking measures. For example, Kershner & Ledger (1985) administered the Verbal and Figural, Form A TTCT to 60 fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-graders, half of whom had been identified as gifted based on teacher nominations and on having IQ scores in excess of 130. The other half of the sample,

K.N. Saunders Wickes and T.B. Ward

not identified as gifted, was from mainstream classes and had IQs between 95 and 110. Fluency, flexibility, and originality scores were calculated for both the verbal and figural tests, and elaboration was also scored for the figural tests. Among the possible score comparisons, the only significant advantage for the gifted individuals was on verbal originality. Because the sample size was somewhat smaller than in Runco’s studies, it is not clear whether the more limited findings of a gifted advantage in the Kershner and Ledger study reflect a critical failure to replicate or a limitation of power in the study to detect differences. Interestingly, there is at least one study that reveals lower performance by gifted adolescents on a divergent thinking task. Gallucci, Middleton, & Kline (1999) administered the TTCT to two different groups of gifted children, one from Louisiana and the other from Connecticut. Somewhat surprisingly, the children’s mean performance was just under 96, in contrast to 100 for national norms. Without a direct comparison of their scores to those of children from the same settings who were not identified as gifted and who were tested by the same investigators under the same conditions, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions, but there is certainly no evidence of especially strong divergent thinking by that particular sample of gifted children, and even a hint of a possible disadvantage. Research on divergent thinking in gifted individuals also reveals what might be characterized as qualitative differences in the way novel ideas are generated. Specifically, one limitation of divergent thinking scores in the general population is that fluency, flexibility, and originality scores tend to be strongly correlated, which can undermine their utility as distinct measures of early generative processes. The problem is especially important because, conceptually, the capacity to generate a lot of ideas may well be distinct from the capacity to generate ideas that fall into several different categories or that are unusual or unique. But, if the measures cannot be distinguished statistically, the conceptual distinction cannot be investigated in any meaningful way. Runco (1985) provided evidence that fluency and flexibility may be more meaningfully distinguished in intellectually high-achieving individuals. He examined the reliability (interitem correlations) of flexibility scores on the Instances, Uses, Similarities, Line Meanings, and Pattern Meanings items for a large group of children who were divided into quartiles based on their performance on the California

17

Creative Cognition in Gifted Youth

Achievement Test (CAT). After partialing out variance associated with fluency, adequate reliability for flexibility was found only for the children in the highest quartile on the Uses, Similarities, and Line Meanings. Thus, the tendency to generate a range of distinct ideas may be especially distinguishable from the capacity to generate a large number of ideas in those with high intellectual achievement. Put differently, flexibility in initial idea generation may be an especially reliable trait among intellectually gifted individuals that sets them apart from their less-able peers. Runco and Albert (1985) made a similar case for distinguishing between fluency and originality among those children who achieve the highest levels of originality, especially on figural tests. Another indicator that the generative processes underlying the divergent production of ideas may distinguish between gifted individuals and those not so identified comes from a study by Runco (1986a). In that study, Runco examined correlations between verbal divergent thinking performance (Instances, Uses, and Similarities) and self-reported involvement in creative activities in the domains of writing, music, crafts, art, science, performing arts, and public presentation. Only the gifted sample showed an extensive pattern of correlations between their divergent thinking performance and the quantity of their self-reported creative activities, which suggests a greater coherence of generative thinking capacities and propensities in the gifted. Finally, there is evidence for more subtle differences in the generation of divergent ideas across different types of gifted individuals. Runco & Albert (1986) for example examined correlations between the divergent thinking performance of exceptionally gifted boys and their parents. The boys were characterized as exceptionally gifted based on IQ scores (above 150) or on the basis of achievement, including in math and science. For the former group, correlations between their scores and those of both parents were significant, whereas for the latter, only the correlations with their mothers’ divergent thinking scores were significant. Although the exact meaning of the pattern is open to debate, the result itself provides a hint that the capacity to generate novel and useful ideas and the factors that foster that capacity may be differentially involved in different types of giftedness. Future research needs to be sensitive to variations within gifted populations and not just to potential differences between the gifted and others.

385

Problem Finding Although differences in the divergent generation of candidate ideas are important in their own right, and may reveal critical process differences, they also may point to differences in the way gifted individuals conceptualize the tasks they encounter in the world around them. Thus, it is useful to take a step back and consider that an important first step in any problem-solving situation that can set the stage for later cognitive processing is problem finding, a broad term that covers the ways in which people identify, formulate, represent, or otherwise define the problems they are confronting (Runco & Chand, 1994). The classic work that drew attention to the problemfinding process (or set of processes) is a study reported by Csikzentmihalyi & Getzels (1971). In that study, art students were given the task of making still life drawings based on a selection of objects. The students were free to select a subset of objects for their own drawings from a larger set and then configure them in whatever way they chose prior to drawing. A number of measures of their exploratory activities were taken, including how much time they took in selecting and arranging the objects and how many they touched in considering their selections. A key finding was that greater levels of exploratory behavior were associated with higher rated creativity of the drawings. Although the particular problem-finding process observed in the Csikzentmihalyi and Getzels study were specific to art, they nevertheless highlight the more general point that processes at work in the initial formulation of problems play a role in the quality of the eventual outcome. Since that study, many models of creativity have emphasized the importance of problem formulation or definition processes and their influence on the likelihood of achieving original or creative solutions (see e.g., Basadur, 1994; 1997; Mumford, Mobley, Uhlman, Reiter-Palmon, & Doares, 1991; Runco & Chand, 1994; 1995; Sternberg, 1988; Treffinger, Isaksen, & Dorval, 1994). One approach to assessing problem finding involves a variation on the divergent thinking tasks described earlier. Rather than simply giving participants prompts and asking for responses that may be relevant to those prompts (e.g., list all of the things you can think of that are square), participants are asked to develop their own prompts and then provide responses to them. For

386

example, in addition to having participants list possible solutions to realistic, experimenter-presented problems, Chand & Runco (1992) had them generate their own problems and then list solutions to problems that they chose from their own lists. Generating problems can be seen as indicative of a sub-process of problem identification, in which people consider situations that may be problematic, whereas selecting from the lists might be characterized as problem discovery in which people determine which problems are worth solving or may yield viable solutions. The point here is that problem finding includes a number of more-specific processes. Research on problem finding that compares gifted children to those who have not been identified as gifted is sparse, but because of its critical importance, a few relevant studies will be considered here. Hoover & Feldhusen (1990), for example, examined scientific problem finding in gifted ninth-grade students participating in advanced biology classes. The students had been selected for participation in the classes based on intelligence and achievement scores, previous science grades, and teacher recommendations. They were given ill-defined natural science problems, such as accounting for the decline in a local population of crabs. Hoover and Feldhusen examined how the students worked their way through the problems, asking questions, forming hypotheses, gaining information relevant to them, and ultimately, generating final hypotheses. The value in using this type of ill-defined problem situation is that it allows an assessment of how the problem solver imposes structure and formulates the problem. Skills needed include searching memory, integrating, organizing, and using information, as well as monitoring progress, metacognitive process. Hoover & Feldhusen (1990) also had access to students’ scores on measures of verbal and quantitative abilities, as well as various aptitudes, such as verbal, numerical, mechanical and abstract reasoning, clerical speed, and language use. They found significant correlations of moderate size between those measures and various aspects of the quality and quantity of the children’s scientific problem finding. Because of the modest size of the correlations, Hoover and Feldhusen downplayed their importance, but they do provide at least suggestive evidence for a link between intellectual giftedness and problem-finding ability. In addition, because the sample was a highly select group, it is possible that a restriction of range reduced the observed cor-

K.N. Saunders Wickes and T.B. Ward

relations and that the connection between intellectual giftedness and problem finding is even stronger than it would appear from this study. A subsequent study by Hoover (1994) also found some limited connections between measures of problem finding and scores on the verbal TTCT. Specifically, fluency on the TTCT was associated with the number of ideas in scientific problem finding, and flexibility on the TTCT was correlated with the number of ideas and the number of good ideas in the problem-finding task. As in the Hoover and Feldhusen study, because the correlations were small, Hoover downplayed their importance, but again, restriction of range may be an issue. Neither the Hoover & Feldhusen (1990) nor the Hoover (1994) studies included an average ability comparison group, thus precluding conclusions regarding gifted individuals in comparison to others, but the results do point to the idea that problem formulation is a distinct phenomenon that should be the focus of future gifted-average comparisons in its own right. In some studies, aspects of problem finding are found to link to measures of intelligence and creativity. Getzels and Smilansky (1983), for example, gave students of varying levels of ability the task of listing and characterizing problems related to their school situation. Note that this type of task is most relevant to a problem identification sub-component of problem finding (see e.g., Chand & Runco, 1992). The children also were given the TTCT and the investigators had access to other indicators of intellectual capacity, including intelligence and aptitude test scores. There were some differences in the content of the problems (e.g., higher levels of intelligence, aptitude and divergent thinking were linked to a greater concern about cliques), but there were also differences in the rated quality of the children’s problem descriptions, with quality being defined in terms of the extent to which the description of a problem took into account the perspectives of others or only the student describing the problem. Although most problem descriptions were rated low in quality, the students with higher levels of performance on the intellectual measures did pose some problems in more socially aware ways. As with the Hoover and Feldhusen studies, the Getzels and Smilansky study does not offer a direct contrast between students identified as gifted and other students, but to the extent that higher levels of intelligence, aptitude, and divergent thinking are correlates of giftedness, the study provides a hint that

17

Creative Cognition in Gifted Youth

gifted individuals may excel at the problem-finding sub-process of problem identification. Consistent with this possibility, Anderson (1986) analyzed problemsolving protocols of gifted children in comparison to average and below-average children and concluded that the gifted children were not only better able to solve problems they were also better able to identify problems. Taking a somewhat different theoretical perspective, Shavinina & Kholodnaja (1996) advocated a focus on cognitive experience as a basis of giftedness and reported data that fit well with the idea that gifted individuals may be especially adept at problem-finding processes. They argue that gifted individuals may experience, interpret, and represent the world around them differently than their average peers. Presumably this general tendency would manifest itself in specific situations, including problem-solving tasks, which might be interpreted quite differently by gifted and average individuals. To provide evidence regarding the concept of cognitive experience, Shavinina & Kholodnaja (1996) compared the performance of ninth- and tenth-grade boys who were gifted in physics and mathematics to that of average boys of the same age on a series of tasks. The tasks included, for example, generating questions to ask of an omniscient computer and listing the problems they might study if they were scientists concerned with illness. The gifted boys showed advantages on most of the measures, and in particular asked more categorical (e.g., What are the laws of the universe?) and fewer concrete (e.g., How many stars are there?) questions, and formulated more complex and high-quality problems. The gifted boys do seem to interpret tasks, and their world in general, differently, and they seem to seek different types of information. Again conceptualizing problem finding as a broad umbrella term for a skill that relies on a range of processes (e.g., Chand & Runco, 1992), it is useful to note that gifted individuals have been theorized and observed to excel in comparison to other individuals in a wide range of associated processes, including planning and using strategies, hypothesis testing, monitoring performance and correcting mistakes, and selectively encoding, comparing, and combining taskrelevant information (see, Hoover & Feldhusen, 1994). In spite of productive initial work on these topics, however, work on problem finding in the gifted has not blossomed in a way consistent with the importance of

387

the process, and much work remains on this vital phenomenon. What are the key cognitive processes that underlie problem finding and that most differentiated those who excel from those who do not? What types of processes are most associated with giftedness or talent in specific area of emphasis, and what types are general enough to contribute to superior accomplishment regardless of the domain under consideration? Are the problem-finding skills exhibited by gifted individuals indicative of stable traits, or might it be that averageperforming individuals can be helped to achieve more by adopting some of the approaches shown by the gifted? Regarding the last question, there is at least some evidence that initial problem formulation approaches are malleable and that encouraging more effective problem formulations can lead to increased originality. Mumford, Reiter-Palmon, & Redmond (1994), for example, had college students develop a marketing survey and advertisements for a fictitious product, a 3D television. Some of the students were pushed in the direction of problem construction through instructions to list the important factors to consider and to restate the problem prior to engaging in the generation task. Others were given no special instructions. The results showed that students given the problem construction boost produced ideas that were higher in quality and originality than those produced by the uninstructed students. Consequently, in addition to contributing to a theoretical understanding of giftedness and potentially informing educational practice regarding the gifted, research on problem finding in the gifted has the potential to suggest ways in which all students may be helped to be better problem solvers.

Retrieval of Specific Versus Abstract Information: A Closer Look An important aspect of research and theory in creative cognition is that it seeks to add another level of detail to that available via traditional psychometric approaches to understanding creative thought, such as relying on fluency and flexibility scores from divergent thinking tests. That is, although the work on divergent thinking reviewed earlier is informative with respect to initial preinventive idea generation, it is possible to consider processes at a more detailed level. When a person

388

achieves a certain fluency score on a divergent thinking task by listing items in response to a prompt (e.g., alternate uses for a shoe), for example, the listed items may have been derived from the application of a wide range of processes, including episodic retrieval (e.g., recalling having used a shoe to kill a bug), mental imagery (e.g., scanning a mental image of a shoe, noting that it has laces, and realizing that they could serve a specific purpose), analysis of features (e.g., noting that shoes have the property of being heavy and therefore could be used as doorstops), and abstraction (e.g., interpreting a shoe as a container, with the consequence that it could be used to store things), among many other possibilities. The point is not that any one participant uses all of these specific processes, but rather that it is the underlying processes that are doing the work and therefore are of most interest; the divergent thinking score is simply the end result. There is nothing wrong with using the score as an indicator, but a more precise characterization of creativity in the gifted will require a detailed consideration of the processes that were used in generating the items that led to that score. One generative process that has been shown to matter is the retrieval of stored information in service of establishing a starting point for novel ideas. In particular Ward, Patterson, Sifonis,Dodds, and Saunders (2002) have shown that there are individual differences in the type of information people retrieve in creative tasks and that those differences are associated with differences in the originality of their outcomes. The predominant tendency, shown by about two-thirds of college students, is to retrieve fairly specific, highly representative exemplars from the domain being considered and to project the properties of those instances onto the novel ideas they are developing. For example, in developing imaginary extraterrestrial animals, people tend to gravitate toward specific, highly representative, highly accessible types of Earth animals, such as dogs and cats as starting points for their creations. Ward et al. (2002) examined the tendency to access and use specific representative exemplars across the knowledge domains of animals, tools, and fruit in a sample of college students. To determine the representativeness or accessibility of specific exemplars in each of the three domains, Ward et al. (2002) had some groups of college students perform the noncreative task of listing the first 20 items that came to mind for each of the categories. The students’ responses were tabulated to derive indicators of accessibility, such as Out-

K.N. Saunders Wickes and T.B. Ward

put Dominance, defined as the number of students listing each exemplar. For instance, of the 30 students who listed animals, 27 listed dog; therefore, the Output Dominance of “dog” for the category “animal” was 27. Ward et al. (2002) had other separate groups of college students perform creative generation tasks in which they were to imagine, draw, and describe animals, tools, and fruit that might exist on other planets. After developing their creations, the students then gave open-ended statements in which they listed all of the factors they could think of that influenced them during the creation process. The statements were examined for references to specific exemplars from those knowledge domains (e.g., dogs, hammers, apples) to derive a measure termed Imagination Frequency, an indicator of the frequency with which any given exemplar was used as a starting point for a novel creation. For instance, of the 71 college students who developed imaginary animals, 7 mentioned they based their creations on dogs. Thus, the Imagination Frequency score for “dog” was 7. The major results of Ward et al. (2002) were that roughly two-thirds of the participants mentioned relying on specific exemplars in the creative generation tasks, and Output Dominance and Imagination Frequency scores were significantly positively correlated, indicating that the students tended to rely most heavily on those category exemplars that are most accessible. An additional finding of great interest was that the students who reported they based their creations on specific category exemplars developed products that were rated as lower in originality. This reliance on specific exemplars appears to be a strategic choice because when people are encouraged to take more abstract approaches to accessing information they readily do so, and they produce products that end up being rated as more original (Ward, Patterson, & Sifonis, 2004). The Ward et al. (2002; 2004) findings suggest that one of the major constraints on creativity lies in the tendency to rely on previous examples when thinking of novel concepts or ideas. This raises the very specific cognitive process question of whether or not gifted individuals will show the tendency to rely on specific exemplars to the same extent. Conversely, if they do exhibit more creativity, is that higher level of performance based on adopting cognitive strategies other than retrieving specific, constraining exemplars? To begin to provide some evidence on the issues raised in the preceding discussion, in our first study of creative generation (Ward et al., 1999b), we tested

17

Creative Cognition in Gifted Youth

a group of 54 gifted adolescents whose mean age was 13 years 10 months and who were enrolled in a summer enrichment camp at Texas A&M University. We highlight this study because it reveals both similarities and differences in the creative functioning of the gifted participants in comparison to other individuals. The primary criterion for inclusion in the summer program is intellectual giftedness (as opposed to artistic, musical, or other creative talent). Most of the participants had been identified via the Duke Talent Identification Program, which relies heavily on performance on standardized tests of achievement, aptitude, or ability. Thus, the selection criteria do not automatically guarantee that the participants will perform well in a creative task. It was an empirical question. In the creative generation task, the gifted campers were asked to imagine a fruit that might exist on another planet and to draw and describe it in detail. Some of the participants were in a Control condition and received no special instructions about how to approach the task. Others were in a Creative condition and were instructed to be as creative as they could be while completing the task. After completing their creations, all participants provided open-ended descriptions of any factors they could think of that influenced their creations. Coders rated each creation for originality, and they also examined participants’ open-ended descriptions of the factors that had influenced their creations for any references to specific types of Earth fruit. Of most interest were the proportion of individuals who reported relying on specific known instances, the link between originality and those reports, and the morespecific connection between the Output Dominance of instances and their use in the creative generation task. Overall, about 40% of this gifted sample reported that their imagined fruit was based on some specific instance of Earth fruit, such as an apple or orange. As is true for college samples (Ward et al., 2002), the instances that the gifted adolescents relied on tended to be those that are highly accessible in the fruit category. Correlations between the Output Dominance of exemplars (from college student responses) and Imagination Frequency of those exemplars (from our gifted sample) were positive and as large as those between Output Dominance of the exemplars and Imagination Frequency for those exemplars as derived from college students’ creative generation performance. Thus, when gifted adolescents do rely on specific instances as starting points for their new ideas, access to those

389

instances seems to be guided by the same properties of conceptual structure as is true for other individuals. In addition, as is true for college student samples (see Ward et al., 2002), the gifted campers who reported that they based their creation on a specific known exemplar developed products that were rated as significantly less original. Apparently, gifted individuals who retrieve specific instances as a way of getting started on a generative task are constrained by those examples in the same way that other individuals are. Despite the commonalities noted in the previous paragraph, there also seem to be differences in the way gifted individuals performed the creative generation task. For one thing, the percentage who reported retrieving and using specific category instances (40) was somewhat lower than is typically found for college students in such tasks, which tends to be between 60 and 70% (see, e.g., Ward et al., 2002). So, even though the gifted show some tendency to be trapped by the details of specific instances, they seem to be less likely to do so than other individuals. This difference in the type of information accessed (specific exemplars versus more abstract principles) is also important in that it points back to the observation noted earlier that gifted individuals seem to approach, formulate, or define problems differently. That is, the majority of college students tested seem to define the goal of creative generation tasks as something akin to imagining what a “space dog” or a “space orange” would look like. In contrast, the majority of gifted individuals seem to formulate the problem as something more general, such as envisioning “the kind of thing that might exist on a planet with certain environmental conditions.” There are important consequences of those different formulations in that individuals taking the former approach generate ideas that are rated as lower in originality than the latter (Ward, 1994; Ward et al., 2002), presumably because the properties of individual exemplars (e.g., dogs) are more specific and constraining than the properties associated with higher levels of abstraction (e.g., two eyes symmetrically placed in the head versus some sort of organs for sensing environmental conditions). For example, the more abstract property of “sensing environmental conditions” affords a greater range of possibilities (beyond symmetrically located eyes) for the information being sensed and the organs through which that sensing occurs. It should be noted then that the rated originality of the gifted individuals’ creations in Ward et al. (1999b) was higher overall than ratings for comparable products developed by college students.

390

Finally, unlike college students who produced more original creations when instructed to be creative (Ward et al., 2002), the gifted adolescents were unaffected by instructions. Originality scores did not differ between the Control and Creative conditions. It appears that gifted individuals approached the task creatively without needing any special instructions or encouragement to do so. It is important to note that the college samples were older and that the conditions of testing were different from those used with the gifted sample. Thus the differences noted above need to be interpreted cautiously. Nevertheless, the pattern of similarities and differences is intriguing and worthy of additional research consideration. In a second study involving the creative fruit generation task, we again tested gifted individuals who were participating in the Texas A&M summer camp (Saunders Wickes & Ward, 2006, Study 1). This time, we instructed some of them to rely on specific instances of fruit that they were familiar with, and some to adopt a more abstract approach of considering what properties fruit would need in order to survive. Previous research has shown that these types of instructions affect the performance of college students, such that those in the abstract instruction condition reduce their reliance on specific exemplars and produce more original creations (Ward et al., 2004). However, as with instructions to be creative, the gifted individuals were unaffected; the originality of their creations did not differ across instructional conditions. Again, it appears that gifted individuals have a clear sense of what is needed in a creative task, and pursue that objective independently of being instructed to do so. As detailed more fully in the section of this chapter that deals with implicit theories, the Saunders Wickes & Ward (2006) creative fruit generation study was more complex and involved additional measures, but it is described here for another reason. It also included a self-report measure of the campers’ involvement in art, crafts, music, writing, math and science, performance, and other miscellaneous creative activities, called the Creative Behaviors Inventory (CBI), taken from Runco (1987) and Hocevar (1979). Some of the items were modified to be more appropriate for our sample and time frame (e.g., “How often have you cut a record?” was changed to “How often have you recorded your own musical compositions?”). The questionnaire measured total involvement in activities,

K.N. Saunders Wickes and T.B. Ward

capturing both the number of activities the adolescent was involved in as well as the degree of involvement, with higher scores being given for more frequent participation in each type of activity. Of most interest is that, in a regression that included several additional measures (e.g., creative self-image), originality on the fruit generation task still predicted variance in the overall reported levels of involvement in these real-world creative activities. Thus, although we rely on laboratory-based tasks in our research to get fine-grained evidence about cognitive processes, those tasks are not so artificial and constrained that they bear no relation to real-world accomplishment. On the contrary, they predict it in gifted adolescents even when factors such as creative self-image are accounted for. Saunders Wickes & Ward (2006, Study 2) also reported data from a creative generation task in which gifted adolescents from the A&M summer camp were asked to design a novel sport. Unlike the findings for the fruit task, originality on the sport task did not predict reported involvement in creative activities. It is not clear whether the failure to replicate is connected with the domain (sport versus fruit) or to some other factor, but is clear that additional research on the topic is warranted to clarify the picture. Finally, based on data reported in Saunders Wickes (2004), the gifted campers produced sports that were rated as being higher in originality than those produced by a sample of adolescents not identified as being gifted who were tested in a school setting. As with comparisons to the college samples noted above, caution is needed because the conditions of testing were different, and the need for caution is especially salient because, unlike with most other findings in the literature, the gifted campers actually performed more poorly than their non-gifted peers on the Just Suppose task from the TTCT. Nevertheless, the creative generation results do appear consistent with the idea that gifted individuals tend to outperform other individuals on at least some tasks that involve creative thought, particularly when a product, rather than a simpler listing of ideas, must be generated. As noted at the beginning of this section, the creative cognition approach seeks to identify specific processes and sub-processes that underlie both creative and noncreative accomplishments (Finke et al., 1992; Ward et al., 1999a). As such, it holds promise for further investigation of cognition in the gifted, for whom

17

Creative Cognition in Gifted Youth

creativity may be one central facet of their lives. Two broad areas of particular importance to creative cognition are visual imagery and analogy. Although there have been some comparisons of visuospatial processing in gifted and other populations (e.g., van Garderen & Montague 2003), as well as demonstrations of superior analogical thinking in the gifted (e.g., Caropreso & White, 1994; Kulikowich & Alexander, 1990; Marr & Sternberg, 1986), much work remains to create a detailed picture of the ways in which gifted individuals differ from their average peers in those and other processes.

Implicit Theories, Creative Self-Image and Creative Behavior The results described in the previous section indicate that, when confronted with creative generation tasks, gifted adolescents tend to rely on cognitive processes that differ from those used by other individuals, and they develop more original creations as a result. Often, though not always, they outperform their peers in the fluency and flexibility with which they generate ideas in divergent thinking tasks. They also excel at the cluster of processes linked to problem finding, and they are less likely to rely on retrieval of specific known ideas in developing their own creative products. Both of the latter findings are consistent with the view that gifted individuals perceive and understand tasks, and the world around them in general in ways that differ from their average peers. Thus, specific cognitive processes and the propensity to interpret situations as calling for those processes are important links in the causal chain associated with creative cognition in the gifted. Further, the results indicate that the gifted tap into their creative skills without being instructed to do so. The latter finding is inconsistent with results on the role of instructions in creative performance in unselected populations (e.g., Harrington, 1975), but consistent with other findings on the limited role of instructions in gifted populations. Thus, it appears that the gifted possess some generalized motivation for or proclivity toward originality. They have an orientation toward creativity, and instructions do not push them any further in that direction. Taken together, these results suggest that creative abilities in the gifted may be the result of both their exceptional cognitive abilities and “something” that facil-

391

itates their use of those abilities in creative situations. Our view is that implicit theories of creativity may be the “something” that accounts for resistance to the role of instructions and the general tendency to outperform peers on creativity tasks that the gifted demonstrate. Implicit theories are personal theories people develop in the process of coming to understand and explain the world around them. These theories contain assumptions regarding the causal nature and structure of a wide range of physical, biological, and psychological phenomena, the latter including mental events and behaviors (see e.g., Wellman & Gelman, 1988; 1992). Implicit theories of psychological phenomena are not formal in the way that scientific psychology theories are, but they nevertheless guide people in identifying, understanding, describing, and making predictions about those mental events and behavior in both the self and others (Sternberg, 1985; Runco & Bahleda, 1986). Within the psychological realm, people appear to have theories regarding affect, intelligence, and achievement among others, and those theories influence their perceptions of their own abilities and the abilities of others in those domains (Ablard & Mills, 1996; Barden, Zelko, Duncan, & Masters, 1980; Bempechat, London, & Dweck, 1991; Little & Lopez, 1997; Murrone & Gynther, 1989, 1991; Sternberg, 1985; Sternberg, Conway, Ketron, & Bernstein, 1981). Implicit theories of creativity, then, should be informative in regard to the behaviors and thought processes people think of as a part of creativity, and they should serve as guides for people in assessing creativity in themselves and others. Personal theories of creativity should also be able to distinguish between those who engage in creative behaviors on a regular basis and those who do not, particularly for complex behaviors. Those individuals whose implicit theories of creativity define them as capable of creative behavior should be more likely to be motivated to display such behaviors in real life. Such motivation to be creative, mediated by an implicit theory of self as a creative person, should show greater resilience to the detrimental effects of reward, as seen in the work of Hennessey & Amabile (1988). Additionally, those whose personal theory of creativity is such that they define themselves as capable of creative performance should also be less likely to rely solely on external prompts as the cause of their creative behaviors. If the gifted possess such theories, it would help to explain the Ward et al. (1999b) and Saunders Wickes &

392

Ward (2006) findings that gifted adolescents, in comparison with a general college student population, were more creative and less reliant on instructions to be creative in a creative generation task. So, what are implicit theories of creativity like? Research by Sternberg (1985) and Runco & Bahleda (1986) have provided evidence regarding the structure of adults’ implicit theories of creativity. Sternberg (1985) had domain experts list attributes they believed to be associated with creativity, and college students sort the attributes according to those that would likely go together in a creative person. A factor analysis yielded four main dimensions that structured peoples’ views: (1) non-entrenchment and intellectuality, including non-conformity, high ability, and productivity, (2) aesthetic taste and imagination, including an ability to draw, write, or compose music, (3) perspicacity, perceptiveness, an ability to question conventions, and a drive for accomplishment, and (4) inquisitiveness and intuition. Implicit theories of creativity would also be expected to influence the external evaluation of creative behaviors, products, and even creative people. Perhaps best likened to what Czikszentmihalyi (1988) defined as the creative field, implicit theories of creativity are, by definition, constructed to help define and evaluate behavioral phenomenon in both the self and other. Personal theories of creativity would then be used to evaluate the creativity of an object, behavior, or person. Sternberg (1985) found that when asked to rate a series of letters describing individuals with varying the numbers of attributes positively associated with creativity, participants were more likely to judge the individuals as creative when they were described in the letters as having more of those attributes. That is, they seemed to be tapping implicit theories of creativity in making their assessments. From a slightly different angle, Runco (1990) found that adults and children generate a different set of ratings when asked to rate the creative originality as compared to the popularity of an idea, indicating that they hold and use different theories about what makes something creative versus what makes something popular. This reliance on our implicit theories to evaluate the creative product of another may explain why research on the creative product shows that people are consistently able to rate creativity but have difficulty defining the specific attributes which make any given product creative. Thus, differences in implicit theories should

K.N. Saunders Wickes and T.B. Ward

explain differences in the subjective ratings of creativity, such as those found between students and professional artists (Runco, McCarthy, & Svenson, 1993). So taking in all of the realms of influence that an implicit theory has on creativity, individual differences in implicit theories should impact the display of creative competence in several ways. Implicit theories of creativity may alter both creative task motivation and participation in real-life creative activities as well as the perseverance individuals demonstrate in novel situations requiring creative thought. These theories should also affect an individual’s perceptions of what it means to be a creative person both with regard to the self and others. Finally, these theories, as the driving component of our definition of creativity, should affect our ratings of creative products in the real world as well. With such a broad influence, personal implicit theories of creativity provide the tie that binds together all of the various skills and sources of information that drive our perception of our creative competence in the real world. Hence, discovering the nature and development of personal implicit theories of creativity should provide a source of information to explain the substantial amount of variance in creativity often left unexplained by conventional research on the gifted. Although our research is not yet developed to the point where we can illuminate all the issues, we nevertheless have begun to make progress in assessing gifted adolescents’ implicit theories of creativity. In Study 1 of Saunders Wickes & Ward (2006), in addition to performing the creative generation task and reporting on their creative activities as described in the section on Creative Cognition, the gifted summer camp participants also responded to a Creative Self Checklist (CSC) that asked them to rate themselves on a set of 40 positive and negative attributes adapted from the results of previous studies on implicit theories of creativity (Runco & Bahleda, 1986; Sternberg, 1985). Positive creative attributes, such as originality, imaginativeness, or artistic skill, were defined as those that participants in prior studies had indicated as being important to creativity (Runco & Bahleda, 1986; Sternberg, 1985). Negative creative attributes, such as bookish, boring, lazy, and wealthy, were ones that participants in those previous studies had endorsed as being less related to creativity (Runco & Bahleda, 1986; Sternberg, 1985). We anticipated that our gifted participants’ positive and negative creative beliefs would relate to their perfor-

17

Creative Cognition in Gifted Youth

mance on the creative generation task and to their reports of involvement in real-world creative activities. A factor analysis on the gifted participants’ ratings of the applicability of the 40 attributes to themselves led to a six-factor solution accounting for nearly half of the variance in the ratings. The factors, in order of percent variance accounted for, were risk taking (e.g., impulsive, adventurous), likeableness (e.g., skilled at speaking, popular), inquisitiveness (e.g., questions conventions), productivity (e.g., productive, intrinsically motivated), dullness (e.g., boring, awkward), and non-conformity (e.g., unorthodox, original). The factors are similar to those found for adults by Sternberg (1985), but there were also some differences in emphasis, in particular less focus on intellectual aspects and more on the social aspect of likeableness. More important than the structure of the adolescents’ implicit views is their link to creative performance. A key finding from a regression analysis that included positive and negative attribute endorsements, and fruit originality as predictors, was that endorsement of positive attributes (those positively associated with creativity by Sternberg’s adult participants) about the self significantly predicted reported involvement in real-world creative activities over and above the variance associated with performance in the fruit task. That is, the more the gifted campers said that they possessed traits which adults consider to be associated with creativity, the more they engage in creative activities. Although the results are correlational, and no causal statements can be definitively supported, the results are consistent with the idea that those with a stronger creative self-image are more likely to try to do creative things. An unexpected finding was that endorsement of negative attributes (i.e., those attributes less associated with creativity according to Sternberg’s adult sample), but not positive attributes, was significantly related to originality of the imagined fruit in the creative generation task. One possible explanation is that the effect is driven by the gifted participants’ high levels of endorsement of attributes such as bookishness and skillfulness at speaking that may be central to their sense of themselves as academically gifted. Such attributes may be less central to the self-image, and therefore to the implicit view of creativity of adults from previous studies. Put differently, in contrast to adults’ perceptions, bookishness, etc. may be part of

393

gifted adolescents’ implicit theories of creativity and consequently may be expected to predict their creative performance. In Study 2 of Saunders Wickes & Ward (2006), in addition to performing a creative sport generation task and the TTCT, and reporting on their creative activities, gifted campers responded to a reduced list of 28 of the Creative Self Checklist items and also responded to a Creative Individual Checklist on which they rated those same items in terms of how true they would be of an ideal creative person. The factor structure for selfratings was similar to that from Study 1 in that it included a substantial contribution from risk taking (including energetic or active and willing to take risks) and awkwardness or dullness (including dull boring, awkward, and a negative link to popular). The factor structure for rating of the ideal creative other differed somewhat, and included the four factors of artistic individualism, activity level, popularity, and questioning. However, despite the differences in the structure, there are important links between the gifted campers’ views of their own status on the attributes and their views of the applicability of those traits to an ideal creative person. Most importantly, the gifted adolescents’ ratings of both the positive and negative aspects of their own creativity were significantly positively correlated with their endorsement of those attributes as being representative of the ideal creative other. In other words they had positive creative self-images in the sense that they believed themselves to possess the attributes they considered characteristic of creativity in other people. As in Study 1, endorsement of positive creative attributes in the self proved to be a significant predictor of participation in real-world creative activities. Endorsement of positive attributes as being characteristic of an ideal creative other also significantly predicted participation in those activities. The results again support the idea that implicit theories of creativity, both about the self and others, as well as one’s creative selfimage link to the tendency to behave in creative ways. In Study 2, endorsing negative creative attributes about the self was negatively related to originality, fluency, and flexibility on the TTCT. In addition, high endorsement of positive attributes in the creative other and low endorsement of negative attributes in the creative other was associated with higher levels of originality on the sport creation task and higher levels of originality, fluency, and flexibility on the TTCT. Because by definition the positive attributes are the ones

394

adults associate with creativity and the negative attributes are ones they do not associate with creativity, the results suggest that a well-developed implicit theory of creativity (i.e., one that more closely matches an adult’s), especially as it characterizes an ideal creative individual, is linked to higher levels of performance in creative tasks.

Conclusions The overall picture that emerges is consistent with the view that the gifted are endowed with intellectual skills and aptitudes that give them an edge in creative tasks and that they also possess a greater level of motivation that makes them more likely to pursue creative activities (Brown, 1989; M¨onks & Mason, 1993; Mumford et al., 1993; Renzulli, 1986; Sternberg & Lubart, 1993; Winner, 2000). Consistent with other previous research, our findings show that the gifted seem to be undaunted by tasks requiring creative skills. They demonstrate high degrees of creative competence as compared to non-gifted individuals regardless of whether they are prompted to be creative or to adopt strategies associated with higher levels of originality (Saunders Wickes & Ward; 2006; Ward et al., 1999). The findings on the limited impact of the external factor of instructions are also consistent with the observations that the gifted demonstrate an internal focus of motivation and so that, beyond any differences in creative ability, they will display a more internal locus of control than their non-gifted or underachieving gifted peers (Knight, 1995; Tidwell, 1980). The results also extend earlier findings by identifying specific mechanisms of access to stored knowledge that seem to underlie higher levels of creative functioning in the gifted, namely retrieving conceptual information at levels more abstract than that of specific, basic level exemplars (see Ward et al., 2002). The findings discussed in this chapter also highlight the idea that creative self-image and, more generally, implicit theories of creativity may play a role in the link between motivation, the application of fundamental processes in creative ways, and the development of creative products. Gifted adolescents’ views of their own positive and negative creative traits and their views regarding the traits of the ideal creative person were linked to several aspects of performance in cre-

K.N. Saunders Wickes and T.B. Ward

ative generation and divergent thinking tasks, as well as to reports of engaging in creative activities in realworld settings. Although more data and causal modeling analyses are needed to verify this conjecture, it appears that a creative self-image may lead to the motivation to be creative, which in turn leads to the global tendencies to engage in creative activities and employ creative strategies without prompting and with the consequence that creative outcomes are more likely. Success in creative endeavors and the consequent further development of creative skills may also feed back positively into self-image and motivation. A recent model of cognitive abilities in the gifted indicates that unusual creativity, much like unusual processing speed, may be one of the cognitive abilities common to gifted students (Song & Porath, 2005). Creativity, then, for the gifted will be a skill that they activate within domains that they are interested in or motivated to pursue (Song & Porath, 2005). It is a skill they seem motivated to apply spontaneously, without prompting, and it seems to be connected to their images of themselves as creative individuals.

References Ablard, K. E., & Mills, J. A. (1996). Implicit theories of intelligence and self-perceptions of academically talented adolescents and children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 137–148. Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1989). Independence and the creative potential of gifted and exceptionally gifted boys. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18, 221–230 Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer. Anderson, M. A. (1986). Protocol analysis: A methodology for exploring the information processing of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 28–32. Barden, R. C., Zelko, F. A., Duncan, S. W., & Masters, J. C. (1980). Children’s consensual knowledge about the experiential determinants of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 968–976. Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476. Basadur, M. (1994). Managing the creative process in organizations. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 237–268). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company. Basadur, M. (1997). Organizational development interventions for enhancing creativity in the workplace. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 59–72. Bempechat, J., London, P., & Dweck, C. S. (1991). Children’s conceptions of ability in major domains: An interview and experimental study. Child Study Journal, 21, 11–36.

17

Creative Cognition in Gifted Youth

Brown, R. T. (1989). Creativity: What are we to measure? In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity. New York: Plenum Press. Caropreso, E., & White, C. (1994). Analogical reasoning and giftedness: A comparison between identified gifted and nonidentified children. Journal of Educational Research, 87(5), 271–278. Chand, I., & Runco, M. A. (1992). Problem finding skills as components of the creative process. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 155–162. Czikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Csikzentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (1971). Discoveryoriented behavior and the originality of creative products: A study with artists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 47–52. Feldhusen, J. F., Treffinger, D. J., Von Mendfrans, A. P., & Ferris, D. R. (1971). The relationship between academic grades and divergent thinking scores derived from four different methods of testing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 40, 35– 40. Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gallucci, NT, Middleton, G, & Kline, A (1999). The independence of creative potential and behavior disorders in gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 194–203. Getzels, J. W., & Smilansky, J. (1983). Individual differences in pupil perceptions of school problems. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 307–316. Groboroz, M., & Necka, E. (2003). Creativity and cognitive control: Explorations of generation and evaluation skills. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 183–197. Harrington, D. M. (1975). Effects of explicit instructions to “be creative” on the psychological meaning of divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Personality, 43, 434–454. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. A. (1988). The conditions of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hocevar, D. (1979). The development of the Creative Behavior Inventory. Paper presented at the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 170 350) Hoover, S. M. (1994). Scientific problem finding in gifted fifthgrade students. Roeper Review, 16(3), 156–159. Hoover, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1990). The scientific hypothesis formulation of gifted ninth-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 838–848. Hoover, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Scientific problem solving and problem finding: A theoretical model. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 201–219). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company. Kershner, J. R., & Ledger, G. (1985). Effects of sex, intelligence and style of thinking on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1033–1040. Knight, B. A. (1995). The influence of locus of control on gifted and talented students. Gifted Education International, 11, 31–33.

395 Kulikowich, J., & Alexander, P. (1990). The effects of gender, ability, and grade on analogy performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15(4), 364–377. Little, T. D., & Lopez, D. F. (1997). Regularities in the development of children’s causality beliefs about school performance across six sociocultural contexts. Developmental Psychology, 33, 165–175. Marr, D., & Sternberg, R. (1986). Analogical reasoning with novel concepts: Differential attention of intellectually gifted and nongifted children to relevant and irrelevant novel stimuli. Cognitive Development, 1(1), 53–72. M¨onks, F. M., & Mason, E. J. (1993). Developmental theories and giftedness. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, et al. (Eds.) International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press, Inc. Mooney, R. L. (1963). A conceptual model for integrating four approaches to the identification of creative talent. In C. W. Taylor, & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: It’s recognition and development. New York: Wiley. Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Costanza, D. P., Uhlman, C. Z., & Connelly, M. S. (1993). Developing creative capabilities: Implications of cognitive processing models. Roeper Review, 16, 16–21. Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Uhlman, C. E., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Doares, L. M. (1991). Process analytic model s of creative thought. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 91–122. Mumford, M. D., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Redmond, M. R. (1994). Problem construction and cognition: Applying problem representations in ill-defined problems. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 3–39). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company. Murrone, J., & Gynther, M. D. (1989). Implicit theories or halo effect? Conceptions about children’s intelligence. Psychological Reports, 65, 1187–1193. Murrone, J. & Gynther, M. D. (1991). Teacher’s implicit ‘theories’ of children’s intelligence. Psychological Reports, 69, 1195–1201. Renzulli, J. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg and J. A. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappa, 42, 305-310. Runco, M. (1984). Teachers’ judgments of creativity and social validation of divergent thinking tests. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59(3), 711–717. Runco, M. (1985). Reliability and convergent validity of ideational flexibility as a function of academic achievement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61(3), 1075–1081. Runco, M. (1986a). Divergent thinking and creative performance in gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46(2), 375–384. Runco, M. A. (1986b). Maximal performance on divergent thinking tests by gifted, talented and nongifted children. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 308–315. Runco, M. A. (1987). The generality of creative performance in gifted and nongifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 121–125. Runco, M. A. (1990). Implicit theories and ideational creativity. In M. A. Runco, & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Press.

396 Runco, M. A. (1993). Divergent thinking, creativity, and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 16–22. Runco, M., & Albert, R. (1986). Exceptional giftedness in early adolescence and intrafamilial divergent thinking. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15(4), 335–344. Runco, M. A., & Bahleda, M. D. (1986). Implicit theories of artistic, scientific and everyday creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 93–98. Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1994). Conclusions concerning problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 217–290). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company. Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 243–267. Runco, M. A., McCarthy, K. A., & Svenson, E. (1993). Judgments of the creativity of artwork from students and professional artists. The Journal of Psychology, 128, 23–31. Runco, M., & Nemiro, J. (1994). Problem finding, creativity, and giftedness. Roeper Review, 16(4), 235–241. Saunders, K. N., Ward, T. B., & Dodds, R. A. (2000). Beliefs, activities, and attitudes related to creativity in gifted adolescents. Paper presented at the 108th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association; Washington D.C. Saunders Wickes, K. N. (2004). Developing creative competencies in adolescence: Comparing implicit theories and creative abilities in the gifted and non-gifted adolescent. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B, 64, 4090. Saunders Wickes, K. N. & Ward, T. B. (2006) Measuring gifted adolescents’ implicit theories of creativity. Roeper Review, 28, 131–139. Schwanenflugel, P. J., Stevens, T. P. M., & Carr, M. (1997). Metacognitive knowledge of gifted children and nonidentified children in early elementary school. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 25–35. Shavinina, L. V., & Kholodnaja, M. A. (1996). The cognitive experience as a psychological basis of intellectual giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 3–35. Song, K., & Porath, M. (2005). Common and domainspecific cognitive characteristics of gifted students: an integrated model of human abilities. High Ability Studies, 16, 229–246. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607–627. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 125–147). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., Conway, B. E., Ketron, J. L., & Bernstein, M. (1981). People’s conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 37–55. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1993). Creative giftedness: A multivariate investment approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 7–15.

K.N. Saunders Wickes and T.B. Ward Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concepts of creativity: Prospect and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, C. W. (1988). Various approaches to and definitions of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tidwell, R. (1980). Gifted students’ self-images as a function of identification procedure, race, and sex. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 5, 57–69. Torrance, E. P. (1972). Predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 236– 252. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Services. Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Dorval, K. B. (1994). Creative problem solving: An overview. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 223–236). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company. van Garderen, D., & Montague, M. (2003). Visual-spatial representation, mathematical problem solving, and students of varying abilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(4), 246–254. Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Wakefield, J. F. (1985). Towards creativity: Problem finding in a divergent-thinking exercise. Child Study Journal, 15, 265–270. Ward, T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of conceptual structure in exemplar generation. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 1–40. Ward, T. B. (1995). What’s old about new ideas? In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Finke, R. A. (1999a). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ward, T. B., Saunders, K. N., & Dodds, R. A. (1999b). Creative cognition in gifted adolescents, Roeper Review, 21, 260–266. Ward, T. B., Patterson, M. J., Sifonis, C. M., Dodds, R. A., & Saunders, K. N. (2002). The role of graded category structure in imaginative thought. Memory & Cognition, 30, 199–216. Ward, T. B., Patterson, M. J. & Sifonis, C. (2004). The role of specificity and abstraction in creative idea generation. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 1–9. Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (1992). Cognitive development: Foundational theories of core domains. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 337–375. Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (1998). Knowledge acquisition in foundational domains. In W. Damon, D. Kuhn, & R. S. Siegler (Eds.) Handbook of child psychology, (5th ed. Vol. 2). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Winner, E. (2000). Giftedness: Current theory and research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 153–156.

Chapter 18

A Metacognitive Portrait of Gifted Learners Marion A. Barfurth, Krista C. Ritchie, Julie A. Irving and Bruce M. Shore

Abstract Examining the cognitive psychological concept of metacognition in gifted children and adolescents illuminates the link between childhood giftedness and adult expertise, helping us to understand the ways very able children and adults think and solve problems. This chapter summarizes research on metacognition – the explicit awareness and conscious manipulation of one’s own thoughts, abilities, and learning processes – and, from this perspective, ways in which giftedness is realized. It also introduces the concepts of flexibility and preference for complexity. Research methodologies used to examine metacognition and giftedness are critically examined and contemporary theoretical contexts such as social constructivism, cultural historical activity theory, and social learning theory are introduced. Suggestions are offered regarding new perspectives for future research. The chapter concludes with learning and teaching suggestions, for home and school, that result from thinking about giftedness in relation to metacognition, including inquiry-driven learning and exchanging or interchanging roles between teachers and learners.

are about how to support learning. Ideally, this would have an impact on children’s learning from preschool to formal school and even throughout early adulthood. This chapter focuses specifically on our knowledge of metacognitive processes of gifted learners. Metacognition is important to the understanding of giftedness because it draws the conversation about the meaning of ability into the realm of highly able adults. One of the shortcomings of IQ as a conceptual coat hook for understanding giftedness is that it more or less tops out during the teenage years. Expert-novice views of abilities allow for a lifespan view of the development of intellectual abilities and talents, and metacognition has been found to be one of the threads that enable a conceptually consistent discussion of ability from early infancy into creative adulthood. This chapter is divided into three parts. In the first we review what is known from the research with regard to our understanding of metacognition in gifted learners. The second part focuses on methodological issues and looks at how we can further enhance our understanding of metacognition and giftedness. To this end, contemporary theoretical frameworks and Keywords Activity theory · Adult abilities · Au- research methodologies emanating from cognitive tonomous learning · Classroom roles · Classroom- science are discussed to identify how and what they based research · Cognitive development · Cognitive can potentially contribute to our knowledge. The third part of the chapter illustrates how our knowledge about science · Creativity metacognition and giftedness can be used to guide parents, teachers, and curriculum.

Introduction

The greater our understanding of the development of intellectual abilities and talents, the more informed we

Links Between Metacognition and Giftedness

Bruce M. Shore (B) McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada e-mail: [email protected]

Metacognition. Perhaps some of the most convincing evidence for the theory of giftedness as evolving ex-

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 18, 

397

398

pertise stems from the observation that gifted children and adolescents appear to have enhanced capacity for metacognition. While it was not until the early 1990s that expertise theory became a recognized lens through which to examine the cognitive processes of gifted children, in 1979 Flavell made the firm assertion that how children solve problems by monitoring, self-control, self-instruction, and evaluation was an important area of inquiry. When he asked “what adult like knowledge and behavior might constitute the developmental target here, toward which the child progresses?” (p. 906), he laid the groundwork for the uncovering of parallels between gifted children’s thinking and that of adult experts. Keating (1990) expanded this idea through his discussion of domain-general versus domain-specific habits of mind, while researchers such as Sternberg, Shore, as well as Chi and Glaser, have attempted to explicitly address Keating’s notion in the context of studies with high-achieving and highpotential students. This research has lead to preliminary support for what could potentially be a cogent, contemporary view of high ability, with many practical implications. Metacognition, the explicit awareness and conscious manipulation of one’s own thoughts, abilities, and learning processes, has been demonstrated to play a key role in the process of the successful performance of a difficult task. It includes both metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive control or self-regulation. As Shore (2000) summarized, Metacognition and flexibility . . . refer to two related parts of expert performance: (a) self-regulation and (b) the combination of a more extensive repertoire of knowledge (whether procedural or declarative) and the selective use of this knowledge as circumstances warrant. The parts are related at least at the level of adjusting strategies in response to monitoring and evaluating that one’s course of action will not lead to the desired outcome (or that another kind of error, such as grammar or miscalculation, has been made along the way). A person must also have a store of suitably interconnected knowledge to be flexible. (p. 169)

Schraw and Graham (1997) have further highlighted other features of metacognition from the literature. Their features include the following:

r r

Metacognitive knowledge develops slowly and continues to develop through early adulthood. Metacognitive knowledge is not necessarily stable or conscious.

M.A. Barfurth et al.

r

r

Metacognitive knowledge and control are intercorrelated in a reciprocal manner: “More knowledge leads to better control, while better control leads to the acquisition and construction of new metacognitive knowledge” (p. 5). Metacognitive knowledge and control appear to develop earlier in gifted than nongifted students.

Shore’s research with his colleagues and students has examined the question of whether expert-like thinking can be found in gifted children, focusing on the following characteristics:

r r r r r

Self-regulatory processes (metacognition) Automaticity Long pauses in early stages of problem solving Goal-driven nature of problem solving with more complex interconnected nature of problem categorization (problem better connected to prior knowledge) Forward movement in strategy – steps or groups of steps are evaluated with expected effects or outcomes relative to the goal

He summarized the context of this research and the link to exceptional performance by young learners in this way: The general cognitive hypothesis underlying our studies is that performance should be enhanced by the flexible use of metacognitive strategies. That is, learners who have a repertoire of problem-solving strategies and are able to monitor, evaluate, and correct their thinking processes flexibly in the course of problem solving should do better than those who do not exhibit such strategies (Shore, 1981, 1982, 1991). (Shore, 2000, p. 170)

Research. Earlier research done in the 1970s and 1980s as summarized by Coleman and Shore (1991) and again by Shore and Kanevsky (1993) identified distinguishing qualities of the cognitive performance of gifted learners. These included the following:

r r r r r r r r r

The differential use of existing knowledge Being more reflective More monitoring of progress toward a goal Relatively more time spent planning Spontaneously generating series of solution steps Setting priorities for solution directions Better problem representation More “insight” skills Spontaneously generating more elaborate solution strategies

18

r r r r

A Metacognitive Portrait of Gifted Learners

Distinguishing relevant from irrelevant material Deciding which resources to assign to problem solving A larger repertoire of strategies and flexible use of them Greater memory skills

More recent research as reviewed by Shore (2000) continued to demonstrate that gifted children share similar “metacognition, strategy, flexibility, strategy planning, the use of hypotheses (which may be related to forward chaining), preference for complexity, and the hierarchical and extensive webbing of knowledge about both facts and procedures” with adult experts (p. 181).

How Gifted Children Think Differently In this section we review what we have learned about how gifted children think, what actions they take, how they take them, and what they do when faced with difficult problems, or work in a complex context. This section reviews the research to date and groups the results into themes surrounding metacognition, flexibility, and learning contexts. Monitoring thinking. Monitoring refers to awareness and tracking of one’s own actions that would, in theory, lead to the optimization of strategies that get to the desired solutions or results. Often considered as part of self-regulation strategies, monitoring includes both monitoring for success and to correct errors. Much of the research done on monitoring was done using an information-processing theoretical framework. Earlier research has indicated that monitoring ability develops slowly and is often found to be poor in both children and adults (Pressley & Ghatala, 1990). Further work on this topic has suggested that monitoring ability can improve with training and practice (Delclos & Harrington, 1991). Findings surrounding how gifted children selfmonitor their actions and strategies reveal that they do, in fact, employ such strategies in ways that are different from other children. Kanevsky (1992) compared groups of preschool-aged children on a reasoning task and found that the high-ability children demonstrated significantly better ability to explain their own strategies, and why they had used them,

399

than lower performing students. Sheppard (1992) also found that high-ability children were more aware of and able to describe their own self-regulatory processes. Coleman and Shore (1991) reported that gifted students were better able to make correct evaluations of their thinking processes on physics problems. More recently, Benito (2000) demonstrated that gifted children as young as 6 years old were aware of several mathematical operations and were able to use them automatically, and they knew which strategy they usually used for solving problems. In comparing gifted high and low achievers, Berkowitz and Cicchelli (2004) found that the frequency of strategy use (although not significantly different), particularly in monitoring, was more homogeneous in high achievers and more heterogeneous in underachievers. In order to better understand the developmental process of metacognition and the role it plays in intellectual ability and talent, it is helpful to look at it from the perspective of other exceptionalities. This helps fill in the gaps of what is missing with regard to the developmental process of related metacognitive skills and knowledge. Garrett, Mazzocco, and Baker (2006) reviewed the recent research on learning disabilities and metacognition and conducted a study that looked specifically at metacognitive skills that either precede or follow task engagement. They compared children with mathematics learning disabilities from those without mathematics learning disabilities. The children with mathematics learning disabilities were less accurate in evaluating their correct or incorrect solutions and also in predicting which problems they could solve correctly. However, with respect to accessing what they could not do, children with mathematics learning disabilities were as accurate as their peers in correctly predicting that they could not solve specific mathematics problems. These findings point to the usefulness of children’s self-review during mathematics problem solving. Strategy flexibility. In addition to enhancing our understanding of actual metacognitive strategies, research has also looked at how the flexibility of use of strategies actually occurs. The importance of strategy flexibility and metacognition in relation to giftedness was reviewed and further confirmed by Jauˇsovec (1994). Shore, Rejskind, and Kanevsky (2003) explicitly reviewed strategy flexibility from both more general studies on cognition and those in the area of high ability. Their review included

400

flexible strategies such as being able to change one’s own perspective of a situation by either redefining the task or relinquishing one solution strategy with a more appropriate one. In his own research studies, Shore (2000) delimited the relationship between metacognitive knowledge and strategy flexibility by being “at least at the level of adjusting strategies in response to monitoring and evaluating that one’s course of action will not lead to the desired outcome (or that another kind of error, such as grammar or miscalculation, has been made along the way)” (p. 169). According to Shore, Rejskind, and Kanevsky (2003), using another appropriate solution strategy involves “having a repertoire of strategies, effectively knowing how to draw selectively on them, and being appropriately motivated to act and not give up” (p. 193). Research on flexibility and giftedness has been studied by Dover and Shore (1991), Kanevsky (1990), Krutetskii (1976), Shore (1982), Shore and Carey (1984), and Sternberg (1985). For example, Dover and Shore (1991) employed a water-jar or “Einstellung” task to study metacognition and flexibility in elementary school-aged children. The task required breaking an induced set that is presumed to predispose the problem solver to use a particular solution strategy. A demonstration was given for the first two problems, and the given strategy was an applicable solution strategy for the following three tasks (3 to 6). However, a novel strategy was required to solve problem 9, and such an alternative strategy could be used for 7 and 8 as well. Metacognition in children was assessed in a post-task interview, and speed and flexibility were also assessed. A three-way interaction was found between giftedness, speed, and flexibility, with metacognitive knowledge as the criterion. Children who were gifted and flexible in their use of strategies completed the tasks more quickly. The authors concluded that “Flexible gifted children who took less time revealed more metacognitive knowledge (in an interview) than those who took more time. At all speeds, inflexible average children had less metacognitive knowledge, but slower, flexible nongifted children indicated greater metacognitive knowledge” (p. 173). In another study that looked at mathematical tasks, Kaizer and Shore (1995) concluded that “high performance in regular high school mathematics may better reflect the ability to execute the sequence of a solution

M.A. Barfurth et al.

than to select an appropriate strategy. Extremely high competence was associated with being able to select an appropriate alternative when one approach failed” (p. 178). Identifying and understanding the use of strategy flexibility point to some important issues with regard to a much more in-depth understanding of the metacognitive processes actually being employed by highly successful children. Monitoring, evaluating, and revising one’s own strategies in progress is impossible except in the context of a repertoire of strategies. Learning to do one strategy well, e.g., solving a particular kind of problem in a particular set of circumstances – a situation in which metacognition can be observed, is a task that can be observed in children of widely ranging abilities. Gifted learners and experts in adult domains go beyond this performance and more frequently, more effectively, and more spontaneously monitor, evaluate, and revise the process of selecting a suitable strategy from a repertoire of tried or potential strategies. It is almost a kind of meta-metacognition. In effect, by design or circumstance – and teachers and curriculum designers can make it design – highly able students have not practiced simply to perfect the application of a particular strategy to a particular task. Their metacognitive advantage is demonstrated in their having, in effect, practiced preparing to tackle novel or unfamiliar tasks. Cohen (2008), in an essay on musical performance as a creative act and a form of inquiry, calls this practicing for creative variability rather than repeated identical perfection (the latter of which is actually a major performance block). This is what enables a performer in any domain to deal effectively with the unexpected, to capitalize on distraction, to get past errors, and, as he puts it, to continually “sketch and test” different ways of dealing with any form of performance. This is the essence of why multiple repetitive problems of a single type represent such bad pedagogy, especially for the gifted, and perhaps for so many others who deserve to learn to think in a “gifted fashion.” Preference for complexity. Research has also revealed that gifted children have a preference for complexity. Shore, Rejskind, and Kanevsky (2003) defined two main features for a task to be considered complex. First, it involves some unfamiliarity, novelty, or nonroutine elements. Second, it cannot be accomplished in a single step by a means that is either obvious (apply a rule or formula) or automatic. Research on giftedness (Bowen, Shore, &

18

A Metacognitive Portrait of Gifted Learners

Cartwright, 1992; Garofalo 1993; Kanevsky,1990, 1992; Maniatis, Cartwright, & Shore, 1998) shows a preference for complexity. Maniatis et al. (1998) used virtual environments with 9- to 11-year-old school-identified and high IQ children and compared them with average IQ children on LOGO turtle-graphics tasks. The gifted children generated and completed more complex projects with more nested routines or subroutines. Kanevsky (1992) also found that high IQ preschool children were attracted to complex tasks, made suggestions while solving them on how to make them even more complex, and preferred a novel complex task to one that was only complex. Bowen et al. (1992), doing research with a piece of software called The Factory in which various shapes could be virtually machined, found that the more able students made suggestions for improving the software that would increase its complexity and challenge. The learning of metacognitive skills. Aside from demonstrating that gifted children display some of the metacognitive strategies of adult experts, research has also demonstrated that high-ability students can greatly benefit from instruction specifically aimed at imparting metacognitive awareness and skills. Austin and Shore (1993) administered brief training in concept mapping to a group of junior college students in physics. A second group received practice reviewing physics material, but did not learn concept mapping. Students who learned to map their concepts did better on conventional tests of physics performance, particularly those involving multi-step problems. The maps proved to be a useful guide for instructors to track misunderstandings of concepts, and high-performing students generated more complete concept maps which were also more complex and hierarchical. In a study of six gifted elementary students by Sheppard and Kanevsky (1999), those from a homogeneous gifted class showed a greater increase in the number of control functions performed by the “mind-machines” they proposed, offered descriptions of their machines that were longer, more sophisticated, and more creative, and leap-frogged off each others’ ideas. Another study by Puntambekar and du Boulay (1997) used a specially designed system called Metacognition in Studying from Texts (MIST) to help students develop metacognitive skills by providing a process-based interface and support for collaboration and reflection. A study of 20 ninth graders determined that high-ability

401

students used the interface and intervention productively, but that low-ability students had difficulty.

The Need for Sustained Research on this Topic Shore (2000) concluded that there are qualitative differences and, at the same time, not qualitative differences between the thinking of gifted and other learners, in that gifted learners do not seem to use strategies that others never use. In this sense, there is support for the notion of “universals” posited by many cognitive psychologists. The differences that Shore (2000) did identify are in the extent to which different strategies are invoked and the fluency and speed with which they are used. He and his coresearchers have also shown that gifted performance resembles expert performance in ways that include the diversity of metacognitive strategies employed (including forward chaining and the use of hypotheses), the flexibility of such strategies, and the associated complexity of factual (declarative) and procedural knowledge structures. One question that should be asked is how to contribute to our understanding of giftedness in ways that can inform educational implications so as to have an impact on the largest student population that can benefit from this understanding with respect to thinking and learning: To understand differences in thinking processes, we must examine children or adults who are exceptional in contrast to others in some recognized way. It is necessary to identify target processes that distinguish types of high performance, and to discover the correlates, predictors and consequences of these processes, with reference to the original variable on which the different groups were identified, and also with other variables. (Shore & Kanevsky, 1993, p. 133)

As more recently noted, The lack of coherence in theory development in the field of gifted education has been well documented (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986). Without a theory of giftedness, research does not become integrated in a cogent whole. This wholeness is necessary to really understand and deal with all the variables involved, and to develop programs for a better education of the gifted. (Pelletier & Shore, 2003, p. 239)

402

Theoretical and Methodological Considerations

M.A. Barfurth et al.

7) Having schemas containing a great deal of procedural knowledge about strategies 8) Having automatized many sequences of steps within problem strategies The mildly entangled history of cognitive science and 9) Showing highly efficient problem solving gifted education provides a foundation for directing fu10) Solving problems more quickly than novices when ture research and practice that may result in a richer untime constraints are imposed derstanding of the developing metacognitive processes 11) Accurately predicting the difficulty of solving parof gifted learners. With this history in mind, in this secticular problems ond main section of this chapter we briefly describe 12) Carefully monitoring their own problem-solving identification and methodological approaches used to strategies and process date in this area of research and propose possible fu13) Showing high accuracy in reaching appropriate ture directions that are built upon three contemporary solutions to problems (p. 13) lenses that have guided some of the research done so far: social constructivism, social learning theory, and The links Shore and Sternberg have made between cultural historical activity theory. expertise in cognitive science and giftedness do not represent the first time that these two seemingly distinct areas of research have met. Cognitive science and research in gifted education have a less widely known A Brief History of Research Approaches relationship that began much earlier than the application of expertise as a framework for understanding 1970s to Early 2000s gifted individuals. For example, Keating’s academic career illustrated a historical link between cognitive The evolving understanding of developmental path- science and the study of gifted students. He has been ways toward expertise (DPE) in the field of cognitive well known for nearly two decades in cognitive sciscience (see Keating, 1990, for further reading about ence for his work on developmental pathways toward DPEs) has been promoted as a way of understanding expertise (Keating, 1990; Keating & Miller, 1999). the development of gifted learners (Shore, 1986, 2000; His early work, however, focused on children of Sternberg, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001). Sternberg (1998) average and high ability and gifted mathematics operationally defined an expert by a set of criteria that education (Keating, 1975a, 1975b, 1975c, 1975d; look much like the metacognitive processes indicative Keating & Bobbitt, 1978). One chapter (Keating & MacLean, 1987) and one article (Matthews & of gifted students: Keating, 1995) merged his work in gifted education 1) Having large, rich schemas containing a great deal and cognitive science by considering the cognitive development of high-ability students in terms of of declarative knowledge about a given domain 2) Having well-organized, highly interconnected considering their “habits of mind.” Habits of mind is a (mutually accessible) units of knowledge stored term Keating continued to propose in his later writing on developmental pathways toward expertise; howin schemas 3) Spending proportionately more time determining ever, he did not also continue to talk about high-ability how to represent test problems than in search for students in his writing about expertise. and in executing a problem strategy 4) Developing sophisticated representations of test problems, based on structural similarities among 1960–1970s problems 5) Working forward from given information to implement strategies for finding unknowns in a do- Cognitive science began with a reaction against behaviorism in the form of an initial focus on individuals main 6) Generally choosing a strategy based on elaborate demonstrating outstanding performance. Early studies on chess players examined masters to understand schemas for problem strategies

18

A Metacognitive Portrait of Gifted Learners

how they processed information and constructed knowledge. Simon and Chase (1973) explored the acquisition of reasoning skills and memory by comparing the strategies of master chess players and computer programs designed to simulate expert game playing. They also explored differences in patterns of perceptual structures that chess players of varying ability perceived on chessboards (Chase & Simon, 1973). Work done on expertise in the 1970s did not include children in part because expertise was very domain specific. It was Keating’s (1990s) later distinction between general and specific expertise that allowed an application of this template to children. Gifted children can be understood as being on one of several possible pathways toward domain-general expertise in particular (further elaborated by Pelletier & Shore, 2003), and in some cases domain-specific expertise (e.g., studies of mathematical or musical prodig´es). Since the 1970s, cognitive science has evolved to study a wide range of ages in a multitude of contexts (for more about the history of cognitive science, see Bechtel, Abrahamsen, & Graham, 1998). Research questions about the development and implementation of metacognitive processes, such as (a) How do metacognitive processes develop over time and how might various learning activities support development? and (b) In what ways do students who differ in levels of academic performance differ in the metacognitive strategies employed to achieve academic goals?, could be best approached by collaborative work between researchers in the field of gifted education and applied cognitive science. It was also in the mid-1960s that meeting the needs of low-performing students became a political and pedagogical movement that resulted in the rapid growth of what was called “special education.” It is logical that the use of intelligence tests is so pervasive in the special education system: Special education especially began a century ago with Binet’s application of developmental tasks then the use of the Stanford-Binet to identify students who needed differentiated instruction. Does redefining giftedness cause a rift in our historically based understanding of differentiation and gifted education? If the criteria change, so must educators’ understanding of their students and the differentiation required to support learning. Reframing giftedness as developing expertise might not require the upheaval in education and research initially imagined. Scores on intelligence tests, like every other test, are indicators

403

of a kind of performance. Observed performance is a primary means of assessing expertise. This begs the question: What kinds of developing expertise are we looking for in students? If the answer to this question involves any of the skills that a high performance on intelligence tests requires, then intelligence tests are one option when choosing multiple criteria for assignment to gifted education programs. A multitude of potential indicators are required to identify the variety of ways students of different grades, sex, and cultures express their achievements.

Current Approaches We reviewed recent literature with a hope to connect issues of identification, theoretical frameworks, and research methods among researchers aiming to increase our depth and breadth of knowledge about gifted learners and their metacognitive awareness and processes. Current approaches, theoretical perspective, and suggestions for research design are discussed in turn, in relation to specific issues in the field. This section is intended to identify some of the overarching themes in relation to identification, current approaches, and use of theory with just a few recent studies provided as supporting examples. For a more comprehensive review of literature that has the goal of merging thinking in cognitive science and gifted education, see Hettinger Steiner and Carr (2003). Identification. Synthesizing studies about gifted learners with varied samples can be difficult due to the lack of agreement and necessary context specificity of criteria for identifying gifted learners. Many current researchers have identified giftedness entirely by high IQ (Alexander, Johnson, Leibham, & DeBauge, 2004; Neber & Schommer-Aikens, 2002; Pajares & Graham, 1999; Shore & Lazar, 1996). Shore and Lazar (1996) stated explicitly that their study was simply a comparison of only high and average IQ students and also identified the potential cultural bias of only having sampled White males. This clear statement of a constraint on generalization is an appropriate way to utilize IQ as a method of identification while acknowledging and working within its limitations. Others, including some studies within our own laboratory, appear to have branched out to include more varied and context-specific criteria.

404

Blumberg, Hollaner, and Genovese (2001) sampled second and fifth graders attending an ethnically diverse elementary school for intellectually gifted children in New York City. Renzulli and H´ebert (1995) relied on teacher identification based on school criteria for a specific gifted and talented program. These studies, like most, did not provide the specific identification criteria used by the school or program. Nor did they paint a portrait of their samples based on alternative criteria, such as assessment of student-selected tasks, knowledge of students’ cultural and environmental background, or multiple formats for expressing talent (for more information on alternative criteria, see Brown et al., 2005). We have experienced this problem in our own studies, especially in schools that have special programs but vaguely stated criteria for identification or from which access to those details is denied by the administration or parents (more often the former). With descriptive details about identification provided in the Participants section of studies, the value added of varied diagnostic criteria will come from being able to answer the question: Are there systematic trends emerging across groups of students identified with different diagnostic criteria? Identifying such trends will lead to a better understanding of giftedness and metacognition and their connections. There is much to be learned by the coordinated study of high-achieving persons sampled using varying criteria. The challenges in synthesizing studies on giftedness that apply different identification criteria are the scarcity of studies, the variation in research questions asked, and methodological approaches applied without replication. A future research need is to pose similar research questions in similar ways, with learners identified as gifted based on different criteria with the goal of clearly identifying communalities. Either this could be done in one large study or assembled in a meta-analysis. Furthermore, the implications of gender and culture in terms of the identification of gifted students have long been of interest and will continue to present challenges in terms of identification as studies of the metacognitive processes of gifted children move forward. Expanding our means of identification beyond IQ-based methods, despite the obvious inconvenience, is necessary. In order to fully observe and understand the nuanced development of metacognitive processes in gifted students, it is important to expand our field of

M.A. Barfurth et al.

inquiry to one which considers the experiences both of those who excel and develop expert-like thinking in a given area and of those who do not. Attending to factors such as motivation and the fit between the individual and the larger socio-cultural context of the classroom (and beyond) is crucial. Relying on IQ as a primary means of identification poses the risk of excluding gifted and talented girls in a number of subject areas such as mathematics and science, as well as overlooking the metacognitive processes of children and adolescents from a range of cultural groups (Greenfield, 1997; Kerr & Nicpon, 2003). As our conception of what underlies giftedness shifts toward a more cognitive developmental perspective, should our measurement and identification strategies not change correspondingly? Our current standardized IQ tests tend to focus on individual performance, speed of task completion (“power” in testing jargon), and the existence of a single “correct” answer. Such an emphasis on decontextualized learning is in many ways inconsistent with constructivist notions of intelligence and giftedness. Moreover, the format of most IQ tests rewards convergent thinking and can lead to a loss of points for the divergent or creative thinking that characterizes some gifted students (Harrington,1982). Current methodological approaches. Among the recent articles we found, most either designed (a) structured laboratory tasks in which a researcher worked one on one with a series of students or (b) questionnaire-based studies within which groups of students completed questionnaires anonymously for subsequent statistical analysis. A few studies of each type will be reviewed to get a feel of current methodological approaches to understanding metacognition in gifted students. Structured laboratory tasks are an excellent way to paint detailed portraits of processes students engage in when problem solving. Because students are often alone with one researcher, the student can do a “thinkaloud” (Shore, 1991) to let the researcher know everything she or he is thinking and planning. It also provides opportunities to videotape each student’s engagement in tasks assigned, and fully controlled and understood by the researcher, and to conduct reflective interviews after completing such tasks. This approach can take many shapes and will always be a source of rich data about individual performance in conditions predetermined by the researcher. Following are three examples of such studies with brief comments.

18

A Metacognitive Portrait of Gifted Learners

In order to explore whether manipulations of children’s goals for game playing differentially affected videogame performance of gifted second and fifth graders, Blumberg, Hollaner, and Genovese (2001) removed students from class individually and asked them about their experiences playing a particular videogame in the past. Students were then directed by the researcher to focus on one of three goal foci (evaluative, outcome, process) and to play for 10 minutes. A control group was also taught how to play the game but their goal focus was not primed by the researcher. Students were recorded and three follow-up questions were presented: (a) What were you thinking as you played the game? (b) Suppose you were going to tell someone else who has never played the game before how to play it: Are there any special secrets or rules that you would tell them about?, and (c) What would you tell future players to pay attention to? Over 60% of the children made comments about their process, indicating self-awareness of processes. It would have been more interesting to qualitatively describe explanations of their processes by looking for themes in students’ responses to questions and making between-group comparisons. This could have shed additional light on how gifted students approach and interpret goals and performance. Shore and Lazar (1996) taught students how to use educational software that required them to play a pattern-recognition game. Each student played the game independently in order to answer the research question: Do students with high IQs gain their overall speed advantage in problem solving on the execution of the solution rather than exploration of the problem? The time advantages for bright students arose in the execution rather than the exploration phase. By looking at a structured task, Shore and Lazar obtained a unique insight into the metacognitive processes of bright students. Employing the strategy to spend more time planning was associated with less time executing or using a trial-and-error strategy. Follow-up questions or implementation of think-aloud protocol could have added additional detail about what students were thinking during the exploration and execution phases (data have been collected for such a follow-up analysis of whether or not gifted students create a testable hypothesis during the exploration stage of problem solving). A structured laboratory task was designed by Alexander, Johnson, Leibham, and DeBauge (2004)

405

to be consistent with kindergarten students’ current curriculum about dinosaurs, in order to explore the extent to which children’s cognitive aptitude influenced their domain-specific learning and the extent to which cognitive aptitude and domain-specific knowledge contributed to children’s strategic question generation while playing “20 questions.” The goal of this study was to better understand strategic performance in the context of classroom activities and curricular content. Each child was tested individually in a quiet part of the school just before the curriculum began, at the end of each of the three weeks and at the end of the fourth week for follow-up testing. Strategies being tested in the 20-question game were either singlededuction questions or multiple-item-elimination deduction questions to figure out which dinosaur the researcher chose as the “special dinosaur.” At the end of the 20 questions, children were asked task-specific metacognitive questions: How did you decide what questions to ask? Did you think of anything special to help yourself think of which question to ask? Ninety percent of all children asked multiple-item-elimination questions, which is more strategic than asking single-item-elimination questions, but high IQ students asked a higher proportion of multiple-item-elimination questions. Therefore, although all children could employ the more complex strategy, those with higher IQs employed the strategy more often. Unlike Blumberg, Hollaner, and Genovese (2001), Alexander et al. (2004) did ask children follow-up questions about the strategies they employed, with the intent to analyze responses qualitatively. Unfortunately, the children were not able to answer the open-ended questions that asked them to discuss their strategy usage explicitly. This brings up the issue of developmental appropriateness of various research designs. The follow-up questions were good, but kindergarten pupils were unable to understand or answer them. Although this study was unable to elaborate on the students’ perspective of the process (due to the children being unable to articulate their experiences), the researchers did contextualize the quantitative analyses with descriptions of the teacher’s involvement and the structure and content of the three-week curriculum unit on dinosaurs. This level of contextual detail makes clear to the reader how domain-specific knowledge and skills being taught in the classroom might inform the strategies employed by students.

406

A primary benefit of structured, laboratory-based tasks is the ability to structure activities that prime the participant to engage in the processes that researchers want to explore. This is a great opportunity for painting detailed qualitative portraits of specific metacognitive processes. Rather than simply counting frequencies of types of comments or percentages of strategic questions asked, the study shifts to what these questions look like and in what ways the comments that are counted vary qualitatively. It is promising that we are able to construct authentic tasks that shed light on specific, predetermined research interests. We still have work to do in the area of fully representing the rich data that result from such one-on-one time with learners. We also must consider how students’ actions vary due to having so much attention from a researcher and not having the regular constraints and supports of a classroom context when engaging in strategic activity. This issue is not mentioned to criticize laboratory-based approaches. Rather it is to propose that structured laboratory tasks can be used as an initial elaboration of processes of interest to researchers before dealing with the complexities of inferring such processes while they interact with a multitude of classroom dynamics in classroom-based research. The second most popular methodological approach to the study of metacognition in gifted students uses questionnaire-based data. Such studies allow researchers to broadly portray correlational and causal relations among metacognitive and other psychological and contextual factors of interest to researchers. Because of the efficiency of questionnaires, the researcher can quickly collect a lot of information about a multitude of factors when entire classes complete questionnaires in one setting. For instance, McCoach and Siegle (2003) investigated the relationships among student achievement with academic self-perception, motivation, metacognition, goal valuation, and attitudes toward school, teachers, and classes. All these variables were subscales of one standardized questionnaire. The only other data they needed to collect were IQ scores (to assess ability) and GPA (to assess achievement). Pajares and Graham’s (1999) research questions are prime examples of the kinds of questions appropriate for questionnaire-based studies: Does mathematics self-efficacy make a significant independent contribution to the prediction of mathematics performance when other motivation and previous

M.A. Barfurth et al.

achievement variables that have been shown to predict performance are controlled? What is the extent to which mathematics self-beliefs change from beginning to end of the first year of middle school (grade 6)? Do motivation constructs, including self-efficacy for self-regulation, vary as a function of gender or regular versus gifted program placement? Rather than observing the processes involved in development, this study implemented the same questionnaire at two separate test times to infer extent of development from change over time. These studies did not measure actual student reports of their metacognitive strategy use. Pajares and Graham (1999) were interested in students’ judgments of their confidence to self-regulate and McCoach and Siegle (2003) measured students’ knowledge of metacognition (rather than use of metacognitive strategies). The meaning can vary when we say we are interested in metacognition and giftedness. Are we interested in students’ confidence to self-regulate, their knowledge about metacognition, or their actual use of metacognitive processes? One way for the reader to verify the metacognitive quality being assessed is to seek studies that provide sample items from the questionnaires. Regarding questionnaire-based studies in general, not specifically with reference to the above examples, when planning a questionnaire-based study, above and beyond the need for statistical analyses to be considered in advance and appropriate for the kinds of numerical data that selected measures will obtain, questionnaires also have qualitative potential not to be overlooked. For example, elaborative open-ended questions can provide a context for students’ responses to close-ended Likert-scale items that might add an unanticipated richness to the story being told. It is also necessary to situate results from this form of education research in the social context in which the questionnaires were administered. Details about the participants and the classrooms or testing circumstances give the reader a feel for who the students were, the curriculum, and the kinds of learning activities behind the responses. If one is interested in motivation and the variety of strategies students report using, for example, the results could look very different based on whether the students were, for an extreme example, in a traditional lecturebased or student-centered and inquiry-based form of schooling.

18

A Metacognitive Portrait of Gifted Learners

Theoretical Perspectives We want to highlight a few key theoretical perspectives on educational phenomena that might rekindle research interest in the links between giftedness and metacognition and make these theories more broadly relevant and important to educational discourse. With this goal in mind, we shall explain how social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978), cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) (Engestr¨om, 1987, 1999), and Social Learning Theory (SLT) (Bandura, 1977, 1986) are complementary. A common characteristic among social constructivism, CHAT, and SLT is their explanatory power regarding mediation being central to goaldriven activities and development. Vygotsky’s (1978) constructivism has been the foundation for later theorists, such as Engestr¨om and Bandura. Engestr¨om’s writing about CHAT was built upon Vygotsky and Leont’ev’s work in order to explain how individual learning occurs through social, interpersonal processes whereas Bandura’s SLT elaborates on primarily the psychological, intrapersonal aspects of learning and development. Constructivism. Vygotsky’s constructivist perspective views knowledge and development as socially constructed and places the learner at the center in creating meaning through various individual and social activities. “Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals” (p. 57). According to constructivist theory, students have previous knowledge, intentions, and learning strategies that filter how the learning context is interpreted and influence the learning that takes place. Constructivism has become widely read and applied in both cognitive science and gifted education research. Vygotsky’s central premise of mediation provides an explanation for the need for curricular differentiation for gifted learners. Vygotsky’s (1978) triangular model of mediated activity includes a triad of subject (student), object (goal), and mediating artifact (e.g., scaffold in the form of teacher, other student, technology, or gifted and talented program). Learning is a process of development that occurs sequentially in a zone of prox-

407

imal development (ZPD) within which students are scaffolded from what they can do alone (intrapsychological) to what they can do with assistance (interpsychological). Research in gifted education could take a constructivist and situative perspective that views learning as changes in participation in social activities. Such a perspective also emphasizes that individuals’ active use of knowledge is a pivotal aspect of participation in social practices (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Cultural historical activity theory (CHAT). CHAT is a lens through which researchers could enhance understanding of learning processes in the social practices fostered in gifted education programs. For instance, how do students differentially engage in enrichment versus acceleration programs? These two approaches place the student in different social contexts with different peers, academic goals, and expectations for the rules and division of labor within a classroom. Cultural historical activity theory grew out of the work of Vygotsky by the efforts of many of his students and followers. The central goal of CHAT is to understand mental processes while focusing on the cultural and environmental mediation of activity. CHAT theorists focus on explaining the influences and interactions of cultural, historical, and social factors on and with human activity. Engestr¨om (1987, 1995) elaborated Vygotsky’s triangle of mediated activity to include a wider context that takes into consideration the complex and virtually endless interactions within the triad of individual–population–environment. For instance, individuals act within the rules and divisions of labor of the population and the population contains communities that are restrained by environmental factors, such as material resources and tools. A challenge with respect to gaining a fuller understanding of metacognition is closing the gap between the observable level of performance involving enacted strategies by students in particular classroom settings and the internal processes that students engage in, such as setting goals, planning how to solve problems, making evaluations and other metacognitive activities. Ethnography and phenomenology (cf. Creswell, 1998) are methodological means to connect students’ reports of metacognitive strategies to the social context that frames student engagement. CHAT is a useful lens through which researchers could gain a better understanding of the context specificity of gifted learners’ enactment of metacognitive processes to achieve academic goals. The social and cultural

408

factors surrounding the gifted learner will influence their motivation, goals, and methods of achieving such goals. This theoretical understanding is required to explain metacognition as it is embedded in the complex activity systems of gifted and regular education. Researchers could ask students to reflect on and explain videorecorded classroom activities by asking students why they did or said particular things, how they reacted to the teacher’s assignment, and what they plan to do for homework to complete the assignment (Nardi 1996, 1998). Researchers could also observe classes and use observational tools, such as the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions (BRIEF; Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000), to obtain quantitative estimates of students’ executive functions. An option less intensive than live observation or videorecording would be to invite students to participate in interviews or complete questionnaires that ask about the metacognitive strategies employed and contextual factors that, from their experience and perspective, influenced how they engaged in classroom activities. Cultural historical activity theory has framed a lot of research in cognitive science (Fishbein, Eckert, Lauver, VanLeeuwen, & Langmeyer, 1990; Nardi, 1996; Russell, 1997; Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999; Bracewell & Witte, 2003), but the same cannot be said for gifted education. Naturalistic studies provide a depth of understanding complementary to the breadth of results that can be obtained from longitudinal designs. CHAT is an ideal lens through which researchers can construct naturalistic, observational studies of gifted learners in classrooms and other meaningful learning contexts. This framework is appealing to applied cognitive scientists and should be to other education researchers because it brings together intraand interpersonal aspects of performance. It does so by explaining how people interact with external activity systems. Social learning theory, on the other hand, focuses on the individual and explains how external factors interact with internal systems. Metacognitive processes (knowledge and selfregulation) are crucial activities for academic success and lifelong learning. Metacognition consists not only of internal representations, plans, and regulation. External influences (called tools) such as teachers, calendars, and learning technologies interact with the individual’s goals and internal symbolic processes to result in the context specificity of metacognitive activities employed. If researchers conceptualize metacognitive processes as activities from a CHAT

M.A. Barfurth et al.

perspective, then activity, which includes goals, tools, rules, and divisions of labor, becomes a complex unit of analysis in educational research and particularly a part of the understanding of giftedness. Social learning theory. SLT elaborates on ways mediation occurs from an individual-in-context perspective. Bandura (1977, 1986) emphasized the importance of individual perceptions of the behaviors, attitudes, and reactions of models on the formation of learners’ (a) symbolic representation and processing, (b) goals influenced by self-beliefs and attributions, and (c) behavior. SLT frames learning as a continuous process of mediation between cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences. Central constructs in Bandura’s theory are models, attention, self-beliefs, attributions, motivation, prior knowledge, cognitive strategies, and behavior. Social learning theory situates Moss’s (1990) study (a dissertation in our laboratory) that showed how preschool children with high IQ internalized the patterns of their mothers’ thinking, which was more metacognitive in nature compared to the mothers of children with average IQ. SLT would assert that the modeling of the mother scaffolds the children to acquire a repertoire of metacognitive skills, which will be an advantage when adapting to and succeeding in school. Gifted children’s exceptional abilities to learn and think create a potentially lifelong advantage with continuous accumulating benefits. This success creates a snowballing effect, which can be viewed as one pathway toward developing expertise. Snowballing is the process by which advanced knowledge and skills are an impetus for subsequent knowledge and skill acquisition. SLT also encourages researchers interested in metacognition to expand their scope beyond only cognitive factors. When studying cognitive processes from a social-cognitive perspective, it is difficult to isolate metacognition from the mediating influences of volition, interest, self-efficacy, affect, motivation, and the nature of interactions with peers or models (see Neber & Schommer-Aikens, 2002, for more discussion about social-cognitive models of metacognition). Researchers could predict students’ scores on the BRIEF from measures of self-efficacy, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, interest, and attributions of success and failure. A comprehensive framework that addresses research in both gifted education and cognitive science would result in research that contributes to a clearer and deeper understanding of the interplay among metacognition (knowledge of self and self-regulatory

18

A Metacognitive Portrait of Gifted Learners

409

processes), self-beliefs, motivation constructs, context, performance in particular classes (e.g., science verand achievement. Understanding the individual in sus history)? Are these differences sustained across context can be achieved from a constructivist persubject areas? spective with particular focus on cultural historical 2. Do differences in qualitative portraits of students’ activity theory and social learning theory. The goal of metacognitive processes vary as a function of the bringing together internal and external processes as kinds of academic tasks assigned (e.g., mathematics framed by abstract explanatory theories is no simple word problems versus open-ended inquiry projects feat. How do we simultaneously observe the tools, in mathematics classrooms)? tasks, and interactions at the social level and under- 3. How do students and teachers explain, in openstand these social activities’ relations to intrapersonal ended interviews or focus groups, the role of peer psychological processes? This is both a theoretical and collaboration or teacher support in how students apa methodological challenge that, if taken on, could proach academic tasks? lead to the richer understanding of the complexities of 4. How does working alone versus working with peers metacognition among gifted learners that we seek to influence the metacognitive strategies employed achieve. and resources students seek in classroom activities? 5. Does or how does student interest in the task influence the extent to which they engage in and employ Suggestions for Research Questions metacognitive strategies to do well? and Design 6. Do students break down tasks, generate explicit or implicit solution hypotheses, forward chain, and self-monitor in similar ways for tasks that vary in The classroom context is fascinating to explore when familiarity and level of difficulty? inquiring about learners’ metacognitive processes because social context has the potential to both constrain and facilitate the application of metacognitive processes during learning activities. Given the potential context specificity of how and when students choose to employ their repertoire of metacognitive strategies, classroom-based research is imperative. Renzulli and H´ebert’s (1995) multiple case study is a good example of how we can begin to understand the individual learner’s context-specific experiences. Rich descriptions of high-achieving-potential underachieving students were obtained within a contextual frame in which various aspects of the problems were identified and studied over the time of the intervention. Triangulation was achieved by using the student, the teacher, and the products as converging data sources. Also, reviewing the data collected from a CHAT perspective could provide a structure to meaningfully interpret the rich data these authors obtained. More classroom-based research (despite its limitations of convenience samples and uncontrolled sources of variance) would open opportunities to see how learning processes are distributed across, and scaffolded by, teachers, peers, and other contextual, and potentially unanticipated, features. Here are some research questions for consideration as future studies:

Unexpected dynamics not observed in laboratory settings can only be explored in naturalistic settings. Phenomenography (Creswell, 1998) is a methodological approach that, in gifted education, could explore qualitative differences in how gifted students experience learning activities and employ strategies to achieve goals. A phenomenographic approach to understanding learning processes is recommended to those who agree that learning is based on learners’ experiences of a situation, which are determined by relating one’s self to relevant aspects of the learning situation. The underlying assumption of this approach to research is that learning situations have a structure of relevance for those who experience it. Research should describe the learners’ interpretation of context and learning processes, which is the goal of phenomenography. Reis, McGuire, and Neu (2000) achieved this goal in a qualitative study designed to explore the compensation strategies used by high-ability students with learning disabilities and their experiences in elementary, secondary, and post-secondary institutions. Ethnographic and phenomenographic methods (Creswell, 1998) can also yield detailed descriptions of the multitude of significant aspects of metacognition 1. Are there differences between metacognitive por- and gifted education from students’ and teachers’ traits of students who vary in levels of academic perspectives.

410

There are commonalities across recent studies worthy of note and reflection. All of the studies that we found are from North America. Although a few studies identified the need to explore cross-cultural issues when studying metacognition and gifted learners (Pajares & Graham, 1999; Shore & Lazar, 1996), no such studies were found in our search of the literature. Identification of gifted children in other cultures has been extensively discussed, along with how other systems of education adapt to the needs of gifted learners, but scholarship has not yet appeared to ask questions that parallel the studies that have so far informed our understanding of the connections between metacognition and giftedness. As Sternberg (2004) asserted, a predominance of single-culture studies can contribute to false assumptions, over-generalization of findings, and the negation of many rich potential sources of data. Research studies have focused on all levels of education, from kindergarten to university populations, but only two studies (Alexander, Fabricius, ManionFleming, Zwahr, & Brown, 2003; Neber & SchommerAikens, 2002) found in this review of recent literature spanned across levels of education. We can begin to piece together hypotheses for developmental studies from the current literature. Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies spanning across levels of education would be a fascinating contribution to our understanding of the development of both gifted learners and metacognitive processes. Taking a constructivist, developmental approach to understanding gifted learners and metacognition requires longitudinal studies. The call to understand qualitative differences of metacognitive processes could be answered by comparing factors that account for the “who, what, when, where, and how” of metacognition within the events in which such processes occur. This would be a massive undertaking, but one readily done step by step. Approaching this challenge in a systematic way that builds on previous research is but one pathway to advance our methodological approaches and understanding of metacognition and giftedness.

Implications for Home, Classroom, and School How can or should awareness of links between metacognition and giftedness (as well as the related

M.A. Barfurth et al.

issues of flexibility and preference for complexity) be used to guide parents on preschool activities, teachers on classroom processes, and schools on curriculum? Our goal in this section is to offer a modest list of relatively general suggestions that arise directly from the first two sections of this chapter.

Implications for Parenting and the Home Long before children become school pupils, they learn important lessons from parents and others who care for them. “Young children construct a coherent set of beliefs about themselves, their confidence, the nature of tasks, the usefulness and availability of cognitive strategies, and the social dispositions of other people in the classroom. With young children, these beliefs are often implicit and imprecise; nevertheless, they are used to mediate efforts to self-regulate their learning” (Zimmerman, 1990, p. 13). Based on the work done in our laboratory by Moss (1990), when working on puzzles and games, or in any circumstance in which children are given an opportunity to ponder a question or make a choice, children’s thinking is helped by patiently awaiting replies, encouraging children to think about what they want to say, and to prompting with questions that encourage reflective thinking rather than comments that simply seem to be rushing the process. For example, when solving a jig-saw puzzle, it is more helpful to ask what kinds of pieces should be sought to go beside one that has a blue edge and, when directly helping, speaking aloud the reasons for the choices rather than admonitions to persist. When using building toys, let the child decide what to build and ask questions that encourage deciding what to do next. If tasks are not trivial to the doer, they will sustain interest but require time (Pelletier & Shore, 2003). Parents can, in their interactions, usefully help the child set priorities (just two at a time, not a long list), decide if more time is needed to plan the activity, and distinguish relevant from irrelevant ideas or objects. The answer to a particular question or problem or puzzle is not the most important goal; rather, it is to learn strategies that can eventually be applied to other situations. Parents can, therefore, usefully ask preschool children to think about how new situations may be similar to others they have experienced. In parent talk to very young

18

A Metacognitive Portrait of Gifted Learners

children, comments on how situations or events are related to earlier ones experienced are likely to be useful preparation for such a frame of mind. Parents can also usefully articulate how different people see situations or objects differently, helping children to develop their ability to distinguish their view from that of others. More than three decades ago, developmental psychologist and Piaget interpreter Flavell (1976) stated the goal simply and clearly for parents and teachers: “Try to find out what is running through the child’s mind as he or she wends his or her way through the task” (Flavell, 1976, p. 234). Shore and Kanevsky (1993) proposed that such an approach as proposed above will “reinforce and model metacognitive strategies” and “nurture an awareness of self-regulatory activity” (p. 143). Children who acquire such a frame of mind at home arrive at school with a distinct advantage; “metacognition is not merely part of a specific solution strategy, but an active state of mind” (Shore, 2000, p. 173).

411 difficult points in a task before beginning it, and be prepared with alternative approaches? Can they benefit from working collaboratively? (Shore, 1982, p. 143)

What follows is neither a manual on gifted education nor a guide to metacognitive education. It is a distillation of four broadly stated elements found or created in classrooms, and that arise from the links between metacognition and giftedness: (a) rich and complex learning tasks, (b) knowledge creation and transfer, (c) favoring planning time over emphasizing speed of completion, and (d) teacher–learner role change toward peer and autonomous learning. These four ideas or guidelines respect several basic assumptions that arise equally from the presentations above. First, gifted children and adults do not have a monopoly on metacognition, but providing circumstances that raise the likelihood that metacognition will be enhanced raises it for all. The goal of the exercise is to raise the whole platform, not close a gap. Indeed the gap might widen while everyone benefits. Second, “Problemsolving strategies need to be taught and learned not merely as single paths to predetermined answers” Implications for Teachers (Shore, Rejskind, & Kanevsky, 2003, p. 195). The goal and the Classroom is not to replace all other activities but to add to the teaching and learning repertoire that makes it possible One of the first publications to link high ability and for a learner (of any age) to respond to the challenge metacognition presented a composite picture of sound to find another way to resolve this problem, or to come pedagogical practice that is still relevant to this consid- up with another similar problem. Good teachers and eration: good coaches have been doing this for a long time, but now it has a place in theory. When learning new material it is possible to summarize Rich and complex learning tasks. Shore, Rejskind, the main points and to consider how this new learning and Kanevsky (2003) observed that “The tasks that is related to previous learning in the same and different help define expertise are often complex and rich as subjects, and to general experience. The links, direct or learning situations – ill-defined rather than wellfuzzy, become as important as the points. When students are working on a project or task, they can be asked and defined. There are not always predetermined right ask themselves to assess how their work is proceeding, answers known by the asker. Indeed, sometimes the whether it appears to be leading them to their desired outtask is not even to find an answer, but to come up with come, and whether they wish to reconsider part of the plan a good question . . .” (p. 184). They further noted that they are pursuing (if they have not such a plan, this exercise might help). Students can try to divide their work “One implication of the findings on the preference for on tasks into information-gathering and execution stages. complexity by experts, gifted students, and creative They can concentrate on evaluating the quality of their individuals is to highlight the need to raise or remove harvest in the first stage before launching into the latter. the ceiling on the level of complexity of the content They can judge if they reached out and adequately into the extremes of linked knowledge in order to make the best of processes involved in learning activities. This can be their current activity. Are there other suitable strategies, or accomplished by introducing a metacognitive dimenhow would someone with other expertise approach this? sion to lessons by embedding and valuing reflective When they encounter a difficulty, what adjustments to questions during learning. Simply offering children plans may be useful? Do they sense themselves guessing inappropriately? Can they anticipate what might be the open-ended activities is not sufficient” (p. 198). Non-

412

trivial tasks have the added benefit of being inherently interesting, thereby sustaining interest. One of the most direct ways to create a rich and complex task as the basis for learning is to engage the learners in designing the task or some of its qualities. This enhances the inquiry potential of the task and, in the case of highly able students, takes advantage of their demonstrated preference to introduce their own complexities in their learning experiences (Bowen et al., 1992; Garofalo, 1993; Kanevsky, 1992; Kanevsky & Rapagna, 1990; Maniatis et al., 1998). Knowledge creation and transfer. In their “best practices” chapter on higher level thinking for gifted students, Robinson, Shore, and Enerson, (2006) argued that a curriculum on thinking should include four key elements. In addition to respecting their social constructivist roots, these elements directly create conditions that arise from the connections between metacognition and giftedness. These practices are (a) thinking and content learned together (thinking does not need to wait until the child has acquired a large base of knowledge about a field); (b) learning about thinking as the students are learning to do thinking (“learning about” teaches metacognitive skills, and “learning to do” teaches the ways of organizing thinking and provides practice); (c) giving students opportunities to become more and more autonomous (teacher introduction, small group work, solo activities); and (d) providing attention to transfer (deliberate awareness and teacher modeling of using strategies in varied contexts; O’Tuel & Bullard, 1993; Swartz & Perkins, 1990). (pp. 104–105)

They further advised that “Emphasis in classrooms, with the support of the school administration, should be on rewarding thinking, inquiry, reflection, and the consideration of alternatives in lieu of memorization, drill, reliance on lower level recall, and tight control of content and class work” (Robinson et al., 2006, p. 206). Learning events that promote thinking also favor the acquisition of knowledge, but they also go further in promoting children’s creation of new knowledge (Shore, Rejskind, & Kanevsky, 2003). Children need to construct their own knowledge with suitable guidance, whether it is new discrete knowledge or, equally importantly, how new and old elements of discrete knowledge, whether facts or skills, are related to each other. Gifted children, like experts, routinely internalize more and better knowledge structures and see more common elements among related information or problems (Austin & Shore, 1993; Pelletier & Shore, 2003; Shore, 1982). In the classroom, this translates into ac-

M.A. Barfurth et al.

tivities that include starting with multiple ideas that may not be initially closely tied together, rather than discrete questions, connecting ideas, generating new ideas, and ending with assignments that explicitly involve making connections across topics, times, disciplines, or outcomes, just to cite some possibilities. In addition, the assignments should pose challenges such as to suggest other problems that could be addressed, not only to find a “correct” answer that the teacher already knows. In order to do these complex and rich tasks effectively and efficiently, and to practice monitoring, evaluating, and revising thinking strategies, as well as to build a flexible repertoire of strategies for problem finding and solving, students need to conduct these tasks both alone and in active discourse with their classmates as well as teachers. They need to be reminded and to learn to identify for themselves when they are creating new knowledge (at the minimum for themselves, but eventually things others may not know) and to apply their knowledge from one situation to another, as well as how to choose what information or skills are relevant to the solution of specific issues. The easiest way to do this is to ask students especially in groups but also alone to think about what resources will be useful in resolving a problem. When they eventually come to standard science laboratory tasks with their lists of materials and equipment, they will be very able to generate these themselves and move the exercises a step up or more from “cookbook” exercises. Speed versus planning time. Once we get past power tests such as IQ as the golden standard for the identification and understanding of giftedness, we also need to go beyond (without rejecting) the performance qualities that lead to high IQ scores, especially getting the largest number of correct answers to short questions in the shortest possible time. There are many real-life situations in which rapid response is indeed critical, including some medical decision making and responding appropriately to fire, flood, or other danger. We too often confuse, however, the circumstances in which we learn what we need to know or how to act versus those in which we exercise or execute that knowledge after we have learned it. For a learner especially, nontrivial tasks warrant the planning time they need. Eventually they can be executed rapidly. Flavell’s challenge (noted earlier) to learn what is going on in the learner’s head is not only advice for the teacher. It is a metacognitive event for the learner, too, in all

18

A Metacognitive Portrait of Gifted Learners

its dimensions (knowledge, awareness, motivation, and performance). It is a complex task and should not be rushed. The bottom line is that accuracy trumps speed. Therefore we should de-emphasize speed: Even in IQ, accuracy is more important than speed to a high score (Lajoie & Shore, 1986). There is far too much emphasis on speed in learning situations, emphasis that should be redirected to careful planning, thinking about the plan, and using it as a road map while engaged in the task. Dover and Shore (1991) also found strong links among flexibility and metacognition. Eventually flexibility (having more than one appropriate way to tackle a problem) leads to quicker performance, and “accurate students with good metacognitive skills are better suited to working more quickly than any student, gifted or not, who may be deficient in either metacognition or accuracy” (Shore, 2000, p. 174). Bright children automatically slow down when tasks have the potential for alternative solution paths, and they spend more time planning before executing a solution, as long as the task is not trivial. One very likely learns what can be learned about being smart by learning to plan. The challenge and opportunity for the teacher to capitalize on these connections is to take time and help the students take the time to well understand the issues they are addressing, not to sacrifice understanding for speed during the learning of new concepts, and to help students build strategies for evaluating the quality of their thinking in that new realm. The speed will follow on its own when needed and can be practiced for fun in the later stages of learning. Teacher–learner role change toward peer and autonomous learning. Metacognition cannot be imposed from without during either learning or performance. In the most classic sense, it needs to be drawn out from within the student. If students are always waiting for teacher approbation, they will never become metacognitive. The opportunity and then the duty to self-evaluate must be mandated. This is usually done in steps that include some responsibility shifted to the peer group as well. It is becoming clear that “students need to be directly taught the components of inquirybased learning – from asking high level and interesting questions, to valuing their own judgments, to criticizing arguments, to presenting reports – and given practice in bringing these components together” (Robinson et al., 2006, p. 114). These are benefits from planned,

413

not random, opportunities for peer learning and autonomous learning. This is, however, a zero-sum situation. If the students do more evaluating, the teacher must do less. Students will not learn to self-evaluate if they are always second-guessed by the teacher whose final authority makes their engagement moot. If the students are to teach themselves more, they cannot be second-guessed by the teacher’s flying squad that fixes what they teach themselves poorly. Instead, it is important to help students in groups and individually assess the quality of their learning through internal and external criteria. Pedagogically, the metacognition and giftedness literature points toward the importance of processoriented student discourse. Specific teacher actions can include building in opportunities for students to explain to themselves and each other their paths to their ideas and answers. This includes ensuring that the task is clearly understood (an excellent group activity), appropriately categorizing the task (i.e., relating it to past knowledge), filtering relevant from irrelevant information useful to addressing it, thinking about their personal strengths that could help them deal with the task and also to think about special talents their classmates might have that could especially help, developing a plan or (even better) multiple plans for the solution steps, and thinking ahead of ways to test if they are on a good path to a solution that they will be happy with, even before they get there: One way to use a metacognitive theory to nurture creativity is to offer children the opportunity to share how their minds work while they are engaged in an activity that involves creative thinking. . . . Preparatory activities (and possibly teacher modeling) are probably necessary to provide students with opportunities to describe their thinking in a variety of tasks, to reflect upon this thinking, and to be able to act on these thoughts (Kanevsky, 1992). Another strategy is to encourage students to “try on” the strategies of their creative classmates. (Shore, Rejskind, Kanevsky, 2003, p. 189)

The benefits of peer collaboration on strategy use, metacognitive causal attribution, and recall have been supported in two studies that examined outcomes in the short term and over nearly 6 weeks (Manion & Alexander, 1997, 2001). There is a caveat. When metacognition and high ability interact, the teacher and students have shifted roles. The teacher engages in some but less direct teaching, and to a greater degree engineers an environment in which students increasingly teach themselves

414

M.A. Barfurth et al.

and evaluate the outcomes. Individual teachers need to As classrooms are the daily collegial space for stuaccept this, and the school as a whole has to support dents, schools are the equivalent for teachers. Xenossuch a learning and teaching environment. Whiston (1989) made the fascinating discovery that teachers of gifted students are themselves more likely to be contributors to knowledge than other teachers. We do not know the causal connections, but this echoes the connections forged above regarding students. These teachers seem to have some of the experiences that we Implications for Curriculum and Schools are proposing would also be appropriate for their stuAt issue are the overall instructional environment and dents. For those without such predispositions, Masui the assumptions made about the roles of students and and De Corte (2005) demonstrated with a large class teachers, as well as the tolerance for what may look like (n = 141) of first-year business economic students that chaos but is in fact a high level of differentiation. If the self-regulatory behavior can be learned even within school’s overall curricular philosophy is that students the confines of a single university course. Schools can learn various performance sequences (e.g., sight read- therefore consider professional development as well as ing, spelling, adding, solving mixture problems, cal- hiring policies that favor the use of instructional apculating the resistance in a circuit, or baking whole- proaches that honor the links between metacognition wheat bread), then it will have achieved what conven- and giftedness. tional schooling does well: “High performance in regular high school mathematics may better reflect the ability to execute the sequence of a solution than to select an appropriate strategy” (Kaizer & Shore, 1995, p. 178). If students are to learn to select appropriate strategies, they need time and supportive opportunities to select inappropriate ones, and they need to figure out for themselves how early in the solution process they can figure that out. This is a good group exercise, a different curriculum, and it will not normally happen in any one particular classroom if there is not explicit support for such approaches at the level of the school administration. This becomes a general curricular decision. Metacognition and giftedness point to this path. Inclusion is a challenge but not a barrier. Although, for example, students with and without learning disabilities differ in their motivation for engaging in self-regulated learning behavior (Ruban, McCoach, McGuire, & Reis, 2003), the challenge is to give all students, according to their needs, good reasons to do so. For some it will be the opportunity to choose, for some it will be the chance to tackle complex tasks, and for others it will be the chance to interact actively with peers. Others may need external rewards at least initially, but even classical learning theory teaches about gradual extinction of external reward dependency. Gifted students with learning disabilities, however, are more like gifted children in their metacognitive performance than they are like other children with learning disabilities (hannah & Shore, 1995) and should be so educated.

Conclusion Metacognition and giftedness have been shown to be closely linked. We still have a lot to learn about this relationship, but the path toward a stronger knowledge base is becoming clearer. There is still some interesting research to be done that will inform both constructs. Even at the present time, however, the existence of the connections between them suggests a pedagogy that has strong support from other educational and psychological research. It is itself a rich and complex terrain to explore, a worthy reflection for the fields of gifted education and cognitive psychology requiring collaboration between them. Are we making good progress toward a challenging goal?

References Alexander, J. M., Fabricius, W. V., Manion-Fleming, V., Zwahr, M., & Brown, S. A. (2003). The development of metacognitive causal explanations. Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 227–238. Alexander, J. M., Johnson, K. E., Leibham, M. E., & DeBauge, C. (2004). Constructing domain-specific knowledge in kindergarten: Relations among knowledge, intelligence, and strategic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 35–52. Austin, L. B., & Shore, B. M. (1993). Concept mapping of high and average achieving students and experts. European Journal for High Ability, 4, 180–195.

18

A Metacognitive Portrait of Gifted Learners

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Toronto: PrenticeHall of Canada. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bechtel, W., Abrahamsen, A., & Graham, G. (1998). The life of cognitive science. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (pp. 3–98). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Benito, Y. (2000). Metacognitive ability and cognitive strategies to solve maths and transformation problems. Gifted Education International, 14, 151–159. Berkowitz, E., & Cicchelli, T. (2004). Metacognitive strategy use in reading of gifted high achieving and gifted underachieving middle school students in New York. Education and Urban Society, 37, 37–57. Blumberg, F. C., Hollaner, B., & Genovese, J. I. (2001). Goals, attention and video game performance among gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 216–222. Bowen, S., Shore, B. M., & Cartwright, G. F. (1992). Do gifted children use computers differently?: A view from “The Factory.” Gifted Education International, 8, 151–154. Bracewell, R. J., & Witte, S. P. (2003). Tasks, ensembles, and activity: Linkages between text production and situation of use in the workplace. Written Communication, 20, 511–559. Brown, S. W., Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, E. J., Siegle, D., Zhang, W., & Chen, C.H. (2005). Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 68–79. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81. Cohen, P. (2008). The embodied conductor: Concert pianists, diaper dancers, and the fine art of creative variability in performance. In B. M. Shore, M. W. Aulls, & M. A. B. Delcourt (Eds.), Inquiry in education: Overcoming barriers to successful implementation (pp. 165–205). New York: Erlbaum. Coleman, E., & Shore, B. M. (1991). Problem-solving processes of high and average performers in physics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 366–379. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Delclos, V. R., & Harrington, C. (1991). Effects of strategy monitoring and proactive instruction on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 35–42. Dover, A. C., & Shore, B. M. (1991). Giftedness and flexibility on a mathematical set-breaking task. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 99–105. Engestr¨om, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit. Engestr¨om, Y. (1995). Innovative organizational learning in medical and legal settings. In L. Martin, L. Nelson, & E. Tobach (Eds.), Sociocultural psychology: Theory and practice of knowing and doing (pp. 326–356). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Engestr¨om, Y. (1999). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 63–93. Fishbein, H. D., Eckert, T., Lauver, E., VanLeeuwen, R., & Langmeyer, D. (1990). Learners’ questions and comprehension in a tutoring setting. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 163–170.

415 Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231– 235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive- developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. Garofalo, J. (1993). Mathematical problem preferences of meaning-oriented and number-oriented problem solvers. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 17, 26–40. Garrett, A. J., Mazzocco, M. M., & Baker, L. (2006). Development of the metacognitive skills of prediction and evaluation in children with or without math disability. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 21, 77–88. Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2000). Test review: Behavior rating inventory of executive function. Child Neuropsychology, 6, 235–238. Greenfield, P. M. (1997). You can’t take it with you: Why ability assessments don’t cross cultures. American Psychologist, Special issue on intelligence through the lifespan (Ed. R. J. Sternberg), 1115–1124. hannah, c. l., & Shore, B. M. (1995). Metacognition and high intellectual ability: Insights from the study of learning-disabled intellectually gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 95–109. Harrington, R. G. (1982). Caution: standardized testing may be hazardous to the educational programs of intellectually gifted children. Education, 103, 112–117. Hettinger Steiner, H., & Carr, M. (2003). Cognitive development in gifted children: Toward a more precise understanding of emerging differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 215–246. Jauˇsovec, N. (1994). Flexible thinking: An explanation for individual differences in ability. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 74, 61–79. Kaizer, C., & Shore, B. M. (1995). Strategy flexibility on more and less competent students on mathematical word problems. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 113–118. Kanevsky, L. S. (1990). Pursing qualitative differences in the flexible use of problem solving strategy by young children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 115–140. Kanevsky, L. S. (1992). The learning game. In P. Klein & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), To be young and gifted (pp. 204–241). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Kanevsky, L. S., & Rapagna, S. O. (1990) Dynamic analysis of problem solving by average and high ability children. Canadian Journal of Special Education, 6(1), 15–30. Keating, D. P. (1975a). Precocious cognitive development at the level of formal operations. Child Development, 46, 476–480. Keating, D. P. (1975b). Possible sampling bias in genetic studies of genius. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 657–662. Keating, D. P. (1975c). The study of mathematically precocious youth. Journal of Special Education, 9, 45–62. Keating, D. P. (1975d). Testing those in the top percentiles. Exceptional Children, 41, 435–436. Keating, D. P. (1990). Charting pathways to the development of expertise. Educational Psychologist, 25, 243–267.

416 Keating, D. P., & Bobbitt, B. L. (1978). Individual and developmental differences in cognitive-processing components of mental ability. Child Development, 49, 155–167. Keating, D. P., & MacLean, D. J. (1987). Cognitive processing, cognitive ability, and development: A reconsideration. In P. A. Vernon (Ed.), Speed of information-processing and intelligence (pp. 239–270). Westport, CT: Ablex. Keating, D. P., & Miller, F. K. (1999). Individual pathways in competence and coping: From regulatory systems to habits of mind. In D. P. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Developmental health and the wealth of nations: Social, biological, and educational dynamics (pp. 220–233). New York: Guilford Press. Kerr, B. A., & Nicpon, M. F. (2003). Gender and giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis Eds., Handbook of gifted education (pp. 493–505). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Tr. from 1968 Russian ed. by J. Teller, J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirszup, Eds.) Lajoie, S. P., & Shore, B. M. (1986). Intelligence: The speed and accuracy tradeoff in high aptitude individuals. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9, 85–104. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Maniatis, E., Cartwright, G. F., & Shore, B. M. (1998). Giftedness and complexity in a self-directed computer-based task. Gifted and Talented International, 13, 83–89. Manion, V., & Alexander, J. M. (1997). The benefits of peer collaboration on strategy use, metacognitive causal attribution, and recall. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 67, 268–289. Manion, V., & Alexander, J. M. (2001). The benefits of peer collaboration: A replication with a delayed posttest. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 588–601. Masui, C., & De Corte, E. (2005). Learning to reflect and to attribute constructively as basic components of self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 351–372. Matthews, D. J., & Keating, D. P. (1995). Domain specificity and habits of mind: An investigation of patterns of high-level development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 319–343. McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 144–154. Moss, E. B. (1990). Social interaction and metacognitive development in gifted preschoolers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 16–20. Nardi, B. A. (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Nardi, B. A. (1998) Activity theory: A foundation for designing learning technology? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 241–255. Neber, H., & Schommer-Aikens, M. (2002). Self-regulated science learning with highly gifted students. The role of cognitive, motivational, epistemological, and environmental variables. High Ability Studies, 13, 59–74. O’Tuel, F. S., & Bullard, R. K. (1993). Developing higher-order thinking in content areas K-12. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press and Software.

M.A. Barfurth et al. Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 124–139. Pelletier, S., & Shore, B. M. (2003). The gifted learner, the novice, and the expert: Sharpening emerging views of giftedness. In D. C. Ambrose, L. Cohen, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Creative intelligence: Toward theoretic integration (pp. 237–281). New York: Hampton Press. Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25, 19–33. Puntambekar, S., & du Boulay, B. (1997). Design and development of MIST: A system to help students develop metacognition. Journal of Educational and Computing Research, 16, 1–35. Reis, S. M., McGuire, J. M., & Neu, T. W. (2000). Compensation strategies used by high-ability students with learning disabilities who succeed in college. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 123–134. Renzulli, J. S., & H´ebert, T. P. (1995). Reversing underachievement: Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 224–235. Robinson, A., Shore, B. M., & Enerson, D. L. (2006). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Ruban, L. M., McCoach, D. B., McGuire, J. M., & Reis, S. M. (2003). The differential impact of academic selfregulatory methods on academic achievement among university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 270–286. Russell, D. R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14, 504–554. Schraw, G., & Graham, T. 1997. Helping gifted students develop metacognitive awareness. Roeper Review, 20, 4–5. Sheppard, S. (1992). Nurturing metacognitive awareness. Unpublished Master’s thesis in Education, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada. Sheppard, S., & Kanevsky, L. (1999). Nurturing gifted students’ metacognitive awareness: Effects of training in homogeneous and heterogeneous classes. Roeper Review, 21, 266–272. Shore, B. M. (1981, November). Developing a framework for the study of learning style in high-level learning. Paper presented at the Major Conference on Learning Styles and Brain Behavior, National Association of Secondary School Principals, New Orleans, LA. (Abridged version published in 1982 proceedings.) Shore, B. M. (1982). Developing a framework for the study of learning style in high-level learning. In J. Keefe (Ed.), Student learning styles and brain behavior: Programs, instrumentation, research (pp. 152–156). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Shore, B. M. (1986). McGill summer school for the gifted: A unique research and demonstration project. Gifted International, 3, 94–98. Shore, B. M. (1991, July). Cognitive psychology and the use of protocols in the understanding of giftedness and high level thinking. In K. K. Urban, Convenor, symposium on “Research on giftedness: The contributions of different approaches and methods” at the 9th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children, The Hague, Netherlands.

18

A Metacognitive Portrait of Gifted Learners

Shore, B. M. (2000). Metacognition and flexibility: Qualitative differences in how the gifted think. In R. C. Friedman & B. M. Shore (Eds.), Talents unfolding: Cognition and development (pp. 167–187). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Shore, B. M., & Carey, S. M. (1984). Verbal ability and spatial task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59, 255–259. Shore, B. M., & Kanevsky, L. S. (1993). Thinking processes: Being and becoming gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 131–145). Oxford, England: Pergamon. Shore, B. M., & Lazar, L. (1996). IQ-related differences in time allocation during problem solving. Psychological Reports, 78, 848–850. Shore, B. M., Rejskind, F. G., & Kanevsky, L. S. (2003). Cognitive research on giftedness: A window on creativity. In D. C. Ambrose, L. Cohen, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Creative intelligence: Toward theoretic integration (pp. 181–210). New York: Hampton Press. Simon, H. A., & Chase, W. G. (1973). Skill in chess. American Scientist, 61, 393–403. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Abilities are forms of developing expertise. Educational Researcher, 27(3), 11–20.

417 Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Intelligence as developing expertise. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 259–375. Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Giftedness as developing expertise. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 55–66). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Giftedness as developing expertise: S theory of the interface between high abilities and achieved excellence. High Ability Studies, 12, 159–179. Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Culture and intelligence. American Psychologist, 59, 5, 325–338. Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Swartz, R. J., & Perkins, D. N. (1990). Teaching thinking: Issues and approaches. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Xenos-Whiston, M. (1989). The distinguishing characteristics of demonstration teachers of the gifted. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis in education, Universit´e de Montr´eal, Quebec. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.

Part V

Personality of the Gifted, Individual Differences, and Gender-Related Issues

Chapter 19

Personality Qualities That Help or Hinder Gifted and Talented Individuals Reva Friedman-Nimz and Olha Skyba

Yes the answer lies within, so why not take a look now... (Cat Stevens, On the Road to Find Out, from Tea for the Tillerman, 1970)

Abstract It is well documented that non-intellective qualities play an important role in realizing extraordinary potential. However, there is considerable murkiness in identifying, operationalizing, and studying these variables in the context of giftedness. For instance, in some research personality variables are treated as stable traits; in other investigations, the same variables are explored as more fluid tendencies. We review research on key personality qualities such as self-perception, self-evaluation, motivation, attribution, and intrapersonal intelligence. Drawing on over 25 years of research, we review salient work at the University of Kansas and elsewhere. We explore issues related to modes of inquiry and suggest directions for research on personality variables as they are manifested in the context of development.

tano, 1998; Shurkin 1992; Subotnik & Arnold, 1994; Terman, 1959; Tomlinson-Keasey, 2002). From a measurement perspective, one might surmise that once we control for intellectual ability, other factors emerge to explain the unaccounted-for variance in later life performance. It is interesting to note that advances in understanding the development of the self, such as self-concept, self-esteem, motivation, and attribution, have all contributed to understanding the personality of an intellectually gifted youngster. As positive psychology has taken root and created a new framework for exploring the self, qualities such as resilience, optimism, personal navigation, well-being, and thriving have offered more opportunities to unpack the emerging identity dimensions of talent – and to create interventions that result in positive outcomes for more individuals “at risk/at promise.” In this chapter, we review research relating to two Keywords Personality · Self-concept · Self-esteem · core individual personality facets studied in the context Motivation · Self-efficacy · Attributions · Resiliency of talent development: self perceptions and motivation. In study after study, group of bright, intellectually We expand our focus to explorations that include key young people are identified, examined, and their life outcomes such as resilience and unresolved problems paths documented in an effort to understand more (such as perfectionism). Systems/models that feature fully how talent develops and to answer those haunting a multidimensional perspective on the psychology of questions about why only some extraordinarily capable talent are unpacked, and suggestions are offered for individuals achieve highly (Arnold, 1995; Arnold, Nothe next generation of investigations into the personal ble, & Subotnik, 1996; Bloom, 1985, Csikszentmihadimensions of giftedness. lyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993; Feldman, 1982; Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991; Goertzel & Goertzel, 2004; Kerr, 1994; Kerr & Cohn, 2001; Kaufmann, 1981; Ki- Background: Why Focus on Personality? R. Friedman-Nimz (B) University of Kansas, Lawrence, KU, USA e-mail: [email protected]

In his classic longitudinal study of high-potential young people, Lewis M. Terman (1959) discovered

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 19, 

421

422

that although intellectual ability was relatively homogeneous among his subjects, life achievements were much more variable among the men in the study. He discovered key differences among his subjects in the affective domain, and concluded that “. . .personality factors are extremely important determiners of achievement. . .The four traits on which [the high and low achieving groups] differed were persistence in the accomplishment of ends, integration toward goals, self-confidence, and freedom from inferiority feelings. In the total picture the greatest contrast between the two groups was in all-round emotional and social adjustment, and in drive to achieve” (Terman, 1959, p. 148). Aspects of Terman’s findings are repeated in a variety of longitudinal and retrospective analyses of the lives of talented individuals. A notable example is Ruth Duskin Feldman’s popularized investigation, “Whatever Happened to the Quiz Kids?” Duskin Feldman (one of the four Quiz Kids whose measured I.Q. was over 200) concludes that one quality distinguished her sample, drawn from the group of several hundred youngsters who participated in the show during the 1940s: the will to succeed. This finding is amplified and dissected in more focused studies of gifted men and gifted women, using historical as well as contemporary samples. For example, Simonton (2003) employs a prediction approach to quantify the contributions key variables made to extraordinary achievement in historically significant individuals. Using as a working hypothesis that prodigies represent human development at its apex, Feldman & Goldsmith (1991) apply an ethnographic approach in detailed case studies of the lives of six boy prodigies, one of their goals being to uncover the conditions associated with the emergence of giftedness from a developmental perspective. Other researchers trace the young adult lives of individuals singled out as having extraordinary intellectual and leadership potential. Arnold et al. (1996) focus on high school valedictorians, and Kaufmann (1981) scrutinizes participants in the first 5 years of the Presidential Scholars Program. Bloom (1985) develops detailed case studies of 120 individuals, distributed across six fields, to uncover nodal points and key educational and environmental qualities that shaped and developed talent. Csikszentmihalyi et al. (1993) conduct an intensive study of the lives of talented teens in an effort to uncover qualities that differentiated relative

R. Friedman-Nimz and O. Skyba

high achievers from their lower achieving intellectual peers. In separate studies, Kerr and Cohn employ a developmental approach to examine the life trajectories of gifted girls (1994) and of gifted boys (2001) participating in a Sputnik-era special program started in the 1950s. Tomlinson-Keasey (2002) and others (e.g., Subotnik & Arnold, 1994) have continued to use data obtained from the Terman sample as a benchmark against which to assess the lives of contemporary gifted individuals. More recently, researchers have broadened the focus of these longitudinal explorations to include traditionally underrepresented populations. For example, Kitano (1998) applies Bloom’s approach to studying the lives of 15 high successful African American women. Weaving her subjects’ observations on the effects of culture and history on their achievement, she suggests that culturally derived strengths combined with high ability enabled these women to develop positive coping strategies for the adverse effects of racism, sexism, and other potentially handicapping conditions. Terman’s observations spawned a host of nowclassic investigations into the psychological dimensions of talent among noted adult achievers in a variety of fields (Barron, 1963; Helson, 1971; MacKinnon, 1965). Beginning with variables related to self-perceptions, in particular self-concept and its evaluative dimension, self-esteem, research has expanded to include pertinent aspects of motivation such as achievement motivation, locus of control, attributions, and self-efficacy. It is with the core personal qualities of self-concept and self-esteem that we begin our journey to find the answers that lie within the personality of gifted individuals.

Images of Self: Self-Concept and Self-Esteem A recurring focus of studies of self-perceptions is the degree to which intellectually gifted youngsters’ self-concept or self-esteem is significantly different from their non-gifted peers. However, research findings among school-aged gifted samples have been equivocal. Confusingly, gifted children have been reported to display more positive, comparable, or lower self-concepts than their average ability peers. A closer analysis of the research reveals that some of these

19

Personality Qualities That Help or Hinder Gifted and Talented Individuals

apparent contradictions can be attributed to measurement issues, instrumentation, sampling, or research design. For example, in their exhaustive meta-analyses of published self-concept and self-esteem research involving gifted samples, Hoge & Renzulli (1993) point out that gifted children’s scores are not demonstrably different from non-gifted samples relative to social self-concept: that there is a small positive difference (favoring gifted children) in global/composite scores and a small negative effect for physical selfconcept. According to their meta-analyses, gifted children display more positive academic and behavioral self-concepts than non-gifted comparison groups. Instrumentation has also been an issue in selfconcept assessment. Olszewski-Kubilius, Kulieke, & Krasney (1988) assert that most of the pertinent studies are “. . .Instrument-driven – that is, they use a particular instrument and compare groups of students on them rather than being conceptualized around a particular construct” (p. 347). More pointedly, Hoge & Renzulli (1993) highlight their finding that scores tended to be higher in studies using some instruments, for instance the Piers–Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale (Piers, 1986). In a series of factor and IRT analyses of the Piers–Harris (first edition), our results suggested noteworthy differences in the ways in which intellectually gifted children conceptualize and process their abilities and social relationships from their non-gifted age-mates (Jenkins-Friedman & Murphy, 1988). In particular, we found that gifted children appeared to perceive their social standing as related to intellectual status – the meaning of the self was viewed and understood through a screen of ability. In addition, we found the scale too sensitive to social desirability – the young respondents were easily able to “fake good” well. In a recent investigation of the Piers–Harris (second edition) with a gifted sample, Lewis & Knight (2000) write that few studies reported subscale scores. They hypothesize that differences by age or reporting only global scores could mask gender. Employing a sample of 368 intellectually gifted youngsters in grades 4–12, they found significant differences by gender on three subscales: Behavior and Intellectual and School Status (favoring females) and Anxiety (favoring males). They also report a U-shaped relationship by grade level, with junior high school age students’ displaying lower scores than the elementary or high school students.

423

Concerns relative to instrument- or theory-driven research on the self-concept of gifted youngsters continues to surface in the research literature. For instance, Greenspon (2000) asserts that the bulk of investigations into aspects of the self (with gifted individuals) is either theory-free or a combination of theories and incompatible instrumentation. He argues in favor of a theory of self that is particular to youngsters with high ability. Others have suggested using theories such as symbolic interactionism as the conceptual framework for operationalizing self-concept. From this perspective, words and gestures, the symbols used to communicate, are acquired from the society in which a person lives. The development of the self is viewed as a continuous process that takes place in interaction with others and in self-reflection. Because all interaction requires a language, which is socially and culturally given, the society and the individual are inextricably intertwined (Falk & Miller, 1998). Thus, self-concept measures need to be either particular to or generalizable across cultural contexts and be sensitive to changes in the developing self. Marsh et al. (2001); Marsh & Craven (2002); Marsh, Ellis, Parada, Richards, and Heubeck (2003); Marsh and Hau (2004) and Marsh, Trautwein, Ldtke, Kller, and Baumert (2005) have amassed a complete body of research supporting a differentiated self that emerges over the course of childhood, supporting the need for applying a developmental framework to understanding self-perceptions of high potential youngsters. His Self-Description Questionnaire has been employed internationally with a variety of age groups and ability levels (Bain & McBell, 2004; Marsh et al. 2003; McCoach & Siegle, 2003b; Mui, Yeung, Low, & Jin, 2000; Plucker & Stocking, 2001). The Questionnaire has also been adapted for use with primary-age children. It appears to confirm and extend previous work on the academic/intellectual dimensions characteristic of gifted children and youth. Of particular interest are explorations of self -perceptions and academic achievement. In his Internal/External (I/E) frame of reference model Marsh posits that views of the self develop from these two sources: the first is external, developing from normative feedback such as comparisons of one’s work with other students’ work, scores on achievements tests and the like. The second, internal frame of reference operates differently in that it is the result of comparisons of one’s work in one school subject with one’s work in other school

424

subjects. Marsh asserts that this internal frame is ipsative: that is if one self-labels as high competent in language-related activities, the individual will perceive math competence as lower, even if the evidence is contradictory. This hypothesis has been confirmed in a substantial body of research spanning over 30 countries, average and high intellectually able samples, and a range of age groups. The interplay between academic self-concept and academic achievement is thus shaped by a gifted student’s perception of ability in an area (internal) as well as (external) assessments of academic standing relative to a definable referent group (Hau, Kong, Marsh, & Cheng, 2000; McCoach & Siegle, 2003a, 2003b; Plucker & Stocking, 2001). Plucker and Stocking (2001) test the degree to which the I/E frame of reference model fits a high-performing sample (N = 131) adolescents participating in a summer program for academically talented youth. They conclude the model could be an appropriate framework for understanding self-concept development for adolescents identified using the same instruments and conditions (in contrast to more variable, subjective or ambiguous identification processes). Plucker and Stocking also suggest that self-concept assessments should be conducted across a variety of contexts for the same individual to explore fully the I/E model among extraordinarily bright youth. In a study comparing how the two variables operated for a gifted and an average ability high school sample, McCoach and Siegle (2003b) discover that the I/E frame of reference operated similarly regardless of intellectual potential, although academic self-perceptions were more positive for members of the gifted sample. They include in their discussion research confirming that the self-confidence students develop in their skills is reflected in the types of activities they choose, the level of challenge in those activities, and the persistence they demonstrate when involved in those activities. That the social context of giftedness is inextricably linked to the internal experience of talent is asserted in a variety of empirical investigations using other frames of reference and instrumentation (Coleman, 1995; Kunkel, Chapa, Patterson, & Walling, 1995; Reis, 1995; Swiatek, 2005). For example, Kunkel et al. (1995) use an open-ended, phenomenological probe (“What is it like to be gifted?”) to build a complex concept map describing relationships between and among eight clusters: intellectual superi-

R. Friedman-Nimz and O. Skyba

ority, social superiority, self-satisfaction, skillfulness, respect from others, social stress, conformity, and estrangement. Drawing on a body of prior research (Coleman & Cross, 1988; Cross, Coleman, & TerhaarYonkers, 1991), Coleman (1995) hypothesizes that the social context of specialized educational environments should form the frame within which to understand the development of giftedness. Kerr (1994), Reis (1995) and others extrapolate this assertion to an array of studies confirming the effects of social context on the development of gifted women, men, African Americans, and urban youth. Building on this theme, Wahlberg, Williams, and Zeiser (2003) incorporate “stimulating social environments” (p. 356) into their discussion of key traits common to accomplished adults. Several researchers urge assessing selfconcept/self-esteem only in contexts that lead to important outcomes for gifted learners, such as adjustment to labeling, social comparisons, and programming effects such as academic achievement and motivation to achieve (Feldhusen & Hoover 1986; Friedman, 1992; Hoge & Renzulli, 1993). There are promising developments in assessing gifted learners’ self perceptions, particularly relative to motivation, particularly achievement motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, locus of control, and self-efficacy. Linking self-perceptions to dimensions of the complex construct of motivation, especially connected to achievement, could lead to a deeper understanding of the link between these two important markers on the road to self-understanding.

Motivation: Who Drives the “Bus” on the Road to Actualizing High Potential? The role of motivation in the development of talent has been debated for several decades. Motivation can be referred to as persistence, task commitment, intrinsic or extrinsic interest, desire to learn, or drive to succeed. Regardless of the approach we take to define it, motivation serves an essential role in understanding the difference between potential and performance (McNabb, 2003). Terman’s longitudinal studies of high-potential youngsters (1959) mark the beginning of the systematic study of motivation in relation to high intelligence. In his early explorations, motivation was concep-

19

Personality Qualities That Help or Hinder Gifted and Talented Individuals

tualized as an inherent drive in gifted individuals to persist and achieve. Terman’s observation that people who displayed persistence and drive to achieve were more successful in life informed subsequent investigations into the dimensions of achievement motivation as well as shaping future longitudinal studies of gifted/talented individuals. For example, when trying to predict academic, artistic, scientific, and social achievements based on the performance in college, Holland and Astin (1962) found that good grades in college have little connection with “more remote, and more socially relevant desirable forms of achievement” (p. 132). These findings and others (e.g., Albert, 1969) support a shift in the focus of research from qualities associated with cognitive functioning to non-intellective characteristics such as motivation that contribute to the development of talent. Over the decades of research pertaining to this construct, motivation has been conceptualized as a prerequisite for, component of, outcome, or a catalyst for talent manifestation and development. A high level of motivation appears to be so fundamental to eminent accomplishment that many investigations have included it in their conceptualizations of giftedness and talent (Feldhusen & Hoover, 1986; Gagne, 1985; Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004; Renzulli, 1978; Simonton, 2003). Renzulli (1978) coined the term “task commitment” as one of the criterial attributes of giftedness in his three ring conception of talent. Drawing from an extensive body of literature on psychological variables associated with high levels of adult accomplishment, he claims that motivation serves as the key activator for the development of talent. Gagne (1985, 2003) considers motivation and volition to be catalysts that can have either positive or negative impact on the process of talent development. Feldhusen & Hoover (1986) define giftedness as an interaction of intelligence, special abilities or talents, self-concept, and motivation to achieve. Tannenbaum (2003) builds key non-intellective qualities that “mesh into excellence” his multifaceted conception of giftedness; meta-learning, dedication to a chosen field, strong self-concept, willingness to sacrifice, and mental health (p. 53). Gottfried & Gottfried (2004, this volume) assert that academic intrinsic motivation is its own form of giftedness as well as a prerequisite to the manifestation of exceptional ability. In their paradigm, exceptional motivation would be considered as a type of giftedness (just as extremely high intelligence is labeled as giftedness). Thus, gifted individ-

425

uals might be persons who are superior in their striving and determination pertaining to a task (Gottfried, 1985). Explorations of the connection between giftedness and motivation have generally been descriptive, focusing on the complex role various aspects of motivation play in the realization of talent. The most widely studied variables are locus of control, casual attributions, perceived competence, self-efficacy, intrinsic/extrinsic interests, and achievement motivation. Developments in motivation research among typical populations appear to inform our understanding of individuals with high potential, just as investigations into self-perceptions enhance our conceptualizations of talent. For instance, the research on locus of control in gifted students consistently supports the notion that highly able students display a more internal locus of control than more typical students. Studies with a variety of high-ability samples and under various conditions find repeatedly that an individual’s belief in the power to control his or her life is related to high achievement (Harty, Adkins, & Hungate, 1984; Herskovits & Gefferth, 1992; McLelland, Yewchuk, & Mulcahy, 1991; Karnes & McGinnis, 1995). Based on the investigation of over 1,000 gifted students, Herskovits and Gefferth (1992) conclude that internal locus of control serves as a mediating variable in the realization of potential. Harty et al. (1984) studied differences in 200 formally identified gifted students in self-contained and pullout programs and their non-gifted peers, using the Piers–Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale (Piers, 1986) as the self-concept measure and Nowicki-Strickland Personal Reaction Survey (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973) as the locus of control indicator. Results of their study suggest that although self-concept scores were not significantly different in three groups, locus of control scores differed significantly, with a pattern of higher internal locus of control in self-contained classrooms for gifted students. Their results support previous findings that students with greater scholastic aptitude tend to demonstrate a higher internal locus of control. They propose employing self-concept and locus of control as discriminating variables in the process of identification of gifted students. Building on this foundational work in motivation, contemporary empirical research on motivational aspects of manifested talent continues to mirror developments in cognitive approaches to unraveling this

426

multifaceted trait. In particular, research with gifted samples has adopted an attribution model of motivation. Weiner’s (1974) pioneering work in attribution theory provides key insights in our understanding of how individuals understand their experiences of success and failure. Surprisingly, there are just a few empirical studies that examine attribution patterns of gifted individuals (Assouline, Colangelo, Ihrig, & Forstadt, 2006; Chan, 1996; Dai, Moon, & Feldhusen, 1998; Heller & Ziegler, 1996; Knight, 1995; Laffoon, Jenkins-Friedman & Tollefson, 1989; McNabb, 2003). McNabb (2003) claims that strongly identifying with being talented exerts a powerful influence on one’s attitude toward academics and hypothesizes that smart individuals should be inclined to attribute their successes and failure to their ability. In contrast, Chan (1996) reports that gifted students tend to perceive themselves to be more cognitively competent and thus are less likely to attribute their failure to lack of ability. Similarly, Dai et al. (1998) report that there is a tendency among gifted students to attribute success to both ability and effort; however failure is attributed only to effort. Laffoon et al., (1989) study is one of a few comparing causal attributions of underachieving gifted students to their achieving gifted peers as well as to regular education peers. Interestingly, they found that underachieving gifted students scored significantly higher on ability attributions (stable, internal attributions) for success than regular students. In contrast, when attributing for failure, the underachieving and average ability student groups were found to be significantly higher on externality/luck. Similarly, Knight (1995) reported that gifted students who are proficient academically or in other areas believe they have an internal locus of control, while underachieving gifted students express an external locus of control. In the framework developed by Pintich and Schunk (1996), Weiner’s original attribution choices, grouped along two dimensions (stability and locus of control) were enriched by a third dimension, controllability. Their framework is employed in current studies of attribution choices of gifted individuals. Assouline et al. (2006) explore differences in key attributions of male and female gifted students in general academics, language arts, science, and mathematics. Results of the study suggest that gifted student tend to attribute failure to not working hard enough, rather than to

R. Friedman-Nimz and O. Skyba

not being smart. Interestingly, the researchers also found significant sex differences in the perception of successes and failures in different subjects. For example, most gifted boys attributed their success in math to their ability; in contrast, most gifted girls attributed their success in math to effort. Results of this study suggest that perceptions of success and failure by gifted individuals are multifaceted and that there are more complex relationships to be uncovered. The multidimensionality of the current Pintich and Schunk’s attribution model (1996) can offer a more promising framework for studying the motivation of gifted students. Another productive avenue used to explore the relationships between giftedness and motivation is the perceived competence and self-efficacy of gifted students. These variables can be easily confused, but they are not interchangeable. Perceived competence refers to personal views about one’s own capabilities in various skill domains (Harter, 1981). According to this view, perceived competence is influenced by students’ own perceptions of how their capabilities are judged by others; and it, in turn, influences the way students feel about their likelihood of success on a given task, and their preparedness to engage themselves in studies (Chan, 1988; Feldhusen & Nimlos-Hippen, 1992; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990). The general conclusion of these studies is that gifted students perceive themselves as more competent and more intrinsically motivated to do well in school-related tasks than do average achieving students. Self-efficacy, in contrast, is defined as a personal belief about one’s own capabilities to perform academic tasks successfully. According to Bandura’s (1982) social-cognitive theory, selfefficacy beliefs are strong predictors of one’s capability to accomplish such tasks. Pajares (1996) asserts that “self-efficacy beliefs act as determinants of behavior by influencing the choices that individuals make, the effort they expend, the perseverance they exert in the face of difficulties, and the thought patterns and emotional reactions they experience” (p.325). As a consequence, academic performances are highly influenced and predicted by students’ perceptions of what they believe they can accomplish. It is expected that high self-efficacy is likely to promote stronger academic performances, whereas low self-efficacy is likely to undermine them. Some researchers have explored the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and creativity

19

Personality Qualities That Help or Hinder Gifted and Talented Individuals

(Beghetto, 2006; Schack, 1989, 1991). Others explore differences between and among gifted, regular education, and special education students in relation to their self-efficacy for self-regulated learning (Gresham, Evans, & Elliott, 1988; Zimmerman & MartinezPons, 1990). Still others investigate self-efficacy of gifted students in relation to their performance in math. Beghetto (2006) examined creative self-efficacy (self-judgments of creative ability) in 1,322 middle and secondary students. Results of this study indicate that students’ mastery- and performance-approach beliefs and also teacher feedback on creative ability were positively related to students’ creative selfefficacy. In addition, students displaying higher levels of creative self-efficacy had a greater likelihood of expressing more positive beliefs about their academic abilities in all subject areas than students demonstrating lower levels of creative self-efficacy. Junge and Dretzke (1995) studied the mathematics self-efficacy of gifted high school students. They found that gifted boys evidenced overconfidence on a greater number of items than gifted girls and that gifted girls scored overconfident only on items involving stereotypical female activity. Pajares (1996) used path analysis to test the predictive and mediational role that self-efficacy beliefs play in the mathematical problem solving of 66 middle school gifted students as compared to regular education students in algebra classes. The result of this study indicates that self-efficacy of gifted students made an independent contribution to the prediction of problem solving when controlled for the effects of math anxiety, cognitive ability, mathematics GPA, self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, and sex. A series of studies continue to probe qualities of the links between motivation and academic achievement. Traditionally, achievement motivation is defined as enjoyment of school learning characterized by an orientation toward mastery, curiosity, and persistence in learning of new, challenging, and difficult tasks (Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004). According to this view, academic intrinsic motivation is inherently tied to the development of giftedness. Using a shortened version of Harter’s (1982) measure of classroom motivation and academic performance, Goldberg & Cornell (1998) found a positive relationship between intrinsic motivation and academic achievement in a national sample of 949 academically gifted second and third graders. Using Gottfried’s (1986) Children’s Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (CAIMI) rather than Harter’s (1982)

427

motivational assessment to assess motivation, in a series of studies on elementary- and middle-school children, Gottfried (1985, 1990); Gottfried & Gottfried (1996) investigated the influence of academic intrinsic motivation on children’s school achievement. More specifically, young children with higher academic intrinsic motivation had significantly higher achievement and intellectual performance. Overall, the results of these studies confirmed that young children with higher academic intrinsic motivation functioned more effectively in school. Gottfried also found that early intrinsic motivation correlated with later motivation and achievement and that later motivation was predictable from early achievement. In contrast to the previous conceptions of giftedness, which conceptualized motivation as a factor supporting other forms of giftedness, Gottfried and Gottfried (2004) expand the definition of giftedness by including the construct of gifted motivation as a form of giftedness in its own right. A body of empirical studies supports the claim that gifted students have a significantly higher academic intrinsic motivation and that it is significantly, positively, and uniquely related to academic achievement above and beyond IQ. Gottfried and Gottfried claim that construct of gifted motivation is generalizable across different academic domains and different age groups of gifted students. Gottfried, Fleming, and Gottfried (1994) also conducted a series of studies examining parental influences on academic intrinsic motivation of gifted adolescents. Task-endogenous parental motivation practices (like encouraging curiosity) were found to be connected to development of academic intrinsic motivation. Once more, extrinsic rewards (like toys, money) have been shown to have adverse consequences for children’s intrinsic motivation. Along the same lines, Amabile’s Intrinsic Motivation Principle for creativity states that extrinsic rewards undermine creative production, while intrinsic motivational orientation is conductive to development of creativity. In her book, Growing Up Creative, Amabile (1989) asserts that parents can inadvertently undermine children’s creativity by restricting choices, imposing standards of evaluation, providing external rewards, and enhancing competition. She cites as a confirming example a study she conducted in which preschoolers were either given paints and paper with instructions that clearly imposed adult-imposed standards about neatness or simply provided with the materials and no instructions regarding neatness.

428

Children in the first condition created a painting that was assessed as less creative. In addition, these children evidenced less intrinsic interest in painting at a subsequent time. Rea’s theory of optimal motivation for talent development takes an intriguing approach in an effort to explain the complex interaction between motivational variables and talent development. This model is consistent with current views in which motivation and talent are seen as entities that can be nurtured and developed rather than being unchallengeable, predetermined, and fixed. Rea (1997, 2000) describes his theory of gifted motivation as a dynamic, complex systems theory. He makes an effort to combine Csikszentmihalyi’s concepts of “state of flow” and “optimal challenge” (1975, 1982, 1990); Rathunde’s “undivided interest” (1992); and Apter’s (1982) and Rea’s (1993) “optimal arousal” to construct and operationalize the definition of optimal achievement motivation and its components. In short, optimal motivation is defined as a “flow” experience in which students become absorbed in a task so that they lose track of time and their efforts seem “effortless”. He claims that three ideal conditions under which students are most likely to experience flow are optimal challenge, undivided interest, and optimal arousal. Thus, optimal achievement motivation can be defined as the optimization of all three components of motivation. Each time there is a component deficit, students’ achievement motivation can become frustrating (cognitive deficit), unwilling (volitional deficit), or unpleasant (affective deficit). Students who are optimally motivated experience strong success, significant value, and gratifying pleasure when applying their talents. When the component conditions for optimal motivation are completely met, students are more likely to make significant efforts to develop their talent. They are eager (affective arousal), able (cognitive expectancy), and willing (volitional value) to make full use of their talents. A better understanding of the optimal forms of achievement motivation and its components has important implications for maximizing talent development. Optimal motivation theory has a strong implication that lack of motivation has a drastic impact on talent development. Although this motivational model is developed and supported by contemporary motivation research, it still needs to be confirmed with gifted samples. Combined with self-perceptions, results of

R. Friedman-Nimz and O. Skyba

“successful motivation” are clearly manifested in either positive or negative outcomes in school as well as in life contexts.

Resiliency: How Does Giftedness Contribute to or Reduce the Likelihood of Positive Outcomes? I am convinced that, except in a few extraordinary cases, one form or another of an unhappy childhood is essential to the formation of exceptional gifts. (Thornton Wilder)

Publications focusing on the social and emotional needs of gifted/talented children and youth continue to posit as a central issue that giftedness per se can either increase the likelihood of a successful life or increase vulnerability to dysfunction (Cross, 2004; Cross et al. 1991; Martin et al. 2001; Neihart, 1999; Schuler, 1999). In her review of the extant empirical literature, Neihart (1999) points out that gifted children experience depression, suicide, and anxiety at rates similar to their average ability peers and deviance (defined as delinquency) at lower rates. Gifted children and youth appear to be diverse relative to perceived social competence and in their use of coping strategies. Neihart suggests that questioning whether giftedness is an asset or a liability is too simplistic to capture the complex and dynamic relationships between and among personality qualities and outcomes such as successful adjustment. She also criticizes the syllogistic thinking that leads to viewing gifted children as more prone to psychological problems. She concludes that the relationship between psychological well-being and high potential is complex, shaped by the type of ability, goodness of fit between the individual’s needs and educational services provided, and personal characteristics such as self perceptions, temperament, and life circumstances. Whether or not one supports Neihart’s assertions, there seem to be conditions that might pre-dispose youngsters with high potential to experience adjustment problems: membership in an acknowledged underrepresented population, possessing in addition to high intellectual potential a disability such as learning problems, psychological difficulties, or difficult family circumstances. There is a comprehensive body of literature in which issues facing these individuals is revealed, discussed, and analyzed. Practices for identifying and providing per-

19

Personality Qualities That Help or Hinder Gifted and Talented Individuals

tinent services to gifted “at risk” children abound. Of particular interest to this chapter are the gifted/talented young people who are successful despite adversity – the individuals who demonstrate resiliency, an ability to recover from setbacks, to overcome difficult life circumstances, who demonstrate a sense of purpose and agency, and who face challenges with optimism and hope. The unexpected successes of individuals at high risk due to a variety of adverse circumstances came to public notice in Werner’s (1989) groundbreaking study, Children of the Garden Island. In the ensuing years, researchers have enlarged the scope of her work to include other environmental stressors such as a parent’s mental illness and additional personal qualities such as temperament. Especially pertinent to this discussion are the explorations of resilience that explicate personal and behavioral cognitions associated with more or less resilient behavior as well as explanations for success and failure. The work of Carol Dweck and colleagues (Dweck & Bempechat, 1983; Dweck, 1986) focusing on children’s theories of intelligence is particularly germane. According to Dweck and her associates, resilient achievement behaviors (challengeseeking, persistence in the face of obstacles, learning from failures and recovering from setbacks) are more related to how children conceptualize their intelligence than their intellectual potential. Students who believe their ability is fixed (entity theory of intelligence) are more likely to adopt goals (performance goals) that showcase their talents rather than presenting a risk for lower than desired achievement, since failure would an indication of incompetence. In addition, these students perceive an inverse relationship between ability and effort attributions; i.e., success in activities requiring considerable effort carries an inherent message that one is not very able (imposter thinking). In contrast, students who ascribe to the belief that their intelligence is malleable (incremental theory of intelligence) and improves with effort are more likely to set goals that require effort (learning goals). These students connect success with effort and correlate positively the relationship between effort and ability. When faced with a failure, these students are more likely to pause, analyze the failure, regroup, and try again. Drawing from Werner’s studies and research focusing on motivational patterns associated with either more learned helplessness or a more mastery-oriented understanding of intelligence, we attempted to explore experimentally

429

differences in the ability to recover from failure. In particular, we were interested in gifted students’ intelligence theories – entity or mastery – and their teachers’ observations of these youngsters as more vulnerable or resilient in the classroom environment. Given research that suggests girls are more apt to display an entity orientation, we also examined patterns by gender. The study was conducted in four heterogeneously grouped fourth grade classrooms. Adapting a protocol developed by Dweck and Bempechat (1983) students completed two types of intellectual tasks: mazes (non-verbal) and scrambled words (verbal) of increasingly difficulty, with the final task being unsolvable. Students were able to “opt out” at any time. At the point of stopping, participants completed a response designed to elicit their theory of intelligence. Teachers completed resiliency and ability ratings on their students during the data collection. Analyses revealed a moderate relationship between (teachers rated) student ability and students’ expressed theory of intelligence, slightly favoring an incremental orientation. No significant patterns were found by gender. A finding particularly germane to this conversation was that no children were identified by their teachers as displaying learned helplessness. In fact, all participating teachers rated the students they previously labeled as high ability as also displaying resilience. They were slightly more inclined to rate girls as resilient than boys. We concluded that teachers might be merging their conceptions of ability with beliefs about mastery-oriented, resilient learners (Friedman, Hendricks, Porter, & Thacker, 1996). If one compares qualities associated with resilience and characteristics of giftedness, one finds considerable overlap (Bland, Sowa & Callahan, 1994). For example, Bland et al. point out that studies of hardiness and successful coping yield several distinguishing features associated with positive functioning: resourcefulness, optimism, self-efficacy, and self-reliance. These interpersonal skills are also often attributed to gifted children. Environmentally, Bland et al. highlight studies identifying key experiences that lead to increased emotional strength: early socialization, emotional support during times of trauma, positive early peer relationships, and a “goodness of fit between the classroom and the child” (p. 77). The critical connection between resilience and giftedness might well be a function of gifted students’ analytic abilities. Cognitive appraisal, the ability to evaluate potential harm (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) has been studied in young gifted

430

samples, although the paradigm is generally thought to be most appropriate for understanding late adolescent and adult behavior (Ryan-Wenger, 1992). Carter and Ormrod (1982) speculate that bright youngsters’ ability to use this cognitive process at an unexpectedly young age could be related to their early development of cognitive operations such as formal operations and abstract thinking. Bland et al. (1994) and Sowa and May (1997) confirm the use of cognitive appraisal strategies to promote positive coping in gifted youngsters. Resourcefulness as a quality associated with high intellectual potential is thus most productively understood as a dynamic, developmental process than as a stable personality trait. It is influenced by environmental conditions and mediated by support from significant others as well as internal cognitive processes. This finding has been confirmed repeatedly with a variety of “at risk” highly able samples. For instance, in separate studies focusing on diverse, bright adolescents in an urban high school (Hebert, 1996; Reis, Colbert, & Hebert, 2005), researchers found patterns that helped high achievers demonstrate their abilities: supportive adults, opportunities to participate in honors and advanced classes and extracurricular activities, friendships with other highly achieving students, a strong belief in oneself, and coping strategies that mitigated negative effects of school and the larger environment. Whether high intelligence promotes resilience is a matter of some dispute. In studies of inner city youth, Luthar (1991) uncovers high intelligence operating as a risk factor, while in contrast, Flydenberg (1997) finds gifted adolescents using positive cognitive strategies such as problem solving rather than strategies that undermine resilience such as wishful thinking. Kitano and Lewis (2005) suggest that findings differ depending on outcomes of interest, the ways in which resilience is assessed, and defining qualities of the gifted sample; however, they assert that giftedness is generally viewed as a protective factor. They delineate particular types of coping strategies in relation to cultural experiences and values: in a study involving White and African American college students (Plummer & Slane, 1996; Kitano & Lewis, 2005), the African Americans reported using a greater variety of coping strategies than their White classmates, especially problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies. In investigations comparing coping strategies reported by African American and White children categorized as stress affected or stress resilient, all resilient children

R. Friedman-Nimz and O. Skyba

exhibited self-perceptions and motivation associated with giftedness: a sense of competence, positive self views, and realistic control assessments (Magnus, Cowen, Wyman, Fagen, & Work, 1999). Interestingly, locus of control perceptions separated the stress affected from the stress resilient White children but not the African American children. The researchers suggest that the finding might reflect differing cultural values. Kitano and Lewis point out that there is no coherent theoretical framework for conceptualizing resilience and that measurement and definitional issues need to be resolved. They conclude that rather than emphasizing differences in types of coping strategies employed by various identifiable samples (by ability and age, gender, environmental conditions, ethnicity, or handicapping condition), “...effective coping is characterized by flexibility and change” (p.203). They add that problem solving and electing to participate in intrinsically engaging activities are related to resilience as well as overall adjustment. They conclude with six recommendations for promoting resilience in gifted students at risk: (1) enhance connectivity; (2) encourage a sense of self-efficacy and agency; (3) encourage optimism; (4) teach directly and indirectly a range of culturally consonant coping strategies and coach implementation; (5) validate (rather than ignore or minimize) children’s experiences with bias; and (6) support pride in heritage (pp. 204–205). Whether or not one considers high intellectual potential as a risk factor, it is evident that there is one identifiable group of children and youth “at promise” whose ability is likely to be compromised: youngsters who are twice exceptional. This term is generally used to describe individuals who are documented as manifesting high intellectual ability as well as risk-producing conditions such as learning disabilities including attentional issues (Dole, 2000; Gardynik & McDonald, 2005), Asperger’s Syndrome (Neihart, 2000), or psychologically based challenges (Dixon, Lapsley, & Hanchon, 2004; JenkinsFriedman & Murphy, 1988; Peterson & Ray, 2006; Schuler, 1999). Gender identification issues, while not a handicapping condition, can heighten vulnerability to bullying and other risk-related concerns (Cohn, 2003; Peterson & Rischar, 2000; Savin-Williams, 2005). Research has focused on the ways in which these additional factors affect the ways in which giftedness is manifested, particularly the individual’s response to adversity produced by these conditions. Internal qual-

19

Personality Qualities That Help or Hinder Gifted and Talented Individuals

ities such as resiliency, self-awareness, and cognitive appraisal figure prominently in the individual’s ability to recognize and to cope with heightened risk, while positive role models, supportive school programs, and talent-enhancing activities create environments that increase the likelihood of positive outcomes for these individuals.

Frameworks for Conceptualizing, Understanding, and Studying the “Gifted” Personality In her article “ Personal Talent,” Moon (2003) makes a case for a theory that permits one to differentiate from related constructs such as social intelligence and wisdom. She asserts that such a theory should promote pertinent research and practice as well as “. . .enrich theories of giftedness, explain puzzling phenomena, and broaden the range of outcomes considered in the development of talented persons” (p. 68). We suggest that the ways in which we study personality variables in the context of giftedness have a profound effect on theory development, research, practice implications, and so on. In our exploration of the professional literature, we find three modes of inquiry, described by Coleman, Sanders, and Cross (1997) as empirical-analytic, interpretive, and transformative. Each offers a coherent body of thought with related assumptions and goals for research; each yields propositions and hypotheses about key phenomena (in this instance, personality variables related to giftedness). The empirical-analytic mode, most closely related to positivism, assumes that there are causal relationships and predictable outcomes to be uncovered through quasi-experimental designs. Coleman et al. (1997) claim that from this perspective, giftedness is viewed as a natural phenomenon, existing relatively independently of contextual influences. The extensive body of research on eminent adults that attempts to uncover invariant patterns of talent development and “predict backward” to the lives of young people with talent potential fits this mode of inquiry (e.g., Bloom, 1985). The interpretivist mode leads to a consideration of knowledge as more subjective, mediated by particular signs, symbols that enable individuals to make sense of their world. Particular talent domains, cultural contexts, and individual characteristics would profoundly

431

affect the manifestation of giftedness. The transformative mode extends the interpretivist framework by considering issues related to values and power as playing key roles in all aspects of the field. From both of these perspectives, there would be no universal conceptualizations of giftedness, for example – all would be defined within the context of particular groups, domains, and developmental stages. Key personality variables would be examined with an awareness of values prized by individuals and groups in positions of power and influence (e.g., Savin-Williams, 2005). Coleman et al. (1997) claim that the field has been dominated by the empirical-analytic mode of inquiry. Certainly a quick review of the research included in this chapter supports their assertion. For example, “the gifted” is a term used repeatedly as though referring to a single, homogeneous group. While this permits clarity, failing to communicate how giftedness is operationalized in the context of particular studies compromises the power of particular findings (e.g., Goldring, 1990). Models that seek to identify universal personality dimensions generalizable across developmental levels, domains, and cultural contexts are relatively common. We hypothesize that trait approaches to studying gifted individuals’ personality variables, whose limits are dissected in detail by Shavinina (1995) fit this category as well. In contrast, models such as personal talent, coincidence theory (Feldman, 1994; Feldman & Goldsmith, 1991) and ethnographic inquiry methods (Coleman, 2001) are dynamic, sensitive to contextual variables and power issues – and yield multiple ways of knowing that enrich research and practice. Recast from this perspective, we should be asking questions about the intrapersonal qualities we identify as critical in the successful development of talented individuals. Why promote internal attributions? Resiliency? How is thriving operationalized? Whose agenda is satisfied? Threatened? If we seek to uncover practices that empower individuals whose talents are latent, what are the implications for gifted education policies? For example, in an update of Torrance’s classic Ideal Child Checklist studies, we found that teachers had changed considerably in their reported valuing of learner characteristics – from qualities associated with compliance to descriptors more closely aligned with creativity. We also found that classroom teachers expressed ideas more in accord with gifted education professionals

432

(Murphy, Jenkins-Friedman, & Tollefson, 1984). The latter two modes of inquiry should have led us to consider the social forces that led to the changing patterns of results. If it is important for the journey to have a goal, in this instance, promoting successful lives for highpotential individuals, it is also crucial to bear in mind that one of the goals is the journey. As researchers build awareness of biases and assumptions associated with the familiar empirical analytic mode, the likelihood increases for including other modes for exploring personality variables, with the hope of improving the research enterprise as well as practice. So on and on you go The seconds tick the time out. There’s so much left to know And I’m on the road to find out (sic). (Cat Stevens, 1970)

References Albert, R. (1969). Genius: Present-day status of the concept and its implications for the study of creativity and giftedness. American Psychologist, 24, 743–753. Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative: Nurturing a lifetime of creativity. Buffalo, New York: C.E.F. Press. Apter, M. (1982). The experience of motivation: The theory of psychological reversals. New York: Academic Press. Arnold, K. D. (1995). Lives of promise. What becomes of high school valedictorians : a fourteen-year study of achievement and life choices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Arnold, K. D., Noble, K. D., & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.). (1996). Remarkable women: perspectives on female talent development. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Ihrig, D., & Forstadt, L. (2006). Attributional choices for academic success and failure by intellectually gifted students Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(4), 283–294. Bain, S. K., & McBell, S. M. (2004). Social self-concept, socialattributions, and peer relationships in fourth, fifth, and sixth graders who are gifted compared to high achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 167. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. Barron, F. X. (1963). Creativity and psychological health: Origins of personal vitality and creative freedom. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18(4), 447–457. Bland, L. C., Sowa C. J., & Callahan C. M. (1994). An overview of resilience in gifted children. Roeper Review, 17(2), 77–80.

R. Friedman-Nimz and O. Skyba Bloom, B. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine. Carter, K. R., & Ormrod, J. E. (1982). Acquisition of formal operations by intellectually gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(3), 110–115. Chan, L. K. S. (1988). The perceived competence of intellectually talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 310–314. Chan, L. K. S. (1996). Motivational orientations and metacognitive abilities of intellectually gifted students. Gifted Child Quaterly, 40(4), 184–193. Cohn, S. (2003). The gifted gay learner. In J. A. Castellano (Ed.), Special populations in gifted education (pp. 123–134). New York: Pearson Education. Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (1988). Is being gifted a social handicap? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11(4), 41–56. Coleman, L. J. (1995). The power of specialized educational environments in the development of giftedness: The need for research on social context. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(3), 171–176. Coleman, L. J., Sanders, M. D., & Cross, T. C. (1997). Perennial debates and tacit assumption in the education of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(3), 105–111. Coleman, L. J. (2001). A “Rag Quilt”:Social relationships among students in special high schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(3), 164–173. Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Terhaar-Yonkers, M. (1991). The social cognition of gifted adolescents in schools: Managing the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 44–55. Cross, T. L. (2004). On the social and emotional lives of gifted children: Factors and issues in their psychological development (2 ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1982). Toward a psychology of optimal experience. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 13–36). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. . New York: Harper and Row. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press. Dai, D., Moon, S., & Feldhusen, J. (1998). Achievement motivation and gifted students: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 45–63. Dixon, F. A., Lapsley, D. K., & Hanchon, T. A. (2004). An empirical typology of perfectionism in gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(2), 95. Dole, S. Y. (2000). The implications of the risk and resilience literature for gifted students with learning disabilities. Roeper Review, 23(2), 91–96. Dweck, C. S., & Bempechat, J. (1983). Children’s theories of intelligence: Implications for Learning. In S. Paris, G. Olsen, & H. Stevenson (Ed.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 239–256). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1998). The reflexive self: A sociological perspective. Roeper Review, 20(3), 150–154.

19

Personality Qualities That Help or Hinder Gifted and Talented Individuals

Feldhusen, J. F., & Hoover, S. M. (1986). A conception of giftedness: Intelligence, self-concept and motivation. Roeper Review, 8, 140–143. Feldhusen, J. F., & Nimlos-Hippen, A. L. (1992). An exploratory study of self concepts and depression among the gifted. Gifted Education International, 8(3), 136–138. Feldman, D. H., & Goldsmith, L. T. (1991). Nature’s gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York City: Teachers College Press. Feldman, D. H. (1994). Beyond universals in cognitive development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Feldman, R. D. (1982). Whatever happened to the quiz kids? Perils and profits of growing up gifted. Chicago: Chicago Review Press. Flydenberg, E. (1997). Adolescent Coping: Theoretical and Research Perspectives. London: Routledge. Friedman, R. C. (1992). Zobra’s Conundrum: Evaluative aspects of self-concept in talented individuals. Quest, 3(1), 1–6. Friedman, R. C., Hendricks, D., Porter, M. V., & Thacker, S. I. (1996). Intellectually gifted elementary-age students’ theories of intelligence. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New York City. Gagne, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103–112. Gagne, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Ed.), (3 ed., pp. 60–74). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Gardynik, U. M., & McDonald, L. (2005). Implications of risk and resilience in the life of the individual who is gifted/learning disabled. Roeper Review, 27(4), 206–214. Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, M. G. (2004). Cradles of eminence (2 ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Goldberg, M., & Cornell, D. (1998). The influence of intrinsic motivation and self-concept on academic achievement in 2nd/3rd grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 179–205. Goldring, E. B. (1990). Assessing the status of information on classroom organizational frameworks for gifted students. Journal of Educational Research, 83(6), 313–326. Gottfried, A. E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior high school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 631–645. Gottfried, A. E. (1986). Children’s academic intrinsic motivation inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525–538. Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Role of parental motivational practices in children’s academic intrinsic motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (1), 104–113. Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (1996). A longitudinal study of academic intrinsic motivation in intellectually gifted children: Childhood through early adolescence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(4), 179–183. Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (2004). Toward the development of a conceptualization of gifted motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(2), 121–132. Greenspon, T. S. (2000). The self experience of the gifted person: Theory and definitions. Roeper Review 22(3), 176–181

433

Gresham, F. M., Evans, S., & Elliott, S. N. (1988). Self-efficacy differences among mildly handicapped, gifted, and noonhandicapped students. Journal of Special Education, 22(2), 231–241. Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology, 17, 300–312. Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87–97. Harty, H., Adkins, D. M., & Hungate, E. W. (1984). Exploring self-concept and locus of control of students in two recognized approaches to elementary school gifted education. Roeper Review, 7(2), 88–91. Hau, K. T., Kong, C. K., Marsh, H. W., & Cheng, Z. J. (2000). Extension of the internal/external frame of reference model of self-concept formation: Importance of native and nonnative languages for Chinese students. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Hebert, T. P. (1996). Portraits of Resilience: The urban life experience of gifted latino young men. Roeper Review, 19(2), 82–90. Heller, K. A., & Ziegler, A. (1996). Gender differences in mathematics and the sciences: Can attributional retraining improve the performance of gifted females? Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 200–210. Helson, R. (1971). Women mathematicians and the creative personality. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36(2) 210–220. Herskovits, M., & Gefferth, E. (1992). Locus of control as an important factor in teacher’s rating of highly able children. Gifted Education International, 8(2), 79–84. Hoge, R. D., & Renzulli, J. S. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and self-concept. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 449–466. Holland, J. L., & Astin, A. W. (1962). The prediction of the academic, artistic, scientific, and social achievement of undergraduates of superior scholastic aptitude. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 132–143. Jenkins-Friedman, R., & Murphy, D. (1988). The Mary Poppins effect: Relationships between gifted students’ self concept and adjustment. Roeper Review, 11(1), 26–30. Junge, M. E., & Dretzke, B. J. (1995). Mathematical selfefficacy gender differences in gifted/talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 22–28. Karnes, F. A., & McGinnis, J. C. (1995). Self-actualization and locus of control of gifted children in fourth through eighth grades. Psychological Reports, 76, 1039–1042. Kaufmann, F. A. (1981). The 1964–1968 presidential scholars: A follow-up study. Exceptional Children 48(2), 164–168 Kerr, B. (1994). Smart girls: A new psychology of girls, women and giftedness. Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press. Kerr, B. A., & Cohn, S. J. (2001). Art boys: Talent, manhood and the search for meaning. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Kitano, M. J. (1998). Gifted African American women. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21(3), 254–287. Kitano, M. K., & Lewis, R. B. (2005). Resilience and coping: Implications for gifted children and youth at risk. Roeper Review, 27(4), 200–205.

434 Knight, B. A. (1995). The influence of locus of control on gifted and talented students. Gifted Education International, 11(1), 31–33. Kunkel, M. A., Chapa, B., Patterson, B., & Walling, D. D. (1995). The experience of giftedness: A concept map. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 126–134. Laffoon, K. S., Jenkins-Friedman R., & Tollefson, N. (1989). Casual attributions of underachieving gifted, achieving gifted, and nongifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(1), 4–21. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. Lewis, J. D., & Knight, H. V. (2000). Self-concept in gifted youth: An investigation employing the Piers-Harris subscales. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(1), 45–53. Luthar, S. S. (1991). Vulnerability and resilience: A study of high-risk adolescents. Child Development, 62, 600–616. MacKinnon, D. W. (1965). Personality and the realization of creative potential. American Psychologist, 20, 273–281. Magnus, K. B.; Cowen, E. L., Wyman, P. A., Fagen, D. B., & Work, W. C. (1999). Correlates of resilient outcomes among highly stressed African American and White urban children. Journal of Community Psychology, 27(4), 473–488. Marsh, H. W., Plucker, J. A., Stocking, V. B. (2001). The SelfDescription Questionnaire II and Gifted Students: Another Look at Plucker, Taylor, Callahan, and Tomchin’s (1997) “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall.” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(6), 976–996. Marsh, H. W. & Craven, R. G. (2002). The Pivotal Role of Frames of Reference in Academic Self-Concept Formation: The “Big Fish-Little Pond” Effect. Report: ED471684. Marsh, H. W., Ellis, L. A., Parada, R. H., Richards, G., & Heubeck, B. G. (2003). A short version of the self description questionnaire II: Operationalizing criteria for short-form evaluation with new applications of confirmatory factor analyses. Psychological Assessment 17(1), 81–102 Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. (2004). Explaining paradoxical relations between academic self-concepts and achievements: Cross-cultural generalizability of the internal/external frame of reference predictions across 26 countries. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 56–67. Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Ldtke, O., Kller, O., & Baumert, J. (2005). Academic self-concept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of casual ordering. Child Development, 76(2), 397–416. Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001). A quadripolar need achievement representation of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 583–610. McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003a). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly 47(2), 144–154. McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003b). The structure and function of academic self-concept in gifted and general education students. Roeper Review, 25(2), 61–65. McLelland, R., Yewchuk, C., & Mulcahy, R. (1991). Locus of control in underachieving and achieving gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 380–392. McNabb, T. (2003). Motivational issues: Potential to performance. In N. Colangelo, & G. Davis, (Ed.), Handbook of

R. Friedman-Nimz and O. Skyba gifted education (3 ed., pp. 417–423). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Moon, S. (2003). Personal talent. High Ability Studies, 14(1), 68–84. Mui, F. L. L., Yeung, A. S., Low, R., & Jin, P. (2000). Academic self-concept of talented students: Factor structure and applicability of the Internal/External frame of reference model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23(3), 343–367 Murphy, D., Jenkins-Friedman, R., & Tollefson, N. (1984). A new criterion for the ‘ideal child? Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(1), 31–36. Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22(1), 10–17. Neihart, M. (2000). Gifted children with Asperger’s syndrome. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(4), 222–230. Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 148–154. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Kulieke, M., & Krasney, N. (1988). Personality dimensions of gifted adolescents: A review of the empirical literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 347–352. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs and mathematical problem-solving of gifted students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 325–344. Peterson, J., & Rischar, H. (2000). Gifted and gay: a study of the adolescent experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(4), 231–246. Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006). Bullying and the gifted: Victims, perpetrators, prevalence, and effects. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(2), 148–168. Piers, E. V. (1986). The Piers-Harris children’s self-concept scale, revised manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. Pintich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and application. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Merrill. Plucker, J. A., & Stocking, V. B. (2001 ). Looking outside and inside: Self-concept development of gifted adolescents. Exceptional children, 67(4), 534–548. Plummer, D. L., & Slane, S. (1996). Patterns of coping in racially stressful situations. Journal of Black Psychology, 22(3), 302–315. Rathunde, K. (1992). Playful and serious interest: Two faces of talent development in adolescence. Paper presented at the 1991 Henry B. Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development, Unionville, NY. Rea, D. (1993). Reversal theory explanations of optimal experience. In J. Kerr, S. Murgatroyd, & M. Apter (Ed.), Advances in reversal theory (pp. 75–88). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger. Rea, D. W. (1997). Achievement motivation as a dynamical system: Dancing on the “edge of chaos” with “serious fun” ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 415 287. Rea, D. W. (2000). Optimal motivation for talent development. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23(2), 187–216. Reis, S. M. (1995). Talent ignored, talent diverted: The cultural context underlying giftedness in females. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(3), 162–170.

19

Personality Qualities That Help or Hinder Gifted and Talented Individuals

Reis, S. M., Colbert, R. D., & Hebert, T. P. (2005). Understanding resilience in diverse, talented students in an urban high school. Roeper Review, 27(2), 110. Renzulli, J. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan (November), 60, 180–184, 261. Ryan-Wenger, N. M. (1992). A taxonomy of children’s coping strategies: A step toward theory development. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62(2), 256–262. Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schack, G. D. (1989). Self-efficacy as a mediator in the creative productivity. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 231–249. Schack, G. D. (1991). Self-efficacy and creative productivity: Three studies ability children. Journal of Research in Education, 1, 44–52. Schuler, P. A. (1999). Voices of perfectionism: Perfectionistic gifted adolescents in a rural middle school (RM99140). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Shavinina, L. (1995). The personality trait approach in the psychology of giftedness. European Journal for High Ability, 6, 27–37. Shurkin, J. N. (1992). Terman’s kids: The groundbreaking study of how the gifted grow up. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. Simonton, D. K. (2003). When does giftedness become genius? And when not? In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Ed.), Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 3–18). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Sowa, C. J., & May, K. M. (1997). Expanding Lazarus and Folkman’s paradigm to the social and emotional adjustment

435

of gifted children and adolescents (SEAM). Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 36–43. Subotnik, R. F., & Arnold, K. D. (1994 ). Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent. Norwood, NJ Ablex Corp. Swiatek, M. A. (2005). Gifted students’ self-perceptions of ability in specific subject domains: Factor structure and relationship with above-level test scores. Roeper Review, 27(2), 104. Tannenbaum, A. J. (2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Ed.), Handbook of gifted education (3 ed., pp. 45–59). Terman, L. M. (1959). Genetic studies of genius (Vol. 5). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Tomlinson-Keasey, C. A. (2002). Tracing the lives of gifted women. In R. C. Friedman, & K. B. Rogers, (Eds.), Talent in context: Historical and social perspectives on giftedness. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Wahlberg, H. J., Williams, D. B., & Zeiser, S. (2003). Talent, accomplishment and eminence. In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Ed.), Handbook of gifted education (3 ed., pp. 350–357). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Werner, E. E. (1989). Children of the Garden Island. Scientific American, 260(4), 106–111. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51–59.

Chapter 20

Emotional Life and Psychotherapy of the Gifted in Light of Dabrowski’s Theory P. Susan Jackson, Vicky F. Moyle and Michael M. Piechowski

Abstract In this chapter we introduce the basic terms of Dabrowski’s theory, review the themes of emotional life of the gifted, including emotional and spiritual giftedness, discuss psychotherapy for the gifted, and present two cases illustrating development through positive disintegration in exceptionally gifted young persons. Keywords Developmental potential · Emotional intensity · Emotional sensitivity · Emotional giftedness · Psychotherapy · Multilevelness

Two Core Concepts: Developmental Potential and Multilevelness Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration was first introduced to the field of giftedness in 1979. Two chapters in New Voices in Counseling the Gifted presented the core concepts of the theory: developmental potential and multilevelness (Colangelo-Ogburn, 1979; Piechowski, 1979). By development Dabrowski meant personal growth much like scaling a mountain rather than the sequential unfolding of childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Imagining personal growth as ascent of a mountain, with all the peril, tests of courage and perseverance, suggests that not everyone has the strength, endurance, and determination to go far; few manage to reach the summit. Also not everyone is interested in M.M. Piechowski (B) Institute for Educational Advancement, South Pasadena, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected]

climbing and may prefer to remain in the valley. Some may not even be aware of the mountain. The endowment for how far in scaling the figurative mountain an individual can go constitutes developmental potential. An endowment for multilevel development signifies that a person starts already a significant distance up the slope. A person with limited potential starts in the valley and does not reach far. Multilevel development is a special kind of development involving introspection, self-evaluation and self-judgment, and significant inner conflict and suffering that constitute the work of inner transformation. Dabrowski’s theory introduced a concept of multilevelness, the idea that the extremes—for good and for bad—of human emotions, motivations, values, strivings, and behaviors will make more sense if looked at through a prism of levels. If, for instance, we take manifestations of joy we could see joy from winning a football game, feeling superior, defeating an opponent, succeeding by cunning, and feeling of power when cleverly manipulating others. But to many people such joys would be offensive because of complete lack of consideration for others. A different kind of joy is the joy that the name of a loved one brings, the joy of overcoming one’s bad habits, the joy of selfdiscovery, the joy of a creative moment and inspiration, and the joy of being able to help another. In the first case, the experiences of joy are egocentric, selfserving, self-protecting, and power-seeking. In the second case, they arise from love and empathy toward others, from positive changes in oneself, and from expansive feelings of a higher order. The first case represents joy on a low emotional level; the second case represents joy on a high emotional level. This comparison can be extended to all emotions and behaviors (Dabrowski, 1970). It is quite possible for a young

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 20, 

437

438

P.S. Jackson et al.

person to operate on a higher emotional level than a so-called mature adult. The idea of levels comes from the experience of higher and lower in oneself. Failing a person in time of need is something lower, something we are ashamed of and feel guilty about. Helping a person without any expectation of reward or even token gratitude is something higher in ourselves, and all the purer if no one knows about it. The yardstick here is the nature of our intentions and motives. Dabrowski envisioned five levels, which create four intermediate levels, thus nine in all (Table 20.1). The whole levels form a hierarchy: I, Primary integration; II, Unilevel disintegration; III, Spontaneous Multilevel Disintegration; IV, Organized Multilevel Disintegration; and V, Secondary Integration. The levels can be identified by values, feelings toward self, and feelings toward others that Miller used for her coding system (Miller, 1985; Miller & Silverman, 1987). The five levels have been outlined numerous times (Dabrowski, 1970; Dabrowski & Piechowski, 1977; Miller & Silverman, 1987; Nelson, 1989; Piechowski, 1975, 1991, 2003; Silverman, 1993). The theory is very complex and no simplified version can give it justice. In Dabrowski’s clinical practice, artists, actors, writers, religious persons, and gifted children were prominent. He also studied the lives of eminent creators. Consequently the theory addresses the personal characteristics and the subjective experience of the gifted. It draws attention to the role of emotions, imagination, and intellect in multilevel development. Besides research instruments, the theory offers new tools for differentiating gifted and non-gifted students (Ackerman, 1997) and of identifying gifted African-American students (Breard, 1994). The theory Table 20.1 Miller’s criteria for assessment of levels of development Level

Values

Feelings Toward self

Toward others

I I–II II II–III III III–IV IV IV–V V

Self-serving

Egocentric

Superficial

Stereotypical Ambivalent

Adaptive

Individual

Inner conflict

Interdependent

Universal

Self-direction

Democratic

Transcendent Peace and harmony Communionistic (transpersonal) Adapted from Miller (1985)

also helps to understand the intensities and sensitivities driving creative people (Piirto, 2002; 2004; Piechowski, 1999). The components of developmental potential (DP) are germane because they overlap with characteristics recognized in many gifted children and adults. Talent, specific abilities, and g (intelligence) constitute the first and the most obvious component. Overexcitabilities constitute the second component. They were readily embraced by the field because heightened excitability is what’s noted about gifted children, their capacity to be intensely and greatly stimulated and stay stimulated for long. As far back as 1938, Dabrowski described five overexcitabilities and so far no additional ones have been suggested. Overexcitabilities may be viewed as the necessary—but not sufficient—raw material for multilevel development. Inner psychic transformation is the third component, and it encapsulates what multilevel development is about. Developmental potential for multilevel development takes this form: 1. Talents, special abilities, and g (intelligence). 2. Overexcitability: psychomotor, sensual, intellectual, imaginational, and emotional. 3. Capacity for inner transformation. Overexcitability means that reality is experienced in a qualitatively different manner. Not just more of curiosity, sensory enjoyment, imagination, and feeling but added dimensions of depth, texture, acuity, and perception. It implies an intense aliveness and a neural processing very different from the norm. The idea that high neural plasticity of the brain underlies giftedness may be relevant here (Kalbfleisch, this volume). Gifted children, endowed with the capacity for advanced development, tend to be more active than regular children and display higher energy level, whether physical, intellectual, or emotional. Prodigies are examples of an extraordinary concentration of mental energy. The energy of the electric current in the nerve tissue becomes interest, passion, sustained effort, perseverance, creative flow, ecstasy, caring, compassion, or spiritual experience. A greater than average intensity, sometimes very great and extreme, results in experiencing life intensely. For example, “I get filled with energy when I need that energy. And, of course, I release it by doing the thing that got me excited in the first place” (Piechowski, 2006, p. 40). This surplus of energy Dabrowski called psychomotor

20

Emotional Life and Psychotherapy

overexcitability because it has to be discharged in action. In three studies, psychomotor overexcitability differentiated between gifted and non-gifted students (Ackerman, 1997; Bouchard, 2004; Tieso, 2007). Sensory experience for gifted children tends to be of a much richer quality because so much more detail, texture, contrast, and distinction are coming into awareness. What is pleasant is liked with a passion, what is unpleasant is disliked intensely. Dabrowski called it sensual overexcitability. For example: “I seem to notice more smells than a lot of other people. I love dark, musty smells and earthy smells, herbs and things like that. I love the smell of clean air in spring and tree blossoms and things and the smell of clean bodies, esp. hair” (Piechowski, 2006, p. 48). Sensual overexcitability may join with emotional overexcitability, as it often does, thus making the experience all the richer and more meaningful. For example, “I like yellow for it seems warm and full of joy” (Piechowski, 2006, p. 43). In an intimate relationship sensual and emotional elements cannot be teased apart. Intellectual overexcitability is the characteristic by which gifted children are most often identified. In a happy turn of phrase, Frank (2006) said that intelligence is about the ability to solve problems, but overexcitability is about the passion for solving them. When the emotional and mental energies meet, the mind supplies the energy of sustained concentration while emotional energy drives interest (passion). Interest is one of the basic emotions (Izard, 1971). Gifted children tend to have excitable imagination, especially rich, abundant, and surprising in creative individuals. Imagination is a vast subject and yet not sufficiently studied in gifted children. Creativity depends on it. Imagination in combination with absorption enables construction of new realities (more about this later). Emotional overexcitability, manifested in the range of emotions and feelings, tends to be wide and multifaceted in gifted children, both in intensity and in sensitivity. Besides compassion, caring, and responsibility the significance of deep and perceptive feeling lies in empathy as a way of knowing, another unexplored ability of the gifted. Gifted children are often misunderstood exactly because they can be so greatly stimulated and because they perceive and process things differently. Their excitement is viewed as excessive, their high energy as hyperactivity, their persistence as nagging, their

439

questioning as undermining authority, their imagination as not paying attention, their persistence as being disruptive, their strong emotions and sensitivity as immaturity, and their creativity and self-directedness as oppositional disorder. They are the wild tall poppies that many forces conspire to cut down to size (Gross, 1998).

Funneling of Emotional Tension The concept of overexcitability suggests that the overall picture of an individual’s personal energy is worth investigating. Certain situations impede the natural flow of this energy. For a naturally active person inactivity leads to a buildup of energy, which presses to be discharged. For a naturally active mind a boring day at school, or at a meeting, has to be worked off by engagement in an intensely absorbing mental task, otherwise sleep will not come (Tolan, 1994). Emotional tension also builds up energy which then seeks release in nervous habits, sensual easement of tension (e.g. drinking, eating, shopping, sex), or excessive worrying. Nervous habits and workaholism are a psychomotor way of funneling of emotional tension, oral compulsions are the sensual way (Piechowski, 2006).

Giftedness from Inside Out The varieties of expressions of each overexcitability have been collected from open-ended questionnaires (Piechowski, 2006). Quantitative studies are good for group comparisons and general trends in the data, but it is the content of responses that reveals the quality of experience and features of emotional life (Piirto, 2004). Three different studies provided 158 OEQs (open-ended questions) with a total of about 5,000 responses from 79 boys and 79 girls, aged 9–19 years; the majority were teens (Piechowski, 1979; Piechowski & Colangelo, 1984; Piechowski & Miller, 1995). The first study used an OEQ with 46 questions, subsequently replaced by a 21-item open-ended OEQ. The expressions by which a given overexcitability is identified in the scoring process have been listed in a number of sources (Cline &

440

Schwartz, 1999; Piechowski, 1991; 2001; 2003; 2006; Silverman, 1993). The themes that emerged from review of the content of the responses give a fairly good picture of the many dimensions of inner life of gifted children and adolescents (Piechowski, 2006). A sampling of themes is presented in Table 20.2. Yoo and Moon (2006) developed a 47-item inventory of problems identified by parents of gifted children requiring counseling. Quite a few of the items in the inventory identify concerns similar to the themes listed in Table 20.2, for instance, hypersensitivity, anxiety and fearfulness, low self-esteem (self-doubt), pressure to meet expectations (burden of “the gift”), perfectionism, conflict with teachers or classmates, non-compliance (resistance to compulsion), depression, loss and grief (coping with death), and so on. Only a brief overview of selected topics can be presented here.

P.S. Jackson et al.

is likely to question the foundations of their faith and often will find it wanting. To a highly gifted young person doubts about beliefs present themselves almost inevitably, consequently they may precipitate a crisis of worldview. The price of questioning can be twofold. One, in environments that do not value questioning one quickly meets with resistance and even rejection. Two, as selfquestioning it may create self-doubt and the fear of going crazy: “I probably spend too much time thinking about my own thinking, analyzing myself and analyzing the analysis. I sometimes psych myself into thinking I am going crazy” (Piechowski, 2006, p. 63). It may be interesting to note that the great Sir Francis Galton tried thinking paranoidally and was startled how quickly he became paranoid.

Imaginal Experience Intellectual Energy The process of solving problems or trying to grasp difficult concepts typically can take one of two directions: a step-by-step progression of breaking the concept down, or by flash of insight that follows many shifting points of seemingly fruitless attack. The sudden insight is typified by K´ekule’s discovery of the ring structure of the benzene molecule and by Einstein’s thought experiments. Today it comes under the rubric of spatial thinking or visual-spatial learning (Lubinski, 2003; Silverman, 2002). Spatial thinking, which is nothing short of amazing, depends on precise visualization, a link to imagination. Intellectual energy has other consequences: relentless questioning, critical thinking, and evaluation. For instance, gifted adolescents responded to the question, What gets your mind going?, by mentioning the irresistible attraction of brain teasers, logical puzzles, theories, and controversies. More significantly, some have mentioned “challenging anything accepted by society” (not all were this radical) by equating such acceptance with conformity: “One good thing [is that] I try to think about my beliefs—political and religious— so that I won’t believe things just because my parents do” (Piechowski, 2006, p. 64). This may lead to a crisis in families with rather strict and orthodox religious faith or political adherence. A gifted adolescent

Commanding energy, sensual delights, racing thoughts, and ideas are, for the most part, known territory. With imagination a whole universe of unlimited possibilities opens up to us. Imaginal experience can be real and remembered as such, “as if it really happened.” The subject of invisible friends (imaginary playmates) has not received much attention in gifted literature other than noting that gifted children tend to have many more such companions than other children (Terman, 1925; Hollingworth, 1942) and that creative adolescents often keep them from childhood (Davis, 2003; Piirto, 2004). That children distinguish pretend play from everyday reality has been long established (Singer, 1975; Singer & Singer, 1990). However, the role of invisible friends in social development, in gaining sense of competence and overcoming fears, though studied in regular children, has not received much attention in regard to gifted children (but see Root-Bernstein, this volume). Imaginary companions usually are not secret but they do belong to the child’s own world. Attempts on the part of adults to interact with them swiftly lead to their disappearance by natural or unnatural means (Taylor, 1999). Imaginary playmates are real to the child, and one may wonder whether the experience is accompanied by sensory feelings. The study of imaginary worlds answers this question.

20

Emotional Life and Psychotherapy

441

Table 20.2 Emotional life of the gifted: A sampling of themes Piechowski (2006)

Yoo & Moon (2006)

Intensity and sensitivity High personal energy—physical and mental Funneling of emotional tension: psychomotor: nervous habits sensual: eating, drinking, etc. intellectual: a mind that cannot slow down imaginal: doomsday scenarios emotional: excessive worrying, (expecting the worst) Sensual delights: appreciation increases with age Intellectual energy interest as a basic emotion the role of empathy in intellectual probing passion for finding and solving problems relentless questioning and its consequences: resistance in others, self-doubt in oneself testing assumptions and beliefs: adolescent crisis of worldview spatial thinking Imaginal experience is imagination valued or source of annoyance? imagistic thinking, e.g., metaphors precise visualization: spatial and vivid absorption: experiencing with full sensory engagement communication with nature invisible friends (aka imaginary companions) imaginary worlds how real is a self-created reality? Emotional experience emotional intensity as “too much” predominance of positive affect friendships transcend stereotypes affectional bonds with family, animals, and places the self in adolescence: elusive, fragmented, multiple, or confident sense of responsibility: the burden of “the gift” being different perfectionism entelechy empathy and a calling to action empathy as a way of knowing triggers of conflict

Hypersensitivity

resistance to compulsion anger, insecurity, and self-consciousness coping with depression coping with fears coping with death Typology of emotional growth rational altruistic (“judging” or J) emotional introspective (“perceptive” or P) Emotional giftedness the high end of emotional intelligence Spiritual giftedness facility for transpersonal experience Multilevel development unilevel vs. multilevel developmental process

low self-esteem

pressure to meet expectations sense of being different perfectionism

conflict with teachers, fighting with peers noncompliance anger/ frustration depression isolation, loneliness anxiety, fearfulness recent loss/ grief suicidal ideations

442

Cohen and MacKeith (1991) examined 64 accounts of imaginary worlds. The degree of elaboration— creation of histories, languages, multiple characters (in one case as many as 282), and the early age when they are begun (6 or 7 or even younger)—indicates the young weavers of these worlds were highly gifted. The experience of being in an imaginary world can be “as real as real.” For example, “I also had a magic boat in my youth for a while. It had an outboard motor but I found that too noisy. I’ve never been clever with engines and there were always problems about petrol, so I discarded the idea” (Cohen & MacKeith, 1991, p. 57). “Imaginary” is usually taken to mean “not real.” But imaginary playmates and imaginary worlds are lived with the full range of sensory experience and memory. The brain appears to make little distinction between something that is vividly imagined from something that is experienced from an outside input to the senses (Damasio, 2003). Therefore, to allow for the “as real as real” quality of experience, a more fitting term is imaginal (Corbin, 1972; Singer, 1975; Watkins, 1990). A study of excellent hypnotic subjects showed that a significant proportion of the population, between 2 and 4%, is quite at home in imaginal scenarios of their own making (Wilson & Barber, 1983; Lynne & Rhue, 1988; Singer, 1975). For the experience to feel completely real, vividness of visualization has to be accompanied by the ability to be completely absorbed in the experience. For example, to enter into a painting, become one with music, become water, sky, or an animal with all the attendant sensations and perceptions is to be totally and realistically merged in the experience (Piechowski, 2006; Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974). Such depth of absorption is more than flow because it takes place in a self-created reality. We are faced with the intriguing question of how imagination constructs reality. Since the internal, self-created reality cannot be distinguished from the properties of external reality, one has to ask, which is the real “real”? (Piechowski, 2006). The discovery of mirror neurons opens new possibilities for exploring the exact nature of imaginal experience as these neurons have links to the motor and sensory systems (Azziz-Zadeh, Wislon, Rizzolatti, & Iacoboni, 2006; Sch¨utz-Bosbach, Mancini, Aglioti & Haggard, 2006; Turk, 2007).

P.S. Jackson et al.

Emotional Life Emotional overexcitability is about what stimulates the person. It is further differentiated into emotional intensity and sensitivity. Emotional sensitivity represents the ability to perceive and respond to nuances of emotion and feeling in others, in oneself, and in group interactions. It may be so acute that it becomes hypersensitivity. Emotional intensity (passion) is about the amount of energy being expressed. With some people the intensity of their expression is so great that it can be felt like a pressure wave. Intensity of concentration and their passion for a subject or talent, distinguish gifted children; as one of them said: “A passion is something that rules your life. You want to know everything that there is to know and you want to be the best at it. An interest is something that is cool, and you would like to know more, but if you don’t that’s okay too” (Schultz & Delisle, 2006a, p. 90). Emotional life of the gifted encompasses so much that only a few selected themes can be discussed (Table 20.2). In the responses to the OEQ positive feelings predominate. The dominant affect tends to be love, compassion, caring, optimism, appreciation of beauty, and the like. Bonds of deep affection involve parents and siblings, pets and favorite places, whether it is grandma’s house, an orchard, a spot by the river, or backstage of the school theater. The role of contact with nature in our emotional well-being has received very little attention. With the worsening environmental condition of the planet and growing urbanization, the opportunity for children to spend time in nature and explore it has all but vanished (Louv, 2005). Preadolescent younger children have much empathy for the natural world (cf. the case of Kieran in the last part of this chapter). They empathize with a wilting plant, a tree whose limb is cut off, a crushed spider, and rise in indignation against maltreatment of living things. We belittle it by calling it animism because we do not see the moral imagination of the child who identifies with what is living and seems sentient. This feeling is extended to stuffed animals or any objects of which the child is especially fond. Adults do that, too, when they identify with their car or a piece of jewelry (Piechowski, 2006). Friendships are described in terms of intuitive connection and mutual understanding on a deep level.

20

Emotional Life and Psychotherapy

Friendships transcend gender stereotypes and are as easily formed between boys and girls as between boys only or girls only. Introverted and non-athletic gifted youngsters have a particularly difficult time finding friends—they are a minority (non-athletic) within a minority (gifted), which can be further compounded by any degree of “geekiness.” Being intense, which to most people means “too much,” also creates an obvious challenge of finding friends of similar level of intensity or passion. Being intense is an ineradicable part of the gifted self. When asked how they see their own self, some said that their self is unknown, elusive, or hidden; others described themselves in opposites. For example: “For every adjective I can think of there is one that contradicts it entirely: artistic but can’t write neatly (so you’ve seen), lovable, yet a bitch; shy but loud, mature but silly, calm but ‘spastic,’ together yet ready for a nervous breakdown” (Piechowski, 2006, p. 174). Struggles with selfdoubt, low self-concept, and lack of self-acceptance are common. In adolescence the self is often changing and awareness of having many selves, or even being split into a thousand fragments, is not unusual. It is part of emotional growing and seeking, which may be intensified in adolescence and adulthood in the process of multilevel development. Because of their awareness of a larger context, gifted adolescents may feel insignificant. But they can also feel predestined for their mission in life, an inner imperative called entelechy (Lovecky, 1990). In such cases the qualities of will and self-determination become prominent and clash with compulsory demands and authoritarian commands. For gifted young people it is often not easy to admit being talented. The expectations of others for gifted children “to fulfill their potential” (as if one could know what that is) create pressure that is an unwelcome burden because already one of the outstanding dominant traits of most gifted young people is a feeling of responsibility. Expectations and pressures from others rob them of their own initiative only to make the responsibility weigh all the more heavily on their shoulders. They are well aware of it. The question, who owns “the gift,” is rarely considered (Clark, 2005). The value of working for the common good is something gifted children understand readily. One teacher of the gifted said this about the difference in teaching gifted and regular students:

443 One thing I have not realized until I returned to the regular classroom was that gifted students’ heightened ability to perceive connections meant that I extensively used their empathy for others to teach broad concepts at a depth I find difficult to even start to address with my current classes. The empathy made the abstract very personal. Most of my current students cannot get beyond their own narrow world, and for some, not even beyond their skins. (Frank, 2006, p. 166)

Gifted children’s quick empathic response to the needs of others, their misfortunes, and tragedies has been well documented (Lewis, 1992; Lovecky, 1992; Piechowski, 2003; Roeper, 2007; Silverman, 1994; Waldman, 2001). The statement quoted above shows the gifted students’ capacity for empathy as a way of knowing. The capacity for empathy as part of gifted children’s intellectual makeup is something that deserves more attention. We have come late upon the knowledge that rational thought is ineffectual without feeling (Damasio, 1994). In fact, social interaction and empathy depend on the activity of the mirror neurons, which create a simulation of the actions and the emotions of others within ourselves. A feelingful response is fast and operates on a precognitive level (Gazzola, Aziz-Zadeh, & Keysers, 2006). Being gifted inevitably leads to conflict. Gifted adolescents described those who brag as insensitive and irresponsible. Clearly, these behaviors offend their empathy, caring, and sense of fairness. A frequently mentioned conflict arises with teachers who do not accept students’ views, their knowledge, and their questions, in short, teachers who do not show respect for their students (Piechowski, 2006; Schultz & Delisle, 2006a, 2006b). Being forced to act against one’s will raises resistance to compulsion, a much overlooked but very basic phenomenon (Seligman, 1975; Piechowski, 2006). Gifted students, and the creative ones especially, react very strongly and viscerally when they are denied choice and respect. Procrastination, refusal to work, as well as learning difficulties are born from this kind of resistance. Also being forced to adhere to a belief one has not chosen. The students then assert, by any means possible, their self, individual identity, right to be heard, respected, and given choice. Anger, insecurity, and self-consciousness were listed as unwelcome negative feelings. Depression was expressed through vivid imagery. Those who have experienced it recognized that there is a real

444

danger when one disconnects and is no longer able to ask for help. Yet they endure and persist and in most cases work their way out of the dark pit (cf. the case of Lael later in the chapter). They realize that their depression is precipitated by isolation and lack of contact with those who can understand them. Their need for communion on a deep level is acute (Jackson, 1998). Depression may be precipitated also by the awareness of having much ability and energy but being too young, too “unplaced” to apply them meaningfully and effectively outside academics: able and willing but nowhere to go (Elkind, 1984). They have fears. Holding to a high standard for themselves they fear making a fool of themselves. Those who are introverted and emotionally sensitive tend to lack self-confidence and suffer agonies when having to speak in front of an audience. They fear not doing well, of not being the best (many are those who feel they have to be the best), they fear failing in their responsibilities, not fulfilling their goals. As one boy said, the list of possible failures is pretty frightening. They also think of death, a subject that has received too little attention in gifted literature and in school. As one boy said, “can’t ask questions related to life, only the textbook” (Schultz & Delisle, 2006a, p. 53). Grant (2002, p. 13) observed “the important topics in educating gifted children are self, meaning, sex, relationship, community, life, purpose, ethics, spirituality—the Most Important Things in Life,” subjects that are for the most part avoided. Thinking of death makes some gifted children delve into the meaning of their role in life. Encountering violent death of others—by accident and murder—forces such questions with even greater urgency. Not all are afraid of death. Some expressed curiosity about the process of dying and wished to be able, when the time comes, to be conscious of their own dying and making the transition into the great unknown. Others, however, feared the finality of death and especially of their parents and loved ones more than their own. As for explanation of what happens after death they are divided between those who accept standard explanations offered by religion and those who do not. It is not unusual for gifted children and adolescents to have precognitions, in dreams or wakefulness, of events that are yet to happen. These experiences are just too common to be discounted. They are intuitive—

P.S. Jackson et al.

knowing something without having the information on which to base it. Precognitions of accidents and death that turn out true are too unsettling to be mentioned in the open. Often a young person has no one to consult with. It is therefore a burden for a child or a young person to have to keep it quiet and have no reassurance about the normality of it (Piechowski, 2006). As was mentioned earlier, gifted adolescents prefer to cope with their problems on their own. In a study of bullying, Peterson and Ray (2006) found that rather than report it and ask for help, gifted students chose to handle it themselves. Sometimes it meant to just grit their teeth, endure, and not complain. This may explain why despite their overexcitabilities, the suicide rate of gifted young people is not higher than their non-gifted counterparts (Cross, 1996; Cross, Cassady & Miller, 2006).

Psychological Types and Types of Emotional Growth C. G. Jung’s concept of psychological type identifies four continuous personality dimensions from extroversion to introversion (E-I), from sensation to intuition (S-N), and from thinking to feeling (T-F). One would expect these dimensions to correspond to the overexcitabilities, for instance, thinking to intellectual or feeling to emotional. However, there is very little correlation between overexcitabilities and these dimensions (low correlation for sensual and imaginational with F, and no correlation for psychomotor, intellectual, and emotional). The reason for it is this: the Jungian dimensions are different constructs from overexcitabilities. The Jungian dimensions refer to preferred and habitual modes of dealing with the data of experience; the overexcitabilities refer to the heightened capacities for both apprehending and generating the data of experience (Lysy & Piechowski, 1983). A further distinction into judging (J) and perceiving (P) was introduced by Meyers and Meyers (1995). There is a significant correlation (.37) between imaginational overexcitability and type P (Lysy & Piechowski, 1983). Among gifted children type P is more frequent than type J, the intuitive more frequent than the sensation type, and the thinking type more frequent than the feeling type; but the gifted consistently are evenly divided between extroverts and introverts (Hawkins, 1998; Cross, Cassady

20

Emotional Life and Psychotherapy

& Miller, 2006). The higher the level of giftedness, the frequency of both the N and the P type rises dramatically (Meckstroth, 2006). The highly gifted Rhodes scholars are more than ten to one intuitive, and type P is close to twice as frequent as type J. In the general population of high school students it is just the opposite: the intuitive type is about five times less frequent than the sensation type (Meyers and Meyers, 1995). This is one significant source for the gifted feeling “different,” consequently not fitting in school. The situation is one of opposites rather than a match with other students and with teachers (Cross et al., 2006). The prevalence of the intuitive type is consistent with higher frequency of multilevel developmental potential among the gifted. Meyers and Meyers (1995) describe the “judging” type as oriented toward action by personal executive power of will and choice, while the “perceiving” type as oriented toward embracing experience: “The judging types believe that life should be willed and decided, while the perceptive types regard life as something to be experienced and understood” (p. 69). From analysis of responses rated as emotional overexcitability two types of emotional growth have been identified in gifted adolescents: rational altruistic and introspective (Piechowski, 1989). They correspond exactly to the judging/perceiving distinction. Thus one validates the other as the two typologies were derived independently. The rational-altruistic type so far has not been analyzed into internal components. The introspective type has eight intrapersonal components. Although on the surface people of the J type fit society’s yardstick for defining a “good citizen” they are nevertheless capable of deep inner life (Lysy & Piechowski, 1983; Piechowski, 2006). Schools clearly prefer J type students because they tend toward achievement and tend not to buck the system unless their logical thinking and strong sense of fairness see a violation of basic principles and rights. Another type of gifted persons was described by Elaine Aron as the Highly Sensitive Person (Aron, 1997). Aron’s description of the HSP includes a tendency toward introversion, heightened emotional sensitivity, and a combination of intellectual and imaginational overexcitabilities (Piechowski, 2006). In a word, a complex but distinct profile of a person with a sensitive nervous system that is easily overwhelmed by overstimulation. Hence social discomfort and feeling of being a misfit.

445

Research on Overexcitability While early studies relied on an open-ended instrument, the Overexcitability Questionnaire (OEQ), new and larger scale studies have been made possible with the advent of a 50-item inventory, the OEQII (Bouchet & Falk, 2001). Research findings on overexcitability have been reviewed by Mendaglio and Tillier (2006) with the general conclusion that gifted children tend to have higher overexcitability scores than regular children. The difference is particularly strong for creative children and adults. Among consistent findings is the higher emotional score for females than for males and higher psychomotor score for males than for females. The overexcitability profile for artists has received cross-cultural validation in a comparison study of American and Venezuelan artists (Falk, Manzanero, & Miller, 1997). An extensive cross-cultural study of gifted students in Mexico, Spain, Turkey, Taiwan, and the US found a similar overexcitability profile in these six different cultures (Falk, Balderas, Chang, Guzel, & Pardo, 2003). A study of OE profiles in gifted families found how parents describe their children’s OE profiles, the challenges each OE presents, and the strategies these parents use to cope with them (Daniels, 2006). For instance, in one family, in regard to psychomotor overexcitability, the parents saw its positive side in that the children stay physically fit and do not tire even in physically demanding activities, but it is a challenge for them to endure long car rides or family dinners. Also they do not regulate well their own energy and think they can go on when in fact they are tired and need the rest. They need periods of time to be in motion. So one of the strategies is to let them spend lots of time outdoors skating, biking, or playing ball.

Emotional Giftedness That some children are emotionally gifted was first suggested by Annemarie Roeper (1982). Emotionally gifted children have deep empathy and respond to the needs and hurts of others. Such children cannot rest until they have set things right for others. This is especially noteworthy when the other is a stranger or someone disliked, e.g., when a child makes a special effort

446

to be friendly to the class bully as did one 10-year-old girl. Intimidating others, she explained, was his way of covering his own insecurity. To be emotionally gifted is to dare to act on one’s awareness. If there are hungry people one feeds them and makes sure they will not go hungry from now on. If one sees someone in distress, one offers relief. Unfairness and injustice call for defending people’s rights. There are many preteens and early teens who take up social action on behalf of others, actions that become large-scale operations extending over many states, or even many nations. For example, raising thousands of dollars for deaf and blind children, victims of abuse, sending over 100,000 books to African children, providing suitcases for children going into foster homes, providing kid packs for children victims of domestic violence whose parents are in jail are only a few of the ingenious, effective organizational efforts that are motivated by compassion in these very young people (Lewis, 1992; Piechowski, 2003; Silverman, 1994; Waldman, 2001). Emotional giftedness represents the high end of emotional intelligence. Mayer, Perkins, Caruso, and Salovey (2001) devised ways of measuring components of emotional intelligence. In one of their tests they asked teenagers how they handled emotionally difficult situations: “Think about last time you were out with some friends and they wanted to do something you were uncomfortable with.” Mayer et al. hypothesized that emotionally gifted adolescents will resist going along with unsavory intentions of their friends. The results confirmed the hypothesis. Consequently the concept of emotional giftedness was validated (see also Bar-On, this volume). Opportunities for research on the biological basis of emotional giftedness come from the study of mirror neurons. These neurons, which make possible empathy and understanding the moods and intentions of others, are more strongly activated in people who score higher on an empathy scale (Gazzola, Aziz-Zadeh, & Keysers, 2006). At the same time the mirror neurons appear to be defective in autistic individuals (Turk, 2007). Mayer et al. also realized that in response to their test situation taking a stand in opposition to peer pressure was what Dabrowski named positive maladjustment. It means not compromising one’s ideals and having the fortitude to stand alone (Dabrowski, 1970). When empathy and sense of justice inspire action to

P.S. Jackson et al.

help and protect others then emotional giftedness and positive maladjustment overlap (Piechowski, 2006). Resisting peer pressure for drugs, sex, and subversive acts are examples of positive maladjustment in which emotional giftedness plays a lesser role. Emotional giftedness at a higher level of development is represented by Eleanor Roosevelt, Etty Hillesum, Peace Pilgrim, Paul Robeson, Bishop Tutu, all profoundly spiritual persons, and can be also found among case studies of self-actualizing people and gifted teachers (Brennan & Piechowski, 1991; Mr´oz, 2002; Payne, 1987; Piechowski, 1992; Frank, 2006). The first piece of research exploring the application of Dabrowski’s theory to the personality of a teacher of the gifted is Frank’s (2006) study of an inspirational teacher. The criteria of multilevelness applied by Frank revealed an authentic individual, thoughtfully and deliberately engaged in a teaching grounded in the moral foundation of his advanced level of development. The effectiveness of this teacher lay in his Socratic method as an empathic and moral education that can be called teaching for life in the truest sense.

Spiritual Giftedness From emotional giftedness it takes only one further step to spiritual giftedness (Piechowski, 2001, 2003, 2006). There has been some debate whether or not a case can be made for spiritual intelligence (Emmons, 2000; Gardner, 2000). The argument advanced by Emmons is that what motivates people often has its source in genuinely spiritual concerns. But if one could recognize spiritual giftedness then the case for spiritual intelligence would have been made. What defines spiritual giftedness is a predisposition toward deep states of consciousness and the facility for entering such states, in short an ease for transpersonal experience (Piechowski, 2006). Among people who take up meditation and various kinds of spiritual discipline many struggle to reach some modicum of calm and inner peace, while some reach it rather quickly and easily. No doubt the capacity for becoming absorbed in an experience when combined with the ability to focus one’s mind, relax, let go of pressing concerns and distracting thoughts, predisposes a person for meditation and thereby for developing a deeply spiritual life. One telling example came from

20

Emotional Life and Psychotherapy

a nun who said that her spiritual inclination dated from childhood. Contact with God was for her deeply emotional: “Sometimes I felt his presence and I remember that I did not need to be saying verbal prayers, they even tired me. . . . I was immediately in his presence. . . . So it was a gift, given freely, of ease of making contact” (Mr´oz, 2002; Piechowski, 2006, pp. 247–48). It is now known that facility for this kind of experience involves the ability to suppress the activity of an area in the left parietal lobe. That area is involved in self/other dichotomy and depends on input from the senses (Newberg & Newberg, 2006). In deep meditative states the input from the senses is diminished or even completely blocked so no sounds or other sensations reach the meditator. William James’s (1902) study of the varieties of religious experience was par excellence a study of spiritually gifted people. However, the exploration of the spiritual life of gifted children has barely begun (Lovecky, 1998; Piechowski, 2006). When conducting guided imagery exercises with gifted undergraduates and high school students it was found that scenarios designed for personal growth can, on occasion, evoke a genuine spiritual experience. For example, in an exercise called the Rose, one is guided to watch a rosebud slowly open, then the flower, and finally to look inside: “The rose was of magnificent beauty; it was red with violet tips. The rose then begun to open up more and I was able to smell a potent and refreshing scent. Then as the rose opened even more I was able to see and feel a mystical vibrant ball with an aura of its own. When I saw this ball I felt a feeling in my lower chest of glee and inner peace” (Piechowski, 2006, p. 253). Research on the spiritual life of children was initiated in England by Robinson (1977), and in the United States by Hoffman (1992) and Hart (2003). Children’s spirituality is now a research field in its own right. An International Journal of Children’s Spirituality was launched in 1995 and a comprehensive Handbook of Spiritual Development in Children and Adolescents came out in 2006 (Roehlkepartain, King, Wagener, & Benson, 2006).

447

vate it. One way is to lead psychosynthesis exercises, or any other guided imagery designed with similar focus. Psychosynthesis techniques are designed for personal and spiritual growth (Ferrucci, 1982). One of us (M.M.P.) led these exercises for a number of years, first with undergraduate students, later with gifted children aged 10–17 years. Gifted children, with very few exceptions, have great capacity for detailed visualization and absorption in the imaginal experience. How this is done is described in detail elsewhere (Piechowski, 2006, Chapter 20). These techniques have also been adapted for elementary age children (Fugitt, 2001; Murdock, 1988). Another way of attending to emotional life is through group process devoted to emotionally charged issues. In a safe space, where no judgment or criticism is allowed to interfere with the process, teens discuss feelings, family, relationships, and the future (Peterson, 1995).

Multilevel Development

Since the emphasis of the theory is on multilevel development, it offers the means of identifying persons at advanced levels of development. The theory contributes constructs of transpersonal development that go beyond Kohlberg’s and Loevinger’s developmental schemes (Piechowski, 2003). Support for the theory was found not only in cross-cultural validation of overexcitability profiles but also through three empirical tests (Piechowski, 1975), a positive correlation (0.44) between the Jungian intuitive type (N) and the developmental level and that all five overexcitabilities correlated with developmental level: psychomotor 0.26, sensual 0.31, intellectual 0.57, imaginational 0.38, and emotional 0.59 (Lysy & Piechowski, 1983). Furthermore, on detailed scrutiny the construct of Level IV corresponds exactly to Maslow’s description of self-actualizing people (Piechowski, 1978). When two independent sets of observations and constructs converge, we can be confident that a real phenomenon has been identified. Fostering Emotional Growth For the understanding of emotional growth of gifted children, the distinction between a unilevel Examining emotional life leads to the question as to and a multilevel process of development is the most how can we give it proper attention and help culti- relevant. In unilevel process values are relative rather

448

than universal, inner conflicts are recycled rather than resolved, relationships with others do not have a steady footing. Trying every new trend, following fads, being guided primarily by others’ opinions is an individual without a center. The shifting nature of the person’s identity depends on the circumstances and the people present. Such is often the self of an adolescent. When the process intensifies it becomes unilevel disintegration. A change comes when this state of affairs begins to tire with its meaningless emotional treading water and growing malaise. The search for a way out starts with the realization of the possibility of a more meaningful focus in life. A sense of higher and lower in oneself opens new horizons. Sensing the possibility of something higher in oneself engenders the feeling of inferiority, not to others but toward oneself. It is an inferiority before one’s unrealized better self. Soon this feeling of inferiority toward oneself is followed by an array of inner currents and rifts with descriptive names like disquietude with oneself, dissatisfaction with oneself, positive maladjustment, and so on. What they all have in common is the vertical axis of self-evaluation, that judges the distance from the higher in oneself, which attracts, and grows a stronger reaction against the lower in oneself, which repels. When in a young person we recognize an inner dialogue, self-judgment, distress over a moral conflict we have in front of us a multilevel process. The introspective emotional growth mentioned earlier, has eight components, which help recognize the specifics of the multilevel emotional development in adolescents. They are (1) awareness of growing and changing, (2) awareness of feelings, interest in others and empathy toward them, (3) occasional feelings of unreality, (4) inner dialogue, (5) self-examination, (6) self-judgment, (7) searching, problem-finding, asking existential questions, and (8) awareness of one’s real self (Piechowski, 1989; 2006). Looking back at Table 20.1, it becomes clear that the values in such a process can be both individual and universal, that the feelings toward oneself can be rife with inner conflict or they can be showing an emergent self-direction, and that feelings toward others will be sincerely democratic and displaying awareness of interdependence. In cases of intense inner conflict, suffering, inner seeking, and depression, the process becomes multilevel disintegration as illustrated in the cases of Lael and Kieran later in the chapter.

P.S. Jackson et al.

Counseling and Psychotherapy for the Gifted Effective counseling for the gifted requires a therapeutic orientation that strives to help a client integrate all aspects of his being. This inclusive conceptualization gives influential roles to the intelligence and emotional complexity of the client—but not only those aspects. Perhaps more importantly, the wise therapist helps her client evolve and develop, and this requires adopting a multilevel perspective. The development of the personality—taking into account not only the natural endowment of the individual and his social milieu but also a will and motivation to transcend both nature and nurture—is the task of utmost importance for a client of high developmental potential. A personal process of manifesting authenticity and autonomy in his unique human life defines the growth trajectory for many gifted persons. Multilevel development is uncommon: accelerated, idiosyncratic, and often emphatic. It involves effort on the part of the individual; it is neither automatic nor inevitable. This virtual birthing process of the personality, innervating every aspect of one’s being, is felt as a compelling drive within the core of an individual with high developmental potential. A mental health professional should have sufficient awareness and understanding of, and appreciation for, the phenomenological experience of a gifted person. The lived experience of a child imbued with high developmental potential is organic, vibrant, and full of tension and overexcitability. Children who are attuned to and interested in various forms of reality, who are penetratingly aware and sensitive, present many different and rich psychological characteristics. Deep interests, deep probing intelligence, and deep emotional involvement in many and various issues, events, and imaginings, characterize such children. Great effort and deep perception is needed on the part of a professional to appreciate, understand, and respond to their core developmental needs and their unique person. The inner life of these potentiated children is filled with indeterminate fullness and burgeoning activity. Inherent in all of their experiencing is a strong sense of purpose and intention, or entelechy (Lovecky, 1993, 1998). This deeply ingrained intention is sometimes consciously known and at other times apparent in their action and movement in the world. The developmental template that is

20

Emotional Life and Psychotherapy

their birthright is both a rich resource and a call to become who they most deeply are. It is a truly heroic quest the gifted child undertakes as he strives toward full-spectrum living. He may experience annoyances and deep frustration, awe, inexorable perceptions and insights, complex original fantasy images, deep connections to others and ideals—and, for him, these are normal occurrences needing acknowledgment and healthy expression. There is an enlivening, animating quality to these experiences for the child, as he has the awareness that they carry the possibility of being transformative and creative. An often absolute and compelling character infuses this core generative quality—the gifted child can appear undeterred and, to the outside world, seemingly incomprehensible. Overall, this lived experience is—for many—an undeniable call toward self-realization and transcendence. Because of this palpable generative quality, a meaningful psychotherapeutic stance requires incorporating a notion of creativity as an essential factor in healthy development and therapy. Dabrowski (1964, 1970, 1972) asserted that the “creative instinct” was a fundamental determinant for advanced development. What did he mean by this? The idea of a creative “instinct” at work in human development might not be a concept strictly supportable by modern scientific research that focuses on behaviors and environments, but the notion of an inner drivenness toward new realization and improvement, a capacity for conceiving and creating novelty—whether inborn or teachable—seems to be an undeniable quality of many gifted individuals. Furthermore, the tacit infrastructure of existing knowledge—perhaps in any field—will be insufficient for conceptualizing the truly gifted mind and psyche. What does this mean for the counselor approaching work with such a client? Frequently, it means bringing creativity into the therapeutic relationship in challenging ways for a therapist. This includes accepting the often profound idiosyncratic nature of a client’s symbolism, language, behavior, and/or thought processes—to name a few—and refraining from therapeutic judgment in response. Such unique modes of expression and the potential for multidimensional experiencing in gifted persons spring from their inborn extraordinary intellects, the presence of super-ordinate talents, and the existence of will or “autonomous factors” (Dabrowski, 1964).

449

Counselors must honor and be aware that this rich capacity is served by an animated and imbued way of knowing. Children with high developmental potential apprehend and experience their world through an enlivened sensual knowing; through image, symbol, and metaphor; and through emotionally nuanced and subtle compelling perceptions. Furthermore, this discernment is both a cognitive-intellectual and an intuitive awareness. Strong kinesthetic dimensions flavor the process as well. Such children can be physically stimulated by these uncommon capacities. Muscles, tendons, and joints may be affected by this perceptiveness, and bodily movements and tensions may actually stimulate the knowing itself. The characteristic of an effective therapist to suspend a tendency to diagnose mental illness or pathologize symptoms is crucial. This does not mean, however, that a therapist can ignore traditional knowledge of mental health issues, nor that she does not need a thorough grounding in a reputable counseling or psychology program. However, a mental health professional needs to keep a consistent consciousness on the possibility that supposed symptoms of mental illness might be mechanisms of growth for the gifted individual.

Insufficiency of Existing Psychotherapeutic Paradigms Most psychotherapeutic paradigms currently in vogue in the United States are not, in and of themselves, effective for helping a gifted client—especially the highly gifted in stages of advanced development. Commonly used orientations are rarely complex enough, and often pit the client’s mental aspects against each other, exacerbating inner polarization rather than relieving it. For instance, therapies of choice in many US training programs and established agency venues emphasize cognitive, cognitive-behavioral, solutionfocused, brief therapy, and group therapy techniques. Emphasis is on short-term relationships with the client, discrete problem-solving techniques, simple symptom-reduction behaviors, and/or optimization of interpersonal functioning. While these are valid and acceptable goals, such single points-of-focus therapeutic work is unsatisfactory for a gifted client. While perhaps helpful for the average therapist or typical patient, such gross simplification—more often

450

than not—fails the gifted client. Dabrowski repeatedly asserted that the full spectrum of human behavior, especially for advanced development, could not be explained by cognitive or behavioral approaches (1964, 1970, 1972).

Emotional and Social Implications of Dabrowski’s Theory As already discussed, a gifted individual can be particularly sensitive to external stimuli, and he can have extraordinary processing capacities for cognition, emotional intensity and depth, and profound imaginal qualities. These potentials for unique internal experience, while capable of creating exquisite feelings and peak experiences, can cause difficulty for the person as well. Many gifted are acutely aware of the dangers and pitfalls of trying to communicate these intensities (more often than not unshared) with others. Incongruency of the private inner experience versus the external expression of it, which usually must be severely modulated if not curtailed, is often painful for the gifted client. This lack of flow between the inner and the outer worlds can be exacerbated by feelings of loneliness and doubts about one’s own sanity, in the absence of a satisfactory mirroring with another. Mirroring the client, unconditional positive regard, accurate understanding, and empathy take on new meaning with a client of great emotional, imaginational, and intellectual complexity, intensity, and depth.

P.S. Jackson et al.

Most psychotherapies involve helping a client to adapt to existing norms because it is assumed that his quality of life (or the quality of life of others in the environment) is adversely affected by an inability or refusal to comply with social expectations. Orienting therapy with a consideration toward multilevel development is implied for the discerning therapist who works with gifted individuals capable of developing beyond commonly accepted cultural parameters or who disagrees with the prevailing moral valuation of his social milieu.

Counseling Using an Integral Approach

Supporting the developmental potential of a gifted child—while not removing the struggle for existence and expression—involves having a profound awareness of subtle cues, conveyed on a multitude of levels. Dabrowski asserted that emotional sensitivity was a key indicator of developmental potential, and he agreed with Dewey that emotions form the basis of ethical and moral valuation, so this characteristic is important to acknowledge in therapeutic planning. Because his intellect is constantly tempered with his emotional complexity, an emotionally charged individual, even with great intelligence, appears less likely to consider himself gifted. The opportunity to experience activation of self-growth through relationship is often problematic for the gifted (Jackson, 1998; Gross, 1993, 1998; Lovecky, 1993, 1998). Many have virtually no human context in which to develop naturally or environments in which to interface, since finding true peers is rare. Being a catalyst of Emotional Sensitivity and Moral development is a role of great responsibility that a Valuation therapist for the gifted must embrace consciously and with wisdom and integrity. Dabrowski was convinced that an adequate theory of Authentic development, for Dabrowski, meant gohuman mental development was not possible without ing beyond genetic endowment and environmental conan incorporation of ethical valuation and an acknowl- straints, and required an individual “making commitedgement of the complexity of the affective side of ment to his own particular developmental inner truth” mental life. “All that is truly human expresses a hierar- and harmonizing this personal vision with the needs chy of values,” he wrote in his unpublished manuscript and values, or “developmental inner truths” of others Authentic Education (Dabrowski, n.d.). He was (Dabrowski, n.d.). To this end, the child must be reared greatly influenced by John Dewey, who emphasized and educated in an environment of mutual compasthe role of intelligence and the capacity for careful sion, understanding, and positive adjustment—not simdiscrimination in making moral decisions (Moyle, ply adjustment to the changing material conditions of 2005). life.

20

Emotional Life and Psychotherapy

Implicit in the work of mental health professionals should be an emphatic concern for developing ‘giftedness’—not for the purpose of celebrating talent or potential eminence—but instead for helping the manifestation of the child’s talents in the service of his integrated development.

451 The operation of the dynamisms of multilevel disintegration transforms the intellectual function by liberating it from its subservient role to primitive drives, by increasing its objectivism, widening its horizons, increasing the power of imagination, replacing fallacious and rigid patterns by creative forms. . . and working towards an equilibrium of analytic and synthetic processes of thought and an intimate conjunction of thinking with higher emotions and personality. (Dabrowski, 1970, p. 136)

As indicated earlier, his position finds support in the fact that when the frontal lobe connection between emotion and reason is severed, reasoning remains intact but loses the capacity to choose between alternaDabrowski was clear that development is non- tives (since it no longer knows their different values, ontogenetic. His is not an age-based stage theory, and which are decided by feeling) and thus is hopelessly thus can be applied to individuals without regard to ineffectual (Damasio, 1994). previous stages or chronological age. Because gifted children often exhibit behaviors and understanding more typical to their elders than their peers, his theory helps to guide gifted education and counseling where Supporting the Developmental Inner other paradigms fall short. Truth of the Child with High An essential piece of the complex makeup of high DP individuals is their complex moral system. Developmental Potential The existence of such systems has been verified consistently in the first and second authors’ clinical Two case studies, a gifted child and an adolescent with practices, and has been mentioned by others, including elevated developmental potential, will illustrate this apGross (1993, 1998) and Lovecky (1993, 1998). The proach. Emphasis is placed on the need for a differenvalue systems clearly exhibit a hierarchy and include tiated understanding of the ways these children know, uncommon valuing, subtle and careful discernment, think, feel, imagine, express, and experience—given and a dynamic equilibrium—which filters through their complex and idiosyncratic makeup. Understandand infuses all aspects of perception, motivation, and ing of the child’s uniqueness and developmental potenjudging. However, when confronted with unsupportive tial from a positive point of view is essential for healthy environments, those children who express emotional, socialization. Education of these children must include intellectual, and imaginational overexcitabilities (OE) creative adaptation of standard methods of teaching can present with overly heightened and misunderstood and behavior. Counseling interventions must be inreactions, sometimes even psychoneuroses. An under- formed by an understanding and appreciation of their standing of the child’s uniqueness and developmental penetrating capacity for apprehension, their dynamic potential from a positive point of view is key for moment-to-moment experiencing, and their complex healthy socialization. Persons of high DP should be moral frameworks. Children must be encouraged to develop and realize encouraged in the therapeutic relationship to develop, realize, and take responsibility for their uniquely their uniquely crafted hierarchy of values. Adjustment crafted hierarchy of values. In this sense, concepts is directed by the child’s own potentials, values, and of adjustment are directed by the individual’s own aims. As mentioned previously, Dabrowski’s view on edpotentials, values, and aims. Dabrowski’s theory helps to see the gifted experi- ucation of those with high developmental potential inence in the new light of a potential for multilevel de- cludes an injunction for educators to orient their acvelopment. That emotional life leads development and tivities toward the “developmental inner truth” of the the intellect plays a subordinate role in advanced de- child. The multidimensionality of this developmenvelopment, Dabrowski stated in a form of a hypothesis tal inner truth is described in Dabrowski’s Authentic Education: to be tested empirically:

Dabrowski’s Theory Is Non-ontogenetic and Value Based

452 All that is truly human expresses a hierarchy of values— a clear indication that the teacher recognizes, in himself, and others, better and worse ways of educating, and that he consciously chooses the “better” . . . It is aimed at educating children in an environment of mutual compassion, understanding, and positive adjustment— adjustment not just to the changing material conditions of life, but commitment to individual positive developmental changes. “Authentic” for the child, then, is his commitment to his own particular “developmental inner truth” . . . harmonized with the needs and values, the “developmental inner truths” of others. (Dabrowski, n.d.)

P.S. Jackson et al.

5. To learn to identify with and be sustained by in a core Self that directs and is responsive even in times of rapid change and growth. 6. To become aware of and trust developmental dynamisms: modalities and manner of development are idiosyncratic. 7. To trust, activate, and support creative impulses, drive, and insights.

The gifted child with high developmental potential is a profound meaning-maker: in the immediate physEach person is multidimensional, his psychic ical reality, in the realm of ideas, in relationships, and being functions in n-space or n-dimensions, and most in existence/being. The gifted child identifies patterns and inheres order in the phenomena he encounters. importantly He has innate drive for coherence in the disparate eleach individual has his own “unique n-dimensional inner ements of his experience and relation. For some gifted space.” It is this inner space that belongs to you and you children this understanding and coherence is experialone and the growth and development of this inner space enced most strongly through emotional channels—for is what personal freedom is all about and what education should be all about. (Yeudall, n.d.) some, the conduits may be intellectual, aesthetic, or kinesthetic. The degree and interactive effect of these channels varies from child to child. Table 20.3 outlines the broad categories of focus for developmental and Social and Emotional Development therapeutic work with these individuals. Included are from a Multilevel Multiple themes of developing awareness, and developing caPerspective pacities for personal agency and communion. The most important point is that there exists a How do we help our gifted children grow and crucial need to help gifted children understand that develop—through the inevitable dissolutions and these fundamental drives—while uncommon—are self-transcendence inherent in growth—in ways that normative for them. A guiding adult must help to do not involve unnecessary suffering, benign neglect, provide the right amount of complex stimulus and or an unhealthy hyper vigilance? We need to help our restorative periods for these children. Acceptance of gifted children: the child’s innate capacities for self-awareness and self-regulation is key! 1. To begin to develop an ongoing awareness of Self: emotions, cognitions, imaginative play, kinesthetic dimensions, sense of right and wrong, instincts and intuitions, and apprehension through intuition and Mental Health from a Multidimensional through an elevated sensorium. View of Personality Development: 2. To develop an awareness of the vastness of the The Case of Lael, an Exceptionally Gifted emotional landscape: identify multiple modes and kinds of feelings in self and others and expand 17-Year-Old their capacity to understand and express emotional The following case study is written by the first auknowing. 3. To be able to relate to others and establish hu- thor, a clinical counselor specializing in advanced man connections across many levels and lines of development of gifted individuals. The “initial impression” portion of this case study is written in expression. 4. To develop capacities to acknowledge, express and first-person narrative to give the reader an in situ perreciprocate with others in variant circumstances and spective of the subtle interplay between counselor and client. levels of energy interchange.

20

Emotional Life and Psychotherapy

453

Table 20.3 Components of focus for gifted social and emotional development: a multilevel perspective VALIDATE AND DEVELOP CAPACITIES FOR AWARENESS

VALIDATE AND DEVELOP CAPACITIES FOR AGENCY

DEVELOP CAPACITIES FOR COMMUNION

FOCUS

COMPONENTS OF FOCUS

Awareness of Self

Own self’s emotions, cognitions, To begin to understand and know that to be conscious of one’s imaginative imagery, own natural inclinations, values-sense of right and wrong, instincts, and inborn proclivities spontaneous ‘instincts’, is necessary in order to develop apprehensions-from intution, unconscious, and elevated sensorium

PURPOSE OF WORK

Awareness of Others

To begin to understand and know Others’ emotions, congitions, that others have comparable imaginative imagery, senses of self-both similar and values-sense of right and wrong, different, but nevertheless valid; spontaneous ’instincts’, to also begin to understand that apprehensions-from intuition, the collective environment unconscious, and possibly influences and shapes awareness elevated sensorium. Also, and development awareness of collective and cultural expectations, tacit infrastructure, etc.

Awareness of Emotions

Multiple modes and varieties of feeling in both self and others

To expand capacity to identify and understand one’s own and other’s emotional states; to develop capacity to accurately and appropriately express emotions

Awareness of Connections

Interconnectedness and interdependence of self and others

To begin to understand perspectives, subject-object in self and others, spheres of influence and boundaries of ego

Inner Experience

Qualities of motivation, resiliency, To begin to identity with and be inspiration, self as an enduring sustained by one core self; to pattern begin to modulate inner reality; to trust developmental instincts

Outer Expression

Sense of purpose, accurate and effective communication of ideas and knowledge, talent expression, creativity

To begin to develop capacities to be proactive, to fulfill creative calling; to activate and support creative impulses, drives, and insights; to effectively realize and produce creative ideas, to manifest unique and unrepeatable personality; to make a difference in the world

Integration of Both

Coherency, flow, congruency between inner & outer realities, self-regulation, equilibrium

To maintain sense of wholeness and effective expression in the face of environmental pressure

Marking Connections Between Self and World

To be able to relate to others and Effective and accurate establish human connections communication; capacity for across many levels and lines of participation, friendship, expressions; to effectively adapt bonding, intimacy; constructing to or accommodate others; to and maintaining relationship; acknowledge and reciprocate exchange with environment, with others; to develop including: sentient beings and capacities to react or non-sentient objects, spiritual synergistically co-create ideations; trusting developmental instincts

454

Initial Impression and First Meeting. First Person Narrative She is remarkably beautiful with a presence and energy that pulsates in the room. Her countenance is mesmerizing in its stillness; there is a penetration of mind and spirit radiating from the stillness of her gaze and subtle movements. I find myself exceptionally attentive to the palpable subtleness of her being. I attempt to remove all expectations from my conscious mind and breathe deeply. Internally, I am disturbed by the apparent fragility she attempts to guard from me. I know, intuitively, that my deepest contemplative bearing is necessary to begin understanding and supporting this deeply troubled young woman. Her hair is platinum in color; shaved to pink scalp on one side balanced by a long-arced fringe. She shyly submits that she designed and sewed her outfit, which is a fusion of lines and cultural influences. Her gaze is concentrated and her conversational style punctuated by long silences with passionate outbursts and subtle riffs into related topics. Teachers report her to be “globally gifted”: excelling in the sciences, the humanities (particularly philosophy), and in visual art. Her artwork is groundbreaking, evocative, technically excellent, and sometimes shocking. She is the top student of the 11th grade class in a magnet school for exceptionally bright learners. The art specialist at the school is extremely concerned; Lael has been creatively unproductive for 3 months and is increasingly non-responsive. She is described as deeply introverted, reflective, and individualistic. She enjoys creative design, the fields of spirituality and philosophy, and long walks alone; she has several close friends, although she is detached from the general population. She loves music of all kinds. Lael has an exceptionally strong relationship with her father, who is seriously ill and unemployed. In conversation she reports intense internal strife, inexpressible longings, and dissatisfaction. She hints at immoderate emotional distress and alarming irrepressible moods. She is gentle, probing, and reflective. She asks if I will return.

Background In her grade 11 year Lael is referred for specialized assessment and counseling by her school-based team.

P.S. Jackson et al.

Mental health support for Lael at the time included a psychiatrist, suicide prevention team, counselors at the school, and the gifted specialist. They reported extreme concern about her well-being; she was nonresponsive to their detailed care plan and daily ministrations. She had been diagnosed with major depression; antidepressant medications had been prescribed. Throughout her life Lael’s capacity and passion for visual art provided her with a discerning and redolent creative outlet. She supplemented her multimodal art expression with creative writing in all genres: poetry, journaling, myth making, and story. Lael had multiple ways of expressing herself and strong innate autonomous forces compelling this expression. Her home environment— while fraught with difficulty of underemployment and poverty—encouraged autonomous expression, introspection, and authenticity. Lael was exposed to classical music, philosophical texts, spiritual practice, and rich discussions. Despite daily practical challenges and frequent moves, Lael’s parents made every attempt to provide optimal experiences for her within the context of balance in the family and awareness of the needs of their other two children. Lael’s parents acknowledged and understood—at least in part—her complex developmental needs and unique ways. Although far from perfect, there was unconditional love, respect, and affirmation within the family dynamic. This dynamic thoroughly changed when Lael’s father became critically ill, in November of her grade 11 year. Lael’s brilliant and vibrant father clung to life by a small margin, no longer able to work and completely unable to communicate. Lael’s mother became wholly immobilized by the circumstances. Lael felt powerless to help her father or support her mother, intimidated by the medical system and entirely lacking in resources to sustain herself and her family. Her drawings (see Fig. 20.1) from that time included an unforgettable image of non-sustainability and persecution. These extreme external challenges were the catalysts for a complete breakdown in functioning for Lael. She withdrew from the world around her and found herself increasingly impotent in terms of thinking and creative capabilities. Her sleeping patterns were particularly disturbed and her desire for food diminished. A most frightening symptom for Lael was a radical narrowing of perception and incapacity for abstract

20

Emotional Life and Psychotherapy

455

Fig. 20.1

thought. Her expressive faculties became knotted in a progressively more sinister emotional subtext. While at first diminished in discernment and capacity, Lael was soon freighted with destructive impulses, negative thought patterns and a desire for self-harm. Suicidal thoughts emerged; the desire to cut into her own flesh became an ominous and compelling impulse (see Fig. 20.2). Over time her emotional experiencing became trapped in extreme shame and vulnerability. Lael described this state as: “complete darkness, despair, completely overwhelming... I couldn’t see out, I couldn’t make sense, there was no light.” In an extended essay written after she emerged from the major depressive state Lael described her experience with despair as being on “the underside of infinity”: It was characterized by emptiness, the diligent feeling of being so alone, and everything in the outer environment just affirmed this belief. It was a pit, and I tried very hard to fill that pit by pushing as much sadness and pain down into it, only to see it was bottomless. I could feel it was so. When I manipulated myself into a corner I’d engulf myself, I’d swallow down, and in a gasp of raw tears I’d look and see the ground open beneath me. I’d invert myself and be pushed under, reaching for a bottom I never found. It was the underside. It was the wrong side of infinite. It lasted a long time.

Differential Diagnoses According to the Theory of Positive Disintegration From a standardized mental health perspective Lael suffered from major depression. Symptoms of depression are described clinically as a profound mood of sadness or emptiness, an overriding sense of inadequacy, feelings of despondency, a decrease in activity and reactivity, and an emotional state marked by worthlessness, pessimism, and despair. Thinking capacity is often impaired with evidence of retardation of thought process, a sense of mental fuzziness, and lack of cohesion in thought patterns. The depressed person may become very lethargic or extremely agitated. Other physical signs include a poor appetite and weight loss or, in some cases, increased appetite and weight gain. Other characteristics of major depression include negative self-concept and self-blame and pervasive feelings of worthlessness and guilt. A seriously depressed person may have difficulty in concentrating and may show evidence of slowed thinking and indecisiveness. Those afflicted with major depression may report recurring thoughts and images of death and suicide (Jackson & Peterson, 2003).

456

P.S. Jackson et al.

low mental tension, alternated with periods of high emotional tension. Clearly, in Lael’s case, external circumstance catalyzed this psychoneurotic depressive state. Lael’s inner dialogue, occasional feelings of unreality, and piercing self-examination were earmarks of a positive disintegrative experience. Dabrowski believed that when depression is a function of developmental potential it allows for the development of self-evaluation and profound awareness of the value of others. He believed that behind the facade of depression there may be hidden a developmentally necessary psychological withdraw serving the function of self-criticism, self-analysis, self-control, a justified dissatisfaction with oneself and feelings of inferiority with respect to one’s possibilities. If these processes can be found in depression they indicate a potential for positive growth. (Dabrowski, 1972, p. 255)

Fig. 20.2

Considered from a multilevel perspective of the Theory of Positive Disintegration, Lael’s situation— while grave—had many positive developmental signifiers. In Dabrowskian terms Lael experienced a positive disintegration that appeared to be both multilevel and global. Dabrowski describes multilevel transformation as that process wherein new and qualitatively different insights and qualities emerge—such that the person is capable of overcoming hereditary and social determination in a movement toward a self-controlled, creative, empathetic, and authentic being. Lael’s experience was global in that it involved all facets of her functioning. Due to strong internal conflicts and a difficult external environment, all aspects of Lael’s being were loosened and fragmented. This occurred through a decrease in psychical functioning and an extreme tendency for self-analysis, self-criticism, and feelings of inferiority and guilt (Dabrowski, 1972, p. 47). Extreme psychological tension, withdrawal, isolation, fear of activity, and

Lael presents with extraordinarily high developmental potential. Her history reveals that even as a young child she actively engaged all aspects of Self: a complex and probing intelligence, resonant imagination, nuanced emotional awareness, and suffused sensual experiencing. The awareness of higher and lower—the earmark of multilevelness—existed in Lael from earliest times. The realizations of transcendent values, of the interdependence of all creation, and of her own “real self” were inner templates in Lael—seeking emergence and coherence in the world around her. De Quincey (2002) describes this emergent human capacity: “Our living organism is a system tingling with purpose and evolved expectations: a system designed for self-preservation, for reproduction, and ultimately for self-transcendence.” Powerful forces of intuition, intellectual capacity, and imaginational acuity fed Lael’s intense self-awareness; these activated higher-level sensing perceptions. Lael’s inner world—an amalgam of emotional, imaginational and intellectual experiencing—was rarely reflected in the world around her, particularly in educational and social milieus. She reported extreme loneliness, estrangement, and feelings of unreality in her school settings. While she excelled in all school subjects and continued to perform at extraordinarily high levels, she was increasingly emotionally laden and at odds with the social and academic dynamic. Most painful for Lael were her experiences in gifted programming where she found no outlet for the totality of her understandings and apprehensions. Lael

20

Emotional Life and Psychotherapy

457

intuitively sought intellectual experiences that would serve her drive toward higher level experiencing and morality and the development of her personality. Lael was offered, instead, higher-level thinking opportunities, complex knowledge acquisition, and creative outlets independent of the very core of her being: her innervated emotional, intuitional, and instinctive elements. Dabrowski wrote that multidimensional development must be fully rounded and

her artwork in its myriad forms, and her writing and journaling illuminated and brought to her conscious mind the awareness that aspects of her being needed consideration and care. In a lengthy composition, linking will to intention and purpose Lael talked about how she has learned to pay attention to all aspects of her developing being and how she had learned to deeply trust the developmental process (cf. Table 20.3):

not restricted to the perfection of one or some capacities and skills but instead includes a transformation and refinement of all basic aspects of mental life including innate drive, emotions, intellect, volition, imagination, moral, social aesthetic and spiritual components. (Dabrowski, n.d., italics added)

I just made a fabulous connection to a very old dream. It’s quite perfect, because in that dream, hear the words that came to me, “for on his unsafe skin there was a tar with the safety of gasoline, and in him they will wreak of fear for his smell of potential burning.” I think it is amazing that it should make the most wonderful sense at this moment. This is how I (not one, this isn’t a silly English paper, it is I, as I Am) know that all things are working in purpose that is reality, and existence, and awareness, which is then all the outcome as well. That I should have a dream of two years ago, which I always kept so close with me, knowing it was important, suddenly turn into something new and different, though I knew it all along.

On the Development of the Personality Through Multilevel Disintegration According to Dabrowski, the development of personality—the highest level of human development—occurs through the disruption of the existing, originally integrated organization of a person’s being. This disintegration destroys the existent psychic unity of the individual. The cohesion—which has provided meaning and purpose—dislodges, and the individual is propelled toward a different unity, a higher level of reality. This birthing process of the personality involves effort and the innervation of every aspect of one’s being; this is what the deepest forces of self-expression compel. Lael is emphatic that her disintegrative experience was essential for her overall development. She alludes to her knowledge of a higher state of knowing—what Dabrowski termed the Personality Ideal: My “less than optimal” emotional state I have come to regard as an essential piece of my development. In its absence I cannot be certain what qualities I would have instead acquired, or what knowledge I would have failed to learn. I consider it to have happened for a specific reason, enmeshed in a much larger plan that I have now begun to understand.

Even during the most disturbing of times Lael’s creative capacity informed her and affirmed the developmental nature of her disturbing disintegrative experience. Her creativity was a critical determinant in her capacity to reintegrate and work through the intense depressive experience. Her night-time dreams,

Her drawing of “great turbines” and the accompanying text illustrates this deeper knowing that flowed from Lael’s immensely creative processes and heightened self-awareness (see Fig. 20.3). The text on this drawing reads: “The most powerful of heavy handed dreams. I turn my body at the center of great turbines; I spin through the grinder. I am deconstructed to be reconstructed at a later date.” Lael’s depressive state was emblematic of a multilevel disintegration in which the nucleus of the personality ideal was activated. This involved criticism of oneself, disquietude and dissatisfaction, feelings of inferiority toward oneself because of unfulfilled possibilities, guilt feelings, and an excessive tendency to self-observation and selfobjectivity. Dabrowski attested that this process allowed for a “clearing of the field” for a new creative force in the individual (Dabrowski, 1972). Lael’s description of this clearing is particularly erudite: The depressive state I experienced acted as a catalyst for personal growth; compression of thought or mood into a lower frequency that still at times occurs, has become part of a pattern I can respect for its ability to elicit specific responses from me. Often such a constriction will be followed shortly by its dissipation and a sense of self and awareness has been heightened. In those moments it may be unpleasant, but my major hurdle for the most part has been crossed. What I experience now is akin to the tightening of a spring before it is released; I must

458

P.S. Jackson et al.

Fig. 20.3

be forced a few steps back in order to develop the tension and potential that will allow me to move even farther ahead. It is through this process that I am working through many levels, clearing away confusion, old tendencies, stale energy. . .

This immense inner conflict and anguishing depressive state birthed a young woman with articulated selfawareness and self-direction (characteristic of Level IV). Lael’s discerning nature allowed her to reflect on the nature of the disintegrative incident, bringing penetrating insight into the all-encompassing nature of such unfathomable experience: To get to this point I experienced a rather long and arduous journey. It is difficult to remember because I no longer resonate with the components of that former version of myself. I was the underside. That is what I will refer to it as, because it is part of the whole, but it is so focused and consumed with its negativity, its downward direction that it cannot conceive; it cannot know anything beyond itself.

At the beginning of the downward spiral into her extreme depressive experience Lael drew “Outsource” (see Fig. 20.4) which captures the wrenching and absolute experience of a multilevel global disintegration. It is clear from this drawing that every part of her is engaged in the deepest of processes. Lael was able to reflect on the origin and existence of the depressive state attesting that it had roots in her

Fig. 20.4

earliest childhood. The multilevel process of inner dialogue, self-judgment, and self-examination was evident early in her life. Her current capacity to transcend and take hold of her emotional processes independent

20

Emotional Life and Psychotherapy

of external demands and memories is especially evident in the following quote: I first experienced this concentrated sensation when I was ten or eleven, but I can trace the lines of those feelings even further back. The extent of it I think was somewhat severe, using my present state as a reference point. I have to admit I’m somewhat dampened now. It’s a fortunate thing this was the last question. I can turn it around now however, so I think I will.

At the center of Dabrowski’s ideas in the nexus of his theory was his understanding of the positive aspects of disintegrative experience. In this view, the psychoneurotic depressive state experienced by Lael represented a phase of accelerated authentic development. With astonishing insight Lael described her experience as a form of death that occurred as part of a series of smaller deaths that she believes will pave the way for an integrated transcendent consciousness: I experienced a little death, and I have even littler little deaths that allow for truer life. The smaller the death, the closer I can become to a self-actualized individual, until there is one smooth transition into full consciousness. The little deaths are needed if one wants to become closer to the higher self while they are living. Physical death is a symptom of duality, it ends the sojourn and returns us to full consciousness in one step, but it is these smaller acts of disintegration and reintegration that will allow for the flow of the physical into the psychical. I imagine that is how we will discover immortality.

The Role of the Counselor in Global Multilevel Disintegration in the Case of Lael At the time of this writing Lael had been in weekly psychotherapeutic support with the first author for 14 months. Lael’s initial presentation was exceptionally brittle; her mood state was volatile and she presented with strong suicidal ideation. Compounding this profile were the vestiges of a disordered eating pattern and anxiety symptoms. Lael needed informed, consistent, and highly nuanced psychotherapy. The first few sessions established a strong clinical rapport between client and counselor and provided insight into Lael’s multifaceted and dynamic inner world. Lael’s support team at school provided the family background, an academic and social summary, and the psychiatric profile. At the time Lael was working on a massive canvas depicting a very dark

459

wood and a lost figure. As part of her International Baccalaureate Art Program, Lael had deadlines to meet; she reported acute frustration with that particular art piece. More generally she presented with unfathomable anguish and almost unspeakable helplessness. Lael was happy to share many aspects of her internal processing with the first author. She brought sketches, poetry, and journal entries to sessions. Her therapist worked in a deeply intuitive fashion—allowing Lael to discuss, present, and explore all aspects of her being. Over time, Lael began to express profound intuitions, and instinctive awareness—previously locked up in a complex emotional, moral, and intellectual matrix. She hinted at unsavory experiences in her past, stating that she wished to express them but feared they might harm the listener. In the end, she chose to work through those memories in a non-verbal fashion through her art. When offered the opportunity to put them in verbal form and share in a counseling session she declined, stating that she had already worked them through and was no longer beleaguered by them. She was encouraged to find her own pace, to stay involved with school activities and with family. She was strongly advised to continue to walk in nature, to eat nourishing foods, and to follow her creative and developmental instincts. She was also encouraged to continue to interact with two or three other exceptionally gifted students in her program (cf. Table 20.3). Over time, she developed a strong relationship with an exceptionally gifted and integrated younger boy. She also connected with a couple of young women—even though their intellectual appetites and capacities could not meet Lael’s widening intellectual and emotional range and her compelling need to know. The first author provided Lael access to resources of many kinds: philosophical and psychological texts, higher level art experiences, poetry, and exploration of various spiritual traditions. The impetus for these explorations was driven solely by Lael. She absorbed information and experience at an amazing rate, all the while maintaining her almost perfect academic record in the Internal Baccalaureate program. She worked through ongoing terror and grief about her father and began to assert herself—for the first time—at home and in school settings. Her art experiences continued to provide a context to integrate all aspects of her developing being. At the urging of the first author she destroyed the dark woods

460

painting. She chose to use the salvaged strips of canvas from that painting to build a three-dimensional figure of a pregnant woman. Once the strips were incorporated in the life-sized sculpture, she entered a robust creative period where dream images, past memories, and current fantasies were crafted from various mediums and integrated into a stunning art piece. Lael was actively working through the relationship between her innate capacities (first factor), her environmental influences and experiences (second factor), and growing awareness and confidence in the third factor or personality ideal (Dabrowski, 1964, 1970, 1972). Further explanation of the intricacies and nature of the counseling intervention is well beyond the scope of this chapter and will be explored in a later text. An interesting synchronicity brings closure to this discussion. Midway through the first year Lael was pleased to provide a gift for her therapist. While exploring in a major city Lael entered a second-hand bookstore and found, among several other appealing books, what promised to be an interesting text. She bought it and presented it to the first author: Positive Disintegration by Kazimierz Dabrowski, the 1964 book that introduced Dabrowski to the West. Lael’s creative and developmental dynamisms were clearly at work in the world.

Case Study Number Two: Kieran The second case study describes an 8-year-old boy— Kieran—who attended school in a rural area in an undifferentiated school program, regular classroom. Kieran’s mother contacted the first author for help in determining the best response for Kieran’s complex and often conflict-filled behavior patterns. She felt strongly that school officials needed to understand his giftedness; she, too, needed guidance in understanding his complex emotional responses. At the time of the intervention, Kieran was placed in a Behaviorally Disordered program. Outbursts, violent encounters, and non-compliance in the classroom occurred daily. Teachers, counselors, and parents were at a loss as to how best meet his needs. They cautioned that he appeared to have no compassion for others and could be especially unpredictable, even dangerous. His psycho-educational report stated that he was quick to read social cues and excelled in higher-level problem

P.S. Jackson et al.

solving and comprehension. It was reported that his IQ was high and that he had a writing disability (“writtenoutput disorder”). He showed extreme difficulty in using a pencil and paper, and no patience with rote tasks. He demonstrated a gift for all aspects of mathematics and was reported to have a love of animals. It was known, as well, that he had experienced a number of challenges in his family and that his father lived in another country, estranged from his family.

Initial Impression and First Meeting: First Person Narrative He is a stout, dark-eyed, dark-haired young boy. His gaze is direct and unflinching. It is clear that he does no wish to be in the room with me. He looks like an “old hand” at interview protocol. I sense a complex intellect, extreme sensitivity, and a highly defended way of operating in the world. I ask him a little about his day, comment on his school, and soon we are engaged in a conversation. Eventually I ask him if he would be willing to do some drawings for me. I assure him that I have no artistic talent and no urge to judge his. After some time he agrees to draw images of his family. He has an unyielding pencil grip and appears to be very conscientious. It takes an extremely long time for him to create even one figure; I find myself in a state of deep relaxation and repose. He looks up and asks me what I am thinking. I tell him “not very much; I am simply relaxing.” I comment that he seems to be so focused that I appreciate his attention to the task and that I am in no hurry for him to complete the exercise. I affirm that he controls the pace. He returns to his task and then gently touches my arm: “Would this be easier for you?” he asks. I watch as he turns the paper 180 degrees for my viewing ease and continues to laboriously draw figures from an upside-down vantage point. I am deeply moved by his awareness of my perspective; in the recess of my mind I contrast this action with the label of “non-compassion” and a pattern of social deviance on the report from school officials. The crude but meticulous drawings reveal many things: his isolation from all-male figures, his closeness to his mother, and his deep ambivalence about family life. I make no comment on the family dynamic, but I sense that I may have established a degree of trust with him. He appears relaxed, interested, and certainly less

20

Emotional Life and Psychotherapy

defended. When asked to demonstrate some of his ability in Math, I encounter the deep willfulness and intellectual surety at the core of his being. I find this surety mildly amusing and deem the strong will an important therapeutic ally for future development. We agree on a second meeting date and shake hands to bring closure to our meeting.

Background and Developmental Profile Kieran’s history revealed a little boy rife with developmental potential who was exposed to extremely trying life circumstances. It is clear that he possessed all of the overexcitabilities, an autonomous nature, exceptional cognitive ability, and a special talent (Mathematics). In particular, he exhibited extremely heightened sensual awareness, complex, and nuanced awareness of the needs and feelings of others, a love of intellectual “play”, and a deep curiosity about how things work. Kieran’s mother stated that he has always had remarkable insight, acute intelligence, and an extremely sensitive nature. She described his experience in formal schooling as disastrous; a review of the file makes it clear there had been no accommodation for his “written-output disorder” and only modest adaptations for his high cognitive ability. Kieran’s frustration with academic life was extremely high and his penetrating capacity to discern deeper patterns in all phenomena had gone unnoticed and unrewarded. Kieran’s mother also provided information about his social profile. She reported that he had always played well with his cousins—also identified as gifted children—but was often in conflict with other young boys. She acknowledged that she and Kieran had always been close; she and Kieran’s father had divorced several years previously. Kieran occasionally saw his father, in summer vacation and for week long holidays. He apparently returned from those vacations extremely agitated and unable to settle back into his life.

Counseling Intervention Kieran’s behavior in a one-on-one interview with most adults was excellent. In a classroom setting, however, Kieran quickly became agitated, distracted,

461

and intractable. Kieran needed immediate intervention to deal with his learning and social needs. He needed an adapted curriculum to include higher-level mathematics and opportunities for in-depth study in areas of deep interest, an assessment to determine the extent and best response for his writing output challenges, and time with other gifted learners in academic and social settings. The first author additionally recommended that the behavioral team build in breaks throughout the day for one-on-one interaction, away from the classroom setting. A hot beverage and conversation with a caring adult, a walk in the treed and welcoming playground, or time on the swing were built into Kieran’s day. Kieran’s strong kinesthetic and sensual nature needed appropriate outlets; his impatience with the routine of classroom activities needed tempering. He was given control over when the breaks happened and quickly learned that he needed to use that responsibility wisely and appropriately. Emotigram cards were made for Kieran. His love of animals and deep emotional awareness was honored and given response. Each card was a specially chosen picture of animals, expressing a wide variety of subtle emotions and natural feelings: great anticipation, fierceness, sleepiness, and deep contentment—to name a few. Kieran chose all the pictures himself, the pictures were laminated and tags were place on them with the descriptors he wrote. He kept the cards in his desk and periodically reviewed them as a way of staying in touch with the feelings moving throughout his being. Kieran’s feelings were immensely nuanced and he often expressed them in inappropriate ways that negatively fed his psychomotor and sensual overexcitabilities. He needed to develop awareness of the multiple modes and kinds of feelings that inhered in his complex personal profile (cf. Table 20.3). The cards were used to communicate with the adults in his life as well, and Kieran became aware that his feelings were often hard for others less prepared to understand. He began to develop an ongoing awareness of his Self: his apprehension through intuition, imaginative play, strong instinct, and emotional complexity (cf. Table 20.3). In this way, he began to develop a verbal vocabulary and more appropriate ways of responding to his stratified inner world. Thus was enacted the recommendation that gifted children with high developmental potential learn to acknowledge, express, and reciprocate with others in situations holding disparate levels of emotional “charge”.

462

Kieran also needed family counseling aimed at helping him explore his feelings about his father, his stepfather, and his current family situation. Kieran’s explosiveness in social situations needed to be dealt with; he expressed great hurt and unmet longings related to his relationship with male adults. Kieran’s mother needed to learn that although Kieran could discuss complex human interaction with great insight and awareness, he could not always integrate those insights, his multifaceted feelings, and the immediate sensual and kinesthetic expressions that inhered. With awareness of the many needs and the depth of Kieran’s awareness and negative feelings, Kieran began to slowly integrate aspects of his developing Self.

Conclusions Dabrowski’s theory has pioneered understanding of the emotional life of the gifted; it provided a basis for research on multilevel emotional development. The concept of developmental potential includes the characteristics of intensity and sensitivity (overexcitability) as a fundamental part of the theory. In addition to the intellect these constructs provide validation of the gifted experience encompassing personal energy level, sensual aliveness, imagination, and emotional life. Dabrowski’s delineation of the processes of unilevel and mutlilevel disintegration offers understanding of the profoundly gifted in existential crises. The case studies of Lael and Kieran illustrate how important it is to consider mental health issues from an alternative diagnostic perspective. Aspects of Dabrowski’s theory were used to shed light on the developmental inner truth of these two exceptionally gifted young people. An integral psychotherapy approach was utilized to attend to their serious and complex presentations of distress. The counselor was mindful and responsive to all aspects of these developmentally advanced young people and established a healing partnership based on this mutlidimensional and dynamic awareness. Finally, the theory provides a template for counseling and psychotherapy of the gifted in critical periods of emotional and personal growth. The necessary characteristics of a therapist approaching work with the gifted, and connections between the theory and counseling have been outlined. Overexcitabilities

P.S. Jackson et al.

play a huge role in the dynamics of gifted development, consequently must be considered in the therapeutic relationship, and should not be viewed as symptoms of mental illness.

References Ackerman, C. (1997). Identifying gifted adolescents using personality characteristics: Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities. Roeper Review, 19, 229–236. Aron, E. N. (1997). The highly sensitive person. New York: Broadway Books. Azziz-Zadeh, L., Wislon, S. M., Rizzolatti, G., & Iacoboni, M. (2006). Congruent embodied representations for visually presented actions and linguistic phrases describing actions. Current Biology, 16, 1818–1823. Breard, N. S. (1994). Exploring a different way to identify African–American students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Bouchard, L. L. (2004). An instrument for the measure of Dabrowskian overexcitabilities to identify gifted elementary students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 339–350. Bouchet, N., & Falk, R. F. (2001). The relationship among giftedness, gender, and overexcitability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 260–267. Brennan, T. P., & Piechowski, M. M. (1991). A developmental framework for self-actualization: Evidence from case studies. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 31, 43–64. Clark, C. (2005). Personal communication, 12 February 2005. Cline, S., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Diverse populations of gifted children. Merrill/Prentice-Hall. Cohen, D., & MacKeith, S. A. (1991). The development of imagination: The private worlds of childhood. London: Routledge. Colangelo-Ogburn, M. K. (1979). Giftedness as multilevel potential: A clinical example. In N. Colangelo & R. T. Zaffrann (Eds.). New voices in counseling the gifted (pp. 165–187). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Corbin, H. (1972). Mundus Imaginalis or the imaginary and the imaginal. Spring, an Annual of Archetypal Psychology and Jungian Thought. 1–19. Cross, T. L. (1996). Examining claims about gifted children and suicide. Gifted Child Today, 19, 46–48. Cross, T. L., Cassady, J. C., & Miller, K. A. (2006). Suicide ideation and personality characteristics among gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 295–306. Dabrowski, K. (n.d.). Authentic education. An unpublished manuscript. Dabrowski, K. (1938). Typy wzmozonej pobudliwosci psychicznej. Biuletyn Instytutu Higieny Psychicznej, 1 (3–4), 3–26. Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston: Little, Brown. Dabrowski, K. (1970). Mental growth through positive disintegration. London: Gryf. Dabrowski, K. (1972). Psychoneurosis is not an illness: Neuroses and psychoneuroses from the perspective of positive disintegration. London: Gryf.

20

Emotional Life and Psychotherapy

Dabrowski, K., & Piechowski, M. M. (1977). Theory of levels of emotional development (2 Vols.). Oceanside, NY: Dabor. Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Putnam. Damasio, A. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain. Orlando, FL: Harcourt. Daniels, S. (2006 July 7). Understanding the dynamics of overexcitabilities in families. Paper presented at SENG (Supporting the Emotional Needs of the Gifted), Annual Conference. Irvine, CA, Davis, G. A. (2003). Identifying creative students, teaching for creative growth. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 311–324). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. De Quincey, C. (2002). Radical nature: Rediscovering the soul of matter. Montpelier, Vermont: Invisible Cities Press. Elkind, D. (1984). All grown up & no place to go: Teenagers in crisis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Emmons, R. A (2000). Spirituality and intelligence: Problems and prospects. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10(1), 57–64. Falk, R. F., Manzanero, J. B., & Miller, N. B. (1997). Developmental potential in Venezuelan and American artists: a cross-cultural validity study. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 201–206. Falk, R. F., Balderas, R. A., Chang, A., Guzel, B. Y., & Pardo, R. (2003 November 15). Cross-cultural assessment of overexcitabilities. Paper presented at the annual convention National Association for Gifted Children, Indianapolis, IN. Ferrucci, P. (1982). What we may be: Techniques for psychological and spiritual growth. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam. Frank, J. (2006). Portrait of an inspirational teacher of the gifted. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. Fugitt, E. D. (2001). He hit me back first! Development of the will in children for making choices. Torrance, CA: Jalmar Press. Gardner, H. (2000). A Case against spiritual intelligence. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10, 27–35. Gazzola, V., Aziz-Zadeh, L., & Keysers, C. (2006). Empathy and the somatotopic auditory mirror system in humans. Current Biology, 16, 1824–1829. Grant, B. (2002). Looking through the Glasses: J. D. Salinger’s wise children and gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 6–14. Gross, M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. New York: Routledge. Gross, M. (1998). The “me” behind the mask: Intellectually gifted students and the search for identity. Roeper Review, 20, 167–173. Hart, T. (2003). The secret spiritual world of children. Makawao, Maui, HI: Inner Ocean. Hawkins, J. (1998). Giftedness and psychological type. Journal for Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 57–67. Hoffman, E. (1992). Visions of innocence. Spiritual and inspirational experiences of childhood. Boston: Shambhala. Hollingworth, L. S. (1942/1977). Children above 180 IQ. New York: Octagon Books. Izard, C. E. (1971). The face of emotion. New York: AppleCentury-Croft.

463 Jackson, P. S. (1998). Bright star—black sky: A phenomenological study of depression as a window into the psyche of the gifted adolescent. Roeper Review, 20, 215–221. Jackson, P. S., & Peterson, J. (2003). Depressive disorder in highly gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 175–189. James, W. (1902/1936). The varieties of religious experience. New York: Modern Library. Lewis, B. (1992). Kids with courage. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit. Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books Lovecky, D. V. (1990). Warts and rainbows: Issues in the psychotherapy of the gifted. Advanced Development, 2, 65–83 Lovecky, D. V. (1992). Exploring social and emotional aspects of giftedness in children. Roeper Review, 15, 18–25. Lovecky, D. V. (1993). The quest for meaning: Counseling issues with gifted children and adolescents. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.). Counseling the gifted and talented, (pp. 29–50). Denver: Love. Lovecky, D. V. (1998). Spiritual sensitivity in gifted children. Roper Review, 20, 178–183. Lubinski, D. (2003). Exceptional spatial abilities. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 521–532). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Lynne, S. J., & Rhue, J. W. (1988). Fantasy proneness: Hypnosis, developmental antecedents, and psychopathology. American Psychologist, 43, 35–44. Lysy, K. Z., & Piechowski, M. M. (1983). Personal growth: An empirical study using Jungian and Dabrowskian measures. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 108, 267–320. Mayer, J. D., Perkins, D. M., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2001). Emotional intelligence and giftedness. Roeper Review, 23, 131–137. Meckstroth, E. A. (2006). Personal communication, 3 August 2006. Mendaglio, S., & Tillier, W. (2006). Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration and giftedness: Overexcitability research findings. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 30, 68–87. Meyers, I. B., & Meyers, P. B. (1995). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black. Miller, N. B. (1985). A content analysis coding system for assessing adult emotional development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, Denver, CO. Miller, N. B., & Siverman, L. K. (1987). Levels of personality development. Roeper Review, 9, 221–225. Moyle, V. F. (2005). Authentic character development: Beyond nature and nurture. In N. L. Hafenstein and B. Kutrumbo (Eds.) Perspectives in Gifted Education: Complexities of emotional development, spirituality and hope (pp. 33–59). Denver: Institute for the Development of Gifted Education, Ricks Center for Gifted Children, University of Denver. Mr´oz, A. (2002). Rozw´oj osoby wedlug teorii dezyntegracji pozytywnej Kazimierza Dabrowskiego (Individual development according to Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Catholic University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland.

464 Murdock, M. (1988). Spinning inward: Using guided imagery with children for learning, creativity & relaxation. Boston: Shambhala. Nelson, K. C. (1989). Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration. Advanced Development, 1, 1–14. Newberg, A. B., & Newberg, S. K. (2006). A neurospychological perspective on spiritual development. In E. C. Roehlkepartain, P. E. King, L. Wagener, & P. L. Benson (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of spiritual development in children and adolescents (pp. 183–196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Payne, C. (1987). A psychobiographical study of the emotional development of a controversial protest leader. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Peterson, J. S. (1995). Talk with teens about feelings, family, relationships, and the future. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit. Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006). Bullying among the gifted: The subjective experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 252–269. Piechowski, M. M. (1975). A theoretical and empirical approach to the study of development. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 92, 231–297. Piechowski, M. M. (1978). Self-actualization as a developmental structure: The profile of Antoine de Saint-Exup´ery. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 97, 181–242. Piechowski, M. M. (1979). Developmental potential. In N. Colangelo & R. T. Zaffrann (Eds.), New voices in counseling the gifted (pp. 25–57). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Piechowski, M. M. (1989). Developmental potential and the growth of the self. In J. VanTassel-Baska & P. OlszewskiKubilius (Eds.). Patterns of influence on gifted learners: The home, the school, and the self (pp. 87–101). New York: Teachers College Press. Piechowski, M. M. (1991). Emotional development and emotional giftedness. In. N. Colangelo & G. Davis, (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 285–306). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Piechowski, M. M. (1992). Giftedness for all seasons: Inner peace in time of war. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson. (Eds.). Talent development. Proceedings of the Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development. Unionville, NY: Trillium Press. Piechowski, M. M. (1997a). Emotional giftedness: The measure of intrapersonal intelligence. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), The handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Piechowski, M. M. (1997b). Emotional giftedness: An expanded view. Apex, A New Zealand Journal of Gifted Education, 10, 37–47. Piechowski, M. M. (1999). Overexcitabilities. In M. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Creativity. New York: Academic Press. Piechowski, M. M. (2001). Childhood spirituality. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 33, 1–15. Piechowski, M. M. (2003). From William James to Maslow and Dabrowski: Excitability of character and self-actualization. In D. Ambrose, L. Cohen, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Creative intelligence: Toward a theoretic integration, (pp. 283–322). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Piechowski, M. M. (2006). “Mellow out,” they say. If I only could: Intensities and sensitivities of the young and bright. Madison, WI: Yunasa Books.

P.S. Jackson et al. Piechowski, M. M., & Colangelo, N. (1984). Developmental potential of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 80–88. Piechowski, M. M., & Miller, N. B. (1995). Assessing developmental potential in gifted children: A comparison of methods. Roeper Review, 17, 176–180. Piirto, J. (2002). “My teeming brain”: Understanding creative writers. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Piirto, J. (2004). Understanding creativity. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Roeper, A. (1982). How gifted cope with their emotions. Roeper Review, 5, 21–24. Roeper, A. (2007). Global awareness and gifted children. Roeper Review, 30, 8–10. Robinson, E. (1977). The Original vision: A study of the religious experience of childhood. Oxford, UK: The Religious Experience Research Unit. (Reprinted 1983. New York: Seabury Press). Roehlkepartain, E. C., King, P. E., Wagener, L., & Benson, P. L. (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of spiritual development in children and adolescents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schultz, R. A., & Delisle, J. R. (2006a). Smart talk: What kids say about growing up gifted. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit. Schultz, R. A., & Delisle, J. R. (2006b). More than a test score: Teens talk about being gifted, talented, or otherwise extraordinary. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit. Sch¨utz-Bosbach, S., Mancini, B., Aglioti, S. M., & Haggard, P. (2006). Self and other in the human motor system. Current Biology, 16, 1830–1834. Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman Silverman, L. K. (Ed.). (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver: Love. Silverman, L. K. (1994). The moral sensitivity of gifted children and the evolution of society. Roeper Review, 17, 110–116. Silverman, L. K. (2002). Upside-down brilliance: The visualspatial learner. Denver, CO: DeLeon Publishing. Singer, J. L. (1975). The inner world of daydreaming. New York: Harper & Row. Singer D. G., & Singer, J. L. (1990). The house of make-believe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Taylor, M. (1999). Imaginary companions and the children who create them. New York: Oxford University Press. Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences (“Absorption”), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83, 268–277. Terman, L. M. (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Tieso, C. L. (2007). Patterns of overexcitability in identified gifted students and their parents: a hierarchical model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 11–22. Tolan, S. S. (1994). Psychomotor overexcitability in the gifted: An expanded perspective. Advanced Development, 6, 77–86. Turk, V. (2007 January 15). How do mirror neurons work? Softpedia News. Retrieved from: http://news.softpedia.com/ news/How-Do-Mirror-Neurons-Work-39171.shtml. Waldman, J. (2001). Teens with the courage to give. Berkeley, CA: Conari Press.

20

Emotional Life and Psychotherapy

Watkins, M. (1990). Invisible guests: The development of imaginal dialogues. Boston: Sigo Press. Wilson, S. C., & Barber, T. X. (1983). The fantasy-prone personality: Implications for understanding imagery, hypnosis, and parapsychological phenomena. In A. A. Sheikh (Ed.). Imagery: Current theory, research, and applications, (pp. 340–387). New York: Wiley.

465 Yeudall, L. (n.d.). Introduction, in K. Dabrowski, Authentic Education. Yoo, J. E., & Moon, S. M. (2006). Counseling needs of gifted students: An analysis of intake forms at a universitybased counseling center. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 52–61.

Chapter 21

On Individual Differences in Giftedness Andrzej Sekowski, Malgorzata Siekanska and Waldemar Klinkosz

Abstract Psychologists have long attached great importance to the issue of individual differences, investigating, among others, abilities, intelligence, creativity, temperament, and personality. The present chapter is devoted to individual differences primarily as manifested in the effectiveness of performed actions, i.e., related to intelligence and abilities. The first part shows the positioning of the issue of giftedness in the psychology of individual differences. The second part is devoted to methodological issues and discusses the leading theories and research methods. The third part concerns the levels of individual differences, from the physiological mechanisms of the phenomenon (e.g., the use of mismatch negativity in the study of interindividual differences regarding intelligence) to manifestations of individual differences in particular fields of human activity (e.g., styles of learning or temperament). The fourth part presents an analysis of the social consequences of individual differences (i.e., identification, selection, and education). The concluding section presents trends in the development of research on individual differences in giftedness. Keywords Cognitive processes · Intelligence · Creativity · Temperament · Individual differences and education One of the most important ways in which psychology differs from the natural sciences arises from the existence of individual differences. Two liters of hydrogen that are treated identically respond identically, but any two human beings, even identical twins, may respond quite differently to the same stimulus. This is because people differ

A. Sekowski (B) John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland e-mail: [email protected]

from one another not only in appearance (that is, physically) but also in their behavior (that is, psychologically). Hampson, S. E., Colman, A. M. (2000)

Positioning the Issue of Giftedness in the Psychology of Individual Differences Domain The issue of giftedness has often been an object of interest of specialists in the psychology of individual differences domain. This is visible in both the history of the discipline and its current state. The interest is already clear in the works of Francis Galton (1822– 1911), who in his Hereditary Genius (1892) tracked the lives of 977 gifted people from 300 families over several generations. Individual differences in giftedness constitute an inspiration for other outstanding past and present psychologists who take up the problem and for the field of study of the human mind in general. The various conceptions of giftedness point to the bi-directionality of the relationship between giftedness and the psychology of individual differences (Sternberg & Davidson, 2005). On one hand, giftedness is an important inspiration for studies in the area of psychology of individual differences in terms of intelligence, abilities, creativity, and other psychological dimensions. On the other hand, the area of psychology of individual differences is a source of knowledge and inspiration for researchers of giftedness. The relationship between individual differences and giftedness concerns different aspects of psychology. In the present chapter, at first, attention is drawn to common dependencies concerning theory, research methods, levels of individual differences, the physiological

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 21, 

467

468

mechanisms of the phenomenon of individual differences, cognitive processes, cognitive differences at the level of traits, and types of intelligence, creativity, and temperament. Next, theoretical and practical consequences of the relationship between giftedness and individual differences are presented in terms of identification, selection, and education.

A. Sekowski et al.

and the person-oriented approach (Magnusson & T¨orestad, 1993; Magnusson, 2003b). These approaches are not considered contradictory, but rather complementary. Thus, the discussion is not concerned with solving the question of which approach is better, but it is important to be aware of the differences between the two conceptions, the consequences they have for the choice of data and the statistics, and also their implications and ramifications. In the variable-oriented approach, the main object of Theories and Research Methods interest is the linear or non-linear correlation between variables, for example, between intelligence or creativThe study of individual differences concentrates on ity and giftedness. Within this approach, problems are those aspects of human psychology that determine the formulated by means of variable terms and the obtained uniqueness and individuality of a human being. Al- results refer to a group. The person-oriented approach is based on the holisthough individual differences occur across the range of tic view, according to which at each level of the organbehaviors and psychological characteristics, the psychology of individual differences takes as its subject ism an individual functions in an integrated manner and only those among them which are characterized by complies with the pattern of operating factors (Magrelative stability: intelligence, abilities, and personal- nusson & T¨orestad, 1993; Magnusson, 2003a). Within ity, including temperament, creativity, and an individ- this approach, empirical study of individual differences ual’s styles of functioning—mainly cognitive styles involves three stages: specification of the level of analysis (e.g., at the brain level, the cognitive processes and those of coping with stress (Strelau, 2002). In contemporary research on individual differences, level, and the behavioral level), indication of the possiapproaches can be distinguished that go beyond the ble factors acting at the specified level of analysis, and, basic categories used for the description of individual finally, application of statistical methods (cluster analdifferences like trait or type. They concentrate on ysis) and grouping individuals into specific categories. biological–cognitive (Baldeweg, Richardson, Watkins, In an approach like this, problems are defined for indiFoale, & Gruzelier, 1999; N¨aa¨ t¨anen, 2003; Stel- viduals and the formulated generalizations refer to inmack, 2003; Winkler et al., 1999), neuropsychological dividual persons. Although most traditional empirical studies use sta(Henderson & Ebner, 1997; O’Boyle & Gill, 1998; tistical models within the framework of the variableNilsson, 2003), or genetic (Thompson & Plomin, 1993, oriented approach (Harr´e, 2000; Magnusson, 2003b), 2000; Plomin, 1997) aspects instead. Development of from the point of view of the psychology of individnew directions in the research area of individual differual differences and the psychology of giftedness, the ences is possible due to the refinement of the existing and the introduction of new methods of diagnosis. One person-oriented approach seems particularly interestexample is the use of the methods of behavior genetics ing, especially in the case of studies focusing on the to look for the factors that condition relatively stable search for predictors and conditions of giftedness. individual differences in general cognitive abilities (Plomin & Spinath, 2002) or the use of mismatch negativity (MMN) in studies of phonological abilities Levels of Individual Differences (Baldeweg et al., 1999). No matter what aspects of individual differences researchers concentrate on and at what levels they The elementary categories used for the description of analyze them (the physiological mechanisms, the individual differences are type, trait, dimension, faccognitive processes, traits, styles, or spheres of tor – as a specific understanding of trait – and style functioning), it is worth paying attention to method- (Strelau, 2002). The basic tools for the study of these ological questions and the debate concerning the categories are psychological tests. Awareness of the distinction between the variable-oriented approach complexity of human nature and the dynamics of the

21

On Individual Differences in Giftedness

developmental process induces researchers to look for and construct more and more precise research tools and to analyze and compare data coming from subsystems of different degrees of generality (e.g., Vernon, 1990; Eysenck & Barrett, 1993; Thompson & Plomin, 1993, 2000; Winkler et al., 1999; Burn & Nettelbeck, 2003; Stelmack, 2003; Amelang & Bartussek, 1994).

Physiological Mechanisms of Individual Differences A search for the mechanism explaining human behavior cannot ignore the fact that the latter is a product of both psychological traits and physiological properties of the human organism. Contemporary theories of individual differences often make reference to the physiological mechanisms underlying traits (N¨aa¨ t¨anen, Jacobsen, & Winkler, 2005; N¨aa¨ t¨anen, 2003; Stelmack, 2003; Gomes et al., 2000). In the last 10 to 15 years, the number of studies concerning the physiological mechanisms of individual differences has grown considerably. This is connected, among others, with the appearance of new possibilities of measurement and new research methods (Strelau, 2002; Eysenck, 2004). One of the newest methods is the analysis of mismatch negativity (MMN). MMN arises as a negative wave after deducting the shape of an ERP1 (eventrelated potentials) as a reaction to standard stimuli from the shape of an ERP wave appearing as a reaction to deviant stimuli. A clearly marked MMN testifies to discrimination between deviant and standard sounds. This phenomenon is, to a large degree, independent of attention, cognitive strategy, or the level of difficulty of the task (Stelmack, 2003). This electrophysiological mechanism is a source of data which seems immensely interesting as far as understanding and explication of general principles and individual differences in information processing are concerned. Analysis of mismatch negativity, which constitutes an automatic neurophysiological reaction to every perceptible change of sound, is used, among others, in study-

469

ing the mechanisms of perception of speech sounds by the human brain (N¨aa¨ t¨anen, 2003). This method has also been used in studies of phonological abilities (Baldeweg et al., 1999) and in research concerning discrimination of speech sounds by newborn babies (Cheour-Luhtanem et al., 1995). Relations between weakened mismatch negativity and the risk of developing dyslexia have also been studied (Lepp¨anen & Lyytinen, 1997). From the point of view of the psychology of giftedness, especially interesting are studies of mechanisms of (native and foreign) language learning as well as development of memory traces (Cheour et al., 1998; Winkler et al., 1999) and the role of attention (N¨aa¨ t¨anen, Schr¨oger, Karakas, Tervaniemi, & Paavilainen, 1993). Mismatch negativity (MMN) is also used in the study of individual differences in intelligence (Stelmack, 2003). The method of event-related potentials, which is considered a reliable index of sensory differentiation (Baldeweg et al., 1999; Cheour-Luhtanem et al., 1995; Gomes et al., 2000; N¨aa¨ t¨anen et al., 1993) and the indexes used in it have been employed to explain the relationship between intellectual abilities and the speed of information processing in elementary cognitive tasks (Stelmack, 2003). Results of tests conducted by Stelmack (2003) show that, compared to persons with lower intellectual abilities,2 individuals of higher intellectual abilities scored higher and processed information faster in a task consisting of differentiating the frequency of sounds. In the researcher’s opinion, the results of his experiment prove the existence of a relation between intellectual abilities measured in psychometric tests and faster processing of information in simple sensory, motor, memory, or decision tasks (Vernon, 1990). The relationship between the speed of neurophysiological processes and intelligence has also been studied by Nicholas Burns, Ted Nettelbeck, and Christopher Cooper from Adelaide University. The results obtained by them have revealed the existence of a relationship between the latency times registered in the parietal and the occipital lobes and liquid and crystallized intelligence (Burns, Nettelbeck, & Cooper, 2000; Strelau, 2002). According to the mentioned authors, the studies presented in the literature so far are, for the majority, coherent and

1

Auditory ERPs are a record of the bioelectric activity of the brain and appear as a response to acoustic stimuli, information about which is sent through the auditory channel to cortical centers.

2 Intellectual abilities were measured with the Multiple Aptitude Battery, MAB (Jackson, 1984).

470

confirm the view that the speed of neurophysiological processes is one of the components determining intelligence. Still unanswered, however, remains the question whether the speed of information processing is common to all cognitive abilities (Burns & Nettelbeck, 2003). The question of the degree to which individual differences in cognitive functioning are conditioned by childhood experiences is another challenge for future researchers (Nilsson, 2003). Nilsson (2003) believes that creating a coherent picture of individual differences in memory functions is only possible when interdisciplinary studies comprising, among others, of brain imaging and behavior genetics are conducted (Eysenck & Barrett, 1993; Thompson & Plomin, 1993). Studies of the relationship between genetic markers and intelligence conducted by Plomin (1997) show that inheritance of intelligence is connected with numerous genes of varying influence rather than a few genes of substantial influence. The author has put forward a hypothesis that environmental factors play an essential role in specifying which genetic markers are significant for the functioning of memory. At the same time, he states that a real challenge for researchers would be the specification of which genes are connected with which individual elements of memory functioning and which of the environmental factors play an important role in this relation (Thompson & Plomin, 2000).

Cognitive Processes and the Phenomenon of Individual Differences Until the mid-1970s, the study of intelligence had been dominated by so-called factor conceptions. With time, more and more popularity was gained by approaches focusing on cognitive processes which used the concept of information processing. Mainstream contemporary cognitive psychology is concerned with the characteristics of human information processing. It covers two aspects thereof: the general mechanisms and individual differences. In accordance with this view, then, the psychology of individual differences would deal with the characteristics of information processing in gifted persons (Necka, 1994a, 1994b).

A. Sekowski et al.

The cognitive approach either completely gives up the notion of trait—substituting it with the notion of information processing—or defines trait as a specific (i.e., characteristic for a given individual) manner of processing information (Necka, 1992b, 1994a, 1994b). The term information refers to the message content. Processing, on the other hand, consists of a series of operations, i.e., actions transposing input information into output information (Ledzinska, 1996). Most research on giftedness concerns general cognitive abilities, and the basic question is whether the differences between gifted individuals and not identified as gifted are quantitative or qualitative? Some researchers put particular emphasis on the basic properties and capabilities of the psyche and the nervous system (see Geake, this volume), in particular, the speed of information processing, the reliability of the process of neuronal transmissions, the capacity of working memory, the speed of access to the longterm memory store, or attention capacity. Others, on the other hand, claim that individual differences showing up in tasks determining human intelligence depend primarily on the choice of an appropriate strategy of information processing or the facility of changing the strategy depending on the situation (Necka, 1994b). The most characteristic traits of cognitively gifted persons concern their memory and the speed of learning (Necka, 2003). Studies of memory strategies have shown that people with a higher intelligence quotient (IQ=142.31) differ from people with a lower intelligence quotient (IQ=112.44) with respect to strategic stability, i.e., gifted people are characterized by lower strategic variability (Coyle & Read, 1998). According to Robert Sternberg (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986a, 1986b), who supports the approach which emphasizes the role of strategy in information processing, intelligence has a processal rather than a factorial character, and cognitive correlates of factor g do not exist. Sternberg also believes that intellectual differences depend on the configuration of the component parts of the process and not on the strength of the system that performs the process. A negative correlation of intelligence with reaction time is not explained by the speed of information processing but in terms of the phenomenon of automation. This means that intelligent people automate cognitive processes faster, thanks to which they perform many actions fluently, quickly, without effort, and without the need to consciously control them (Necka, 2003).

21

On Individual Differences in Giftedness

Researchers trying to settle the argument concerning the conception of intelligence which makes reference to cognitive processes suggest taking into account the so-called levels of information processing, for example, at the nervous system level, the level of the formal properties of information processing, the level of strategies, and the level of the ability to assess (Necka, 1992b). This way, the notion of intelligence would have a meaning at each of the distinguished levels. At the nervous system level, intelligence would be defined as having the nervous system in working order. At the level of formal properties of information processing, intelligence would be identified with specific parameters of working memory, manners of attention functioning (capacity, selectivity, divisibility), and so-called mind mobility (Necka, 1992b, p.107). At the level of strategies of information processing, intelligence would be understood as the ability to choose appropriate components of a mental process and to put them in an order and hierarchy which fulfills the requirements of the task (Necka, 1992b, p. 109). Finally, at the highest level, connected with the ability to make assessments, intelligence would be characterized in terms of axiological criteria, including both the assessment of the importance of the undertaken problem and the evaluation of whether it is worth undertaking at all. This last level seems relatively poorly recognized and gives rise to the largest number of controversies. Intelligence defined in this way would correspond to the concept of wisdom understood as the ability to make the right decisions in difficult and vital situations. Contemporary psychological research devoted to the role of individual differences in cognitive functioning points to the necessity of describing the role of cognitive abilities and styles in the language of the information processing theory (Nosal & Piskorz, 1992). Nosal (1990) discusses abilities from the point of view of the areas of cognitive functioning of an individual and identifies them with cognitive predispositions. Studies of relationships between an individual’s intelligence and the strength of the personal experience of information stress take into account the role of the cognitive factor as one of the determinants of the power of info-stress (Ledzinska, 2005). The results point to the role of cognitive intelligence in the intensification of the subjective experience of stress.

471

Individual Differences at the Level of Traits and Types Compared to the approach focusing on the physiological mechanisms or cognitive processes, the level of traits and types is more general. The area of research concerning giftedness covers, above all, such issues as intelligence, creativity, temperament, interests, or cognitive styles. According to Renzulli (2002), the population of gifted persons is greatly diversified, and so no single universal image of the gifted child can be created. The same is true of identification. Researchers use diverse and often complex criteria of giftedness; intelligence, and creativity, besides achievements, behavior-related criteria, and nominations, being among the most frequently used ones (Hoffman, 1995; Ziegler & Raul, 2000).

Intelligence The first psychological theories of intelligence arose in answer to the question of the character and sources of individual differences in the level of mental task performance (Necka, 2003). Intelligence researchers are far from being unanimous in understanding this concept. Taking into account the existence of interindividual variability and intraindividual stability of human intellectual abilities, psychologists have drawn a conclusion that there exists a hidden trait, called intelligence, which is responsible for it. However, defining the concept of intelligence as a trait turns out to be a difficult task (Strelau, 2002). General intelligence is often identified with general abilities, or factor g proposed by Spearman. It can be assumed after Strelau (1997) that “intelligence is a theoretical construct referring to the relatively stable internal conditions of a human being which determine the effectiveness of performing tasks or solving problems requiring typically human cognitive processes. Those conditions are shaped as a result of an individual-specific interaction between the genotype and the environment” (p. 19). Intelligence understood as a constant human property is characterized by so-called relative stability. This means that it undergoes very slow changes, which are imperceptible in everyday contacts with other people.

472

Intelligence research follows two major directions: the cognitive approach (already mentioned in the previous section) and the psychometric trend (Strelau, 2002; Necka, 2003). The two approaches complement each other and contribute to a better understanding of the essence of intelligence. Studies within the framework of the cognitive approach focus on the regularities and mental processes determining intelligent behavior and problem solving. Within the psychometric approach, on the other hand, researchers concentrate on individual differences, and intelligence, as already mentioned, is ascribed the status of a trait. In this approach, attention is primarily paid to the measurement of intelligence, the underlying cognitive and biological mechanisms, and the adaptive functions of intelligence in everyday life (Strelau, 2002). Let us, then, take a look at those three aspects.

Measurement of Intelligence Intelligence researchers emphasize the necessity of taking into account individual differences as early as at the stage of diagnosis. Traditional tests of intelligence are criticized for a variety of reasons (Naglieri, 2001), among others, because they concentrate on what the child already knows instead of examining what and how readily he or she is able to learn. They do not take into consideration the influences of individual differences manifested in specific personality traits or learning styles on the test nor the manner in which instructions from the test administration manual are carried out. Bolig & Day (1993) propose Dynamic Assessment as an alternative to traditional tests of intelligence. This method allows a researcher to determine what the child has already learnt (i.e., pretest performance), how readily he or she learns (i.e., the number of hints needed, the number of explanations required, or the amount learned from an instructional session), and to what extent he or she is able to use the new knowledge and the acquired skills (Bolig & Day, 1993; Day & Cordon, 1993; Lidz & Elliott, 2006). Studies conducted by Furnham, Forde, and Cotter (1998) seem to confirm the accuracy of the approach according to which individual differences in personality or cognitive styles should be taken into consideration in diagnosing intelligence. The experiments have revealed, among others, that factors such

A. Sekowski et al.

as extraversion/introversion and stability/neuroticism together with the dimension described as personality test-taking style account for over 30% of score variance in a test measuring general intelligence (the Wonderlic test).

The Biological and Cognitive Mechanisms at the Basis of Intelligence The last 10 or 15 years have witnessed a very dynamic development of research on the biological mechanisms of intelligence, which is, among others, a result of growing possibilities in neuropsychological diagnosis and the related tendency to examine individual differences at a more specific level than the level of traits or types (N¨aa¨ t¨anen et al., 2005; N¨aa¨ t¨anen, 2003; Stelmack, 2003; Gomes et al., 2000; Strelau, 2002). Interesting examples are studies conducted by Jauˇsovec (2000) and Jauˇsovec and Jauˇsovec (2004) which have demonstrated that intelligence and creativity are two different abilities, and differences between them can be registered already at the level of neurological activity (Jauˇsovec, 2000). Further experiments concerned registering of changes in the activity of the brain during the solving of figural working memory tasks and figural learning tasks by persons of varied levels of intelligence (Jauˇsovec and Jauˇsovec, 2004). When we speak of typically human cognitive aspects, what we have in mind is reasoning, inference, abstract thinking, self-control, planning, and drawing on previous experiences. These mechanisms are activated depending on the performed task. People differ from one another with respect to the efficiency of thinking, reasoning, and problem solving, as well as the accuracy of decision taking and foreseeing events (Necka, 2003).

Adaptive Functions of Intelligence in Everyday Life A basic question that arises when we consider the role of intelligence in everyday life is the question of its relation with school-based learning, the professional career, and life achievements (Trost, 1993). Can a score on a test of intelligence be a good predictor of effectiveness? Opinions on this matter are divided. Support-

21

On Individual Differences in Giftedness

ers (Strelau, 2002) believe that performing actions in everyday life and in work is cognitively complex. In the course of a lifetime, different situations demand abstracting, solving problems, drawing inferences, or passing judgments on the basis of ambiguous information. Functioning in society requires the employment of complicated cognitive processes. It seems, then, that no factor affects our life chances as much as factor g. The opponents of recognizing IQ as a significant predictor of success in everyday life (Sternberg, 1997a, 1997b, 1997c) point to the role of abilities beyond general intelligence; hence, probably, the popularity of notions such as social intelligence, emotional intelligence, practical intelligence, or success intelligence (see Bar-On et al., this volume; Heng et al., this volume).

Creativity The issue of creativity has always been part of the psychology of individual differences; it is, however, such a broad field that it could function as a separate branch of science. The problem of creativity can be analyzed not only at the individual level but also at the social or global level. At the individual level, creativity is understood as “the ability to generate one or more major ideas that are novel and of high quality” (Sternberg, 2000). Put differently, it is a human predisposition toward creative thinking and thus achieving creative products or effects. Creative abilities are a manifestation of the exceptionality of the human being, which consists in a free use of the possibilities and resources of their own mind and which is accompanied by a sense of responsibility for “making proper use of the extraordinary gift” (Gardner, 1998, p. 225). The terms creativity or creative abilities are used for a trait characterizing a person. A qualification like this is important since creativity can be attributed not only to persons but also to products, the processes of making the products, and the environment (Clark, 1997; Necka, 2001; Nettle, 2001). In creativity, as is the case with many other traits, there are individual differences. The basic problem connected with creativity is the question whether creativity is an elitist or an egalitarian trait (M¨onks, 1995; Necka, 2001; Sternberg, 2006). According to the former view,

473

creativity is an attribute of outstanding minds. It is identified with giftedness (Tannenbaum, 1986). Supporters of the egalitarian view believe that every human being is creative, but not to an equal extent (Guilford, 1978; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2000, Necka, 2001). Creativity within this approach is construed as a trait, similarly to intelligence, extroversion, or one’s level of anxiety. It has a continuous character, that is, it can occur in degrees of intensity, from minimal to very high intensity, which for example, characterizes authors of works of genius. Arguments supporting such understanding of creativity are galore, and they vary in nature from humanist, to developmental, to pedagogical (Necka, 2001). From the perspective of the psychology of individual differences, particularly interesting seem arguments coming from studies conducted within the framework of cognitive psychology and cognitivism. They speak for unity of cognitive processes and so a lack of a qualitative difference between creative cognition and everyday cognition. The difference would concern the goal to which cognitive processes are subordinated or the specific course of those processes (Necka, 1992a, 2001). The above distinction between creativity as an elitist vs. an egalitarian trait corresponds to two major approaches in creativity studies, i.e., the nomothetic approach (as represented by Simonton) and the idiographic approach (as represented by Gruber) (M¨onks, 1995). Gardner, in his turn, takes the stand that is a combination of a universal and an individual approach (Gardner, 1998; M¨onks, 1995). In his opinion, creative achievements are, on the one hand, connected with a given individual and a given field, but, on the other hand, formulation of certain generalizations is possible on the basis of observed regularities. Another question that comes to mind in the context of deliberations on creativity as an individual predisposition is whether creativity is instrumental or motivational. The former would mean that creativity is an ability or a set of abilities. The latter would imply a rather certain style of functioning connected with personality-conditioned preferences (Matczak, Jaworowska, & Stanczak, 2000; Piirto, 2004). Creativity is often associated with abilities. The term creativity is used interchangeably with the concept of creative abilities, and creativity is considered one of the elements of the structure of giftedness (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986a, 1986b). Indubitably,

474

creative problem solving—innovative and effective— requires the possession of certain particular special abilities which determine the effectiveness of functioning within a given field, e.g., literature, music, the fine arts (Matczak et al., 2000). A question arises, however, if there are any special abilities which are essentially independent of a field. It seems that a good example is the ability of divergent thinking—fluency, flexibility, and originality (Guilford, 1978; Runco, 1993). Research conducted by Hunsacker (1994) has revealed that teachers believe divergent thinking is one of the basic characteristics of able students. Apart from divergent thinking, certain nondivergent abilities are also listed among creative abilities. These include the ability to notice problems and the ability to re-define, i.e., to give new meanings to things (Guilford, 1978; Runco, 1993). According to the second view, predisposition to creativity is connected with a preference for a specific style of functioning. This style influences the way one deals with problem solving or task performance and is conditioned by personality. In other words, the creative predisposition would be a system of certain personality traits, such as high self-esteem, strong ego, small intensity of defensive attitudes, non-conformity, or inner containment (Matczak et al., 2000; Simonton, 2004). Within the area of interest of the researchers who treat creativity primarily as a preference are also problems concerning relationships between creativity and cognitive styles (Sternberg & Lubart, 1992; Matczak et al., 2000). The conducted studies show that the assumption of a simple relationship is unfounded in this case (Martinsen, 1997). Most convincing seems the hypothesis that creativity is benefited by cognitive flexibility, which is defined as an ability and tendency to use different styles in different stages of the problemsolving process (Necka, 2001). On the other hand, there is no doubt as to the positive relationship between creativity and cognitive openness, i.e., readiness to accept and assimilate that which is not in keeping with the previous experiences, expectations, or convictions (Matczak et al., 2000; Weisberg, 2006). As was noted in the introduction, individual differences occur in all kinds of behavior and psychological characteristics, but the psychology of individual differences deals with those among them which are relatively stable. So, analyzing the problem of creativity within the psychology of individual differences, we concentrate not only on the aspect of interindividual

A. Sekowski et al.

differences but also on the question of intraindividual stability. Creativity researchers emphasize that creative achievements of an adult often have their source in childhood, when interests crystallize and develop (Gardner, 1982, 1998; Zuk, 1986). For activity in a given field to give results in the form of creative achievements, it can take at least 10 years of persistent work and experience (M¨onks, 1995; Sternberg & Lubart, 1993).

Temperament The concept of temperament—as most terms used in psychology—is not unambiguous. Independent of the differences in the understanding of the term, one can distinguish a series of characteristics common for this psychological construct, which are included in the definition proposed by Strelau (2002). According to this definition, “temperament refers to relatively stable personality traits occurring in a human being from early childhood. Initially determined by inborn neurobiochemical mechanisms, temperament undergoes slow changes caused by the process of maturation and individually-specific interaction between the genotype and the environment” (p. 203). When analyzing the development of the conception of ability, it is worth paying attention to how the meaning of different concepts has been changing. At the end of the 19th century, it was believed that the decisive elements were sensitivity of the senses and the energy at one’s disposal. Galton and J. McKean Cattell studied sensory sensitivity. According to them—in contemporary parlance—greater sensitivity means a higher level of mental abilities. Nowadays, one rather talks about energetic parameters or sensory sensitivity in reference to temperament, but it seems that the problem is still open to interpretation. Psychologists dealing with temperament suggest that sensory sensitivity, as an element of the information processing system, is a property on the border between abilities and temperament (Strelau, 1992; 1998). Strelau (1992, p. 84) carried out an analysis of the relationship between temperament and abilities. On this basis, he formulated the following conclusions, which, at the present stage, have the status of hypotheses:

21

On Individual Differences in Giftedness

– Children with high intellectual abilities are active, persistent, and energetic. – Temperament mobility correlates with openness to experiences. – Certain traits of temperament or their configurations (e.g., difficult vs. easy temperament) can serve as predictors of the development of the level of intelligence in preschool children; traits of temperament influence the type of interaction between the child and his or her social environment, and this interaction is significant for the development of abilities; traits of temperament, e.g., emotional reactivity or mobility of neural processes, correlate with school achievement. In comparison to intelligence, creativity, or cognitive styles, the issue of temperament belongs to those problems within the psychology of individual differences which are relatively rarely studied by giftedness researchers. Analyzing the significance of temperament studies in the context of supporting, nurturing, and educating able children and adolescents, Geiger (1995) pointed to the necessity of considering individual differences in temperament. According to the author, this is essential for providing optimal support and preventing problems frequently experienced by the very able, connected with feelings of being different from others, isolation, or self-doubt. Psychologists dealing with the issues of temperament and abilities are interested not only in the structure of temperamental traits but, above all, the functional significance of temperament in children (Martin, 1992) and adults (Siekanska & Sekowski, 2006). In the course of about 10 years, Martin and colleagues conducted a series of experiments in a group of preschoolers, which revealed that three from among the examined traits— high (motor) activity, absentmindedness, and low perseverance—form the so-called difficult temperament syndrome and correlate negatively with school achievements (Martin, 1992; Strelau, 1998, 2002). Among the traits which, in a large measure, characterize able students are temperamental properties connected with strong types of the nervous system and some types of behavior conditioned by those properties. These are, among others, the ability to work hard, the ease of focusing on a given problem

475

for a longer time, relatively large emotional balance, and so-called fast style of work (Lewowicki, 1986). Temperament is connected with a dimension called “craving stimulation,” which is related to the efficiency of the nervous system. A study by Galas and Lewowicki (1991) shows that persons having a large craving for stimulation score higher on the aspiration scale more often. They aspire to achieve goals in life, the realization of which requires increased effort on the part of the nervous system and results in a stimulation overload (e.g., graduation, scientific work, gaining a difficult and responsible profession, achieving a high position in the workplace, social activity, and literary and artistic work). Temperament is also connected with the dimension of emotional resistance to stress as opposed to great emotional sensitivity (emotional reactivity) (Strelau, 1996). Reactivity can be an important factor of human behavior in a specific environment (school, family, work) and may influence both the level of task performance and the general adaptive abilities enabling adaptation to specific situational conditions. Studies of able adults allow one to speculate that temperament is directly related to job dissatisfaction and only indirectly to job satisfaction and that the influence of temperamental traits on job satisfaction should be considered by taking into account specific jobs and work places. This means that apart from the intensity of individual traits of temperament, their mutual fit and how they match the requirements of the environment should also be taken into consideration (Siekanska & Sekowski, 2006). Different work styles and the choice of a given work environment are manifestations of “intelligent” coping, as long as they protect a person against fatigue and excess tension emerging in difficult situations. A given style of action develops under the influence of the environment on the basis of the temperamental constitution. To sum up, it can be assumed that traits of temperament determine the manner of functioning of a human being in different spheres, for example, school or work. They specify the stimulation value of the activity preferred by an individual but do not entirely determine the choices and directions of action. In other words, temperament answers the question of how? and not the question of why?

476

Individual Psychological Differences and Identification of the Gifted A review of psychological literature of the last century is a valuable source of multifarious information about the identification of gifts and talents of outstanding persons, especially children and adolescents, a great part of which concerns their education. Contemporary definitions of gifted students balance between earlier psychometric conceptions of giftedness, for example, Terman’s (1925) and Cox’s (1926), which recognize an above-average level of general intellectual abilities (IQ over 140) as a criterion of giftedness and more recent conceptualizations which associate intellectual abilities with learning abilities (Gagn´e, 1993; Sekowski, 2001, 2004a), environment adaptation abilities (Tannenbaum, 1986), speed of processing information (Deary, 2000), and metacognitive abilities (Sternberg, 1977). Beginning his studies of exceptionally gifted children in 1922, Terman posed questions about individual differences in three areas: intellectual traits, social traits, and self-traits and motivation (Terman & Oden, 1959). He offers a psychological characterization of gifted persons from the point of view of their cognitive characteristics, pointing to individual differences in thinking (Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998). Differences in cognitive abilities are found, for instance, by observing that, generally, gifted pupils, although they use the same cognitive skills as their average peers, solve problems decidedly better, faster, and more efficiently; they use the provided information with greater ease because they have unique thinking abilities (Rogers, 1998). A “Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenRevised” (WISC-R) analysis of intelligence profiles of 456 primary school students with an IQ of 120 or more on the general scale conducted by Wilkinson (1993; after Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998) shows a greater variability of the profile with reference to norms. Gifted children more often had extreme subtest scores and showed larger verbal performance discrepancies. The highest scores were obtained by gifted students on subscales reflecting more complex reasoning (for example, similarities and block design) and the lowest on subscales measuring lower-level thinking skills (coding, digit span) (Wilkinson, 1993; after Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998).

A. Sekowski et al.

In the metacognitive approach, or thinking about one’s thinking, authors concentrate on vital components of giftedness such as the actual knowledge about thinking strategies, the use of the strategies, and cognitive monitoring (Jackson & Butterfield, 1986; Borkowski & Peck, 1986). Gifted students make better use of only some aspects of metacognition than other students, and this advantage seems to persist in subsequent years (see Cheng, 1993; Carr, Alexander, & Schwanenflugel, 1996; Sternberg, 1997b). A freer conceptualization of giftedness as showing up in children “whose performance, in a potentially valuable line of human activity, is consistently remarkable” has been offered by Witty (1950; after Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998, p. 119). Sternberg & Davidson (1986a, 1986b), in their analysis of 17 different conceptions of giftedness, divide giftedness researchers into those who focus on the psychological aspect of giftedness and those who include the social context in their studies, seeing the development of abilities in certain areas as also supported by culture (Csikszentmihalyi & Robinson, 1986; Tannenbaum, 1986). An educational view of giftedness is connected not only with the problem of identification of gifts in able students but also with a description of their specific educational needs, which would enable teachers and caregivers to ensure the best possible development of their potential (Gallagher & Courtright, 1986). Marland’s (1972) legally binding definition, constructed as a report for the US Congress, remains a benchmark educational definition for other countries. It postulates the necessity of preparing differentiated educational programs and providing out-of-school services for gifted children in order that they can use their potential abilities. Feldhusen (1992), Amabile (1996), and Maslow (1970) analyzed achievements of highly gifted and eminent adults by studying their biographies and autobiographies. The results show that persons with outstanding achievements in fields as varied as arts, science, politics, or education showed special talents already in the early period of their lives. Still other conceptualizations of giftedness aim at giving a holistic view of the problem and combine numerous aspects of giftedness and their interrelations, for example, intelligence, motivation, creativity, and social factors. Renzulli’s three-ring model of giftedness (1986) shows that the more giftedness shows up in behavior and develops more fully, the stronger

21

On Individual Differences in Giftedness

the interaction between the set of three traits: aboveaverage ability, creativity, and task commitment. A similar model has been created by M¨onks (see Van Boxtel & M¨onks, 1992), who, apart from motivation, outstanding ability, and creativity, noticed the role of the social environment, especially family, school, and peers, in the development of the intellectual potential of gifted persons. Furthermore, some researchers notice individual differences in gifted persons’ learning styles, for example, in the clear significance of a change between focused, intense activity and a lowering of the intensity (Gadzella, 2003; Busato, Prins, Elshout, & Hamak, 2000; Thornton, Haskell, & Libby, 2006); in thinking styles (Sternberg, 1997b); in cognitive styles, determining perception, categorization, and the preferred manner of thinking (Witkin, 1977; Sternberg, 1985; Messick, 1994); and in individual styles (Costa & McCrae, 1998), which combine four factors of the Big Five (Costa & McCrae, 1992) to yield the following five styles: Interests, Activity, Attitudes, Learning, and Character. Since cognitive and thinking styles are rather preferences than abilities, some of them, for instance, field independence, correlate strongly with general intelligence in gifted persons (Goldstein & Blackman, 1978; after Necka, 2003). The mechanisms of broadly understood styles remain to be investigated in order to obtain more specific knowledge with reference to academic achievements (Busato et al., 2000).

Selection Researchers undertaking the task of identifying aboveaverage abilities of a student need to specify, at the outset of their work, what definition or conception of giftedness their study will be based on. It is common practice to examine the intellectual abilities of a child at the basic level. Tests for the examination of individuals, such as the Stanford–Binet test or Wechsler’s scales, are good tools for proving a high level of abilities. Since testing requires experience in psychology and is time consuming, group studies use school abilities and academic achievement tests (see Stein, 1986). Depending on the needs, an examination can be conducted together with an IQ measurement or interchangeably with one of

477

the many available methods of measuring academic achievement, as for example, the California Test of Mental Maturity, the Lorge–Thorndike Intelligence Test, the Henmon–Nelson Test of Mental Ability, the Otis–Lennon Mental Ability Test, the Pintner General Ability Tests, the Primary Mental Ability Test, the Concept Mastery Test, the California Test of Mental Maturity (short form), the College Qualification Test, the Kuhlmann–Anderson Test, the Raven’s Progressive Matrices, and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (see Stanley George, & Solano, 1977). The mere examination of general intellectual abilities is not sufficient to assess the kind of giftedness that a given student possesses. It is recommended that other personality variables which show up as predispositions in gifted children be determined. These include particular academic abilities, creative and productive thinking, leadership abilities, abilities in visual or performing arts, and psychomotor ability (Marland, 1972). Individual differences in gifted persons also concern the motivational sphere, which should be taken into account in the diagnosis of giftedness. Renzulli’s (1986) three-ring model and M¨onks’ (M¨onks & Mason , 1993, Heller, 1993) triadic model, both well known in psychological literature, point to a relationship between intellectual and extraintellectual traits in gifted persons. According to Renzulli, individual differences in the description of gifted persons show up in the description of the interaction between three basic bundles of traits: above-average ability, a high level of task commitment, and a high level of creativity. A similar triarchic model has been worked out by Renzulli and Reis (2000) in order to describe school “space” which would be as suitable as possible to the development of students’ gifts. M¨onks also describes personalities of gifted students in agreement with the conception of cognitive functioning in the context of the environment and emphasizes the role of their own activity. His model is based on co-occurrence of basic components of abilities (intellectual, motivational, and personality based) and the developmental environment (family, school, peers). Activity of a gifted person, who possesses potential intellectual abilities, with the simultaneous favorable influence of the developmental environment creates optimal psychological conditions for the development of abilities (Freeman, 2000). Amabile (1996), who focused her research on above-average abilities

478

and creativity, emphasizes the role of intrinsic motivation, as well as the willingness to make effort and concentrate. Hayes (1985) sees substantial individual differences in motivation in creative persons. According to him, it is impossible to find any purely cognitive variables which could discriminate between creative and non-creative persons. Hence, differences between creative and non-creative individuals spring directly from differences in motivation as related to, for example, different intensity of assimilating knowledge and different extent of necessary knowledge as well as the ability to use the possessed knowledge. Necka (1994a, 1994b) assumes the existence of a changing and dynamic system of various motives which include the need for control, the sense of duty, or vocation, as well as motives of a more playful or instrumental nature. What matters for above-average achievements, therefore, is also the depth of motivation. Gifted persons not only excel in academic studies but also have numerous achievements in arts and science. Their personal engagement and high level of abilities are additionally connected with their achievement motivation (Schuler, Thornton, Frintrup, & Mueller-Hanson, 2004), expectancy value or outcome expectancies (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), self-efficacy (Bandura, 1991), and positive reinforcement (reward, praise, money) from significant others or institutions (Zimmerman, 2000). In motivation studies of gifted persons, a lot of attention is devoted to conscious and unconscious tendencies, desires, and needs, that is, motives which create favorable conditions for hard work and high achievements and, at the same time, positively stimulate gifted persons to pursue these. As early as in 1940, D. Harris stated that the most essential factor in academic achievement, apart from intelligence, is the strength and the type of motivation. Nowadays, some researchers believe that the motives of human behaviors can be either positive (highly ambitions, with a need for development and achievements) or, conversely, negative (with anxiety or fear of failure or unfulfillment of other people’s or one’s own expectations) (De Raad & Schouwenburg, 1996; after: Busato et al., 2000). According to Murray (1938), the strongest need demonstrated by gifted people is the need for achievements, which is manifested in human aspiration for perfection and for accomplishment of difficult tasks, also in overcoming one’s own limitations and external obstacles to the

A. Sekowski et al.

realization of a goal. In activity, it manifests itself as competitiveness, surpassing others in abilities and achievements and in good use of talent, which allows one to increase self-respect. Gifted persons use this strategy to ensure maximum self-efficacy (Feldhusen, 1986). Research on motivation in education has also been conducted by Murphy and Alexander (2000), who systematized and analyzed the most important theoretical definitions of high achievements from the aspect of motives. Among the most important concepts connected with the achievements of the gifted, they counted aims and goals, interests, motivations, and self-schema. Gifted persons can be talked about in terms of goal orientedness (Wentzel, 1989) and efficacy in goal realization (Meece et al., 1988). Pintrich (2000) also writes about mutual interactions between mastery- or achievement-orientation and attitude, as in, for example, a person’s motivation to make or avoid effort. For Ryan & Deci (2000), the authors of the Self-Determination Theory, the criterion for distinguishing types of motivation has been based on the difference between the cause and the goals which give rise to the action. The most basic difference between motives consists in the fact that activity based on intrinsic motivation is connected with an inborn interest or pleasure, while extrinsic motivation yields actions leading to individual goals. That is why one can talk not only about the level of motivation (e.g., how strong the motives in gifted persons are) but also about the direction of motivation (e.g., the type of motivation). For example, students may be strongly motivated to learn at home because of their curiosity and interest in work, but also because of their wish to satisfy their parents and teachers. Students can be motivated to learn new skills because they understand the potential value and usefulness of having knowledge or because those qualifications entail good marks and the privileges that go with them. In all those cases, the motivation is not necessarily different, but its sense and direction are (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Gifted adolescents, according to Tyszkowa (1990), have a motivation structure which consists of 10 motives for learning. These are intrinsic incentives to act, which combined with a high level of abilities allows one to aspire to high achievements. For example, the most strongly surfacing motives in students in Polish schools were cognitive and interest based (from 15.6 to 26.0%).

21

On Individual Differences in Giftedness

Education By analyzing study results regarding school achievements, the psychology of individual differences aims to determine the ways and conditions of optimal teaching of able children and to create didactic and educational care models adapted to the needs of very able students (Urban & Sekowski, 1993). In the past two decades, many programs for able students at different levels of education, starting from preschool age, have been created, as for example, the “Talent Recognition and Development Program” (TRAD) (Fulkerson, 1995; Delisle, 2003). Programs for gifted students have also been created at universities, to mention just two developed in 1982: “Social and Emotional Needs of Gifted (SENG)” by J. T. James at the Professional School of Psychology, Wright State University and “The Guidance Laboratory for Gifted and Talented” (Myers & Pace, 1986) established by B. Kerr at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Special programs offered counseling, training, scientific research, and organization of conferences for gifted students and adults. Apart from the general programs, individual teaching programs for gifted persons and additional classes, aimed at developing their giftedness, have been increasingly receiving recognition. Nevertheless, teachers, in whose opinion the achievements of gifted children are usually higher than average, are often convinced that the children’s achievements are not proportionate to their intellectual abilities. Researchers interested in this problem are looking for the causes of difficulties in the assessment of gifted students, which result in a failure to qualify them for special teaching programs for the gifted (Butler-Por, 1993). Among the available methods and diagnostic procedures for the recognition of general and specific giftedness, one worth mentioning is Jellen & Verduin’s (1986) method worked out in the form of a taxonomy for special education of gifted youth. The authors present a conceptualization of “Differential Education of the Gifted” (DEG) to be used by teachers and students. According to Ward (Jellen & Verduin, 1986) the conception consists of three significant attributes: “(a) An integrated conceptualization of DEG appropriate for the potentials of gifted persons [. . .]. (b) A conceptual economy for DEG based on a taxonomy of 32 generic concepts

479

and terms [. . .]. (c) A concise, explanatory, and wellresearched interpretation for each DEG concept in order to facilitate applications to realities of research, training, programs, and instructional content as well as educational methodology” (p. IX). Another model designed to assess gifted students, which has proven particularly useful for assessing higher grade students, has been developed by Janas and Szczerbiak (Janas-Stawikowska, 2004), based on the giftedness models of Renzulli (1986) and M¨onks (1992). Cognitive (academic) gifts are assessed taking into account three spheres of abilities: 1) The area of high intelligence and special abilities. The diagnosis concerns fast learning pace, proper and logical reasoning, the ability to understand abstract concepts, relations, and implications, assessment of the richness of vocabulary and proper use of vocabulary, the level of performance of tasks which are ahead of age standards (designed for older children), and good time and work management. 2) The area of task commitment. The diagnosis concerns independence in initiating different kinds of activities, the ability to focus on a given task for a long time, passion with regard to the realization of one’s interests, devoting a lot more time to them than they require, undertaking difficult tasks, and a lot of independence with regard to the choice and realization of one’s interests. 3) The area of creativity. The diagnosis concerns imagination and fantasy, the ability to find numerous solutions to the same problem, originality of ideas, expression and solutions, and independence, non-conformity, and the ability to take risks. According to the authors of the program, individual differences in emerging giftedness are due to the overlapping of these three spheres and are also associated with the interaction of a gifted person with their family, peer, and school environment (JanasStawikowska, 2004). Bearing in mind the development of special school programs for gifted children and adolescents, it should be noted that the process of identifying giftedness should consist of numerous stages, including the assessment (opinions) of parents, teachers, and specialists. Then, the risk of taking a wrong decision further is that the time invested in specialized education is proportionally lower than

480

the time and attention devoted to the identification procedure (Siekanska, 2004). Development of gifts not only depends on a person’s intellectual abilities but is also a product of his or her personality, interests, aspirations, and motivation (Tyszkowa, 1990). Of considerable significance for achievements are a person’s own activity, constancy and perseverance, resistance to long-lasting stress, critical attitude to one’s own abilities, cognitive preferences and interests, and an adequate level of psychological needs, especially the need for development. Contemporary interest in giftedness is focused on the search for both internal indicators in personality itself and external factors facilitating gift development. This refers mainly to the social functioning of gifted students, which in the literature is described together with their emotional functioning. According to research results, gifted persons are more likely to experience social problems. This concerns both children (Begin & Gagne, 1994; Winner, 1996) and college students (Robinson, 1997; Bain, Bourgeois, & Pappas, 2006). The difficulties in the assessment of school achievements of gifted students, apart from the interference from their social and emotional functioning, may be due to the teacher’s subjectivity of the assessment. Research shows that school performance is influenced by the situation at home and the family relations. It turns out that school performance of children who were not accepted by their family faced rejection, restrictions, and hostility, were given a hard time, and were much below their intellectual abilities. And conversely, children who were trusted, accepted, and engaged in family affairs achieved high school performance (TasselBaska, 1995). However, the situation may also be quite the opposite as gifted children and adolescents with high intellectual abilities and school performance may not be successful at work (Sternberg, 1996). It is quite difficult to check and assess student’s school performance since the grade on the school certificate is not a reflection of a student’s giftedness and interests. Additionally, the level of teaching might be different depending on the school and the teacher’s professional education. Researchers agree that the process of identification of gifted students must be adequate to the proposed curriculum or work program (Heller & Feldhusen, 1986). A grade or points as descriptors of ability have a selecting function since they influence the choices in further direction and level of giftedness development (at college, university); therefore,

A. Sekowski et al.

they should be objective and reliable and independent of the examiner (Sekowski, 2004b). Goldberg (1986) finds fault with teachers’ recommendations, which she finds to be a result of assessing strongly motivated, hard-working, and obedient children as gifted. Renzulli and Delcourt (1986) criticize recommendation of children for gifted programs only by teachers, since, in their opinion, the criteria for assessment of giftedness should be based on an IQ match and a simultaneous assessment of the child’s giftedness by the teacher. They suggest that researchers treat teachers’ assessment as a source of information for the difficult process of recognition of intellectual abilities in the course of a test assessment. Urban (1994) believes that only socialization and education can draw a clear division in the common line of development since in the course of this developmental process a specific type of intelligent behavior is favored and desired. Introducing order into “the child’s creative chaos” inhibits creative development. School education and instruction are still (or again) far from not disturbing or not inhibiting creative behavior, not to mention from providing conditions requiring creative behavior from students. Some interesting publications and school projects, such as the model Teacher Observational Items (TOI) list (see Yewchuk & Lupart, 1993), should not confuse researchers and persons responsible for the identification and education of gifted students as to the need to create and implement new concepts. This refers, in particular, to education and instruction at school, which must be unique, adapted to the type of children’s and adolescents’ giftedness, and the existing social conditions. It is important to include as many persons remaining in close relation, such as parents, teachers, and specialists, as possible in the process of the broadening intellectual abilities and the providing of support in the development of giftedness in gifted persons, though the educational programs designed for gifted persons will, by themselves, not replace their personal commitment and work.

Conclusions The presented summary of research on individual differences in giftedness points to important theoretical and practical consequences entailed by this approach.

21

On Individual Differences in Giftedness

Individual differences concern so many psychological dimensions that it is impossible to discuss them all. With reference to giftedness, they mainly concern cognitive dimensions as well as other personality-based determiners of human functioning. There is a clear tendency to do research which combines levels of functioning (e.g., traits and physiological reactions). Also apparent is the need to combine various scientific disciplines in considering individual differences in giftedness. This concerns, among others, psychology, genetics, biology, and neurology. It is necessary to introduce new concepts referring to different kinds of abilities or intelligence. The diversity of conceptions of giftedness and the constant emergence of new ones is a manifestation of the need to take into account individual differences in giftedness research. This also refers to new research methods and tools of measurement.

References Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Boulder: Westview Press. Amelang, M., & Bartussek, D. (1994). Differentielle Psychologie und Pers¨onlichkeitsforschung. Stutgart Berlin K¨oln: Verlag W. Kohlhammer. Bain, S. K., Bourgeois, S. J., & Pappas, D. N. (2006). Linking theoretical models to actual practices: A survey of teachers in gifted education. Roeper Review, 4, 166–172. Baldeweg, T., Richardson, A., Watkins, S., Foale, C., & Gruzelier, J. (1999). Impaired auditory frequency discrimination in dyslexia detected with mismatch evoked potentials. Annals of Neurology, 4, 1–9. Bandura, A. (1991). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-reactive mechanisms. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1991, vol. 38. LincolnLondon: University of Nebraska Press. Begin, J., & Gagne, F. (1994). Predictors of attitudes toward giftedness education: A review of the literature and a blueprint for future research. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 161–179. Bolig, E. E., Day, J. D. (1993). Dynamic assessment and giftedness: The promise of assessing training responsiveness. Roeper Review, 16(2), 110–113. Borkowski, J. G., & Peck, V. A. (1986). Causes and consequences of metamemory in gifted children. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness, 182–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burns, N. T., & Nettelbeck, T. (2003). Inspection time in the structure of cognitive ability. Intelligence, 31(3), 237–255. Burns, N. T., Nettelbeck, T., & Cooper, C. J. (2000). Eventrelated potential correlates of some human cognitive ability constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 157– 168.

481 Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamak, C. (2000). Intellectual ability, learning style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1057–1068. Butler-Por, N. (1993). Underachieving gifted students. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent, 573–585. Oxford. New York: Pergamon Press. Carr, M., Alexander, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. (1996). Where gifted children do and do not excel on metacognitive tasks. Directions for future research. Roeper Review, 18, 212–217. Cheng, P. (1993). Metacognition and giftedness: The state of the relationship. Gifted child Quarterly, 37, 105–112. Cheour, M., Ceponiene, R., Lehtokoski, A., Luuk, A., Allik, J., Alho, K., et al. (1998). Development of language-specific phoneme representations in the infant brain. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 351–353. Cheour-Luhtanem, M., Alho, K., Kujala, T., Sainio, K., Reinikainen, K., Renlund, M., et al. (1995). Mismatch negativity indicates vowel discrimination in newborns. Hearing Research, 82(1), 53–58. Clark, C. (1997). Using action research to foster a creative response to teaching more able pupils. High Ability Studies, 8(1), 95–114. Costa, Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R, Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1998). NEO 4. Style Graph Booklet. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Cox, C. (1926). The early mental traits of the three hundred geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Coyle, T. R., & Read, L. E. (1998). Giftedness and variability in strategic processing on a multitrial memory task: Evidence for stability in gifted cognition. Learning and Individual Differences, 10(4), 273–290. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Przeplyw: psychologia optymalnego doswiadczenia [Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Studio EMKA. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Robinson, R. E. (1986). Culture, time and the development of Talent. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness, 285–306. Cambridge- London: Cambridge University Press. Day, J. D., & Cordon, L. A. (1993). Static and dynamic measures of ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 75–83. De Raad, B., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in learning and education: A review. European Journal of Personality, 10, 303–336. Deary, I. J. (2000). Simple information and processing and intelligence: In W: R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 267–284). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Delisle, J. R. (2003). The survival guide for teachers of gifted kids: How to plan, manage, and evaluate programs for gifted youth K-12. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing. Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. T. (1993). Brain research related to giftedness. In K. A. Haller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 133–148). Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd.

482 Eysenck, M. W. (2004). Individual differences. normal and abnormal. New York: Psychology Press. Feldhusen, J. F. (1986). A conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 112–127). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Feldhusen, J. F. (1992). Talent identification and development in education (TIDE). Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning. Freeman, J. (2000). Families: The essential context for gifts and talents. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 573– 585). Oxford. New York: Pergamon Press. Fulkerson, J. L. (1995). A talent approach to district programming for gifted and talented youth K-12. Roeper Review, 18, 117–120. Furnham, A., Forde, L., & Cotter, T. (1998). Personality and intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(2), 187–192. Gadzella, B. M. (2003). Reliability of the inventory of learning process. Psychological Reports, 92, 1029–1030. Gagn´e F. (1993). Constructs and models pertaining to exceptional human abilities. In: K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 69–87). Oxford New York: Pergamon Press. Galas, B., & Lewowicki, T. (1991). Osobowosc a aspiracje [Personality and Aspirations]. Warszawa: UW. Gallagher, J. J., & Courtright, R. D. (1986). The educational definition of giftedness and its policy implications. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (pp. 93–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Galton, F. (1892). Hereditary Genius. London: MacMillan. Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind and brain. A cognitive approach to creativity. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1998). Niepospolite umysly [Extraordinary Minds]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo WAB. Geiger, R. D. (1995). Temperament and giftedness; American and European perspectives. In M. W. Katzko, & F. J.M¨onks (Eds.), Nurturing talent. individual needs and social ability (pp. 139–147). Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp. B.V. Goldberg, M. L. (1986). Issues in the education of gifted and talented children. Part I. Roeper Review, 8, 226–233. Goldstein, K. M., & Blackman, S. (1978). Cognitive style: Five approaches and relevant research. New York: Wiley. Gomes, H., Molholm, S., Ritter, W., Kurtzberg, D., Cowan, N., & Vaughan, H. G. (2000). Mismatch negativity in children and adults, and effects of an attended task. Psychophysiology, 37, 807–816. Guilford, J. P. (1978). Natura inteligencji czlowieka [The Nature of Human Intelligence]. Warszawa: PWN. Hampson, S. E., Colman, A. M. (2000) (Eds.). Psychologia roznic indywidualnych [Individual Differences and Personality], 7. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Zysk i S-ka. Harr´e, R. (2000). Acts of living. Science, 289, 1303–1304. Hayes, J. R. (1985). Three problems in teaching general skills. In S. F. Chapman, J. W. Segal, R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and Learning Skills, vol. 2: Research and Open Questions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Heller, K. A. (1993). Structural Tendencies and Issues of Research on Giftedness and Talent. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, A. H. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of Research

A. Sekowski et al. and Development of Giftedness and Talent, 49–67. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Heller, K.A., Feldhusen, J. F. (1986). Identifying and Nurturing the Gifted. An International Perspective. Toronto. Lewiston N. Y. Bern. Stuttgart: Hans Huber Publishers. Henderson, L. M., Ebner, F. F. (1997). The biological basis for early intervention with gifted children. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(3–4), 59–80. Hoffman, W. C. (1995). The dialectics of giftedness: Gifted intellect and creativity. Roeper Review 17(3), 201–206. Hunsacker, S. L. (1994). Creativity as a characteristic of giftedness: Teachers see it, then they don’t. Roeper Review,17(1), 11–15. Jackson, N. E., Butterfield, E. C. (1986). A conception of giftedness designed to promote research. In R. J. Sternberg, J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness, 151–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Janas-Stawikowska, B. (2004). In A. E. Sekowski (ed.), Psychologia zdolnosci [The Psychology of Giftedness], 125– 142. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Jauˇsovec, N. (2000). Differences in cognitive processes between gifted, intelligent, creative, and average individuals while solving complex problems: An EEG study. Intelligence, 28(3), 213–237. Jauˇsovec, N., Jauˇsovec, K. (2004). Differences in induced brain activity during the performance of learning and workingmemory tasks related to intelligence. Brain and Cognition, 54(1), 65–74. Jellen, H. G., Verduin, Jr. J. R. (1986). Handbook for Differential Education of the Gifted. A Taxonomy of 32 Key Concepts. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press. Ledzinska, M (2005). Inteligencja jednostki a sila doznan stresu informacyjnego – perspektywa edukacyjna [Intelligence of an individual and the intensity of experiencing informational stress—an educational perspective]. XXXII Zjazd Naukowy Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego, 22–25 September, Krakow. Ledzinska, M. (1996). Przetwarzanie informacji przez uczniow o zroznicowanym poziomie zdolnosci a ich postepy szkolne [Information processing by students of different levels of ability and their progress at school]. Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza Wydzialu Psychologii UW. Lepp¨anen, P. H., Lyytinen, H. (1997). Auditory eventrelated potentials in the study of developmental languagerelated disorders. Audiology and Neuro-Otology, 2(5), 308–340. Lewowicki, T. (1986). Ksztalcenie uczniow zdolnych [Teaching Gifted Students]. Warszawa: WSiP. Lidz, C. S., Elliott, J. G. (2006). Use of dynamic assessment with gifted students. Gifted Education International, 21(2/3), 151–161. M¨onks, F. J. (1992). Development of gifted children: The issue of identification and programming. In F. J. M¨onks, A. M. Peters (Eds.), Talent for the Future. Social and Personality Development of Gifted Child. Proceeding of the Ninth World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children, 191–203. AssenMaastricht: Van Gorcum & Company B.V. Magnusson, D. (2003a). The Person Approach: Concepts, Measurement Models, and Research Strategy. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 101, 3–23.

21

On Individual Differences in Giftedness

Magnusson, D. (2003b). Refleksje nad zagadnieniami metodologicznymi w zakresie badan rozwojowych: dwa przeciwstawne podejscia do badan indywidualnych [Reflections on methodological issues in developmental research: Two opposing approaches to individual studies]. In M. Marszal-Wisniewska, T. Klonowicz, M. Fajkowska-Stanik (Eds.), Psychologia roznic indywidualnych [The Psychology of Individual Differences], 142–149. Gdansk: GWP. Magnusson, D., T¨orestad, B. (1993). A Holistic view of personality: A model revised. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 427–452. Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the Gifted and Talented. Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Martin, R. P. (1992). Child temperament effects on special education: Process and outcomes. Exceptionality, 3(2), 99–115. Martinsen, Ø. (1997). The construct of cognitive style and its implications for creativity. High Ability Studies, 7(2), 135– 158. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality. Second edition. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. Matczak, A., Jaworowska, A., Stanczak, J. (2000). Rysunkowy Test Tworczego Myslenia TCT-DP K. K. Urban, H. G. Jellen. Podrecznik [K. K. Urban and, H. G. Jellen’s Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production, TCT-DP. A Handbook]. Warszawa PTP. Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., Hoyle, R. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523. Messick, S. (1994). The matter of style: Manifestations of personality in cognition, learning, and teaching. Educational Psychologist, 29, 121–136. M¨onks, F. J. (1995). Creativity; Idiographic versus nomothetic approach. European Journal for High Ability, 6, 137–142. M¨onks, F. J., Mason, E. J. (1993). Development theories and giftedness. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, A. H. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of the Giftedness and Talent, 89–102. Oxford. New York: Pergamon Press. Murphy, P. K., Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 3–53. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford. Myers, R. S., Pace, T. N. (1986). Counseling Gifted and Talented Students: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Issues. Journal of Counseling and Development, 86, 548–551. N¨aa¨ t¨anen, R. (2003). Percepcja dzwiekow mowy przez ludzki mozg: dane elektrofizjologiczne [Perception of speech sounds by the human brain: Electrophysiological data]. In M. Marszal-Wisniewska, T. Klonowicz, M. Fajkowska-Stanik (Eds.), Psychologia roznic indywidualnych [The Psychology of Individual Differences], 22–36. Gdansk: GWP. N¨aa¨ t¨anen, R., Jacobsen, T., Winkler, I. (2005). Memory-based or afferent process in mismatch negativity (MMN): A review of the evidence. Psychophysiology, 42, 25–32. N¨aa¨ t¨anen, R., Schr¨oger, E., Karakas, S., Tervaniemi, M., Paavilainen, P. (1993). Development of a memory trace for a complex sound in the human brain. NeuroReport, 4(5), 503–506. Naglieri, J. A. (2001). Understanding intelligence, giftedness and creativity using the PASS theory. Roeper Review, 23(3), 151–156.

483 Necka, E. (1992a). Tworcze operacje umyslowe [Creative mental operations]. In M. Materska, T. Tyszka (Eds.), Psychologia i poznanie [Psychology and Cognition], 179–196. Warszawa: PWN. Necka, E. (1992b). Poziomy przetwarzania informacji a pojecie inteligencji [Levels of information processing and the concept of intelligence]. In J. Strelau, W. Ciarkowska, E. Necka (Eds.), Roznice indywidualne: mozliwosci i preferencje [Individual Differences: Possibilities and Preferences], 99–111. Wroclaw Warszawa Krakow: Wydawnictwo PAN. Necka, E. (1994a). Gifted people and novel tasks – The intelligence versus creativity distinction revised. In K. A.. Heller, E. A. Hany (Eds.), Competence and Responsibility, 68–80. Seattle-Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber Publisher. Necka, E. (1994b). Inteligencja i procesy poznawcze [Intelligence and Cognitive Processes]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo IMPULS. Necka, E. (2001). Psychologia tworczosci [The Psychology of Creativity]. Gdansk: GWP. Necka, E. (2003). Inteligencja. Geneza – struktura – funkcje [Intelligence. Genesis—Structure—Functions]. Gdansk: Gdanskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne. Nettle, D. (2001). Strong Imagination. Madness, Creativity, and Human Nature. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press. Nilsson, L. G. (2003). Roznice indywidualne w funkcjach pamieciowych [Individual differences in memory functions]. In M. Marszal-Wisniewska, T. Klonowicz, M. FajkowskaStanik (Eds.), Psychologia roznic indywidualnych [The Psychology of Individual Differences], 49–57. Gdansk: GWP. Nosal, Cz. (1990). Psychologiczne modele umyslu [Psychological Models of the Mind]. Warszawa: PWN. Nosal, Cz., Piskorz, Z. (1992). Preferencje i sytuacje: rola roznic indywidualnych w regulacji poznawczej [Preferences and situations: The role of individual differences in cognitive regulation]. In J. Strelau, W. Ciarkowska, E. Necka (Eds.), Roznice indywidualne: mozliwosci i preferencje [Individual Differences: Possibilities and Preferences], 113–133. Wroclaw Warszawa Krakow: Wydawnictwo PAN. O’Boyle, M. W., Gill, H. S. (1998). On the Relevance of Research Findings in Cognitive Neuroscience to Educational Practice. Educational Psychology Review, 10(4), 397–409. Piirto, J. (2004). Understanding Creativity. Scottsdale, Arizona: Great Potential Press, Inc. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92–104. Plomin, R. (1997). Current directions in behavioral genetics: Moving into the mainstream. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6, 85. Plomin, R., Spinath, F. (2002). Genetics and general cognitive ability (g). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 169–176. Renzulli, J. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In J. Sternberg, J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Concept of Giftedness, 53–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Renzulli, J. S. (2002). A message from the guest editor: Looking at giftedness through a wide angle lens. Exceptionality, 10(2), 65–66. Renzulli, J. S., Reis, S. M. (2000). The schoolwide enrichment model. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, A. H. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of the Giftedness and Talent, 367– 382. Oxford. New York: Pergamon Press.

484 Renzulli, J. S., Delcourt, M. A. B. (1986). The legacy and logic of research on the identification of gifted persons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 20–23. Robinson, A., Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1998). Giftedness: An exceptionality examined. Annu. Rev. Psychol, 117–139. Robinson, N. M. (1997). The role of universities and colleges in educating gifted undergraduates. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 218–237. Rogers J. A. (1998). Refocusing the lens: Using observation to assess and identify gifted learners. In B. Wallace (ed.), Gifted Education International, 12 (3), 129–144. Runco, M. A. (1993). Divergent thinking, creativity and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 16–21. Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. Schuler, H., Thornton, G. C., Frintrup, A., Mueller-Hanson, R. (2004). Achievement Motivation Inventory. Manual. Oxford: Hogrefe & Huber Publisher. Sekowski, A. E. (2001). Osiagniecia uczniow zdolnych [Achievements of Gifted Students]. Wyd. II. Lublin: TN KUL. Sekowski, A. E. (ed.) (2004a). Psychologia zdolnosci [The Psychology of Giftedness]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Sekowski, A. E. (2004b). Kategoria oceny a funkcjonowanie uczniow zdolnych [The category of grade and the functioning of gifted students]. Psychologia, Edukacja i Spoleczenstwo, 1, 37–51. Siekanska, M. (2004). Koncepcje zdolnosci a identyfikacja uczniow zdolnych [Conceptions of giftedness and identification of gifted students]. In A. E. Sekowski (ed.), Psychologia zdolnosci [The Psychology of Giftedness], 115– 124. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Siekanska, M., Sekowski, A. (2006). Job satisfaction and temperament structure of gifted people. High Ability Studies, 17(1), 75–85. Simonton, D.K. (2004). Creativity in Science. Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stanley, J. C., George, W. C., Solano, C. H. (Eds.). (1977). The Gifted and the Creative: A Fifty-Year Perspective. Revised and Expanded Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Hyman Blumberg Symposium on Research in Early Childhood Education. London: The John Hopkins University Press. Stein, M. I. (1986). Gifted, Talented, and Creative Young People. A Guide to Theory, Teaching, and Research. New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc. Stelmack, R. M. (2003). Co o inteligencji moga powiedziec nam potencjaly wywolane? [What event-related potentials can tell us about intelligence?] In M. Marszal-Wisniewska, T. Klonowicz, M. Fajkowska-Stanik (Eds.), Psychologia roznic indywidualnych [The Psychology of Individual Differences], 37–48. Gdansk: GWP. Sternberg, J. R., Davidson, J. E. (2005). Conceptions of Giftedness. Second Edition. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1996). IQ counts, but what really count is. Successful intelligence. http://www.nassp.org.

A. Sekowski et al. Sternberg, R. J. (1997a). Educating intelligence: Infusing the triarchic theory into school instruction., In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Intelligence, Heredity, and Environment, 343–362. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1997b). Successful Intelligence. New York: Simon & Schuster. Sternberg, R. J. (1997c). Thinking Styles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Patterns of giftedness: A triarchic analysis. Roeper Review, 22(4), 231–235. Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., Davidson J. E (Eds.) (1986). Conceptions of Giftedness. Cambridge-London: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., Davidson, J. E. (1986). Conceptions of giftedness: A map of the terrain. In R. J. Sternberg, J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness, 3–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. (2000). Teaching for Successful Intelligence. To Increase Student Learning and Achievement. Illinois: Arlington Heights. Sternberg, R. J., Lubart, T. I. (1992). Buy low and sell high: An investment approach to creativity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(1), 1–5. Sternberg, R. J., Lubart, T. I. (1993). Creative giftedness: A multivariate investment approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 7–15. Strelau, J. (1992). Temperament and giftedness in children and adolescents. In F.J.M¨onks, W. Peters (Eds.), Talent for the Future. Social and Personality Development of Gifted Children, 73–86. Assen: Van Gorcum & Co. Strelau, J. (1996). The regulative theory of temperament: Current status. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 131–142. Strelau, J. (1997). Inteligencja czlowieka [Human Intelligence]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo “Zak”. Strelau, J. (1998). Psychologia temperamentu [The Psychology of Temperament]. Warszawa: PWN. Strelau, J. (2002). Psychologia roznic indywidualnych [The Psychology of Individual Differences]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe SCHOLAR. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Giftedness: A psychosocial approach. In R. J. Sternberg, J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness, 21–52. Cambridge-London: Cambridge University Press. Tassel-Baska, Van J. (1995). Gifted and talented learners in special populations. In T. Hus´en and T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education. Second edition, vol. 5, 2486–2491. Oxford, New York, Yushima: Pergamon Press. Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic Studies of Genius. Mental and Physical Characteristics of a Thousand Gifted Children, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Terman, L. M., Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic Studies of Genius: The Gifted Group at Midlife, vol. 4. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Thompson, L. A., Plomin, R. (1993). Genetic influence on cognitive ability. In K. A. Haller, F. J. M¨onks, A. H. Passow

21

On Individual Differences in Giftedness

(Eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent, 103–114. Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd. Thompson, L. A., Plomin, R. (2000). Genetic tools for exploring individual differences in intelligence. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent 2nd Edition, 157–164. Oxford: Elsevier Science. Thornton, B., Haskell, H., Libby, L. (2006). A comparison of learning styles between gifted and non-gifted high school students. Individual Differences Research, 4(2), 106–110. Trost, G. (1993). Prediction of excellence in school, university and work. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, A. H. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent, 325–337. Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd. Tyszkowa, M. (1990). Zdolnosci, osobowosc i dzialalnosc uczniow [Abilities, Personality, and Learners’ Activity ] Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Urban, K. K. (1994). Recent trends in creativity research and theory. In K. A. Heller, E. A. Hany (Eds.), Competence and Responsibilit, 55–67. Seatle-Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber Publisher. Urban, K. K., Sekowski A. E. (1993). Programs and practices for identifying and nurturing giftedness and talent in Europe. In K. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, H. A. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent, 779–796. Oxford - New York: Pergamon Press. Van Boxtel H. W., M¨onks F. J. (1992). General, social and academic self-concept of gifted adolescents. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 21 (2), 169–186. Vernon, P. A. (1990). An overview of chronometric measures of intelligence. School Psychology Review, 19, 399–410 Ward, V. S. (1986). Foreword. In H. G. Jellen, J. R. Verduin, Jr. (Eds.), Handbook for Differential Education of the Gifted, IX-X. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

485 Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity. Understanding Innovation in Problem Solving, Science, Invention, and Arts. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Wentzel, K. R. (1989). Adolescent classroom goals, standards for performance and academic achievement: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 131– 142. Wigfield, A., Eccles, S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81. Wilkinson, S. C. (1993). WISC-R profiles of children with superior intellectual ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(2), 84–91. Winkler, I., Kujala, T., Tiitinen, H., Sivonen, P., Alku, P., Lehtokoski, A., Czigler, I., Cs´epe, V., Ilmoniemi, R.J., N¨aa¨ t¨anen, R. (1999). Brain responses reveal the learning of foreign language phonemes. Psychophysiology, 36, 638–642. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted Children: Myths and Realities. New York: Basic Books. Witkin, H. (1977). Cognitive styles in the educational setting. New York University Educational Quarterly, 8, 14–20. Witty, P. (ed.). (1950). The Gifted Child. Lexington, Mass: D. C. Heath. Yewchuk, C., Lupart, J. L. (1993). Gifted handicapped: A desultory duality. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, A. H. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent, 709–726. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Ziegler, A., Raul, T. (2000). Myth and reality: A review of empirical studies on giftedness. High Ability Studies, 11(2), 113– 136. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91. Zuk, T. (1986). Uzdolnienia tworcze a osobowosc [Creative Abilities and Personality]. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.

Chapter 22

A Theory of Talent Development in Women of Accomplishment Sally M. Reis and Erin E. Sullivan

Abstract Research on talented women who have achieved eminence in a variety of domains illustrates that no one formula leads to success. Some successful women marry and have children; some do not. Some work and live at high speed; others move more calmly through the world and achieve at similar or even higher levels. The current chapter draws from two decades of research pertaining to the lives of women who have successfully navigated the obstacles that often prevent high achievement in women, offering a new theory of female talent development. Issues explored include the spheres in which women express their talents, factors that may promote or inhibit the development of gifts, and gender differences in experiences that contribute to the unique nature of female achievement.

and carefully, living quieter lives while achieving similar or even higher levels of productivity. The processes of developing their talents also vary. Many of the gifted women described in this chapter evolved their talents over decades, drawing from a backdrop of earlier varied life experiences that helped them to prepare for their future life accomplishments. Only some of their experiences were academic, with most of the women indicating that their real preparation for lives of accomplishment emerged from life events that occurred after school ended. An award-winning children’s writer, for example, wove memories of her Hispanic heritage and parenting into her literary work, incorporating the insights and creative experiences she had gained as a mother and through reflections on her own childhood. Others made careful choices about the development of Keywords Theory of female talent development · gen- their talents, achieving at high levels through working der talent development · eminence · talent · creative de- steadily and slowly, while acknowledging and sometimes even celebrating the detours that occurred in their velopment · women and eminence lives, such as raising family, helping others, and working in service for the betterment of others at home or in the community. All felt a certain intensity in their lives, characterized by a need and sense of obligation to Introduction pursue their talents in an active way. Many compared their own lives to the lives of their contemporaries— Research on talented women who have achieved em- other equally talented women who did not attain the inence in various domains (Reis, 1987, 1995, 1998, same level of eminence, but who appeared to live much 2001) illustrates the complex and diverse paths they calmer, and in some cases, happier lives. Recently, a definition has been proposed that defines have chosen to follow. Some have partners and some the process of talent development in eminent women do not. Some have children and some do not. Some live fast-paced lives characterized by restless energy and a (Reis, 2005): constant need to work. Others work more peacefully S.M. Reis (B) University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Feminine talent development occurs when women with high intellectual, creative, artistic or leadership ability or potential achieve at high levels in an area they choose and when they make contributions that they consider meaningful to society; these contributions are enhanced when

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 22, 

487

488 the women develop personally satisfying relationships and pursue what they believe to be significant and consequential work.

Drawing upon research about this topic spanning two decades of work, a new theory of female talent development is proposed in this chapter, suggesting that the cumulative and contextual experiences of women of accomplishment differ from those of men in intellectual, moral, personal, and work perceptions. This chapter presents brief case studies of two eminent women who participated in this study, introduces the theory, and summarizes the research underlying the theory.

Traditional Theories of Talent Development People have long been fascinated with creative and high-achieving individuals. Researchers and theorists such as Tannenbaum (1983, 1991), Sternberg (1986, 1999), Renzulli (1978, 1986, 2003), Gruber (1996) and Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996) are just a few who have contributed to the literature about talented people and their products. This section will briefly discuss three of these theories, focusing on how different theorists define successful expression of talent, factors that facilitate talent development, and characteristics of talented people.

S.M. Reis and E.E. Sullivan

that enhances the moral, physical, emotional, social, intellectual, or aesthetic life of humanity” (p. 27). Factors that facilitate talent development. Tannenbaum (1983, 1991) proposes five factors that are essential to the fulfillment of gifted potential: superior general intellect, distinctive special aptitudes, a supportive array of nonintellectual traits, a challenging and facilitative environment, and “the smile of good fortune” at crucial periods of life. Interestingly, Tannenbaum’s theory suggests that these factors are multiplicative, rather than additive. That is, the absence of any one prevents development of potential, or, as Tannenbaum (1991) states, “No combination of four factors can compensate for serious deficiency in the fifth.” He does suggest, however, that depending on the talent expressed, the threshold level of each factor required will vary, e.g., a physicist needs lower levels of interpersonal ability than does someone working in a social service position. Characteristics of gifted producers and performers. Tannenbaum (1991) opines that attempting to attach personality characteristics to gifted behaviors is “a chicken and egg problem” (p. 35), troublesome in that no one knows whether these characteristics simply correlate with achievement, cause it, or are the consequences of it. However, he does cite motivation to achieve as consistently linked to achievement. While he sees internal motivation most often correlated to achievement in research studies, he notes that external motivation can add meaningfully to an individual’s drive to succeed.

Gifted Producers and Gifted Performers With numerous publications on the subject of giftedness and creativity, Tannenbaum (1983, 1986, 1991) has made one of the more robust contributions to the study of talent development. Regarding the question of who qualifies as gifted, Tannenbaum (1991) identifies two types of individuals: gifted producers and gifted performers. Producers create “thoughts and tangibles,” such as scientific theories, sculptures, philosophies, and musical compositions. Performers stage artistic demonstrations (e.g., theater or dance productions) or perform meaningful services that benefit humanity, such as teaching, leading political movements, or doing social work. According to Tannenbaum, giftedness pertains to work within “spheres of an activity

Successful Intelligence Sternberg’s (1999) theory defines intelligence as “the ability to achieve success in life, given one’s personal standards, within one’s sociocultural context” (p. 293). This is a slightly different standard of intelligence or giftedness than that applied by Tannenbaum, who argued that giftedness pertains to accomplishments that benefit and elevate humankind. By Sternberg’s theory, a famous actor or actress who performs entertaining but not particularly meaningful roles might be considered “successfully intelligent,” provided he or she is happy, as these individuals are highly valued and rewarded in the current culture. Such a person

22

A Theory of Talent Development in Women of Accomplishment

would not necessarily be seen as “gifted” according to Tannenbaum’s theory. Facilitating factors in successful intelligence. Unlike many theorists who study intelligence or giftedness, Sternberg does not posit any type of “general” ability (G), or group of abilities as necessary for successful intelligence. Nor does he specify particular environmental factors, although he does note that socioeconomic status, education, religion, etc., may play a role in one’s opportunity to develop intelligence. Instead, Sternberg sees the ability to maximize strengths and compensate for weaknesses as crucial to one’s ability to develop one’s skills and achieve (p. 297), and believes that individuals achieve success within a field or even within the same type of job in different ways. In other words, successful people make the most of what they have. Characteristics of people who achieve successful intelligence. According to Sternberg, intelligent individuals possess and leverage some combination of analytical, creative, and practical abilities. Analytical abilities are those traditionally measured by intelligence or aptitude tests; creative abilities are those that facilitate success with novel tasks; and practical abilities are those we use to solve problems in everyday life. Intelligent people use these abilities to adapt to environments, shape their environments, or move to new environments when a current situation is not fostering growth.

Theories of Female Talent Development While a significant number of articles exist regarding talent development in women, few researchers have proposed theories of female talent development that span various domains and that can be widely applied under a variety of circumstances. In this chapter, we will explore two such theories: Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik’s (1996) theory of “remarkable women” and Kerr’s (1985, 1994) work and themes about “smart girls and women.”

Remarkable Women Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996) suggest that talent development in women may differ from that of

489

men due to differences in psychological needs and drives, in issues faced at home and at work, and in access to resources that encourage the development of gifts. Thus it is fitting that their model of talent development defines gifted behavior differently than traditional models. Most striking is their inclusion of the personal sphere as an outlet for gifted behavior. They note, for example, that there is talent in nurturing children well, building strong primary relationships, and making a home—particularly for the many women worldwide whose pasts are marked by dysfunction, lack of health services, and other obstacles. In addition to the personal sphere, Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996) recognize giftedness more traditionally, stating that “the widest sphere of influence lies in the creation of ideas or products that change the course of a domain or a social arena” (p. 435). In this way, their definition of gifted behavior is similar to that of Tannenbaum (1991). Success in the public sphere is characterized as “leadership” or “eminence” (p. 428). The model also heavily stresses context, however, suggesting that what qualifies as gifted behavior depends on a woman’s individual background. Women with many opportunities and fewer obstacles may be seen as gifted if they become eminent for outstanding contributions to a field, while an Indian woman of low caste may be seen as demonstrating gifted behavior if she overcomes obstacles to receive a degree or obtain a career. Factors that contribute to women’s achievement. An emphasis on context in women’s lives is seen throughout the talent-development model offered by Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996). Central to the model is the idea that women’s relative position in relation to “the mainstream of their societies’ achievement centers” has a powerful effect on whether and to what degree they will develop their talents. Thus, demographic variables such as race, wealth, and geographic location are key facilitators/inhibitors of talent development. It is important to note that in this model, adversity may either help or hinder development of women’s gifts— depending on the woman and the circumstances. Other factors include desire to achieve (similar to Tannenbaum’s theory) and the support and validation of at least one other person. Characteristics of achieving women. As described by Arnold, Noble, and Subotnik the characteristics of achieving women are those that allow them to overcome cultural and gender discrimination in whatever form they take. Thus, “cognitive and emotional

490

flexibility,” willingness to take risks and aim high, tolerance for making mistakes, persistence in the face of adversity, and the ability to resist the tendency to internalize limiting messages from the outside world may all play a role in female talent development. Talent is important, according to this model, but it certainly is not the only factor that influences female achievement. As noted by the authors, “A high level of innate ability is insufficient to withstand cultural pressures that have caused untold numbers of women to discount or deny their gifts” (p. 432).

Smart Girls and Women Kerr’s (1985, 1994) writings on eminent women differ from other works discussed in this chapter, in that Kerr conducted biographical research rather than case study or experimental research. Kerr studied the lives of 33 eminent women in various domains, including Margaret Meade, Eleanor Roosevelt, Marie Curie, Maya Angelou, Katherine Hepburn, and Rigoberta Menchu in an attempt to draw some conclusions about how female talent develops. In this review of the lives of successful actresses, scientists, activists, writers, and more, she found several themes, detailed in the following sections. Factors that facilitate development of talents. One of the most unique factors identified in Kerr’s (1985, 1994) analysis of female talent development is time alone during girlhood. For some of these girls who later became eminent women, time alone was a choice; for others, a state forced upon them by circumstance. Kerr (1994) suggests that, regardless of the cause of isolation, periods of aloneness provided these girls with time for reflection and an appreciation for individual work. Individualized instruction likewise was common across this group. Kerr (1994) notes that, for these girls, being able to move through material at their own pace probably prevented boredom and allowed advancement of skills in areas of particular talent. This individualized instruction was often provided within the larger environment of same-sex education, allowing for attention above and beyond that which might have been found within mixed-gender classrooms. Finally, not only did most of the women Kerr (1994) studied have mentors—but they had mentors who themselves had “access to the highest level of their

S.M. Reis and E.E. Sullivan

profession[s]” (p. 85). She cautions that one should not draw the conclusion that these eminent women owed their success to their relationships with influential people but rather that their talent was significant enough to impress those at the peak of their individual fields. Characteristics of eminent women. In addition to the variety of external factors, Kerr (1985, 1994) found a number of internal characteristics common to eminent women. First, almost all of the women she studied were talented and insatiable readers as girls, which may have facilitated their learning and provided fodder for new ideas. Many also felt that they were “different” or “special” (Kerr, 1994, p. 81), from a young age, either due to their gifts or for other reasons, including the feeling that they were physically unattractive. All but one found adolescence painful and troublesome, increasing the time they spent alone and providing direct experience of the costs and benefits of standing apart. As they grew toward adulthood, each of the women Kerr (1985, 1994) studied formed identities relating to their ideas and work, rather than defining themselves primarily by relationships with others. Likewise, most of the women were able to avoid seeing oneself primarily in terms of their membership in a couple or group. Instead, Kerr’s eminent women were able to connect to others such as mentors or partners without losing their own identities or goals. Finally, in keeping with the idea that work was a huge part of the lives and relationships of these women, Kerr (1985, 1994) found that many joined work and love by marrying or partnering others who shared their passions. Georgia O’Keeffe and Alfred Steiglitz, Marie and Pierre Curie, and Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas are provided as examples of just a few such couples.

The Challenges of Talented Women Many talented women who have not achieved at high levels in their professional lives tell a similar story (Reis, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2002). They were extremely bright in school, but as they grew up, they began to feel ambivalent about their future and their responsibilities to loved ones. Their dreams for future high-profile careers and important work wavered and diminished and they began to doubt what they previously believed they could accomplish. Their beliefs about their abil-

22

A Theory of Talent Development in Women of Accomplishment

ities as well as their self-confidence may have been undermined during childhood or adolescence. Some acquired various levels of “feminine modesty,” leading to changes in self-perceptions of ability and talent, which subsequently affect others’ perceptions of their potential. Some fell in love in college and suddenly and unexpectedly, the dreams of the person they loved became more important to them than their own dreams and they lowered their aspirations to pursue the relationship. Some decided to become nurses instead of doctors, and some completed a bachelor’s degree instead of a Ph.D. Some accepted less challenging work that was different from what they had dreamed about doing a decade earlier, but that enabled them sufficient time to raise their families and support their partner’s work (Reis, 1987, 1995, 1998). Some talented women born after the women’s movement were surprised to find that they had to make choices that benefited those they loved, after being consistently told that they could “have and do it all.” They learned, often to their surprise, that they could not. The current study explored the lives of women who have successfully navigated the obstacles that prevent so many women from achieving at high levels. Particular attention is paid to how and where women exercise their talents, factors that facilitate and inhibit female talent development, and characteristics of achieving women.

491

Instrumentation and Data Collection

Qualitative data collection procedures followed guidelines suggested by Strauss (1987), and Strauss & Corbin (2000). A preliminary questionnaire included 28 questions about personal lives (age, marital status, college or university attended, age of siblings and children, and information relating to the designation as having special talents or gifts); career (reasons a career was selected, other career interests, parental acceptance of career, future career plans); parental and partner encouragement of academic abilities; personal and professional achievements; the effects of marriage and children on career or personal choices, free time, and housework; and life satisfaction. In addition to the questionnaire, an interview protocol was developed based on Patton’s (1990) approach. The interview protocol involved follow-up items related to responses in the questionnaire and included 10–12 questions relating to the major areas described earlier. Field notes were taken during the interviews, which usually lasted between 2 and 3 h, and each was later transcribed and coded for major categories that emerged from the interviews. All participants participated in subsequent interviews, conducted regularly over a period of two decades, and in most cases a minimum of five interviews occurred over two decades of data collection. The use of questionnaires, multiple interviews, and document and accomplishment review provided triangulation of participants’ perceptions. The number and length of interviews were determined at the point at which data saturation occurred, meaning that the participants provided information that was Research Methods redundant and or repetitive of previously collected information. Follow-up interviews over time enabled To better understand the paths to talent realization further probing of their accomplishments, and attainin women, 22 American women who have gained ment of eminence over time, as well as current and eminence in diverse fields were studied during the retrospective perceptions about the nature of their last two decades (Reis, 1987, 1995, 1998). Qualitative personal and professional lives. case study methodology was used that included questionnaires, document review, and in-depth interviews to probe perceptions of both work and personal lives (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 1994). Primary Data Analysis source data used to document accomplishments included their books, plays, articles, diaries, envi- All data were analyzed following procedures, outlined ronmental successes, legislation, chapters, records, by Strauss & Corbin (1990), to generate an explanacompact discs, as well as articles, chapters, books, tory theory and to develop an “inductively derived dissertations, or other interviews with or about grounded theory” about the phenomenon of female talent development. The analysis procedures employed them.

492

three hierarchical, yet interrelated and recurring types of coding: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. Open coding compares and contrasts discrete parts of the data to formulate conceptual labels such as the common personality traits exhibited by the women in the study. These concepts are then compared for similarities and grouped together under categories. Axial coding focuses on identifying and linking subcategories by a set of relationships which denote causal conditions, intervening conditions, interaction strategies, the consequences of those strategies, and the context in which they occur. These concepts and relationships are verified with data in order to validate emerging theory. Finally, selective coding procedures guide the selection of a core category which relates all major categories to each other. In this study, the core category involved the characteristics of women of eminence and the unique paths followed to accomplish their work.

S.M. Reis and E.E. Sullivan

Gall, 2002). To achieve cross-validation of the qualitative data, “between-methods” triangulation, two methods were used. The data were gathered by following the general interview method (Patton, 1990; Gall, Borg, & Gall, 2002) and by document review of the women’s productivity, documents, and records. Construct validity was achieved through the use of a sound interview protocol. An audit trail validated key decisions made during the research process. In addition, member checks were conducted in categories with participants to check that they agreed with findings related to their cases.

Case Studies of Eminent Women To provide examples of the core category, the characteristics of these women and the varied paths they pursued, case studies of two of the women are provided.

Participants Each eminent woman was recognized as a major contributor in her field, and several achieved the distinction of being the first or one of the first women in her respective field. Some, for example, were the first women to achieve specific milestones in theater, politics, academe, literature and poetry, science, musical composition, government, business, environmental sciences, art, education, and other fields. Initial selection was based on individual recognition in a self-selected area of work, productivity in that work, books or articles written about the participant, and receipt of awards or special honors in her field. Each woman was either (a) nominated by one or more persons in her field or (b) invited to participate because of stories or articles about her work in major publications such as The New York Times, weekly news magazines, or journal articles. Additionally, several of the women were identified as American pioneers, for example as the first American female forester or one of the first female Broadway theater directors and producers.

Congresswoman Nancy L. Johnson (1935–)

Congresswoman Johnson is an intensely energetic person who grew up in the Midwest, with one older sister and two younger siblings. Her father was a businessman. Her mother spent her childhood in a small mill town in North Carolina, graduated from Duke University, became a history teacher, and attended the University of Chicago in the summers to complete her master’s degree. Her mother also traveled to Europe, which was unusual for a single woman during that period of time. Congresswoman Johnson explained that her parents had always worked hard and expected that their four children would work as well. She believes that these values affected her life. Her mother used to tell her to work before she got married and reminded her often that she herself had not married until she was 30, and was established in her own line of work. Nancy’s mother did not work when Nancy was a child, instead devoting her energies to her children’s schoolwork and out-of-school interests. Although her Limitations of the Study father held stereotyped gender role expectations and provided more encouragement and opportunities for When using interviews in a qualitative study, validity her brother than Nancy, she nonetheless credits the and reliability standards are applicable (Gall, Borg, & support and encouragement he did provide with her

22

A Theory of Talent Development in Women of Accomplishment

success today. “He believed we could do anything we wanted if we were willing to work hard. He emphasized doing your best and told me that if I do my best, I can do whatever I want to do. My father was a real worker and we all learned to work in a way that most kids didn’t, and so we developed an ability to persevere.” Nancy always knew she would go to college, and after attending the University of Chicago Laboratory School for elementary school and a public secondary school, she graduated from Radcliffe College, marrying almost immediately thereafter. Her three daughters were born during the early years of her marriage. Before she ran for national office, she held a variety of volunteer and paid jobs in her community. For example, she was the director of her daughters’ religious education program, a volunteer for the schools, served on the United Ways Appropriation Committee, the library expansion fund drive, the charter revision committee, and other school and church committees. She believes that these experiences as well as subsequent political victories were the result of people she met who both “encouraged and helped” her. A young man who worked during her first campaign, for example, had many skills that she did not, He organized the campaign and provided both encouragement and support. She acknowledged that she had high energy and many ideas, but she also found someone at each step who saw “broader possibilities” and helped to set the next step in motion. Her career in politics began when she ran and was elected to the state senate in 1976 but she did not campaign at the national level until her youngest daughter was a senior in high school, explaining, “I would not have run for Congress if that opening had come up earlier. In fact, I was urged to run before the seat became available, and I wouldn’t do it because I still had two of my daughters at home.” Even for her first election to the city council she had to be encouraged to run for office by her husband, a physician in the city hospital. “He said, ‘Why don’t you do it ?’ and my children said, ‘Mom, you’re doing all of this community volunteer work, why don’t you get a paid job like an ordinary person?’ ” Congresswoman Nancy L. Johnson won her first election to the House of Representatives in 1982, and in 2002, the voters of the Fifth District overwhelmingly re-elected Johnson to serve an eleventh term. She is currently a member of several powerful committees in-

493

cluding the Ways and Means and Ethics Committee. In prior terms, she was a member of the House Budget and Public Works Committees and the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families. Johnson’s chief legislative priorities include strengthening Medicare with a prescription drug benefit, expanding coverage for the uninsured, ensuring long-term care insurance affordability, reducing taxes, and improving public education. She also works for environmental protection, affordable housing, and fair trade policy on behalf of her constituents. In 1988, Johnson became the first Republican woman ever named to the powerful Ways and Means Committee and is now the committee’s fourth-ranking Republican. In 1995, she became the first woman to chair a Ways and Means Subcommittee with her appointment as Chairwoman of the Oversight Subcommittee. During her tenure, Johnson steered the development and passage of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II, which provided more than 30 new protections for taxpayers. She voted for a number of middle-class tax relief measures, including eliminating the earnings limit on working seniors; increasing the child care tax credit and expanding it to stay-at-home moms; and the development of pension reform to make it easier for small businesses to offer pensions and for people to enjoy retirement security. In January 1999, Johnson was appointed Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, which oversees the nation’s welfare laws. Her bills to improve job placement in the new welfare system and to help children in foster care make a successful transition to adulthood were signed into law. In addition, she developed the first fatherhood initiative to help fathers of children on welfare get jobs and become more effective parents, and legislation to improve the child support system to make the transition from welfare to work more secure. Johnson was named Chairwoman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee in 2001. She is a nationally recognized leader in health care reform. She successfully sponsored legislation to guarantee health insurance to millions of American children and helped write the law that saved Medicare from bankruptcy. She has been an active co-author of reimbursement reforms to strengthen community hospitals, home health agencies, and other providers and to extend Medicare coverage to cancer clinical trials. She also has introduced legislation to assure universal access to affordable

494

care and to address the looming long-term care crisis. Her insights about why she has been so successful reflect a keen knowledge of her surroundings as well as strategies she has learned about survival in politics. She believes that the men who are most successful in Washington are not those who “...know a whole lot about something. They are the guys who have kept track of the world around them and know what’s happening and who’s who and how it all fits. Women are now trying to integrate career and family but they are not focusing on themselves as citizens and as persons.” She believes that women need to take a more active role to learn how government and people work together to make things happen. “Men move up the ladder quickly and learn how to have support staff. Women do not learn to use support staff. When I first ran for office, I’d write my own newsletter, type it, run it off, and then sweep up the office after I’d finished stapling the newsletter.”

Mary Sherwood, Forester, Conservationist, and Ecologist (1906–2001) Mary Sherwood was a small, thin woman with sharp blue eyes and a firm handshake. She graduated from college in 1934 after a long and difficult struggle to receive her undergraduate degree in forestry. She spent time searching through many records and believed that she was this country’s first female forester. Mary was older than all of the other male foresters who were her classmates in college because she spent 6 years working in a typewriter factory after her father had decided that any further education would be a waste of time for his 16-year-old daughter. Her father, whom she describes as kind and quiet, was a mailman who descended from an old New England family and her mother was a housewife. Her father completed fourth grade and her mother, sixth grade. Her mother did not oppose her father’s wishes to discontinue her schooling even though Mary believed her mother knew how important an education was to her daughter. Mary also believes that her mother was troubled by the spirit her daughter displayed, especially when compared to her younger sister. She explained that she believed her mother “recognized me as rebellious and it was a relief for her to have me taken out of school and put to work. She was a real

S.M. Reis and E.E. Sullivan

Victorian and I was not a lady.” Clothes were never important to Mary and her appearance was never a priority. When volunteers from the local YWCA came to the typewriter factory looking for motivated young women to attend evening classes, she quickly volunteered. They recognized her potential and arranged for her to live with a financially well-to-do family and return to high school to obtain her diploma. Mary was relieved to leave the factory because she “couldn’t stand putting ribbon spools together” and because she wasn’t interested in what the other girls talked about: “weddings and boyfriends and clothes and jewelry.” She completed her freshman year studies in two weeks and spent the next two years finishing her sophomore, junior, and senior year of high school while she worked as a mother’s helper for the family with whom she lived. Her parents never supported her in any way and were opposed to her returning to high school and later, attending college. She remembered her father as terribly domineering and she was determined never to live under her parents’ roof again. Mary received a scholarship from the YWCA for her first year of college and maintained a series of jobs to support herself for the rest of her undergraduate college years. The family she lived with encouraged her to apply to Wellesley and Vassar but she regarded those colleges as similar to finishing schools for females and instead, chose to attend a large state university. There she met and came under the tutelage of a male botany professor who encouraged her interests in forestry. There were no female professors in botany and she described her mentor as “an innocent” who could not predict the barriers she would subsequently face as a female forester. His experience with women working out of the home was limited to a wife and sister who were teachers. Mary believed that he never considered the problems she would eventually face finding work in her field. “Having acquired a forestry degree in 1934, I soon learned that men had no intention of permitting a woman into their all-male field, so from then on, for many years, I had to either settle for a permanent office job, which I didn’t do, or I had to stay with my own interests.” She graduated during the depression and the few jobs that did exist were reserved for men with families. Following her college graduation, she conducted field work for 6 months, living in a tent and collecting data on water temperature, rainfall, and other variables in local trout streams. Mary later moved to New York, attended Cornell University,

22

A Theory of Talent Development in Women of Accomplishment

and received a master’s degree in wildlife management but was not able to find work in her field “because no one would hire a woman.” For the next two decades, she continued to seek employment as a forester, surviving by taking odd jobs in different parts of the country that enabled her to work in her field, even on a voluntary basis. Only once during her working life was she able to obtain paid employment in her chosen field of forestry and that was during World War II when no male foresters were available to work in Wisconsin. She also fell in love for the first time during this period and a week after her only marriage, her husband was drafted for duty and was subsequently reported missing in action during the war. Retrospectively, she believed however, that they would have been divorced if he had returned because of her work. “I couldn’t stand the thought of cooking or cleaning or doing laundry for a man,” she insisted, “I was really more committed to the woods and that is all that ever mattered to me.” She moved to Wisconsin to begin her career and loved her work, but when the war ended, she had to relinquish her position to returning male veterans. She turned down the substitute position the state offered as an advisor to women who had volunteered to plant trees. Mary spent most of the rest of her life rejecting jobs and roles that were usually relegated to women. Mary explained that money never mattered to her, nor did possessions or her surroundings. She started a plant nursery and spent several years cultivating wildflowers, but left that business because she was tired of the “housekeeping and bookkeeping” and wanted to be back outside. In 1957 she accepted a research position at a university in Florida after searching for work in her own field for over two decades. During the years she spent in Florida, she conducted research and also worked as a nature guide at Everglades National Park and reread Henry David Thoreau’s works, particularly Walden. She said, “If I had read Walden sooner, my whole life might have taken a different turn.” She subsequently moved to Concord to be as close to Walden Pond as possible, and received a foundation grant that enabled her to concentrate on Thoreau. Mary lived in a converted chicken coop to save money, joined the Thoreau Society, and decided that Concord should have a permanent Thoreau Center, which she helped to create during the next 7 years.

495

Mary later moved to Maine where she started another Thoreau Society. For the next 8 years, this 64year-old woman emulated Thoreau by living in a cabin, chopping her own wood, shoveling snow, planting, reading, and becoming intimately involved with the woods around her. She taught courses on Thoreau at the nearby University of Maine and enjoyed her solitary, productive life. It was during this time that she began a journal about Thoreau and wrote some of the articles and books that she would either publish or try to finish later in her life. At the conclusion of this time in the cabin, she spent a year camping in a van from Canada to Florida where she located various wildlife habitats and investigated native plant distribution. By the end of her life, Mary estimated that she had spent more than half of her life in a tent living outdoors and doing naturalist research. She gave up kayaking when she reached 80 but still hiked several hours each day until her health diminished. In l980 she founded a nationwide conservation group devoted to restoring Walden to the sanctuary Thoreau once knew. In her mid-eighties, Mary continued to plant and identify rare species of wildlife while she worked on her autobiography entitled Sister of the Old Wild Goose and three other books. She existed on a very limited income later in life but said she was content with her life and hoped to continue her efforts to preserve Walden. She expressed few regrets about her life except not writing more and being less goal oriented than she might have been. She described herself as feisty, independent, and rebellious against regulations, authority, and those who damage the environment. She won numerous environmental awards including a U.S. Department of Environmental Protection Merit Award, and many articles were published about her life and her work.

A Theory of Female Talent Development Using data from this and past research, a theory of talent development in women emerged that has continued to be refined (Reis, 1987, 1996, 1998, 2002; 2005) that includes abilities (intelligence and special talents), personality traits, environmental factors, and personal perceptions, such as the social importance of the use of one’s talents to make a positive difference in the world. Underlying this theory is the belief that talent can be developed in women of high potential

496

through systematic work, active choices, and individual, sustained effort (Dweck, 1999; Moon, 2005; Renzulli, 1978, 1986).

Spheres of Influence: Where Do Gifted Women Exercise Their Talents? As in the Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996) model of talent development, this theory proposes that women can apply their talents and gifts in many spheres, and to achievements often overlooked in literature on talent development, e.g., raising children, developing relationships, and making contributions in the community. Perhaps the most controversial issue related to women and eminence is the claim that women’s lives and personalities may prevent the single-minded devotion to work that is often hypothesized to drive production in talented men (Piirto, 1991; Subotnik & Arnold; 1995). In fact, many women, such as the composer Joan Tower, who has neither married nor had children, do indeed have the potential for single-minded devotion to their work. Many other talented women choose, however, to diversify their creative efforts, and yet still manage to produce meaningful, high-quality work. Congresswoman Nancy L. Johnson is a good example of a woman who applied herself deeply both to her family and to her career (Reis, 2002). Moreover, some eminent women believe that this diversification of talents actually has a positive impact on their work. Some female artists, for example, believe that the creative growth gained from both childbirth and parenting contributes to the creative growth of their art (Kirschenbaum & Reis, 1997). Recent research (Reis, 1987, 1995, 1996, 1998) has demonstrated that some women’s talents can be diversified across multiple areas in their lives, including relationships, work related to family and home, personal interests, aesthetic sensitivities, and appearances. This diversification of creative talents emerges in their work but also in other areas including relationships with family and friends, in the ways they decorate their homes, prepare meals, plan complicated schedules for their families, balance time between work and personal life, and stretch the family budget. Perhaps because talented women have had to struggle to find a place for themselves in work situations, they

S.M. Reis and E.E. Sullivan

have not yet had the time or experience to be able to engage in the single-minded devotion to work. Perhaps the barriers that they have experienced over time have led to the need to diversify their talents (Kirschenbaum & Reis, 1997; List & Renzulli, 1991; Ochse, 1991; Piirto, 1991 Reis, 1987, 1995, 1996, 1998; Roscher; 1987), or it may be that they simply prefer the diverse expressions of their creativity and talent.

The Trajectory of Female Talent Development The finding that some women manage to have both successful home lives and exceptional success in the public sphere leads to another facet of the currently proposed theory—namely that women develop their talents in a multitude of ways and at different times in their lives. Many women in this study, however, developed their talents slowly and over time. Each woman displayed a careful patience about the development of her gifts, with some waiting years to have the opportunity to invest considerable blocks of time to their work, while others were able to work steadily over the years. Rather than early recognition, the women in this study demonstrated persistent production, evolving into higher forms of talent. The sheer volume of output, what appeared to be “learned creativity,” and intense love for work are what led the women in this study to exceptional achievement. In this way this theory supports the later work of Sternberg (1999) and Sternberg & Gregorenko (2002) regarding the development of successful intelligence, as these eminent women succeeded in life on their own terms by developing their strengths, compensating for their weaknesses, and shaping their home and work environment to develop their unique gifts. The theory also supports the later research of Renzulli (2003) as he identified optimism, courage, romance with a discipline, sensitivity to human concerns, vision and sense of destiny, physical and mental energy, as essential background components of what makes giftedness. While in many cases talents came to fruition in later years, each participant made early decisions about her development that prepared her for future accomplishments. Mary Sherwood, for example, volunteered as a

22

A Theory of Talent Development in Women of Accomplishment

girl to attend night courses to obtain a high-school education. This decision set her on the path to college and to the botany course that opened the door to her life’s work. The foundational experiences of women in this study, however, were not always those that came through formalized learning experiences, or those that might be viewed as particularly important by others. Nancy Johnson, for one, credited some of her political success at the national level to the organizational skills gathered in local community action groups such as the Parent Teacher Association (PTA), and to local political action, rather than to the degree she had received decades earlier from a prestigious women’s college (Reis, 1998).

Factors That Facilitate Talent Development As in other talent-development models, findings from the women in this research suggest that a combination of external and internal factors facilitated their success—although the factors are in some cases different from those cited in other models. For example, unlike Tannenbaum’s (1983, 1991) model, none of the women in this study reported that they exhibited superior intellect as children and many believed that they experienced “bad luck” at crucial periods in their lives. Instead, a key finding of this research was that all of the profiled women felt a need and sense of obligation to pursue their talents in an active way. In this regard, the current theory supports the work of Gruber (1996). The women in this study lived their lives to achieve the kind of giftedness in which Gruber was interested, “the kind that can be transformed by its possessor into effective creative work for the aesthetic enrichment of human experience, for the improvement of our understanding of the world, or for the betterment of the human condition and of our prospects for survival as a species” (1996, p. 248). The eminent women in this study pursued with intensity the social responsibilities related to their work, and carefully considered the impact of their work on the betterment of society. Importantly, although these women felt a drive to pursue their talents, not all were sure that doing so made them happier or more fulfilled. When questioned

497

about their perceptions of their success and happiness, many chose to compare their own lives with the paths and life choices of equally talented contemporaries who did not achieve at similar levels. Most participants in this study perceived that their less successful, equally talented peers lived calmer, and in some cases, happier lives. They understood that the path to eminence involved sacrifices, and in some cases, harbored regrets about paths not taken and personal choices not made. Coexisting with these feelings, however, was pride in their accomplishments. This leads to another finding of this study, namely that most of these high-achieving women made difficult choices about their personal lives to enable their creative productivity to emerge (Reis, 1995, 1998). Their personal choices included decisions such as whether to divorce or refrain from marrying, to forgo having children or to have fewer children than they may otherwise have had, to live alone, or any combination of these. These decisions were usually consciously made to support a lifestyle conducive to the production of highly challenging work. Similar to the Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996) model, this research has found that one of the factors that helped some women to pursue their work with intensity was the supportive presence of others (Reis, 1995, 1998). While this finding did not apply to all participants, Mary Sherwood is a good example of one who did find external support in the form of an interested (if na¨ıve) professor. Likewise, “Kristine,” a talented artist studied by Kirchenbaum & Reis (1997), was supported not only by an encouraging aunt and sister during childhood, but later by mentors in diverse fields, including a philosophy professor and fine-metal instructor. List & Renzulli (1991) also found that talented women who fulfilled their potential had generally supportive families. Likewise, Roscher (1987) studied successful scientists, many of whom attributed their success to a family member who provided encouragement, a role model at the high school or college level, or an individual professor who took an interest in them. The women in Roscher’s (1987) study who married also attributed their continued success to the encouragement of their spouses, many of whom were scientists themselves, who recognized the sacrifices necessary for success. Self-reports of talented women, such as author Shirley Jackson, who wrote “The Lottery,” and physicist Maria Mayer, support this finding. Each

498

S.M. Reis and E.E. Sullivan Table 22.1 Factors that enable women to achieve

Preferences

Research

Importance of team building

Wasserman (2000); Linehan (2001); Omar & Davidson (2001); Knights & Richards (2003); Nelson & Burke (2002) and Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996) Wasserman (2000); O’Connell & Russo (1983); O’DonovanPolter (2001); Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996); Burke (2001a, 2001b); Linehan (2001); Omar & Davidson (2001); Knights & Richards (2003); Dash (1973); Reis (1998); Nelson & Burke (2002); Burton (2002); Reis (2001, 2002); Oppenheimer (1988); Bateson (1990) and Hardwick (1990) Wasserman (2000); O’Connell & Russo (1983); Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996); Vance & Paik (2001); Burke (2001b); Linehan (2001); Omar & Davidson (2001); Knights & Richards (2003); Dash (1973); Reis (1998); Nelson & Burke (2002); Burton (2002); Bateson (1990); Hardwick (1990) and Ajzenberg-Selove (1994) Wasserman (2000); Varma & Stroh (2001); Linehan (2001); Reis (2002); Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996); Kirschenbaum & Reis (1997)

Diverse methods of integrating relationships and careers

Perceptions of higher work loads and lower professional status of women

Awareness of perceived differences in process and effort between men and women Perception of the importance of social responsibility and importance of work Diversity of creative talent in work process and product

O’Donovan-Polter (2001); Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996); Reis (1998) and Bateson (1990)

Reis (1998); Gabor (1995) and Bateson (1990)

has indicated that they were sometimes prodded to produce work that their husbands believed was noteworthy (Hardwick, 1990; Oppenheimer, 1988). Additional factors facilitating women’s talent development can be found in Table 22.1.

Personality Attributes Studies of talented women provide a fascinating opportunity to explore key characteristics that may pro-

mote female talent development. Research in this area is generally historical in nature, relying on retrospective analyses. In these instances, biographical works are often used to identify common personality factors of famous women who were writers, scientists, and artists (e.g. Antler, 1987; Dash, 1988; Gabor, 1995). Both retrospective and contemporary analyses have generally identified personality factors such as persistence to overcome challenges or problems, independence, and a willingness to live a life that is different from their peers or counterparts as key to female talent development. Other findings include Wallace & Walberg (1995) work, which found that as girls, notable women were intelligent, hard working, imaginative, and strong willed. Interestingly, girls who became famous writers were more apt to question assumptions and conventions than were those who became notable artists, scientists, lawyers, and politicians. Subotnik & Arnold (1995) investigated women in science, generally finding that creative female scientists appear to be motivated largely by deep intellectual engagement and the recognition associated with influential discoveries. They also found a potential mismatch between the single-minded devotion to science characteristic of eminent researchers and desire to balance family and career that appears so prevalently in reports of professional women. Helson (1996) compared a sample of highly creative women mathematicians with a control group and found differences between creative and comparison subjects in background and personality that suggest that personality characteristics may be powerful determinants of creativity in female mathematicians. The traits most characteristic of the creative women were rebellious independence, introversion, and a rejection of outside influence, strong interests, a marked ability to find self-expression and self-gratification in directed research activity, flexibility or lack of constriction, both in general attitudes and in mathematical work. Despite these traits, when compared to creative male mathematicians, creative female mathematicians in Helson’s study had less selfassurance, published less, and occupied less prestigious positions. The personality traits identified in this theory and exhibited most often by the eminent women in this study are supported by the other research summarized in Table 22.2. They include determination, motivation, creativity, patience, and the ability to take, and in some cases, thrive on, risks. Each woman exhibited deter-

22

A Theory of Talent Development in Women of Accomplishment

499

Another personality trait displayed by the eminent women in this study was intensity about work characterized by energy, passionate interest, and enjoyWasserman (2000); Kennedy & McConnell (2001); Arnold, Noble, & ment. Some were outwardly enthusiastic, while othSubotnik (1996); Linehan (2001); ers were deeply quiet. Some laughed frequently and Omar & Davidson (2001); moved constantly, while others were still, calm, shy, Dash (1973); Reis (1998); and almost reserved. However, each woman exuded Burton (2002); Bateson (1990); Wallace & Walberg (1995) and an intense concentration, focus, and passion about her Ajzenberg-Selove (1994) work. Several indicated that they would rather be doing Wasserman (2000); Linehan (2001); their work than anything else, a sentiment also echoed Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996); Dash (1973); Reis (1998); Reis (2001, by male scientists studied by Roe (1952). The eminent 2002); Oppenheimer (1988); women in this study, however, reported experiencing Bateson (1990); Winstone (1978) and guilt when they felt this way, and making an attempt to Ajzenberg-Selove (1994) do more for their partners or children to assuage their Wasserman (2000); Kennedy & guilt at having these feelings, sentiments also echoed McConnell (2001); Linehan (2001); Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996); by other eminent women (Antler, 1987; Dash, 1988; Reis (1998, 2002); Bateson (1990) and Gabor, 1995; Winstone, 1978).

Table 22.2 Characteristics of gifted women Characteristics Task commitment, resilience, determination

Individualism

Openness to exploration of wide range of interests Creativity and risk taking

Ability to maintain focus despite diversity of interests Energy and excitement about work

Research

Winstone (1978) Wasserman (2000); Kennedy & McConnell (2001); Reis (1998); Oppenheimer (1988); Bateson (1990); Barriers That Impede the Development Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996); Wallace & Walberg (1995) and of Female Talents Ajzenberg-Selove (1994) Wasserman (2000); Linehan (2001); Reis (1998, 2002); Bateson (1990) and This theory also identified the importance of the resWinstone (1978)

olution of internal personal barriers and external barriers that might have hindered the completion of highlevel work (Arnold, 1995; Callahan, 1979; Hollinger & Fleming, 1988; Kerr, 1985; Ochse, 1991; Piirto, 1991; Reis, 1987, 1998; Subotnik & Arnold, 1995). ExterDiversity of interests nal barriers included the way women were raised as within field of study children and the cultural messages they encountered in life, and these external barriers contribute to and inOpenness to teract with internal barriers. These internal barriers are influence of often deeply personal and unique to each woman. important mentors and role models Supporting historical or contemporary research (see Table 22.3) about these external barriers suggests that women were often underrated or ignored in history, perhaps because many girls were not encouraged or allowed to engage in intellectual pursuits. They usumination, reflected by an ability to strive for success ally received less education than boys and were often and to continue to persevere, often under adverse con- denied access to teachers and opportunities to develop ditions and sometimes without the love and support of their potential. In the past, women, and especially one’s family and/or partner. Each displayed a type of culturally diverse women, undoubtedly received little creativity rooted in the love of work, interests, and the encouragement, stimulation, and access to tools necesway time was found for other essential aspects of life, sary for building intellectual skills and developing the such as family and relationships. In addition, each dis- ability to create something of cultural value. Women played a willingness to attempt tasks that they believed were regarded as less able than males to creatively use that others would not have the courage or the interest their intellectual skills, and if they attempted to do so, to pursue. they often expressed constraints in their personal lives Wasserman (2000); Reis (1998, 2002); Kennedy & McConnell (2001); Oppenheimer (1988); Burton (2002) and Bateson (1990) Wasserman (2000); Linehan (2001); Reis (1998, 2002); Oppenheimer (1988); Bateson (1990) and Winstone (1978) Wasserman (2000); Kennedy & McConnell (2001); O’Connell & Russo (1983); Varma & Stroh (2001); Linehan (2001); Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996); Reis (1998); Burton (2002) and Winstone (1978)

500

(Reis, 1998). Contemporary explanations raise questions about why women do not follow their interests into career preparation, or place more importance on the works they produce (Arnold, 1995; Callahan, 1979; Kerr, 1985; Reis, 1987, 1998). The problem may be further exacerbated when women produce original, creative work, and become more conscious of criticism than men, finding it difficult to address negative perceptions of their work (Baer, 1997; Roberts, 1991; Roberts & Nelson-Hoeksema, 1994; Reis, 1998). The importance of relationships and guilt about putting work ahead of personal relationships appears to be the most compelling and frequently mentioned internal barrier to the attainment of high levels of creative productive work (Arnold, 1995; Reis, 1998). Other external barriers identified in this research and supported by other research include multiple demands on time, feelings of guilt when talented women attempt to complete work in time that others (mothers, sisters, friends) tell them should be spent with their family, or, in some cases, lack of support, negative perceptions of others, difficulty in work environments, lack of interest in working alone for the periods of time necessary for creative accomplishment (Callahan, 1979; Kerr, 1985; Ochse, 1991; Piirto, 1991; Reis, 1987, 1998). A summary of this supporting research on internal and external barriers is included in Table 22.3. The internal and external barriers encountered by these women are also similar to those identified in both historical and other contemporary research. In the research that led to the development of this theory, some of the barriers were non-supportive families, and two of the women came from abusive or distant families. Almost all had siblings, and those who had brothers usually believed that their parents paid more attention to career hopes and gave more encouragement to their brothers. Relationships proved to be the greatest barriers to their work. Most married or had long-term relationships, and all but two who married had children. Two decided not to have children so that they could pursue their talents without diversifying their lives. Two had husbands who died young and while they acknowledged their grief about these tragedies in their lives, these women also believed that their husband’s early deaths enabled them to more fully develop their own potential. Environmental barriers were encountered at work and some of the women found creative options through working at home, while others fought against negative

S.M. Reis and E.E. Sullivan Table 22.3 Internal and external barriers to success Characteristics Internal “Ethic of caring” and focus on the importance of relationships over achievement Internalization of external values and gender roles definitions

Loneliness, feelings of isolation, and lack of support

Use of barriers as stepping stones Devaluing of one’s own abilities/selfsabotage Unrealistic expectations Imposter phenomenon External Nature of choices between work and family

Lack of support for achievement and ambition from family and friends Absence or negative influence of other women in workplace

Colleagues’ negative perception of women in professional setting

Research Reis (2002); Burton (2002); Wasserman (2000); Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996); Reis (1998) and Bateson (1990)

O’Donovan-Polter (2001); Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996); Omar & Davidson (2001); Knights & Richards (2003); Reis (1998, 2002); Burton (2002); Oppenheimer (1988) and Bateson (1990) Linehan (2001); Omar & Davidson (2001); Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996); Reis (1998, 2002); Nelson & Burke (2002); Burton (2002); Oppenheimer (1988); and Ajzenberg-Selove (1994) Wasserman (2000); Kennedy & McConnell (2001); Dash (1973); Reis (2002) and Bateson (1990) Reis (2002); Dash (1973); Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996); Reis (1998) and Bateson (1990) Reis (1998, 2002); Dash (1973) and Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996) Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996) and Reis (1998, 2002) Wasserman (2000); Kennedy & McConnell (2001); O’Donovan-Polter (2001); Burke (2001a); Linehan (2001); Omar & Davidson (2001); Knights & Richards (2003); Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996); Dash (1973); Reis (1998, 2001, 2002); Nelson & Burke (2002); Burton (2002); Oppenheimer (1988); Bateson (1990) and Hardwick (1990) Reis (1998, 2002); Oppenheimer (1988); Bateson (1989); Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996); Hardwick (1990) and Ajzenberg-Selove (1994) Wasserman (2000); Varma & Stroh (2001); Linehan (2001); Knights & Richards (2003); Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996); Reis (1998, 2001); Nelson & Burke (2002); Burton (2002) and Bateson (1990) Wasserman (2000); O’Connell & Russo (1983); Kennedy & McConnell (2001); O’Donovan-Polter (2001); Burke (2001a); Varma & Stroh (2001); Vance & Paik (2001); Linehan (2001); Omar & Davidson (2001); Knights & Richards (2003); Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996); Dash (1973); Reis (1998, 2001); Nelson & Burke (2002); Burton (2002); Bateson (1990) and Winstone (1978)

22

A Theory of Talent Development in Women of Accomplishment Table 22.3 (continued)

Characteristics

Research

Negative effects of general social perception of women’s abilities and roles

Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996); Kennedy & McConnell (2001); Burke (2001a); Linehan (2001); Omar & Davidson (2001); Knights & Richards (2003); Dash (1973); Reis (1998, 2001, 2002); Nelson & Burke (2002); Burton (2002); Oppenheimer (1988); Bateson (1990); Hardwick (1990) and Winstone (1978) Wasserman (2000); Kennedy & McConnell (2001); O’Donovan-Polter (2001); Linehan (2001) and Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik (1996)

Workplace sexual dynamics

work environments, eventually changing them. Some worked alone with singular concentration while others needed the interaction of a group of colleagues, requiring less time for solitary work. All traveled a unique path to eminence, actively sought support for the development of their talents, and continued to learn with formal or more personalized education and knowledge. The women also increased their levels of sophistication of knowledge about their need for satisfaction in both their work and personal lives. Some enjoyed their personal lives, while others acknowledged that they experienced frequent periods of unhappiness, characterized by some loneliness, selfsacrifice, and a conscious decision to avoid what they considered a more conventional life. Some actively strived to separate their personal life and relationships from their work life and professional relationships, indicating that they needed that distance to achieve balance. Others combined work and personal lives, drawing no line whatsoever between the two, and were happy with this combination of activity in their lives.

Differences in Male and Female Talent Development Gender differences were perceived by talented women to exist in work products and creative work processes. Changes may be necessary in the paradigm of how we view women and talent development, and a need exists for changes in society that will facilitate the development of high potential in women (Bateson, 1990;

501

Kirschenbaum & Reis, 1997; Reis, 1998). Women have made, and continue to make, many creative contributions that are different from the accomplishments made by men. Men’s creative accomplishments, however, continue to be valued more by society (Reis, 1987, 1995, 1996, 1998). Since women’s life experiences in society may be vastly different from men’s (Gilligan, 1982; Miller, 1976), it seems logical that differences in process and productivity also exist. For example, as noted, some female artists have folded the experiences of childbirth and parenting into their creative lives, using the insights gained in each to fuel their art (Kirschenbaum & Reis, 1997). Then there is the issue of a potential mismatch between the singleminded devotion necessary for creative accomplishment and either their personalities or their needs of women (Piirto, 1991; Subotnik & Arnold, 1995). As discussed, some women do demonstrate single-minded devotion to their work. Others, however, choose to express their creativity in many aspects of their lives— without necessarily feeling that doing so is incompatible with the production of worthwhile work (Reis, 2002). The women in this study believe that their creative processes emerge differently from men and that their creative work products may also differ from those produced by men. As noted in Table 22.1, research supporting this theory suggests that the work process of talented women focuses more on team building, integrating personal relationships with their careers and understanding, without accepting as right, the reality of higher work loads, accompanied by lower status in their work environment. Female writers, artists, scientists, and creators in all domains interact primarily with male standards of productivity that have been accepted as the standard within a domain, but may actually only be the standard for male creators (Reis, 1998). Therefore, until more women are able to produce in more areas, their productivity may be lower.

Conclusion The reasons for the successful accomplishments of some highly talented girls and women and the failure of others to realize their high potential in meaningful work are complex and depend on many factors,

502

including values, personal choices, and social–cultural forces. The women who participated in this study had a sense of destiny about their own potential to produce meaningful work that makes a difference. The theory that emerged from this research and from a comprehensive review of related research suggests that these women made active choices to pursue their talents because they had a sense of destiny about the importance of their work. Many personal choices and barriers faced this diverse group and it was in overcoming and successfully negotiating these obstacles that some of their motivation and determination emerged. The development of a creatively productive life and the attainment of eminence is complex and decidedly personal. What one participant regarded as an obstacle, another perceived as an intriguing challenge. While some were negatively influenced by their parents’ lack of support and withdrew from relationships, others used this anger and rebelled, and eventually became eminent in their selected area of endeavor. The ways in which the same barriers differentially affect talented women provide the fascination about conducting research on the individual paths they follow to achieve high levels of accomplishment. Not all gifted females experience the same barriers, but research summarized in this article suggests a combination of the following that occur across the lifespan and differentially affect productivity at different ages and stages: personality characteristics such as modesty, dilemmas about abilities and talents, personal decisions about family, decisions about duty and caring (putting the needs of others first) as opposed to nurturing personal needs, religious beliefs, and social issues. Some of these dilemmas cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone involved. Rather, they shift or are eliminated when changes occur in a woman’s life, such as when her children grow up, her marriage ends, a new relationship starts, or she changes a home or work environment. If our society is to more actively help talented girls and adult women to realize their abilities and potential, expectations about women’s personal choices and work process and environments must be altered, and our society must support diversity of life choices. All of the eminent women in this study were able to combine meaningful work with what they considered to be a contented personal life, but for these women, it was that personal life that enabled

S.M. Reis and E.E. Sullivan

them to pursue and develop their talents, with passion and creativity, and to achieve eminence in diverse fields.

References Ajzenberg-Selove, F. (1994). A matter of choices: Memoirs of a female physicist. Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Antler, J. (1987). Lucy Sprague Mitchell. New Haven: Yale University Press. Arnold, K. D. (1995). Lives of promise. San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers. Arnold, K. D., Noble, K. D., & Subotnik, R. F. (1996). Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Baer, J. (1997). Gender differences in the effects of anticipated evaluation of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 25–31. Bateson, M. C. (1990). Composing a life. New York. Plume, The Penguin Group. Burke, R. J. (2001a). Managerial women’s career experiences, satisfaction, and well-being: A five country study. CrossCultural Management, 8(3/4), 117–133. Burke, R. J. (2001b). Women in management: Cross-cultural research. Cross-Cultural Management, 8(3/4), 3–10. Burton, L. J. (2002). Talent development in female Olympians: A phenomenological approach. Unpublished dissertation: University of Connecticut. Callahan, C. M. (1979). The gifted and talented woman. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and talented (pp. 401–423). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. Dash, J. (1973). A life of one’s own: Three gifted women and the men they married. New York: Paragon House. Dash, J. (1988). A life of one’s own. New York: Paragon House Publishers. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Gabor, A. (1995). Einstein’s wife: Work and marriage in the lives of five great twenty-first century women. New York: Viking/Penguin. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (2002). An introduction to Educational Research. (Seventh Edition). New York: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gruber, H. E. (1996). The life space of a scientist: The visionary function and other aspects of Jean Piaget’s thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 9(2), 251-265. Hardwick, J. (1990). An immodest violet. London: Andre Deutsch. Helson, R. (1996). In search of the creative personality. Creativity Research Journal. 9(4), 295–306.

22

A Theory of Talent Development in Women of Accomplishment

Hollinger, C. L., & Fleming, E. S. (1988). Gifted and talented young women: Antecedents and correlates of life satisfaction. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(2), 254–260. Kennedy, C. J. & McConnell, M. (2001). Generally speaking. New York: Warner Books. Kerr, B. A. (1985). Smart girls, gifted women. Columbus, OH: Ohio Psychology Publishing Company. Kerr, B. A. (1994). Smart girls two: A new psychology of girls, women and giftedness. Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press. Kirschenbaum, R. J. & Reis, S. M. (1997). Conflicts in creativity: Talented female artists. Creativity Research Journal, 10(2&3), pp. 251–263. Knights, D., & Richards, W. (2003) Sex discrimination in UK academia. Gender, Work, and Organization, 10(2), 213–238. Linehan, M. (2001). Women international managers: The European experience. Cross-Cultural Management, 8(3/4), 68– 84. List, K. & Renzulli, J. (1991). Creative women’s developmental patterns through age thirty-five. Gifted Education International, 7(3), 114–122. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 20–30. Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press. Moon, S. M. (2005). Personal talent. High Ability Studies. Nelson, D. L., & Burke, R. J. (eds.) (2002) Gender, work stress, and health. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ochse, R. (1991). Why there were relatively few eminent women creators. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25(4), 334–343. O’Connell, A. N., & Russo, N. F. (1983). Models of achievement: Reflections of eminent women in psychology. New York: Columbia University Press. O’Donovan-Polter, S. (2001). The scales of success: Constructions of life-career success of eminent men and women lawyers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Omar, A., & Davidson, M. J. (2001). Women in management: A comparative cross-cultural overview. Cross-Cultural Management, 8(3/4), 35–67. Oppenheimer, J. (1988). Private demons: The life of Shirley Jackson. New York: Ballantine Books. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Piirto, J. (1991). Why are there so few? (creative women: visual artists, mathematicians, musicians). Roeper Review, 13(3), 142–147. Reis, S. M. (1987). We can’t change what we don’t recognize: Understanding the special needs of gifted females. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 83–88. Reis, S. M. (1995). Talent ignored, talent diverted: The cultural context underlying giftedness in females. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 162–170. Reis, S. M. (1996). Older women’s reflections on eminence: Obstacles, and opportunities. In K. D. Arnold, K. D. Noble, and R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 149–168). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Reis, S. M. (1998). Work left undone. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

503

Reis, S. M. (2001). Toward a theory of creativity in diverse creative women. In, M. Bloom, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Promoting creativity across the lifespan (pp. 231–275). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. Reis, S. M. (2002). Toward a theory of creativity in diverse creative women. Creativity Research Journal, 14 (3 & 4), 305–316. Reis, S. M. (2005). Feminist perspectives on talent development: A research based conception of giftedness in women. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness, Second Edition. Cambridge University Press: Boston, MA. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). New York: Cambridge University Press. Renzulli, J. S. (2003). A conception of giftedness and its relationship to the development of social capital. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp, 75–87). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Roberts, T. (1991). Gender and the influence of evaluations on self- assessments in achievement settings. Psychological Bulletin,109(2), 297–308. Roberts, T., & Nelson-Hoeksema, S. (1994). Gender comparisons in responsiveness to others’ evaluations in achievement settings. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 221–240. Roe, A (1952). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd Mead. Roscher, N. (1987). Chemistry’s creative women. Journal of Chemical Education, 56(9), 748–752. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triarchic theory of intellectual giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 233–243). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence. Review of General Psychology. 3,292–316. Sternberg, R. J. & Gregorenko, E. L. (2002). The theory of successful intelligence as a basis for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly. 46(4), 265–277. Subotnik, R. & Arnold, K. (1995). Passing through the gates: Career establishment of talented women scientists. Roeper Review, 13(3), 55–61. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2000). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (3rd edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Giftedness: A psychosocial approach. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 21–52). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1991). The social psychology of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 27–44). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

504 Vance, C. M., & Paik, Y. (2001). Where do American women face their biggest obstacle to expatriate success? Back in their own backyard. Cross-Cultural Management, 8(3/4), 98–116. Varma, A., & Stroh, L. K. (2001). Different perspectives on selection for international assignments: The impact of LMX and gender. Cross-Cultural Management, 8(3/4), 85–97. Wallace, T. & Walberg, H. (1995). Girls who became famous literalists of the imagination. Roeper Review, 13(3), 24–27.

S.M. Reis and E.E. Sullivan Wasserman, E. (2000). The door in the dream: Conversations with eminent women in science. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press. Winstone, H. V. F. (1978). Gertrude Bell. New York: Quartet Press. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Part VI

Twice-Exceptional Gifted Individuals and Suicide-Related Issues

Chapter 23

Twice Exceptional: Multiple Pathways to Success Judy L. Lupart and Royal E. Toy

Abstract This chapter addresses the interplay of exceptionality relating to students who are gifted and talented as well as disabled (twice-exceptional). Following a brief introduction, information relevant to primary twice-exceptional subgroups including gifted students with learning disability, intellectual disability and/or autism, Asperger’s Syndrome, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and sensory impairment is presented. Key areas relating to meeting the full range of needs for students who are twice exceptional in the school including identification, curriculum and instruction, and teacher preparation are discussed. The chapter concludes that even though our knowledge base and classroom practices regarding the twice-exceptional remain a “desultory duality” the future holds greatest promise for these students in inclusive schools.

period, there have also been tremendous gains in the relatively late-developing area of gifted education (Davis & Rimm, 2004: Matthews & Foster, 2006). Unfortunately, the educational needs of certain subgroups of this population of children, gifted students with disabilities, have been slow to receive recognition (Johnson, Karnes, & Carr, 1997; Newman & Sternberg, 2004). Interest in individuals with high potential and disability is not just a contemporary phenomenon. There are many historical examples of gifted men and women with handicapping conditions who have made significant contributions to society, for example, Thomas Edison, Helen Keller, and Franklin Roosevelt (Goertzel & Goertzel, 1962). Other notable persons, such Albert Einstein, Woodrow Wilson, and Auguste Rodin, had learning difficulties in reading, writing, and spelling Keywords Twice-exceptional · Gifted/learning dis- (Thompson, 1971). Despite the widespread recognition abled · Gifted with autism · Gifted with intellectual of a few such individuals, we have no way of knowing how many more handicapped individuals failed to disabilities develop areas of potential giftedness because of lack of recognition and support or inappropriate schooling. In the past, gifted children with handicaps were genIntroduction erally underserved. Where they received special educational services, it was in the area of handicap withAs the inclusion movement in education has gained out provision for extension of gifts and talents. Only momentum over the last two or three decades, those few individuals who had the support of informed, there has been increasing concern with providing concerned families and/or visionary, innovative educaappropriate education for all children, including tors were enabled to develop their potential giftedness those with exceptional learning needs (Andrews & (Johnsen & Corn, 1989). Lupart, 2000; Booth & Ainscow, 1998; Timmons, Since the 1970s there has been increased proLupart, & McKeough, 2002). During this same time fessional awareness of the gifted handicapped as an underserved subpopulation of students (Newman & Sternberg, 2004; Whitmore, 1986). In the United J.L. Lupart (B) States, the Association for the Gifted, a division of University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada e-mail: [email protected] the Council for Exceptional Children, established a L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 23, 

507

508

J.L. Lupart and R.E. Toy

subcommittee of educators of gifted handicapped children. The first national conference on handicapped gifted and talented students was held in 1976 and the term “gifted handicapped” was added to the ERIC indices in 1977 (Porter, 1982). By the mid-1970s, in the United States, at least eight special programs for gifted handicapped children had been developed (Maker, 1977), and special interest groups advocating on behalf of the gifted handicapped had been created (Johnsen & Corn, 1989). By the early 1980s, education of gifted handicapped children was being hailed as a “new frontier” (Whitmore, 1981), and ever since that time educators and researchers have been challenged to develop procedures for identifying creative potential in handicapped children (Ford & Ford, 1981), placing more attention on assessment as opposed to identification (Lupart, 2004), making appropriate use of new technology in the classroom (Bowerman & Duncan, 2005), addressing the social and emotional needs of the twice-exceptional child (Moon, Zentall, Grskovic, Hall, & Stormont, 2001; Rizza & Morrison, 2002), and providing appropriate educational programs which encouraged development of potential while attending to areas of deficit (Newman, 2004). With these challenges in mind, we present a general overview of the contemporary field of gifted students with disabilities, followed by specific information relevant to general classroom teachers by primary subgroups of gifted students with disabilities.

Definitions of giftedness that acknowledge multifaceted manifestations of high potential are more amenable to the conceptualization of gifted disability than more traditional definitions based only on extremely high intelligence. In particular, the definition proposed by Marland (1972) and subsequent amendments by the U. S. Congress (1978; 1988) that included not only high intellectual ability but also high-performance capability in specific academic areas, the arts, leadership, and creativity have been very influential in broadening the concept of giftedness to include children with disabilities. A student with disabilities, like any other student, can meet the criteria for giftedness by showing high potential and/or performance in at least one of the specified areas, irrespective of average or even deficient performance in other areas. The characteristics of giftedness which students with disabilities exhibit (Baum & Owen, 2004; Eisner & Altman, 2005; Newman & Sternberg, 2004; Whitmore & Maker, 1985) are similar to those reported for non-disabled students (Nielsen & Higgins, 2005), such as

Gifted Students with Disabilities

r

Gifted students with disabilities require special education services for one or more areas of potential giftedness, and one or more types of disability. These students form an extremely heterogeneous group, with great variability in individual profiles of strengths and weaknesses. Students with disabilities include those who require special education services for mental retardation, hearing impairment, speech impairment, visual impairment, serious emotional disturbance, specific learning disability, or orthopedic or other health impairment, either singly or in combination (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1997). Special education services are indicated if the disability prevents children from performing appropriately in regular school programs.

r r r r r r r

Superior memory and general knowledge Superior analytical and creative problem-solving skills Notable drive to know, or master Superior use of language, oral or written Exceptional comprehension Keen sense of humor Persistence in pursuit of academic or intellectual tasks Awareness and/or ability to capitalize on personal strengths

Some of the positive qualities of gifted students with disabilities, however, may not appear praiseworthy to adults around them. Nielsen snf Higgins (2005) described how teachers may view their students who are gifted and have learning disabilities: “Teachers initially view the high creativity, critical thinking, curiosity, and problem-solving ability of twice-exceptional learners as exciting, challenging, and positive. But teachers’ enthusiasm for these positive characteristics soon becomes overshadowed by their frustration with these students’ inability to demonstrate academic skills and with their often extreme behavioral difficulties.” (p. 8). This dual exceptionality is a novel and exciting opportunity, but with time becomes more of a challenge

23

Twice Exceptional

for the teacher and can lead to negative interaction. Seeley (1998) notes “The concept of disabled gifted may appear to be an oxymoron. Educators tend to view these two types of children as being at opposite ends of the educational spectrum. That the characteristics of each type could reside in one child seems incongruous” (p.90). The very abilities that make up the students exceptionalities may become a greater risk factor for emotional health (Stormont, Stebbins, & Holliday, 2001). Risk factors are biological, psychological, cognitive, or environmental factors that hinder normal development and can make an individual more vulnerable to negative life outcomes (Dole, 2000). Some of the negative characteristics exhibited by twice-exceptional students include

r r r

509

with the discrepancy between expectations based on self-perception of high abilities and low achievement resulting from the disabilities (Stormont, Stebbins, & Holliday, 2001; Reis & McCoach, 2002). Because disabilities can mask intellectual ability, talent, and creativity (Nielsen & Higgins, 2005), gifted students with disabilities are not as likely as nondisabled gifted students to be identified as gifted for special school programming (Davis & Rimm, 1998). Disabilities can disguise a child’s true potential and abilities and impede the expression of characteristics revealing giftedness (Reis & McCoach, 2002). Identifying the true ability of a child with handicaps who cannot speak or hold a pencil, for example, presents a unique challenge to educators.

Struggles with self-acceptance Fragile self-concept Primary Subgroups of Gifted Students Feelings of social discomfort, embarrassment, and with Disabilities shame r Intense frustration and anger r A need to release or vent pent-up energies r Interpersonal difficulties with peers, teachers, and Gifted Students with Learning Disabilities family Unlike other groups of twice exceptional students, who r Academic difficulties in selected skill areas can be identified by some type of discrete loss such as One particular characteristic that can be extremely visual impairment, children with learning disabilities damaging to students who are twice-exceptional is that do not constitute an easily identifiable group (Brody of perfectionism. Perfectionists who have disabilities & Mills, 1997; Matthews, this volume). Learning disoften try to hide their disability and often work very abilities may take many forms and involve some or hard to show their best sides. When the task moves be- all of the abilities inherent in using spoken or writyond their ability to mask it, they may withdraw com- ten language and mathematics. Disorders in basic psypletely so that their behavior of not doing continues to chological processes underlying oral expression, lishide their disability. Over time students who are perfec- tening comprehension, written expression, basic readtionists may become more depressed and vulnerable to ing skills, reading comprehension, mathematics calanxiety as they increase in age. culation, and mathematics reasoning are presumed to For some gifted students with disabilities, the in- arise from central nervous system dysfunction (Inditeraction between positive and negative characteris- viduals with Disabilities Education Act, 1997). tics may develop into emotional/behavioral difficulties Many of these gifted students with learning dis(Nielsen & Higgins, 2005). Where gifted students with abilities appear intelligent and excel in one or more disabilities are treated as handicapped to the neglect areas, but they have major difficulties in other areas. of their intellectual ability, a “handicapped” or depen- There may even be great variability in performance dent pattern of behavior is likely to emerge, but a sup- within a subject area such as reading or mathematics portive, facilitative environment can foster the emer- (McGuire & Yewchuk, 1995, 1996; Montague & van gence of a “gifted” pattern geared toward success in Garderen, 2003). These students are often identiacademic endeavors and social interactions with peers fied incidentally as a result of assessment for other (Ellis, Farmer, and Newman, 2005). Special educa- purposes(Brody & Mills, 1997). Utilizing advanced tional interventions in supportive settings are crucial if abilities to compensate for the learning difficulties gifted students with disabilities are to come to terms (Weill, 1987), they may function at or near grade level,

510

and the teacher may not be aware of their gifted potential (Davis & Rimm, 2004). Some are initially referred for assessment of learning difficulties and found to have IQs in the gifted range. Still others are referred for psychological assessment because of personal and social problems and only subsequently found to be gifted (Schiff, Kaufman, & Kaufman, 1981). Others may be at risk for school drop out (Matthews, this volume). Shevitz, Weinfeld, Jeweler, & Barnes-Robinson (2003) found some of the predominant commonalities for GLD students are that they are bright, underachieving, and they often have negative self-images. Many of the GLD students suffer from underachievement due to their exceptionality. A student may have superior intelligence and oral ability, but lack the fine motor control necessary to write legibly or too slowly to keep up with their rapid intellect. This discrepancy may lead to frustration, self-doubt, and self-destructive behaviors associated with decreased levels of selfesteem. Because twice-exceptional students possess characteristics of both LD and gifted, they will often struggle with their perceptions of their differences and their feelings of isolation (King, 2005). Moreover students who are twice exceptional may experience failure much more often than expected, which may result in an increased fear of failure with future tasks and greater risk for school drop out (Matthews, this volume). Ellis, Farmer, and Newman (2005) provided an overview of the covert symptoms that may keep students exceptionalities underground. Examples included the inability to paraphrase, summarize, form predictions, use imagery, generate questions, and connect ideas to background knowledge. Thus when exposed to new information, the student may not be able to connect their learning to prior knowledge and cement the new learning into meaningful information. In a similar vein, Montgomery (2004) states that the underlying theme in the profiles of underachieving gifted students is an inability to produce written work of a suitable quality to match any perceived potential. In addition she defined three areas common to this subgroup including: (a) the discrepant double exceptionality, which is a large discrepancy between perceived ability and product, (b) the deficit double exceptionality, where the disability hides the ability, and (c) the deceptive double exceptionality where the ability and disability hide each other to keep the

J.L. Lupart and R.E. Toy

student from being identified for any services. In all three areas there may be no indication of exceptional ability aside from than good oral ability and advanced problem-solving abilities. Nielsen (2002) found that twice-exceptional students may resemble their gifted peers in intellectual ability; however, they will perform poorly in academic areas, much like students that have a learning disability. Baum & Owen (2004) noted that when teachers use comprehensive programming to identify and nurture gifts and talents, GLD students begin to act more like gifted students without any disability than like their LD peers. There is even research that suggests that students who are LD might have gifted as an additional risk factor for social–emotional problems (Vespi & Yewchuck 1992; Stormont, Stebbins, & Holliday, 2001). Reis, Neu, & McGuire (1995) compared the positive and negative characteristics of GLD students that may keep them from identification for services. Behaviors such as failure to complete assignments, poor organizational skills, difficulty paying attention, and super sensitivity tend to mask the GLD students with more positive characteristics of advanced vocabulary, creativity, excellent analytical capacity, strong reasoning skills, and critical thinking ability. In a study focused on GLD students Wiener & Tardif (2004) found that elementary students with LD had fewer friends, lower quality friendships, lower social acceptance, lower academic self-concept, poorer social skills, and higher levels of loneliness, depression, and problem behaviors than children without LD. It is interesting to note that many of these problems are also associated with the negative characteristics of giftedness for some individuals due to their uniquely different personalities. Some additional school problems that twice-exceptional students may exhibit include poor handwriting, difficulty with organization, sequencing, focus, attention, eye movement, memory, comprehension of time, special perception, and visual and auditory processing (Seay, 2005). Given the multiplicity of possible combinations of areas of giftedness and learning disability, comprehensive assessment aimed at developing an individual program plan should follow initial screening. The assessment should include both a summary profile of the student’s intelligence, achievement, creativity, selfconcept, teacher evaluation, and family support, derived from interviews with teachers, parents, and coun-

23

Twice Exceptional

selors, the student’s cumulative record, and additional testing as required; and a structured individual interview focusing on the student’s self-perception as a learner, approach to academic tasks, organization of work, and work habits (Lupart, 2004). The individual program plan derived from the assessment should include strategies for enrichment of gifts and talents, strategies for remediation of and compensation for deficits, and strategies for enhancing personal development (Nielsen, 2002). Individualized programs developed in accordance with Kaplan’s (1986) Differentiated Curriculum Model (Clements, Lundell, & Hishinuma, 1994; Hishinuma, 1991) and Renzulli’s (1977) Enrichment Triad Model (Baum, 1994; Baum, Emerick, Herman, & Dixon, 1989; Olenchak, 1995) extend, challenge, and stimulate creative productivity in areas of strength, encourage development and use of alternate modes of thinking and communicating, and foster critical thinking and research skills in independent project activities. Remedial activities directed at areas of deficiency are addressed in the context of the enrichment activities, and compensatory techniques for bypassing areas of difficulty are encouraged as described the “dual-differentiation” approach utilized in Project HIGH HOPES (Baum, Cooper, & Neu, 2001). Involvement of parents in monitoring and reinforcing homework and after-school activities can result in improved academic performance and classroom behaviors (Sah & Borland, 1989). Programs for gifted students with learning disabilities should also make provisions for individual or group counseling of social and emotional needs (Matthews, this volume; Olenchak, 1994; Vespi & Yewchuck, 1992).

Gifted Students with Autism and Intellectual Disabilities How can an individual be unable to manage independent living, while simultaneously being capable of remarkable mental feats in other areas of endeavor? Such is the puzzle of the individuals referred to as “savants.” Savants constitute an estimated 0.06% of all institutionalized retarded individuals (Hill, 1977) and 9.8% of institutionalized patients with early infantile autism (Rimland, 1978). The extraordinary abilities of idiot savants are manifested in a number of discrete ways

511

categorized by Hill (1974) and Rimland (1978). Bestknown categories include calendar calculating, artistic ability, musical ability, memorization of obscure facts, mathematical abilities, mechanical ability, and pseudoverbal ability. Savants may excel in more than one area. Students who are autistic and have only one area of giftedness are typically referred to as autistic savants (Little, 2001). Males are most often identified as autistic savant and the “special” areas where the giftedness is manifested include calendar calculating, lightening calculating, visual arts, music, mechanical abilities, and spatial skills (Little, 2001), and the fact that these students have such an overwhelming disability and gifted ability seems to continue to baffle researchers and educators alike. Students with autism often have heightened sensory awareness, excellent visual acuity, can visualize things as a whole (McMullen, 2000). Visual thinking has great advantages in certain situations; however, in most classrooms students are expected to think verbally (Neihart, 2000). These exceptionalities can be of great benefit if educators can access them in addition to the remediation of their disabilities. These incredible abilities can also be a debilitating condition. Imagine a heightened sensitivity to the sounds of the florescent lights in the school building, or the smell of the lunchroom as they begin to prepare food and lunch is more than an hour away. An additional problem could be the ability to see the whole from its parts, but not to break it down into the components. Cash (1999) has noted that several of the negative characteristics relating to students who are gifted are also found in populations of students who are autistic. These may include the ability to be rude, discourteous, argumentative, stubborn, uncooperative, egocentric, indifferent to conventions of socialization and dress, and resistant to teacher domination, a perfectionist, rigid in a fascination with an interest. They may also have a compulsive preoccupation with words, ideas, numbers, and foods; a need for precision; intellectual rigidity; lack of social skills; the need to monopolize conversations and situations; the ability to concretely visualize models and systems; an intense need for stimulation; difficulties conforming to the thinking of others; and a tendency toward introversion. In most cases, the specialized skills of savants develop in unsupportive environments without specific training (Yewchuk, 1999). In some instances, systematic interventions combining opportunities for developing specific areas of talent with counseling and individ-

512

ualized programming to develop social and life skills (Donnelly & Altman, 1994) have produced dramatic results. Given the basic tenets of inclusive education, it is highly probable that savants will be more readily identified and given greater opportunity to develop talent areas.

J.L. Lupart and R.E. Toy

abnormally intrusive as well (Little, 2002). One of the major differences between students with AS and students who are gifted with AS is that the student who is twice exceptional may be intimately aware of how their behavior affects others (Little, 2002). Students with AS are also prone to distraction, as many gifted children are. The difference is that students with AS are distracted within themselves, where gifted students usually rely on an external source (Neihart, 2000). Gifted Students with Asperger’s Syndrome Henderson (2001) outlines characteristics typical for students with Asberger’s Syndrome in the three Asperger Syndrome (AS) is typically described as deficit areas: a “pervasive developmental disorder on the autism Environmental processing spectrum characterized by social deficits, relatively normal language and cognitive development, and the r Inefficient sensory system presence of idiosyncratic interests” (Henderson, 2001, r Amorphous sense of time p.28). Neihart (2000) points out that gifted students r Difficulty with social/emotional cues with Asperger’s Syndrome (AS) are often misdiagnosed as their behaviors may be attributed to LD or Cognitive processing their giftedness. Moreover children with AS are often r Cognitive inflexibility overlooked for special services as they seem to be very r Attention problems similar to their non-disabled peers (Little, 2002). r Perspective taking A typical characteristic of students who are gifted is an extensive vocabulary as well as insurmountable Communication stores of knowledge in a passion area, but their information tends to be from the memorization of r High-level pragmatic communication everything there is to know about a topic (Little, 2002) r Sense making instead of the discovery and personal experience that r Problems with socially expected communicamany GT students display. Students with Asperger’s tion behaviors syndrome tend to be more literal in their speech than typical GT students and their images are more Collectively the descriptions can provide a solid concrete. They will also have difficulties in their understanding of the unique characteristics of this social communication and interpersonal interactions. Students with Asperger’s syndrome also lack the subpopulation of twice-exceptional students. Teachers ability to move from the concrete to abstract. Their armed with this knowledge can undertake differentipresentation of information may seem like they are ated instructional approaches to accommodating their reading out of a book as opposed to relaying their unique learning needs. own information. Drawing heavily on their impressive vocabulary (Little, 2002) AS students will often annoy anyone who will listen to them about their passions Gifted Students with Attention-Deficit and may give such lengthy and/or elaborate accounts of their knowledge that it will seem that they are Hyperactivity Disorder unable to stop (Neihart, 2000). Students with AS are often perceived as egocentric, they lack the ability to Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHD) are see others’ point of view and this is often why interac- characterized by symptoms of inattention, hyperactivtions with others often fail. Individuals with AS may ity, and/or impulsivity that are developmentally inapbecome very successful adults, but they will choose propriate and not the result of other conditions (Turncareers that will isolate them from uncomfortable bull, Turnbull, Shank, & Leal, 1999). These disorders social situations. Students with AS may be shy, but fall into three subtypes.

23

Twice Exceptional

The inattentive type is characterized by daydreaming, distractibility, forgetfulness, apathy, underachievement, social withdrawal, and/or difficulty paying attention in class. In contrast, the hyperactiveimpulsive type includes students who are restless, talkative, fidgety, rebellious, and/or impulsive. In the third, combined type, students manifest characteristics of both inattention and hyperactivity impulsivity (Turnbull et al., 1999). Many gifted students are mistakenly diagnosed as having ADHD, while others are not appropriately identified (Delisle, 1995; Silverman, 1998). Since many of the behaviors associated with ADHD may be exhibited by high-energy, high-intensity gifted students and highly creative students without actually having the disorder, distinguishing between the two conditions is not easy. Close examination of the environmental, curricular, and contextual factors associated with the problematic behaviors is required (Delisle, 1995; Lind & Silverman, 1994; Reid & McGuire, 1995; Webb & Latimer, 1993). It is important to distinguish between the two conditions because the recommended educational treatment is different (Lind & Silverman, 1994). Children with ADHD exhibit the behaviors in all settings, to a greater or lesser degree, whereas for gifted children problem behaviors are situation specific, e.g., lack of challenge. With the possible exception of television and computer games, children with ADHD have short attention spans, in contrast to gifted students who can focus on tasks of interest for long periods of time. In general, children with ADHD are inconsistent in the quality of their performance, unlike gifted students who, providing they are intellectually challenged, maintain consistent efforts and high standards. One of the many characteristics of gifted children is the ability to learn things more rapidly than their age peers. Gifted children with ADHD (GADHD) follow this trend and are more typically proficient at learning things quickly than their age peers (Lovecky, 1999). Asynchrony is another attribute of giftedness. Typically gifted students will seem to be out of sync with their abilities. GADHD students will show a much greater amount of asynchrony among their cognitive, social, and emotional areas of development. They will also have considerable variability in their levels of maturity (Lovecky, 2004). In a study by Moon, boys with giftedness and ADHD were found to have emotional and social immaturity disynchronous with their intelligence, where

513

those who only had ADHD or giftedness seemed mature and emotionally adjusted (Moon et al., 2001). In the same study they found that the twice-exceptional boys exhibited characteristics that contributed to their social rejection where the boys who were gifted or ADHD did not have those problems. Certainly the idea that the two classifications seemed to work together in this study causing the students who were twiceexceptional personal and school problems, where those with only one or the other label were not similarly affected. According to the American Psychiatric Association (2000) children with ADHD have difficulty sustaining attention in most tasks or play activities, and he or she struggles to persist in tasks to completion. This pattern must be apparent in at least two environments (such as home and school). The GADHD student may have the ability to concentrate for a longer period of time, but typically the ability to attend is only in an area that they are passionate about. Kaufmann, Kaibfleisch, & Castellanos, 2000 point out that ADHD is not characterized by the inability to sustain attention, but by the inability to find the appropriate amount of attention to the task at hand and to manage tasks that are not sufficiently rewarding intrinsically and/or that require sustained effort. Thus students may choose not to attend to a boring and repetitive task and seek one that provides a more agreeable amount of stimulation or interest. As Rice (2004) describes it students who are twice exceptional are not able to take in enough information to remain alert and aroused. The result of this problem is restlessness and boredom, which will lead to many of the behavior problems common in students who are twice exceptional. For many students who are GADHD the intrinsic reward for task completion will not be sufficiently satisfying to keep them motivated (Lovecky, 1999). Moreover girls who are ADHD may fall behind academically and may come to think of themselves as “quitters” with few talents or abilities (Nadeau, 2004). They may deny that they are capable, especially if they are highly intelligent. They want a curtain to hide their differences behind, and this process may lead to a downward spiral into underachievement and possible school drop out (Matthews, this volume).

514

Gifted students with ADHD are characterized by asynchrony between advanced intellectual/academic abilities and immature social skills or emotional reactions, which may be poorly tolerated, even by gifted peers. They may have increased intensity and emotional reactivity to environmental stimuli, and heightened intellectual and imaginative excitation (Lovecky, 1994). Strengths of gifted students with ADHD include ability to work quickly and produce work of significant quality, a spontaneous and joyful approach to life, and a sweet temperament and trust of people (Lovecky, 1994). Successful educational interventions for gifted students with ADHD address both conditions on an individualized basis (Hartley, 1993; Lind & Silverman, 1994; Ramirez-Smith, 1997; Reid & McGuire, 1995; Wolfle & French, 1990). Suggestions for changing disruptive classroom behaviors include use of behavior management techniques, social modeling and self-monitoring techniques, and providing a structured environment. The curriculum must be differentiated to challenge and stimulate. An area of controversy in the treatment of ADHD concerns the prescription of stimulant drugs such as Ritalin, which, in children, can produce a calming effect and a focusing of attention. Between 70 and 80% of children with ADHD respond positively to Ritalen (Pancheri & Prater, 1999). But it also has numerous possible side effect such as loss of appetite, insomnia, tics, headaches, and stomach aches (Pancheri & Prater, 1999). Medication should be used as a last resort, only after behavior management and instructional interventions have proved ineffective (Howell, Evans, & Gardiner, 1997). Rice (2004) explains that many students who are twice exceptional need to use a great amount of cognitive energy to remain on task. When the student’s allotment of mental energy is gone, the student may dip into their energy reserves and continue in a project becoming hyper-vigilant. If the student runs out of material to engage in he or she is left in an agitated state and will react in a negative way due to the amount of adrenalin in their bloodstream that is not easily dispelled. When a student is in this mode their regular patterns of resting, eating, and sleeping are affected which will cause a negative spiraling effect thus causing the student to dip into their energy reserves earlier and earlier as this process continues. The answer to this problem can be found in accommodations and therapies for input, ap-

J.L. Lupart and R.E. Toy

propriate cognitive stimulation (from the classroom), modifications for output, and sensory awareness training (Rice, 2004).

Gifted Students with Sensory Disabilities Gifted Students with Hearing Disabilities The historical pattern for educating students with hearing impairment has involved placement in special programs based on disability rather than giftedness. In segregated settings such as schools for the deaf or special classes for hearing impairment, emphasis has been placed on “normalizing” development of language and speech. Students with hearing impairment have been less likely to be identified as gifted than their hearing counterparts (Vialle & Paterson, 1996; Yewchuk & Bibby, 1989a; 1989b). Most students who are gifted with hearing disabilities act very similar to their peers who are gifted and hearing. They have just as much intellectual preciosity, superior reasoning and other traits; however, their academic achievement may be delayed up to 4 or 5 years (Reis & McCoach, 2002). The basic referral, assessment, and selection procedures used with gifted children may be applied to hearing-impaired populations (Whitmore & Maker, 1985), with appropriate concessions to handicapping effects of hearing impairment (Pendarvis & Grossi, 1980), and the pervasive influence of deafness as a cultural difference (Vialle & Paterson, 1996). Verbal test scores should be given less prominence than nonverbal and performance scores (Rittenhouse & Blough, 1995). Intelligence tests should be individually administered and nonverbal in nature (Sattler, 1992). Functioning at or somewhat above grade level on standardized achievement tests may be indicative of giftedness (Yewchuk, Bibby, & Fraser, 1989). Referrals by both teachers and parents should be part of the identification process (Yewchuk & Bibby, 1989a). Suggestions for designing and implementing programming to meet the learning needs of gifted students with hearing impairment include the following (MacDonald & Yewchuk, 1994; Maker, 1981; Pollard & Howze, 1981; Rittenhouse & Blough, 1995):

23

r r r r r

Twice Exceptional

Programs should be flexible in both design and use to allow latitude in investigation of complex issues. Programs should encourage use of advance reasoning and analytical skills rather than memorization. Programs should be individualized to match student interests, learning styles, and exceptional skills. Programs should include thematic units with alternatives for stretching and extending exceptional gifts and talents of students. Programming should include special education services for areas of weakness.

515

cialization skills, and independent living must continue as part of the individual program plan (Corn, 1986, 1992; Hackney, 1986). Successful placement in inclusive classrooms involves collaboration between regular classroom teachers, special educators, specialists in visual impairment, professional support personnel, parents, and the students themselves (Ingraham & Daugherty, 1995; Lichtenstein, 1997).

Accommodating the Learning Needs of Twice Exceptional Students in School Gifted Students with Visual Impairments Like students with hearing impairment, students with visual impairment have been educated historically in residential schools with other similarly affected students. Accompanying the trend toward placement of students into regular classrooms is an increasing awareness of the unique needs of these students who also have special gifts and talents (Ferrell, 1994). The diagnosis of visual impairment includes low vision (ability to read large print, with or without magnification), functional blindness (sufficient vision to move through environment, but braille required for reading and writing), and total blindness (Turnbull et al., 1999). Approximately one out of every thousand children of school age have a visual impairment, and of these 2–5% are gifted (Ferrell, 1994). Giftedness is not as readily apparent in students with visual impairment as in the normal population because of the barriers to assessing true potential (Corn, 1986, 1992; Hackney, 1986). Little (2001) indicates that creative production and cognitive development tend to progress more slowly than for sighted peers. Nevertheless the excellent verbal skills, persistence, motivation, high concentration, and superior memory ability typical of students who are gifted and visually impaired contributes significantly to learning progress and general achievement. Special problems arise when a student with visual impairment is placed with sighted students without adequate learning supports. Paskewicz (1986) found the major stumbling block to be the lack of adequate brailled materials and the waiting time for brailling of additional materials, which severely limits the depth and spontaneity of exploration of subject matter. Instruction in braille usage, orientation and mobility, so-

Identification Twice exceptional students are extremely heterogeneous and dispersed broadly across educational systems. When it comes to identification of twiceexceptional students, both teachers and parents may find it difficult associating failing grades and incomplete assignments with giftedness (Matthews, this volume; Swesson, 1994). Karnes, Shaunessy, & Bisland (2004) reported that gifted students are under-identified among the various populations of students with disabilities, although generally there are no accurate numbers available as to the actual numbers to students who are twice exceptional. As Eisner & Sornik (2005) accurately point out “because twice exceptionality is not a diagnostic classification, there is no established set of criteria for identifying twice exceptional students” (p. 17). Indeed it seems apparent that the complexity and interaction of the strengths and weaknesses a student may possess make any attempt at assessment and/or remediation difficult to achieve (Kesner, 2002). In agreement, Reis, McGuire, & Neu (2000) have argued that most schools, regardless of the identification program that is pursued, will not have adequate flexibility to ensure identification of both gifts and learning disabilities. Clearly a more flexible or comprehensive identification and/or assessment is needed to enable more twice-exceptional students to be identified for appropriate services (Ruban & Reis, 2005). Nevertheless, as Karnes & Shaunessy (2004) note in the United States educators are required by law to identify children with disabilities. This has not always been to the benefit of individuals who are twice exceptional

516

in that the identification is driven by a deficit model that typically results in separate educational placements or creates an undue focus on the disability and not the giftedness. Bianco (2005) indicates that the two primary barriers to effective identification of students with disabilities for gifted programs are teacher’s stereotypic beliefs and inadequate teacher training. Misconceptions about how giftedness is manifested and low expectations associated with anyone having a disability can be a substantial deterrent for effective identification practice in the schools. In a similar vein, Cline & Hegerman (2001) proposed that some of the challenges that proper identification of students who are twice exceptional include a focus on the assessment of a disability, stereotypical expectations [for either ability or disability], experiential deficits, narrow views [or conceptions] of giftedness, and disability-specific concerns. An additional problem with identification is the accurate definition of each area of exceptionality and then the consistent application of the definition. It is often the case that students who are identified for gifted programming and who continue to struggle in certain academic endeavors are mistakenly considered lazy or underachievers (Bianco, 2005; Matthews, this volume). Essentially the one-label-fits-all approach that is typical of most school identification programs will not work with these students. Little (2001) has suggested that individuals, who have physical or outwardly visible disabilities as well as exceptional abilities, are often hindered in receiving recognition for their superior intelligence. Unfortunately, it is easier to focus on something that is tangible and can be detected by a mere glance rather than something that must be discovered. Unfortunately this problem exists not only with outwardly visible conditions but ones that are also displayed through academia. Finally, some students will test poorly for gifted programming for a variety of reasons. Dorry (2004) has provided a number of insights for why this can occur. They may be slow due to Oppositional-Defiant disorder. They are so involved in self or self-choice that they would not perform until they choose to. Emotional pressures or anxieties may affect their ability to perform. Time pressure can leave a student feeling hurried and the more they worry about the time the less well they achieve. Visual or auditory processing disorders can interfere as a student has to use more mental energy

J.L. Lupart and R.E. Toy

to understand the information before solving the problem. At times the mind works too quickly for the hands to write or mouth to speak, consequently the ideas just get lost in the execution of a task. Medicine/medical problems can interfere with processing speed. It is possible for a stimulant to fast forward functioning where a common cold can really slow a person down. Learning disorders where a student is forced to use an area of the brain that may be weak can affect their ability to perform well on tests. Cerebral functioning may affect speed if a student is asked to complete tasks that are unfamiliar and have not been learned previously, or if there is a disorder that keeps this autonomy from being created from previous experience. Gestalt or problems with whole-to-part relationships can affect speed. ADHD may be another cause with the student having difficulty with internal time monitoring. They may be so distracted that their speeds dramatically decrease as they recognize their errors. The key to recognition of giftedness in students with disabilities lies in adequately trained special educators, gifted educators, and mainstream educators (Johnson, Karnes, & Carr, 1997; Davis & Rimm, 2004). The following practices are conducive to identification of gifts and talents in students with disabilities:

r

r

r

Be familiar with the characteristics of giftedness and talent, and how they can be manifested by students with handicapping conditions. Create situations where students with handicaps have the opportunity to display gifted and talented behavior. Lupart (2004) proposes that teachers can assume a primary role in the assessment process through “learner-in-context” observation and metacognitive-based semi-structured interviews. The norm group for a student with disabilities should be the subgroup of peers with similar disabilities who have experienced a similar degree of developmental delay in language development and intellectual functioning through lack of access to information, opportunity, and resources (Maker, 1977). Standardized tests of intelligence and achievement developed specifically for subpopulations of students with handicaps, such as the Hiskey Nebraska Test of Learning Aptitude (Hiskey, 1966) for deaf children or the Perkins–Binet for blind children (Warren, 1984) should be used. Where such instruments are not available, checklists and tests should

23

r

r

r

Twice Exceptional

be examined and assessed for appropriateness of use, bearing in mind the unique characteristics of the particular subgroup (Nielsen, 2002), and the need to lower IQ criteria for giftedness if the condition affects test performance, for example, 120 and 125 on any one of the Verbal, Performance or Full Scales of the Wechsler instead of the more conventional 130 and over for gifted students with learning disabilities (Lupart & Pyryt, 1996; Yewchuk, 1986). Many students may be penalized on standardized intelligence tests because they will not or cannot perform quickly (Dorry, 2004). Tests should be modified only if the examiner is thoroughly familiar with the limitations imposed by specific types of disability and the special concessions appropriate for that type of disability (Pendarvis & Grossi, 1980). Ways in which students compensate for a disabling condition and characteristics instrumental in successful adaptation should be given special emphasis. If normal channels of expression are inaccessible, tasks requiring problem solving, memory, critical thinking, and creativity might be appropriate (LaFrance, 1995; Whitmore, 1981). It is recommended that a multidimensional approach be used in the identification of students who are twice exceptional and should include a large battery of assessments including, but not limited to intelligence tests (Fetzer, 2000). Multiple sources of information, including standardized tests (achievement, ability, aptitude), teacher and parent referral, and student observation, maximize the likelihood of identification and facilitate a balanced, holistic view of the child’s abilities (Lupart, 2004; Grimm, 1998). Assessment should also be an ongoing process not a one-time event. Certain disabilities are not always diagnosable in a single shot and gifted behaviors may manifest themselves at different times. Multiple sources and assessment tools will allow students to exhibit their exceptionalities over time and will assist in the vision that each background is unique (Colorado Department of Education, n.d.). It is critical that parents be involved in the identification process to offer their insight into their child’s abilities and activities outside of school (Rivera, Murdock, & Sexton, 1995). Parents are often the best predictors of student ability. They have known their children from birth, and although they may not

517

always be aware of the exceptionality of their child they will provide insights that trained professionals may not have the opportunity to witness or evaluate. Special educators should have course work in gifted education; gifted educators should have course work addressing disability issues; and classroom teachers need familiarity with both fields to recognize the needs of gifted students with disabilities in inclusionary settings (Johnson, Karnes, & Carr, 1997; Lupart, 2004). Provision of appropriate educational programming for gifted students with disabilities is facilitated when teachers, psychologists, counsellors, parents, and others can work together to provide service for children with special needs in the inclusive classroom.

Curriculum and Instruction It has been estimated that between 2 and 20% of our population belong to programs for gifted and talented (Davis & Rimm, 2004; Renzulli & Reis, 1997). Matthews & Foster (2006) note that a child is considered gifted only when the learning needs in any given subject area are so advanced relative to same age-peers that special adaptive programming is required for continued challenge and academic development. Moreover, they point out that some children have exceptionally advanced learning needs that require more flexibly responsive educational attention. In thinking about the education of students who are gifted and talented and disabled, it is important to recognize that many students do not qualify for programming and/or services. Unfortunately as Newman (2004) attests although some of these students are served based on either their ability or their disability, very few will receive both types of services. One of the long-standing goals in special education has been early intervention. The sooner the diagnosis is made the earlier the school, parents, and other involved parties can assist the maturation of the student. If a suitable diagnosis is made that allows for educational, social, and emotional interventions that will meet a child’s needs, parents can be relieved of the guilt and frustration that may come with the child’s disability (Benito, 2003). The underlying rationale for early intervention is that if a student’s exceptionality can be detected early it can be corrected.

518

In support of this notion Morelock, Brown, & Morrissey (2003) found that children who scored above 130 IQ at four years of age, as toddlers, demonstrated significantly advanced pretend play. In addition, the mothers of the high-IQ children engaged in scaffolding behaviors involving higher stages of pretend transformations, verbal analogies, and world links. In this example the parents responded to the advanced needs of their children by providing them with opportunities for advanced growth and furthering their development. Parents are often the best service providers for their children. Parents observe their children, divine their needs, and then provide the appropriate support to their child. Parents who are caring and respect their children will allow themselves to be lead in the timing and content that the student is ready for. Morelock et al. (2003) concluded that the pretend play of toddlers is a hallmark of intellectual advancement. Further they suggest that the quality of supports or interventions for a child may have significant effect on their intellectual development. Early intervention needs to include communication with the student who is twice exceptional. There needs to be a clear line of discussion about problems and expectations. An environment of trust must also be developed in which the very young twice-disabled child can freely express opinions that are valued and not censured by adults. For twice-exceptional students within the K-12 school system, the gold standard is strength-based instruction, accommodations, and compensation (Eisner & Altman, 2005). This standard cannot be met if adequate communication is not a significant part of the development of curriculum and instruction for students who are twice exceptional. The collaborative process needs to include stakeholders such as the principal, student, parent, classroom teacher, educator of the gifted and of special education. Meetings need to take place between current teachers and prior teachers to inform specific interventions and adaptations as well as the success of prior programming for the individual student. It is important for the specialists in special education and gifted education work closely with the classroom teachers to make sure appropriate programming is taking place. Classroom observations can be valuable in training teachers and parents the appropriate interventions and techniques for working with the student. Finally, it is ideal for any program or process to have some type of evaluation to measure

J.L. Lupart and R.E. Toy

success by any and all stakeholders. By evaluating the collaborative process individual learning plans can be monitored and adjusted provides the means for gathering data on specific students. One of the largest problems facing schools today relates to the way services are provided or mandated for students. Many twice-exceptional students have individual education programs that require adaptations or accommodations which are inappropriate or do not meet the spectrum of needs of the students. This may make access to the gifted and talented instruction improbable, if not impossible (Weinfeld et al., 2005). This is especially true when curriculum utilized in schools require students to depend on various basic academic skills, such as reading, writing, and math. As King (2005) points out these subjects are often areas of difficulty for students who are twice exceptional. It is often proposed that the complexity of the interaction between their strengths and their weaknesses can make assessment and remediation virtually impossible (Mills & Brody, 2002). Curriculum should be flexible and adapt to the needs of the students, it should also be taught in concepts instead of rote-learning facts, unless the student is autistic or has AS, then this practice may be warranted. There should be opportunities for the students to learn using their strengths as well as opportunities to develop and strengthen their weaknesses. One of the popular approaches to “fix” a twice-exceptional student is to take instructional and/or work time away from the student’s area(s) of strength to remediate their weaknesses. This practice is severely detrimental to the twice-exceptional child, as the focus of their schooling is driven to strengthen their areas of weakness and ignore their strengths. A better model is one where they are allowed to excel in their area(s) of strength and remediate their weaknesses. Students who are gifted and have learning disabilities require instruction in strategies that relate to all of their academic areas. This is especially true for their area of disability. The specific strategies should come in response to the instructional goals that are shared by the student and teacher (Bisland, 2004). Gifted students with learning disabilities have exceptional cognitive abilities and talents that should be nurtured as they learn how to effectively compensate for their disabilities (Baum et al., 1989; Baum & Owen, 2004; Matthews, this volume; McCoach et al., 2001).

23

Twice Exceptional

McCoach et al. (2001) assert that twice-exceptional students should have appropriate challenge in each subject, even if this causes asynchronies within the student’s school programming. In many cases the instruction that is available to students who are twice exceptional is mismatched. The curriculum that is used in the regular classroom may also be problematic. Often school-wide curriculum is aligned with minimum competency standards and state assessments which provide no flexibility and lack sufficient challenge (Johnsen, 2006). It is imperative that the opportunities for work in a student’s area of strength be included in their individualized education program (IEP), and in this way the students will be guaranteed these critical services and opportunities (Reis & Ruban, 2005). These services could come from any facet of programming (e.g., push-in, pull-out models) such that a continuum of services can be provided. It is equally important that opportunities for skill development and content instruction be provided in the inclusive classroom. This is so that twice-exceptional students will find success at employing their advanced learning strategies and will serve to bolster their self-esteem and provide them the opportunity to try more challenging work in the classroom. It should be obvious to all stakeholders that students need opportunity to participate and be engaged in enrichment and acceleration programs to be able to demonstrate their gifts and talents; however, it is equally important to address their disabilities (Bisland, 2004). In addition to provisions outlined in the student’s IEP, Coleman (2005) notes there are three areas in which students need support: emotional support, external scaffolding, and advocacy. Emotional support refers to the atmosphere that we create for our students. External scaffolding refers to the amount of additional help that a student needs. The help can come in many forms such as modification of assignments or products, targeted remediation, direct instruction, and specific accommodations. Advocacy is initially the role that the parent or teacher shoulders. It is the need to speak out to obtain appropriate services for the student. Ideally this role is transferred to the student. In order for this to transfer, the student must understand his or her abilities and challenges. Then the student must come to understand the way in which they can appropriately ask for services. The

519

ultimate goal of all areas of support is to help the student become an autonomous learner(Coleman, 2005). The self-concept of students who are twice exceptional is highly influenced by their peers as well as the expectations placed upon them by their schools and parents (Fetzer, 2000). The mixed messages that these students receive are problematic in relation to their capabilities in the classroom and the expectations of their performance (Waldron, Saphire, & Rosenblum, 1987). Often the conflicting messages that students who are twice exceptional receive can be damaging to their achievement as well. Parents and teachers hold high expectations due to the students’ gifted behavior, but they are held to a lesser standard due to their disability (Swesson, 1994). It is important to teach students who are twice exceptional that the words they may define themselves by can be turned into a positive light. For example, stubborn could become tenacious and so forth (Fox, 1999). Reis, McGuire, & Neu, 2000 found two distinct advantages that successful twice-exceptional students had in postsecondary school. They included high reliance on compensation strategies such as study and note-taking strategies, technology, goal setting, and self-advocacy or ways to request appropriate accommodations or interventions that will enable the student to be successful. Students who lack the self-efficacy to advocate or lack confidence in their abilities to produce quality work will often hide their weaknesses and are ashamed to ask for help. In order to self-advocate students must be taught their areas of strength and weakness. They must also receive direct and explicit instruction in the communication of those abilities to others. Not only should students be taught to be self-aware, they need to learn the proper “social norms” that will assist them in their communication with service providers, parents, and other concerned parties. A final area of instruction that seems to be lacking is providing career and transition services for students who are twice exceptional (Hua, 2002). Rosenberg (2005) mentions three important points relating to college entrance for students who are twice exceptional. They include having a psycho-educational assessment in place so that there is official documentation for the university to provide services. Second, applying to take college entrance exams in advance to make

520

J.L. Lupart and R.E. Toy

sure that proper accommodations can be available for Another problem when it comes to teacher training the student to minimize disabilities, and finally select- is the long-held stereotypes that teachers hold for gifted ing the appropriate college that will accommodate the students. Not only is it often difficult to obtain accurate student (Rosenberg, 2005). nominations from teachers, they find it difficult to understand that a student with disabilities could also be referred for high ability. They tend to view the atypical behaviors among students who are twice exceptional as indicative of weaknesses and problems rather than the Teacher Education symbolic strengths and gifts of the students (Baum & Olenchak, 2002). In the future teachers, special educators, and other One of the major problems facing institutions of higher service providers will require more training in the ideneducation is fitting in all the information and expertification and recommendation of students for testing. tise deemed relevant for contemporary teachers into Sullivan (2001), for example, recommends that teachexisting programs. Fierce debates about the depth and ers use portfolios to serve as another form of identifibreadth of content and practicum experience are comcation and service for students who are twice excepmonplace in many faculties of education. This partional. All educators require training in traits and charticular problem forces universities to streamline their graduation requirements so that new teachers have lit- acteristics of giftedness and disability. With this traintle training in working with students who are excep- ing they will be enabled to refer students with disabiltional. It is often the case that pre-service teachers will ities for programming into a gifted and talented prohave only one course in exceptionalities that merely gram. They will also need to be aware that many twicetouches the surface. The situation is exacerbated by exceptional students are effectively masking their abilithe fact that general education teachers, who may be ties and disabilities to look average. When teachers are tenured in their school district, rarely have any train- trained to identify typical strengths or weaknesses of ing to work with students who have exceptionalities students who are twice exceptional immediate opportu(Kennedy, Higgins, & Pierce, 2002). It is worse yet nities for accommodation/services are imminent. Conwhen there are students with multiple exceptionalities sequently, teachers who serve twice-exceptional stuin the general education classroom. In addition, teach- dents need to be prepared in decision making and emers of special education are often not trained to work ployment of appropriate methods of instruction so that with gifted and talented students (Kennedy, Higgins, the students do not end up with a deficiency related to the form of instruction used by their teacher. Program& Pierce, 2002). Because of the multiple demands on any individual ming that allows for multiple pathways to learning and teacher or teacher in training, it is unlikely that the ma- providing numerous opportunities to demonstrate that jority of educators will have enough training to make learning will assist twice-exceptional students in selfdifferentiation work for every student in every situa- efficacy and mastery of concepts. The avenues that tion. Clearly the ultimate success of any program, re- can lead to these competencies may include problem gardless of its location, depends on the training and solving, critical thinking, extension of traditional curquality of that training, of those who work with and for riculum, peer interaction, cooperative and collaborathe students (Weinfeld et al., 2005). Special education tive learning, and an environment that is fluid and teachers may have the ability to provide programming flexible to allow appropriate movement throughout the for students with disabilities; however, they often lack classroom. Finally, future teacher preparation and professional the training necessary to identify potential giftedness development opportunities for teachers should foand to provide accurate recommendations for services cus on individual programming. The programming in a gifted program (Bianco, 2005). It is also imperative that specialists, classroom teachers, and other ser- needs to include flexible instructional approaches vice providers establish an open line of communication and adaptations (Coleman, 2001). The programming with the parents and the student to ensure that any ser- should include individual assessments that are conducted at frequent intervals to monitor the change vices that are employed are appropriate and working.

23

Twice Exceptional

and progress of the individual learner. The assessments will allow service providers to adapt/change the programming to meet the current needs of the learner.

Conclusion Important changes have been taking place over the past decade in regular education, gifted education, and special education that will eventually have a significant positive effect on the education and full development of the learning potential of gifted students with disabilities (Lupart, 2006). The adoption of a simultaneous commitment toward excellence and equity in our schools holds promise for all participants within the learning community (Ford & Harmon, 2001). Inclusive education offers the context for this to happen in general classrooms throughout the world, and eventually should figure strongly in helping to eliminate many of the limitations and barriers faced by students who are twice exceptional (Andrews & Lupart, 2000). Even though much of our current knowledge base and classroom practice in educating gifted students with disabilities is still best depicted as a “desultory duality” (Yewchuk & Lupart, 2000), the future is decidedly brighter with a growing confluence of interests, practices, and visions in the education of all students from regular and special education. Though the review of the literature continues to reveal the reality of a somewhat disconnected and unmethodical knowledge base, progress in understanding the challenges and benefits associated with the blending of programs and services to best meet the unique needs of those identified is becoming more apparent. Certainly there have been impressive gains in both research and educational practice, unfortunately there are still only small pockets of this exemplary work being carried out. The ultimate merging of general and special education into a unified educational system will hopefully generate schools that can provide an appropriate education for all students, even gifted students with disabilities. Indeed, successful efforts in this area might contribute significantly to the general reform, if not transformation of education in the future.

521

References American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Andrews, J., & Lupart, J. (2000). The inclusive classroom: Educating exceptional children. (2nd ed). Scarborough, ON: Nelson. Baum, S. (1994). Meeting the needs of gifted/learning disabled students. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5(3), 6–16. Baum, S. M., Cooper, C. R., & Neu, T. W. (2001). Dual differentiation: An approach for meeting the curricular needs of gifted students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 38(5), 477–490. Baum, S. M., Emerick, L. J., Herman, G. N., & Dixon, J. (1989). Identification, programs, and enrichment strategies for gifted learning disabled youth. Roeper Review, 12, 48–53. Baum, S. M., & Olenchak, F. R. (2002). The alphabet children: GT, ADHD, and more. Exceptionality, 10(2), 77–91. Baum, S. M., & Owen, S. V. (2004). To be gifted and learning disabled: Strategies for helping bright students with LD, ADHD, and more. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Benito, Y. (2003). Intellectual giftedness and associated disorders: Separation anxiety disorders or school phobia. Gifted and Talented International, 18(1), 27–35. Bianco, M. (2005). The effects of disability labels on special education and general education teachers’ referrals for gifted programs. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(Fall), 285–293. Bisland, A. (2004). Using learning-strategies instruction with students who are gifted and learning disabled. Gifted Child Today, 27(3), 52–58. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (Eds.). (1998). From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education. London: Routledge. Bowerman, M., & Duncan, S. (2005). Technology for all. T H E Journal, 32(10), 20–24. Brody, L., & Mills, C. (1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(3), 282–296. Cash, A. B. (1999). A profile of gifted individuals with autism: The twice-exceptional learner. Roeper Review, 22(1), 22–27. Clements, C., Lundell, F., & Hishinuma, E. (1994). Serving the gifted dyslexic and gifted at risk. Gifted Child Today, 17(4), 12–14, 16–17, 36–37. Cline, S., & Hegerman, K. (2001). Gifted children with disabilities. Gifted Child Today, 24(3), 16–24. Coleman, M. R. (2001). Surviving or thriving? 21 gifted boys with learning disabilities share their school stories. Gifted Child Today, 24(3), 56–63. Coleman, M. R. (2005). Academic strategies that work for gifted students with learning disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 28–32. Colorado Department of Education. (n.d.). Twice-exceptional students gifted students with disabilities: An introductory resource book: Colorado Department of Education.

522 Corn, A. (1986). Gifted students who have a visual handicap: Can we meet their educational needs? Education of the Visually Handicapped, 18(2), 71–84. Corn, A. (1992). Education of children with visual handicaps who are also gifted. Division for the Visually Handicapped, Council for Exceptional Children, Quarterly, 38(1), 19–22. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented. (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Delisle, J. (1995). ADD gifted: How many labels can one child take? Gifted Child Today Magazine, 18(2), 42–43. Dole, S. (2000). The implications of the risk and resilience literature for gifted students with learning disabilities. Roeper Review, 23(2), 91–96. Donnelly, J. A., & Altman, R. (1994). The autistic savant: Recognizing and serving the gifted student with autism. Roeper Review, 16(4), 252–256. Dorry, G. W. (2004). The tortoise hypothesis. Twice-Exceptional Newsletter, (8), 1 & 11–13. Eisner, W., & Altman, J. B. (2005). A model for 2e education. Twice-Exceptional Newsletter, (11), 1 & 18–21. Eisner, W., & Sornik, B. (2005). Proposed guidelines for identifying and meeting the needs of twice-exceptional (2e) students. Twice-Exceptional Newsletter, (16), 1 & 17–22. Ellis, E., Farmer, T., & Newman, J. (2005). Big ideas about teaching big ideas. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 34–40. Ferrell, K. (1994, April). Twice exceptional: Gifted and visually impaired. Paper presented at the TAG Symposium of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Exceptional Children, Denver. Fetzer, E. A. (2000). The gifted/learning-disabled child: A guide for teachers and parents. Gifted Child Today, 23(4), 44–50. Ford, B. G., & Ford, R. D. (1981). Identifying creative potential in handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 48(2), 115–122. Ford, D. Y., & Harmon, D. A. (2001). Equity and excellence: Providing access to gifted education for culturally diverse students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(2), 141–148. Fox, L. H. (1999). Hope and help for the gifted who are learningdisabled. Gifted Education Press Quarterly, 13(2), 2–7. Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, M. G. (1962). Cradles of eminence. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Grimm, J. (1998). The participation of gifted students with disabilities in gifted programs. Roeper Review, 20(4), 285–286. Hackney, P. W. (1986). Education of the visually handicapped gifted: A program description. Educational of the Visually Handicapped, 18(2), 85-95. Hartley, D. (1993). John Adam Hartley: An ADD story . Gifted Child Today, 16(2), 34–37. Henderson, L. M. (2001). Asberger’s syndrome in gifted individuals. Gifted Child Today, 24(3), 28–35. Hill, A. L. (1974). Idiot savants: A categorization of abilities. Mental Retardation, 12(6), 12–13. Hill, A. L. (1977). Idiot-savants: Rate of incidence. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 44, 161–162. Hishinuma, E. S. (1991, Sept/Oct). Assets school: Serving the needs of the gifted/learning disabled. Gifted Child Today, 14(5), 36–38.

J.L. Lupart and R.E. Toy Hiskey, M. S. (1966). Hiskey-Nebraska test of learning aptitude. Lincoln, NA: Union College Press. Howell, K., Evans, D., & Gardiner, J. (1997). Medications in the classroom: A hard pill to swallow? Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(6), 58–61. Hua, B. (2002). Career self-efficacy of the student who is gifted/learning disabled: A case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25(4), 375–404. Individuals withDisabilities Education Act, 20. Washington: U.  S. Congress. 1400 et seq. (1997). Ingraham, C. L., Daugherty, K. M. (1995). The success of three gifted deaf-blind students in inclusive educational programs. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 89(3), 257–261. Johnsen, S. (2006). Managed instruction. Gifted Child Today, 29(1), 5. Johnsen, S. K., & Corn, A. L. (1989). The past, present, and future of education for gifted children with sensory and/or physical disabilities. Roeper Review, 12(1), 13–28. Johnson, L., Karnes, M., & Carr, V. (1997). Providing services to children with gifts and disabilities: A critical need. In N. Colangelo, & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 516–527). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kaplan, S. N. (1986). The grid: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 180–193). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Karnes, F. A., & Shaunessy, E. (2004). A plan for child find in gifted education. Roeper Review, 26(4), 229–232. Karnes, F. A., Shaunessy, E., & Bisland, A. (2004). Gifted students with disabilities: Are we finding them? Gifted Child Today, 27(4), 16–21. Kaufmann, F., Kalbfleisch, M. L., & Castellanos, F. X. (2000). Attention deficit disorders and gifted students: What do we really know? The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter, (Fall), 13–15. Accessed online at: http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/newslttr.html#Fall2000 Kennedy, K. Y., Higgins, K., & Pierce, T. (2002). Collaborative partnerships among teachers of students who are gifted and have learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38(1), 36–49. Kesner, R. J. (2002). The doubly exceptional child: A principal’s dilemma. Streamlined Seminar, 20(4), 1–4. King, E. W. (2005). Addressing the social and emotional needs of twice-exceptional students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 16–20. LaFrance, E. B. (1995). Creative thinking differences in three groups of exceptional children as expressed through completion of figural forms. Roeper Review, 17(4), 248–252. Lichtenstein, J. (1997). The essence of empowerment: Richard’s story. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(2), 16–19. Lind, S., & Silverman, L. K. (1994). ADHD or gifted? Understanding Our Gifted, 6(5), 13–16, Little, C. (2001). A closer look at gifted children with disabilities. Gifted Child Today, 24(3), 46–64. Little, C. (2002). Which is it? Asberger’s syndrome or giftedness? Defining the differences. Gifted Child Today, 25(1), 58–63. Lovecky, D. (1994). Gifted children with attention deficit disorder. Understanding Our Gifted, 6(5), 1, 7–10.

23

Twice Exceptional

Lovecky, D. V. (1999). Gifted children with ADHD. Paper presented at the Annual CHADD International Conference, Washington, D.C. Lovecky, D. V. (2004). Q & a with dr. Deirdre Lovecky. TwiceExceptional Newsletter, (6), 4–5. Lupart, J. L. (2004). Unraveling the mysteries of GLD: Toward the application of cognitive theory to assessment. In T. M. Newman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.) Students with both gifts and learning disabilities (pp. 49–72). New York: Kluwer. Lupart, J. (2006). Canadian approaches to meeting the educational needs of gifted students. In A. Zigler, T. Fitzner, H. Stoger, & T. Muller (Eds.). Beyond Standards: Hochbegabtenforderung weltweit-fruhe Foderung und Shule. Bad Boll, Germany: Akademie Multimedia 4. Lupart, J. L., & Pyryt, M. (1996). Identifying the hidden gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted , 20(1), 7–16. MacDonald, P., & Yewchuk, C. (1994). Differentiating curriculum for gifted and talented deaf students in whole language classrooms. The Association of Canadian Educators of the Hearing Impaired Journal, 20(3), 96–106. Maker, C. J. (1977). Providing programs for the gifted handicapped. Reston, VA: CEC. Maker, C. J. (1981). The gifted hearing-impaired student. American Annals of the Deaf, 126(6), 631–645. Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented. Report to the Congress of the United States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2006). Mystery to mastery: Shifting paradigms in gifted education. Roeper Review, 28(2), 64–69. McCoach, D. B., Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., & Siegle, D. (2001). Best practices in the identification of gifted students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 38(5), 403–411. McGuire, K., & Yewchuk, C. (1995). Gifted learning disabled students’ knowledge of metacognitive reading strategies. In M. Katzko, & F. Monks (Eds.). Nurturing talent: Individual needs and social ability (pp. 239–251). The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, Assen. McGuire, K., & Yewchuk, C. (1996). Use of metacognitive reading strategies by gifted learning disabled students: An exploratory study . Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(3), 293–314. McMullen, P. (2000). The gifted side of autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15(4), 239–242. Mills, C. J., & Brody, L. E. (2002). The doubly exceptional child: A principal’s dilemma. Streamlined Seminar, 20(4), 1–2. Montague, M., & van Garderen, D. (2003). A cross-sectional study of mathematics achievement, estimation skillls, and academic self-perception in students of varying ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(5), 437–448. Montgomery, D. (2004). Double exceptionality: Gifted children with special educational needs and what ordinary schools can do. Gifted and Talented International, 18(2), 29–35. Moon, S. M., Zentall, S. S., Grskovic, J. A., Hall, A., & Stormont, M. (2001). Emotional and social characteristics of boys with ADHD and giftedness: A comparative case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24(3), 207–247.

523 Morelock, M. J., Brown, P. M., & Morrissey, A.-M. (2003). Pretend play and maternal scaffolding: Comparisons of toddlers with advanced development, typical development, and hearing impairment. Roeper Review, 26(1), 41–51. Nadeau, K. G. (2004). Gifted girls with add. Twice-Exceptional Newsletter, (4), 13. Neihart, M. (2000). Gifted children with Asperger’s Syndrome. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(4), 222–230. Neumann, L. C. (2003). Learning differences, learning disorders, learning disabilities, or none of the above. Twice-Exceptional Newsletter, (1), 6–7. Newman, T. M. (2004). Interventions work, but we need more! In T. M. Newman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Students with both gifts and learning disabilities (pp. 235–246). New York: Kluwer. Newman, T. M., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2004). Students with both gifts and learning disabilities. New York: Kluwer. Nielsen, M. E. (2002). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Recommendations for identification and programming. Exceptionality, 10(2), 93–111. Nielsen, M. E., & Higgins, L. D. (2005). The eye of the storm services and programs for twice-exceptional learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 8–15. Olenchak, F. R. (1994). Talent development. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5(3), 40–52. Olenchak, F. R. (1995). Effects of enrichment on gifted/learningdisabled students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18(4), 385–399. Pancheri, C, & Prater, M. (1999). What teachers and parents should know about Ritalin. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(4), 20–26. Paskewicz, M. (1986). Mainstreaming the gifted visually handicapped child. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 80(9), 937–938. Pendarvis, E. D., & Grossi, J. A. (1980). Designing and operating programs for the gifted and talented handicapped. In J. B. Jordan, & J. A. Grossi (Eds.), An administrator’s handbook on designing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 6688). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Pollard, G., & Howze, J. (1981). School-wide talented and gifted program for the deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, September, 126(6), 600–606. Porter, R. M. (1982). the gifted handicapped: A status report. Roeper Review, 4(3), 24–25. Ramirez-Smith, C. (1997). Mistaken identity: Gifted and ADHD. (ED413690). Reid, B., & McGuire, M. (1995). Square pegs in round holes – These kids don’t fit: High ability students with behavioral problem. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2002). Underachievement in gifted and talented students with special needs. Exceptionality, 10(2), 113–125. Reis, S. M., McGuire, J. M., & Neu, T. W. (2000). Compensation strategies used by high-ability students with learning disabilities who succeed in college. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(2), 123–134. Reis, S. M., Neu, T. W., & McGuire, S. M. (1995). Talents in two places: Case studies of high ability students with learning disabilities who have achieved (No. Research Monograph

524 95114). Storrs: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Reis, S. M., & Ruban, L. M. (2005). Services and programs for academically talented students with learning disabilities. Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 148–159. Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Centre, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Rice, M. P. (2004). Twice-exceptional and attention deficit disordered. Twice-Exceptional Newsletter, (4), 6–7. Rimland, B. (1978). Inside the mind of the autistic savant. Psychology Today, 12(3), 69–80. Rittenhouse, R., & Blough, L. (1995). Gifted students with hearing impairments: Suggestions for teachers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(4), 51–53. Rivera, D. B., Murdock, J., & Sexton, D. (1995). Serving the gifted/learning disabled. Gifted Child Today, 18(6), 34–37. Rizza, M. G., & Morrison, W. F. (2002). Uncovering stereotypes and identifying characteristics of gifted students and students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Roeper Review, 25(2), 73–77. Rosenberg, N. (2005). The college search process for GT/ld students. Twice-Exceptional Newsletter, (17), 3–5. Ruban, L. M., & Reis, S. M. (2005). Identification and assessment of gifted students with learning disabilities. Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 115–124. Sah, A., & Borland, J. H. (1989). The effects of a structured home plan on the home and school behaviors of gifted learning-disabled students with deficits in organizational skills . Roeper Review, 12(1), 54–57. Sattler, J. M. (1992 ). Assessment of children. Rev. and updated 3rd ed. San Diego: J. M. Sattler Publisher, Inc.. Schiff, M., Kaufman, A., & Kaufman, N. (1981). Scatter analysis of WISC-R profiles for learning disabled children with superior intelligence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14, 400–404. Seay, M. (2005). Identifying 2e students in the classroom. TwiceExceptional Newsletter, (12), 18. Seeley, K. R. (1998). Underachieving and talented learners with disabilities. In V. Tassel-Baska (Ed.), Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (pp. 83–93). Denver, CO: Love. Shevitz, B., Weinfeld, R., Jeweler, S., & Barnes-Robinson, L. (2003). Mentoring empowers gifted/learning disabled students to soar! Roeper Review, 26(1), 37–40. Silverman, L. K. (1998). Through the lens of giftedness. Roeper Review, 20(3), 204–210. Stormont, M., Stebbins, M., S., & Holliday, G. (2001). Characteristics and educational support needs of underrepresented gifted adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 38(5), 413–423. Sullivan, D. (2001). The school as a community of learners: Meeting the needs of all in the inclusion classroom – an interview with John Sullivan. Contemporary Justice review, 4(2), 219–231. Swesson, K. (1994). Helping the gifted/learning disabled: Understanding the special needs of the “twice-exceptional”. Gifted Child Today, 16(1), 55–72.

J.L. Lupart and R.E. Toy Thompson, L. J. (1971). Language disabilities in men of eminence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4(1), 34–45. Timmons, V., Lupart, J. L., & McKeough, A. (2002). Schools in transition: International perspectives on inclusion. Exceptionality Education Canada, 12(2&3), 3–6. Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Shank, M., & Leal, D. (1999). Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. U. S. Congress (1978). Gifted and talented children’s act of 1978 (P. L. 95-561). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. U. S. Congress (1988). Jacob K. Javits gifted and talented students education act of 1988 (Title IV-H. R. 5). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Vespi, L., & Yewchuck, C. (1992). A phenomenological study of the social/emotional characteristics of gifted learning disabled children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 1, 55–72. Vialle, W., & Paterson, J. (1996). Constructing a culturally sensitive education for gifted deaf students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 419 336). Waldron, K. A., Saphire, D. G., & Rosenblum, S. A. (1987). Learning disabilities and giftedness: Identification based on self-concept, behavior, and academic patterns. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(7), 422–432. Warren, D. (1984). Blindness and early child development. New York: American Foundation for the Blind. Webb, J., & Latimer, D. (1993). ADHD and the children who are gifted. Exceptional Children, 60(2), 183–184. Weill, M. P. (1987). Gifted/learning disabled students. The Clearing House, 60, 341–343. Weinfeld, R., Barnes-Robinson, L., Jeweler, S., & Shevitz, B. (2005). What we have learned: Experiences in providing adaptations and accommodations for gifted and talented students with learning disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 48–54. Whitmore, J. R. (1981). Gifted children with handicapping conditions: A new frontier. Exceptional Children, 48(2), 106–113. Whitmore, J. R. (1986). Conceptualizing the issue of underserved populations of gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(3), 141–153. Whitmore, J. R., & Maker, C. J. (1985). Intellectual giftedness in disabled persons. Rockville, MD: Aspen. Wiener, J., & Tardif, C. Y. (2004). Social and emotional functioning of children with learning disabilities: Does special education placement make a difference? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(1), 20–32. Wolfle, J., & French, M. (1990, October). Surviving gifted attention deficit disorder children in the classroom. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Gifted Children. Little Rock. (ED374630). Yewchuk, C. R. (1986). Gifted/learning disabled children: Problems of assessment. In A. J. Cropley, K. K. Urban, J. Wagner, & W. Wieczerkowski (Eds.), Giftedness : A continuing worldwide challenge (pp. 40–48). New York: Trillium Press. Yewchuk, C. (1999). Savant syndrome: Intuitive excellence amidst general deficit. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 27(1), 58–76. Yewchuk, C. R., & Bibby, M. A. (1989a). Identification of giftedness in severely and profoundly hearing impaired students. Roeper Review, 12(1), 42–48.

23

Twice Exceptional

Yewchuk, C. R., & Bibby, M. A. (1989b). The handicapped gifted child: Problems of identification and programming. Canadian Journal of Education, 14(1), 102–108. Yewchuk, C., Bibby, M. A., & Fraser, B. (1989). Identifying giftedness in the hearing impaired: The effectiveness of four nomination forms. Gifted Education International, 6(2), 87–97.

525 Yewchuk, C., & Lupart, J.L. (2000). Inclusive education for gifted students with disabilities. In K. Heller, F. Monks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.) International handbook of giftedness and talent. (2nd ed.) (pp. 659–670). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Chapter 24

Gifted Learners Who Drop Out: Prevalence and Prevention Michael S. Matthews

Abstract Gifted dropout rates vary depending on how one defines both “giftedness” and “dropping out.” Recent empirical studies seem to agree that in contrast to allegorical estimates of 20% or higher, relatively few academically gifted learners actually leave high school without a diploma. However, dropping out clearly can be a serious problem for some gifted individuals. This chapter situates dropping out of school as an extreme manifestation of academic underachievement. Reviews of recent and emerging scholarship are considered to estimate the magnitude of this problem and to suggest possible interventions that may minimize the likelihood of the academically able learner dropping out.

& Abbott, 2000). Ability in mathematics may be particularly salient (Matthews, 2006a). One might suspect based on these findings that academically gifted students would rarely if ever drop out of school. Popular wisdom also would suggest that highly able students face few academic difficulties in public school settings. Research shows, however, that this rosy outlook is likely inaccurate. Numerous studies have documented the presence of academic underachievement among academically gifted student populations (Colangelo, Kerr, Christensen, & Maxey, 1993; Moore, Ford, & Milner, 2005; Spiers Neumeister and H´ebert, 2003; Ziegler & Stoeger, 2003). Because academic underachieveKeywords Dropout · Underachievement · Diversity · ment is a continuum of behaviors (McCoach and Siegle, 2003; Reis & McCoach, 2000) that ranges Gifted · Prevalence · Latino up to and includes leaving school entirely, it seems reasonable to view dropping out as an end point in this continuum (Matthews, 2006a). Introduction Despite widespread interest in gifted education regarding socio-emotional issues and underachieveA relatively large body of research has examined gen- ment, there have been relatively few empirical eral education students who drop out of school, and investigations of gifted dropouts. This state of affairs there appears to be general agreement about the fac- may be due in part to the difficulty of locating such tors that place students at risk of dropping out. Drop- individuals, who appear to be scarcer than is popuping out can have lifelong consequences for students larly believed (Matthews, 2006a). However, even if across a variety of indicators, with an especially high relatively few highly able students drop out, the loss impact in students’ lifelong earning power and related of potential that these students represent may have outcomes (e.g., Feller, 2006). consequences beyond what their numbers alone would High academic ability and/or high academic suggest. achievement appear to offer a strong protective effect Below I describe some of the salient measurement against dropping out (Battin-Pearson, Newcomb, issues related to giftedness and dropping out. Then, I briefly discuss a poorly supported estimate of dropout prevalence that has become widespread in gifted eduM.S. Matthews (B) The University of North Carolina at Charlatte, Raleigh, cation circles, before reviewing three recent empirical NC, USA studies on this issue. I conclude by presenting some e-mail: [email protected]

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 24, 

527

528

ongoing studies and emerging research questions regarding gifted students who drop out.

Completing Secondary School in the United States In the United States, there are a handful of options for completing public school. Traditionally, students who have satisfied all the relevant requirements are awarded a high school diploma. Requirements for receiving a diploma generally include some measure of satisfactory academic performance, which is customarily assessed in the form of passing grades received for academic and non-academic coursework. There also may be more than one diploma option offered within a single school, as (for example) general versus college preparatory, which reflect the curriculum and level of courses taken. Some amount of mandatory attendance may also be required, such as having fewer than 10 unexcused absences during a 180-day attendance year. In practice, students who have met attendance requirements but not academic ones are sometimes allowed to participate in graduation ceremonies, but these students receive a certificate of attendance rather than a diploma. In recent years, US schools have increasingly come to rely upon standardized criterion-referenced tests as an additional graduation requirement. Generally, students are afforded multiple opportunities—five, for example—to obtain a passing score on these examinations. Students who have satisfactory grades and attendance without passing scores on the high school graduation exam are not awarded a diploma. Students meeting grade and test performance criteria but not attendance requirements may not be allowed to graduate, although attendance requirements and practices vary somewhat across states as well as within them. A handful of US schools now offer the International Baccalaureate diploma, which is recognized in many countries outside the United States. This option is often considered suitable for gifted learners (Shaunessy, Suldo, Hardesty, & Shaffer, 2006; see also the IB Diploma Programme web site at http://www.ibo.org/diploma/). Students who do not receive a high school diploma through any of the options described

M.S. Matthews

above, for whatever reason, have an option commonly known as the GED (see, for example, http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic text/education/ged/ged. htm). The Tests of General Educational Development (GED Tests) are a 7 12 -hour battery that includes subject area tests in language arts (both reading and writing), social studies, science, and mathematics. The GED Tests are offered in English, Spanish, and French editions. Test questions are primarily multiple-choice format, but some subject areas of the test also include constructed-response or essay questions. On passing these tests, the individual is awarded a GED credential certifying that he or she has attained the subject matter knowledge and skills associated with high school completion. Many employers and higher education institutions in the Unites States recognize the GED credential as the equivalent of a traditional high school diploma.

Descriptive Considerations Dropouts There are a variety of ways that dropout rates may be calculated. Woods (1995) describes four common methods. Event rates count students who leave high school each year, and may count the same student multiple times over different years. The status rate is a cumulative rate that is higher than the event rate, as it gives the proportion of all individuals in the population who have not completed school (or were not enrolled) at a given point in time. Status rates might count as dropouts some adults who never attended high school, or who immigrated to the United States as adults, as well as counting students who dropped out of private schools; these individuals would not be included in other types of commonly reported estimates. Cohort rates describe the number of dropouts from a cohort (a group made up of a single age or grade of students) over a set period of time, and may be thought of as event rates collected across two or more years. Finally, the high school completion rate indicates the percentage of all individuals of a particular age who have received a high school diploma or equivalency certificate. In such completion rates (also called graduation rates), those students who have successfully ob-

24

Gifted Learners Who Drop Out

529

tained the GED credential after leaving school would no longer be counted as dropouts. As should be apparent, each of these four methods is likely to produce a unique estimate of the dropout rate. While some authors have recommended the use of cohort rates as being the most readily interpretable alternative (Hall, 2005), other writers suggest that the various methods of estimating graduation rates may be equally valid, depending on the research question (Miao & Haney, 2004). The desire of schools, districts, and states to minimize their reported dropout rates adds an additional layer of complexity to researchers’ efforts to understand this phenomenon. Official dropout rates are widely believed to be under-reported, at times severely so (Hall, 2005; Paulson, 2006). For example, students who enroll in a GED study program commonly are no longer counted as dropouts, even if they later fail to obtain the GED credential. Hall’s report on statereported graduation rates finds that “reported rates are misleading in some places and missing altogether in others” (p. 2), and the report supports this contention with comparisons between official reported rates and those obtained from a variety of other sources.

four students were considered gifted, than if fewer than one in one hundred were so classified. Intelligence Quotient (IQ) scores are not always available to researchers. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to use an IQ score of two standard deviations above the mean (i.e., 130 or above on the Wechsler test series or a comparable measure) as evidence of giftedness if such scores are available. This is a relatively restrictive definition, which theoretically would encompass between 2 and 3% of the population. Operationally defining giftedness in this manner clearly might not include all students actually enrolled in gifted programs, but all students achieving scores in this range likely would be found eligible for most gifted programs. Rising IQ scores over time (the Flynn effect) also may complicate efforts to compare IQs collected during different decades. If IQ scores are not available, it is also possible to use other types of information to provide evidence of giftedness (Flint, 2002; Frasier, 1997; Krisel & Cowan, 1997; Renzulli & Park, 2000; 2002). Regardless of how giftedness is defined in a given setting, it is vital that researchers present a clear description of the criteria that were applied; otherwise, the reader is unable to judge the worth of the remainder of the study.

The Gifted

Diversity and Dropping Out

There is broad agreement among experts that some learners exhibit advanced educational needs that require additional educational services, yet there is much ongoing dialogue about precisely how this should be accomplished (e.g., Dai, 2005; Gagn´e, 2004; Matthews & Foster, 2006; Shavinina & Ferrari, 2004; Vald´es, 2003). Gifted identification mandates, funding, and practices vary widely across states and even within them in the United States (Council of State Directors, 2003). The percentage of students identified for gifted education services varies widely; although most US states having such programs identify between 2 and 9% of students as academically gifted, states’ percentages in 2001–2002 ranged from as low as 0.75 to over 27% of the overall school population (based on data from the Council of State Directors, 2003, and from the [US] National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). It clearly is to be expected that more dropouts would be found gifted if more than one in

Dropout statistics consistently demonstrate that learners from cultural or linguistic minority groups are at greater risk of dropping out. In the United States, this applies in particular to students who are African American (Paulson, 2006), Latino (Tan, 2001; Vizcain, 2005), or Native American (Brandt, 1992), as well as to those who are from low socioeconomic status households or whose first language is not English (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005). Because these diverse learners are in most US locations severely underrepresented in programs for the academically gifted (Booth, & Stanley, 2004; Elhoweris, Mutua, Alsheikh, & Holloway, 2005; Shaunessy, Matthews, & Smith, 2006), it can be difficult to access sufficient populations of diverse gifted students when planning research studies. Despite such difficulty, these learners are vital to developing our knowledge of the relationship between gifted program participation and other academic outcomes and the ways in which

530

this interrelationship develops within specific populations of diverse learners. Likewise, examples drawn from educational systems in other countries (Lau & Chan, 2001; McCall & Beach, 2000; Peters & van Boxtel, 1999) can add greatly to our understanding of why students who share similar abilities may achieve very different academic outcomes. Latino students in particular may simultaneously face more than one of these risk factors. In the United States, these students have a reported dropout rate that is as high as or higher than that of any other group. This suggests perhaps that the present schooling system is not effectively meeting the educational needs of these learners (G´andara, 2005; Tan, 2001; Vizcain, 2005). Those students who are English language learners constitute a rapidly growing group within the US school population (Castellano & D´ıaz, 2002). Because the majority of these individuals are Latinos, schools’ understanding of the needs of these learners will become increasingly important in the years to come (Artiles et al., 2005; Matthews, 2006b).

Why Would a Gifted Student Leave School? Outside of gifted education circles, academically gifted learners often are stereotyped as teacherpleasers who dutifully will do whatever schools, teachers, or parents ask of them. These and other unsupported attitudes persist—even among teachers themselves (Cramond & Martin, 1987; McCoach & Siegle, 2005; Siegle, 2001)—despite ample evidence that many gifted learners actually do not find their varied needs met in public school settings in the United States (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004; Cramond, 1994; Peterson & Ray, 2006). General education students in the United States drop out for a variety of reasons that likely include family, school, and social (peer) factors (Garnier, Stein, & Jacobs, 1997; Kaskaloglu, 2003). Of the risk factors in school, low academic achievement appears to be the strongest contributor toward dropping out among students in general, although poor attendance and disciplinary issues also are salient. Salient family and peer influences include parental education levels, family size and composition, socioeconomic status, drug or alcohol abuse, and affiliation with “antisocial” peers

M.S. Matthews

(Battin-Pearson et al., 2000). From an educational perspective, the school-level influences are the most readily addressed of these factors. Among academically gifted learners, difficulties due to academic ability are likely to exist primarily in cases involving specific learning disabilities. Particularly if undiagnosed, these may be responsible for poor academic performance that is mistakenly blamed on underachievement (Reis & McCoach, 2002). Although the incidence of such dual diagnoses has not been established (Farmer, 2006), these cases appear to be relatively uncommon. Rather, poor academic achievement among highly able learners often is situational in nature and appears to be more dependent on motivation and attitude than on ability. This is consistent with the definition of underachievement proposed by Reis and McCoach (2000), which involves a discrepancy between actual and expected achievement that is not the result of a diagnosed learning disability. This definition estimates expected achievement using performance on standardized tests of achievement or ability (IQ), while actual achievement is measured by class grades and evaluations by the classroom teacher. Spiers Neumeister and H´ebert (2003) conducted a case study of a gifted underachieving university student and found that the student’s metacognitive processes were consistent with giftedness despite the student’s demonstrated underachievement in some areas. Kanevsky and Keighley (2003) conducted case studies of three gifted underachieving high school students, who characterized their academic disengagement as an “honorable” response based on moral indignation toward what they believed to be an inappropriate curriculum. Around the same time as these qualitative studies, McCoach and Siegle (2003) conducted a quantitative investigation to examine the differences between achieving and underachieving gifted high school students. These authors found differences in five areas that included academic self-perceptions, attitudes toward school, attitudes toward teachers and classes, motivation and self-regulation, and goal valuation. Stated briefly, academic self-perceptions arise out of a descriptive and evaluative summary of one’s academic competence relative to other learners; attitudes toward teachers and classes may include a degree of hostility toward authority, as well as interest in specific subject areas; attitudes toward school are similar, yet are more broadly focused on affect toward learning in gen-

24

Gifted Learners Who Drop Out

531

eral; motivation and self-regulation are intertwined domains that reflect one’s beliefs about the relationship between effort and outcomes; and goal valuation reflects a learner’s engagement in academic tasks and the ability to relate current tasks to future goals. Although none of these studies was focused specifically on gifted students who dropped out, the continuum on which these behaviors occur suggests that similar motivational and attitudinal aspects would likely characterize gifted learners who drop out. It seems probable that for many learners, a period of academic underachievement precedes their decision to drop out.

est of these three citations is a conference paper dating to just 1 year after the Marland Report’s publication. None of the estimates presented in this section appear to be based on direct counts of gifted students leaving school. In a second example, Robertson (1991) states that “between 18 and 25 percent of gifted and talented students drop out” (p. 62), in this case including no more than 10% of the student population as gifted. No sources are cited in support of this estimate, and this author characterizes a latter portion of her article as “armchair speculation” (p. 62). The Robertson paper has since been cited numerous times in other discussions of gifted dropouts, but the speculative nature of this estimate often is not noted in such citations. Estimating Dropout Rates Among Another expert, Silverman (1993, p. 264), cites a study of 2,000 middle school students that found that the Gifted 37% maintained a “C” or lower grade point average despite being from the upper intellectual quartile; over Misinterpreting Marland 18% of this upper quartile population are characterized as being at risk for dropping out of school. This finding A frequently cited figure for the dropout rate among certainly is suggestive, but the degree to which midgifted students is attributed to the Marland Re- dle school achievement predicts high school success port (1972), which often is cited as saying that 17.6% among highly able learners remains unclear. of dropouts are gifted. However, Irvine (1987) has Although its origins are uncertain, the idea that demonstrated that the actual figure cited is just 3.4%. 20% or more of dropouts are gifted is now widely The oft-misquoted 17.6% figure actually refers to the disseminated without any indication of its origins percentage of gifted students who dropped out in one (e.g., California Dropout Prevention Network, 2003; statewide study, not to the percentage of all dropouts Chang, 2005, para. 7; Harsin, 2006, p. 6). It is unclear who were gifted. Because there are generally many whether these sources are using a rounded-off version more dropouts than gifted learners, this distinction of the misquoted 17.6% figure from the Marland is important. The Marland figure was based on 165 Report, or if there is some other origin for this figure. students (of a total of 1652) who were identified as Advocates for the gifted should be careful to utilize “talented” (in this case, defined as an IQ of 120 or such statistics only when these clearly can be ascribed higher) in a study originally conducted in Iowa in the to empirical sources. 1950s. The term “gifted” was added later when the Marland Report cited this study.

Recent Empirical Findings The Ubiquitous Twenty Percent

A two-part study conducted by Renzulli and Park (2000; 2002) used the 1988 National EduSeveral authorities since have stated that 10–20% or cation Longitudinal Study (NELS:88) data from US more of high school dropouts test in the gifted range. schools to investigate academically able dropouts. Rimm (1995) cites three sources in support of this es- Because this data set did not identify students as timate, although she does not specify how this “gifted academically gifted, these authors defined giftedness range” was defined in these sources. It seems plausible as enrollment in three or more “advanced, enriched, that the papers she cites may be traced to the misinter- or accelerated” core academic courses at the high pretation described by Irvine (1987) because the earli- school level (2002, p. viii). This definition classified

532

more than 25% of students as gifted in both parts of this study, representing a very broad and inclusive conceptualization of giftedness. In the first portion of their study, which evaluated giftedness within the NELS:88 dropout population, Renzulli and Park identified 334 of 1,285 student dropouts (26.0%) as gifted. This rate may be biased in the positive direction because this data set is based on only those individuals who completed multiple follow-up questionnaires after dropping out; it seems plausible that gifted learners might be more likely than other dropouts to persist in this effort, which would have the effect of biasing the sample in their favor. In the second part of their study, which relied on a larger sample of students who did not enter the sample as dropouts, Renzulli and Park identified 3,520 students (27.9%) as gifted from an overall population of 12,625 students. In this sample, there were 177 individuals who later dropped out of school. Gifted dropouts therefore made up 5% (that is, 177 of 3,520) of the gifted students in this group, and 1.4% of all students (177 of 12,625) were both gifted and dropouts in this second NELS:88 sample. Renzulli and Park (2000, 2002) observed a dropout rate that was approximately three times higher among gifted males than among gifted female students and was significantly lower among White students than for gifted students of other ethnicities. Socioeconomic status was also an important predictor; nearly half of gifted dropouts were from the lowest SES quartile, while only 3.6% came from the highest quartile. In contrast, among gifted students who completed high school, 20% were from the lowest quartile and 33.8% from the highest SES quartile. These findings are consistent with the general dropout literature. A study by Matthews (2006a) followed two cohorts of students from the southeastern US state of North Carolina who participated in a talent search program (see Lee, Matthews, & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2008, and Matthews, 2007, for more about talent search programs). Students all had obtained test scores at or above the 95th percentile on grade-level standardized tests prior to the seventh grade. In the talent search program, these seventh graders took either the SAT (see http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/ about.html) or the ACT (http://www.act.org/aap/) as an above-level test. Although school classifications of giftedness were not available, all of these students likely would have met this state’s definition of gift-

M.S. Matthews

edness; the sample included an estimated half of all gifted seventh graders in North Carolina during 1996 and 1997. State records for these students were followed through their expected high school graduation date, and 1 year beyond in the case of the 1996 cohort. According to the matched records, 38 dropout events (37 students) from the initial group of 7,916 were recorded by the close of the 2001–2002 academic year, yielding an overall dropout rate of just 0.48%. To account for the possibility that some students in the 1997 cohort may have been retained at some point and gone on to drop out after 2001–2002, the 3,196 matched student records from the 1996 cohort were considered on their own. This comparison yielded a slightly higher estimated gifted dropout rate of 0.75% within this cohort. Among the gifted dropouts from both cohorts in the Matthews study (2006a), more than half (54.1%) dropped out during the eleventh grade. It appears that gifted dropouts persisted in school longer than did this state’s non-gifted dropouts, most of whom left school during their ninth grade year. Gifted dropouts had significantly lower SAT scores (taken during talent search testing as seventh graders) than their peers who did not drop out; Cohen’s d effect sizes were 0.387 for SAT Math scores and 0.449 for SAT Verbal scores. Interestingly, dropouts who indicated their intent to attend community college (or a GED preparation program housed at a community college) had equivalent seventh grade SAT Verbal scores to gifted learners who did not drop out—yet these students had achieved correspondingly lower SAT Math scores, comparable to those of gifted dropouts not planning to attend such programs. Approximately 20,000 dropout events were reported in North Carolina during each of the years of this study. Event counts may report multiple dropout incidents for a single individual, so it is only possible to approximate individual counts from this information. Since these two talent search cohorts showed a combined total of 38 dropout events, it appears that less than 1% of dropouts statewide met the gifted criteria used in this study. Although it is possible that the talent search process selects for students with higher than average motivation, which would limit the generalizability of these results to other populations of gifted learners, these results also suggest that the number of gifted dropouts may be substantially lower than has been reported elsewhere.

24

Gifted Learners Who Drop Out

Although the population in the Matthews study (2006a) was less than 5% Black, these students made up 10% of the gifted dropout population. Caution is advised in interpreting this result because it is based on a total of just three individuals. The talent search cohorts in the Matthews study were predominantly White and middle to upper class, so this study’s findings may not apply to other minority groups or to low-income dropouts. Another recent study (Matthews & McBee, 2006) used a statewide data set from the large southeastern US state of Georgia (see also McBee, 2006) to investigate the rate at which academically gifted students dropped out of high school. These authors found that approximately 0.68% of academically gifted students dropped out, while 1.24% of dropouts could be classified as academically gifted. Dropout rates among identified gifted Black and Hispanic students were lower than expected based on the proportions of these students within the overall dropout population in this state, suggesting that additional, as-yet unexplained factors may influence dropout decisions among members of these groups who have been identified as academically gifted.

Current Research There is clearly room for additional quantitative study of gifted students who drop out of school. More qualitative studies also are needed to build a comprehensive research-based understanding of this unique and relatively uncommon population of individuals. Additional studies from settings outside the United States are also needed as researchers seek to develop a more comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon. One study now being undertaken by the author seeks to interview gifted dropouts from diverse backgrounds to understand their experiences and how these may differ with respect to the experiences of similar students from mainstream backgrounds. For the academically gifted student, a simple lack of ability in most cases is not a reasonable explanation for dropping out. Rather, factors such as a mismatch between the student’s expectations and those of the school setting, or perhaps difficulties in the home environment, may be more salient.

533

Cramond and her colleagues are beginning another study of gifted dropouts (B. Cramond, personal communication, November 2006). This study seeks to examine creatively divergent thinking and related traits to understand how these may influence gifted learners’ dissatisfaction with school. Preliminary results from these studies are reported by Matthews, Cramond, Landis, Lee, and Kim (2008).

Conclusions Measuring Gifted Dropouts Giftedness is difficult to define and criteria for establishing it often vary widely from one school or school district to the next. The lack of a clear definition of giftedness is evident as well in many research studies. Researchers should strive to offer complete descriptions of how giftedness has been defined in each study they report, and they should include detailed descriptive information about the population of learners who participated. School records are not always available, or in some locales the schools may not formally identify gifted learners. One possible approach that has proven successful in these situations uses a list of criteria, from which participants select those items or aspects that characterize their school experience. Any individual meeting a selected minimum number of these criteria is then considered gifted (Flint, 2002). Estimates of the prevalence of dropouts among the gifted population appear to be converging on a rate that is somewhat to dramatically lower than previously thought, ranging from a high of approximately 5% to as low as one half of 1% of the gifted population. Conclusions from the three quantitative studies summarized above are in approximate agreement in that somewhere around 1% of all dropouts can be considered gifted. These estimates are based on a small number of studies, and it is possible that data from large and diverse states such as Florida, Texas, or California may yet emerge to challenge these generalizations. States should strive to make such data available to researchers, as exemplified in McBee’s work (2006; Matthews & McBee, 2006).

534

In light of the apparently widespread underreporting of dropout data in official estimates, triangulation of centralized information with locally collected data would be desirable to allow researchers to reach stronger conclusions about the prevalence of gifted dropouts. In the interim, gifted education advocates should cease the uncritical repetition of the claim that 20% of dropouts are gifted.

Further Questions A relationship between the degree of giftedness and the likelihood of dropping out has yet to be established. Are dropouts proportionally distributed within the range of ability levels classified as gifted, or are some gifted learners more likely to leave school than others? It seems plausible that all gifted learners might be likely to experience socio-emotional stresses that could contribute to the decision to leave school (e.g., Jackson & Peterson, 2003). Conversely, having high ability implies that these students need to expend relatively little effort to successfully complete public school. The limited data presently available would suggest that formally identified or highly gifted learners (as in the Georgia and North Carolina studies reported above) appear to have a lower dropout incidence than that found among a more broadly construed gifted group (as defined in the work of Renzulli & Park). Although it is certainly plausible that profoundly gifted learners may be more at risk of problems in school settings than highly or moderately gifted students are, as yet there has been little empirical study that would inform this question. The interaction between aspects of diversity and student decisions to drop out needs to be examined among academically gifted learners. Cross-cultural comparative studies (Lau & Chan, 2001; Lupart, & Pyryt, 1996; Peters & van Boxtel, 1999) also have the potential to inform our overall understanding of underachievement and dropping out among gifted learners. It also seems plausible that many of the factors that influence dropout decisions among youth in general education settings would apply to academically gifted learners as well, but the difference in dropout rates observed across the general and gifted populations suggests that there also may be important differences within specific populations of diverse gifted learners.

M.S. Matthews

The potential role of undiagnosed learning disabilities, particularly in mathematics, merits further investigation among academically underachieving gifted learners. Although not clearly an academically gifted group, Rumbaut (1995) has reported a lower dropout rate for highly bilingual students (that is, those with advanced proficiency in at least 2 languages). This and other recent work involving gifted bilingual youth (e.g., Vald´es, 2003), considered in concert with the high overall dropout rate among Latino students in general education settings, suggests that much more information is needed about the educational experiences of these students in order to guide the development of effective educational programming. Finally, the nature of successful interventions for gifted learners who drop out remains largely unknown. It certainly is possible to envision situations in which dropping out may be the wisest path available to a particular student. I recently heard from a parent who related that her daughter’s high school guidance counselor advised the girl to drop out because a GED program would offer a faster path into higher education than remaining in public school would. The extent to which similar advice is given in everyday practice is unknown, but this example reinforces the possibility that schools may not be doing everything in their power to retain their gifted learners. I also know personally a handful of individuals who dropped out of school but today hold doctoral degrees, so dropping out is not automatically the end of the educational road (cf. Flint, 2002; Peterson, 2001). Despite the occasional success stories, dropping out can make one’s path more difficult than it would be otherwise, so for this reason alone we should help our students to avoid it if possible. Extrapolating from the related literature, it seems likely that some form of counseling might be effective if it addressed affective as well as career-related issues. Modifications to schools’ curricular and instructional practices may also be effective, especially if these support flexible, individualized pacing that incorporates opportunities for academic acceleration when these are warranted. Supports designed to keep students in school (enforcing truancy policies, for example, as well as not penalizing able students for absences arising from their extracurricular interests) would help to reduce one major contributor to dropping out. Teachers should strive to convey the relevance of the curric-

24

Gifted Learners Who Drop Out

ula to students’ lives and goals. Ultimately, showing care for students as unique individuals may have the greatest influence on the educational outcomes these learners ultimately achieve.

References Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283–300. Battin-Pearson, S., Newcomb, M. D., & Abbott, R. D. (2000). Predictors of early high school dropout: a test of five theories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 568–582. Booth, D., & Stanley, J. C. (Eds.). (2004). In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Brandt, E. A. (1992). The navajo area student dropout study: Findings and implications. Journal of American Indian Education, 31(2), 48–63. Castellano, J. A., & D´ıaz, E. I. (Eds.). (2002). Reaching new horizons: Gifted and talented education for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. California Dropout Prevention Network. (2003, October 28). CDPN beliefs. Retrieved December 22, 2006, from http://www.edualliance.org/cdpn/beliefs/ Chang, A. L. (2005, October 29). Is district deficient in programs for gifted? School officials fear smart kids aren’t served. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [online edition]. Retrieved December 21, 2006 from http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=366409 Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back america’s brightest students. Iowa City: The University of Iowa. Colangelo, N., Kerr, B., Christensen, P., & Maxey, J. (1993). A comparison of gifted underachievers and gifted high achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 155–160. Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted & the National Association for Gifted Children. (2003). State of the States Gifted and Talented Education Report 2001–2002. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children. Cramond, B. (1994). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and creativity: What is the connection? Journal of Creative Behavior, 28, 193–210. Cramond, B., & Martin, C. E. (1987). Inservice and preservice teachers’ attitudes toward the academically brilliant. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 15–19. Dai, D. Y. (2005). Reductionism versus emergentism: A framework for understanding conceptions of giftedness. Roeper Review, 27, 144–151. Elhoweris, H., Mutua, K., Alsheikh, N., & Holloway, P. (2005). Effect of children’s ethnicity on teachers’ referral and recommendation decisions in gifted and talented programs. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 25–31. Farmer, J. (2006, November). A Decade of Discussion: The Literature on Gifted Students with Learning Disabilities. Graduate student poster session presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Charlotte, NC.

535 Feller, B. (2006, Sunday, September 17). U.S. high school dropouts take hard hit in paycheck; they earn 65% of what grads make. The Tampa Tribune [Nation/World section], p. 20. Flint, L. J. (2002). Stories of success: Self-interventions of gifted underachievers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Georgia, Athens. Frasier, M. M. (1997). Multiple criteria: the mandate and the challenge. Roeper Review, 20, A4–A6. Gagn´e, F. (2004). An imperative, but, alas, improbable consensus. Roeper Review, 27, 12–14. G´andara, P. (2005). Fragile futures: Risk and vulnerability among Latino high achievers. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service. Garnier, H. E., Stein, J. A., & Jacobs, J. K. (1997). The process of dropping out of high school: a 19-year perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 395–419. Hall, D. (2005, June). Getting honest about grad rates: How states play the numbers and students lose. Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Accessed June 29, 2005 at http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/C5A6974D-6C044FB1-A9FC-05938CB0744D/0/GettingHonest.pdf Harsin, C. (2006, April 4). Helping gifted students soar in the era of “No Child Left Behind” [Power Point presentation]. Retrieved December 21, 2006, from http://print.ditd.org/GD/Arizona 2 9 2006 ch.pdf Irvine, D. J. (1987). What research doesn’t show about gifted dropouts. Educational Leadership, 44(6), 79–80. Jackson, P. S., & Peterson, J. S. (2003). Depressive disorder in highly gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 175–186. Kanevsky, L., & Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26, 20–28. Kaskaloglu, E. (2003, January 7–10). Gifted students who drop out—who and why: A meta-analytical review of the literature. Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on Education, Honolulu. Retrieved January 16, 2007 from http://www.hiceducation.org/Edu Proceedings/Esra%20Ayse %20Kaskaloglu.pdf Krisel, S., & Cowan, R. (1997). Georgia’s journey toward multiple-criteria identification of gifted students. Roeper Review, 20, A1–A3. Lau, K.-L., & Chan, D. W. (2001). Motivational characteristics of under-achievers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 21, 417–430. Lee, S.-Y., Matthews, M. S., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2008). A national picture of talent search and talent search educational programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(1), 55–69. Lupart, J. L., & Pyryt, M. C. (1996). “Hidden gifted” students: Underachiever prevalence and profile. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 36–53. Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented, Volume 1: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2006). Mystery to mastery: Shifting paradigms in gifted education. Roeper Review, 28, 64–69. Matthews, M. S. (2006a). Gifted students dropping out: Recent findings from a Southeastern state. Roeper Review, 28, 216– 223.

536 Matthews, M. S. (2006b). Working with gifted English language learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Matthews, M. S. (2007). Talent search programs. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says. (pp. 641–653). Matthews, M. S., Cramond, B., Landis, R. N., Lee, S., & Kim, K. H. (2008, October). Are high schools meeting the needs of our highly creative students? A research panel on reasons why high ability students drop out of school. Presented at the Annual Convention of the National Association for Gifted Children, Tampa. Matthews, M. S. & McBee, M. T. (2006, May). Quantitative examination of gifted high school dropouts. Paper presented at the Eighth Biennial Henry B. & Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development, The University of Iowa, Iowa City. McBee, M. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 103–111. McCall, R. B., & Beach, S. R. (2000). The nature and correlates of underachievement among elementary schoolchildren in Hong Kong. Child Development, 71, 785–802. McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 144–154. McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2005, April). What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Miao, J., & Haney, W. (2004, October 15). High school graduation rates: Alternative methods and implications. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(55), Retrieved October 25, 2004 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v2012n2055/ Moore, J. L., III, Ford, D. Y., & Milner, H. R. (2005). Underachievement among gifted students of color: Implications for educators. Theory Into Practice, 44, 167–177. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Public school student, staff, and graduate counts by state: School year 2001–2002. Retrieved December 21, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/snf report03/table 01 1.asp Paulson, A. (2006, March 3). Dropout rates high, but fixes underway. The Christian Science Monitor [online edition]. Retrieved March 4, 2006 from http:// www.csmonitor.com/2006/0303/p2001s2002-legn.html. Peters, W. A. M., & van Boxtel, H. W. (1999). Irregular error patterns in Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices: A sign of underachievement in testing situations? High Ability Studies, 10, 213–232. Peterson, J. S. (2001). Successful adults who were once adolescent underachievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 236–249. Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006). Bullying and the gifted: Victims, perpetrators, prevalence, and effects. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 148–168. Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 152–171. Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2002). Underachievement in gifted and talented students with special needs. Exceptionality, 10, 113–125. Renzulli, J. S., & Park, S. (2000). Gifted dropouts: The who and the why. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 261–271.

M.S. Matthews Renzulli, J. S., & Park, S. (2002). Giftedness and high school dropouts: Personal, family, and school-related factors (No. RM02168). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Rimm, S. B. (1995). Why bright kids get poor grades and what you can do about it. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc. Robertson, E. (1991). Neglected dropouts: the gifted and talented. Equity & Excellence, 25, 62-74. Rumbaut, R. G. (1995). The new Californians: Comparative research findings on the educational progress of immigrant children. In R. G. Rumbaut, & W. A. Cornelius (Eds.), California’s immigrant children: Theory, research and implications for educational policy. San Diego: University of California, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies. Shaunessy, E., Matthews, M. S., & Smith, D. (2006, November). District Practices in the Identification of Underrepresented Populations in Gifted Education. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Charlotte, NC. Shaunessy, E., Suldo, S. M., Hardesty, R. B., & Shaffer, E. J. (2006). School functioning and psychological well-being of International Baccalaureate and general education students: A preliminary examination. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 76–89. Shavinina, L. V., & Ferrari, M. (Eds.). (2004). Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of developing high ability. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Siegle, D. (2001, April). Teacher bias in identifying gifted and talented students. Paper presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Kansas City, MO [ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 454664]. Silverman, L. K. (Ed.). (1993). Counseling the Gifted and Talented. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company. Spiers Neumeister, K. L., & H´ebert, T. P. (2003). Underachievement versus selective achievement: Delving deeper and discovering the difference. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 221–238. Tan, G. (2001). “I want my teachers to like me”: Multiculturalism and school dropout rates among Mexican Americans. Equity & Excellence in Education, 34(2), 35–42. Vald´es, G. (Ed.). (2003). Expanding definitions of giftedness: The case of young interpreters from immigrant communities. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vizcain, D. C. (2005, November). Hispanic/Latino male student dropout: Age, retention, behavior, program of study, and state GPA are useful predictors. Paper presented at the 50th anniversary meeting of the Florida Educational Research Association, Miami, FL. Woods, E. G. (1995). Reducing the dropout rate. School Improvement Research Series (SIRS) CloseUp #17. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved November 24, 2004, from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/9/c017.html Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (2003). Identification of underachievement: An empirical study on the agreement among various diagnostic sources. Gifted and Talented International, 18(2), 87–94.

Chapter 25

Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students: Theory, Factors, and Cultural Expectations Laurie A. Hyatt and Tracy L. Cross

Abstract The dramatic increase in the rate of youth suicide in the United States, including suicide among gifted adolescents, emphasizes the need for more research in this area. The literature on suicide among gifted adolescents is examined following a review of the literature on the incidence and causes of suicide in the general population. The literature on the possible vulnerability to suicide among gifted adolescents is explored through a focus on the social and emotional issues faced by gifted adolescent males and females. An examination of the literature on the proneness of gifted adolescents to suicide highlights the difficulties in obtaining conclusive results. More research on the possible correlations between the unique difficulties experienced by gifted youth and a propensity for suicide is needed. Keywords Suicide · Suicide rates · Gifted · Gifted adolescents · Proneness to suicide · Vulnerability to suicide · Theories of suicide

Introduction Suicide has been a focus of research for sociologists, psychologists, educators, and others who have been interested in the incidence and etiology of this self-destructive act. The French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, drew attention to suicide when he quantified demographic data among populations in his book, Le Suicide (1897, 1951). Quantitative research L.A. Hyatt (B) University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected]

on suicide has included statistics on the incidence of suicide completions, including the numbers of suicide completions in the United States by age group per year (National Center for Health Statistics, 2006). Specific demographic data concerning methods, seasonal occurrence, and the most frequent time of day that suicide has occurred in the United States have been documented (Berman & Jobes, 1991). The dramatically increasing suicide rate among the young in the United States, as noted by some researchers (Cross, Gust-Brey, & Ball, 2002; Delisle, 1986), has brought the topic to the forefront of the American public’s awareness again. In addition to interest in demographic and statistical data, the search for causes of suicide has led some researchers to develop multicausal theories (Shneidman, 1985: Stillion & McDowell, 1996). Individual factors such as anger (Dixon & Scheckel, 1996), perfectionism (Delisle, 1986), and social isolation (Kaiser & Berndt, 1985) have been noted. Other possible influences on the increasing rate of suicide among the young include negative effects of media such as television and video games (Irwin & Gross, 1995; Mishara, 1999). Noting that exceptionally talented young people seem to have unique social and emotional issues and needs, some researchers have analyzed surveys and interview data in order to understand the particular challenges of gifted adolescents (Kerr, 1994; Lovecky, 1993; Roeper, 1995). Whether or not gifted individuals are more prone to complete suicide than those of average abilities has been another area of interest (Delisle, 1986; Kerr, 1991; Neihart, 1998). Research studies have not resulted in a deep understanding of the motivating factors in suicide among gifted adolescents (Gust-Brey & Cross, 1998).

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 25, 

537

538

We begin this chapter with a review of the literature on suicide in the general population, including statistical data on rates of suicide and literature concerning the causes of suicide, including two currently recognized multicausal theories. Next, an overview of the research concerning the social and emotional challenges faced by gifted adolescents is included because it seems that an inability to meet those challenges has, in some cases, led to suicide. Finally, literature addressing the question of proneness to suicide among gifted young people will be reviewed as few studies have addressed these particular vulnerabilities of gifted adolescents.

Suicide in the General Population Demographic and Statistical Data Most of the research that has been conducted on suicide in the United States has dealt with generalized concerns about suicide. Journals such as Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior and associations such asThe American Association of Suicidology have been created in response to a concern about the incidence of suicide. Suicide among adolescents has been a rather recent concern. Much research has addressed the dramatically increasing suicide rate among the young, but few have focused their research on the possible reasons that might explain why young people take their lives. No studies were found that could give conclusive evidence that would lead to prediction and prevention. In 2004, the most recent year for which final data were available, suicide was the third leading cause of death for those aged 15–24 years (following unintentional injuries and homicide), and the sixth leading cause of death for those aged 5–14 years (National Center for Health Statistics, 2006). Although the average rate of suicide has remained fairly stable since 1955 (10–12/100,000), the suicide rate in the younger age groups has tripled (Dixon & Scheckel, 1996; Jamison, 1999). Even more alarming is the possibility that many reported “accidents” might have, in fact, been suicides that were not reported as such for personal or insurance reasons (Dixon & Scheckel, 1996; Pfeffer, 1986). At least 10% of young people attempt sui-

L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross

cide (Dixon & Scheckel, 1996; National Center for Health Statistics, 2006). Teens attempt suicide 10 times more frequently than adults (Maine, Shute, & Martin, 2001). There were 31,484 deaths by suicide in 2003 and 32,439 deaths by suicide in 2004 in the United States for all age groups combined (National Center for Health Statistics, 2006). The statistical data that are available through the national records on vital statistics validate the concern about suicide rates among the young. For example, of the 32,439 completed suicides in the United States in 2004, those among young people aged 5–14 years numbered 285 and completed suicides among young people aged 15–24 years numbered 4,319 (National Center for Health Statistics, 2006). Obtaining statistics on adolescent suicide was more difficult prior to 1995 because the records were compiled in the age ranges of 5–14 and 15–24 years rather than by specific chronological ages by year or even in 10-year increments. New tables are beginning to list the age ranges 15–19 and 20–24 years as well as the previous 15–24 years. This change will make it easier to figure suicide rates during adolescence, a period which is usually thought to include ages 10–19 years. When completed suicides were viewed along a distribution of school levels at the time of the completion of suicide, 3% occurred while in elementary school, 11% while in secondary school, and 17% while in college (Maine, Shute, & Martin, 2001). Ten percent of “normal” children, or children with no psychiatric diagnosis such as major depression, report suicidal ideation, according to Pfeffer (1986). Two studies of American high school students confirmed that suicidal ideation was not uncommon. More than 15% of New York high school students reported that they had “thought about killing themselves” and 20% of Oregon high school students also described suicidal ideation (Jamison, 1999). Looking at US statistics, we can examine the suicide rate by race and gender in addition to age. In 2004, White males had the highest suicide rate (19.6/100,000), followed by American Indians and Alaskan natives (12.9/100,000), Black males (9.0/100,000), Asian/Pacific islanders (5.6/100,000), and Hispanics (5.3/100,000) (National Center for Health Statistics, 2006). There was an increase in the rate of suicide among Black males aged 15–24 years from 4.9/100,000 in 1950 to 14.2/100,000 in 2000 (Maris, Berman, & Silverman, 2000; National

25

Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students

539

Center for Health Statistics, 2004). American males exceed females by four to one in suicide completions, although females make more nonlethal attempts, often by taking an overdose of barbiturates (Maris, Berman, & Silverman, 2000). More males complete suicide largely because they use more lethal means, such as firearms. Guns were used in 51.6% of completed suicides in the United States in 2004, followed by 22.6% by suffocation/hanging, 17% by poisoning, 1.8% by cutting, and 11.1% by drowning (National Center for Health Statistics, 2006). There was a 240% increase in the rate of suicide among young people from 1955 to 1995 (see Table 25.1). This table is a compilation that we made from many lists of mortality statistics available online from the National Center for Health Statistics. After a slight decline in 1999, suicide rates among the young have oscillated between 0.6 and 0.7 per 100,000 population. The rate among ages 5–14, 15–24, 25–34 years, and, to a degree, 35–44 years rose through 1995, while the rates for those over age 45 years decreased. Younger children are completing suicide at unacceptably high rates. Many have noted the increased rate of suicide among adolescents (Dixon & Scheckel, 1996; Jamison, 1999; Gust-Bey & Cross, 1998; Maris, Berman, & Silverman, 2000). The reasons for the changes and the effectiveness of prevention strategies were unclear (National Center for Health Statistics, 2004).

Suicides in the United States have occurred most often in the spring in the months of March, April, May, and June. Suicides were usually completed on Mondays and least often on the weekends (Berman & Jobes, 1991). They have usually occurred in the late afternoon or evening. The home has been the site of most suicides (National Center for Health Statistics, 2006; Berman & Jobes, 1991).

Literature on the Causes and Warning Signs of Suicide Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist, pointed out that suicide must be considered in cultural and historical contexts (Durkheim, 1897/1951). Rather than viewing suicide as a sin or as something either to be revered or judged, Durkheim noted the differences in rates of suicides in many cultures and countries and attempted to provide explanations for those differences. His conclusion was that suicide occurs more frequently in societies where people feel isolated, alone, and with no sense of community. Others have posited alternative reasons for the increase in suicide rates among the young. Lester (1999) stated that adolescents have “no meaningful rites of passage and few wise elders or mentors to shepherd them” (p. 587). Hopelessness, sadness, and anger might be felt by many due to family conflicts and a

Table 25.1 Rates of suicide in the United States per 100,000 population Age range Year

5–14

15–24

25–34

35–44

45–54

55–64

65–74

75–84

85+

All ages

1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

0.1 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7

4.1 6.2 11.7 12.8 13.3 12.0 11.4 11.1 10.3 10.2 9.9 9.9 9.7 10.4

8.4 12.2 16.1 15.3 15.4 14.5 14.3 13.8 13.5 13.4 12.8 12.6 12.7 12.7

12.3 16.7 17.4 14.6 15.2 15.5 15.3 15.4 14.4 14.5 14.7 15.3 14.9 15.1

19.6 20.9 20.1 15.7 14.6 14.9 14.7 14.8 14.2 14.4 15.2 15.7 15.9 16.6

24.8 23.7 19.8 16.8 13.3 13.7 13.5 13.1 12.4 12.1 13.1 13.6 13.8 13.8

25.0 21.2 19.6 18.7 15.8 15.0 14.4 14.1 13.6 12.5 13.3 13.5 12.7 12.3

27.5 24.7 19.7 23.9 20.7 20.0 19.3 19.7 18.3 17.6 17.4 17.7 16.4 16.3

27.9 24.2 18.6 19.4 21.6 20.2 20.8 21.0 19.2 19.6 17.5 18.0 16.9 16.4

10.2 11.1 12.6 12.4 11.9 11.6 11.4 11.3 10.7 10.7 10.8 11.0 10.8 11.1

We created this table based on an analysis of the material in the Mortality Database of the National Center for Health Statistics (2004).

540

higher rate of divorce with its loyalty issues (Dixon & Scheckel, 1996). Increasing external or self-imposed pressure to perform well may create perfectionism, which sometimes results in a fear of failure and a sense of guilt (Lester, 1999). Some young people feel socially isolated, partly because they prefer solitary or single-friend activities to group activities and partly because no one seems to understand their concerns and values in a world that is increasingly materialistic and violent (Lester, 1999; Torrance & Sisk, 1997). Bullying has become recognized as a contributing factor in some suicides (Hazler & Denham, 2002; Ross, 1996). The bullying issue came to the attention of the American public after the 1999 school shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. The two young males who murdered classmates and killed themselves complained of being bullied and feeling alienated from others. As Hazler and Denham (2002) noted, “Peer-on-peer abuse has been recognized as a precursor to potential youth suicides. . .” (p. 403). Exposure to the violence seen on television, even during the earlier hours when children are usually watching, has been a concern for years. A study by Mishara (1999), however, focused on how young children learn about suicide. Interviews with children in grades 1–5 were conducted. The responses showed that by the third grade, most of the 65 children in the study had “an elaborate understanding of suicide” (p. 105). Mishara stated, “Children learn about suicide from television and discussions with other children, but they rarely discuss suicide with adults” (1999, p. 105). Some young males who have completed suicide have been interested in music, books, movies, or video games with “dark themes” or asocial characters (Cross, Cook, & Dixon, 1996; Delisle, 1986). Recently, more research has been focused on violent video games (Irwin & Gross, 1995; Griffiths & Hunt, 1998). Video games came on the market around 1972 and have become a multibillion dollar industry. On March 21, 2000, the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation conducted a “Hearing on the Impact of Interactive Violence on Children.” At the hearings, David Walsh, Ph.D., the President of the National Institute on Media and the Family, gave testimony entitled “Interactive Violence and Children” (Walsh, 2001). Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman, a former professor of psychology at the University of Arkansas, a professor at West Point, a former

L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross

Army Ranger and the author of On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society (Grossman, 1996) testified that video games such as Doom, a favorite of the two young men who killed others and themselves at Columbine High School, are similar to simulators used by the military to condition soldiers to kill. Factors that seem to correlate with or be associated with suicide may, according to some, serve as warning signs. A family history of suicide, an experience of loss, and a family environment marked by conflictual relationships or poor communication also seem to contribute to a higher risk (Ayyash-Abdo, 2002). Another correlate may be extreme introversion that leads to social isolation (Kaiser & Berndt, 1985). A sudden decrease in academic performance or sudden mood or behavioral changes may be warnings of potential suicide (Lajoie & Shore, 1981).

Two Recent Theories of Suicide The Suicide Trajectory Model The complexity and multicausal nature of suicide was emphasized in the suicide trajectory model, which first appeared in the book, Suicide Across the Life Span (Stillion, McDowell, & May, 1989). Graphic representations of the model depict the four major sources of risk factors (biological, psychological, cognitive, and environmental) as contributors to suicidal ideation (see Table 25.2). Table 25.2 is the authors’ graphic representation of the ideas in Stillion and McDowell, not an actual table in the book. The researchers looked at the cultural and historical influences on human behavior as well, noting that today’s young people have been exposed to violence and to suicide through the media to a far greater extent than the Boomer generation, for example. In addition, they looked at oscillating cultural and religious views across generations. An important observation was that some factors interact with each other which increases the risk. For example, when an individual is biologically predisposed for depression and is in an environment with a great deal of relationship conflict, loyalty issues, and discord, the interaction of those factors is more powerful than one factor alone.

25

Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students

541

Table 25.2 The suicide trajectory model risk factors Biological

Psychological

Cognitive

Environmental

Genetic bases Brain functioning

Depressed mood Poor self-concept, poor self-esteem Lack of coping strategies Existential questions

Level of cognition Negative self-talk

Family discord Negative life events, especially loss Availability of firearms

Gender–male

Rigidity of thought

We prepared this table as a graphic representation of the ideas of Stillion and McDowell (1996) to clarify the specific risk factors under each of the four main areas of influence.

Biological risk factors include genetic predisposition and the decreased flow of the neurotransmitter, serotonin, which elevates mood. Also, the fact that in most countries males complete suicide three to four times more frequently than females puts males at a higher risk. In addition to being more aggressive, in general, than females, males are expected in our society to meet certain stereotypical expectations through their behavior, such as playing sports and achieving material success. Psychologically, the most important risk factor, according to the authors, is a feeling of hopelessness which, when combined with feelings of helplessness, increases the suicide risk. Those who admit to suicidal ideation also seemed to judge themselves harshly and often labeled themselves negatively with words such as “failure.” A lack of effective coping strategies put an individual at great risk for developing symptoms of depression, which has often been associated with suicide. Another apparent commonality of those who develop suicidal ideation is existential angst, according to this theory. All humans are influenced by their environment, which can be looked at in various levels of systems, from the family of origin to the neighborhood to the region of the country to the country in which one lives. A family environment that is marked by negativity, loyalty issues, and poor communication is not fertile ground for a healthy developing mind. Negative life events, such as the loss of a loved one through death or rejection, can add to the stresses that affect a person’s well-being. Also, since firearms are used in most suicides in the United States, the availability of these potentially lethal weapons has contributed to the risk of suicide. Stillion and McDowell followed up with a second edition of their book, Suicide Across the Life Span, in 1996 in order to expand on the applicability of the suicide trajectory model. In summation, the suicide trajectory model is an inclusive paradigm which

considers the biological, psychological, cognitive, and environmental factors, the possible interactions of these factors, and the cultural and historical context in which an individual has lived.

Shneidman’s Theory In his book, Definition of Suicide (Shneidman, 1985), Shneidman discussed ten characteristics of suicide, which he divided into six categories: Situational aspects 1. The common stimulus in suicide is unendurable psychological pain. 2. The common stressor in suicide is frustrated psychological needs. Willing and striving (conation) 3. The common purpose of suicide is to seek a solution. 4. The common goal of suicide is cessation of consciousness. Affective aspects 5. The common emotion in suicide is hopelessness– helplessness. 6. The common internal attitude toward suicide is ambivalence. Cognitive aspects 7. The common cognitive state in suicide is constriction. Relational aspects 8. The common interpersonal act in suicide is communication of intention. 9. The common action in suicide is egression.

542

Serial aspects 10. The common consistency in suicide is with lifelong coping patterns. Situational aspects include the desire to escape a situation in which unbearable psychological pain is being experienced and in which basic psychological needs are not being met. Shneidman (1993) noted that the term unendurable is an evaluation of a situation. In other words, what one person considers “unendurable” might be considered relatively unimportant or certainly bearable by another. Some examples of psychological needs would include the need not to be humiliated, shamed, blamed, or criticized and the need to feel a sense of accomplishment and a sense of connectedness or relatedness. The conative aspects of suicide, according to Shneidman (1993), include the purpose of suicide and the achievement of cessation of consciousness. As Shneidman pointed out, suicide is purposeful. It serves as the solution to a perceived problem or problems or as a resolution to an issue or an answer to a question. Also, suicide serves as an escape from unbearable stress. Feelings of hopelessness and helplessness and an attitude of ambivalence comprise the affective dimension of suicide. When one feels as if there is no hope that life circumstances will improve and that one is helpless to effect a change, the risk of suicide is greatly magnified. Shneidman thought that those who take their lives want to die on the one hand and want to be rescued on the other. He referred to Freud’s ideas concerning the life instinct and the death wish and the struggle between the id and the superego. Both can be experienced at once. Constriction, or narrowed thinking, is the primary factor operating in the thinking processes of someone who is suicidal, according to Shneidman (1993). The inability to perceive many options to solve problems, for example, might result in thinking that taking one’s life is the only solution. Relational factors of suicide include intentions to communicate by actions, including the suicide itself, and in a relatively small percentage of cases, also through a suicide note. Many times a person who is contemplating suicide gives cues or warnings in an attempt to relate the intention to complete suicide. The action of leaving, departing, or escaping relationships, whether with family members,

L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross

friends, or coworkers, communicates something about the person. Shneidman (1985) also concluded that suicide is the culmination of a lifelong pattern of coping strategies, albeit ineffective, for survival. When Shneidman accurately guessed 5of the first 6 of 30 suicides among the “Terman Kids” (Terman, 1925) he said that the clues that he examined which helped him to guess those who eventually completed suicide were largely connected to patterns of reacting to perceived threats, losses, and failures (Shneidman, 1996). Shneidman’s theory is also a multifaceted approach to delineating risk factors for suicide with the aim of prediction and prevention. Similar to the suicide trajectory model, many factors were considered and also lifelong patterns were studied. This is also a rather comprehensive paradigm for theorizing about the etiology of suicide. A person’s level of perturbation and lethality must also be considered when assessing suicide risk, according to Shneidman (1996). How perturbed one gets in response to life events and how dangerous a person is to himself or herself must also be taken into account. In terms of explaining the factors that contribute to suicide, both theories’ broad approaches make them powerful paradigms. They both look at developmental patterns. Shneidman’s theory seemed to focus more on the role of motivational factors and temperament when he discussed the need to escape pain, for example, and the degree to which an individual can become perturbed about a certain situation. He made it clear that different people respond to the same situation in different ways. This certainly adds to the explanatory power of the theory. Stillion and McDowell (1996) also emphasized that a person’s responses to life events, be it stoicism or rage, depend, to a degree, on the political and economic climate in which they were raised. Complementing these two broad theories with more in-depth case studies would add much to the body of knowledge about suicide and to the ability to be able to predict and to prevent suicide. Shneidman (1996) mentioned this need as he alluded to cases in which people who attempted suicide but did not complete and lived to be interviewed later recounted what they were thinking and what goals they were attempting to accomplish. Also, emphasis on possible systemic as well as individual changes would be powerful additions to the research. The explanatory power of a theory or

25

Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students

model of suicide is determined by its catalyzing effect on individual and systemic changes that promote well-being and resilience. For example, Freud’s theory that talking with people about their problems could help alleviate symptoms such as depression or hysteria served as a catalyst for the popularity and success of “talk therapy.”

Proneness to Suicide Among Gifted Youth Social and Emotional Issues and Challenges of Gifted Adolescents Being different is painful. (Balto, character in the movie, Balto II, Ross, 2002)

An area of research that is related to suicide among gifted adolescents centered on the social and emotional issues and challenges faced by gifted children and adolescents (Coleman & Cross, 2005; Cross, 1996). Gifted adolescents seem to have some unique emotional needs and issues due to the fact that they are different. In this section, the literature concerning some of the issues and challenges of being gifted and adolescent will be reviewed. After reviewing the literature pertaining to the social and emotional issues which seem to be faced by gifted adolescents regardless of gender, the needs and challenges associated with being adolescent, gifted, and male will be discussed, followed by a discussion of the needs and challenges associated with being adolescent, gifted, and female. Many researchers have stated that being both adolescent and gifted has often resulted in a unique set of problems and that the social and emotional issues and challenges are in some ways quite difficult (Buescher, 1985; Delisle, 1992; Hollingworth, 1931; Roeper, 1995). For example, Buescher (1985) commented, “In many ways, though, being both gifted and adolescent means learning to understand and cope with a unique set of developmental circumstances that can reach beyond the normal dimensions of adolescence” (p. 11). He went on to add that adolescents between the ages of 11 and 15 years “seem to be particularly vulnerable to the confusion and misinterpretation precipitated by their outstanding abilities” (p. 11).

543

Gifted adolescents may be more vulnerable to the pressures of establishing a sense of identity and establishing meaningful relationships (Hollingworth, 1942; Torrance, 1962). Hollingworth addressed the social and emotional issues of being gifted when she noted that gifted adolescents may have “the intelligence of an adult and the emotions of a child” (Hollingworth, 1942, p. 282). Difficulties can result from the unique perceptions and experiences of being gifted. The theme of Annemarie Roeper’s paper about The Emotional World of Gifted Children presented at the National Association of Gifted Children annual conference in 2003 was that there were unique social and emotional difficulties faced by the gifted child. She expanded on some of the points that she had addressed in 1995 which included, “Gifted children’s thoughts and emotions differ from those of other children and, as a result, they perceive and react to their world differently” (Roeper, 1995, p. 74). When identifying some of the critical dynamics of being adolescent and gifted, it becomes important to realize that the social and emotional issues and challenges are related to cultural values and to historical context (Buescher, 1985; Cross, 2004). In many cases, a young person’s experiences in today’s schools are painful. Addressing the dynamics involved in the school shootings at Columbine High School in 1999, Cross noted, “The lessons we should have learned were that our children’s experiences in high school (middle and elementary school) cause them to suffer” (Cross, 2004, p. 111). Many of the issues that affect both males and females include establishing a sense of identity and forming supportive and meaningful relationships. When you are adolescent and gifted, however, these are very difficult social and emotional challenges. As the movie character, Balto, sorrowfully stated in reference to his daughter, who was a gifted leader, “Being different is painful” (Ross, 2002). Some of the social and emotional issues and challenges associated with being adolescent and gifted include boredom (Gross, 2004; H´ebert & Speirs Neumeister, 2002; Kerr & Cohn, 2001), establishing a sense of identity and a positive selfconcept (Dixon, 1998; Gross, 1998; H´ebert, 2000a; Kline & Short, 1991), perfectionistic tendencies (Buescher, 1985; Delisle, 1986; Spiers Neumeister, 2004), heightened sensitivity and intensity (Dabrowski, 1976; Silverman, 1994; Lovecky, 1993),

544

and advanced moral development and global concerns (Roeper, 1995; Cross, 2004; H´ebert & Speirs Neumeister, 2002). Many gifted adolescents experience discouragement, hopelessness, insecurity, a sense of meaninglessness, and eventual suppressed feelings (Kerr & Cohn, 2001; Kline & Short, 1991; Roeper, 1995).

Social and Emotional Issues Common to Both Genders Boredom and Frustration In 1942, Hollingworth remarked, “In the ordinary elementary school situation, children with an IQ of 140 waste half their time. Those with an IQ above 170 waste practically all their time. With little to do, how can these children develop power of sustained effort, respect for the task, or habits of steady work?” (p. 299). Young people report being bored and frustrated in school with content that is not challenging or relevant (Egan, 1998). Discussing the plight of a gifted male who was in a heterogeneous classroom, Gross (2004) remarked, “Requiring Ian to undertake all his school work with age peers of average ability was rather like requiring a child of average intelligence to spend six hours a day, five days a week, interacting solely with children who were profoundly intellectually disabled” (p. 4). When Kerr was an adolescent, the Russians sent Sputnik into space, and, as a result, the United States began to single out gifted young people for advanced educational opportunities. Kerr was in a gifted cohort which included 17 males. She and Tom Anderson, a graduate student in counseling psychology, interviewed most of the group members as adults to collect data about their school experiences. They were able to directly interview 13 of the original 17, obtained secondhand information about three, and were not able to locate a young man who was a creative artist while in school. At the time of the follow-up, participants were about 50 years of age. All responded to interview questions by stating that they had been bored in school and that relationships were awkward or painful (and still were, in many cases). One man would have liked to have had exposure to subjects other than English, French,

L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross

math, and the other academic subjects included for the cohort. He asked, “Why didn’t we get any shop classes?” Curriculum was determined by the school system, with little or no input from the students concerning their individual interests. Kerr and Cohn noted that the gifted males were “bored in school, socially awkward, and somehow disconnected from others at a young age” (Kerr & Cohn, 2001). Gifted adolescents are intensely fascinated with learning (Lovecky, 1993). In their 2002 article, H´ebert and Speirs Neumeister noted the frustration and boredom experienced by bright young students. They suggested that gifted students could relate to the characters in films such as October Sky, and their feelings of frustration could be validated as they relate to the boys in the movie. Utilizing guided reading can also facilitate a validation of thoughts and feelings that the gifted adolescent feels are experienced by no one but himself or herself (Halstead, 2002; H´ebert, 1991). For some gifted adolescents, it is only in books that they find like-minded characters (Halstead, 2002). Julian Stanley was successful in being a catalyst for grade-skipping for many young gifted students (Stanley, 2000). He helped seventh graders, for example, go directly into college. Since Stanley passed away, programs that he began, such as the Talent Identification Program, continue to accelerate the pace and enrich the curriculum of learning for bright young minds. One of his favorite stories involved a middle school male who was not allowed into an algebra I class due to his age. Stanley encouraged the teacher to at least let the boy take a test to see if he could solve the problems. When the boy made 100% on the test, the teacher invited the student into the class, at which point the student declined, asking why he would want to take a class on material that he already knew (Stanley, 2004).

Perfectionism Many researchers have studied the negative effects of perfectionism (Hill, 1995; Kerr & Cohn, 2001; Roeper, 1995; Silverman, 1993; Spiers Neumeister, 2004).While striving for perfection would seem an admirable trait, for gifted adolescents perceived failure can lead to guilt, depression, anxiety, and even suicide (Hayes & Sloat, 1990). Many gifted adolescents do

25

Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students

not give themselves permission to be less than perfect (Alvino, 1991). Roeper said, “These children carry an enormous burden of imagined responsibility way beyond their years” (1995, p. 73). Their emotional need to be perfect is, of course, unrealistic, she added. When the prodigy Brandenn Bremmer was asked about his giftedness in an interview in 2004, less than a year before taking his life at age 14, he responded, “America is a society that demands perfection.” The interviewer noted that “it was interesting that I had asked him about giftedness, but the word perfection was foremost in his mind” (Quart, 2006, p. 142). Spiers Neumeister (2002) categorized perfectionism into two categories: socially prescribed and self-oriented. Those with socially prescribed perfectionism are concerned with the expectations of others. They evaluate their self-worth according to perceived external standards which they are expected to meet. Those with self-oriented perfectionism are motivated from within to reach self-imposed high standards. She explored the anxiety and learned helplessness associated with expecting more of yourself than is humanly possible. She interviewed extensively and also did her own soul-searching concerning the roots of perfectionism. Her findings included many factors that seemed to contribute to the participants’ socially prescribed perfectionistic tendencies including early awareness of intelligence and ability to meet high achievement standards of perfectionistic parents. Neumeister noted that students with socially prescribed perfectionistic tendencies feared failure and the disappointment of others. The perfectionistic tendencies of those, like herself, with self-oriented perfectionism, seemed to be linked to individual personality traits and intrinsic motivation. As Spiers Neumeister (2002) concluded, perfectionism can be developed from the messages of others or it can come from an inner-driven, extreme sense of responsibility to self and/or others. Delisle (1986) observed that “a number of gifted students with records of impeccable academic performance have been preoccupied with suicidal thoughts. . .” (p. 64). When singer Judy Collins was 15 years old, she attempted suicide because of her fear of not being good enough, of not pleasing her father. Her father asked her to play the piano at an organized event in Denver. She related being so terrified that her performance would

545

not be good enough, that, rather than sharing her fears with him, she took an overdose of aspirin in a suicide attempt. He later apologized for being a perfectionist himself and putting so much pressure on her. However, she noted that most of her pressure was self-imposed (Collins, 2003).

Sensitivity and Intensity Researchers have addressed the apparent heightened emotional and moral sensitivity experienced by gifted youth (Cross, Cook, & Dixon, 1996; Dabrowski, 1964; H´ebert, 2002; Nelson, 1989; Runco, 1998; Silverman, 1994; Tucker & Hafenstein, 1997). These characteristics seem to often result in self-criticism and cynicism (Dabrowski, 1976; Nelson, 1989). A challenge for sensitive gifted adolescents who experience life intensely is to find avenues for emotional expression (H´ebert, 2000a). The gifted males in H´ebert’s urban high school study embraced their sensitivity, which seemed to contribute to the belief in self. The sensitivities would fit with the emotional over-excitability in Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration (Dabrowski, 1964). Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities, explained in his theory of positive disintegration, have been mentioned by some researchers as being associated with risk of suicide (Cross, Cook, & Dixon, 1996; Dabrowski, 1964; Delisle, 1992; Nelson, 1989). As young people evolve from Level II, in which they look to those outside of themselves for answers and validation, to Level III, in which they become more introspective, self-blame and self-criticism sometimes occur. This may be a time of increased risk of suicide. Often gifted children and adolescents feel as if they are too much. They think too much, talk too much, and feel too much. Something must be wrong with me, they may conclude (Roeper, 1995). Life was not easy for the gifted male described by Lovecky (1993) who “took every fallen bird into his heart” (p. 37).

Morality, Justice, and Global Concerns Gifted youth worry about global concerns and experience existential dread (Ellsworth, 2003; Kerr, 1991; Nelson, 1989). Issues of social justice and being treated fairly are important to many gifted adolescents. “Re-

546

searchers studying the highly and exceptionally gifted have noted that these children are frequently found to have unusually accelerated levels of moral development” (Gross, 2004). Gifted children are often worried about problems in the world such as hunger or war that other children do not think about (Roeper, 2003). At the same time, young people feel helpless to effect change in the world (Hollingworth, 1942). While they are aware of the devastation of war or hunger, they are not able to solve global situations. A heightened sense of responsibility coupled with a heightened awareness of the troubles in the world produces guilt and depression. Similarly, gifted children and adolescents have a deep sense of justice. Being treated unfairly or with insensitivity or witnessing the unfair treatment of others, while upsetting to most, can be devastating to a gifted child (Roeper, 2003).

Social Isolation and Being Bullied Social isolation and feelings of alienation have been addressed by many researchers (Hazler & Denham, 2002; Hollingworth, 1942; Torrance, 1962). The tragic results of being different, not fitting in, having different interests, concerns, and values, dressing differently, and not meeting the cultural expectations for normality often include social isolation and being bullied. Torrance (1962) wrote that “in most classrooms the child runs a calculated risk every time he asks an unusual question or advances a new idea for fear of the ridicule by his classmates and perhaps his teacher” (p. 74). Being bullied and harassed is a frequent occurrence for gifted adolescents (Cross, 2001; Graham, 2003; Gross, 1998; Kerr & Cohn, 2001). Today, in addition to being bullied at school, adolescents are bullied online and by cell phone text messaging, a problem termed cyberbullying (Belsey, 2005; Willard, 2006). Paul Graham (2003), author of Why Nerds are Unpopular, talked of his own experiences with bullying and harassment as well as his observations about them. He stated, “For me, the worst stretch was junior high. . ..Nearly everyone I’ve talked to agrees” (p. 5). “In our school it was eighth grade,” he added. “The difficulty of the gifted child forming friendships is largely a result of the infrequency of persons who are like minded.” (Hollingworth, 1942, p. 262).

L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross

In addition, Hollingworth noted that it is not easy for a gifted student to “suffer fools gladly.” In an interview study by Gross (1998), many gifted males responded that they had difficulty being accepted in school. One young man stated, “You’ve got to have mates and there’s nobody round here who’s anything like me, so they’re all I’ve got. But I don’t know how long I’m going to be able to keep going” (p. 7). She added that “the need to escape from such bewilderment, frustration, and loneliness may become a compelling force” (p. 7). The more highly gifted the child, the more likely the child will experience social isolation. Graham (2003) noted that “Nerds are unpopular because they’re distracted. There are other kids who deliberately opt out because they’re so disgusted with the whole process” (p. 11). Being smart does not make you an outcast in elementary school, but it can in middle school and high school. He began his article by stating that, “in a typical American secondary school, being smart is likely to make your life difficult” (p. 1).

Being Brilliant, Studious, and Nonathletic Attitudes toward academically brilliant students have been the focus of some interesting studies (Cramond & Martin, 1987; Drews, 1972; Lee, Cramond, & Lee, 2004; Tannenbaum, 1962). Tannenbaum’s (1962) classic study asked high school students to rate the likeability of hypothetical students according to academic brilliance, studiousness, and athleticism. His finding was that the students least liked by other students were academically brilliant, studious, and nonathletic. Cramond & Martin (1987) expanded Tannenbaum’s research to include teachers’ attitudes concerning the same three characteristics. “The brilliant–studious–nonathletic character, often the stereotype of the gifted student, was rated the lowest” (p. 17) they concluded. In 2004, Lee, Cramond, and Lee conducted a study in Korea which replicated the Tannenbaum study and repeated the Cramond and Martin study. The fact that the results were similar was even more surprising in a country known for its emphasis on the value of education and effort. In this study, again, as in the two previous studies, the lowest rating was given to the academically brilliant, studious, nonathletic student. Another interesting finding was that the hypothetical students that fit

25

Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students

with that description were considered to be girls. Girls who were academically brilliant were the least popular. The authors concluded, “Psychologically safe environments are necessary for all children to thrive, and the more different a child is from his or her peers, the more vulnerable he or she is to peer sanctions” (Lee, Cramond, & Lee, 2004, p. 52).

Creativity Misunderstood and Unappreciated In a similar study of gifted high school students which began in the 1950s, Drews (1972) categorized students as creative intellectual, studious, and social leader. She noted that creative intellectuals “were rated by their teachers as less creative than their social leader classmates whose attitudes and interests resembled those of bankers or undertakers” (p. 36). Of the creative intellectuals, the social reformers and altruists were “most often condemned” (Drews, 1972, p. 37). She concluded that perhaps the low ratings could “best be explained by the fact that so many of these young people resist the usual school routines” (p. 36). Much has been written about a possible correlation between creativity and propensity for suicide (Jamison, 1999; Piirto, 2004; Rothenberg, 1990; Runco, 1998; Slaby, 1992). Some have cited the high incidence of suicide among artists and writers, especially poets (Jamison, 1993; Ludwig, 1995; Richards & Kinney, 1990). A seeming correlation between “bipolar disorder” and the oscillation experienced by creative artists between the intense passion and enthusiasm of periods of creative expansion and the depths of darkness and tendencies toward unsociability and feelings of emptiness at the other end of the pendulum has been discussed (Jamison, 1993; Richards & Kinney, 1990; Slaby, 1992; Piirto, 2004). Briggs (1990) noted that “the excited and quiescent states that are a normal part of creative process” are often considered pathological (p. 247). Creative artists often despise authoritarianism (Drews, 1972). Creative writers, for example, often attack society in their writings. This aspect of creativity may contribute to difficulties with life. Rothenberg (1990) stated, “Society and creative people are often antagonistic toward each other” (p. 158). Sylvia Plath, the writer of poetry and prose who took her life at the age of 31, described how she some-

547

times felt enthusiastic about writing and wrote prolifically and at other times experienced life as if she were in a bell jar, with its distortions and limitations (Plath, 1971). Rothenberg (1990) and Runco (1998) both discussed the creative artist’s drive for destructiveness and creation that exemplify the Janusian paradox. Both researchers also noted the apparent inability of some writers to free themselves cathartically from their concerns and stressors through their writing (Rothenberg, 1990; Runco, 1998). Torrance (1962) was concerned about what he called “the psychological estrangement of creative children” (p. 121). Giftedness is often manifested in creative pursuits because gifted children often think “outside the box.” Torrance realized that and incorporated opportunities for creative expression in his Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. Those with the most imagination make the highest scores. The point that Torrance was making was that in our society those who think differently are often ostracized. Briggs, also, referred to “our ancient aversion to things that are different” (1990, p. 247). Yet one of the traits that seem common to highly gifted, highly creative youth includes unconventionality (H´ebert, 2002; Torrance, 1962). An example would be a fascination with dark themes (Cross, 2004; Cross, Gust-Brey, & Ball, 2002) and an identification with negative or asocial characters (Delisle, 2000). Kerr and Cohn (2001) stated that “there are particular subgroups within the population of gifted boys whose members are indeed at much higher risk for various self-destructive behaviors, including suicide” (p. 144). Kerr and Cohn and others have concluded that highly gifted, highly creative boys are at a higher risk of suicide (Delisle, 1986; Kerr & Cohn, 2001; Lester, 1999). Highly gifted, highly creative young people are often thinking of new ideas. According to Torrance (1961) this has often resulted in a young person’s perception of self as “a minority of one” (p. 31). They have difficulties finding common ground for establishing relationships. Their activities are not the same as those of the average adolescent. While most adolescent boys are interested in sports, cars, and girls and most adolescent girls are interested in conforming behaviors that lead to popularity during the adolescent years, the highly gifted, highly creative adolescent may be drawing or writing in a journal or composing song lyrics.

548

To summarize, there are many social and emotional challenges facing adolescents who are gifted. Finding meaningful relationships with adolescents and adults who seem to understand, appreciate, and accept them and finding safe environments in which they can be their creative selves is a challenge. Reaching self-understanding and developing a sense of identity in a milieu of age peers who do not experience the world as intensely and deeply and who do not have the global concerns and ethical values of the gifted adolescent is difficult.

Being Adolescent, Gifted, and Male Establishing a Sense of Identity Developing a sense of identity, including selfunderstanding and a strong belief in self, is necessary for personal and professional success (H´ebert, 2000a). Following his study of six high-ability urban males, H´ebert concluded that a strong belief in self “was identified as the single important factor influencing the success of the urban males in this study” (H´ebert, 2000a, p. 106). A sense of self-identity may include acceptance of self as an individual, establishing autonomy, forming relationships based on trust, openness, and a similarity of values, and fulfilling the need to achieve according to Gross (1998). One of the struggles for gifted male adolescents is reaching selfunderstanding (H´ebert & Speirs Neumeister, 2002). Being different from the majority at school complicates identity formulation. “The process of identity development in intellectually gifted children and adolescents is complicated by their innate and acquired differences from age peers” (Gross, 1998, p. 1). Often, gifted boys experience loneliness and feelings of isolation when they perceive just how different they are from the majority (Kerr & Cohn, 2001). Delisle (1986) noted that gifted boys are often more popular in elementary school but that this changes in middle school. He discussed the fact that gifted boys are often in accelerated or “gifted” classes which set them apart from most of their classmates. In addition, the focus of most adolescents’ attention changes in the middle school years to what many gifted males would consider unimportant, superficial, absurd interests. Combine this difference with a gifted youngster’s

L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross

heightened concerns for global problems and the differences magnify. Frustration experienced by highly gifted adolescents who are bored and alienated can turn to anger (Dixon and Scheckel, 1996; Cross, 2001).

Cultural Expectations to be the Macho Male Males in the United States are expected to pursue stereotypically masculine interests. The plight of the young, gifted male is difficult, noted H´ebert (2002), who referred to the blend of masculine and feminine interests that is often a characteristic of gifted boys. When a gifted adolescent male is not athletically inclined, he has a difficult time fitting in (Alvino, 1991; H´ebert, 1995; H´ebert, 2000b). Not only does being different from the majority at school make the process of identity development more complicated, but being popular is valued, especially between the ages of 11 and 17 years (Graham, 2003). Gifted males walk a tight rope, according to Dixon (1998), often projecting several images to the world. Some do not try to put on a mask and are labeled “nerd” or “geek” while others try desperately to fit in. Social acceptance is highly valued in middle school and high school, and not fitting in can be particularly painful. Alvino (1991) added that self-concept problems are exacerbated by the “traditional male ideal, on the one hand” (p. 177) and the need to be themselves on the other. Being true to oneself in an anti-intellectual society is particularly tough for gifted boys (Cross, 2004). “Receiving so little validation for the self fosters a corresponding internal negative self-image,” according to Silverman (1993, p. 33). Adolescents search for who they are, but the life experiences and issues faced by gifted students are different, stated Cross (2004). Young adolescents are very exclusionary, forming cliques, deciding who is popular, and emphasizing participation in athletics as something to be admired for males. Finding a safe environment in which to be creative, to be different, is a challenge (Torrance & Sisk, 1997). Parents’ expectations for their sons combined with the greater sensitivity and perceptiveness of gifted adolescents make the sense of self, the ego, more vulnerable (Roeper, 2003). In the United States, very few young men teach elementary school because it is thought to be a feminine profession, with values such as nurturance emphasized. In a study of young gifted men who become elemen-

25

Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students

tary school teachers, H´ebert (2000b) discovered that a combination of a firm belief in self, appreciation for androgyny in terms of interests, and empathy gave these young men the self-confidence to break with tradition. Gifted young males are often less satisfied with themselves because of the pressures and expectations of society (Kline & Short, 1991). Kerr and Cohn (2001) pointed out that there were few initiations into manhood in our society. “Without these meaningful, symbolic ceremonies, today’s young men are bereft of appropriate ways of establishing their identity as men,” they added (p. 127). In the book chapter entitled “Gifted Males,” H´ebert (2002) remarked that it is a difficult time to be a boy in this country. Gifted young males often struggle to see themselves in a positive light, especially because others criticize them if they do not meet the American cultural expectations of the masculine image (H´ebert, 1995). The macho man is expected to be “tough, competitive, independent, aggressive, self-reliant, logical, non-emotional, and lacking in sensitivity” (Alvino, 1991, p. 175). American society has not changed its traditional expectations for males (Kline & Short, 1991), which include playing sports and being strong, silent, and stoic (Kerr & Cohn, 2001). Kerr and Cohn began their book, Smart Boys, by stating that “many gifted boys and men struggle throughout their lives to ignore the urgings of their intellectual and creative selves in order to fulfill socially ordained masculine roles” (p. 3). They added that it is particularly tragic for the gifted male who sees the superficiality and transitory nature of the masculine ideal but feels that he must adhere to it in order to be accepted, to fit in. A boy who plays sports can get away with reading books or even asking an unusual question in class. But a gifted male who is not involved in athletic pursuits and has unusual pastimes or challenges the teacher may not be accepted by most of his schoolmates and even some of his teachers (Kerr & Cohn, 2001). Messages come from the culture, the media, and schools about what is acceptable behavior and dress for a male (H´ebert & Speirs Neumeister, 2002). The challenges to gifted adolescents to be independent, strong, and competitive and to be able to prove their masculinity when their interests, ethical values, and dress differ markedly from the mainstream are sometimes insurmountable (Kerr & Cohn, 2001). Being highly intelligent is even seen as a threat in a dominator society that

549

values power, violence, and exploitation (Silverman, 1994).

Being Adolescent, Gifted, and Female Establishing a Sense of Identity Rather than being able to focus on the adolescent identity questions of “Who am I” and “Where am I going?” as teens always have, girls today are more worried about “Who am I supposed to be?” and in the process can disappear as the person they are. (Machoian, 2005, p. 8)

To understand the social and emotional issues and challenges faced by adolescents who are gifted and female, it is necessary, as it was for males, to examine the social context of our American culture (Cross, 2004, Kerr, 1994; Machoian, 2005). Gifted adolescent females struggle to be accepted in a society that values their physical appearance more than their intellectual ability (Gross, 1998; Kerr, 1994; Machoian, 2005). They are bored and frustrated in school but often do not speak up or challenge the system (Callahan, Cunningham, & Plucker, 1994). They are expected to be the superwomen who are all things to all people and to be caring and nurturing (Callahan, Cunningham, & Plucker, 1994; Roeper, 1995;). In general, they do not aspire to the professional success of men and often do not take the rigorous courses in school (Kerr, 1994). A conflict between their tendencies to be perfectionistic and the lower cultural expectations of achievement for females (Reis & Callahan, 1989) leaves them with a confused sense of identity and unfulfilled dreams (Hollinger, 1991; Tomchin, Callahan, Sowa, & May, 1996). In a 12-month study of sixth, seventh, and eighth grade gifted females, which included interviews and an analysis of school records, grades, and test scores, Callahan, Cunningham, and Plucker (1994), observed many of the characteristics that seem to prevent gifted females from attaining success commensurate with their intellectual ability. Though they were bored, they did not complain or challenge the teacher, preferring just to get the high grades with less effort or “play the game” (Rizza, 1999). Cultural Expectations and Stereotypes Roeper (1995) noted that “the manner in which the gifted girl is seen by society and how she herself re-

550

acts to this perception” (p. 58) determines her sense of self-esteem. “When I got to middle school, it changed. Everyone started to care about being popular, and I was into reading and stuff. It just hit me, ‘Wow, everybody’s changed,’ and it really made me self-conscious to speak up in class to say what I thought” (Machoian, 2005, p. 43). At a high school reunion, Kerr (1994) was asked by her gifted female classmates to determine the reasons that they, as a group, did not aspire to professional positions equivalent to the males. Out of 24 women, 6 attained no college degree, 12 attained bachelor’s degrees, 3 attained master’s degrees, 1 attained a medical degree, and 1 received a law degree. Years later, Kerr (1994) reassessed the women and found that many of them had gone on to higher educational and professional achievements while others were homemakers and mothers who had set aside their professional pursuits. But why did not more of the gifted women in the group achieve to their potential? Why had so many chosen vocations in education and nursing, rather than the hard sciences? The conflict between career goals and the expectations of others partially explained the disparity (Horner, 1972). Hollinger (1991) stated, “Of all the existing barriers, sex-role socialization’s impact on the child’s developing self-belief system is the most pervasive and limiting” (p. 136). A decline in self-esteem related to not giving themselves credit seemed to begin frequently somewhere in middle school or high school (Kerr, 1994). In 1992, Hollinger and Fleming conducted a study of the educational and career attainment of gifted young women. She stated that a “recurring theme of concern has been the degree to which gifted women have or have not realized their potential over the course of the lifespan” (p. 207). Dividing achievement responses into three categories, traditional, personal, and relational, Hollinger found that many gifted females responded that relational achievement was most important. Also, many females chose traditionally female occupations. She concluded that by adolescence, the young gifted female had already been exposed to years of sex role socialization and societal stereotypes. Horner (1970) framed this issue regarding females and achievement as a fear of success when she concluded that females anticipate social rejection if they are successful. Thirty years later, Engle (2003) repli-

L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross

cated Horner’s study and found that the students in her study were concerned about the “psychological and social” barriers faced by females in non-traditional fields (p. 2). Reis and Callahan (1989) analyzed data on female performance in professions, business, and financial status. After pointing out that less then 2% of American inventions were patented by females, for example, and that females were underrepresented in high government positions, they concluded, “It is clear from the above statistics that bright women are clearly adult underachievers (p. 102). The challenge, then, is to encourage gifted adolescent females to achieve according to their potential (Rizza, 1999). Also, Torrance (1961) found that the females in his longitudinal study were not as likely as the males to hold on to their childhood creativity and express it in adult creative products. Several researchers have noted the expectation to be caring that is directed to females (Callahan, Cunningham, & Plucker, 1994; Reis & Callahan, 1989; Roeper, 1995). Adolescent females make decisions more from an ethic of caring” than from a sense of what is best for them (Callahan, Cunningham, & Plucker, 1994). Reis and Callahan (1989) posed the question of whether this difference in moral psychology in females should be addressed with some differences in curriculum. Smutney (1999) noted that gifted girls often face a range of social pressures in schools, causing them to shift priorities. Smart girls may fear being shunned by other girls who may view them as showoffs or as too academically competitive (Dixon, 1998). Girls are likely to be rejected by peers for being smart (Machoian, 2005). As one gifted adolescent female replied in an interview, “I didn’t want to be too much of a brain because I wanted guys to be attracted to me. If you’re too smart or too successful, girls won’t like you, either” (p. 23). Machoian (2005) stated in her book, The Disappearing Girl, that high intelligence becomes a depression risk factor for girls during adolescence. Relationships with others are defined by the gifted adolescent female as a source of personal satisfaction and a necessary contributor to happiness (Hollinger, 1991). If you are not accepted, you are alone (Machoian, 2005). As a result, many gifted females hide their intelligence for fear of losing relationships (Kerr, 1994).

25

Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students

To summarize, some of the challenges facing adolescents who are gifted and female include sex role stereotyping, harassment, lowered expectations, and loss of self-esteem (Rizza, 1999). Developing confidence in herself and trusting her own internal voice was considered important for personal and professional success (Hollinger, 1991).

Are Gifted Adolescents Especially Vulnerable to Suicide? Addressing claims that gifted adolescents are more prone to suicide is particularly difficult because death certificates, which have a category for cause of death by suicide, do not contain information on whether the young person who completed suicide was gifted, in gifted classes, or had a high IQ. It is, therefore, impossible at this time to compare national statistics for suicides among gifted adolescents with statistics for suicides among adolescents in general. Consequently, research on suicide among gifted adolescents is limited (Gust-Brey & Cross, 1998). However, some researchers have been interested in what they think may be a vulnerability for suicide by gifted young people. Terman’s conclusion following his well-known longitudinal study of 1,528 young boys and girls (857 males, 671 females) with IQ’s of at least 140 was that gifted children become professionally successful and personally and mentally healthy adults (Terman and Oden, 1959; Oden, 1968). By 1960, when the median age of the participants was 49.6 years, there were 146 known deaths, of which 110 were by natural causes, 24 related to accidents, and 22 by suicide (14 males, 8 females). By 1970, there had been a total of 28 suicides. This rate of 28/1,528 or 1/55 greatly exceeded the usual suicide rate of 12/100,000 or 1/8,333. Two of the participants completed suicide at ages 18 and 19 years (Shneidman, 1996). Terman’s study was unusual in that data were collected frequently over many years. However, one of the drawbacks of the study was that giftedness was determined by IQ TESTS alone. In longitudinal studies of individuals with high IQ’s (Subotnik, Karp, & Morgan 1989; Subotnik, Kasson, Summers, & Wasser, 1993), students with a mean IQ of

551

159 who had graduated from Hunter College Elementary School between 1948 and 1960 were followed. The purpose was to compare the results with those obtained from the Terman and Oden (1959) group. The results were comparable. Subjects achieved success professionally, had stable interpersonal relationships, and good mental and physical health. Whereas in the Terman study, males far exceeded females in professional achievement, the difference was not as great between the Hunter boys and girls. The Hunter girls, however, lived in an era in which females and males achieved higher levels of education and worked outside the home. In 1926, Catharine Cox published a work titled The Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses. This was a retrospective study of men born after 1450 who had achieved historical eminence. Of the 301 studied, only 1, Thomas Chatterton, took his life, at age 17 years. Variables not considered in this study were other gifted men who did not achieve eminence, perhaps because of illness or suicide. Several studies have purposively studied suicide among gifted adolescents. Seiden (1966) studied completed suicides at the University of California, Berkeley. His findings indicated that 67% of the students who completed suicide had above-average grades. Of undergraduates, 91% who completed suicide had grades that were above average. These data are valuable, but the criteria of “above-average grades” at Berkeley is difficult to compare with other studies about suicide in gifted adolescents. Sargent (1984), after analyzing 1,500 suicide completions, suggested that adolescents who completed suicide were more intelligent than adolescents who attempted suicide. He stated that “better students made the most severe attempts” (Sargent, 1984, p. 50), adding that they used more lethal means such as guns. The problem in applying or generalizing these data, also, is the lack of a definition of intelligence or “better student” that allows you to compare these results with studies about suicide in gifted adolescents. Some studies have considered whether students who completed suicide attended more selective schools or schools for the highly talented. For example, several studies analyzing suicide rates at various educational institutions have concluded that suicide rates were higher at more competitive schools (Lester & Lester, 1971; Ross, 1969; Seiden, 1966). This may be due in part to the pressure at the selective schools.

552

This would seem to indicate a higher prevalence of suicide among gifted young people. However, Harvard University reported a 50% decrease in suicide incidence between 1949 and 1965 (Farnsworth, 1972). Many variables could account for the drop in suicide rates in these studies. Whether or not the young person was gifted may or may not have been a contributing factor. Following a discussion of the representation of the gifted among dropouts, delinquents, and those who complete suicide, Lajoie and Shore (1981) stated, “Suicide statistics and theories about the causes of suicide are the most accommodating to the idea of overrepresentation of the gifted, especially at college age. No major theory of suicide includes high ability as a contributor. . .” (p. 141). Giftedness was not cited as an influence in any major theory of the contributors to suicide, including those of Stillion, McDowell, & May (1989) and Shneidman (1985). In response to a “marked increase in youth suicide rates over the last thirty years in a number of countries, including the United States, Great Britain, and Australia” (p. 23), Fergusson, Woodward, and Horwood (2000) conducted a longitudinal study concerning risk factors for suicide in adolescents living in New Zealand. Even though the results may not be generalizable to the population of adolescents in the United States or elsewhere, it could be useful because it is a longitudinal study conducted over a period of 21 years with frequent data collections. A sample of 1,265 children (635 males, 630 females) born in New Zealand in a 4-month period in 1977 were evaluated at birth, at 4 months of age, 1 year, and then annually up to age 16 years, again at age 18 years, and finally at age 21 years. Data consisted of parent interviews, teacher assessments, child interviews, psychometric tests, and medical records. Results indicated that by the age of 21 years, 28.8% of the sample participants reported having suicidal ideation and 7.5% of the total had made an attempt. Participants took the WISC-R and the report concluded that no correlation between intelligence level and suicide was found. Variables studied for possible correlations to suicide were family background, SES, substance abuse, and parent–child attachment. This seemed to be an example of the common lack of particular attention to the variable of intelligence or attributes of the highly intelligent as an independent variable(s) which might affect the decision to complete suicide.

L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross

In 1999, Lester commented, “The academically gifted have been thought to be more susceptible to depression and suicide, not only because of the typical suicidogenic risk factors (such as psychiatric disturbance, drug and alcohol abuse, and dysfunctional family backgrounds), but also because of factors associated with their giftedness” (p. 587). He continued by listing specific factors that might contribute to this vulnerability, including perfectionism, sensitivity, boredom and alienation, frustration that they cannot achieve change in the world, and social isolation. He noted that gifted adolescents often prefer to be alone or engage in activities with one friend. In an article titled “The Impact of Giftedness on Psychological Well-Being: What Does the Empirical Literature Say?”, Neihart (1998) noted that there seemed to be evidence from previous studies that giftedness enhanced resiliency, on the one hand, and also evidence that giftedness increased vulnerability. Neihart pointed out that though views concerning whether giftedness increased vulnerability have oscillated over the years “they are not immune to problems” (Neihart, 1998, p. 10). Nail and Evans (1997) reported that they compared results on the Self-Report of Personality of the Behavioral Assessment System for Children between 115 gifted adolescents and 97 nongifted students from high schools in Atlanta, Georgia. The gifted students were volunteers from the gifted programs. The nongifted students were randomly chosen from English classes. Results indicated that the gifted showed fewer indicators of maladjustment, even though both groups scored generally within normal limits. Neihart (1998) noted that the gifted participants may not have been representative of the population of identified gifted students. Also, even though the gifted students volunteered to participate, they may not have been truthful in their responses. In-depth interviews following the scoring of the instrument might have added to the strength of the findings. Also, many gifted students who exhibit symptoms of emotional problems may not be in gifted programs in high school. The weakness of standardized measures of depression was also evidenced in the results of Neihart’s (1998) study in which she compared gifted middle school students with students of average ability on “standardized, objective measures of depression” (p. 12). Three groups of 30 adolescents responded to the Multiscore Depression Inventory (MDI). The

25

Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students

groups were high-ability students who were in gifted classes, high-ability students who were not in gifted classes, and students of average ability. Neihart reported that the gifted students did not have more adjustment problems than the nongifted students and differences in the groups’ responses seemed to indicate more positive mental health for the high-ability individuals. She concluded, however, that factors such as type and degree of giftedness, educational fit, and individual characteristics interact to affect psychological well-being. The results were questionable because they were dependent on the honesty of the participants and because of the small sample size. Hayes and Sloat (1990) gathered data from 69 schools and noted that 8 of 42 suicide attempts involved academically gifted students. In a recent study looking into the factor structure of gifted adolescents’ responses on the Suicide Ideation Questionnaire, Cassady and Cross (2006) concluded that a difference existed between the gifted sample and the nongifted group. They went on to note that the difference suggests that gifted adolescents have a more multifaceted conception of suicidal ideation.

Summary None of the studies that have been reviewed have yielded firm evidence for a claim that gifted adolescents are more prone to suicide than other adolescents. Some of the factors that increase the difficulties with making conclusions based on research to this point include varied definitions of “gifted” or “academically talented.” In some studies, IQ scores determined giftedness and in others GPAs or participation in gifted classes were the determinants. Also, national data do not report on level of intelligence since it is not included on death certificates. Another problem is that studies which focus on suicide attempts have sometimes been compared with studies that involve suicide completion. An additional factor that affects the applicability of findings is the possibility that responses on psychometric inventories of suicide risk or depression may not be honest. Considering more than one type of data collection might increase the usefulness of findings. Perhaps, rather than asking whether gifted students are more prone to suicide than other adolescents, we could pursue

553

the question, “Which, if any, attributes of giftedness seem to increase a young person’s vulnerability to suicide?”

References Alvino, J. (1991). An investigation into the needs of gifted boys. Roeper Review, 13(4), 174–180. Ayyash-Abdo, H. (2002). Adolescent suicide: An ecological approach. Psychology in the Schools, 39(4), 459–475. Belsey, B. (2005). Cyberbullying: An emerging threat to the always on generation. Retrieved on November 20, 2005 from http://www.cyberbullying.ca. Berman, A. L., & Jobes, D. A. (1991). Adolescent suicide: Assessment and intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Briggs, J. (1990). Fire in the Crucible. Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc. Buescher, T. M. (1985). A framework for understanding the social and emotional development of gifted and talented adolescents.Roeper Review, 8(1), 10–15. Callahan, C. M., Cunningham, C. M., & Plucker, J. A. (1994). Foundations for the future: The socio-emotional development of gifted, adolescent women. Roeper Review, 17(2), 99–105. Cassady, J. C., & Cross, T. L. (2006). A factorial representation of suicidal ideation among academically gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(3), 290–304. Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2005). Being Gifted in School: An Introduction to Development, Guidance, and Teaching (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc. Collins, J. (2003). Sanity and Grace. New York: Penguin Group, Inc. Cox, C. M. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. (Genetic Studies of Genius, vol.2). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Cramond, B., & Martin, C. E. (1987, winter). Inservice and preservice teachers’ attitudes toward the academically brilliant. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(1), 15–19. Cross, T. L. (1996, May/June). Examining claims about gifted children and suicide. Gifted Child Today, 18(3), 46–48. Cross, T. L. (2001, spring). Social/emotional needs: The rage of gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 24(2), 43–45. Cross, T. L. (2004). On the Social and Emotional Lives of Gifted Children (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Cross, T. L., Cook, R. S., & Dixon, D. N. (1996). Psychological autopsies of three academically talented adolescents who committed suicide. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 7(3), 403–409. Cross, T. L., Gust-Brey, K., & Ball, B. (2002). A psychological autopsy of the suicide of an academically gifted student: Researchers’ and parents’ perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(4), 247–264. Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.

554 Dabrowski, K. (1976). On the philosophy of development through positive disintegration and secondary integration, Dialectics and Humanism, 4(3), 131–144. Delisle, J. R. (1986). Death with honors: Suicide among gifted adolescents. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 558–560. Delisle, J. R. (1992). Guiding the social and emotional development of gifted youth: A Practical guide for educators and counselors. New York: Longman Publishing Group. Delisle, J. R. (2000). Once Upon a Mind: The stories and scholars of gifted child education. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Dixon, D. N., & Scheckel, J. R. (1996). Gifted adolescent suicide: The empirical base. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 7(3), 386–392. Dixon, F. A. (1998). Social and academic self-concepts of gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22(1), 80–94. Drews, E. M. (1972). Learning together: how to foster creativity, Self-fulfillment, and social awareness in today’s students and teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Durkheim, E. (1897/1951). Le Suicide (J.A.S. Spaulding, G., trans.). New York: The Free Press. Egan, T. (1998, June 14). From adolescent angst to shooting up schools. New York Times. Ellsworth, J. (November, 2003). Adolescence and gifted: Addressing existential dread. Retrieved on March 2, 2005, from www.sengifted.org. Engle, J. (2003, April). “Fear of success” Revisited: A replication of Matina Horner’s study 30 years later. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Education Research Association annual conference, Chicago, Il. Farnsworth, D. (1972). Death of the college student. New York: Behavioral Publications. Fergusson, D. M., Woodward, L. J., & Horwood, L. J. (2000). Risk factors and life processes associated with the onset of suicidal behavior during adolescence and early adulthood. Psychological Medicine, 30, 23–39. Graham, P. (2003). Why nerds are unpopular. Retrieved on February 12, 2004 from http://www.paulgraham.com/ nerds.html . Griffiths, M. D., & Hunt, H. N. (1998). Dependence on computer games by adolescents. Psychological Reports, 82, 475–480. Gross, M. U. M. (1998). The “me” behind the mask: Intellectually gifted students and the search for identity. Roeper Review, 20(3), 5–21. Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Exceptionally Gifted Children (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge Falmer. Grossman, D. (1996). The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society. New York: Little, Brown, and Company. Gust-Brey, K., & Cross, T. L. (1998). An examination of the literature base on the suicidal behaviors of gifted students, Roeper Review, 22(1), 28–35. Halstead, J. W. (2002). Some of my best friends are books (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Hayes, M. S., & Sloat, R. (1990). Suicide and the gifted adolescent. Journal for the Education of the gifted, 13, 229–244. Hazler, R. J., & Denham, S. A. (2002). Social isolation of youth at risk: Conceptualization and practical implications. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 403–409.

L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross H´ebert, T. P. (1991). Meeting the affective needs of bright boys through bibliotherapy. Roeper Review, 13(4), 207–212. H´ebert, T. P. (1995). Using biography to counsel gifted young men. Journal for Secondary Gifted Education, 6, 208–219. H´ebert, T. P. (2000a). Defining belief in self: Intelligent young men in an urban high school. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(2), 91–114. H´ebert, T. P. (2000b). Gifted males pursuing careers in elementary education: Factors that influence a belief in self. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24(1), 7–45. H´ebert, T. P. (2002). Gifted males. In M. Neihart, S. M.Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.) The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc. H´ebert, T. P., & Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2002). Fostering the social and emotional development of gifted children through guided viewing of film. Roeper Review, 25(1), 17–21. Hill, K. (1995). The long sleep: Young people and suicide. London: Virago Press Ltd. Hollinger, C. L. (1991). Facilitating the career development of gifted young women. Roeper Review, 13(3), 135–139. Hollinger, C. L., & Fleming, E. S. (1992). A longitudinal examination of life choices of gifted and talented young women. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 207–212. Hollingworth, L. (1931). The child of very superior intelligence as a special problem in social adjustment. Mental Hygiene, 15(1), 1–16. Hollingworth, L. (1942). Children Above 180 IQ. New York: Octagon Books. Horner, M. (1970). Femininity and successful achievement: A basic inconsistency. In J. M. Bardwick, E. Douvan, M. S. Horner, & D. Gutmann (Eds.), Feminine personality and conflict. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Horner, M. (1972). Toward an understanding of achievement related conflicts in women. Journal of Social Issues, 28(2), 157–175. Irwin, A. R., & Gross, A. M. (1995). Cognitive tempo, violent video games, and aggressive behavior in young boys. Journal of Family Violence, 10(3), 337–350. Jamison, K. R. (1999). Night falls fast: Understanding suicide. New York: Vintage Books. Jamison, K. R. (1993). Touched with fire: Manic-depressive illness and the artistic temperament. New York: The Free Press. Kaiser, C. F., & Berndt, D. J. (1985). Predictors of loneliness in the gifted adolescent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 74–77. Kerr, B. A. (1991). Handbook for counseling the gifted and talented. Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development. Kerr, B. A. (1994). Smart girls: A new psychology of girls, women, and giftedness. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Kerr, B. A., & Cohn, S. J. (2001). Smart boys: talent, manhood, and the search for meaning . Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Kline, B. E., & Short, E. B. (1991). Changes in emotional resilience: Gifted adolescent boys. Roeper Review, 13(4), 184–187.

25

Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students

Lajoie, S. P., & Shore, B. M. (1981). Three myths? The overrepresentation of the gifted among dropouts, delinquents, and suicides. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(3), 138–143. Lee, S., Cramond, B., & Lee, J. (2004, winter). Korean teachers’ attitudes toward academic brilliance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 42–53. Lester, D. (1999). Suicide. Encyclopedia of Creativity, 2, 585–589. Lester, G. L., & Lester, J. L. (1971). The gamble with death. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Lovecky, D. V. (1993). The quest for meaning: Counseling issues with gifted children and adolescents. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the Gifted and Talented. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company. Ludwig, A. (1995). The price of greatness. New York: Guilford. Machoian, L. (2005). The disappearing girl: Learning the language of teenage depression. New York: Penguin Group, Inc. Maine, S., Shute, R., & Martin, G. (2001). Educating parents about youth suicide. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior, 3(3), 320–332. Maris, R. W., Berman, A. L., & Silverman, M. M. (2000). Comprehensive textbook of suicidology. New York: The Guilford Press. Maris, R. W., Canetto, S. S., & McIntosh, J. L., & Silverman, M. M. (2000). Review of suicidology. New York: The Guilford Press. Mishara, B. L. (1999). Conceptions of death and suicide in children ages 6–12 and their implications for suicide prevention. Suicide and life threatening behavior, 29(2), 105–118. Nail, J. M., & Evans, J. G. (1997). The emotional adjustment of gifted adolescents: A view of global functioning. Roeper Review, 20, 18–22. National Center for Health Statistics (2006). Causes of death report. Retrieved December 20, 2006, from http://www.cdc. gov/ncipc/wisqars. National Center for Health Statistics (2004). Advanced report of final mortality. Retrieved June 10, 2005, from http:// www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm. Neihart, M. (1998). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22(1), 10–17. Nelson, K. C. (1989). Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration. Advanced Development Journal, 1, 1–13. Oden, M. (1968). The fulfillment of promise: 40-year followup of the Terman gifted group. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 77, 3–93. Pfeffer, C. R. (1986). The suicidal child. New York: The Guilford Press. Piirto, J. (2004). Understanding creativity. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Plath, S. (1971). The Bell Jar. Evanston: New York: Harper and Row. Quart, A. (2006). Hothouse kids: The dilemma of the gifted child. New York: The Penguin Press. Reis, S. M., & Callahan, C. M. (1989). Gifted females: they’ve come a long way—or have they? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12(2), 99–117. Report (2000). Hearing on the impact of interactive violence on children (Report, 2000). March 21, 2000. United States Senate Committee on commerce, science, and transportation.

555 Richards, R., & Kinney, D. K. (1990). Mood swings and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 3(3), 202–217. Rizza, M. G. (1999). Learning to play the game: Female students discuss their success in high school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22(3), 243–265. Roeper, A. (1995). Annemarie Roeper: Selected writings and speeches. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Press, Inc. Roeper, A. (2003, November 14). The emotional world of gifted children. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Gifted Children, Indianapolis, IN. Ross, D. (1996). Childhood bullying and teasing. Alexandria, VA: ACA Press. Ross, D. (Writer), & Weinstein, P. (Director) (2002). Balto II [animated film]: Universal Studios. Ross, M. (1969). Suicide among college students. American Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 220–225. Rothenberg, A. (1990). Creativity and Madness. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Runco, M. A. (1998). Suicide and creativity: The case of Sylvia Plath. Death Studies, 22(7), 637–654. Sargent, M. (1984). Adolescent suicide: studies reported. Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy, 1(2), 49–50. Shneidman, E. S. (1985). Definition of suicide. New York: Wiley. Shneidman, E. S. (1993). Suicide as psychache: A clinical approach to self-destructive behavior. Northvale, JJ: Jason Aronson, Inc. Shneidman, E. S. (1996). The suicidal mind. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Seiden, R. (1966). Campus tragedy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 389–399. Silverman, L. K. (Ed.). (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company. Silverman, L. K. (1994). The moral sensitivity of gifted children and the evolution of society. Roeper Review, 17(2), 110–115. Slaby, A. E. (1992). Creativity, depression, and suicide. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 22(2), 157–166. Smutney, J. (1999). Gifted girls. Understanding our Gifted, 11(2), 9–13. Spiers Neumeister, K. L. (2002). Perfectionism in gifted college students: Family influences and implications for achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Spiers Neumeister, K. L. (2004). Understanding the relationship between perfectionism and achievement motivation in gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 219–231. Stanley, J. C. (2000). Helping students learn only what they don’t already know. Psychology, Public policy, and Law, 6(1), 216–222. Stanley, J. C. (2004). Don’t teach kids what they already know. Paper presented at the University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Stillion, J. M., McDowell, E. E., & May, J. H. (1989). Suicide Across the Life span- Premature Exits. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. Stillion, J. M., & McDowell, E. E. (1996). Suicide across the life span-premature exits. (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis. Subotnik, R. F., Karp, D. E., & Morgan, E. R. (1989). High IQ children at mid-life: An investigation into the generalizabil-

556 ity of Terman’s “Genetic studies of genius,” Roeper Review, 11(3), 139–144. Subotnik, R. F., Kasson, L., Summers, E., & Wasser, A. (1993). Genius revisited: High I.Q. children grown up. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tannenbaum, A. (1962). Adolescent attitudes toward academic brilliance. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University. Terman, L. M. (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Genetic Studies of Genius (Vol. I). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). The gifted group at midlife: 35 years’ follow-up of the superior child. Genetic Studies of Genius (Vol. V). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Tomchin, E. M., Callahan, C. M., Sowa, C. J., & May, K. M. (1996). Coping and self-concept. Journal for Secondary Gifted Education, 8(1), 16–27.

L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross Torrance, E. P. (1961). Problems of highly creative children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 5, 31–34. Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Torrance, E. P., & Sisk, D. A. (1997). Gifted and talented children in the regular classroom. Buffalo, New York: Creative Education Foundation Press. Tucker, B., & Hafenstein, N. L. (1997). Psychological intensities in young gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(3), 66–75. Walsh, D. (2001). Video game violence and public policy. Chicago: National Institute on Media and the Family. Willard, N. E. (2006). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online social cruelty, threats, and distress. Champagne, Il: Research Press.

Part VII

Types of Giftedness

Chapter 26

In Search of Emotional–Social Giftedness: A Potentially Viable and Valuable Concept Reuven Bar-On and Jacobus G. (Kobus) Maree

Abstract This chapter explores “emotional–social giftedness” as a potentially viable and valuable concept. This inquiry will be based on examining the relationship between emotional intelligence and giftedness in order to facilitate a deeper understanding of giftedness and the way we have traditionally viewed it. This will eventually lead to the development of a scientific approach to better identify emotionally and socially gifted children who need to be channeled into special education programs designed to actualize their potential. The key premise to be examined is that emotional intelligence (measured by EQ), in addition to and together with cognitive intelligence (measured by IQ), contributes to the development of giftedness when both aspects of human intelligence radically exceed their normative value.

ing an incalculable loss to society in general for failing to channel the most brilliant minds among us into the arts, sciences, and leadership. A growing number of research findings strongly indicates that emotional intelligence (EI) has a significant impact on achievement in various areas of life (e.g., Bar-On & Parker, 2000; Ciarrochi, Forgas, & Mayer, 2001; Druskat, Sala, & Mount, 2005; Geher, 2004). It is assumed, moreover, that some of the basic emotional and social components of emotional intelligence can lead to innovative and creative problem solving, which is thought to significantly contribute to giftedness in general as well as to the achievement of outstanding accomplishments made by many gifted individuals (Bar-On, 2007). The specific EI competencies and skills contributing to this type of problem solving represent the major components of Keywords Emotional-social giftedness · Emotional- emotional–social giftedness in our opinion and based social intelligence · Emotional intelligence · Gifted- on findings to date. Working in tandem at significantly ness · Cognitive giftedness · Cognitive intelligence · elevated levels, these emotional–social competencies and skills are expected to have the potential to produce Problem solving · Creative problem-solving some novel by-product that is often valued by society such as a major break-through in science, the creation of a classic piece of literature, art or music, or a differIntroduction ent style of leadership that proves to be exceptionally important and successful. However, something else Although the gifted represent an enormous asset to so- is obviously needed to realize the creation of such a ciety, most countries neglect this very important seg- valued by-product, such as supportive environmental ment of the population and their potential contribution, conditions, curiosity, intuitiveness, creativity as well relegating it to a poorly tapped national resource (Bar- as additional personal characteristics. All of these On, 2007). The result of this neglect often has a very and undoubtedly other potential components of the negative effect on the gifted themselves as well as caus- giftedness equation are thought to help us thrive in addition to survive in an increasingly challenging world. R. Bar-On (B) We hope that this chapter will help generate addiUniversity of Texas, Austin, TX, USA tional ideas, contribute to the continued development e-mail: [email protected]

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 26, 

559

560

of comprehensive and applicable theory, a set of practical guidelines for future researchers to help us better understand giftedness, as well as to provide us with a valid method of measuring giftedness and a scientific approach to more accurately and effectively identifying these individuals early on and encouraging them to develop their potential to fruition. It is our hope that others will understand the importance of the content of this chapter, and a few among them will continue to put the various pieces of this puzzle together. A rigorous search of the literature has confirmed our initial thinking that “emotional–social giftedness” as a concept is absent in the literature with very few exceptions (Piechowski, 1991; Piechowski et al., this volume). Although references to publications related the emotional and social side of the gifted do indeed exist, they appear first and foremost in the context of characteristics of their development and special needs that should be dealt with at home and at school (e.g., Delisle, 1992; Janos & Robinson, 1985; Lovecky, 1992; Silverman, 1993, 1998), as well as an approach to promote social–emotional learning (SEL) in order to bridge the gap between their emotions, feelings, and thoughts. Moreover, the literature deals rather extensively with the possible link between gifted learners, academic achievement, and SEL, as well as possible ways in which to facilitate improved student behavior at school by means of effective SEL programs (e.g., Elias et al., 1997; M¨onks & Pfl¨uger, 2005). We therefore feel that the puzzling and almost complete absence of references to emotional–social giftedness as a potentially pivotal facet of giftedness is a hiatus in educational systems globally, an idea whose time has come. We will focus primarily on (a) the need for a more comprehensive definition of giftedness, (b) the basic characteristics of giftedness, (c) the way giftedness and emotional intelligence are defined here, (d) the method used to examine the relationship between these constructs, (e) the results that surface, and (f) a summary of the major findings with a (g) discussion of their possible implications, applications and the need for further research in the area of emotional–social giftedness.

The Need for a More Comprehensive Definition of Giftedness As early as in 1979, Madge (p. 55) was at pains to point out that:

R. Bar-On and J.G. (Kobus) Maree No one has ever suggested that a measurement of intelligence or IQ can estimate an individual’s chance of becoming an active, responsible member of society, his role as a community leader, his contributions to mankind, or his ability to get along with people. There are many human qualities such as warmheartedness, cheerfulness, unpretentiousness, courage and empathy, which have no relationship whatsoever with IQ. . . [and which is] certainly not intended to tell everything about a child.

Clearly, she was referring intuitively to factors that are currently assessed by measures of emotional intelligence. A few years before the term “emotional intelligence” became popular, Hoffman, Wasson and Christianson (in Newell, 1989, p. 98) suggested the following yardstick to identify gifted underachievers: “A typical [gifted] underachiever has a high IQ, but shows a discrepancy between expected and actual performance, is inconsistent in accomplishing goals, displays impaired levels of self-confidence, reveals feelings of inferiority, blames others for his or her own troubles, and provides evidence of withdrawal.” This implies moreover, that a significantly high IQ alone does not guarantee even satisfactory achievement, and other factors need to be considered when attempting to explain the variance in achievement among gifted individuals. Building on a paradigm shift that has progressed over more than 50 years (Wechsler, 1940; Gardner, 1983; Sternberg, 1985), Salovey & Mayer (1990, p. 189) argued that human intelligence should be redefined in order to include “the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions,” which was almost exactly the way Thorndike defined “social intelligence” in 1920. According to Brady (1998), this move toward a more inclusive and comprehensive definition of intelligence, intellectual capacity, and intelligent behavior has been fueled by the very limited predictability of cognitive intelligence (IQ) in determining success in life (Wagner, 1997). Brady contends (1998, p. 19), moreover, that this movement to comprehensively redefine human intelligence gave rise to the conceptualization of emotional intelligence, which has been lead by Salovey & Mayer (1990), Goleman (1995), Bar-On (1997b) and others for several years. Brady aptly affirms that the concept of emotional intelligence represents a move away from exclusively focusing on cognitive intelligence in examining our ability to navigate life purposefully and successfully through

26

In Search of Emotional–Social Giftedness

561

life. Bar-On (in Van Rooyen, 2002, p.19) elaborates on students tend to learn more quickly, profoundly, and these views: broadly (see Gross, this volume; Perleth et al., this volume). They are typically ahead of most of their peers The concept of emotional intelligence adds depth to the in at least one major academic area such as science, art understanding of what intelligence or intelligent behavior is. Broadly speaking, emotional intelligence addresses or literature, and many of them possess the potential the emotional, personal, social and survival dimensions of for outstanding leadership performance after completintelligence, vitally important in daily functioning. This ing their formal education (Johnsen, 2004). less cognitive part of intelligence is concerned with unAn additional key characteristic of the gifted is derstanding oneself and others, relating to people, and adapting to and coping with our immediate surroundings. that they are better problem solvers than their peers. These factors increase our ability to be more successful Moreover, they appear to have an enhanced ability in dealing with environmental demands. Emotional inteland keen desire to solve problems (Thompson & ligence is tactical and immediate, and as such reflects a Rudolph, 1992), which they do more quickly and person’s ‘common sense’ and ability to get along with the world. effectively than others. They also tend to see familiar It will be shown that the components of emotional things in different ways. They tend to be individintelligence, as described here, are related to giftedness ualistic and typically try to find solutions in their in such a way that justifies the creation of a concept of own way, which often appear to be unconventional (Parker, 1997). Additionally, gifted individuals use emotional–social giftedness. In the next section we will summarize a number of more innovative and creative methods in attempting to key characteristics attributed to gifted individuals to il- find solutions to problems. It is assumed that creativity lustrate how the specific definition of giftedness used plays a very important role in giftedness which is directly associated with the problem-solving process in this chapter was created. itself. Being creative in problem solving represents a specific way of looking for solutions and “bringing something into being that has newness” (Maker, 1993, Characteristics of Giftedness p. 69). The gifted also tend to be extremely flexible intellectually as well as possess an exceptionally One of the fundamental characteristics of gifted in- enhanced ability to look at things in novel ways dividuals is that they are thought to possess signifi- (Thompson & Rudolph, 1992). They have a greater cantly higher cognitive intelligence than their peers. capacity for creatively expressing themselves as well. The cutoff point on cognitive intelligence tests used to Maree (2006) suggests, moreover, that creativity identify the gifted has typically been set at two stan- plays an important role in survival, arguing that being dard deviations above the mean, which is equivalent individualistic, resilient, and creative increases their to an IQ of 130 representing approximately 2% of the ability to survive and possibly thrive (see Sayler, this population (see Silverman, this volume). Additionally, volume). From what has been described here, it is clear that Parker (1997) points out that gifted children appear more intellectually mature than children their own age. giftedness cannot be defined in terms of a single entity They tend to enjoy challenging intellectual tasks, are alone, and not even within a purely cognitive framecurious and prefer complexity to simplicity. As an in- work. This misconception has been fundamentally retegral part of their curiosity, they are also keenly obser- futed by Howard Gardner’s (1983) pioneering work vant, ask questions as well as tend to make inferences on “multiple intelligences,” highlighting the need and and draw conclusions about the way they view things. importance of redefining human intelligence. RegardAlthough cognitive intelligence is clearly part of less of what one’s view of intelligence includes, “IQ” giftedness, Peterson (1997) cautions against confus- alone certainly does not overwhelmingly account for ing giftedness with simply possessing a significantly the variance in achievement among the gifted. Rehigh IQ and an enhanced potential for academic perfor- searchers have long been interested in identifying admance. In this regard, it is important to point out that ditional contributing factors to success in life instead many gifted students are not high academic achievers, of focussing solely on cognitive intelligence. Howard and many high performers at school are not necessar- Gardner’s research on multiple intelligences, and inily gifted. In contrast to others, however, truly gifted deed the research of many others including Robert

562

Sternberg, have contributed significantly to expanding our view of intelligence, performance, achievement, and giftedness as well (for a detailed account of the personality-related characteristics of the gifted see Friedman et al. chapter, this volume).

Defining Giftedness In creating the definition used in this chapter to describe giftedness, we rely primarily on the abovementioned characteristics of gifted individuals. In reviewing existing definitions of giftedness, perhaps one of the most compelling ones to date is the following: Giftedness is “the ability to solve the most complex problems in the most efficient, effective, or economical ways” (Maker, 1993, p. 71). Although this definition rightfully emphasizes the importance of problem solving for giftedness, the problems that the gifted attempt to solve are not always the most complex, and their solutions are not always the most efficient or economical. With respect to problem solving as such however, it is possibly better to describe giftedness as the ability to look at problems in different ways and to apply innovative and creative solutions to solving them (Bar-On, 2007). Based on this important characteristic of the gifted, giftedness clearly involves a well-developed and unique problem-solving ability. Additionally, creativity appears to be integrally related to this specific approach to problem solving. As was previously suggested, gifted behavior is most likely based on more than the above-mentioned characteristics. Individuals who possess all these characteristics in great abundance also need to be sufficiently self-motivated and need a supportive environment that encourages them to realize their potential. Based on the above-mentioned descriptions of gifted individuals, the definition of giftedness used in this chapter is as follows: Giftedness implies possessing exceptionally high cognitive intelligence, potential for superior academic and professional performance, enhanced capability and drive to do one’s best and realize one’s potential, as well as an advanced ability to apply a variety of different approaches to solve problems in more innovative and creative ways when compared with others (Bar-On, 2007).

R. Bar-On and J.G. (Kobus) Maree

The aforementioned definition also underscores the fact that an intricate configuration of interrelated factors plays a role in determining giftedness and success in life (Maree & Ebers¨ohn, 2002). In our opinion, the concept of emotional intelligence provides a useful conceptual framework to describe this configuration of factors. In order to understand this concept, we will attempt to define emotional intelligence in the next section.

Defining Emotional Intelligence The notion of emotional intelligence is not at all a new one. Whereas the term “emotional intelligence” was coined by Leuner in 1966, the construct itself was studied by Charles Darwin as early as 1837 and first described in 1872 (Darwin, 1872/1965); and it continued to be an object of scientific inquiry during much of the twentieth century. Mehrabian (2000, p. 134) states that emotional intelligence is widely used today to explain individual differences associated with life success that are not specifically measured with traditional intelligence measures. There are currently a number of competing definitions of this construct to choose from (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). In an effort to better understand and simplify the basic differences between existing definitions, the Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (Spielberger, 2004) suggests that there are three major conceptual models of emotional intelligence: (a) the Mayer-Salovey model (Mayer & Salovey, 1997); (b) the Goleman model (1998); and the Bar-On model (1997b). Irrespective of which model one pays allegiance to, Bar-On (2006) has argued that most definitions comprise at least one of the following five clusters of emotional and social competencies (all of which are included in the Bar-On model): 1. The ability to understand one’s emotions and express feelings. 2. The ability to understand how others feel and to relate with them. 3. The ability to manage and control emotions. 4. The ability to manage change and solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature. 5. The ability to generate positive mood and be selfmotivated.

26

In Search of Emotional–Social Giftedness

We have decided to use the Bar-On model of emotional intelligence in this chapter in that it has proven to be a valid and comprehensive approach to describing this construct based on more than 60 validity studies conducted on the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi), which represents an adequate operationalization of this model (Bar-On, 1997b, 2000, 2004, 2006; Plake & Impara, 1999). The Bar-On model asserts that emotional–social intelligence is a cross-section of interrelated emotional and social competencies, skills and facilitators that determine how effectively we understand and express ourselves, understand others and relate with them, and cope with daily demands and challenges. The emotional and social competencies, skills, and facilitators included in this conceptualization include the abovementioned five meta-factors: (1) the ability to be aware of and understand emotions and to express feelings; (2) the ability to understand how others feel and relate with them; (3) the ability to manage and control emotions; (4) the ability to manage change, adapt, and solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature; and (5) the ability to generate positive affect in order to be sufficiently self-motivated to accomplish personal goals and actualize one’s potential. Each of these five metafactors comprises a number of closely related subfactors that are briefly described in the Appendix. In light of the fact that most of the findings related to emotional intelligence presented in this chapter were generated by the EQ-i, it is important to briefly describe this instrument (Bar-On, 1997a). The EQ-i is a self-report measure of emotionally and socially intelligent behavior that provides an estimate of one’s emotional–social intelligence. The EQ-i was the first measure of its kind to be peer reviewed in the Buros Mental Measurement Yearbook (Plake & Impara, 1999), and it is the most widely used measure of emotional intelligence to date (Bar-On, 2004). A detailed description of the psychometric properties of this measure and how it was developed is found in the Bar-On EQ-i Technical Manual (Bar-On, 1997b) and in Glenn Geher’s book titled Measuring Emotional Intelligence: Common Ground and Controversy (2004). In brief, the EQ-i contains 133 items in the form of short sentences and employs a 5-point response scale with a textual format ranging from “very seldom or not true of me” (1) to “very often true of me or true of me” (5). A list of the inventory’s items is found in the instrument’s technical manual (Bar-On, 1997b).

563

The individual’s responses render a total EQ score as well as scores on the scales listed in the Appendix. Raw scores are computer-generated, tabulated, and converted into standard scores based on a mean of 100 and standard deviations of 15. The EQ-i has a built-in correction factor that automatically adjusts the scale scores based on scores obtained from two of the instrument’s validity indices, which is an important feature for self-report measures in that it significantly reduces response bias.

Examining the Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Giftedness In order to determine the nature of emotional–social giftedness as well as its viability and validity as a concept, Bar-On (2007) studied the relationship between emotional intelligence and giftedness, based on the way both concepts are defined in the present chapter, by examining the correlation between EI and (a) cognitive intelligence; (b) academic performance; (c) striving to do one’s best and to realize one’s potential; (d) problem solving; (e) creativity; and (f) resiliency.

Results that Surface from Examining the Relationship Between EI and Giftedness The relationship between emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence. Based on an examination of a large data set (n=3,086) using multiple regression analysis, Bar-On found that the multivariate correlation between the EQ-i and the Standard Progressive Matrices was .44 (Bar-On, 2004, 2007). The statistical procedure applied revealed that the following emotional– social competencies and skills have the highest impact on cognitive intelligence, listed in the order of their predictive strength (i.e. their ability to predict cognitive performance):

r r

Stress Tolerance (effectively and constructively managing emotions) Self-actualization (striving to achieve goals and actualize one’s potential)

564

r r r r r

Assertiveness (effectively and constructively expressing one’s feelings) Empathy (being aware of and understanding how others feel) Problem Solving (effectively solving personal and interpersonal problems) Optimism (being positive and looking at the brighter side of life) Reality Testing (objectively validating one’s feelings and thinking)

It is interesting to note that the emotional intelligence factor that impacts cognitive intelligence the most is Stress Tolerance, which suggests that cognitive functioning is strongly influenced by the ability to manage one’s emotions. The relationship between emotional intelligence and academic performance. In another publication (2006), Bar-On has summarized the research of four studies demonstrating the relationship between emotional intelligence and academic performance; the multivariate correlations ranged from .41 to .45, and the major emotional intelligence factors that appear to impact academic performance the most are the following:

r

R. Bar-On and J.G. (Kobus) Maree

findings strongly indicate that emotional intelligence impacts the ability to do one’s best in order to realize one’s potential. Based on these three studies, those EI factors that impact this ability the most are the following based on a near 100% overlap of the findings:

r r r r r r r r r

Optimism (being positive and looking at the brighter side of life) Happiness (feeling content with oneself, others and life in general) Self-regard (accurately perceiving, understanding and accepting oneself) Independence (being self-reliant and free of emotional dependency on others) Problem Solving (effectively solving personal and interpersonal problems) Flexibility (adapting and adjusting one’s feelings and thinking to new situations) Social Responsibility (identifying with one’s social group and cooperating with others) Assertiveness (effectively and constructively expressing one’s feelings) Emotional Self-awareness (being aware of and understanding one’s emotions)

In order to strive to achieve personal goals and realize one’s potential, the findings presented here suggest that r one must first and foremost be strongly self-motivated. The individual also needs to know who he/she is. It r also makes sense that the self-actualization process is supported by the ability to rely on oneself to make the r right decisions and confidently come up with the best solutions once one knows what he/she wants to accomr plish; and this whole process requires flexibility. The individual also needs to be committed to do something meaningful in life and to contribute something of value The findings make sense, in that one apparently needs that benefits others as well. Last, self-actualization is to adequately handle emotions, validate one’s feelings the ultimate act of self-expression, which strongly deand keep things in correct perspective, solve problems, pends on a deep awareness of oneself in general as well and be self-motivated in order to achieve academically. as one’s feelings. The relationship between emotional intelligence The relationship between emotional intelligence and striving to do one’s best (self-actualization). In an and problem solving. To study the relationship between earlier study (2001), Bar-On examined the relationship emotional intelligence and problem solving, Bar-On between self-actualization and emotional intelligence. applied multiple regression analysis to examine This relationship was examined by applying multiple the relationship between the EQ-i Problem-Solving regression analysis to large normative samples in subscale (the dependent variable) and the remaining North America (n=3,831), Israel (n=2,702), and the EQ-i subscales (after removing the Problem Solving Netherlands (n=1,639); the degree of correlation was subscale from the analysis as an independent varifound to be 0.80, 0.75, and 0.78, respectively. These able) on a very large sample of 51,623 individuals Stress Tolerance (effectively and constructively managing emotions) Reality Testing (objectively validating one’s feelings and thinking) Problem Solving (effectively solving personal and interpersonal problems) Self-actualization (striving to achieve goals and actualize one’s potential) Optimism (being positive and looking at the brighter side of life)

26

In Search of Emotional–Social Giftedness

(Bar-On, 2007). The results suggest that the following emotional–social competencies and skills that have the strongest impact on problem solving (R=.74) are the following, listed in the order of their predictive strength (i.e., their ability to predict problem solving):

r r r r r r r r

Self-actualization (striving to achieve goals and actualize one’s potential) Optimism (being positive and looking at the brighter side of life) Stress Tolerance (effectively and constructively managing emotions) Impulse Control (effectively and constructively controlling emotions) Reality Testing (objectively validating one’s feelings and thinking) Assertiveness (effectively and constructively expressing one’s feelings) Social Responsibility (identifying with one’s social group and cooperating with others) Empathy (being aware of and understanding how others feel)

The results, once again, make sense. It appears that one needs to be sufficiently motivated to attempt to solve problems, effectively manage and control emotions, validate one’s feelings and keep things in proper perspective, and constructively express oneself after coming up with the best solution. Coming up with the best solution appears to rely on one’s ability to understand others and responsibly consider their feelings, needs, and concerns. In an effort to determine which of the eight items in the EQ-i’s Problem Solving subscale are the most important for the problem-solving process, Bar-On conducted an item analysis of the EQi Problem-Solving items using the above-mentioned data set (Bar-On, 2007). It revealed that the item with the highest item-scale correlation (R=0.66) was the following: “In handling situations that arise, I try to think of as many approaches as I can.” This suggests that the most important component of the problem-solving process, as defined and measured by the EQ-i, is the ability to use as many approaches as possible in solving problems; and this closely follows the description of the problem-solving component of the definition of giftedness used in this chapter (. . . an advanced ability to apply a variety of different approaches to solve problems. . .). To examine the impact of EI on this specific aspect of problem solving, the above-mentioned Problem-Solving item was factored into the analysis as

565

the dependent variable, and multiple regression analysis was applied to the previously mentioned sample (Bar-On, 2007). This rendered a fairly high multivariate correlation (R=0.58) indicating that EI significantly impacts this important component of problem solving. The emotional–social competencies and skills that surfaced in this specific regression model are as follows, listed in the order of their predictive strength (i.e. their ability to predict this important aspect of problem solving):

r r r r r r r r r r

Optimism (being positive and looking at the brighter side of life) Empathy (being aware of and understanding how others feel) Social Responsibility (identifying with one’s social group and cooperating with others) Self-actualization (striving to achieve goals and actualize one’s potential) Reality Testing (objectively validating one’s feelings and thinking) Assertiveness (effectively and constructively expressing one’s feelings) Stress Tolerance (effectively and constructively managing emotions) Impulse Control (effectively and constructively controlling emotions) Flexibility (adapting and adjusting one’s feelings and thinking to new situations) Interpersonal Relationship (establishing mutually satisfying relationships)

It is interesting to note that the emotional intelligence factor that impacts this aspect of problem solving the most is optimism, meaning that one needs to be sufficiently optimistic and self-motivated in order to apply as many approaches as possible in solving problems. The relationship between emotional intelligence and creativity. In order to study the relationship between EI and creativity, which is thought to play an integral role in the problem-solving process of gifted individuals, a researcher at York University in Canada (Koifman, 1999) administered the EQ-i together with the Jackson Personality Inventory (Jackson, 1994) to 60 second-year psychology students. The bivariate correlation between the EQ-i and the Jackson’s Innovation scale was found to be significant (R=.41, p<.01) indicating that a relationship between EI and creativity does indeed exist.

566

The relationship between emotional intelligence and resiliency. Some scholars have suggested that elevated levels of resiliency might play an important role in the ability of gifted individuals to effectively cope with difficult life situations and conditions. A study conducted by Ebers¨ohn & Maree (2006) confirms this interesting approach to giftedness. They found that gifted children rely on the following factors to cope with the impact of HIV and AIDS on their lives: enhanced self-regard, independence, stress tolerance, flexibility, and optimism. These findings confirm those of an earlier study (Krivoy, Weyl Ben-Arush, & Bar-On, 2000) that indicate that the most important EI competencies and skills that distinguish between adolescent cancer survivors and others are assertiveness, independence, stress tolerance, reality testing, problem solving, and optimism. A 50% overlap between the findings of these two studies that examined the relationship between emotional intelligence and resiliency in children coping with life-threatening conditions, strongly suggests that emotional intelligence plays an important role in survival and resiliency as well. To briefly summarize the key results presented in this section, it has been shown that emotional intelligence does indeed impact cognitive intelligence and the potential to perform academically as well as to do one’s best, solve problems, and be resilient.

R. Bar-On and J.G. (Kobus) Maree

used in the present chapter (i.e., cognitive intelligence and the potential for academic performance, striving to do one’s best and to actualize one’s potential, problem solving, creativity and resiliency), the findings reveal that the following emotional–social competencies and skills have the strongest impact on giftedness:

r r r r r r r

Stress Tolerance (effectively and constructively managing emotions) Assertiveness (effectively and constructively expressing one’s feelings) Reality Testing (objectively validating one’s feelings and thinking) Flexibility (adapting and adjusting one’s feelings and thinking to new situations) Problem Solving (effectively solving personal and interpersonal problems) Optimism (being positive and looking at the brighter side of life) Self-actualization (striving to achieve goals and actualize one’s potential)

Based on these findings, the emotionally–socially gifted are evidently more adept than their peers at managing emotions, expressing their feelings, validating their feelings and keeping things in correct perspective, flexibly solving problems of a personal and interpersonal nature, and being sufficiently selfmotivated in doing their best and actualizing their potential. As the cognitive gifted are expected to possess an IQ equal to or greater than two standard A Summary of the Major Findings deviations above the norm, the emotionally and soRelated to Emotional–Social Giftedness cially gifted are expected to score significantly above the average on overall EQ and on the above-mentioned To the extent that the definitions used in the present competencies and skills in particular. chapter succeed in capturing the key characteristics of The findings reported here support the case for gifted individuals and emotional intelligence (EI), the emotional–social giftedness as a viable concept extwo constructs are indeed correlated with one another panding the way we have traditionally conceptualized based on the findings that were presented. More suc- giftedness in the past. However, it is important to cinctly, EI has demonstrated a moderate yet signifi- bear in mind that the findings presented here are cant correlation with the cognitive component of gift- based on the particular definition of giftedness used in edness and the ability to perform academically. Addi- this chapter and on the specific approach applied to tionally, EI is highly associated with being motivated examine its relationship with emotional intelligence. to do one’s best and to realize one’s potential. EI has It is, therefore, important to replicate these studies on also been shown to be highly associated with problem larger and more diverse samples using other definitions solving in general, and specifically with one’s ability to of giftedness and additional measures of emotional explore different approaches in finding effective solu- intelligence, cognitive intelligence, problem solving, tions in solving problems; but it appears to be moder- creativity, and resiliency. This will hopefully shed ately associated with creativity based on the findings. more light on the relationship between emotional Cutting across the key components of the definition intelligence and giftedness, clarify the nature of that

26

In Search of Emotional–Social Giftedness

567

relationship, and determine the relative strength of the art, literature, science, sport, leadership, and so forth; relevant EI factors that impact giftedness in general and an effort should also be made to select or develop and emotional–social giftedness in particular. non-verbal aptitude and vocational measures that are cross-culturally valid. After selecting the most valid non-verbal measures available, this proposed approach to assessing giftedConclusion and Recommendations ness needs to be normed on large normative samples worldwide and validated across cultures in order to esThe literature expresses a compelling need to create tablish conceptual as well as functional equivalence better ways of identifying the gifted; and rather than (Hui & Triandis, 1985; Petrides & Furnham, 2000; using a single measure of giftedness, most profession- Van der Vijver & Leung, 1997; Weems & Onwuegals in this field agree that a variety of measures should buzie, 2001); otherwise, the direct comparison and use be used (Johnsen, 2004). Thus, a battery of measures of test results will be meaningless. Until valid non-verbal measures of each of the key appears to be the approach of choice. components of giftedness are attainable, psychometriIn light of the fact that non-verbal instruments are cally valid verbal instruments need to be incorporated successful in assessing cognitive intelligence (Ford & into the GAB. A scoring algorithm would obviously Harmon, 2001), this approach should be applied in assessing not only the cognitive potential of gifted chil- need to take into consideration gender, age, ethnic, and dren but also the other key emotional–social charac- socio-economic differences that most likely exist. As soon as gifted children can be effectively identiteristics that they are thought to possess in abundance. fied, they should be channeled into special education Non-verbal methods are especially important for the programs as is suggested in the literature. As there gifted disadvantaged because many of them often do are special education programs at the other end of not possess high verbal skills and are at times comthe continuum for cognitively impaired children, there pelled to study in a second language which is the case should be at least equal attention given to gifted chilin many multicultural societies (Van der Westhuizen & dren (Bar-On, 2007). Gifted education should be reMaree, 2006). It appears that a comprehensive assessment ap- garded as special education (Van der Westhuizen & proach, or giftedness assessment battery (GAB), Maree, 2006) as it is already done in Canada, for exis needed to effectively identify gifted children as ample, as well as in a growing number of other counBar-On has recently recommended (2007), comprising tries around the world. These programs should begin a combination of non-verbal cognitive, aptitude, as early as possible so that the gifted can learn and vocational, and EI measures as well as classroom develop together without running the risk of experiobservations and structured interviews with the stu- encing feelings of social isolation, boredom and low dents themselves, their family, teachers, and peers self-esteem that often lead to underachievement in the (Zorman, 1991). For example, measures such as the end (Reis & Renzulli, 2004; Robinson, 2002; Seevers Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1958) should & Shaughnessy, 2003; Sisk, 2002; Swiatek, 1995). In be considered as the non-verbal cognitive component addition to being taught what they need to eventually of the GAB, and cutoff points of two standard devi- complete secondary school, but on their level and at ations above the mean (or a stanine of 9) could be their own pace, it is important to provide them with used to identify gifted children from this perspective. more intellectually challenging assignments focusing Although such measures do not yet exist, we will need on national and international concerns as well. More to develop cross-culturally valid non-verbal measures specifically, Passow and Schiff have suggested that we of emotional intelligence; and these measures need to need to expose gifted children to “the major problems assess those EI competencies and skills that impact of our world” (1989, p. 5), which should be highgiftedness the most, such as the ones identified in lighted as one of the important components of gifted the present chapter in the pursuit of emotional–social education. Moreover, gifted students need to receive giftedness as a viable concept. The GAB would enriched courses in those areas in which they show a also need to accurately and effectively pinpoint the keen interest, talent, and potential for further develindividual’s specific type of giftedness in fields such as opment. They will need to be provided with adequate

568

guidance, resources, and encouragement to develop their personal interests and to ponder special assignments, to research them in depth and to attempt to come up with creative ways of addressing them. Passow and Schiff also suggest that in order to encourage the gifted to meet these ends, networking opportunities will need to be established both nationally and internationally; and this could be in the form of an Intranet for the gifted together with the opportunity of meeting with other gifted children in other geographical locations (Bar-On, 2007). Additionally, we could use this specific aspect of gifted education to create and continuously develop think-tanks comprising gifted individuals (Bar-On, 2007). They should also be provided with coaching designed to enhance those EI factors that were found to impact cognitive skills, problem solving, creativity, and self-actualization in order to facilitate their continued development specifically in the area of emotional–social giftedness as described in this chapter. Last, it would be important to recruit a certain percentage of the graduates from these programs, who exhibit giftedness in the area of teaching, to continue on as facilitators. Additionally, graduates should be channeled into university studies (Maree, 2005), while teacher training institutions and programs must offer specific programs and courses on gifted education (Sherman, 1997; Van der Westhuizen & Maree, 2006), and teachers who are already working in their profession should be encouraged to attend workshops and seminars on this topic (Feldhusen, 1985; Van der Westhuizen & Maree, 2006). We need to identify and recruit emotionally–socially gifted teachers and highly motivated individuals to be directly involved in gifted education programs. In addition to recruiting a certain percentage of them from the graduates of these programs as was previously suggested, a similar assessment approach described for identifying gifted children (i.e., the giftedness assessment battery or GAB) could also be applied to identify this type of specialized teacher (Bar-On, 2007). As with gifted students, it would be important to establish and encourage international networking between facilitators (Bar-On, 2007). This would allow them to share experiences, discuss various challenges that arise, and ways of approaching them. Ministries and departments of education worldwide should be as much concerned about special education for the gifted as they are with addressing the needs of children with cognitive, developmental, and emotional

R. Bar-On and J.G. (Kobus) Maree

problems. In order to recruit the needed resources to establish and maintain these programs, it would be helpful to promote the need for educating the gifted by suggesting that these children should be viewed as valuable intellectual capital for the countries in which they live and are educated (Bar-On, 2007). The stakeholders must clearly understand that these children possess intellectual and emotional–social assets equally as important as natural assets and commodities such as oil, iron, precious metals, lumber, agricultural lands, and the like. It is our fervent desire that this chapter will contribute toward achieving that goal and help encourage others to advance this priority as well as to act as an impetus for those involved, to take appropriate action in addition to continue to empirically study various aspects of emotional–social giftedness. The gifted represents a resource that is possibly greater than other natural resources because gifted individuals were here long before we knew how to efficiently extract these resources from the earth; and there will be gifted human beings on this planet long after a number of these other resources are well depleted, and it will be the gifted who will help solve the problem of depleted natural resources and create alternatives only if they are allowed and encouraged to do so (Bar-On, 2007).

References Bar-On, R. (1997a). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): A test of emotional intelligence. Toronto: MultiHealth Systems, Inc. Bar-On, R. (1997b). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, Inc. Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment and application at home, school and in the workplace (pp. 363–388). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bar-On, R. (2001). Emotional intelligence and self-actualization. In J. Ciarrochi, J. Forgas, & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional intelligence in everyday life: A scientific inquiry (pp. 82–97). New York: Psychology Press. Bar-On, R. (2004). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Rationale, description, and summary of psychometric properties. In G. Geher (Ed.), Measuring emotional intelligence: Common ground and controversy (pp. 111–142). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18(supl.), 13–25.

26

In Search of Emotional–Social Giftedness

Bar-On, R. (2007). The impact of emotional intelligence on giftedness. Gifted Education International, 22(1), 122–137. Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D. A. (2000). The handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment and application at home, school and in the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brady, C. G. (1998). The relationship between emotional intelligence and underachievement in adolescence. Unpublished MA dissertation. Pretoria: University of Pretoria. Ciarrochi, J., Forgas, J. P., & Mayer, J. D. (Eds.). (2001). Emotional intelligence in everyday life: A scientific inquiry. New York: Psychology Press Darwin, C. (1872/1965). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Delisle, J. (1992). Guiding the Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Youth. New York: Longman Publishing Group. Druskat, V. U., Sala, F., & Mount, G. (Eds.). (2005). Linking emotional intelligence and performance at work: Current research evidence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ebers¨ohn, L. E., & Maree, J. G. (2006). Demonstrating resilience in an HIV&AIDS context: An emotional intelligence perspective. Gifted Education International, 22(1), 14–30. Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., et al. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Feldhusen, J. F. (1985). The teacher of gifted students. Gifted Education International, 3(2), 87–93. Ford, D. Y., & Harmon, D. A. (2001). Equity and excellence: Providing access to gifted education for culturally diverse students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(3), 141. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Geher, G. (Ed.). (2004). Measuring emotional intelligence: Common ground and controversy. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in crosscultural psychology: A review and comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 16, 131–152. Jackson, D. N. (1994). Jackson Personality Inventory – Revised. Port Huron: Sigma Assessment Systems. Janos, P. M., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Psychosocial development in intellectually gifted children. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 149–195. Johnsen, S. K. (2004). Identifying gifted students: A practical guide. Waco: Prufrock Press, Inc. Koifman, R. (1999). Unpublished findings describing the relationship between emotional intelligence and creativity generated from a study conducted at York University (Toronto, Canada). Krivoy, E., Weyl Ben-Arush, M., & Bar-On, R. (2000). Comparing the emotional intelligence of adolescent cancer survivors with a matched sample from the normative population. Medical & Pediatric Oncology, 35(3), 382.

569 Leuner, B. (1966). Emotional intelligence and emancipation. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 15, 196–203. Lovecky, D. (1992). Exploring social and emotional aspects of giftedness in children. Roeper Review, 15(1), 18–25. Madge, E. M. (1979). The intelligent use of intelligence tests. Education Bulletin, 23(2), 54–62. Maker, J. (1993). Creativity, intelligence, and problem-solving: A definition and design for cross-cultural research and measurement related to giftedness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Pretoria: University of Pretoria. Maree, J. G. (2005). The torn learning sprockets: Stars in the ascendant. Gifted Education International, 20(2), 112–122. Maree, J. G. (2006). Diversity and the gifted disadvantaged in South Africa. In B. Wallace & G. Erikson (Eds.), Diversity in gifted education: International perspectives on the global issues. London: Routledge. Maree, J. G., & Ebers¨ohn, L. (2002). Emotional intelligence and achievement: Redefining giftedness? Gifted Education International, 16(3), 261–273. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence: In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 396–420). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Mehrabian, A. (2000). Beyond IQ: Broad-based measurement of individual success potential or “emotional intelligence”. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126(2), 133–239. M¨onks, F. J., & Pfl¨uger, R. (2005). Gifted education in 21 European countries: Inventory and perspective, conducted on behalf of the German federal ministry of education and research. Nijmegen: Radboud University. Newell, M. (1989). Adapting the triads model to serve gifted underachievers. Gifted Education International, 6, 98–101. Parker, J. R. (1997). Who are the gifted? Gifted Education International, 12, 85–90. Passow, A. H., & Schiff, J. H. (1989). Educating gifted persons who are caring and concerned. Gifted Education International, 6, 5–7. Peterson, J. S. (1997). Bright, tough, and resilient – and not in a gifted program. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 97(8), 121. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313–320. Piechowski, M. M. (1991). Emotional development and emotional giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 285–306). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Plake, B. S., & Impara, J. C. (Eds.). (1999). Supplement to the thirteenth mental measurement yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute for Mental Measurement. Raven, J. C. (1958). Standard Progressive Matrices. London: H.K. Lewis & Co. Ltd. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Current research on the social and emotional development of gifted and talented students: Good news and future possibilities. Psychology

570 in the Schools, 41, published online in Wiley InterScience (http://www.interscience.wiley.com). Robinson, N. M. (2002). Introduction. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children. Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press Inc. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211. Seevers, R., & Shaughnessy, M. (2003). Reflective conversation with Dorothy Sisk. Gifted Education International, 17(1), 16–41. Sherman, L. (1997). Curiouser and curiouser. Northwest Education. Fall. Silverman, L. K. (1993). A development model for counseling the gifted. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company. Silverman, L. K. (1998). Personality and learning styles of gifted children. In Van Tassel–Baska (Ed.), Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company. Sisk, D. (2002). Spiritual intelligence: The tenth intelligence that integrates all other intelligences. Gifted Education International, 16(3), 208. Spielberger, C. (Ed.). (2004). Encyclopedia of applied psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond EQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Swiatek, M. A. (1995). An empirical investigation of the social coping strategies used by gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 154–160. Thompson, C. L., & Rudolph, L. B. (1992). Counseling children. Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Van der Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data-analysis for cross-cultural research. Newbury Park: Sage. Van der Westhuizen, C., & Maree, J. G. (2006). Some thoughts on the training of teachers of gifted learners. Gifted Education International, 21(2/3), 201–217. Van Rooyen, J. (2002). Bar-On EQ-iT M training manual. Johannesburg: Jopie van Rooyen and Partners. Wagner, R. K. (1997). Intelligence, training, and employment. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1059-1069. Wechsler, D. (1940). Nonintellective factors in general intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 37, 444–445 . Weems, G. H., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001). The impact of midpoint responses and reverse coding on survey data. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 34, 166–176. Zorman, R. (1991). Identification and nurturance of young disadvantaged gifted children. In R. M. Milgram (Ed.), Counseling gifted and talented children: A guide for teachers, counselors and parents. Norwood: Ablex 161.

R. Bar-On and J.G. (Kobus) Maree

Appendix: The EQ-i Scales and What They Assess EQ-i Scales

The EI Competencies and Skills Assessed by Each Scale

INTRAPERSONAL

Self-awareness and self-expression:

Self Regard

To accurately perceive, understand and accept oneself To be aware of and understand one’s emotions To effectively and constructively express one’s emotions and oneself To be emotionally self-reliant and free of dependency on others To strive to achieve personal goals and actualize one’s potential

Emotional Self-awareness Assertiveness

Independence Self-actualization INTERPERSONAL Empathy Social Responsibility Interpersonal Relationship STRESS MANAGEMENT Stress Tolerance Impulse Control ADAPTABILITY Reality Testing

Flexibility Problem Solving

GENERAL MOOD Optimism Happiness

Social awareness and interpersonal relationship: To be aware of and understand how others feel To identify with one’s social group and cooperate with others To establish mutually satisfying relationships and relate well with others Emotional management and control: To effectively and constructively manage emotions To effectively and constructively control emotions Change management: To objectively validate one’s feelings and thinking with external reality To adapt and adjust one’s feelings and thinking to new situations To effectively solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature Self-motivation: To be positive and look at the brighter side of life To feel content with oneself, others and life in general

Chapter 27

The Two Pioneers of Research on Creative Giftedness: Calvin W. Taylor and E. Paul Torrance Kyung Hee Kim

Abstract This chapter reviews research on creative giftedness conducted by Calvin Taylor and Paul Torrance. Taylor and Torrance realized that (1) IQ alone does not measure the qualities required to be truly gifted and (2) lifetime success and outstanding achievements do not correlate with academic success. This chapter explores the divergent paths they took to discover that outstanding success requires a unique set of qualities that make up creative giftedness. Taylor used his biographical inventories and Torrance used his famous tests of creative thinking. Both believed that the qualities necessary for success, e.g., creativity, could be taught. Ultimately, Taylor devised the Multiple Talent Teaching Programs to identify and enhance creative talents. Torrance devised the Future Problem Solving Program and the Incubation Model of Teaching, a three-dimensional curriculum model with the goal of encouraging children’s inherent curiosity. Their work was instrumental in expanding the definition of giftedness beyond IQ and academic success. They included creative giftedness, which is necessary for outstanding lifetime success. Keywords Calvin Taylor · Paul Torrance · Creative giftedness · Creativity · Utah Conferences · Biographical inventories · Multiple Talents Teaching Program

eminent researchers, including Calvin W. Taylor and E. Paul Torrance. Their contributions to research on giftedness are unparalleled. Prior to Taylor and Torrance, the definition of giftedness was one-dimensional, referring to intelligence and academic success. In the 1950s, when Taylor and Torrance were beginning their careers, they quickly realized that the traditional definition of “giftedness” was simply not enough because academic success does not correlate to future professional success. They realized that more was needed and that the “more” needed was creativity. Creativity has the power to transform giftedness to eminence (Khatena, 1983). Creativity is important in scientific discovery, invention, and the arts. Striking advances in human affairs such as the creative arts and political and military leadership, as well as in scientific discovery and invention are mainly due to a few exceptionally creative gifted individuals (Weyl, 1970; Taylor, 1972; Toynbee, 1964). Achievement depends on many factors, including the interaction between the environmental conditions and the particular manifestation of specific creative characteristics (Amabile, 1983; Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Mellou, 1996; Torff, 1999). The contributions of Taylor and Torrance to research on creative giftedness, their programs for enhancing creativity, and their legacies are reviewed in this chapter.

Introduction Society’s definition of giftedness has evolved over the past 50 years in large part because of the work of a few K.H. Kim (B) The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Calvin W. Taylor Calvin W. Taylor began by researching methods to predict the future success of scientists and physicians early in their careers and even prior to their education. His research was supported by the National Science Foun-

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 27, 

571

572

dation (NSF) and by various other organizations, including the medical establishment and the military. Taylor’s work was instrumental in the realization that giftedness can take many forms and that individuals can be gifted in one talent area and lacking in others. Taylor’s research repeatedly indicated that academic success (e.g., grades) does not significantly correlate with future performance in most careers, including science, medicine, and engineering. He began to research creativity and discovered that various talents are needed for future success, including academic, creative, leadership, and artistic tendencies. Ultimately, Taylor’s work fostered the Multiple Talent Teaching programs, which may be some of the most promising innovations in education for the gifted and talented. Taylor and his team developed “Form U,” a 150question computer-scored multiple talent biographical inventory, which includes measures of four talents: academic, creative, leadership, and artistic potentials. Form U has significantly better predictive validity than any single factor, such as prior academic success or intelligence, in predicting the future success of individuals throughout their lives. It is important to note that Form U, while useful for identifying the multiple talents of the gifted, may ultimately be most useful for those children who are not identified as the gifted. It is a good alternative to IQ tests because it is economical and can predict academic underachievement and potential dropouts (Taylor & Ellison, 1983). Taylor’s ideas on creativity were focused on measuring and promoting Big C (in contrast to Little C; Gardner, 1993) ideas, that is, ideas that may cause historical changes in society. His work focused on highly creative endeavors that searched for Big C ideas, such as the national space program. Alan Toynbee, an eminent historian, who promoted the idea that creative thoughts were history-making, had a profound impact on Taylor’s research (see below).

K.H. Kim

cruits to progress rapidly into more challenging advanced courses (Taylor, 1952). After WWII, Taylor received his PhD in Psychology from the University of Chicago and joined the faculty at the University of Utah where he taught various courses including measurement theory, factor analysis, statistics, and research throughout his 40-year career. Taylor’s early research also involved the prediction of performance of applicants to medical schools based on admissions criteria (Ralph & Taylor, 1952). Ultimately, this research led to a 19-year study, which demonstrated that academic success (before or during medical school), performance on the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT), and performance on general aptitude tests had no significant relationship to the career performance of physicians (Richards, Taylor & Price, 1962; Taylor, 1974; Taylor, Price, Richards, & Jacobsen 1964, 1965). He confirmed these results with biographical studies of many professional groups such as scientists and engineers from NASA and the Air Force, several large industrial organizations, as well as high-school students in NSF research participation programs (American Psychological Association [APA], 1971; Taylor & Ellison, 1967; Taylor & Holland, 1962).

The Utah Conferences

Taylor’s early work on creative potential may be best known because he chaired a series of conferences, referred to as “the Utah Conferences,” on the identification of creative talents and the study of creativity in the 1950s, which were sponsored by the NSF and later by the Office of Education. The Utah Conferences in 1955, 1957, and 1959 were well known and important because the United States was playing “catch-up” to the Russians after Sputnik and other similar cold war pressures. These early Utah Conferences presented studies that indicated that academic performance, e.g., Taylor’s Early Years grade point averages, failed to show any significant correlation with future performance in scientific careers Taylor began his career in the army as a project direc- (Taylor 1959; Taylor, Smith, & Ghiselin, 1964). Theretor for WWII research studies, where he determined fore, research on creativity and creative potential was that pre-testing military recruits could save significant believed necessary to assure the future leadership of the training costs and increase ultimate performance by United States in all areas of human endeavor including allowing certain recruits to skip basic courses, which space exploration. A subgroup of the 1957 conference tended to bore and de-motivate, and allowing these re- participants could not produce a written report because

27

The Two Pioneers of Research on Creative Giftedness

there was not enough prior research on the “conditions affecting creativity.” It was even recognized that the meaning of creativity was unclear when a proposal for defining the meaning of creativity was presented at the 1959 Utah Conference (Sprecher, 1963; Taylor, 1963). The early Utah Conferences concluded that creativity is rare and that the sheer accumulation of information (e.g., academic success) is not sufficient to guarantee future creativity. After almost 20 years, Taylor’s Utah Conferences progressed to studies of the conditions that affect creativity, including whether organizations, such as schools, universities, research organizations and businesses, can foster creativity (Taylor, 1972). Taylor (1972) found that most organizations were typically far from the optimal for encouraging creativity. Rather, they tend to quash creativity through a myriad of official and unofficial means. He quoted a colleague, Jex (1963), who discovered a negative correlation between creativity scores of high-school science teachers and 10 different ratings of these teachers by their immediate supervisor or principal. Taylor believed that Jex’s work discovered the flaw in most organizations, which was that they reward conformity. Taylor found that creative individuals were usually promoted to positions that left them no time for research. He found that many low-level supervisors quashed the creative ideas of and requests for publications from their subordinates. He found that most organizations were ready to fire individuals who made extraordinary discoveries before they actually made those extraordinary discoveries. Taylor (1972) summarized his findings in 12 Golden Rules on How to KILL Creativity for the classroom: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

573

9. Fail to try opportunities. 10. Organize creative people under your control or organize them out. 11. Design all possible features into organizations that stifle or kill creativity. 12. Jealously guard and keep prerogatives only to yourself to plan, think, and create. (Taylor, 1972, p. 8). In summary, while studying organizations, Taylor, just as so many other researchers, found that the more highly creative a person is (or the more highly creative the idea that is being promoted), the more likely he or she (or the idea) is in trouble. Taylor organized additional conferences, such as the 7th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children, where the topic of creative giftedness was discussed in details. He also organized many summer workshops on his biographical inventories.

Biographical Inventories: Development of Form U and Multiple Talents

Taylor’s creativity work focused on biographical inventories of creativity and other talents. Early on, he studied mostly adults such as scientists in military research centers, NASA, industrial organizations, and universities (Taylor & Ellison, 1983). Taylor even supervised research projects for the Peace Corps on how to recruit, measure, and foster creativity in its volunteers and, ultimately, in the peoples the Peace Corps assisted (Taylor & Ellison, 1972). Taylor developed successive biographical inventories, which included the Assume there is only one academic (or intelli- most promising items identified in the earlier inventories, and additional items developed for the special purgence) type of talent. As science teachers, ignore scientific research re- poses of the new studies. Taylor’s successive iterations of his biographical inventory, which produce biographsults about creative talents. ical scores, proved in study after study to be better preTeach the best and shoot the rest! Keep doing what was done to your ideas—and do dictors of success than most other predictive measures available. The biographical score of creativity was a it even more. Be very human—react quickly and negatively to better predictor of future success than the judgments of the fellowship committee members, even after the new ideas. committee studied a myriad of documents in accorIf you don’t understand it, OPPOSE it! Keep the rule going: “The more creative the idea, dance with admissions criteria. Taylor’s biographical factors included measurethe more likely in trouble.” Have a deadly negative incentive system for cre- ments of academic talent and multiple creative talents, such as (1) academic; (2) productive thinking; (3) ative persons and ideas.

574

communication; (4) forecasting; (5) decision making; and (6) planning. Later in 1984, this list of creative talents was expanded to include (7) implementing; (8) human relations; and (9) discerning opportunities (Taylor, 1986b, 1988; Taylor & Ellison, 1983; Loyd, 1983). Taylor’s studies resulted in Form U, a 150-question multiple-choice biographical inventory (Taylor & Ellison, 1983). The test is economical, it takes only an hour to administer and uses a separate answer sheet that is computer scored (Taylor, 1986b). Form U has been translated into other languages and is used worldwide (Tseng, 1973). Form U´s computerized results include a measure of relative strengths of students in the following areas: (1) academic performance, (2) creativity, (3) leadership, and (4) artistic potential, plus two bonus scores for vocational maturity (indication of how mature a student is in regards to choosing a vocation) and educational orientation (indication of future academic success or prediction of a potential dropout). Form U has the following important characteristics: (1) it enables gifted and talented programs to measure the four types of giftedness identified by the U.S. Department of Education for upper elementary and high-school students in a single test; (2) it is based on research and is standardized by several large studies so that it has a high predictive validity in a wide variety of situations including students’ performance in college and in graduate studies (it is better than typical graduate school selection methods based on application procedures). In addition, it correlates better with future career successes than usual academic achievement does. (3) It could be used as an effective substitute for standardized IQ testing; (4) it is computer scored so it takes no specialized training to administer or score; and (5) it can be used by educators to identify potential dropouts early on (Taylor & Ellison, 1983). The Form U study of 13,000 North Carolina High School students found that many highly creative students were low in academic success. This study identified 54 students who not only scored at the 97 percentile rank or above on the test but also scored less than the 67 percentile academically, namely 26 students scored 50% or lower and 1 student scored only 6% academically (Taylor & Ellison, 1983). Taylor & Ellison (1983) estimated that 100,000 highly creative (top 25%) students annually leave high school showing little if any academic promise and, consequently, bleak possibilities for their future education.

K.H. Kim

Multiple Talent Teaching Program Taylor’s multiple talent biographical inventory led to the concept that students can be taught, or at least made aware of, the talents that they lack and that with little effort all talents can be enhanced. This concept evolved into the celebrated Multiple Talent Teaching Program (Taylor, 1986b). The first school to adopt his Multiple Talent Teaching Program quickly rose to the top of its district in standard achievement test scores. This was despite the expectation that the school would remain average because of its location in an average socioeconomic area (Taylor 1986a). Taylor (1986b) believed that the greatest gain of the Multiple Talent Teaching Program was for the students. Once a weakness is identified, students can grow, either individually or in groups, in their ability to use each talent effectively (Taylor, 1986b; Taylor & Ellison, 1972). One of the most important functions of the Multiple Talent Teaching Program may be that it does not ignore traditional measures of excellence, such as academic success, but instead enhances overall learning and self-development for future success.

Influences on Taylor: Toynbee and NASA—the Big C Taylor counted among his colleagues Arnold Toynbee, the eminent historian who also had a strong interest in creativity, and strongly influenced Taylor’s definitions of and ideas about creativity. Toynbee’s influence made Taylor focus on the Big C concept of creativity. Taylor cited Toynbee when he emphasized the importance of creativity in a small percentage of the population as mankind’s “ultimate capital asset” (Taylor, 1972; Toynbee, 1964). Toynbee defined “creative talents” as the history-making talents in any area of human endeavor (Taylor & Ellison, 1983; Toynbee, 1967 [speech “On the Role of Creativity in History” at Taylor’s Creativity Workshop at the University of Utah in June 1967]). Toynbee stated that “creation is a disturbing force in society because it is a constructive one” (Taylor, 1984; Toynbee, 1964). Taylor’s research was also concentrated on the Big C. Specifically, he studied research scientists at prominent research organizations such as NASA, which

27

The Two Pioneers of Research on Creative Giftedness

was focused on the Big C because of its mission of space exploration that was one of the largest historical milestones that mankind achieved in the 20th century. NASA distinguished a few levels of creativity in its scientists according to the extent of their contributions (Taylor, 1988). The highest level of NASA’s creativity scale was as follows: “The impact of his work has been quite exceptional. His creative solutions to complex problems have broad generality and have even opened up important areas of investigation with wide implications” (Taylor, 1988, p. 114). On the other hand, the lowest level of NASA’s creativity scale was, “His work has demonstrated very little creativity or originality. It usually has provided no more than a rather simple solution to the immediate problem” (Taylor, 1988, p. 114). Thus, Taylor’s research, while not discounting the Little C, was focused on identifying individuals with the potential for the Big C. Taylor did not necessarily focus only on personal creativity. His team found that the environment, the product, and the process of creativity are also necessary for the deep understanding of the phenomenon of creativity (Taylor, 1988). He identified processes for measuring the products of creative persons including multiple measures like performances, behaviors, publications, ideas, and other types of accomplishments (Taylor, 1988). He found that environmental factors can have a great influence on the creativity of an individual. Taylor argued that creativity and leadership are both important in creative advances. He even theorized that creative leadership—that is, a combination of the two qualities—is one of the most pressing needs in organizations that want to promote creativity.

575

survival. Torrance concluded that the spark was related to creativity. After WWII, he finished his Ph.D. at the University of Michigan in 1951. In 1958, the launch of Sputnik and Guilford’s presidential speech on creativity at the APA Annual Convention spurred the research push that provided Torrance the opportunity to study creativity. He was hired as the Director of the Bureau of Educational Research at the University of Minnesota where he began a 25year study on creative giftedness. Torrance’s studies of creativity ultimately extended for more than 40 years. As part of his research, Torrance developed many creativity measures. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) and Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement (TCAM) are best known. His studies with these measures helped dispel the idea that IQ tests gauge all forms of giftedness. His 7-year, 12-year, 22year, and 40-year longitudinal studies showed a strong relationship between test behavior in childhood and adult real-life creative behavior, thereby offering evidence of the predictive validity of the TTCT.

The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)

The TTCT was part of a long-term research program emphasizing classroom experiences that stimulate creativity (Kim, 2006a). Torrance is well known for his tests of creativity. However, the assessment of creativity was not his main goal. Torrance’s main focus was on understanding and nurturing qualities that help people express their creativity. His real scientific interest was in promoting creativity. The tests were designed to serve as tools for the enhancement of creativity, not just E. Paul Torrance a measure of creativity (H´ebert, Cramond, Neumeister, Millar, & Silvian, 2002). Torrance originally planned Torrance’s greatest interest and deepest sense of pride to use his tests as a basis for individualizing instruccame from his work in promoting all forms of creativ- tion for different students based on the test scores, and ity (Big C and Little C) in all people. When Torrance not to identify the gifted (Torrance, 1966, 1974). The was teaching at Georgia Military College, he became test yields a composite score that seems to be a static interested in students labeled “troublemakers” who had measure of a person’s creative ability, but Torrance ara special spark. This spurred him to earn an M.A. in gued for using the profile of strengths as a means to psychology from the University of Minnesota. There- understand and nurture a person’s creativity (H´ebert after, he returned to a teaching and counseling career et al., 2002; Torrance, 1966 ,1974 ,1979b). and was drafted into the army to serve as a psycholoThe TTCT-Verbal and the TTCT-Figural are two gist during WWII. While in the army, he saw the same versions of the TTCT. The TTCT-Verbal has two special spark in the fighter pilots whom he trained for parallel forms, A and B, and consists of five activities:

576

ask-and-guess, product improvement, unusual uses, unusual questions, and just suppose. The stimulus for each task includes pictures to which people respond in writing (Torrance, 1966 ,1974). The TTCT-Figural also has two parallel forms, A and B, and consists of three activities: picture construction, picture completion, and repeating figures of lines or circles. The first, the 1966 edition of the TTCT-Figural measured Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, and Elaboration, which were taken from the divergent-thinking factors found in Guilford’s (1959) Structure of the Intellect Model (Baer, 1997; Torrance, 1966). The second, the 1974 edition measured the same four scoring variables (Torrance, 1974). The third, the 1984 edition of the TTCT-Figural had identical stimuli to the 1966 and 1974 editions, but the scoring procedures were changed. Chase (1985) criticized earlier editions of the TTCT because of a lack of the empirical basis for the scoring decisions due to the subjectivity of scoring. However, the 1984 edition contained an improved scoring system (Ball & Torrance, 1984). The 1984 TTCT-Figural manual presented a simplification of the scoring procedures and provided a detailed Scoring Workbook in addition to the Norms-Technical Manual (Ball & Torrance, 1984). In 1984, Torrance also added the two normreferenced measures of creative potential— Abstractness of Titles and Resistance to Premature Closure—to the original measures of Fluency, Originality, and Elaboration (H´ebert et al., 2002). The measure of Flexibility (scored by a variety of categories of relevant responses) was eliminated in the 1984 edition because it correlated very highly with Fluency (H´ebert et al., 2002). The five subscales remaining are (Ball & Torrance, 1984; Torrance, 1990)

r r

K.H. Kim

r r

r

Elaboration (the number of added ideas), which shows the subject’s ability to develop and elaborate upon ideas. Abstractness of Titles (the degree beyond labeling) that is based on the idea that creativity requires an abstraction of thought. It measures the degree to which a title moves beyond concrete labeling of drawn pictures. Resistance to Premature Closure (the degree of psychological openness), which is based upon the belief that creative behavior requires a person to consider a variety of information when processing information and to keep an “open mind.”

Torrance also added the Creative Strengths subscales (13 criterion-referenced measures) to the scoring in 1984 (Ball & Torrance, 1984; Torrance, 1990). The Creative Strengths are Emotional Expressiveness, Storytelling Articulateness, Movement or Action, Expressiveness of Titles, Synthesis of Incomplete Figures, Synthesis of Lines or Circles, Unusual Visualization, Internal Visualization, Extending or Breaking Boundaries, Humor, Richness of Imagery, Colorfulness of Imagery, and Fantasy. Torrance added these subscales on information that was unavailable when he originally developed the TTCT in 1966. He did this because of his concern that the original norm-referenced score was not measuring the breadth of creativity manifestations that he had observed (H´ebert et al., 2002; Torrance, 1979b). He continued his research and used other relevant literature to expand the tests including studies of the creative genius, investigations on personality traits of creative people, and creativity-training guides. Torrance (1979b, 1988, 1994; Ball & Torrance, 1984) provided evidence to show that his new subscales predicted creative achievement and that they improved Fluency (the number of relevant ideas), which the test’s validity. Content and construct validity shows an ability to produce a number of figural of the scoring variables have been studied in a images. factor-analytic study (Mourad, 1976), a comparative Originality (the number of statistically infrequent study (Rungsinan, 1977), a developmental study ideas), which shows an ability to produce uncom- (Ali-el-din, 1978, 1982), as well as in Torrance’s The mon or unique responses. The scoring procedure Search for Satori and Creativity (1979b). According counts the most common responses as “0” and all to Johnson and Fishkin (1999), the TTCT’s revised other legitimate responses as “1.” The originality scoring system supports Torrance’s (1988) definition lists have been prepared for each item on the ba- of creativity. Therefore, the 1984 revisions made the sis of normative data, which are readily memorized TTCT not only a test of divergent thinking (Ball & by scorers. Torrance, 1984) but also a test of creativity.

27

The Two Pioneers of Research on Creative Giftedness

It should be noted that the TTCT-Figural is unbiased in terms of race, culture, socio-economic status, gender, and language (Cramond, 1993; Torrance, 1977). Torrance, (1971), (Torrance & Torrance, 1972) found that the TTCT demonstrated no statistically significant differences due to race or socio-economic status. The most extensive use of the TTCT is for the identification of children for gifted programs. The TTCT is especially useful for identifying gifted and talented students because of its standardized administration, scoring procedures, and norms, and its development and evaluation (Davis & Rimm, 1994). The TTCT is a helpful addition to the repertoire of assessments because most measures for identifying the gifted largely measure achievement and aptitude in only verbal and quantitative areas (Torrance, 1977). Even teacher recommendations focus more on the student’s classroom performance than on other traits. For these reasons, the TTCT-Figural is valuable because it presents another perspective on the student’s ability that is vastly different from other aptitude and achievement tests. It may also be less biased for speakers of English as a second language (Torrance, 1977). Teacher nomination is one of the most common methods for identifying gifted students. However, teachers tend to prefer gifted children with low creativity rather than the highly creative (Anderson, 1961). Research has shown that teachers are apt to identify students who achieve academically. However, creative students are considered disruptive or unconventional (Davis & Rimm, 1994; Oliphant, 1986; Rimm & Davis, 1976; Ritchie, 1980; Robinson, 1980). Even worse, creative students are often energetic and unconventional and have been viewed as having attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) by their teachers (Cramond, 1994). Teachers who view creatively gifted students as “troublemakers” may overlook their potential. IQ testing is readily accepted and so it has been an obvious method to identify the gifted students in educational systems that favor conformity. This limited selection criterion risks overlooking creatively gifted children. Torrance (1960, 1962, 2002) was concerned with the fact that a great deal of creative talent may be unrecognized. He concluded that the identification of gifted children only on the basis of IQ and scholastic aptitude tests eliminates approximately 70% of the top 20% of creative students from consideration. Consistent with this, the negligible relationship between

577

creativity and IQ in Kim’s (2005) meta-analysis indicates that even students with low IQ scores can be creative. Teachers should be aware of characteristics of creative students, thus enabling them to see the potential of each child. A second meta-analysis demonstrates that creativity test scores correlate better with creative achievements than IQ scores (Kim, 2008). In other words, creativity test scores can predict creative achievements better than IQ. An additional form of selection is required in order to avoid missing creative students identified only by IQ tests or past academic achievements. Torrance (2002) emphasized that the TTCT should be used to identify highly creative students who may remain unnoticed if one used other identification methods. Torrance’s research on creativity as a measure of intelligence shattered the theory that IQ tests alone can measure real intelligence (Powell, 2003; Shearer, 2003). The TTCT provided a physical measure and groundwork for the idea that creative levels can be scaled and increased through practice, a premise that was previously only conceptual (Childs, 2003). The TTCT can provide useful insights into creativity as long as the tests are used with sensitivity and valid judgment by qualified professionals (Treffinger, 1985; Swartz, 1988) because variations in testing procedures affect scores (Swartz, 1988). For the purpose of ensuring qualified scorers, ongoing TTCT Scoring Training is offered by the Torrance Center for Creativity and Talent Development at the University of Georgia.

Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement (TCAM) In 1981 Torrance published the TCAM, which is designed to measure Fluency, Originality, and Imagination in preschool and primary school-aged children ranging from three to eight (Torrance, 2000). Torrance (1980) stated that the TCAM was developed based upon four guidelines: (1) kinesthetic measures, rather than verbal, are preferred since modality is the most appropriate for eliciting the creativity of preschool children; (2) preschool children require procedures for warm-up and motivation; (3) the tasks for assessing creativity should involve items preschool children are familiar with; and (4) the test should be easy to administer and score.

578

The test consists of four activities: Activity 1 (How Many Ways?) to assess Fluency and Originality in moving in alternate ways across the floor; Activity 2 (Can You Move Like?) to assess Imagination in moving like animals or a tree; Activity 3 (What Other Ways?) to assess Fluency and Originality in placing a paper cup in a wastebasket; and Activity 4 (What Might It Be?) to assess Fluency and Originality in generating alternate uses for a paper cup. The equipment that this test requires is paper cups, a wastebasket, pencils, and red and yellow tapes (Kim, 2006b). Significant positive correlations between TCAM and other creativity characteristics have been reported. Specifically, between TCAM and (a) The production of various types of humor (Erickson, 1977) (b) The Multidimensional Stimulus Fluency Measure (Tegano, Moran, & Godwin, 1986) (c) A modified Piaget measure of divergent thinking (d) A mathematics test that allows various approaches to problem solving (Reisman, Floyd, & Torrance, 1981) (e) Children’s private speech (Daugherty, White, & Manning, 1994) Significantly high correlations were reported between TCAM and mothers’ ratings of the family as chaotic in comparison to other mothers’ ratings of their family as rigid (Hudson & Stinnett, 1990). This is consistent with the results of other studies. Thus, Albert (1994, 1996) found that creative families are usually more complex, varied, and expressive than other families. Halpin, Payne & Ellett (1973) demonstrated that positive influences on creativity within a family include parents who are less strict, critical, and punitive, and allow for greater freedom. Dacey (1989) showed findings that flexibility in guiding a child’s behavior strengthens his or her crea1tivity. Research also yielded findings that authoritarian child-rearing attitudes (Datta & Parloff, 1967; Dewing, 1970; Foster, 1968; Gardner & Moran, 1990), parental vigilance (Getzels & Jackson, 1961), and hostile, rigid, and controlling home environments (Halpin et al., 1973; Papalia & Olds, 1986) have a negative relationship to children’s creativity. Significant increases in the TCAM scores were reported by intervening with the Bringing Out Head Start Talents project (Karnes & Johnson, 1987) and a cre-

K.H. Kim

ative movement program for Taiwanese preschool children (Wang, 2003). Scores on the TCAM are relatively unrelated to measures of intelligence on the Columbia Mental Maturity Test (Erickson, 1977), the McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised, or the Stanford-Binet Test (Paget, 1979). This indicates that something different from intelligence is being assessed by the TCAM (Torrance, 1979a). Torrance (1980) found that a low-level relationship between the TCAM and other measures of intelligence is observed by most of the users of the TCAM. Torrance (1981b) found no evidence of bias against sex, socio-economic status, or race in the TCAM scores. These scores are unrelated to sex (Bolen, 1976; Westra, 1978), race, previous nursery or preschool attendance (Bolen, 1976), socio-economic status (Haley, 1978), and cooperation (Ross, 1977, cited in Torrance, 1980). There was no bias toward city children identified when comparisons were made between city and remote-rural development centers (Smith & Downey, 1975). However, Westra (1978) found that children in a preschool rural setting scored significantly higher than children in a preschool city setting. Further inquiry demonstrated that Westra obtained these results because the preschool in the rural setting had actually practiced many creative learning activities. These findings provide further support for the fact that creativity can be learned even by the very young. The TCAM also measures the skill sets of special children such as the emotionally imbalanced and the deaf (Lubin, 1979; Lubin & Sherrill, 1979; Sherrill, 1985). No statistically significant differences were found between the TCAM scores for children with and without special needs for Fluency and Originality. However, such children scored below the age norms for Imagination (Cropley, 1987). Significant increases in the TCAM scores for children with special needs were reported when using a dance program for these children (Jay, 1991), creative drama as a therapeutic intervention for children with behavioral disorders (Warger & Kleman, 1986), and a 20-day program of creative movement exploration for deaf children (Lubin, 1979); (Lubin & Sherrill, 1979). According to Cooper (1991), the TCAM’s usefulness as a teaching tool is probably its most meritorious trait. Teachers’ awareness about the benefits of

27

The Two Pioneers of Research on Creative Giftedness

using creative movement and creative brainstorming techniques in preschool and lower elementary grades may be heightened after using the tests. This awareness may spawn curricula that focus on developing creative expression and problem solving. The TCAM has good reliability, proven validity, is easy to use, and is neutral with respect to a wide variety of factors such as gender, race, community status, language, and culture. The TCAM is important to the measurement of creativity because it provides the means to examine abilities in very young children and in children who have been excluded from other assessments (Renzulli & Rust, 1985) such as the handicapped.

579

The Manifesto for Children Torrance (1981a, 1994) argued that teachers who helped students fall in love with a subject so intensely that it became the center of their future career image were the ones who made a difference. He (1981a, 1993) found that the best predictor of future creative achievement was the image of the future and the passion that developed in a child. Torrance’s (2002) Manifesto for Children is based on these findings and shows the importance of a child pursuing his or her own interests. Torrance developed the Manifesto to describe children’s ongoing struggles to maintain creativity and use their strengths to create their careers. The Manifesto for Children provides guidance to children. It states the following:

1. Don’t be afraid to fall in love with something and pursue it with intensity. 2. Know, understand, practice, exploit, take pride in, Torrance was most proud of the Future Problem and enjoy your greatest strengths. Solving Program (FPSP) and the Incubation Model 3. Learn to free yourself from the expectations of othof Teaching, which he created to infuse creativity ers and to walk away from the games they impose into the school curriculum. Started in 1974, the FPSP on you. Free yourself to play your own game. is now an international program with over 250,000 4. Find a great teacher or mentor who will help you. student participants and over 40 affiliate programs (see 5. Don’t waste energy trying to be well-rounded. Cramond, this volume). 6. Do what you love and can do well. The Incubation Model of Teaching is a three7. Learn the skills of interdependence. dimensional curriculum model with the goal of encouraging children’s inherent curiosity. The model Creative students are natural outsiders who often includes methods for guiding students to think about flounder in attempts to meet seemingly contradictory what they have learned, delve into the topic by asking needs. Thus, Torrance’s (2002) Manifesto recognizes questions and experimenting, and, ultimately, use what that adult mentorship and understanding can have they have learned. a strong impact. Torrance (1962) urged teachers The Incubation Model of Teaching consists of three and counselors to help the creative students learn to interactive sequential stages. Stage 1 (Heightening Antolerate and understand their separateness, and find ticipation) prepares a student for creative activities. someone with whom they can communicate. Torrance believed that students must warm up for creative activities. This activity consists of a variety of different exercises designed to prepare a child for the lesson to follow. Stage 2 (Deepening Expectations) The Torrance Center for Creativity is intended to heighten the initial expectations even more to deepen the creative experience. It consists of and Talent Development eight information-processing strategies. Finally, Stage 3 (Keeping It Going) consists of more information- In 1984, the University of Georgia established the Torprocessing activities to encourage the student to prac- rance Center for Creativity and Talent Development tice creative behavior and keep the learning process (the Center) to recognize Torrance’s career (H´ebert active after the primary lesson (Torrance & Safter, et al., 2002). According to the mission of the Center (Torrance Center, 2007), 1990).

The Incubation Model of Teaching

580 The Torrance Center for Creativity & Talent Development is a service, research, and instructional center concerned with the identification and development of creative potential and with gifted and future studies. Its goals are to investigate, implement, and evaluate techniques for enhancing creative thinking and to facilitate national and international systems that support creative development. All programs and activities sponsored by the Torrance Center build on the legacy of Dr. Ellis Paul Torrance, a native Georgian and UGA Alumni Foundation Distinguished Professor Emeritus, who was a pioneer in research on the identification and development of creative potential.

The Center was proposed by Mary Frasier (1983 1 [the original proposed name of the Center was The Torrance Studies of Gifted, Creative and Future Behaviors, and was renamed later]) to continue Torrance’s legacy. Shortly after Torrance retired in 1984, the Center was established to continue his scholarly inquiry into the study, development, and evaluation of gifted and creative abilities in individuals from diverse age groups, cultures, and economic backgrounds (Childs, 2003). The Center was established to continue Torrance’s research, his educational programs, as well as to implement programs for children and youth, to sponsor an annual Torrance Lecture series and related seminars, and to endow a Torrance Chair at the University of Georgia (Frasier, 1983). The Center sponsors the FPSP and an Annual Torrance Lecture Series Program that features a person of national or international reputation who speaks on gifted education and creativity (H´ebert et al., 2002). The Center conducts periodic training on scoring the TTCT and sponsors a Visiting Scholars Program to encourage research by national and international scholars on creativity. The Center also developed the Torrance Library Archives program, which includes Torrance’s vast collection of materials on creativity, and is now the largest collection of information on gifted, creative, and future studies in the world.

References Albert, R. S. (1994). The contribution of early family history to the achievement of eminence. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & D. I. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development (pp. 311–360). Dayton: Ohio Psychological Press. Albert, R. S. (1996). Some reasons why childhood creativity often fails to make it past puberty into the real world. New Directions for Child Development, 72, 43–56. Ali-el-din, M. T. (1978). Torrance indicators of creative thinking: A developmental study (Doctoral dissertation, University of

K.H. Kim Georgia, 1978), Dissertation Abstracts International, 1979, 39 (7-a), 4129 (University Microfilms No. 70-10, 151). Ali-el-din, M. T. (1982). Humor production of highly creative children. Gifted Education International, 1, 129–134. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. American Psychological Association. (1971). Calvin W. Taylor: Richardson Creativity Award. American Psychologist, 26, 96–99. Anderson, K. E. (1961). Research on the academically talented student. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association Project on the Academically Talented Student. Baer, J. (1997). Creative Teachers, creative Students. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Ball, O. E., & Torrance, E. P. (1984). Streamlines scoring workbook: Figural A. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. Bolen, L. M. (1976). Effects of race, sex, and kindergarten attendance on the creative thinking of second graders. Unpublished document, Eastern Carolina University, Greenville, NC. Chase, C. I. (1985). Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. In J. V. Mitchell Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1631–1632). Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska. Childs, M. (2003, July 14). ‘Father of Creativity’ E. Paul Torrance dead at 87. The College of Education Online News, GA: The University of Georgia. Cooper, E. (1991). A critique of six measures for assessing creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 194–204. Cramond, B. (1993). The Torrance tests of creative thinking: From design through establishment of predictive validity. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 229–254). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cramond, B. (1994). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and creativity- What is the connection? Journal of Creative Behavior, 28, 193–210. Cropley, C. L. (1987). Divergent thinking in young handicapped children: An evaluation of Torrance’s Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement Test. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48(6-A), 1415. (UMI No.8713356). Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp.325–339). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Dacey, J. S. (1989). Discriminating characteristics of the families of highly creative adolescents. Journal of Creative Behavior, 23, 263–271. Datta, L. E., & Parloff, M. B. (1967). On the relevance of autonomy: Parent-child relationship and early scientific creativity. Proceedings of the 75th annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 2, 149–150. Daugherty, M., White, C. S., & Manning, B. H. (1994). Relationships among private speech and creativity measurements of young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 21–26. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1994). Education of the gifted and talented (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.

27

The Two Pioneers of Research on Creative Giftedness

Dewing, K. (1970). Family influence on creativity: A review and discussion. Journal of Special Education, 4, 399–404. Erickson, J. G. (1977). A study of the verbal productive humor of preschool children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38(10-A), 5999. (UMI No. 7803984). Foster, F. P. (1968). The human relationships of creative individuals. Journal of Creative Behavior, 2, 111–118. Frasier, M. M. (1983). A proposal for the Torrance Studies of Gifted, Creative, and Future Behaviors. Unpublished manuscript, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Gardner, H. (1993). Seven creators of the modern era. In J. Brockman (Ed.), Creativity (pp. 28–47). New York: Simon & Schuster. Gardner, K. G., & Moran, J. D. (1990). Family adaptability, cohesion, and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 281–286. Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1961). Family environment and cognitive style: A study of the sources of highly intelligent and of highly creative adolescents. American Sociological Review, 26, 351–360. Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill. Haley, G. A. L. (1978). Training advantaged and disadvantaged black kindergartners in sociodrama: Effects on creativity and free-recall variables of oral language. Dissertation Abstracts International, 39(7-A), 4139. (UMI No. 7901642). Halpin, W. G. (1973). A study of the life histories and creative abilities of potential teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 33(7-A), 3382. (UMI No. 7234083). Halpin, W. G., Payne, D. A., & Ellett, C. D. (1973). Biographical correlates of the creative personality: Gifted adolescents. Exceptional Children, 39, 652–653. H´ebert, T. P., Cramond, B., Neumeister, K. L. S., Millar, G., & Silvian, A. F. (2002). E. Paul Torrance: His life, accomplishments, and legacy. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT). Storrs, CT: The University of Connecticut. Hudson, C., & Stinnett, N. (1990). The relationship of family type to aspects of wellness of young children: Creativity and self-perceived competence. Wellness Perspectives, 6(3), 31–41. Jay, D. (1991). Effect of a dance program on the creativity of preschool handicapped children. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 8, 305–316. Jex, F. B. (1963). Negative validities for two different ingenuity tests. In C. W. Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity; Its recognition and development (pp. 299–301). Oxford, England: John Wiley. Johnson, A. S., & Fishkin, A. S. (1999). Assessment of cognitive and affective behaviors related to creativity. In A. S. Fishkin, B. Cramond, & P. OlszewskiKubilius (Eds.), Investigating creativity in youth: Research and methods (pp. 265–306). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc. Karnes, M. B., & Johnson, L. J. (1987). Bringing out Head Start talents: Finding from the field. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 174–179. Khatena, J. (1983). What schooling for the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27, 51–56. Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16, 57–66.

581 Kim, K. H. (2006a). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18, 3–14. Kim, K. H. (2006b) Torrance Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement Test. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Measurement & Statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kim, K. H. (2008). Meta-analyses of the relationship of creative achievement to both IQ and divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 106–130. Lloyd, B. (1983). Longitudinal effects of multiple talent training on 28 second grade students-the totem pole kids. Unpublished dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Lubin, E. N. (1979). Motor creativity of preschool deaf children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40(1-A), 154. (UMI No. 7915879). Lubin, E. N., & Sherrill, C. (1979). Motor creativity of preschool deaf children. Unpublished manuscript, University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Mellou, E. (1996). Can creativity be nurtured in young children? Early Child Development and Care, 11, 119–130. Mourad, S. A. (1976). A factor-analytic study of the streamlined scoring of Figural Form A of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Georgia. Oliphant, C. C. (1986). A descriptive study of factors associated with teacher identification of gifted students. (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 1691. Paget, K. D. (1979). Creativity and its correlates in emotionally disturbed preschool children. Psychological Reports, 44, 595–598. Papalia, D. E., & Olds, S. W. (1986). Human development (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Powell, K. (2003, July 16). Paul Torrance, writer, innovative educator. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, GA. Ralph, R. B., & Taylor, C. W. (1952). The role of tests in the medical selection program. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36, 107–111. Reisman, F. K., Floyd, B., & Torrance, E. P. (1981). Performance on Torrance’s Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement as a predictor of cognitive development of young children. Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 6, 205–209, 233. Renzulli, J., & Rust, J. O. (1985). Review of the Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement. In J. V. Mitchell Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (p. 1290). Lincoln: University of Nebraska, Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Richards, J. M., Taylor, C. W., & Price, B. P. (1962). The prediction of medical intern performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 142–146. Rimm, S. B., & Davis, G. A. (1976). GIFT: An instrument for the identification of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 10, 178–182. Ritchie, S. P. (1980). Creativity and risk-taking in young children. (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Greensboro). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 539. Robinson, A. W. (1980). A study of the effectiveness of a special class for academically gifted elementary students on the enhancement of the characteristics of giftedness. (Doctoral

582 dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 1380. Rungsinan, A. (1977). Originality, elaboration, resistance to quick closure, unusual visual perspective, and movement among second grade children in Thailand and the United States. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38(3-A), 1309. (UMI No. 7718939). Shearer, L. (2003, July 14). Former UGA professor Paul Torrance dies. OnlineAthens: Athens Banner-Herald, GA. Sherrill, C. (1985, October). Fostering creativity in handicapped children. Paper presented at the 5th International Symposium of the International Federation of Adapted Physical Activity, Toronto, Canada. Smith, J., & Downey, C. (1975). Competency on comparison of creativity skills of different groups of disadvantaged children. Unpublished manuscript, University of Georgia. Sprecher, T. B. (1963). A proposal for identifying the meaning of creativity. In C. W. Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity; Its recognition and development (pp. 77–88). Oxford, England: John Wiley. Swartz, J. D. (1988). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test Critique (Vol. 7, pp. 619–622). Kansas, MS: Test Corporation of America, a Subsidiary of Westport Publisher. Taylor, C. W. (1952). Pre-testing saves training costs. Personnel Psychology, 5, 213–239. Taylor, C. W. (1959). The 1955 and 1957 research conferences: The identification of creative scientific talent. American Psychologist, 14, 100–102. Taylor, C. W. (1963). History and acknowledgements: The first three Utah conferences on the identification of creative scientific talent. In C. W. Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity; Its recognition and development (pp. vii–xi). Oxford, England: John Wiley. Taylor, C. W. (1972). Can organizations be creative, too? In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), Climate for creativity: Report of the seventh National Research Conference on Creativity (pp. 1–22). Oxford, England: Pergamon. Taylor, C. W. (1974). New manpower section and educational programs for more effective health care performances. Professional Psychology, 5(1), 85–88. Taylor, C. W. (1984). Developing creative excellence in students: The neglected history-making ingredient which would keep our nation from being at risk. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 106–109. Taylor, C. W. (1986a). Cultivating simultaneous student growth in both multiple creative talents and knowledge. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.),Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 306–351). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press, Inc. Taylor, C. W. (1986b). The growing importance of creativity and leadership in spreading gifted and talented programs worldwide. Roeper Review, 8, 256–263. Taylor, C. W. (1988). Various approaches to and definitions of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 99–121). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, C. W., Albo, D., Holland, J., & Brandt, G. (1985). Attributes of excellence in various professions: Their relevance to the selection of gifted/talented persons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 29–34.

K.H. Kim Taylor, C. W., & Ellison, R. L. (1967). Biographical predictors of scientific performance. Science, 155, 1075–1080. Taylor, C. W., & Ellison, R. L. (1972). Predictors and criteria of creativity: A Utah progress report. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), Climate for creativity: Report of the seventh National Research Conference on Creativity (pp. 149–165). Oxford, England: Pergamon. Taylor, C. W., & Ellison, R. L. (1983). Searching for student talent resources relevant to our USDE types of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27, 99–106. Taylor, C. W., & Holland, J. L. (1962). Development and application of tests of creativity. Review of Educational Research, 32(1), 91–102. Taylor, C. W., Smith, W. R., & Ghiselin, B. (1963). The creativity and other contributions of one sample of research scientists. In C. W. Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 53–76). Oxford, England: John Wiley. Taylor, C. W., Price, P. B., Richards, J. M. Jr., & Jacobsen, T. L. (1964). An investigation of the criterion problem for a medical school faculty, Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, 294– 301. Taylor, C. W., Price, P. B., Richards, J. M. Jr., & Jacobsen, T. L. (1965). An investigation of the criterion problem for a group of medical general practitioners, Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 399–406. Tegano, D. W., Moran, J. D., & Godwin, L. J. (1986). Crossvalidation of two creativity tests designed for preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 387–396. Torff, B. (1999). Encouraging the creative voice of the child. The NAMTA Journal, 25, 194–214. Torrance, E. P. (1960). Eight partial replications of the GetzelsJackson study. Research Memo BER-60-18. Minneapolis, MN: Bureau of Educational Research, University of Minnesota. Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking – Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition – Verbal Tests, Forms A and B – Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press. Torrance, E. P. (1971). Are the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking biased against or in favor of “disadvantaged” groups? Gifted Child Quarterly, 15, 75–80. Torrance, E. P. (1974).The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking – Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition – Verbal Tests, Forms A and B – Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press. Torrance, E. P. (1977). Discovery and nurturance of giftedness in the culturally different. Reston, VA: Council on Exceptional Children. Torrance, E. P. (1979a).Administration, scoring, and norms manual: Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement (4th ed.). Athens, GA: The University of Georgia, Georgia Studies of Creative Behavior. Torrance, E. P. (1979b). The search for Satori and Creativity. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited. Torrance, E. P. (1980). Administration, scoring, and norms manual: Thinking creatively in action and movement (5th ed.). Athens, GA: The University of Georgia, Georgia Studies of Creative Behavior.

27

The Two Pioneers of Research on Creative Giftedness

Torrance, E. P. (1981a). Predicting the creativity of elementary school children (1958–80) and the teacher who “made a difference.” Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 55–62. Torrance, E. P. (1981b). Thinking creatively in action and movement. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 43–73). New York: Cambridge University Press. Torrance, E. P. (1990). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Norms-Technical Manual Figural (Streamlined) Forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. Torrance, E. P. (1993). The beyonders in a thirty year longitudinal study of creative achievement. Roeper Review, 15, 131–135. Torrance, E. P. (1994). Creativity: Just wanting to know. Pretoria, Republic of South Africa: Benedic Books. Torrance, E. P. (2000). Preschool creativity. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Psychoeducational assessment of preschool children (3rd ed., pp. 349–363). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Torrance, E. P. (2002). The Manifesto: A guide to developing a creative career. West Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing. Torrance Center for Creative & Talent Development (2007). Welcome. Retrieved May 15, 2007 from http://www.coe.uga.edu/torrance/index.html Torrance, E. P., & Safter, H. T. (1990). The Incubation Model: Getting beyond the aha! Buffalo, NY: Bearly. Torrance, E. P., & Torrance, P. (1972).Combining creative problem-solving with creative expressive activities in the ed-

583 ucation of disadvantaged young people, Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 1–10. Toynbee, A. (1964). Is America neglecting her creative minority talents? In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), Widening horizons in creativity (pp. 3–9). New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc. Toynbee, A. (1967). On the role of creativity in history. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), 30-page booklet. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press. Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. In J. V. Mitchell Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1632–1634). Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska. Tseng, A. T. (1973). Biographical Inventory: A cross cultural study, unpublished doctorial dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Wang, J. H.-T. (2003, April). The effects of a creative movement program on motor creativity of children ages three to five. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Philadelphia, PA. Warger, C. L., & Kleman, D. (1986). Developing positive selfconcepts in institutionalized children with severe behavior disorders. Child Welfare, 65, 165–176. Westra, D. (1978). An exploratory study of creative thinking in pre-kindergarten children from two selected preschool settings with implications for teacher education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 39(7-A), 4043. (UMI No. 7900760). Weyl, N. (1970). The potential role of the gifted in underdeveloped countries. Gifted Child Quarterly, 14, 29–35.

Chapter 28

Creative Giftedness: Beginnings, Developments, and Future Promises James C. Kaufman, Scott B. Kaufman, Ronald A. Beghetto, Sarah A. Burgess and Roland S. Persson

Abstract Although the concept of creative giftedness is still a comparatively new one, the benefits of applying research from this area are already making themselves known. Among these benefits are the tremendous advantages of including creativity in models of giftedness. In this chapter we first highlight how creative giftedness research has differentiated itself from intelligence. Next, we will describe four recent models of giftedness (the three-ring model of giftedness, the DMGT model, the WICS model, and the Feldman developmentalist position) that all involve a creative component. We will also cover recent advances in creativity research that have implications for creative giftedness such as the concept of “mini-c” (as opposed to Big-C and little-c). In conclusion, we argue the promise of dynamic assessment especially for creativity testing.

articulated, and “mastery models,” which focus more on individual differences and strengths. Many recent models of giftedness are mastery models and detail several specific areas and ways that people can be gifted. Most of these models include creativity as a key component. Creativity researchers and scholars generally agree that creativity involves the combination of novelty and appropriateness. Sternberg, Kaufman, and Pretz, (2002) and Baer (1997), for example, state that a product, idea, or behavior must be something new, different or unique to be considered creative. Uniqueness alone, however, is not sufficient to classify something as “creative.” Rather, in order for an idea, product, or behavior to be considered creative, it must also be useful, appropriate, or relevant as defined within some socio-cultural context (Plucker, Beghetto & Dow, 2004). For instance, in order for a child’s Keywords Giftedness · Giftedness models · Cre- unique science fair project to be considered creative, ativity · Creative giftedness · Intelligence · Dynamic it must also conform to the conventions of scientific inquiry and other relevant criteria established by the assessment organizers of that particular science fair. Given this definition of creativity, a creatively gifted child would be considered exceptional in his or her ability (or Creative Giftedness: An Introduction potential ability) to produce unique and adaptive ideas, solutions, behaviors, and insights. The defining characteristics of giftedness and the Although it is a key aspect of many modern modfactors that play into being gifted shift frequently. els of giftedness, creativity was historically left undisIn a recent review of the field, Matthews and Foster cussed in gifted education. A key reason for this late (2006) distinguish between two models of giftedness: emergence was that creativity was often confounded “mystery models,” in which students are labeled with more general conceptions of intelligence and high gifted but their specific strengths or abilities are not ability. Increasingly, however, researchers and scholars of gifted education differentiate creativity from intelligence and instead include it as a central part of the J.C. Kaufman (B) gifted experience. Moreover, recent advances in creCalifornia State University, San Bernardino, CA, USA ativity theory expand the definition of creativity and e-mail: [email protected] L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 28, 

585

586

point to exciting new directions for conceptualizing, assessing, and realizing the potential of creative giftedness. In this chapter, we will briefly highlight how creative giftedness research developed independently from intelligence research, describe some of the recent theories, and then go into more details about recent advances in creativity research that may have exciting and important implications for giftedness

A Brief Historical Overview The role of creativity in conceptions of giftedness was not widely acknowledged until more than 50 years after Terman (1916) first used intelligence tests to identify gifted schoolchildren. Prior to that time, giftedness generally translated to little more than high IQ scores and creativity was subsumed within IQ. There were, however, a few early pioneers who included creativity in their conceptions of giftedness. The post-Sputnik push toward creativity (see Stoeger’s chapter on the history of giftedness research, this volume) was led by Calvin Taylor, who spearheaded several conferences and meetings devoted to the study and nurturance of scientific creativity. He specifically focused on the multiple creative talent teaching approach, in which a wide variety of abilities and talents (including creativity) would be used to determine student giftedness. Taylor continued to promote the need for science and schools to recognize the importance of creativity for more than 40 years (Plucker, 2003; Taylor, 1984). Another key pioneer in the area of creative giftedness was E. Paul Torrance. Perhaps his most important contributions were the many tests which bear his name; they are still the primary methods by which creativity is assessed. The Torrance Tests of Critical Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1966, 1974, 1990; see also 1972, 1984, 1988), according to one comprehensive survey of creativity research (Torrance & Presbury, 1984), were used in 75% of all published studies of creativity involving elementary- and secondary-school students and in 40% of all creativity studies with college students and adults. The Torrance tests dominate the field of creativity research to such an extent that they served as a pivotal criterion in a meta-analysis examining the long-term effects of various creativity training programs (Rose & Lin, 1984).

J.C. Kaufman et al.

The TTCT, based on Guilford’s divergent thinking work (1967), measures creativity with both verbal and figural forms that each have a form A and a form B that can be used alternately. The figural forms have three subtests:

r r r

Picture construction, in which a participant uses a basic shape and expands on it to create a picture Picture completion, in which a participant is asked to finish and title incomplete drawings Lines/circles, in which a participant is asked to modify many different series of lines or circles (depending on the edition) The verbal form has seven subtests:

r r r r r r r

Asking, in which a participant asks as many questions as he or she can about a given picture Guessing causes, in which a participant postulates as many possible causes for a pictured action Guessing consequences, in which a participant postulates as many possible consequences for a pictured action Product improvement, in which a participant is asked to make changes to improve a toy Unusual uses, in which a participant is asked to think of many different possible uses for an ordinary item Unusual questions, in which a participant asks as many questions as possible about an ordinary item Just suppose, in which a participant is asked to “just suppose” that an improbable situation has happened (a made-up example might be, “What if elephants could talk?”), and then list the various ramifications

Creativity Measures and Culture Fairness The advantages of using creativity measures (such as the TTCT) to supplement measures of IQ in determining giftedness are particularly important for children from under-represented groups (i.e., racial, ethnic, and linguistic minority children). Traditional IQ tests historically demonstrate differences between racial/ethnic groups, resulting in an under-representation of minority children in gifted programs and raising concerns about cultural bias (Gordon & Bridglall, 2005). However, the same cannot be said for creativity tests.

28

Creative Giftedness: Beginnings, Developments, and Future Promises

Most creativity researchers discover few differences between African Americans and European Americans. These findings have been fairly consistent regardless of the type of measurement utilized. The TTCT and other divergent thinking measures with verbal and figural forms are used extensively in these studies (e.g., Glover, 1976; Iscoe & Pierce-Jones, 1964; Kaltsounis, 1974; Knox & Glover, 1978; Torrance, 1971, 1973). Studies using questionnaires to measure creative accomplishments (Stricker, Rock & Bennett, 2001) as well as studies focusing on the ability to be trained on creativity tasks (Moreno & Hogan, 1976) also found no differences between the two groups. Kaufman, Baer, and Gentile (2004) employed poems, stories, and personal narratives written by African American and European American eighth grade students to assess creative differences. Expert judges (individuals with appropriate writing experience) assigned similar creativity scores to both ethnic groups. Indeed, some of the only differences discovered tend to favor African Americans. Torrance (1971, 1973) found that African American children scored higher on the TTCT than European American children on the figural tests in fluency, flexibility, and originality. European Americans, on the other hand, scored higher on figural elaboration and all verbal subtests. The initial sample compared African American children in Georgia with higher-socioeconomic status children in Minnesota; when Torrance tested European Americans also from Georgia, all differences were significantly reduced. Kaltsounis (1974) also found that African Americans received higher fluency and originality scores on the TTCT. Differences also emerge when comparing African American students to students in other, non-Caucasian ethnic groups. Troiano and Bracken (1983) gave measures of creative thinking to three kindergarten classes (Dutch Americans, African Americans, and Native Americans). They found that African Americans and Native Americans scored approximately one standard deviation higher on creative thinking, with the most notable difference in fluency, than the Dutch Americans. Kaufman (2006) asked 3,553 individuals (mostly high school and college students) to rate themselves in 56 different domains of creativity. African Americans rated themselves as significantly higher than at least one other ethnicity on all factors; all ethnicities except for Asian Americans rated

587

themselves higher than another ethnicity on at least one factor. Studies of creativity in Hispanic Americans and European Americans tend to find different results depending on whether the creativity measure is verbal or nonverbal. For example, Argulewicz and Kush, (1984) found that European Americans scored higher than Hispanic Americans on three of four TTCT verbal forms, but found no significant differences on the figural forms. Studies using only nonverbal assessments have typically found no differences (e.g., Argulewicz, Elliott, & Hall, 1982) or show a slight advantage for bilingual Hispanic Americans (Kessler & Quinn, 1987; Price-Williams & Ramirez, 1977). Results are less clear for Asian Americans. Artwork produced by American college students was rated as more creative than art produced by Chinese students by both American and Chinese raters (Niu & Sternberg, 2001). A similar study that compared American and Chinese drawings of geometric shapes, however, found that the two groups were rated similarly for creativity by both American and Chinese raters (Chen et al., 2002). There were no differences in rated artwork between Chinese and British school children, except for the higher ratings earned by Chinese children who attended a weekend art school (Cox, Perara & Fan, 1998). Another study found that Japanese children produced higher rated drawings than British children (Cox, Koyasu, Hiranuma & Perara, 2001). Few studies compare Asian Americans to Americans of different ethnicities. Rostan, Pariser, and Gruber (2002) studied Chinese American and European American students’ artwork, with two groups in each culture: students with additional art training and classes and students with no such classes. Each group’s artwork (one drawing from life and one drawing from imagination) was judged by both Chinese and American judges. There were no significant differences between cultures from either set of judges, only between art students versus non-art students. Niu and Sternberg (2003) found no significant differences on collage-making and drawing tasks between Asian American students and non-Asian Americans. Chen et al. (2005) studied Asian Americans and non-Asian Americans and found no differences in measures of verbal, mathematical, and artistic creativity. Studies utilizing the TTCT often show Western cultures outperforming Eastern cultures. American college students scored higher on the TTCT than

588

Japanese college students in one study (Saeki, Fan, & Van Dusen, 2001), and Americans from five different age groups scored higher than similar individuals from Hong Kong (Jaquish & Ripple, 1984). School children in Hong Kong scored higher on the figural form of the TTCT than their counterparts in Taiwan, Singapore, and America, but lower than German children; on the verbal form, the results were in the opposite order (Rudowicz, Lok & Kitto, 1995). Other means of assessment show mixed cross-cultural results. Malaysian students scored higher than American, Indian, and Hungarian students on one self-report measure of creativity, but American students scored higher than Malaysian students on a different self-report measure (Palaniappan, 1996). In sum, the development and use of creativity measures have helped to differentiate creativity from IQ and spurred broader, more nuanced conceptions of giftedness, one reason being that creativity measures appear much less culture dependent than most IQ measures. This differentiation between creativity and IQ serves as an important initial step in addressing historical inequities in determining who will (or will not) qualify as “gifted.” Moreover, the recognition that creativity should be considered as a construct in its own right, separate from IQ but central to giftedness, is most clearly seen in the modern models of giftedness in which creativity plays a central role.

Creativity and Modern Conceptions of Giftedness The Marland Report (1972) was most likely the first official document explicitly including creativity as an integral part of giftedness. Despite its limitations, the report proved a crucial moment for expanding conceptions of giftedness to include creativity. In the years following the Marland’s report, scholars of giftedness (recognizing both the importance of creativity and the differences between creativity and intelligence) developed models of giftedness that included creativity in some fashion. In this section, we will briefly consider four such models and examine what role creativity plays in more modern conceptions of giftedness. It is not the purpose of this chapter to outline all modern theories of giftedness but rather to highlight those that include creativity as a central

J.C. Kaufman et al.

tenet. We will discuss Renzulli’s three-ring definition of giftedness, Gagn´e’s differentiated model of gifted and talent (DMGT), Feldman’s developmentalist position, and Sternberg’s wisdom, intelligence, creativity, synthesized model (WICS). Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) will also need to be mentioned in this context albeit not being an explicit model of giftedness.

The Three-Ring Model and Creativity Renzulli was one of the first researchers to emphasize creativity in a testable theory of giftedness (Renzulli, 1978). He proposed that there are two types of giftedness: schoolhouse giftedness and creative-productive giftedness. Schoolhouse giftedness is best described as test-taking or lesson-learning giftedness and is the form of giftedness most often emphasized in school. Creative-productive giftedness refers to an unusual aptitude for generation. In other words, those who display creative-productive giftedness are excellent producers of knowledge while those high in schoolhouse giftedness are superior consumers of knowledge. As Renzulli argues (2005), History tells us it has been the creative and productive people of the world, the producers rather than consumers of knowledge, the reconstructionists of thought in all areas of human endeavor, who have become recognized as “truly gifted” individuals. History does not remember persons who merely scored well on IQ tests. . . . (p. 256)

Emphasizing the need for researchers to identify and promote students who demonstrate potential for producing knowledge, Joseph Renzulli’s (1978, 2005) model views giftedness as the interaction of three characteristics: well above-average ability, creativity, and task commitment. According to Renzulli, each characteristic plays an important role in the development of gifted behavior. Well above-average ability is defined by Renzulli as either general ability that can be applied across all domains or specific ability, which consists of the ability to perform at a high level within a specific domain. Renzulli defines well above-average ability as that possessed by those individuals performing in the top 15–20% of any domain. This view differs from the traditional view of giftedness as comprising those scoring in the top 3–5% on a standardized measure of intelligence (i.e., Marland, 1972).

28

Creative Giftedness: Beginnings, Developments, and Future Promises

There is research evidence supporting the components of Renzulli’s model. Delisle and Renzulli (1982) found that nonintellective factors are just as important for creative production as intellectual factors are. The model is also supported by the work of Gubbins (1982), who showed through stepwise multiple regression that above-average ability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for high-level creative productivity. Also of importance are factors such as task commitment, time commitment, and student interest: all of which are factors that are directly related to Renzulli’s model. Renzulli first proposed the three aspects of giftedness based on data from accomplished adults (Renzulli, 1978) and has been criticized for not demonstrating correlations between later life achievements and the traits or experiences of children with various levels of IQ (Delisle, 2003). Nonetheless, his model benefits from its inclusion of multiple interacting factors and the broadening of criteria used in selection of gifted students. In addition, Renzulli emphasized the need to develop creative-productive skills in addition to knowledge acquisition and presented evidence that his broadened identification procedures do indeed reduce inequalities such as a disproportionate representation of minorities in gifted education programs and gender equity (Renzulli, 1999).

The DMGT Model and Creativity Franc¸oys Gagn´e (2005) proposed a theory of giftedness that emphasizes the talent-development process. Gagn´e notes that the words gifted and talent are often used interchangeably (i.e., Marland, 1972) in the field of gifted education, and uses the idea that the two words have independent meanings as a basis for his Differentiated Model of Gifted and Talented (DMGT). The DMGT model is developmental in nature as it posits that talent development corresponds to the transformation of outstanding natural gifts into the skills characteristic of a particular occupational field (Gagn´e, 2005). Gagn´e argues that giftedness (or aptitudes) can be described as natural ability in a particular domain, whereas talent (or achievement) is systematically developed skills in a particular talent field (Gagn´e, 1999). According to the model, natural abilities or aptitudes act as the “raw material” or the constituent elements

589

of talents (Gagn´e, 1993). Gagn´e posits that those who belong to approximately the top 10% of the relevant reference group in terms of aptitudes (for giftedness) or achievement (for talent) merit the label gifted or talented. Gagne also stresses the importance of identifying different levels of giftedness, pointing to the research showing that extraordinarily gifted children (children in the top .001% of the population) have different needs than mildly gifted children (those in the top 10% of the population). On the giftedness side of the model, Gagn´e defines four aptitudes that have a clear genetic substratum and can be observed in every task children are confronted with in school since environment and learning have not exerted much influence on them yet. These aptitudes (or natural abilities) include intellectual abilities (reasoning, memory, metacognition, etc.), creative abilities (imagination, originality, fluency, and so on), socioaffective abilities (for example, perceptiveness, communication, empathy), and sensorimotor abilities (strength, endurance, coordination, to name a few). On the talents side are systematically developed skills such as academics, leisure, technology, arts, social action, business, technology, and athletics. During the course of the development of gifts into talents, the DMGT model consists of four components that help represent the talent-development process. These include four catalysts: (a) intrapersonal catalysts, (b) environmental catalysts, (c) chance and (d) learning/practice. Catalysts are defined as elements that contribute to the final gifted product. They also vary to the degree which they (a) make a positive or negative contribution to the final product and (b) make a causal impact on the developmental process. As is the case with any theory of giftedness that incorporates many factors and a large literature, there are concerns that the model both oversimplifies the dynamic and complex processes and relationships (see Baer & Kaufman, 2004; Dai, 2004; Feldhusen, 2004; Porath, 2004; Simonton, 2004) and overcomplicates the distinction between talents and gifts (Guenther, 2004). Still, the DMGT model of talent development makes a strong contribution to the field of gifted education for a number of reasons. First, it helps clarify the definitions of giftedness and talent, two terms that have often been used synonymously in the field. Second, it identifies creativity as one of the key gifted aptitudes. Even though most other modern theories of giftedness

590

emphasize the distinction between intellectual abilities and creative abilities, they are relatively agnostic as to the influence of genes on these abilities. Gagn´e’s model is therefore unique in its conceptualization of creativity as mostly innate. Third, the model incorporates a great number of factors that serve as catalysts in the development of talents from gifts.

J.C. Kaufman et al.

1993c; and Gruber, 1981) as a way of instantiating the confluence of these dimensions. Feldman (1999) also points out how these dimensions can delay the recognition of creative giftedness (e.g., Rembrandt’s creativity being recognized posthumously) or even impede the development and expression of creative giftedness (e.g., some religions placing restrictions on the careers pursued by females). Feldman’s representation of the development of creative giftedness as being a complex, multifaceted conCreativity and Feldman’s fluence of factors aligns with those of other creativDevelopmentalist Perspective ity researchers (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1999; Gardner, 1993; Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). Although his develDavid Henry Feldman views creativity from a devel- opmental perspective is more of a position than a comopmental perspective; that is, he asserts that creativity plete testable theory, his extensive review of the develis involved in most any example of developing knowl- opmental and creativity literature makes a significant edge (Feldman, 1999; Feldman & Gardner, 2003) – ev- contribution with respect to highlighting the complexerything from more universal individual advancements ity and multifaceted nature of the development of crein understanding (e.g., a child’s understanding of the ative giftedness. conservation of matter) to the highly unique, nonuniversal breakthroughs in thinking (Einstein’s theory of relativity). Although he recognizes that creativity is inThe WICS Model of Giftedness and volved virtually in all developmental advancements (be they ubiquitous or extremely rare), much of his work Creativity is focused on factors that support the developmental advancement of nonuniversal, or eminent, examples of One of the most active giftedness research centers in creativity – or, in his words, creative advancements in the country is that of The PACE (Psychology of Abiliknowledge that ultimately can be labeled as “works of ties, Competencies, and Expertise) Center at Tufts Unigenius” (see Feldman, 1980, 1986, 1999; Feldman & versity directed by Robert Sternberg. The model underGardner, 2003). Thus, Feldman is most interested in lying the PACE Center’s research on gifted education the development of creative giftedness (i.e., unambigu- is the WICS model (Sternberg, 2003). The WICS theory is domain general in nature, in that the aspects are ous, eminent forms of creativity). Feldman posited a confluence of factors (or dimen- not tied to a particular domain, but are thought to cut sions) that he believes are necessary for understand- across all learning. In the WICS model of giftedness, ing the complex, multifaceted, and interactive develop- giftedness is conceptualized as a synthesis of wisdom, ment of creative giftedness. Those dimensions include intelligence, and creativity (Sternberg, 2003, 2005). The first component, wisdom, is defined as the appli(a) cognitive processes, (b) social/emotional processes, (c) family aspects (i.e., birth order and gender within cation of intelligence and creativity as mediated by valthe family), (d) education and preparation (informal ues toward the achievement of a common good through and formal), (e) characteristics of the domain and field, a balance among (a) intrapersonal, (b) interpersonal, (f) social/cultural contextual aspects, and (g) historical and (c) extrapersonal interests, over the (a) short and (b) long terms, in order to achieve a balance among (a) forces, events, trends (Feldman, 1999). According to Feldman’s developmentalist adaptation to existing environments, (b) shaping of experspective, each of these dimensions (and pos- isting environments, and (c) selection of new environsibly others) interact to establish the conditions ments (Sternberg, 2005). According to Sternberg, the necessary for the development and realization of wise individual must balance various self-interests (increative giftedness. Feldman (1999) points to case trapersonal interests) with the interests of others (interstudies of creatively gifted individuals (e.g., case personal interests) and of other aspects of the context studies of eminent creators developed by Gardner, in which one lives (extrapersonal interests). Without

28

Creative Giftedness: Beginnings, Developments, and Future Promises

wisdom, Sternberg believes the gifted individual may apply their intelligence to achieve selfish means. In order to be truly worthy of the label gifted, the individual needs to seek outcomes that achieve the common good. The second component, intelligence, is based on the theory of successful intelligence in which intelligence is defined as the ability to achieve success in life by capitalizing on strengths and correcting or compensating for weaknesses, in order to adapt to, shape, and select environments, through a balance of analytical, creative, and practical abilities (Sternberg, 1985, 1997, 2000, 2002). Analytical intelligence is required to solve problems and judge the quality of ideas. Creative intelligence is required to formulate good problems and solutions. Practical intelligence is needed to use the ideas and analysis in an effective way in one’s everyday life. The third component of the WICS model, creativity, is based on the investment theory of creativity, which views creativity largely as a decision (Sternberg, 2003; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995, 1996). Creative individuals generate ideas that are initially undervalued, and may be rejected by the public. After convincing other people of its value, the creative person will then sell high by leaving the idea to others and moving on to another idea. Also, since creativity is viewed largely as a decision, strategies to develop creativity have been proposed (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2000). The list of strategies includes (but are not limited to) redefining problems, questioning assumptions, willingness to surmount obstacles, willingness to take sensible risks, tolerance of ambiguity, and self-efficacy. Even though research into the wisdom component is relatively recent (Sternberg, 1998), the most extensively researched component is the final component: successful intelligence. The successful intelligence component shows particular promise in the identification and education of gifted students, minority students and those coming from a lower socioeconomic background (Grigorenko, Jarvin, & Sternberg, 2002; Kaufman & Sternberg, 2008; Sternberg, Ferrari, Clinkenbeard, & Grigorenko, 1996; Sternberg, Grigorenko, Ferrari & Clinkenbeard, 1999; Sternberg, Torff, & Grigorenko, 1998). In addition, Sternberg’s research team developed new assessments that may eventually change the way giftedness researchers measure creative giftedness. One new test, the Rainbow assessment, has been found to roughly double prediction of the SAT for freshman

591

college grades in a diverse sample of students and substantially reduce ethnic-group differences in test scores. The assessment measures creative and practical skills in addition to analytical skills. The creative measures, which required students to provide captions for cartoons, compose oral and written stories, and answer multiple choice questions, were the most useful in increasing prediction (Sternberg & the Rainbow Project Collaborators, 2006). Although the WICS model received criticisms regarding its scope and application (see Baker & Cote, 2003; Feldhusen, 2003; Heller, 2003), the different components of the WICS model represent a clear example of how creativity occupies a central role in modern conceptions of giftedness and can be applied to a school setting with promising results.

Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences It is necessary in this context to also mention The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1983). Although not a model of giftedness as such, its relevance to creativity theory is inevitable, and therefore also relevant when considering creative giftedness in recent models of giftedness. In 1983, Howard Gardner published his first edition of Frames of Mind. The book, which became extremely popular among educators, detailed his intelligences model of intellectual ability (1983, 1993a, 1999) and stressed the need for educators and psychologists to broaden their definitions of human intelligence. Although intelligence is the focus of Gardner’s theory, MI theory offers an important framework for considering creative development and achievement. In fact, Gardner used his MI theory to examine the relationship between early giftedness and the later achievement of highly creative individuals (Gardner, 1993b). Moreover, MI theory represents an important conceptual shift in expanding what might be considered intelligent behavior and, in turn, has the possibility to broaden the representations of creative giftedness. It does so by addressing a key debate among creativity scholars, specifically the general-domain specificity question in creativity research (see Kaufman & Baer, 2005; Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Singer, 2004). The domain debate centers on the question of whether creativity is domain general or domain specific.

592

Gardner defined intelligence as “an ability or set of abilities that permit an individual to solve problems or fashion products that are of consequence in a particular cultural setting” (Ramos-Ford & Gardner, 1997, p. 55). He conducted an extensive review of the literature and defined eight separate intelligences using eight specific criteria (see Gardner, 1983). The eight intelligences he proposed are linguistic (used when writing a novel. See also chapter on giftedness in literacy by Schnur and Marmor, this volume), logical-mathematical (used when solving a mathematical problem), spatial (used when mentally rotating objects), musical (used in performing or composing music), bodily kinesthetic (used in dancing or playing sports), interpersonal (used in understanding and interacting with other people), intrapersonal (used in understanding oneself), and naturalist (used in discerning patterns in nature). Additional intelligences are currently being considered, such as spiritual and existential intelligence, although Gardner has suggested that existential intelligence does not exist (Gardner, 1999). Gardner’s theory is largely domain specific in the sense that he highlights certain domains in which each of his intelligences is most important. However, his theory also has a domain general component, as many of his intelligences can apply to a variety of different domains and in different combinations (Connell, Sheridan, & Gardner, 2003). Gardner’s theory has faced several criticisms. These criticisms usually focus on the lack of comprehensive empirical tests of the theory and mixed results pertaining to the psychometric soundness of assessments used to test the various intelligences (cf., Gardner, Feldman, & Krechevsky, 1998; Plucker, Callahan, & Tomchin, 1996; Visser, Ashton, & Vernon, 2006).

Creativity and Selected Giftedness Models in Sum In conclusion, the models of giftedness reviewed in this section represent various modern perspectives on giftedness. Common among them is the recognition that creativity plays a central role in how giftedness is conceptualized. However, conceptions of giftedness shift frequently. Although it seems likely that creativity will continue to serve as a key factor in current and future models of giftedness, the exact role creativity will

J.C. Kaufman et al.

come to play in conceptions of giftedness remains unknown. Creativity theory and research is an extremely active area of scholarly inquiry. Consequently, new developments in how creativity is (and will be) conceptualized likely will lead to new directions for giftedness, in determining not only what is meant by creative giftedness but also how creative potential can best be identified and realized. One significant issue currently much discussed concerns how to reconcile the two extreme sides of generality and specificity (cf. Lubart & Guignard, 2004). For instance, the hybrid model (Plucker & Beghetto, 2004) argues that it is important to recognize both domain-general (the importance of novelty and relevance) and domain-specific (the importance of developing domain-specific knowledge) aspects of creativity (an assertion similar to that of MI theory). In addition, the Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) model (Baer & Kaufman, 2005; Kaufman & Baer, 2004, 2006) puts forth a pyramid of levels of specificity. The APT model begins with initial requirements (things that are true for any type of creative act) and moves down to microdomains (distinctions that may be found between writing short stories and writing plays, for example). In the following we discuss how the most recent advances in creativity theory highlight important new directions for giftedness.

New Conceptions of Creativity and New Directions for Giftedness Traditional approaches to creativity focus on genius, or eminent, creativity (often called Big-C), and everyday creativity (often called little-c). Much of the early work by Terman, for example, focused on students with the potential to reach Big-C (e.g., Shurkin, 1992; Terman, 1924). Perhaps most relevant to creative giftedness in the classroom, however, is a newly proposed construct called “mini-c” (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007). Mini-c creativity has its basis in Runco’s, (1996, 2004) concept of “personal creativity” as well as recent developmental work involving creativity (Beghetto & Plucker, 2006; Cohen, 1989; Sawyer et al., 2003). Beghetto & Kaufman (2007) define mini-c creativity as novel and personally meaningful interpretations of experiences, actions, and events (which can later evolve into little-c or even Big-C creative contributions).

28

Creative Giftedness: Beginnings, Developments, and Future Promises

Beghetto and Kaufman (2007) argue that mini-c is a construct that deserves its own terminology because the current construct of little-c creativity is not inclusive enough to accommodate the personal creative processes involved in students’ creative development. Using an ill-fitting definition of little-c creativity can, for example, obscure the standards by which we measure student creativity. We may know they arre not at the Big-C level – most teachers will never have an Einstein in class – but even if we lump them together with everyone else in the little-c category, they get shortchanged. An eighth grade student’s insights into how citizens might better make their voices heard in the political process are placed in the same category as the ideas of a noted political scientist – by definition, it is all “little-c.” A distinction between Big-C creativity and little-c, Beghetto and Kaufman (2007) argue, is necessary but not sufficient. An additional distinction between little-c and mini-c creativity helps to highlight the importance of considering the developmental nature of creativity (see Table 28.1 for an overview of this terminology). Consider, for instance, the definition of creativity proposed by Plucker et al. (2004): “Creativity is the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context” (p. 90). At the Big-C level, novelty and usefulness are automatically assumed to be present. For example, a discussion of the works of Mozart or Gershwin or Sondheim does not need to start by asserting how their music is new or useful; the larger question instead rests on how these creators have impacted the field of music and influenced generations of young composers. Although novelty and meaningfulness still serve as the two key definitional components of mini-c creativity, the initial judgment of novelty and meaningfulness is a self-judgment of the creator rather than an external or historical judgment of the creator’s

593

work and impact. It is this intrapersonal judgment of mini-c creativity that both distinguishes mini-c from and links mini-c to other forms of creative expression. It is a distinguishing feature of mini-c because, unlike little-c and Big-C, creative interpretations need not be novel or even meaningful to anyone but the creator. At the same time, intrapersonal judgment links mini-c to other forms of creative expression because, according to this view, all later forms of creative expression are thought to first start as mini-c (creative interpretations) and only later articulated and vetted interpersonally (little-c) and historically (Big-C). Mini-c, because it broadens traditional conceptions of creativity, highlights important new directions for giftedness in at least two ways. First, it represents a starting point on the continuum of creativity (Cohen, 1989). As such, research on identifying and educating the creatively gifted must expand its focus to include not only creative achievements (be they little-c or Big-C) but also the genesis of those achievements. This focus is particularly important for the classroom as it highlights the need for researchers and educators to identify and cultivate creative potential rather than simply recognizing creative accomplishments. Indeed, as Runco (2004) noted, a singular focus on creative productivity may leave the potential of those who may be on a trajectory for little-c (or perhaps even Big-C) creativity unrecognized. Second, mini-c highlights the importance of recognizing creative interpretations of students as important indicators of creative potential. This will require new directions in how creativity is assessed, monitored, and developed. Reliance on traditional measures of creativity will need to be augmented or replaced with alternative forms of assessment (e.g., dynamic assessments) that are aimed at identifying and monitoring the growing creative competence of students (see Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002, for a review of dynamic assessment techniques).

Table 28.1 An overview of recent terms in current use to outline various aspects of creativity. Note that terms are in a developmental order: mini-c and little-c, respectively, may develop into Big-C Term

Definition

References

mini-c

Personal, novel, and personally meaningful interpretations of experiences, actions, events Interaction between aptitude, process and environment producing novel and useful products Fully fledged creative giftedness

(Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007)

little-c Big-C

(Plucker et al., 2004) (Terman, 1924; Shurkin, 1992)

594

Future Creativity Testing: The Promise of Dynamic Assessment As previously mentioned intelligence testing played a central and somewhat unanticipated role in the emergence of research on giftedness and efforts aimed at identifying and educating gifted children. In the early years, the point of being assessed with an IQ test was to get one score that was often treated as a magic number that could open or shut doors of opportunity. The IQ score itself is not the only part of IQ assessment that is criticized; the tests that generate those scores and the decisions based on those scores are also regarded with some scrutiny. As we mentioned earlier, one key criticism surrounds the potential for such tests to be culturally biased. Given that minority students are both historically and currently under-represented in gifted programs (Gordon & Bridglall, 2005), such concerns cannot be taken lightly. Although standardized measures of creativity presently have not demonstrated similar problems with respect to (mis)identification of creative ability across ethnic groups, such measures still represent a narrow representation of creativity when considered in light of mini-c. Most standardized assessments of creativity are geared toward a single number or score, mirroring one of the key arguing points in the IQ debate. A more recent philosophy of IQ testing, which we believe can be applied to creativity assessment, is that of intelligent testing (Kaufman, 1994; see also Kaufman & Baer, 2006). Using this system of intelligent testing, the tester is elevated above the test. The single number or score by itself means little; the context is the key component in this holistic method of assessment. During intelligent testing, the persons administering the test are expected to use their qualifications and training and bring their own experience to the testing session. In this manner, the tester can help the child or adult being tested by understanding and interpreting a wide range of behaviors and making inferences about any observed problem solving strategies. Every aspect of psychological assessment is brought into play to interpret a profile of scores in the context of accumulated research. This profile is used to help solve problems and create solutions for the person tested, not merely as a label or classification system (Kaufman, 1994).

J.C. Kaufman et al.

A qualified tester using intelligent testing to assess creativity would be well versed in the fields of social, cognitive, educational, and other appropriate areas of psychology. The pattern of scores in the different domains could be interpreted for its comparative strengths and weaknesses. In addition, an administrator using the intelligent testing approach could look for signs of insufficient motivation, a thinking style that might conflict with the task, or other additional areas that could be improved for enhanced creative potential (see also Kaufman & Baer, 2006). Such intelligent testing might add to our understanding of students’ cognitive abilities and potential by providing additional information beyond that given by scores on other tests (IQ tests, for example). If it could be shown that some race, ethnic group, or gender differences in testing were systematically related to testable differences in creativity, such creativity scores could also shed light on how best to interpret IQ and other test scores of minority group members and perhaps even provide a means to help attenuate error variance due to bias in testing. These hopeful outcomes depend, of course, on the development of more valid, reliable, and meaningful creativity tests. Alternative assessments, based on a deeper understanding of the full continuum of creativity, may also make this possible. Dynamic assessments provide a particularly promising alternative to traditional creativity tests. As Kozulin and Garb (2004) explained, the aim of dynamic assessments is to identify and help students realize their potential during the assessment session rather than focus on the already attained knowledge and skills that traditional assessments tend to accentuate. Sternberg & Grigorenko, (2002) described two general formats of dynamic assessments: the cake format and the sandwich format. In the cake format, instructional support is layered between testing items, whereas the sandwich format involves sandwiching instruction between a pretest and posttest. Although there are variations in format, the commonality across most forms of dynamic assessments is the goal of determining what students can do on their own first and then identifying what students can do with assistance from others by providing tailored instructional support. Thus, dynamic assessments are aimed at identifying students’ potential and, in turn, helping students realize that potential. At this point, we are unaware of any researchers using dynamic testing to assess and help realize students’

28

Creative Giftedness: Beginnings, Developments, and Future Promises

creative potential; however, given the promising results of this form of assessment in assessing academic skills and abilities, we see dynamic testing as an exciting and important new direction for creativity assessment. It may only be a matter of time until researchers and educators adapt this promising technique for creativity assessment. Until then, researchers and gifted educators are advised to at least consider how broadening conceptions of giftedness to include the full continuum of creativity (from mini-c to Big-C) might create opportunities to identify and support creative talent that otherwise would go unrecognized. In order for such opportunities to be realized, researchers and educators need to work together to consider how to better represent the full continuum of creativity in their models, assessments, and instructional practices.

Conclusion Advances in creativity research will continue to impact theories of giftedness. A more nuanced understanding of creativity in its many forms and its interactions with areas of study such as intelligence, personality, and thinking styles will produce more detailed theories of giftedness which hopefully will offer better prediction of adult eminence (Big-C) and will allow for a more representative assessment of human abilities. As theories of giftedness proliferate, however, there will be an increasing need for theories of giftedness to be precisely defined and measured, for theories to be clear and testable, for conclusions on how to identify and nurture gifted students to be based on solid research findings, for research methods to be well articulated enough to generate valid and reliable data, and for gifted programs to be evaluated in controlled experimental trials (Mayer, 2005). Nonetheless, this is an exciting time for the field of gifted education in general, and creativity research in particular, with more assessment and curriculum enhancement options available for children than at any other point in history.

References Argulewicz, E. N., Elliott, S. N., & Hall, R. (1982). Comparison of behavioral ratings of Anglo-American and MexicanAmerican gifted children. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 469–472.

595

Argulewicz, E. N., & Kush, J. C. (1984). Concurrent validity of the SRBCSS Creativity Scale for Anglo-American and Mexican-American gifted students. Educational and Psychological Research, 4, 81–89. Baer, J. (1997). Creative teachers, creative students. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2004). Considering the DMGT: something old, something new. High Ability Studies, 15, 149–150. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27, 158–163. Baker, J., & Cote, J. (2003). Resources and commitment as critical factors in the development of ‘gifted’ athletes. High Ability Studies, 14, 139–140. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 13–79. Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2006). The Relationship Among Schooling, Learning, and Creativity: ‘All Roads Lead to Creativity’ or ‘You Can’t Get There from Here’? In J. C. Kaufman, & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp. 316–332). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. Chen, C., Kasof, J., Himsel, A. J., Smitreiva, J., Dong, Q., & Xue, G. (2005). Effects of explicit instruction to “Be creative” across domains and cultures. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 89–110. Chen, C., Kasof, J., Himsel, A. J., Greenberger, E., Dong, Q., & Xue, G. (2002). Creativity in drawings of geometric shapes: A cross-cultural examination with the consensual assessment technique. Journal of Cross CulturalPsychology,33,171–187. Cohen, L. M. (1989). A continuum of adaptive creative behaviors. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 169–183. Connell, M. W., Sheridan, K., & Gardner, H. (2003). On abilities and domains. In R. J. Sternberg, & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The psychology of abilities, competencies, and expertise (pp. 126–156). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cox, M. V., Koyasu, M., Hiranuma, H., & Perara, J. (2001). Children’s human figure drawings in the UK and Japan; The effects of age, sex, and culture. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19, 275–292. Cox, M. V., Perara, J., & Fan, X. (1998). Children’s drawing ability in the UK and China. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 41, 171–182. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dai, D. Y. (2004). Why the transformation metaphor doesn’t work well: a comment on Gagn´e’s DMGT model. High Ability Studies, 15, 159–161. Delisle, J. R., & Renzulli, J. S. (1982). The revolving door identification and programming model: Correlates of creative production. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 89–95. Delisle, J. R. (2003). To be or to do: Is a gifted child born or developed? Roeper Review, 26, 12–13. Feldhusen, J. F. (2003). Reaching for the stars in gifted education: A critique of the WICS model. High Ability Studies, 14, 143.

596 Feldhusen, J. F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talent: the DMGT theoretical model—a response. High Ability Studies, 15, 151–152. Feldman, D. H. (1980). Beyond universals in cognitive development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Feldman, D. H. (1986). Nature’s gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York: Basic Books. Feldman, D. H. (1999). The development of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 169–186). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Feldman, D. H., & Gardner, H. (2003). The creation of multiple intelligences theory: A study in high-level thinking. In R. K. Sawyer, V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, R. J. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman, J. Nakamura, & M. Csikszenthihalyi (Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 139–185). New York: Oxford University Press. Gagn´e, F. (1993). Constructs and models pertaining to exceptional human abilities. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 63–85). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Gagn´e, F. (1999). My convictions about the nature of human abilities, gifts and talents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 109–136. Gagn´e, F. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98–120). New York: Cambridge University Press. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1993a). Multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1993b). The relationship between early giftedness and later achievement. In Ciba Foundations (Ed.). The origins and development of high ability (pp. 175–186). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons. Gardner, H. (1993c). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H., Feldman, D., & Krechevsky, M. (Eds.). (1998). Project Zero frameworks for early childhood education. New York: Teachers College Press. Glover, J. A. (1976). Comparative levels of creative ability in Black and White college students. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 128, 95–99. Gordon, E. W., & Bridglall, B. L. (2005). Nurturing talent in gifted students of color. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness, (2nd ed., pp. 120–146), New York: Cambridge University Press. Grigorenko, E. L., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2002). School– based tests of the triarchic theory of intelligence: Three settings, three samples, three syllabi. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 167–208. Gruber, H. (1981). Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity. Chicago: University of Chicago. Gubbins, J. (1982). Revolving door identification model: Characteristics of talent pool students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, Storrs.

J.C. Kaufman et al. Guenther, Z. C. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory: A response. High Ability Studies, 15, 165–166. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Heller, K. A. (2003). WICS-A prototype of synthetic approaches to giftedness in the new century? High Ability Studies, 14, 147–148. Iscoe, I., & Pierce-Jones, J. (1964). Divergent thinking, age, and intelligence in white and Negro children. Child Development, 35, 785–797. Jaquish, G. A., & Ripple, R. E. (1984). A life-span developmental cross-cultural study of divergent thinking abilities. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 20, 1–11. Kaltsounis, B. (1974). Race, socioeconomic status and creativity. Psychological Reports, 35, 164–166. Kaufman, A. S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISC-III. New York: Wiley. Kaufman, J. C. (2006). Self-reported differences in creativity by gender and ethnicity. Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1065–1082. Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of creativity. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 14, 15–25. Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (Eds.). (2005). Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2006). A tribute to E. Paul Torrance. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 1–3. Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Racial and gender differences in creativity as measured by ratings of three writing tasks. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 56–69. Kaufman, S. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Conceptions of giftedness. In S. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of the giftedness in children: Psycho-educational theory, research, and best Practices (pp. 71–91). New York: Plenum. Kessler, C., & Quinn, M. E. (1987). Language minority children’s linguistic and cognitive creativity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 8, 173–186. Knox, B. J., & Glover, J. A. (1978). A note on preschool experience effects on achievement, readiness, and creativity. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 132, 151–152. Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of literacy: English as a third language. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19, 65–77. Lubart, T., & Guignard, J.-H. (2004). The generality-specificity of creativity: a multivariate approach. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity. From potential to realization (pp. 43–56). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. D. (2006). Mystery and mastery: Shifting paradigms in gifted education. Roeper Review, 28, 64–69. Mayer, R. E. (2005). The scientific study of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 437–449). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

28

Creative Giftedness: Beginnings, Developments, and Future Promises

Moreno, J. M., & Hogan, J. D. (1976). The influence of race and social-class level on the training of creative thinking and problem-solving abilities. Journal of Educational Research, 70, 91–95. Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation. International Journal of Psychology, 36, 225–241. Palaniappan, A. K. (1996). A cross-cultural study of creative perceptions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 96–98. Plucker, J. A. (Ed.). (2003). Human intelligence: Historical influences, current controversies, teaching resources. Retrieved November 11, 2003, from http://www.indiana.edu/∼intell. Plucker, J. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction doesn’t matter. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization. (pp. 153–168). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96. Plucker, J. A., Callahan, C. M., & Tomchin, E. M. (1996). Wherfore art thou, multiple intelligences? Alternative assessments for identifying talent in ethnically diverse and economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 81–92. Porath, M. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory—a response. High Ability Studies, 15, 153–155. Price-Williams, D. R., & Ramirez III, M. (1977). Divergent thinking, cultural differences, and bilingualism. The Journal of Social Psychology, 103, 3–11. Ramos-Ford, V., & Gardner, H. (1997). Giftedness from a multiple intelligences perspective. In N. Colangelo & G. A. David (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education, (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261. Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Reflections, perceptions, and future directions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 125–146. Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring definition of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R .J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness, (2nd ed., pp. 246–280). New York: Cambridge University Press. Rose, L. H., & Lin, H. (1984). A meta-analysis of long-term creativity training programs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18, 11–22. Rostan, S. M., Pariser, D., & Gruber, H. E. (2002). A crosscultural study of the development of artistic talent, creativity, and giftedness. High Ability Studies, 13, 125–156. Rudowicz, E., Lok, D., & Kitto, J. (1995). Use of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking in an exploratory study of creativity in Hong Kong primary school children: A crosscultural comparison. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 417–430. Runco, M. A. (1996). Personal creativity: Definition and developmental issues. New Directions for Child Development, 72, 3–30. Runco, M. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity:

597

From potential to realization. (pp. 21–30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Saeki, N., Fan, X., & Van Dusen, L. (2001). A comparative study of creative thinking of American and Japanese college students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 24–36. Sawyer, R. K., John-Steiner, V., Moran, S., Sternberg, R. J., Feldman, D. H., Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Creativity and development. New York: Oxford University Press. Shurkin, J. N. (1992). Terman’s kids. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company. Simonton, D. K. (2004). Adding developmental trajectories to the DMGT: nonlinear and nonadditive genetic inheritance and expertise acquisition. High Ability Studies, 15, 157–158. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York: Plume. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, 2, 347–365. Sternberg, R. J. (2000). The theory of successful intelligence. Gifted Education International, 15, 4–21. Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity, synthesized. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The WICS model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness, (2nd ed., pp. 327–243), New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Intelligence is not just inside the head: The theory of successful intelligence. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, J. L. (2000). Teaching for successful intelligence, Arlington Heights, Illinois: Skylight Training and Publishing Inc. Sternberg, R., & Grigorenko, E. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., Ferrari, M., Clinkenbeard, P. R., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1996). Identification, instruction, and assessment of gifted children: A construct validation of a triarchic model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 129–137. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., Ferrari, M., & Clinkenbeard, P. (1999). A triarchic analysis of an aptitude-treatment interaction. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15, 1–11. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (Eds.). (2004). Creativity: From potential to realization. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2002). The creativity conundrum. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Sternberg, R .J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press. Sternberg, R J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51, 677–688. Sternberg, R. J., & The Rainbow Project Collaborators (2006). The Rainbow Project: Enhancing the SAT through assessments of analytical, practical and creative skills. Intelligence, 34, 321–350.

598 Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998). Teaching triarchically Improves school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 374–384. Stricker, L. J., Rock, D. A., & Bennett, R. E. (2001). Sex and ethnic-group differences on accomplishment measures. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 205–218. Taylor, C. W. (1984). Developing creative excellence in students: The neglected history-making ingredient which would keep our nation from being at risk. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 106–109. Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Terman, L. M. (1924). The physical and mental traits of gifted children. In G. M. Whipple (Ed.), Report of the society’s committee on the education of gifted children (pp. 157–167). The Twenty Third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Bloomington, Ill.: Public School Publishing. Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Lexington, MA: Personal Press. Torrance, E. P. (1971). Are the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking biased against or in favor of ‘disadvantaged’ groups? Gifted Child Quarterly, 15, 75–80. Torrance, E. P. (1972). Predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 236– 252.

J.C. Kaufman et al. Torrance, E. P. (1973). Assessment of disadvantaged minority group children. School Psychology Digest, 2, 3–10. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Lexington, MA: Ginn. Torrance, E. P. (1984). The role of creativity in identification of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 153–156. Torrance, E. P. (1988). Creativity as manifest in testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 43–75). Cambridge University Press. Torrance, E. P. (1990). The Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service. Torrance, E. P., & Presbury, J. (1984). The criteria of success used in 242 recent experimental studies of creativity. Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 9, 238–243. Troiano, A. B., & Bracken, B. A. (1983). Creative thinking and movement styles of three culturally homogeneous kindergarten groups. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1, 35–46. Visser, B.A., Ashton, M.C., & Vernon, P.A. (2006). Beyond g: Putting multiple intelligence theory to the test. Intelligence, 34, 487–502.

Chapter 29

Imaginary Worldplay as an Indicator of Creative Giftedness Michele Root-Bernstein

Abstract Creative potential in childhood, of a kind bearing fruit in maturity, reveals itself in imaginative play, the most complex of which is the invention of imaginary worlds (paracosms). Worldplay often includes the generation of stories, drawings, etc., that provide evidence of little c creative behavior. Historical examples (e.g., the Bront¨es) suggest that productive worldplay may thus serve as a “learning laboratory” for adult achievement. Early research explored ties between worldplay and later artistic endeavor. Recent study of gifted adults finds strong links, too, between worldplay and mature creative accomplishment in the sciences and social sciences. As many as 1 in 30 children may invent worlds in solitary, secret play that is hidden from ready view. Worldplay nevertheless figured tangentially in early studies of intellectual precocity. Improved understanding of the phenomenon, its nature and its potential for nurture, should bring childhood worldplay to the foreground as an indicator of creative giftedness. Keywords Imaginative play · Imaginary worlds · Paracosm · Worldplay pedagogy · Productive creativity · Creative process · Creative behavior · Creative giftedness

Introduction Intellectual giftedness and precocious talent appear on the horizon of childhood with the insistence of M. Root-Bernstein (B) Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected]

a shining moon or planet. People notice and admire the child who can best most adults at chess or mathematics or perform a violin solo with the local orchestra. Gifted programs in the schools or private tutelage can do much to promote them both. Creative giftedness in childhood, a rather different category of precociousness involving originality and inventiveness (Getzels & Jackson, 1962, pp. 3–7; Milgram, 1990, p. 217), proves a more elusive, shooting star. Efforts to identify and nurture children with the potential for productive innovation and invention in adulthood have largely met with disappointment (Terman et al., 1925/1954; Terman and Oden, 1959; Subotnik, Kassan, Summers, & Wasser, 1993). Two unusual approaches to creative giftedness in childhood combined here may, however, re-inform its detection and nurture in the young. The first approach is to focus on complex imaginative play – in this case the invention of imaginary worlds or paracosms – as a potential indicator of creative behavior in general. One way to identify nascent creative talent in children, it has been suggested, is to examine their free-choice leisure activities outside the classroom (Milgram, 1990, pp. 217, 228–229). The second approach is to trace the incidence of this worldplay in creative adults in order to determine the strength of its association with mature giftedness. Though such a retrospective study does not establish causality, it may identify likely play behaviors for prospective and longitudinal study. Together the two approaches suggest that worldplay is an early sign in childhood of the same creative behaviors that characterize innovative adults at work in many fields of endeavor – indeed, the invention of imaginary worlds may in many instances prepare experientially for mature creative achievement.

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 29, 

599

600

Giftedness in Play Interest in the play practice of gifted children dates back to at least the early decades of the 20th century. Initially a means of typifying the sociability of children with precocious intellect or talent (Terman et al., 1925/1954, pp. 385, 437–439), such interest has more recently turned to characteristics of the play itself as educators and researchers realized that the gifted are gifted, not just during classroom hours but all the time (Subotnik et al., 1993, p. 98). Milgram (1990) found that many gifted children freely devoted extracurricular time to activities that satisfied their curiosity and developed their interests (p. 222). In at least three subsequent studies, the observation was corroborated: gifted children read voraciously; they practiced skills related to particular talents; they spent time drawing or dancing or making music, they played intricate board games and solved challenging puzzles and they played imaginatively (Subotnik et al., 1993, p. 38; Klein, 1992, p. 248; Gross, 2004, pp. 130–133). Gross found pretend or fantasy play a favorite pastime among the highly gifted children she studied, as did others. By and large, that fantasy play was more elaborate than the pretend play of non-gifted age-mates, involving intricate rules, extensive plots and complex roles that unfolded over time (Kearney, 2000). Morelock (1997) argued that such fantasy play typically featured “complex clusters of diverse concepts and facts” joined logically with flights of fancy into “internally consistent conceptual structures” (p. 2). Generally speaking, in their imaginative play gifted children make original patchworks of personal meaning out of their limited experience and precocious knowledge. One way they do so is to invent imaginary worlds of their own design.

Worldplay Worldplay may be defined as the repeated evocation of an imagined place (often, but not always) inhabited by imagined people or beings. When such activity manifests, it does so within a normal developmental pattern of make-believe play. The ability to pretend first emerges in the human 2 year-old and blossoms within the next three years. As the child’s capacity for pretense grows, he explores a variety of imaginative behaviors. Make-believe begins with the simple substitu-

M. Root-Bernstein

tion of one object for another, the animation of inanimate things and, often, the invention of imaginary companions. It rapidly evolves into the more complex playacting of social roles or characters, the re-enacting of stories heard or read in books and, at times, the inventing of serial bed stories shared before sleep (Cohen & MacKeith, 1991, pp. 107–111). For the most part, all these behaviors prove common in early childhood (3–6 years). In middle childhood (7–12 years), however, the simpler imaginative behaviors begin to drop out and more complex and inventive forms of make-believe emerge. In general, a concomitant shift also occurs in these years from the solitary or side-by-side play of toddlers to the group play of elementary school children, as when siblings or neighborhood friends pretend to inhabit together a desert island or devise narratives for secret societies. Solitary make-believe does not disappear in middle childhood, however. At about the time that reading becomes silent, solitary pretend play appears to internalize in secret daydreams and related self-told stories or written narratives (Singer & Singer, 1990, pp. 32, 41, 72, passim; Cohen & MacKeith, 1991, p. 111). At this point, typically in middle childhood and in the context of private solitary play – or play shared with only a few others – the invention of imaginary worlds may take place. Sometimes this worldplay grows out of earlier imaginative pretense with animated toys or imaginary companions; sometimes it builds upon new imaginative inspiration. Usually it peters out around puberty; sometimes it lasts into the late teens or early twenties; in a very few cases it persists through adulthood. Worldplay distinguishes itself as a complex and elaborate form of make-believe in several ways. Most childhood play is ephemeral. Children may play at dolls or trucks, blocks or dress-up, but the scenarios that capture their imagination for an hour or a day invariably dissolve like gossamer when playtime ends. Worldplay, in contrast, is more persistent; for weeks, months or even years, the child revisits over and again the same make-believe scenario. The imagined place takes on a consistency of aspect, whether it is described in ongoing narrative or proliferative system-building. At the same time, the imaginary world tends to evolve, as the child embellishes the adventures of particular persons or elaborates the analogue language, geography, history or a simulated sports league of a particular world. Despite the child’s concerted efforts to make the parallel seem real, however, worldplay in no way

29

Imaginary Worldplay as an Indicator of Creative Giftedness

replicates the fantasies of psychotic individuals unable to distinguish between imagination and reality (Cohen & MacKeith, 1991, p. 14; Silvey & MacKeith, 1988, pp. 173–174). Worldplay is first and foremost play. Indeed, at its most complex, it is creative play. For the child who documents or structures the invention of place with maps, drawings, statistical lists, written histories, stories or any number of other constructive artifacts, exercises creative behavior.

Worldplay as Creative Play Creative behavior, at its most fundamental, involves the generation and the expression or instantiation of ideas, things or processes that are both novel and effective. If novel refers to the originality of the created idea or thing itself, effective refers to its subsequent reception, for a creative idea or thing takes on a life of its own after communication to others – it fills a cultural need, solves a social or intellectual problem recognized by a larger group. At its most powerful, creative behavior is revolutionary, producing the ideas, solutions and inventions that recombine disciplines and technologies or carve out new ones. Big C creativity of this sort encompasses the contributions of a Newton, a Gandhi, a Joyce or an Edison. Most people, including children, are not capable of creative impact at this worldwide level. They are, however, capable of creative behaviors that generate ideas, fill needs and solve problems within the smaller circles of ethnicity, polity, neighborhood or family. Different in quality, but not necessarily in kind, little c creativity anchors the other end of a gradating spectrum of like behaviors. The child who invents and elaborates an imaginary world engages in creative behavior of the little c variety. She brings into being novel things, such as maps or histories of a uniquely imagined place, that are personally effective, in that they document and structure her conception of an analogue world. This imagined world, if communicated to others, may also strike family and friends – even a somewhat larger community – as fresh, original and charming. Worldplay’s real benefit, however, does not lie in its outer, social influence. Rather, it lies in its inner influence upon the child herself. To invent and elaborate imaginary worlds is to develop a sense of self as a creator by immersing oneself in creative process.

601

Take the contemporary case of one M. Around the age of 9 years, she began designing a language based on pictographs. The simple sentences and stories she wrote out in this way supposed a simple people, whom she called the Kar. These people required a world to inhabit. Within a few years M. had begun to generate verbal and pictorial descriptions of their daily lives. Much like an anthropologist she documented their holidays, their clothing, their homes, their food, their myths, mathematics and music. Whatever she learned of human culture in school or in her own wide-ranging reading, she transposed into some analogue form in her imagined world. And in many moments of this imaginative undertaking, which persisted into her teenage years, she engaged in one aspect or another of the creative process. Psychologists conventionally describe that process as involving elements or stages of preparation, incubation, insight and elaboration (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, pp. 79–80). Suffice it to say here that time and again M. prepared for creative endeavor by setting herself a problem – for instance, how did the Kar actually come to write their stories? Such a problem might incubate for some time while she asked the questions and gathered the books and artwork which fueled her informal, free-choice learning. At some point around the age of 12 years, the imagined development of spoken and written language coalesced for her with the imagined emergence of simple writing implements and an imagined economy that valued narrative goods. On the strength of such insight, M. elaborated histories of the “time . . . called the word explosion” in which “at a market, a person can get a fine blanket or a pot for a story, or more for a book.” A couple of years later, in an illustration format drawn from Eyewitness BooksTM and other visual dictionaries for children, she documented the sophisticated tools and furniture of the professional scribe, for “almost every village had someone who spent their time writing stories” (“About Writing,” personal papers). M.’s worldplay was shot through with yet another well-recognized ingredient of creative thinking, the comparison and synthesis of two or more unlike things. The discoveries of science and of art, as Jacob Bronowski famously expressed it, “are explorations – more, are explosions, of a hidden likeness” (1956, pp. 30–31). The discoveries of the novice creator also depend on recognizing similarities, even if these appear less hidden to adepts. In the case of M.’s Kar

602

M. Root-Bernstein

drawings, first undertaken around the age of 12 years, the synthetic blendings were two-fold. The drawings themselves represented a visual amalgamation of early human cave art, Egyptian tomb paintings and other ancient pictorial forms. Moreover, they nearly always transposed or anticipated Kar stories, especially those about the god-like beings of legend. In the marriage of picture and story, M. manifested her personal discovery that visual iconography is like narrative myth is like the very foundations of an imagined world. More often than not, the exploration and documentation of these congruences required the integration of what we formally recognize as distinct forms of expression. Like many other children who invent and elaborate imaginary worlds, M. nearly always expressed her vision in multiple and synthetic ways; visually, verbally, sometimes musically as well. By her late teens, this tendency was quite marked (Fig. 29.1 and Appendix). Indeed, the integration of what many consider separate domains is what distinguishes worldplay from juvenilia focused on one

recognized locus of technical talent or one recognized body of specialized knowledge.

Fig. 29.1 “Wall Painting in a Cave (the death of the hero Yeoceroee)”. The first lines of the Kar writing read, “Once the flower

is taken it is forever dead, and no flower lives in beauty but a hero died there.” For a full translation, see Appendix

A History of Worldplay M.’s play in an imaginary world of her own invention has historical antecedents. Over the past 200 years or so, worldplay has figured as a curiosity of childhood in the backgrounds of people likely to write memoirs or leave personal papers of interest to others. Writers of the 19th and 20th centuries such as Robert Louis Stevenson, C. S. Lewis, Stanislaw Lem, W.H. Auden, Vera Brittain and Gertrude Stein left testimony of childhood worldplay (Goertzel & Goertzel, 1962, p. 117n; Silvey & MacKeith, 1988, pp. 191–194; Lem,1975/1995). So did the actor Peter Ustinov (1976/1998, pp. 276–282). And the visual artist Claes Oldenburg has revealed the imaginary land of his childhood to at least one biographer (Rose, 1970,

29

Imaginary Worldplay as an Indicator of Creative Giftedness

p. 19). However, the earliest known case of a childhood paracosm is that invented by an individual remarkable only in childhood. Thomas Malkin, a precocious student of Greek, Latin and other classical studies, focused much imaginative play on the invented land of “Allestone” before his death at the age of 7 years in 1802 (Malkin, 1806/1997). Other remarkable children who invented imaginary worlds include Malkin’s near contemporary Hartley Coleridge, brilliant son of Samuel Taylor Coleridge and inventor of “Ejuxria” (Coleridge, 1851; Plotz, 2001, pp. 191–251), and Barbara Follett, who brought her young vision of “Farksolia” to fruition in a precocious novel published in 1927 (McCurdy, 1966). Exceptional children who also achieved renown in adulthood include the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (ForsterNietzsche, 1912, pp. 46–47), the English writer Thomas De Quincey (De Quincey, 1853, pp. 97–98) and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Cox, 1926/1953, p. 592). Hands down, the best known example of worldplay belongs to the Bront¨e siblings, children of the wild moors in 19th century England. Branwell Bront¨e’s unquenchable enthusiasm for toy soldiers pulled him and his three sisters, Charlotte, Emily and Anne, into two decades of the most elaborate and best documented worldplay yet on record. Enacted make-believe with toy soldiers soon made way for the manufacture of maps, reports of military campaigns, miniature magazines, drawings of people and places, and story upon written story that traced the ongoing saga of the inhabitants of Great Glass Town, an imaginary Verdopolis somewhere in the far reaches of Africa. Sometime in their teens Emily and Anne developed an offshoot of Glass Town known as Gondal, while Branwell and Charlotte elaborated another offshoot known as Angria. Even as they moved into early adulthood, all four siblings absorbed themselves fully in this worldplay by reading voraciously for inspiration, drawing imaginary landscapes and persons, and generating hundreds of manuscripts. Eventually, the Bront¨e sisters parlayed the creative and literary tutelage of their worldplay into the production of novels and books of poetry that shook the foundations of 19th century literature. From these individuals and others like them who make a mark in maturity, it is possible to get a sense of the great creative boon in adulthood that may follow upon worldplay in childhood. In the case of the Bront¨e sisters, literary scholars

603

have traced with exhaustive care the technical apprenticeship in writing that play with Glass Town, Gondal and Angria afforded the girls (Ratchford, 1949; Evans & Evans, 1982; Alexander, 1983; Barker, 1997). Psychologists, for their part, have recognized the Bront¨e example as one that may broaden understanding of juvenile activity that prepares for adult creative achievement or even the eminence of genius (Cohen & MacKeith, 1991, pp. 2–4; McGreevy, 1995). The Bront¨es’ worldplay served as a “learning laboratory” characterized by self-paced, free-choice learning; encouragement of eccentric as well as conventional interests; a high tolerance for fantasy play; and time free of other distractions to indulge all three (McGreevy, 1995, pp. 146–147, passim). And, icing on the cake, the children consciously referred to themselves as “Genii” in that learning laboratory, first as god-like participants and later as confident and audacious creators of stories and poems. Instances of childhood worldplay plucked from the past tend, by their very nature, to privilege examples of genius in which immature play had direct and obvious relationship to mature achievement. This was certainly the case for the Bront¨e sisters, whose childhood play would surely have remained a literary curiosity if not for the link between their early juvenilia and later artistry. But worldplay of the caliber and consequence produced by the Bront¨e siblings represents only the extreme tip of a much larger phenomenon. Like giftedness in general, the invention of imaginary worlds in childhood is more widespread than the rare cases of creative eminence in mature adults with which it may be associated. Indeed, a ground-breaking study undertaken in the late 20th century found sophisticated instances of childhood worldplay well hidden in the general population.

The First Study of Contemporary Worldplay Robert Silvey, the man who first initiated in the late 1970s the study which culminated in The Development of Imagination, the Private Worlds of Childhood (1990), was himself an inventor of an imaginary world in childhood. The enduring personal as well as educational value of his “New Hentian States” intrigued him. His play had been a spur to “the acquisition of

604

knowledge,” he wrote, but even more, “the stimulation of curiosity” (Silvey, 1977, p. 18). In the late 1970s he began soliciting other instances of world-building in the general public by placing ads in British newspapers. Eventually he compiled over 50 dossiers of material on imaginary worlds, which he and his professional collaborators called paracosms. After Silvey’s death, Cohen & MacKeith (1991) placed 64 of these paracosms described by 57 adults in a context of psychological and creative development. In particular, they shed light on the imaginary worlds of childhood by establishing for the first time what appeared to be an ascending complexity of forms and contents. Cohen and MacKeith discerned five typical categories: paracosms based on or invoking fantasy play with (1) toys, (2) particular places and local communities, (3) imagined islands, countries and their peoples, (4) imagined systems, documents and languages and (5) unstructured, idyllic worlds. Some of their data appeared to indicate that as world-inventing children matured, their focus tended to shift from the personal intimacy of toy families to the social interactions of larger establishments to the increasingly abstract cultural, economic and political systems that characterize society at large or utopian visions. Two out of three girls in the sample focused on the social and emotional interactions of characters, while nine out of ten boys focused on the elaboration of settings – bureaucracies, histories or games, for instance – with little personalized content (Silvey & MacKeith, 1988, p. 186). In either case, paracosms that took on the invention of countries, peoples, languages or socio-political systems modeled the real world in strikingly sophisticated fashion. In addition to the classification of types, Cohen and MacKeith wished to ascertain in a general way the overall incidence of worldplay in the general population. Because of the nature of their self-selecting sample, however, they were unable to do so, except in-sofar as to assert that the phenomenon was uncommon. Cohen and MacKeith had also hoped to find some link between the childhood invention of imaginary worlds and adult professional achievement. In the event, two factors seem to have convinced them that childhood worldplay did not contribute to the creative development of individuals in their sample. First, only a small and disappointing number of their respondents became writers or artists as adults. Second, apparently no one in their sample had (at time of study) achieved

M. Root-Bernstein

publicly recognized success, let alone the kind of eminence associated with discipline-altering achievement. Again, the nature of their study precluded any solid conclusion. Perhaps due to the weight of the Bront¨e example, which, along with other historical exemplars, suggested that worldplay most obviously prepared for adult achievement in the literary (or perhaps other) arts, the researchers ignored Silvey’s initial intuition that the invention of imaginary worlds in childhood might stimulate curiosity and knowledge acquisition in general. The oversight was critical. Silvey had drawn maps; he had written out a history and a constitution for “The New Hentian States” and produced its newspapers, almanacs and financial tables. He grew up to inaugurate the new business field of audience research at the BBC, marrying the demands of statistical inquiry to sociological and psychological nuance. By any measure, he did so successfully, too. In recognition of his achievements, he was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in 1960, an honor granted for valuable service in the arts, sciences and public sectors (Silvey, 1974, pp. 193–194). The connections between worldplay, profession and professional success were indirect, yet compelling in Silvey’s case. He carved a path through audience research because he intimately understood that a valid sample “had to be selected in such a way as to be a miniature, a scale-model, of the universe” (Silvey, 1974, p. 46). For Silvey a sample was, in effect, an imagined world. Indeed, his experience, in contrast to that of the Bront¨es, suggested that the potential benefits in maturity of childhood worldplay did not reside in technical or professional training per se. Rather those benefits were to be found in the general exercise of imaginative and creative behavior that might surface in any number of professions and in disparate measures of professional success.

Worldplay in a Population of Creative Adults A recent study of worldplay in childhood among adults of recognized creative achievement tested both the insights gained from Silvey’s personal experience and the very different conclusions drawn by his collaborators (M. Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 2006). Its purpose was three-fold: to determine the relative

29

Imaginary Worldplay as an Indicator of Creative Giftedness

incidence of worldplay in a demonstrably creative population and in a general population; to determine the relative strength of its association with a wide range of mature disciplinary occupations; and to explore phenomenologically, that is, by means of queries and interviews, the understanding study subjects may have had of connection between childhood play and adult creative success in a variety of disciplines. In general, it was hypothesized that the childhood invention of imaginary worlds may in fact be a predictor for adult creativity across the arts, humanities, social sciences and sciences. For the purposes of this undertaking, MacArthur Fellows appointed in the years 1981 through 2001 presented a uniquely suitable, ready-made group for study. Drawn from a wide range of disciplines in the sciences, social sciences, arts, humanities and public affairs professions, Fellows are selected by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for extraordinary originality and exceptional creative promise in their fields of endeavor. The Foundation’s public recognition of these individuals, as well as the terms of that recognition, strongly argue that the Fellows as a whole comprise a population of gifted adults. Fellowship recipients were queried about their childhood play and its connections to adult vocation and avocation. A similar query was administered to a control group of students enrolled in a variety of courses at Michigan State University in the spring and fall of 2003, adjusting for intended, rather than actual profession, and the inclusion of practical careers within the five professional categories utilized by the MacArthur Foundation. The entrance level for this large, land-grant institution is moderately difficult (on average, students score between 1040 and 1260 (combined scores) on the SAT) and the student body, at least in comparison with the MacArthur Fellows, represented a population of individuals selected for ordinary achievement. The comparison of data from both groups yielded the following results: First, the study found worldplay to be more common than hitherto supposed. The incidence of researcher-assessed worldplay among sampled Fellows was 26%. It remained unknown, however, whether MacArthur Fellows who did not respond to the query invented imaginary worlds in the same, greater or lesser numbers. Assuming that the whole group engaged in childhood worldplay at the same rate as the sample, 26% was set as a maximum proportion.

605

Assuming that the sample in fact netted all Fellows appointed between 1981 and 2001 with this childhood experience, a minimum proportion was set at 5%. Thus, the rate of worldplay in a creative population presumably lay somewhere between 5% and 26%. Among students, worldplay was similarly assessed at 12%. Once again, assuming that the sample incidence represented that of the whole, 12% set a maximum proportion of students who engaged in childhood worldplay. Assuming that all students who participated in worldplay responded to the questionnaire, the minimum rate for all students in the control group was 3%. This set the range of worldplay among a general population at 3–12%. By these measures, worldplay emerged as a palpable presence in the landscape of make-believe play, one that is potentially twice as common among recognizably creative individuals as it is among average university students. Second, the data validated the expectation that individuals inventing imaginary worlds in childhood participate as adults in a wide variety of disciplines. Among MacArthur Fellows the distribution of childhood worldplay ranged from 19% for sampled individuals in the public issues professions and in the sciences to 22% for sampled individuals in the arts, 33% in the humanities and 46% in the social sciences (Table 29.1). This disciplinary distribution of childhood worldplay among Fellows proved significantly different from the same distribution in the control group. Students in the humanities (33%), public issues professions (16%) and arts (15%) were more likely than students in social sciences (8%) or sciences (6%) to have invented imaginary worlds, by a factor of two or more. A comparison of the two groups revealed that the higher incidence of childhood worldplay among Fellows in the arts, social sciences and sciences was statistically significant (see Chart 29.1). Scientists and social scientists selected for their creativity were more likely to have childhood worldplay in their background than a general population of students planning to go into these fields. Third, over half of the study’s select and general populations – whether or not they had invented worlds in childhood – believed they engaged in some aspect of worldplay in their adult vocations and avocations. In the context of the query, mature worldplay referred to participation in, or creation of, make-believe worlds in paintings, plays, film and novels. It also referred to engagement in or invention of hypothetical models

606

M. Root-Bernstein Table 29.1 Breakdown of Assessed Worldplay Among MacArthur Fellows and MSU Students by Professional Field ARTS F

S

HUMANITIES F

S

PUB ISSUES

SOCIAL SCI

S∗

S∗∗

F

F

SCIENCES

Undecided

TOTAL

F

S

F

S

Sample # 23 40 12 9 16 86 13 62 26 50 15 90 Positive self-reports 11 19 6 6 6 33 8 24 8 19 4 39 Assessed 5 6 4 3 3 14 6 5 5 3 1 23 worldplay + Assessed not 6 13 2 3 3 19 2 19 3 16 3 16 worldplay + % Worldplay by 22 15 33 33 19 16 46 8 19 6 7 26 professional field NOTE: F = Fellows, S = Students. ∗ Includes those students intending careers in law, education and journalism. ∗∗ Includes those students intending careers in business. + Relaxed assortment. Ambiguous responses were distributed into “assessed worldplay” and “not worldplay” categories.

and constructs in the sciences, social sciences and humanities. When it came to adult worldplay at work, reports surfaced in every discipline (see Chart 29.2). Moreover, among those who did invent imaginary worlds as children, many Fellows (61%) and students (72%) saw connections between that childhood play and their adult vocational worldplay (see Table 29.2). MacArthur Fellow artists with worldplay in their backgrounds were most apt to see direct connections between that play and adult endeavor (100%), followed by their peers in the humanities (75%), the social sciences (67%) and the sciences (40%).

S 262 105 32 73 12

Students with worldplay in their backgrounds saw a connection to anticipated adult worldplay at work in the social sciences, arts, public issues professions and humanities from 60% to 100% of the time; none anticipated connection to projected work in the sciences. By and large, student perceptions suggested that ties between childhood worldplay and adult endeavor are readily recognized in the arts, where “imaginary, fictional worlds” are similarly created in literature, music, dance or the visual arts. However, there was less expectation – possibly due to educational or professional

50

PERCENT ASSESSED WORLDPLAY

***

BLACK = Fellows GRAY = Students

45 40

* = p<.05 ** = p<.001 *** = p<.0001 35 30

**

25 20

*

**

15 10 5 0

ARTS

HUM

PUB

Chart 29.1 Childhood Worldplay (Relaxed Assortment): MacArthur Fellows and MSU Students. For statistical values of

SOC

SCI

TOT

the data and the full discussion of results, see M. Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein (2006)

Imaginary Worldplay as an Indicator of Creative Giftedness

Chart 29.2 Worldplay in Adult Work: MacArthur Fellows and MSU Students. For full discussion of the data and interpretation of results, see M. Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein (2006)

PERCENT SPECIFIED RESPONSES BY GROUP

29

607

70 BLACK = MacARTHUR FELLOWS GRAY = MSU STUDENTS

*** 58

60

* = p<.01 ** = p<.001 *** = p<.0001

** 50

50

** 46

30

*

*** 38

40

40

39

31

30

27 21

20 11

10 0

6

ARTS

HUM

bias – in the humanities and social sciences that the reconstruction of bygone days or the projection of future scenarios, both of which must adhere to known facts, resemble “imagined, possible worlds” of childhood. Similarly, students did not expect theorizing in the sciences to resemble worldplay at all. Quite possibly, students reflected expectations of conventional contribution held by the institutions and professional cohorts which trained them. Be that as it may, gifted adults were far more likely to find the imaginative and creative qualities of childhood worldplay relevant to their mature disciplinary activity – not just in the arts, but in the humanities, social sciences and sciences as well. No matter the field, for many MacArthur Fellows the drive for disciplinary verisimilitude required a blend of logic, experiment or testable hypothesis with the construction of a delimited, imagined world. For one Fellow in the sciences this involved a kind of make-believe usually identified as fiction: “In a real sense to do theory is to explore imaginary worlds because all models are simplified versions of reality, the world. Part of the art of it all is what gets put in

PUB

SOC

SCI

TOTAL

and what gets left out. But it’s “bounded imagination”. . . Since lots gets left out of any model, part of the art has been described as the suspension of disbelief. . .I will, for a while, believe in this simple world, even though I know lots of ways it fails to capture nature” (As cited in M. Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 2006).

In addition to the world-building which pervades adult creative activity, Fellows were also apt to retain from childhood worldplay a general understanding of and familiarity with creative behavior. That behavior ranged from persistent absorption with what is imagined, to the discovery, synthesis and organization of knowledge, to the modeling of physical processes beyond our direct apprehension, that is to say, “mind play that stays within the bounds of reality, but still asks about something that you have never seen or known to happen” (as cited in M. Root-Bernstein & RootBernstein, 2006). Indeed, early immersion in worldplay may prepare for mature creativity in a number of ways: First, worldplay may exercise imaginative capacities including imaging, empathizing, and modeling explored elsewhere as tools for thinking

Table 29.2 Connections Between Childhood and Adult Worldplay: MacArthur Fellows and MSU Students ARTS F

S

HUMANITIES F

S

PUB ISSUES F

S

SOCIAL SCI F

S

SCIENCES F

S

Undecided S

TOTAL F

Assessed worldplay + 5 6 4 3 3 14 6 5 5 3 11 23 Perceived connection 5 4 3 3 0 12 4 3 2 0 1 14 child/adult worldplay % 100 67 75 100 0 86 67 60 40 0 9 61 NOTE: F = Fellows, S = Students. + Relaxed assortment. Ambiguous responses were distributed into “assessed worldplay” and “not worldplay” categories.

S 32 23 72

608

(R. Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 1999). Without these skills, creative thinking is compromised. Second, worldplay may exercise the capacity for continued imaginative play, especially in older children, well after the intense exploration of make-believe in early childhood typically fades. Play and the knack for remaining “childlike” are often linked to adult creativity. Third, worldplay may exercise the capacity for convergent problem solving within an imagined yet consistent system, whether that make-believe is realistic or fantastic. Fourth, because it does so by tying the exigencies of convergent problem solving to the divergent effervescence of play, worldplay may nurture both the ability and the audacity to imagine potentially new and effective solutions to perennial human challenges. The creative individual requires more than disciplinary expertise, he or she requires the vision to identify and define problems not yet conceived and set them in appropriate context. In this venture, as Einstein famously put it, “Imagination is more important than knowledge” (as cited in Calaprice, 2000). And fifth, worldplay may provide early training in the invention of culture by bridging the gap between a virtual imagination and a creative one. The virtual imagination is one in which the conceived idea remains personal, inarticulate and often ephemeral. The creative imagination instantiates the virtual, makes it communicable to local or global society in some durable, formal way through diverse mediums such as visual art, music, dance, story, experiment, hypothesis and technological invention. This re-evaluation of childhood worldplay in terms of adult creative endeavor sets aright certain misconceptions of worldplay in earlier research. Among adults recognized for creative giftedness, worldplay may, at a maximum, figure in childhood play in as many as one out of four. This is more than twice the maximal rate projected for the population at large. Moreover, childhood worldplay may be associated with adult creative achievement in a far wider arena than literary or artistic accomplishment alone. The enduring benefit to adults of childhood worldplay does not lie necessarily or only in an early immersion in technical skills such as writing or drawing. It lies, as well, in the early immersion in self-prescribed “learning laboratories,” in self-taught creative behaviors and in self-nurtured attributes of creative personality.

M. Root-Bernstein

Worldplay may thus serve as a general preparation for creative achievement in the humanities, social sciences, and the sciences as well as in the arts. It may also serve, at times, as a specific apprenticeship in craft, especially for the arts. Psychologists have long sought in the backgrounds of creative individuals the factors that may have foreshadowed or shaped their mature contributions and prominence (e.g., Ellis, 1904; Cox, 1926/1953; Cobb, 1977; Goertzel & Goertzel, 1962; and others mentioned in Hollingworth, 1942, pp. 15–18). Worldplay, as a highly recognizable instance of complex imaginative play, may be added to that list.

Worldplay as a Sign of Creative Giftedness in Childhood To the extent that worldplay predicts mature creativity, it follows that it also indicates creative giftedness in childhood. No fewer than 1 in 30 children in the general population may devote time and energy to imaginary worlds of their own invention and may instantiate their complex imagination in the production of stories, histories, drawings, maps, games and other documents of play. As such, paracosm play may serve to supplement objective measures of intellectual giftedness (such as high IQ), as well as subjective measures of superior technical talent (such as math or musical prodigiousness) presently in use. Certainly the playful, imaginative and problem-solving aspects of worldplay in childhood, as well as its characteristic signs of imaginative absorption, free-choice learning and passionate persistence, argue strongly for a kind of creative giftedness in childhood that mirrors giftedness in adults. Taking note of self-initiated and self-sustained worldplay indeed draws our attention to children who early immerse themselves in imaginative problem generation and problem solving for the fun of it and thus aids in early recognition of true creative potential. Recognition of complex imaginative play in general and of worldplay in particular marks a return of a kind to the earliest research in the characteristics of gifted children. In the early 1920s, Lewis Terman made an attempt to characterize the play life of the 643 gifted children – selected for superior “all-round intelligence” and superior “special talent” – who made up his study group (Terman et al., 1925/1954, pp. 385–439). Most

29

Imaginary Worldplay as an Indicator of Creative Giftedness

concerned with physical versus intellectual and social versus solitary aspects of childhood play, interview experience led Terman to include two questions relating to the imaginative quality of play life. In a questionnaire completed by parents of his gifted subjects, Terman asked, first, whether the child had “imaginary playmates” and, second, “imaginary countries” (p. 435). Out of 643 queries, he received 136 (21%) positive responses to play with imaginary friends and 48 (7%) positive responses to play with imaginary countries (pp. 436–437). Because parents of control subjects were not asked to supply similar information, Terman had no comparative data for these forms of play in his general population. Nonetheless he concluded on a subjective basis that “a good many gifted children have had imaginary playmates or imaginary countries” (p. 439). In subsequent studies of very high IQ children – one or two of whom came to researcher attention by means of Terman’s inaugural work – Leta Hollingworth also appears to have made a point of soliciting information on spontaneous, self-initiated play with imaginary friends and imaginary countries. Of 12 cases presented in Children Above 180 IQ, Origin and Development (1942), 2 children had imaginary friends and 3 other children provided ample evidence of worldplay. (Notes in the dossiers of the remaining seven cases indicate that these children did not invent imaginary companions or countries.) At the age of 3 years, Child A invented “Center Land,” where children stayed up all night, played with fire and used the elevator whenever they wished (p. 88). Child D played in “Borningtown” from the ages of 4–7 years and spent hours “laying out roads, drawing maps of its terrain, composing and recording its language (Bornish), and writing its history and literature” (p. 123). And Child E revealed around the age of 8 years the existence of a private country on the planet Venus inhabited by people and in possession of a navy. He revealed, too, his wish “to have statistics of my imaginary country,” but whether these ever materialized remained his secret (p. 147). The noticeable appearance of imaginary friends and imaginary countries or worlds among Hollingworth’s 12 subjects and Terman’s 643 accords well with current estimates for these play behaviors. Play with imaginary friends is currently estimated to occur among one- to two-thirds of young children (Taylor, 1999; also Singer, 1975, p. 135; Harris, 2000, p. 32; Singer & Singer, 1990, pp. 97–100). In Terman’s time, this

609

kind of play carried the stigma of loneliness and isolation, nevertheless he was apprised of imaginary friends in roughly a fifth of his subjects; in her much less representative sample, Hollingworth found one in six cases. Worldplay, as discussed above, is estimated to have occurred in the childhoods of 3–12% of college students and 5–26% of MacArthur Fellows. Hollingworth’s subjects, at one-quarter incidence, reproduced the high-end estimate; Terman’s subjects, at 7%, the low end of imaginary world invention. In both studies the incidence of worldplay in particular relates in interesting ways to subsequent assessments of the creative potential or success of test subjects. By labeling his study the “genetic study of genius,” Terman openly acknowledged his expectation that adult eminence, by which he meant the kind of world-renowned creative accomplishment achieved by 1 out of 4000 adults, might be attained by at least some of the children he studied (Burks, Jensen, & Terman, 1930, p. 4). On the whole, however, he cautiously conceded that to “expect all or even a majority of [his] subjects to attain any considerable degree of eminence would be unwarranted optimism” (Terman et al., 1925/1954, p. 640). Follow-up studies through the 1950s proved that caution reasonable. Terman had calculated in 1925 that somewhat less than 200 of his gifted children might find their way into Who’s Who, a compilation of contemporary biographies based on outstanding achievement of general interest. By 1959, only 31 men and 2 women from his gifted group appeared in that listing (Terman and Oden, 1959, pp. 145–146, 150). While it was clear that many of his high IQ subjects were successful in the pursuit of intellectually demanding careers (Terman and Oden, 1959, pp. 43–152), few had made notable contribution to their professions and none had achieved the eminence of acknowledged genius (Subotnik et al., 1993, p. 117). Terman’s study group, largely selected for intellectual giftedness with a smaller pool selected for “special ability,” was not in fact characterized by unusual creative capacity. Indeed, even before the start of his longitudinal studies, Terman was privy to evidence that creative qualities were probably distinct from the kinds of intelligence measured by IQ tests (Ochse, 1990, p. 204). Studies at the end of the 19th century and the turn of the 20th century suggested that logical power and original imagination did not necessarily go hand in hand (Getzels & Jackson, 1962, p. 4). Many

610

psychologists drew the same conclusion in decades following. In compensation, researchers in 1960s and 1970s set about analyzing creative ability and producing tests specifically developed to measure its different aspects (Ochse, 1990, pp. 202–206, 211– 212). Perhaps the best known of these are the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT), a battery of timed tasks based upon concepts of fluency, flexibility and originality in creative thinking (Ochse, 1990, p. 205) and used widely in educational and corporate settings today. But like the IQ tests that the TTCT and other batteries were meant to supplement, creativity tests have proved inadequate in identifying creative talent, potential or otherwise. Indeed, as many critics have pointed out, the tasks set in these structured tests resist truly creative solution and bear little or no relation to real-world creative accomplishment (Ochse, 1990, p. 45; Tannenbaum, 1992, p. 13). This being the case, some researchers have proposed that creative ability in children should not be identified by the artificial means of timed tests, but by the natural means of prodigious behavior itself. Typically identified in math, music, chess or language, prodigies recognizably demonstrate near-adult levels of talent at an early age (Feldman, 1986, p. 16). For Tannenbaum, such precocious accomplishment is a particularly powerful indicator precisely because “it is openly masterful now rather than a remote symptom of promise for the future” (1992, p. 13). The prodigy, however, is not necessarily creative. As Feldman (1986) and others point out, unusual capacity for music or math performance is not the same as unusual capacity to produce new music or solve new problems that transform either field (Feldman, pp. 13, 15; Sternberg and Lubart, 1992, p. 34). When it comes to productive creativity in math or music, the child is necessarily at a disadvantage in these adult fields of endeavor. It makes far more sense to identify creative potential in children by tracking self-initiated and self-sustained creative behaviors that are particular to childhood itself. In essence, Hollingworth did just that when she attempted to evaluate the creative capacities of her 12 high IQ subjects. Though many researchers considered juvenile activity in the conventional arts an adequate indication of “creativeness,” she felt it necessary to account for a much wider range of childhood originality, the signs of which were often missing in “ordinary records and histories” (Hollingworth, 1942,

M. Root-Bernstein

p. 236). Accordingly, she looked for the invention of games and languages, for idiosyncratic classifications of knowledge, for spontaneous collections, mechanical constructions and other forms of extracurricular activity – many of which were the province of childhood. Not surprisingly, the invention of imaginary countries in childhood, related as it was in many cases to “constructive originality” – i.e., the drawing of maps, writing of stories or the classifications of invented language – figured largely in her calculations of the “creativeness” of her subjects. Hollingworth subjectively rated a third of her high IQ cases as notably creative and one-third as moderately creative; the final third demonstrated no marked creativity at all. Two of the four children in the notably creative group – Child A and Child D – had invented imaginary worlds when young. She assigned Child E, who also did so, to the moderately creative group (p. 240). The education of Child E, she opined, had been strictly directed down conventional academic channels, at the expense of originality. Given her conclusion that intellectual training might be at odds with childhood creativity (p. 241), and the modus operandi Hollingworth adopted for assessing that creative potential, it is tempting to indulge in a bit of counter-historical speculation. If Terman had paid as much attention to the unexpected appearance of play with imaginary companions and countries in his subjects’ background – and if he had selected more of his “special ability” subjects on the basis of extraordinarily complex imaginative play that was also inventive – he may well have increased the overall creative potential of his study group. This is not to argue that all children who invent imagined places will grow up to revolutionize fields of endeavor or carve out new disciplines. But then again, neither do most children with high IQs or remarkable talents. We should not expect any one measure, including the complex elaboration of an invented world in childhood, to translate consistently into extraordinary achievement in adulthood (Terman et al., 1925/1954, p. 640). “For gifted children to develop into creative achievers,” Ochse (1990) has observed, “their gifts must become transformed into skills and drives that enable them to produce something of value” to the culture at large (p. 31). The creative practice, the constructive skills, the knowledge base gained in worldplay – any or all of these must also become harnessed to goal-directed work within adult disciplines.

29

Imaginary Worldplay as an Indicator of Creative Giftedness

611

Table 29.3 Age of Onset of Worldplay Among Sampled MacArthur Fellows

# Plays %

Early childhood (3–6, 7 years)

Middle childhood (6, 7–12, 13 years)

Late childhood (12, 13 years)

Unknown

Total

8 29

15 54

3 11

2 7

28 101

Table 29.4 Duration of Worldplay Among Sampled MacArthur Fellows Early childhood

Middle childhood

Late childhood

Unknown

Onset (# plays) 8 15 3 2 Duration: Early (8) : Middle (7) (15) : Late (1) (4) (3) Note: Values in parenthesis refer to # of onset plays at head of column with specified duration.

The point remains, however, that in full-blown worldplay the potential for self-initiated productive creativity actualizes in childhood itself. And to the extent that productive creativity depends on learned rather than innate traits, its early appearance in the life of an individual augurs well for its mature continuance in one form or another. Creativity predicts creativity. The self-initiated and self-sustained invention of worlds may thus prove effective in identifying children who are significantly more likely than those who do not exhibit inventive play to engage as adults in creative work within disciplines, at the forefront of disciplines or in the unknown territory that lies between.

Recognizing and Nurturing Worldplay Worldplay warrants notice in the selection processes of gifted programs. It also warrants encouragement in educational and familial settings, if only to bring to adult attention more children who delight and persist in creative play. A sense of when and where to find worldplay should aid in that exercise. Ongoing research on the worldplay experiences of MacArthur Fellows confirms the developmental pattern discerned by Silvey, MacKeith and Cohen. Among sampled Fellows, nearly a third of imaginary worlds were invented in early childhood, over half were invented in middle childhood and a tenth were newly constructed in late

Total

x/28

28 8 22 8

29% 79% 29%

childhood (see Table 29.3). Because the greater part of early childhood worlds lasted into middle childhood, and some worlds invented in middle childhood lasted into late childhood, the duration of worldplay among sampled Fellows resembled a bell curve: nearly onethird of all invented worlds were played during early childhood, one-third again were played in late childhood, while over three-quarters were played in middle childhood (see Table 29.4). Worldplay peaks in middle childhood, yet certain other characteristics of that play tend to hide it from ready view. In the first place, about two-thirds of imagined worlds invented by sampled Fellows were described as solitary play. No more than a quarter were described as shared with one or two intimates and only one invented world was described as a social or public game involving a larger and non-select group of peers (see Table 29.5). In the second place, worldplay is often experientially invisible as well as socially aloof, although in some cases the formation of imaginary place is tied in some way to physical place in the real world. Somewhat over one-third of imaginary worlds invented by sampled Fellows were partially instantiated in “special places” found in the house or out-of-doors, in habitable “forts” constructed from natural or man-made materials or in miniature places modeled with toys, blocks or other appropriated materials (see Table 29.6). Though found places, forts and models might draw the notice of others (e.g., Van Manen & Levering, 1996; Hart, 1979),

Table 29.5 Social Context of Worldplay Among Sampled MacArthur Fellows # Plays %

Solitary

Shared

Social/public

Unknown

Total

18 64

7 25

1 4

2 7

28 100

612

M. Root-Bernstein Table 29.6 Place Formation in Worldplay Among Sampled MacArthur Fellows # Plays %

Found/constructed

Modeled

Wholly imagined

Unknown

Total

2 7

8 29

13 46

5 18

28 100

in worldplay these locales often serve as foundation for further elaboration of place in private imagination. Worldplay is even more invisible for those worlds not tied to physical place. Among sampled Fellows, nearly one-half of invented worlds appear to have been wholly conceived in the mind alone (Table 29.6). Whether partially or fully imagined, much of worldplay is internalized and unavailable to any but intimate others, if such exist, collaboratively engaged in shared play. As with other forms of complex imaginative play (Gross, 2004, p. 132), unengaged observers may be wholly unaware of its character or complexity. One final characteristic adds psychological distance to social seclusion and experiential invisibility. In the majority of cases, worldplay tends to be kept secret from parents and other adults. One-fifth of worlds invented by MacArthur Fellows were considered secret; an additional one-fifth or so were considered semisecret, that is, the Fellow as a child knew or assumed that parents knew about the world, yet reference to the play was never overt (see Table 29.7). This suggests that solitary or shared play with imagined worlds was at least private over one-third of the time, that is, without adult guidance, interference or influence. Van Manen & Levering (1996) argue that privacy gained from secrecy or near-secrecy not only characterizes a great deal of play in middle childhood but nurtures the growth of the self as an independent agent capable of autonomous thought and action (pp. 8, 74, 89 and passim). Even in cases where Fellows did not keep worldplay a secret from parents, and overt discussion took place, revelation was not meant to violate the ownership of private play. In one instance, a Fellow disclosed her imaginary world to her mother. “She was very encouraging and liked that I imagined things. I didn’t like it when she referred to it, though. . .” When her mother tried to involve another sibling in the make-believe, the Fellow continued, “I was completely enraged and

felt betrayed” (as cited in M. Root-Bernstein & RootBernstein, 2006). The disclosure to parent had not been meant to alter access to or creative control of the imaginative play. By its very nature, then, worldplay may slip under the adult radar, to the benefit of the child creator. In any enterprise to take more notice of the phenomenon, therefore, a general caveat is appropriate. Under no circumstances should parents or teachers interfere with this play at the expense of the child’s privacy and control. What is needed is a hands-off, yet supportive, environment – one that encourages imaginative play, makes time and requested materials available, and protects solitary or shared play from the blandishments of socially engaged peers and misguided adults. Indeed, worldplay ought to be tolerated as long as the child wishes to pursue it, which may mean in some cases resisting pressures to inhibit solitary or shared imaginative play in adolescent or teenage years in favor of social play of one kind or another. In addition to protecting spontaneous worldplay, parents and especially teachers may also wish to encourage or promote the invention of imaginary places and people. Various approaches to the group design of possible, impossible and utopian worlds have been used in elementary classrooms as a means of teaching the learnable processes of creative endeavor (e.g., Murphy, 1974; Shekerjian, 1990, p. 22; Sobel, 1993). Obviously, in a school setting where worldplay forms part of the curriculum its nurture may be somewhat different. Teachers must necessarily set the general task, provide materials, and promote collaboration and cooperation, all the while taking care to allow the individual imagination free range. This does not mean that “anything goes” in classroom worldplay. Analogue worlds depend upon an acquired knowledge of geographies, social customs, political systems, etc. They depend, too, on the production of artifacts that document that

Table 29.7 Secrecy of Worldplay Among Sampled MacArthur Fellows # Plays %

Secret

Semi-secret

Not secret

Unknown

Total

6 21

5 18

7 25

10 36

28 100

29

Imaginary Worldplay as an Indicator of Creative Giftedness

analogue world: maps, stories, histories, crafts, models, etc. It is perfectly reasonable, indeed advisable, to set standards of excellence for the evaluation of these worldplay documents. It is even reasonable to assess – or have students self-assess – the internal consistency of the imagined world, as revealed by an array of documents. At the same time, it is unreasonable to evaluate or judge the imaginative leaps that tie consistency or verisimilitude to the impossible. Woe to the adult who tells a future Bront¨e that a Glass Town is nowhere to be found on the African continent. Finally, parents and teachers may undertake to encourage children to elaborate upon the imaginary worlds they encounter in books, movies, board games, video simulation games such as SimCityTM and even online virtual world games. While these pursuits in and of themselves stimulate imaginative participation in invented worlds, the child’s part in that invention remains largely a passive or, at any rate, a reactive one. The child consumes a world imagined by others and does not construct or create her own. Unless she furthers the play experience in book or video game by adding to it some imaginative construction that is under her full creative control, she is not engaged in the creative behaviors and processes of imaginary world invention.

Conclusion Worldplay is here characterized as a complex form of imaginative play, peaking in middle childhood, engaging the child in creative behaviors that anticipate adult creative processes and potentially preparing the child for mature creative achievement in a variety of disciplines. In the sciences, social sciences and arts, especially, worldplay in childhood may be significantly associated with adult creative giftedness. It follows that worldplay may also be a sign of creative giftedness in childhood. Further research will be necessary, however, to determine whether worldplay, as an indicator of creative giftedness, is or is not independent from other indicators of giftedness, particularly the IQ measures of intellectual precocity. Despite the suppositions of Terman and Hollingworth, no systematic study has as yet linked worldplay – or indeed any other form of highly

613

imaginative play – to high, moderate or disparate levels of IQ. Further research may also compare the creative apprenticeship to be had in worldplay with disciplinary apprenticeships often experienced by highly precocious learners and prodigies. Though some prodigies may invent imaginary worlds, it is likely that creative giftedness in childhood, as measured by worldplay, is substantially different from intellectual giftedness in mathematics and languages or technical giftedness in music performance and chess. Indeed, the most important difference may be this: Prodigies are usually specialists in learning and talent (Feldman, 1986, pp. 9–11). Worldplayers are, by way of contrast, generalists, developing the multiple skills of the polymath (see R. Root-Bernstein, this volume). The inventor of imaginary worlds typically constructs a variety of narrative and systemic elaborations. He may write stories, compose music and draw maps or build models, design games and construct languages – and thus engage in early introduction to expressive techniques and intellectual skills of several different kinds. Within this general panoply of productive endeavor, special attention may also focus on the development of one craft or another, as was certainly the case for the Bront¨e sisters in writing – though it is worth noting that all three sisters, as children, drew as well as they wrote and Charlotte, along with her brother, actually harbored dreams of becoming an artist (Barker, 1997, p. 213). For other individuals, specialization within the general framework of worldplay may be found not in craft, per se, but in the compelling interests of that play, whether these are anthropological, linguistic, philosophical or scientific in nature. Hollingworth’s Child D focused for some time on what he called “wordical work,” which involved not only the invention and classification of his Bornish language but the exploration of “concepts and [. . .] words to express them that are not to be found in dictionaries” (1942, p. 126). In her investigations of early forms of clothing, shelter and cuisine, M. developed keen interest in the evolution of culture (personal communication). Phenomenological report suggests that this immersion in an array of intellectual interests and expressive crafts exercises creative behaviors that prepare the child for mature contribution in the sciences, social sciences and humanities as well as in the arts. This is as it should be for any indicator of general creative giftedness. Creative novelty, pro-

614

duced in the combustive union of hitherto disparate elements, presupposes unusual breadth of experience, often across very different disciplines (M. RootBernstein & Root-Bernstein, 2003; Root-Bernstein, Bernstein, & Garnier, 1995; R. Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 2004; Sternberg, 2003, pp. 114, 126). Effective novelty requires focus and persistence (Ghiselin, 1954, pp. 15–20; Plucker & Beghetto, 2004, pp. 160–161; Sternberg, 2005, p. 304). By channeling the individual’s capacity for make-believe into the polymathic invention of an imaginary cosmos, involving the internally consistent particularization of its many aspects over a persistent period of time, worldplay may stimulate both the generalist and the specialist. In sum, by recognizing worldplay – and perhaps, too, other complex imaginative play – as a shooting star, an indicator of creative behavior, society can expand the nurture of creative giftedness in childhood to eventual, productive benefit in a constellation of adult disciplines and endeavors.

References Alexander, C. (1983). The early writings of Charlotte Bront¨e. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Barker, J. (1997). The Bront¨es: A life in letters. New York: Overlook Press. Bronowski, J. (1956). Science and human values. New York: Harper & Row. Burks, B. X., Jensen, D. W., & Terman, L. M. (1930). The promise of youth. Vol. 3. Genetic studies of genius. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Calaprice, A. (Ed.). (2000). The expanded quotable Einstein. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cobb, E. (1977). The ecology of imagination in childhood. New York: Columbia University Press. Cohen, D., & MacKeith, S. (1991). The development of imagination: The private worlds of childhood. London: Routledge. Coleridge, H. (1851). Poems by Hartley Coleridge, with a memoir of his life by his brother (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). London: Edward Moxon. Cox, C. M. (1953). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Vol. 2. Genetic studies of genius. Stanford, CA: Stanford U. Press. (Original work published 1926). Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperPerennial. De Quincey, T. (1853). Autobiographical sketches. Boston: Ticknor, Reed and Fields. Ellis, H. (1904). A study of British genius. London: Hurst and Blackett. Evans, B., & Evans, G. L. (1982). The Scribner companion to the Bront¨es. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

M. Root-Bernstein Feldman, D. H. (1986). Nature’s gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Forster-Nietzsche, E. (1912). The life of Nietzsche Vol. 1. (A. Ludovici, Trans.). New York: Sturgis and Walton Co. Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P.W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence, explorations with gifted students. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Ghiselin, B. (1954). The creative process, a symposium. Berkeley: University of California Press. Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, M. G. (1962). Cradles of eminence. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.). New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Harris, P. L. (2000). The work of the imagination. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Hart, R. (1979). Children’s experience of place. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc. Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ: Origin and development. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book Company. Kearney, K. (2000). Frequently asked questions about extreme intelligence in very young children. What about play? Do highly and profoundly gifted preschoolers lay differently from other children? Paragraph 7. Retrieved August 22, 2006 from Davidson Institute for Talent Development: www.davidsoninstitute.org. Klein, P. S. (1992). Mediating the cognitive, social and aesthetic development of precocious young children. In P. S. Klein & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), To be young and gifted (pp. 245– 277). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Lem, S. (1995). Highcastle, A Remembrance (M. Kandel, Trans.). New York: Harcourt Brace and Co. (Original work published 1975). Malkin, B. H. (1997). A father’s memoirs of his child. Washington, DC: Woodstock Books. (Original work published 1806). McCurdy, H. G., & Follett, H. (1966). Barbara, the unconscious autobiography of a child genius. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. McGreevy, A. L. (1995). The parsonage children: An analysis of the creative early years of the Bront¨es at Haworth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 19(3), 146–153. Milgram, R. M. (1990). Creativity: An idea whose time has come and gone? In M. A. Runco & R. S. Alberts (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 215–233). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Morelock, M. (1997). Imagination, logic and the exceptionally gifted. Roeper Review, 19(3), pp. 1–4. Murphy, R. (1974). Imaginary worlds, notes on a new curriculum. New York: Teachers & Writers Collaborative, Inc. Ochse, R. (1990). Before the gates of excellence: The determinants of creative genius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plotz, J. (2001). Romanticism and the vocation of childhood. New York: Palgrave. Plucker, J. A. & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific and why the distinction does not matter. In R. Sternberg, E. Grigorenko, & J. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153–168). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

29

Imaginary Worldplay as an Indicator of Creative Giftedness

Ratchford, F. E. (1949). The Bront¨e’s web of childhood. New York: Columbia University Press. Root-Bernstein, M., & Root-Bernstein, R. (2003). Martha Graham, dance and the polymathic imagination: A case for multiple intelligences or universal thinking tools? Journal of Dance Education, 3, 16–27. Root-Bernstein, M., & Root-Bernstein, R. (2006). Imaginary worldplay in childhood and maturity and its impact on adult creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(4), 405–425. Root-Bernstein, R., Bernstein, M., & Garnier, H. (1995). Correlations between avocations, scientific style, work habits and professional impact of scientists. Creativity Research Journal, 8(2), 115–137. Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (1999). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world’s most creative people. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2004). Artistic scientists and scientific artists: The link between polymathy and creativity. In R. Sternberg, E. Grigorenko, & J. Singer (Eds.). Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 127– 151). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rose, B. (1970). Claes Oldenburg. New York: The Museum of Modern Art. Shekerjian, D. (1990). Uncommon genius: how great ideas are born. New York: VikingPenguin. Silvey, R. (1974). Who’s listening? The story of BBC audience research. London: George Allen & Unwin. Silvey, R. (1977, May 13). But that was in another country. Times Educational Supplement, p. 18. Silvey, R., & MacKeith, S. (1988). The paracosm: A special form of fantasy. In D. C. Morrison (Ed.), Organizing early experience: Imagination and cognition in childhood (pp. 173–197). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Co. Singer, J. L. (1975). The inner world of daydreaming. New York: Harper & Row. Singer, D. G., & Singer, J. L. (1990). The house of make-believe, Play and the developing imagination. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Sobel, D. (1993). Children’s special places: Exploring the role of forts, dens, and bush houses in middle childhood. Tuscon, AZ: Zephyr Press. Sternberg, R. (2003). The development of creativity as a decision-making process. In R. K. Sawyer, V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, R. J. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman, J. Nakamura, & M. Csikszentmihalyi, Creativity and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sternberg, R. (2005). The domain generality versus specificity debate: How should it be posed? In J. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains, Faces of the muse (pp. 299–306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1992). Creative giftedness in children. In P. S. Klein & A. J. Tannenbaum, (Eds.), To be young and gifted (pp. 33–51). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Subotnik, R., Kassan, L., Summers, E., & Wasser, A. (1993). Genius revisited: High IQ children grown up. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1992). Early signs of giftedness: Research and commentary. In P. S. Klein & A. J. Tannenbaum, (Eds.), To be young and gifted (pp. 3–32). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

615 Taylor, M. (1999). Imaginary companions and the children who create them. New York: Oxford University Press. Terman, L. M., assisted by B.T. Baldwin, E. Bronson, J.C. DeVoss, F. Fuller, F.L. Goodenough, T.L. Kelley, M. Lima, H. Marshall, A.H. Moore, A.S. Raubenhaimner, G.M. Ruch, R.L. Willoughby, J.B. Wyman, & D.H.Yates (1954). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Vol. 1. Genetic studies of genius (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford U. Press. (Original work published 1925). Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). The gifted group at midlife. Vol. 5. Genetic studies of genius. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Ustinov, P. (1998). Dear me. London: Arrow Books. (Original work published 1976). Van Manen, M., & Levering, B. (1996). Childhood’s secrets: Intimacy, privacy and the self reconsidered. New York: Teachers College Press.

Appendix: Translation of Inscription on the Cave Painting, by M. (personal papers)

On top: Once the flower is taken it is forever dead, and no flower lives in beauty but a hero died there. Goodbye Yeoceroee, farewell lad, you go down under the earth to Moi Covcul’s house of flowers. We sing farewell. And your shine makes the clouds purple and red! You say, farewell, goodbye! Names of the figures above [from left to right]: Fiayiu, who loved her friend for his laughing spirit; Cering the mother; Yahbah the father; Sommaw the brother; Baypog the sister Inside: Old Isk comes for young Yeoceroee, says come, spirit, down to the earth from which you came, down to the house of darkness, for now you die. And the spirit of Yeoceroee follows old Isk the shepherd of the spirits down through many dark caves to the house of Moi Covcul which has written on the walls the stories of the lives of all creatures. It is

616

M. Root-Bernstein

Thea who writes on the walls of the house of truth, and Nok who keeps it. Yeoceroee comes to the cave of flowers and greets Nok, says Brave Nok, I am Papushitohat, fleet of foot, and far have I traveled through joy and sadness before I stopped here. And Nok gives him water to wash the hands of all desires. And to Thea he says, Sweet Thea, far have I traveled through snow and rain before I left behind the world. And she gives him to drink the water of forgetting. And Yeoceroee says to Moi Covcul, Hail, artisan, you are my grandmother and grandfather. Says Moi Covcul, you come well to my house, Papushitohat. Sleep you now here in the flowers the soft and ending sleep of death, and awake new. Names of the figures below [from left to right]: Isk; Yeoceroee, son of Cering and Yahbah. The true name of his spirit is Papushitohat; Nok; Thea; Moi Covcul.

Brief Explanation of the Cave Painting This cave painting is a tribute to a young man, Yeoceroee, who died. The part of the inscription beginning “Goodbye Yeoceroee. . .” is an adaptation of a song to the sun at his setting on the holiday Bah Juebay. The red dress and shoes of Fiayiu are marriage clothes, indicating that she had hoped to marry Yeoceroee. Moi Covcul means “Person Makes-All” and is believed to have created the world. In the house of flowers he is usually depicted as a dogwood tree and an eagle. Similarly, Isk, Nok and Thea are each considered to be one being with two shapes at once: human and bat, human and ocelot, human and fairy tern. There is a fourth keeper of the spirits named Giy [not pictured] who delivers inspiration and fertility, and she is associated with a cuttlefish.

Chapter 30

Development of Gifted Motivation: Longitudinal Research and Applications Adele Eskeles Gottfried and Allen W. Gottfried

Abstract Gifted motivation was proposed by Gottfried & Gottfried (2004) as an area of giftedness in and of itself distinct from intellectual giftedness. Gifted motivation applies to those individuals who are superior in their strivings and determination pertaining to an endeavor. The foundation for theorizing about and providing empirical validation for this construct is based on the authors’ longitudinal study of giftedness in the realm of academic intrinsic motivation. Academic intrinsic motivation is defined as enjoyment of school learning characterized by an orientation toward mastery, curiosity, persistence, task-endogeny, and the learning of challenging, difficult, and novel tasks. The present chapter will present theory and contemporary findings regarding gifted motivation, and how this relate to concurrent and long-term outcomes from childhood through early adulthood. Implications for identification of gifted motivation, program selection, and program development and evaluation will be advanced.

Introduction

Gifted motivation is a recently proposed construct having significance for theory and research regarding gifted individuals, as well as educational applications and societal implications. It is defined as pertaining to individuals who are superior in their strivings and determination pertaining to an endeavor (Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004). Motivation in the extreme is considered to be a form of giftedness just as intelligence in the extreme is considered a form of giftedness (Feldhusen & Jarwan, 2000; Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004). In this chapter the rationale, development, empirical foundation, and applications of the recently proposed construct of gifted motivation are presented. The construct of gifted motivation was conceptualized as a form of giftedness in and of itself, and empirical data validate the construct (Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004; Gottfried, Gottfried, Cook, & Morris, 2005). It was founded on theory and research in the domain of academic intrinsic motivation defined Keywords Gifted motivation · Academic intrinsic mo- as the enjoyment of school learning characterized by tivation · Longitudinal study · Curiosity · Persistence · an orientation toward mastery; curiosity; persistence; Task-endogeny · Program selection · Program develop- task-endogeny; and the learning of challenging, ment · Evaluation difficult, and novel tasks (Gottfried, 1985). Because academic intrinsic motivation concerns the pleasure inherent in learning it is particularly well suited to developing the construct of gifted motivation and its applications in academic and related domains across the life-span. The conceptualization and empirical A.E. Gottfried (B) evidence supporting gifted motivation are presented California State University, Northridge, CA, USA below. e-mail: [email protected]

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 30, 

617

618

Conceptual Foundation of Gifted Motivation A Study of the Development of Intellectual Giftedness and the Early Proposal of Gifted Motivation: The Fullerton Longitudinal Study The initial conception of gifted motivation evolved from our longitudinal research on intellectual giftedness conducted within the Fullerton Longitudinal Study (FLS) (Gottfried, Gottfried, Barthurst & Guerin, 1994). The FLS is a contemporary long-term study of development from infancy through early adulthood. The sample initially consisted of 130 infants and their families representing a wide range of middle-socioeconomic status from skilled worker to professionals who were predominantly EuropeanAmerican (90%) with other ethnicities (Latino, Asian, East Indian, Hawaiian, Iranian, and interracial). Beginning at age 1 year, the participants were assessed in the university research laboratory at 6-month intervals during infancy and the preschool years, and annually from age 5 years throughout school to age 17 years. At each assessment through adolescence, a comprehensive battery of standardized measures was administered. At age 24 years, the participants were surveyed with respect to demographics, but primarily regarding their educational progress. During infancy, preschool and middle elementary years, the homes of the participants were directly observed to appraise the social and emotional supports and cognitive enrichment being furnished by parents to the children as well as the physical characteristics of the family environment. As of this writing, there were 23 assessment waves throughout the course of the FLS that are displayed in Table 30.1. For further details about sample characteristics see Gottfried & Gottfried (1984) and Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst, Guerin, & Parramore (2003). Academic intrinsic motivation was included in this investigation from early childhood through late adolescence. It was assessed with the Children’s Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (CAIMI) (Gottfried, 1986a, 2006), a published self-report inventory of established psychometric qualities, developed to measure academic intrinsic motivation as defined above in four subject areas (reading, math,

A.E. Gottfried and A.W. Gottfried Table 30.1 The Fullerton longitudinal study assessments Assessments Laboratory Infancy Preschool Elementary school Junior high school High school Surveys Home visits Infancy Preschool Elementary school

Ages 1, 1.5, 2 2.5, 3, 3.5 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 12, 13 14, 15, 16, 17 24 1.25 3.25 8

social studies, and science) as well as for school in general. The CAIMI was originally developed for children ranging from middle elementary through middle/junior high school. A downward extension of the CAIMI, called the Y-CAIMI (Gottfried, 1990), was then developed to measure academic intrinsic motivation in young primary grade elementary school children in the school areas of reading, math, and school in general. An upward extension of the CAIMI for high school students was also developed in which the items were identical to the CAIMI with reading referred to as English and social studies as history (Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 2001). In the FLS, the Y-CAIMI was administered at the 7- and 8-year assessments; and the CAIMI was administered at the 9-, 10-, 13-, 16-, and 17-year assessments. In the FLS, 20 children were designated as intellectually gifted children at age 8 years on the basis of obtaining an IQ score of 130 or above on the WISC-R (Wechsler, 1974), a criterion consistent with the practice in the field (A. W. Gottfried et al., 1994). Early developmental aspects of intellectually gifted children across cognitive, educational, motivational, behavioral, and environmental domains were studied from infancy through age 8 (A. W. Gottfried et al., 1994). Significant motivational differences were obtained when comparing the intellectually gifted children and their cohort peer comparison, i.e., children not designated as intellectually gifted, as early as infancy through early adolescence. From infancy through age 6 years, those who were subsequently designated as intellectually gifted at age 8 years evidenced significantly greater cognitive mastery motivation (A. W. Gottfried et al., 1994). Cognitive mastery motivation was assessed using the Bayley Infant Behavior Record (Bayley, 1969) consisting of the examiner’s ratings of children’s test-taking behaviors made during test administration. On this measure, intellectually gifted

30

Development of Gifted Motivation

children showed significantly higher goal directedness (degree of directed effort), object orientation (interest in test materials), attention span (degree of continued absorption in task), cooperativeness with the examiner (enters into tasks enthusiastically), positive emotional tone (happiness), and reactivity to test materials (A. W. Gottfried et al., 1994). These findings indicated that as early as infancy, the intellectually gifted children were more enthusiastically oriented toward cognitive tasks than those in the cohort peer comparison group. These behaviors are conceptually relevant to theories of intrinsic motivation inasmuch as they indicate pleasure in engaging in cognitive tasks. In fact, Matheny (1980) identified a cognitive mastery cluster of behaviors using the Bayley Infant Behavior Record items including goal directedness, attention span, object orientation, and stimulus reactivity. Hence, as early as infancy, those who were designated as intellectually gifted during childhood evidenced specific cognitive motivationally relevant behaviors (A. W. Gottfried et al., 1994). As the children progressed in age, the intellectually gifted children evidenced significantly higher academic intrinsic motivation from early childhood through adolescence as measured by the Y-CAIMI and CAIMI (Gottfried & Gottfried, 1996; A. W. Gottfried et al., 1994) across school subject areas (reading, math, social studies and science) and for school in general. Hence, intellectually gifted children evidenced stronger enjoyment of the learning process per se compared to their cohort peer group throughout childhood, a finding consistent with their stronger mastery motivation for cognitive tasks during infancy. Based on the evidence of stronger intrinsic motivation for the intellectually gifted, we proposed a conception of the development of intellectual giftedness, called the Potentiality-Enrichment Theory, in which motivation was viewed as playing an integral role in the development of giftedness, interfacing with cognitive ability and an intellectually stimulating environment (A. W. Gottfried et al., 1994). Further, it was in this same volume (A. W. Gottfried et al., 1994) that we first proposed the existence of the construct of gifted motivation. We further asserted that whereas there might be an overlap between the constructs of gifted intelligence and the motivation “we are not proposing a oneto-one correspondence between intelligence and motivation” (p. 172). It is to be noted that we immediately recognized that gifted motivation would be its own construct.

619

Conceptualizing the Gifted Motivation Construct The construct of gifted motivation was developed and more fully proposed by Gottfried & Gottfried (2004). Whereas previous giftedness theories and research had included motivation, it was viewed as a factor supporting other forms of giftedness and talent rather than as a form of giftedness in its own right (Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004). For example, motivation had been seen as a prerequisite for, component of, and even an outcome of giftedness (e.g., Dai, Moon, & Feldhusen, 1998; Feldhusen, 1986; Gagn´e, 2000; Gottfried & Gottfried, 1996; A. W. Gottfried et al., 1994; Lens & Rand, 2000; Renzulli, 1986; Ziegler & Heller, 2000). These perspectives focused on superior intellect, talent, and creativity as giftedness, but none had recognized motivation as a domain of giftedness in and of itself, albeit, Gottfried and colleagues (A. W. Gottfried et al., 1994) suggested it. Criteria for developing the construct of gifted motivation. The following criteria formed the basis of proposing gifted motivation (Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004): (a) comparisons between the intellectually gifted and their cohort peer comparison groups over time showing higher motivation for the former; (b) academic intrinsic motivation contributed to the prediction of achievement independently of IQ; (c) establishment of continuity of academic intrinsic motivation over time; and (d) the facilitative role of environment in developing intrinsic motivation. These criteria were chosen to demonstrate both the independence and the uniqueness of the gifted motivation construct and also to indicate that it is recognizable by teachers and parents, and stimulated by the environment. Regarding the first criterion concerning group differences, the evidence reviewed above demonstrated that intellectually gifted children showed significantly stronger mastery and academic intrinsic motivation when compared to their cohort peer comparison group. This evidence is also consistent with other research findings that intellectually gifted children evidence greater curiosity and mastery motivation than their comparison groups (Davis & Connell, 1985; Henderson, Gold, & McCord, 1982; Hom, 1988; Li, 1988; Vallerand, Gagn´e, Senecal, & Pelletier, 1994). Regarding the second criterion, in order to show that gifted motivation is not accounted for by intelligence,

620

it was important to document the unique statistical contributions of academic intrinsic motivation to achievement, above and beyond IQ (Gottfried, 1990; Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004). Predictions that motivation would add its own unique variance to achievement were supported. Results of hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that when IQ and motivation were both used to predict achievement, entered in that order, each significantly predicted achievement independently of each other. Motivation added significant variance to these predictions above and beyond IQ, indicating that children’s achievement was higher when their academic intrinsic motivation was higher even beyond their IQ scores. From childhood through adolescence, using numerous achievement indices including standardized achievement measures (Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery; Woodcock & Johnson, 1977, 1989), parents’ and teachers’ ratings of children’s achievement (Child Behavior Checklist; Achenbach, 1991a, 1991b), high school grade point average (GPA), and across subject areas (reading, math, social studies, and science), academic intrinsic motivation proved to be a significant, positive, and unique predictor of achievement beyond the variance attributable to IQ (Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004). These results were important for establishing the construct of gifted motivation as independent of IQ. Further, the fact that these findings generalized across different types of achievement measures, different informants, and different subject areas, added to the generalizability of gifted motivation across academic domains. In addition to these findings with multiple regressions, in an earlier study using partial correlations, it had been found that academic intrinsic motivation was significantly related to achievement even when IQ was partialed, i.e., removed, from the correlations (Gottfried, 1985). Overall, across these findings academic intrinsic motivation has clearly been shown to be a construct independent of intelligence. In addition to showing the significant statistical contributions of academic intrinsic motivation independent of intelligence, a similar set of results was obtained when academic intrinsic motivation predicted academic outcomes controlling for achievement. For example, in a study of young children’s academic intrinsic motivation from ages 7 to 9 years, academic intrinsic motivation added uniquely, beyond standardized achievement measures, to the prediction of

A.E. Gottfried and A.W. Gottfried

teachers’ reading and math report card grades and ratings of performance (Gottfried, 1990). In a recent investigation at the high school level with regard to level of mathematics course taking, regression analyses of longitudinal data showed that when students were more highly intrinsically motivated in math at age 13 years they evidenced significantly higher high school math grade point average (GPA), significantly higher levels of math course-taking, and significantly more math honors classes and number math classes completed (Oliver et al., 2007). Math motivation significantly contributed to these outcomes independent of earlier achievement. Therefore, for students in high school, those who pursued math to a higher level, and who achieved more highly in math, were also more intrinsically motivated in math at an earlier age. These findings are important by showing the independent statistical contributions of academic intrinsic motivation and achievement in predicting academic outcomes. These findings further augment the rationale for the construct of gifted motivation by showing that academic intrinsic motivation is an independent contributor to academic outcomes beyond both intelligence and achievement. Research by others has supported the findings obtained in the FLS showing the distinctiveness between academic motivation and intelligence. For example, in a study of adolescents’ intrinsic intellectual motivation, a construct similar to academic intrinsic motivation, motivation continued to be significantly related to academic achievement when IQ was controlled through partial correlations (Lloyd & Barenblatt, 1984). Lehrer & Hieronymus (1977) found that academic achievement motivation predicted achievement beyond IQ using multiple regressions. Using the High School and Beyond Longitudinal Study data, Cool & Keith (1991) found that academic motivation had a significant and meaningful indirect relationship, beyond ability, to achievement through its impact on the amount of challenging coursework taken. Since these findings are consistent with those in the FLS, they serve to further support the rationale for advancing the gifted motivation construct because they also show that academic motivation and intelligence are individual and separate constructs across different samples and measures. The third criterion, which concerned the continuity of academic intrinsic motivation over time, was important for advancing the concept of gifted motivation for

30

Development of Gifted Motivation

the following reasons. If academic intrinsic motivation was found to be inconsistent and changeable over time, then a construct of gifted motivation could not be established because individuals who might be high or low at one time might be reversed at another. However, if academic intrinsic motivation was found to be consistent, predictable, and stable over time, then a construct of gifted motivation could be advanced since gifted motivation would be predictable over time. Several studies have supported the continuity of academic intrinsic motivation longitudinally. Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried (2001) used structural equation modeling to examine the continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from ages 9 to 17 years. The results of these analyses indicated significant and substantial continuity of academic intrinsic motivation which increased in magnitude during adolescence. Further, each previous year directly predicted academic intrinsic motivation at the subsequent age, and indirect effects showed that earlier academic intrinsic motivation impacted subsequent motivation throughout the entire age range. In another study, academic intrinsic motivation between ages 7 and 8 years significantly related to academic intrinsic motivation at 9 years of age (Gottfried, 1990), providing evidence of continuity of the construct at these young ages inasmuch as those with higher academic intrinsic motivation at ages 7 and 8 years had higher academic intrinsic motivation at age 9 years. The magnitudes of relationships increased from ages 8 to 9 years, compared to 7 to 9 years, a finding consistent with that reported above regarding the increase in stability over the age range of 9–17 years. At even earlier ages, in research using the Bayley Infant Behavior Record described above (Gottfried & Gottfried, 1994), mastery motivation in infancy (18 + 24 months) significantly predicted preschool mastery motivation (30 + 36 + 42 months) which in turn predicted school-age mastery motivation (60 + 72 months). School-age mastery motivation significantly predicted academic intrinsic motivation at age 9 years. Hence, cognitive mastery motivation in infancy proved to be an early correlate and developmental precursor of future academic intrinsic motivation. Overall, these findings supported the development of a gifted motivation construct inasmuch as academic intrinsic motivation was found to evidence consistency from childhood to late adolescence, and stability increased with age. These findings are consistent

621

with other psychological constructs including personality (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000), temperament (Guerin & Gottfried, 1994; Guerin, Gottfried, Oliver, & Thomas, 2003), competence beliefs (Wigfield et al., 1997), and intelligence (Asendorpf, 1992; Gottfried, Gottfried, & Guerin, 2009, in press). The last criterion that helped to launch the construct of gifted motivation concerned the role of environment in academic intrinsic motivation. Both teachers and parents have been found to play their own role in the recognition and/or facilitation of children’s academic intrinsic motivation. Regarding teachers, they have been found to notice and be aware of students’ academic intrinsic motivation from first to eighth grades. Their ratings of students’ academic intrinsic motivation significantly correlated with students’ own ratings of their academic intrinsic motivation (Gottfried, 1985, 1990), particularly in math for fifth through eighth grades (Gottfried, 1985). This is a significant finding because it documents the fact that academic intrinsic motivation is not simply a variable for researchers to examine, but it is a real phenomenon identifiable in students by teachers. Thus, students with particularly strong academic intrinsic motivation appear to engage in motivated behaviors that are noticeable in school. We have also examined parental and home environmental influences on children’s and adolescents’ academic intrinsic motivation. Based on the theory that the use of extrinsic rewards has adverse consequences for children’s intrinsic motivation, the types of parental motivational strategies used by parents and how these related to children’s academic intrinsic motivation were examined in a study of 9- to 10-year-olds in the FLS (A. E. Gottfried et al., 1994). Two types of parent motivation strategies were assessed using an instrument called the Parental Motivational Practices Scale (PMPS, A. E. Gottfried et al., 1994). These included parents’ use of task-endogenous (i.e., intrinsic) strategies (such as encouraging children’s curiosity), and parents’ use of task-extrinsic motivational strategies (such as money or toys). Using structural equation modeling, results supported the prediction that task-endogenous parental strategies facilitate the development of academic intrinsic motivation and achievement (A. E. Gottfried et al., 1994), whereas parents’ use of extrinsic strategies was adverse for children’s academic intrinsic motivation and achievement. To the extent that parents encouraged children’s curiosity, inquisitiveness, independence, and task

622

engagement, their children’s academic intrinsic motivation and achievement were significantly higher. Conversely, when parents used more extrinsic motivational strategies providing a greater amount of external consequences contingent on children’s performance, such as giving money or toys when children did well, children evidenced significantly lower academic intrinsic motivation and achievement. Hence, both academic intrinsic motivation and achievement were related to the type of parental strategies used. Results occurred across CAIMI subject areas and for school in general. In another study, Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried (1998) used structural equation modeling to investigate the hypothesis that children’s exposure to cognitive home stimulation is facilitative of their academic intrinsic motivation. The longitudinal impact of cognitively stimulating home environment on children’s academic intrinsic motivation was studied in children from ages 9 to 13 years controlling for family socioeconomic status. A latent home stimulation variable consisted of items from the HOME scales (Bradley, Caldwell, Rock, Hamrick, & Harris, 1988); the Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1994), and our own Home Environment Survey (A. W. Gottfried et al., 1994). Examples of items from the home observation included the following: child has ready access to a library card, family arranges for the child to go to the library once a month; and family provides lessons or organizational membership to support child’s talent. Examples of items from parent survey include: availability of musical instruments, magazines, extracurricular lessons, parental expectation of child’s achievement, discussions of political and social issues, and interest in cultural activities including art, music, literature, and museums. Results supported the hypothesis showing that stimulating home environment had a significant, positive direct path to subsequent academic intrinsic motivation at ages 9, 10, and 13 years. Moreover, this was obtained when socioeconomic status was controlled. Results of these two studies strongly suggested that gifted motivation is related to specific home environments and that parents play an important role in the facilitation of their children’s academic intrinsic motivation. In the first study, when parents used task-endogenous motivational strategies, children’s academic intrinsic motivation was significantly higher than when they used task-extrinsic strategies. In the second study, parental provision of greater cognitive

A.E. Gottfried and A.W. Gottfried

stimulation in the home environment facilitated children’s academic intrinsic motivation. Hence, children whose family environments are higher in task-endogenous motivational strategies and intellectual stimulation are likely to develop greater curiosity, exploration, enjoyment of the learning process, and desire to master challenging learning opportunities. The quality and quantity of stimulation in the home environment are likely to play a significant role in children’s development of intrinsic motivation and gifted motivation. This supposition has been further studied and will be examined below. Based on the conceptual analysis put forth, we proposed that gifted motivation is a type of giftedness in and of itself, and not simply an augmentation of intellectual giftedness or giftedness in another domain (Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004).

Empirical Validation of the Gifted Motivation Construct Our next task in the development of this construct was to provide empirical validation of the gifted motivation construct. We did so by identifying children evidencing consistent, extremely high academic intrinsic motivation, and comparing them to their cohort peer group with regard to their developmental/educational histories and future outcomes. Using extreme group methodology within the FLS, we emulated the research design used in our study of intellectual giftedness by applying it to academic intrinsic motivation (Gottfried et al., 2005). In the research on intellectual giftedness, the traditional and ubiquitous standard cut-off score of 130 IQ or above was selected to designate the gifted at age 8 years. This age was selected as it has been found to provide reliable, predictive validity to IQ in subsequent years through adolescence and beyond (see Gottfried et al., 2005). This resulted in 19% (20 of 107) of the children in the longitudinal sample being designated as intellectually gifted at the age 8 year assessment, which was not unexpected because of the upward displacement of the distribution resulting from sampling middle-class families (Gottfried et al., 2005). Further, this percentage is in accord with thresholds used by other researchers in studying giftedness (see Gagn´e, 1998, for a review).

30

Development of Gifted Motivation

However, in the absence of a standardized cut-off score to designate gifted motivation, we applied the following rationale to create the gifted motivation and cohort peer comparison groups. Because academic intrinsic motivation increases in stability during adolescence, this period was chosen for designating the gifted motivation and cohort peer comparison groups. The school in general subscale of the CAIMI, henceforth called the general score, at ages 13, 16, and 17 years, were aggregated to provide an appraisal of adolescents’ overall pleasure inherent in the learning process in order to apply to a wide range of academic criteria. Aggregation of CAIMI scores across ages was used in order to optimize reliability (Epstein, 1979; Rushton, Brainerd, & Pressley, 1983) and to obtain a sample of the most consistently highly motivated adolescents across time. The total n of the sample was 111. Under the assumption that gifted motivation occurs at a frequency similar to that of gifted intelligence, we applied the same percentage (19%) to designate the gifted motivation group as used in the study of intellectual giftedness. This resulted in 21 of the 111 participants displaying consistently, extremely high academic intrinsic motivation across ages 13–17. Statistical analyses examining the significance of mean differences and effect sizes were computed comparing the gifted motivation and the cohort peer groups across three time periods: (a) prior to the designation of motivationally gifted (ages 6–12 years); (b) concurrent to the designation of motivational giftedness (ages 13–17 years); and (c) subsequent to the designation of motivational giftedness (age 24 years). Results showed that across time, the motivationally gifted evidenced superior academic functioning across a wide array of criteria including academic intrinsic motivation (ages 9 and 10 years); reading and math achievement assessed with the Woodcock-Johnson PsychoEducational Battery across ages 7–17 years; teachers’ and parents’ reports of academic performance in reading and math (ages 6–11 years for teachers, and ages 6 through 17 years for parents); high school GPA (freshman to senior); positive adaptive classroom behaviors (ages 6–11 years); Scholastic Aptitude Test scores (age 17 years); academic and general self-concept (ages 12–16 years); and intellectual performance (ages 6–17 years). It should be noted that regardless of this statistical difference, both groups scored above average in IQ. Because the motivationally gifted evidenced higher intellectual performance, further analyses were con-

623

ducted to determine the distinctiveness of gifted motivation and gifted intelligence. These additional analyses showed that the motivationally and intellectually gifted were distinct groups. Only eight of the adolescents were both motivationally and intellectually gifted, and there proved to be no statistically significant association between the motivationally and the intellectually gifted groups. It was concluded that whereas these two forms of giftedness are not mutually exclusive, their distinctiveness outweighs their overlap. A coefficient of alienation (i.e., non-correlation indicating the variance of one variable that is not accounted for by the other) between motivation and IQ was computed to be .87, indicating that the great majority of variance in academic intrinsic motivation is not accounted for by intelligence. A hierarchical multiple regression further supported the distinctiveness between academic intrinsic motivation and IQ in predicting cumulative high school GPA. In this analysis, motivation significantly contributed to the prediction of GPA beyond IQ. On the basis of these analyses, it was concluded that motivational giftedness is indeed distinct from gifted intelligence. Hence, these analyses further supported the view that gifted motivation needs to be recognized as a form of giftedness in and of itself (Gottfried et al., 2005). Regarding educational attainment from the end of high school through early adulthood, the motivationally gifted had higher accomplishments. In the FLS, none of the motivationally gifted dropped out of high school, whereas five students in the cohort peer comparison group had done so. The motivationally gifted were significantly more likely to take the SAT than the comparison group and were more likely to enroll in 4year colleges directly out of high school. By age 24, the motivationally gifted had completed significantly more years of education, had received more college degrees (BA and AA), and were more likely to be enrolled in graduate school. This pattern was clear and consistent with the enhanced academic functioning of the motivationally gifted in the earlier years. These empirical results validated the construct of gifted motivation. Individuals gifted in the area of academic intrinsic motivation showed a pervasive pattern of enhanced academic functioning across childhood through early adulthood. Their superior academic proficiency began early, prior to adolescence and their designation as motivationally gifted, and continued throughout adolescence and beyond. Furthermore,

624

motivational giftedness proved to be distinct from intellectual giftedness. Based on these findings, the construct of gifted motivation was established as its own unique form of giftedness.

The Role of Home and Family Environment in Gifted Motivation As discussed above, the level of cognitively stimulating environment and the nature of parental motivational practices significantly contribute to the development of academic intrinsic motivation (A. E. Gottfried et al., 1994, 1998). Since the initial proposal of gifted motivation, additional research has been conducted in the FLS examining parental motivational strategies and home environments comparing the motivationally gifted group with their cohort peer group. Gottfried (2008) reported comparing the motivationally gifted to another group of FLS study participants who exhibited consistently low motivation. These individuals were termed the motivationally at-risk. This latter group was formed in a manner comparable to that of the motivationally gifted, but at the low end of the distribution. As reported above, because prior research indicated differential relationships between task-endogenous and task-extrinsic parental motivational strategies and children’s academic intrinsic motivation, we sought to determine if parents of motivationally gifted and at-risk children differentially used intrinsic and extrinsic motivational strategies. Results revealed significantly different strategies used by parents of the motivationally gifted and at-risk groups as compared to their respective cohort peer group. For the motivationally gifted, when children were age 9 years of age parents used significantly fewer extrinsic strategies, whereas parents of the motivationally at-risk group used significantly more. At age 17 years, motivationally gifted adolescents perceived their parents as using significantly more intrinsic strategies, with parents’ reports being consistent. On the contrary, at age 17 years, motivationally at-risk adolescents perceived their parents as using significantly fewer intrinsic strategies. Their fathers reported using significantly fewer intrinsic, and their mothers reported using significantly more extrinsic strategies with this latter group. Children who became motivationally at-risk received significantly more extrinsic

A.E. Gottfried and A.W. Gottfried

and fewer intrinsic parental motivational strategies. On the other hand, the reverse was true for motivationally gifted children whose parents used significantly higher intrinsic and lower extrinsic motivational practices, a pattern likely to facilitate their children’s academic intrinsic motivation. Hence, motivationally gifted and at-risk students were exposed to differential parenting messages having important consequences for their academic intrinsic motivational development. These results strongly suggest that children are more likely to become motivationally gifted if their parents use task-intrinsic strategies emphasizing encouragement of academic intrinsic motivation. Use of extrinsic parent motivation strategies is likely to have an adverse effect on children’s development of gifted motivation. Analyses on the cognitive stimulation available in the home environment as described above (Gottfried et al., 1998) were conducted comparing the homes of the motivationally gifted and their cohort peer group. The homes of the motivationally gifted were found to provide significantly more active stimulation, learning opportunities, and intellectual-cultural activities than the homes of the cohort peer comparison group. Motivationally gifted adolescents were also found to ask their parents for significantly more extracurricular activities at age 8 years than did their peer comparison group. These activities included lessons, sports, clubs, and hobbies. They also engaged in significantly more reading time at home than did their cohort peer comparison group. However, amount of time spent watching TV, or needing academic assistance, did not significantly distinguish these two groups. Another recent study concerns parents’ perceptions of children’s academic engagement as related to motivational giftedness (Ho, Gottfried, Gottfried, Vaughan, & Martinez, 2007). At the 9- and 10-year assessments in the FLS, parents rated their perceptions of the child’s academic interests, abilities, effort, and expectations of children’s achievement. Across both ages 9 and 10 years, comparisons between the motivationally gifted and their cohort peer group revealed that the parents of the motivationally gifted viewed their children as significantly more academically engaged compared to the parents of the cohort peer group. As in the previous study described, it may be that parents provide their children messages that are facilitative of the development of gifted motivation.

30

Development of Gifted Motivation

Across these studies, many of the environmental variables were assessed prior to the designation of motivational giftedness. This time sequence suggests that early provision of home stimulation is significant for the subsequent development of gifted motivation.

625

ways felt that whatever circumstances I confront, it’s just a question of continuing to live and not letting what I can’t do define what I can.” Clearly, gifted motivation is a component of her extraordinary achievement. In an article entitled, “Dedication paying off in degrees” (Silverstein, 2004), the story of a working-class immigrant Mexican family is described in which all of the parents’ 11 children earned college degrees. The family held Anecdotal Evidence for a Gifted strong values for education, high expectations, parents’ Motivation Construct deep involvement in their children’s lives, the help of siblings, and father’s holding three jobs to support the When developing the conception of gifted motivation, children through college. We deem this to exemplify examples of the circumstances and lives of several in- gifted motivation as well. A brief biography of the viodividuals provided insight into its nature and processes. linist, Joshua Bell, presented in the program book of a In Gottfried & Gottfried (2004), we referred to sev- concert on February 15, 2002 at UCLA, stated that he eral anecdotes including a homeless man who ulti- “received his first violin at age four after his parents mately earned his college degree through a high level noticed him plucking rubber bands he had stretched of commitment; a high school student with a passion around the handles of his dresser drawers. . ..” Clearly, for math who published a book of math problems he he provided his parents with messages through his molater donated to schools; a 102-year-old medical doc- tivated behavior, and they followed his lead. There are tor who continued to work, had achieved four doctor- many more examples that continue to accrue. These are ates across his lifespan, and played violin on a 1694 just a few that make the point. Stradivarious to celebrate his 100th birthday; amateurs whose contributions to scientific discoveries exceeded those of professionals; the story of Jane Goodall who Theoretical and Applied Significance was advised not to go to Africa to study wildlife, advice that she did not heed but rather pursued her pas- of the Gifted Motivation Construct sion with determination; and a passion or doggedness to solve problems as a common theme among Nobel Theoretical significance. Gifted motivation adds to theory by expanding the areas of giftedness from those Laureates. There are additional examples that we have encoun- focused on cognition and specific talents to including tered beyond these initial ones. In an article entitled superiority of individuals’ strivings and determination. “Women at the Top” (Kaminsky, 2003), featuring bi- Whereas motivation has previously been viewed as an ographies of three women Presidents of elite universi- ancillary factor described as being in the service of ties, the common theme among them was “With fierce other forms of giftedness either as a prerequisite, comdetermination, intellect, and a love of learning in tow, ponent, catalyst, or outcome (e.g., Dai, Moon, & Feldthree leading ladies hit the Ivy League” (p. 3). This husen, 1998; Feldhusen, 1986; Gagn´e, 2000; Gottfried article was about Presidents Judith Rodin (University & Gottfried, 1996; A. W. Gottfried et al., 1994; Lens & of Pennsylvania); Ruth Simmons (Brown University) Rand, 2000; Renzulli, 1986; Ziegler & Heller, 2000), and Shirley Tilghman (Princeton University). These gifted motivation as we propose it is a form of giftthree remarkable women are certainly examples of the edness in its own right (see also Gottfried & Gotmotivationally gifted, who became leaders, and broke tfried, 2004; Gottfried et al., 2005). The conceptualization and research presented through barriers to be in the forefront of higher education. In an article entitled “An unrelenting drive and herein provides evidence for the validity of the gifted a Harvard degree” (Steinberg, 2000), Brooke Ellison, motivation construct. This construct serves heuristic who became a quadriplegic in seventh grade after be- purposes to advance further inquiry as well as proing injured in a car accident, completed a bachelor’s viding implications for application, such as in the degree in psychology and biology at Harvard with an development and implementation of gifted programs. A- average. “This is just the way my life is...I’ve al- Gifted motivation, therefore, has implications for

626

developmental psychology, educational psychology, and for educational identification and programming. Regarding developmental psychology, the precursors and sequelae of gifted motivation are a wide open area for future research. The presently available research contributes to the field by establishing the validity of gifted motivation, documenting early antecedents and subsequent outcomes of being designated motivationally gifted, and elucidating parenting and environmental processes associated with being motivationally gifted. Research generalizing across other populations is desirable. It is important to note that the children and adolescents in the FLS were never made aware of their motivational status. The gifted motivation and cohort peer comparison groups were designated and analyzed after the laboratory assessments had been completed. Hence, there was no possibility that knowledge of one’s motivational group status could have affected the results since that status was only known to the researchers subsequent to the assessments. Another methodological feature to be noted is that the children in the FLS attended different schools and classes, had different teachers, and as the study progressed resided in increasingly diverse geographic areas (Gottfried, Gottfried, Morris, & Cook, 2008; Gottfried, Marcoulides, Gottfried, Oliver, Guerin, 2007). Hence, there could not have been an influence of being in a common classroom or school, or having the same teacher, or curriculum. This is important in that it demonstrates that the gifted motivation construct generalizes across these factors. The quality and stimulation of children’s home environments have been found to be significant for the development of academic intrinsic motivation (Gottfried, 2008). On the basis of such research, recommendations have been made to enhance the positive role that parents can play in the development of their children’s academic intrinsic motivation (Gottfried, 1983, 1986b, 2008). Examples of recommendations for parental input include careful observation of children’s interests and level of engagement to determine appropriate activities; provision of a variety of experiences to expose children to new areas, to encourage curiosity and exploration, to challenge children appropriately; and to allow children choice in the selection of learning activities (Gottfried, 2008). The research concerning parental encouragement of task intrinsic (i.e., endogenous) activities as opposed

A.E. Gottfried and A.W. Gottfried

to task extrinsic consequences suggests that parents should refrain from providing rewards for learning, but instead encourage children’s autonomy, curiosity, and orientation to accomplishing challenging tasks. The wide use of extrinsic consequences by parents and teachers may unfortunately backfire and actually reduce rather than augment children’s academic intrinsic motivation. Regarding educational psychology, the gifted motivation construct is important for identification of academic competence. At this point in time, because of the newness and uniqueness of the gifted motivation construct, it is likely that many motivationally gifted students are in regular education classes rather than in gifted programs. Therefore, a pertinent issue that needs to be raised concerns how schools will be able to accommodate to the needs of the motivationally gifted. Another equally important issue concerns the educator’s role in stimulating students’ motivation so that all may potentially become motivationally gifted. The inclusion of motivational theories and findings in the education and professional training of all educators, including teachers, support staff (e.g., counselors), and administrators is critical. If academic intrinsic motivation was appropriately stimulated in schools, this might possibly prevent motivational declines from elementary through high school as pervasively documented (Gottfried et al., 2007). Another area pertinent to educational psychology concerns the role of motivation in the underachievement of gifted students. For example, McCoach, & Siegle (2003) found that intellectually gifted achievers and underachievers differed significantly on their self-regulatory motivation (e.g., self-control, self-motivation, task commitment, and persistence) with the underachievers evidencing less motivation and engagement. Further, these motivational factors accurately classified these intellectually gifted achievers and underachievers a majority of the time. Therefore, intellectually gifted children are more likely to underachieve if they are not strongly motivated. The application of motivational development in and of itself may possibly prevent adverse achievement patterns in intellectually gifted children. Applied significance. Gifted motivation allows for a more inclusive view of giftedness that is not restricted to intellectual giftedness or talent. It is a construct distinct from IQ that contributes uniquely to educational success. This widened perspective provides

30

Development of Gifted Motivation

many implications for identification and programming. It is recommended that gifted motivation be considered a criterion in and of itself for identification into gifted programs (Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004; Gottfried et al., 2005, 2006). The availability of the CAIMI provides an easily administered method for such identification. Using an instrument such as the CAIMI can provide a basis for this determination by observing patterns of motivation across subject areas and for school in general. We advocated this recommendation earlier (Gottfried & Gottfried, 1996, 2004; and A. W. Gottfried et al., 1994, 2005, 2006) which is also consistent with the recommendation of Clinkenbeard (1996). Parents and teachers are on the front line of recognizing gifted potential and signs of reach (Gottfried, Gottfried, & Guerin, 2009, in press). Indeed, Subotnik & Olszewski-Kubilius (1997) pointed out that parents are the first to identify childhood talent and often the first teachers for those who evidence exceptional talent and eminence. Hence, this applies to the identification of gifted motivation as well. An example of this was presented in the anecdote regarding Joshua Bell which revealed that his parents were instrumental in identifying his music motivation and acting upon their observation to provide the environment to support his development. Finally, the adoption of the gifted motivation construct would potentially allow for a wider availability of gifted programs which would be open to a diverse population of students identified by criteria broader than ability test scores. Children who might not qualify for gifted programs on these latter criteria might do so on the basis of their motivation. Through the recognition that gifted motivation is significant for excellence in academic competency, new programs may be incorporated both in the special settings and in the regular education classroom, for the development of children’s academic intrinsic motivation, and hence positively impact their academic performance.

Directions for Future Research Several directions for further research have been proposed (Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004; Gottfried et al., 2005) including the application of the gifted motivation construct to other types of academic motivation, and examination of the construct across

627

populations varying in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and gender. Since these recommendations were advanced, many more areas for research have presented themselves. It is well known that many underrepresented groups need to overcome obstacles and barriers in order to be successful. For example, regarding the development of talent in women, the recent contentious controversy about the reasons for women’s underrepresentation in scientific fields illustrates the continuing attitudinal and opportunity barriers in this professional realm inasmuch as differences between the genders cannot be attributed to cognitive or biological factors (Dean, 2006; Spelke, 2005). Arnold, Noble, and Subotnik (1996), Tomlinson-Keasey (1998), Reis (2002), Reis and Sullivan, this volume and Williams, Alon, and Bornstein (2006) extensively discuss barriers faced by gifted and talented girls and women, and women in academia, which must be overcome for them to succeed. How do women in these fields overcome such impediments to their progress? Certainly, we suggest that gifted motivation is one such factor that propels women to succeed against the odds in these fields with preexisting barriers. The proposal that gifted motivation may enhance individuals’ achievement can be advanced regarding other underrepresented groups. For example, the construct of stereotype threat (Steele, 1997) concerns the academic underperformance of minority individuals (e.g., African-American), and women in math, as influenced by the self-perception of threat that one’s performance would verify negative stereotypes that pertain to one’s group. Such underperformance may set the stage for developing students’ gifted motivation to enable them to overcome this obstacle of an inaccurate self-perception of low ability. Ambrose (2002) discussed barriers to giftedness and talent development in children of low socioeconomic status. He concluded that talent development is undermined by the adverse effects of socioeconomic deprivation on motivation and aspirations. Given this observation, it would take gifted motivation, and efforts to stimulate motivation, to empower talent and giftedness in children growing up in such conditions. Aside from overcoming obstacles and barriers, an alternate area of research regards the positive development of leadership skills. The findings reported herein that motivationally gifted children requested significantly more extracurricular activities, including clubs, than their cohort peer comparison suggests that

628

these are early signs of the more active engagement of motivationally gifted children in leadership development experiences. (Gottfried & Gottfried, 2009, in press) Whereas retrospective accounts of leaders no doubt would identify superior motivation as a component of their eminence, we advocate for prospective and longitudinal research methodology to address this question. Studying gifted motivation in specific subject areas is another area for additional research on gifted motivation. Previous studies indicate the specificity of relations between academic intrinsic motivation and achievement in corresponding domains, particularly reading and math. Specific relations between reading and math intrinsic motivation and achievement have been obtained and addressed in the literature (e.g. Gottfried, 1985, 1990). Reading and math intrinsic motivation tend to relate more strongly to academic outcomes (e.g., achievement, anxiety, and perception of competence) in corresponding areas (e.g., reading to reading and math to math) than across noncorresponding areas (Gottfried, 1985, 1988, 1990). Moreover, math has been said to be a unique area of challenge for students (Eccles, Adler, & Meece, 1984; Licht & Dweck, 1984; Stodolsky, 1988), perhaps requiring additional motivation. Research needs to be conducted to detect the aspects of specific domains in the development of gifted motivation as pertinent to that area. Results of other research likewise suggest the importance of investigating gifted motivation in specific areas. For example, avid readers, compared to nonavid readers, were found to have higher reading academic intrinsic motivation (Shapiro & Whitney, 1997). In another study, with regard to math, high school students identified as academically gifted or creatively talented had more positive perceptions of their math selfefficacy, math ability, and valued math more than did their non-gifted peers (Hong & Aqui, 2004). Also, in a review of 35 years of research in the well-known Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, Lubinski & Benbow (2006) reported that math–science graduate students had shown early commitment to math–science endeavors. To take these suggestions further, developmental pathways of gifted motivation need to be established. In order to do so, additional longitudinal research is needed to identify precursors and outcomes of being motivationally gifted, and the direct and indirect re-

A.E. Gottfried and A.W. Gottfried

lations between gifted motivation and developmental outcomes.

Conclusions There is no doubt that society benefits from the accomplishments of individuals with gifted motivation. Across the realms of arts and sciences, leadership, business, politics, sports, education, professions, and many more, those who endeavor to strive at a superior level contribute to society’s, as well as personal, well-being. The goal is to maximize gifted motivation across all individuals. We continue to assert that “Teaching the desire to learn may be as important as teaching academic skills” (Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004, p. 129). By advancing the rationale, evidence for, and encouragement and implications of the construct of gifted motivation, it is our hope that the conception of giftedness will be expanded and accessible to enable all individuals to develop their special gifts.

References Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M. (1991b). Manual for the Teachers’ Report Form and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Ambrose, D. (2002). Socioeconomic stratification and its influences on talent development: Some interdisciplinary perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 170–180. Arnold, K. D., Noble, K. D., & Subotnik, R. F. (1996). Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc. Asendorpf, J. B. (1992). Continuity and stability of personality traits and personality patterns. In J. B. Asendorpf & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Stability and change in development: A study of methodological reasoning (pp. 116–142). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bayley, N. (1969). Bayley Scales of Infant Development. NY: Psychological Corporation. Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., Rock, S. L., Hamrick, H. M., & Harris, P. (1988). Home observation for measurement of the environment: Development of a home inventory for use with families having children 6 to 10 years old. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 82, 58–71. Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1996). Research on motivation and the gifted: Implications for identification, programming, and evaluation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 220–221.

30

Development of Gifted Motivation

Cool, V. A., & Keith, T. Z. (1991). Testing a model of school learning: Direct and indirect effects on academic achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 28–44. Dai, D. Y., Moon S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Achievement motivation and gifted students: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 45–63. Davis, H. G., & Connell, J. P. (1985). The effect of aptitude and achievement on the self-system. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 131–136. Dean, C. (2006, December 19). Women in science: The battle moves to the trenches. The New York Times, D1, D6, D7. Eccles, J., Adler, T., & Meece, J. L. (1984). Sex differences in achievement: A test of alternate theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 26–43. Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097–1126. Feldhusen, J. F. (1986). A conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 112–127). New York: Cambridge University Press. Feldhusen, J. F., & Jarwan, F. A. (2000). Identification of gifted and talented youth for educational programs. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2nd ed., pp. 271–282). New York: Elsevier. Gagn´e, F. (1998). A proposal for subcategories within gifted or talented populations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 87–95. Gagn´e, F. (2000). Understanding the complex choreography of talent development through DMGT-based analysis. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 67–79). New York: Elsevier. Gottfried, A. E. (1983). Development of intrinsic motivation in young children. Young Children, 39, 64–73. Gottfried, A. E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior high school students . Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 631–635. Gottfried, A. E. (1986a). Children’s Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Gottfried, A. E. (1986b). Intrinsic motivational aspects of play experiences and play materials. In A. W. Gottfried & C. Brown (Eds.), Play interactions (pp. 81–99). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Gottfried, A. E. (1988). The impact of intrinsic motivation on learning: Toward the prevention of illiteracy. Proceedings of the Conference on a Cooperative Attack on Illiteracy. Sponsored by the Optometric Extension Program and the College of Optometrists in Vision Development (pp. 22–28). Optometric Extension Program, 2912 South Daimler St., Santa Ana, CA 92705-5811. Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children . Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525–538. Gottfried, A. E. (2006). Children’s Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (CAIMI). In N. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics (pp. 138–139).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gottfried, A. E. (2008). Home environment and academic intrinsic motivation. In N. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

629 Educational Psychology (pp. 485–490). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Role of parental motivational practices in children’s academic intrinsic motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 104–113. Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1998). Role of cognitively stimulating home environment in children’s academic intrinsic motivation: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 69, 1448–1460. Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 3–13. Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (1994, August). Continuity of intrinsic motivation from infancy through early adolescence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles. Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (1996). A longitudinal study of academic intrinsic motivation in intellectually gifted children: Childhood through adolescence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 179–183. Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (2004). Toward the development of a conceptualization of gifted motivation, Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 121–132. Gottfried, A. E., Gottfried, A. W., Morris, P. E., & Cook, C. R. (2008). Low academic intrinsic motivation as a risk factor for adverse educational outcomes. In C. Hudley and A. E. Gottfried (Eds.), Academic motivation and the culture of school in childhood and adolescence (pp. 36–69). New York: Oxford University Press. Gottfried, A. E., Marcoulides, G. A., Gottfried, A. W., Oliver, P., Guerin, D. (2007). Modeling the developmental decline in academic intrinsic math motivation: Childhood through adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 317–327. Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E. (1984). Home environment and cognitive development in young children of middlesocioeconomic-status families. In A. W. Gottfried (Ed.), Home environment and early cognitive development (pp. 57– 116). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Gottfried, A. & Gottfried, A. (2009, in press). Paths from gifted motivation to leadership. In S. R. Murphy & R. J. Reichard (Eds.), Early development and leadership: Building the next generation of leaders. New York: Psychology Press/Routledge. Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., & Guerin, D. (1994). Gifted IQ: Early developmental aspects; The Fullerton Longitudinal Study. New York: Plenum Publishing. Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K. Guerin, D. W., & Parramore, M. M. (2003). Socioeconomic status in children’s development and family environment:Infancy through adolescence. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp. 189–207). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Cook, C. R., & Morris, P. E. (2005). Educational characteristics of adolescents with gifted academic intrinsic motivation: A longitudinal study from school entry through early adulthood. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 172–186.

630 Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., & Guerin, D. W. (2006). A long-term investigation of intellectual and motivational giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 430–450. Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., & Guerin, D. W. (2009, in press). Issues in early prediction and identification of intellectual giftedness. In F. Horowitz, R. Subotnik, & D. Matthews (Eds.), The development of giftedness and talent across the life span. Washington, DC: APA Books. Guerin, D. W., & Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Developmental stability and change in parent reports of temperament: A tenyear longitudinal investigation from infancy through preadolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 334–355. Guerin, D. W., Gottfried, A. W., Oliver, P. H., & Thomas, C. W. (2003). Temperament: Infancy through adolescence; The Fullerton Longitudinal Study. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Henderson, B. B., Gold, S. R., & McCord, M. T. (1982). Daydreaming and curiosity in gifted and average children and adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 18, 576–582. Ho, A., Gottfried, A. E., Gottfried, A. W., Vaughan, R. B., & Martinez, A. (2007, August). A longitudinal study of parents’ perceptions of children’s academic engagement. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco. Hom, H. (1988, March). Motivational orientation of the gifted student, threat of evaluation, and impact on performance. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA. Hong, E., & Aqui, Y. (2004). Cognitive and motivational characteristics of adolescents gifted in mathematics: Comparisons among students with different types of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 191–201. Joshua Bell. (2002, February 15). UCLA Live: UCLA Performing Arts Presents, p. 1. Kaminsky, B. (2003, April 22). Women at the top. The Weekly Pennsylvanian. P. 3. Lehrer, B. E., & Hieronymus, A. N. (1977). Predicting achievement using intellectual, academic-motivational, and selected non-intellectual factors. Journal of Experimental Education, 45, 44–51. Lens, W., & Rand, P. (2000). Motivation and cognition: Their role in the development of giftedness. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 193– 202). New York: Elsevier. Li, A. K. F. (1988). Self-perception and motivational orientation in gifted children. Roeper Review, 10, 175–180. Licht, B. G., & Dweck, C. S. (1984). Determinants of academic achievement: The interaction of children’s achievement orientations with skill areas. Developmental Psychology, 20, 628–636. Lloyd, J., & Barenblatt, L. (1984). Intrinsic intellectuality: Its relations to social class, intelligence, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 646–654. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth after 35 Years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345. Matheny, A. P. (1980). Bayley’s Infant Behavior Record: Components and twin analysis. Child Development, 51, 1157–1167.

A.E. Gottfried and A.W. Gottfried McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 144–154. Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1994). Family Environment Scale Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Oliver, P. H., Vaughan, R. B., Martinez, A., Ho, A., Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (2007, March). Role of intrinsic motivation and math achievement in advanced math course taking throughout high school: A longitudinal study. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, MA. Reis, S. M. (2002). Gifted females in elementary and secondary school. In M. Neihart, A. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 125–135). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92), New York: Cambridge University Press. Reis, S. M., & Sultivan, E. E. (2008). a theory of talent development in women of accomplishment. In L. Shavinina (Ed.). The international Handlook of Giftedness. Springer Science. Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3–25. Rushton, J. P., Brainerd, C. J., & Pressley, M. (1983). Behavioral development and construct validity: The principle of aggregation. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 18–38. Shapiro, J., & Whitney, P. (1997). Factors involved in the leisure reading of upper elementary school students. Reading Psychology, 18, 343–370. Silverstein, S. (2004, May 14). Dedication paying off in degrees. Los Angeles Times, pp. B1, B11. Spelke, E. S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review. American Psychologist, 60, 950–958. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629. Steinberg, J. (2000, May 17). An unrelenting drive, and a Harvard degree. The New York Times, pp. A1, A16. Stodolsky, S. (1988). The subject matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1997). Restructuring special programs to reflect the distinctions between children’s and adults’ experiences with giftedness. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3 & 4), 101–116. Tomlinson-Keasey, C. (1998). Tracing the lives of gifted women. In R. C. Friedman & K. B. Rogers (Eds.), Talent in context: Historical and social perspectives on giftedness (pp. 17–38), Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Vallerand, R. J., Gagn´e, R., Senecal, C., & Pelletier, L. G. (1994). A comparison of the school intrinsic motivation and perceived competence of gifted and regular students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 172–175. Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation.

30

Development of Gifted Motivation

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D. Arbreton, A. J. A., Freedman-Doan, C., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Change in children’s competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A 3-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451–469. Williams, J. C., Alon, T., & Bornstein, S. (2006). Beyond the ‘chilly climate’: Eliminating bias against women and fathers in academe. Thought and Action, 22, 79–96. Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1977). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.

631 Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). WoodcockJohnson Psycho-Educational Battery—Revised. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources. Ziegler, A., & Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 3–21). New York: Elsevier.

Chapter 31

Leadership Giftedness: Is It Innate or Can It Be Developed? Karen B. Rogers

Abstract This chapter describes a special form of giftedness in the domain of leadership. Although this domain has been officially recognized in the United States Office of Education definition of giftedness since 1972, the chapter will focus on understanding what makes this form of giftedness different in outcomes and nurturance than for other forms of giftedness. The first section of the chapter will review the literature on giftedness in leadership. The remaining sections of the chapter will focus on specific research conducted to determine whether the innate characteristics and behaviors of leadership can be developed more fully through a Leadership Development Program. Ultimately, the chapter will discuss just what may be the “true” innate aspects of leadership and what behaviors, perceptions, and traits may be developed through concerted training to aid in leadership skill.

Correspondingly, Marland recognized two discrete aspects to this expression of giftedness: (1) the potential to lead and (2) extraordinary performance in a leadership role. It must be noted, however, that Marland recognized a special form of giftedness with this definition, but he did not concisely define what leadership was to be considered. Many others have made attempts to define leadership. Gardner (1990), for example, suggested that a leader performs those tasks essential for the achievement of a group’s goals. Warren Bennis sees the ability to lead as the “energetic process of getting other people fully and wittingly committed to a course of action, to meet commonly agreed upon objectives” (Yates, 2002, p. 17), but Gardner adds that the leader gets these people to do what they may not want to do and like it (1995). Leadership is divided into two categories by Gardner (1995): indirect leaders such as Mozart or EinKeywords Leadership giftedness · Successful intel- stein who lead by example and direct leaders who deligence · Wisdom · WICS model · Transformational liberately pursue their goals. Since 1985, Gagne has attempted to synthesize the leadership · Transactional leadership two sides of every domain or expression of giftedness. For Marland’s potential to lead, Gagne introduced the term “giftedness,” as that innate or heritable part of a Review of Research and Literature discrete or generalized ability. Gagne’s discrete domain on Giftedness in Leadership for leadership was termed the “psychosocial domain of giftedness,” which perhaps more clearly defines exWith the publication of the United States Office of Ed- pectations for what might be observed in a potentially ucation official definition of giftedness and talent in gifted leader – an innate ability to interact with oth1972, Marland identified leadership as a unique and in- ers, to communicate clearly a vision or set of aspiradependent form of giftedness, meriting its own domain. tions, and an innate knowledge of one’s self and others, similar to Gardner’s (1983) “interpersonal” and “intrapersonal” intelligences combined. For the other K.B. Rogers (B) side of this domain, Gagne describes the “talents” – the College of Applied Professional Studies, extraordinary performance Marland earlier described. The University of St. Thomas, Minneapolis, MN, USA e-mail: [email protected] Again, Gagne makes clear what expectations for a L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 31, 

633

634

talented leader might be – successful implementation of innovative changes or contributions to a field of human endeavor. For this, the careful observer of the talented leader will recognize an extraordinary time, human, and resource management, cohesion of a group around this leader, and ultimately a transformation of the “environment” in which the leadership effort was focused. Since 2000, several “theories” of leadership giftedness have emerged, even though the research to support them remains to be conducted. Of note are three theories, of which two are very closely related. The first of these theories involves Sternberg’s notion of successful intelligence. For Sternberg & Grigorenko (2002), successful intelligence is the development of skills needed to achieve success, as personally defined, in a field of endeavor. The skills needed represent a combination of analytical, creative, and practical abilities that have interacted in a flexible, dynamic environment that supported their development. It was the researchers’ belief that these skills were not necessarily inborn in great quantities but rather developed through practice in an interactive and supportive environment that allowed the individual to move from novice to expert in this realm of intelligence. Although this theory does not specifically “name” leadership as the outcome of this developing expertise, it does reflect well on what could be perceived as the outcomes of good gifted leadership, i.e., the achievement of one’s personal goals or personal vision. Closely related to this theory and perhaps making the ultimate connection between success and leadership was Sternberg’s (2005) WICS Model of Giftedness in Leadership. In this model Sternberg argues that leadership, which can emerge in any field of human endeavor, represents a combination of inborn and developed skills and attitudes that derive from wisdom (the extent to which a leader moderates the use of skills and attitudes for the common good over time, balancing one’s own interests with interpersonal and extrapersonal interests), intelligence (those specific skills and attitudes, both academic and practical, needed to succeed in life according to one’s personal conception of success within one’s own socio-cultural environment), and creativity (those skills and attitudes that generate novel, high quality, and appropriate ideas, products, or outcomes – the vision of change in the field). The acronym, WICS, then, adds S, for synthesized, to this combination of skills and attitudes comprising gifted

K.B. Rogers

leadership. According to Sternberg, these three components are the ingredients of leadership, but just possessing them does not make one a gifted leader. One must develop them to the “expertise” level and then choose to use them in situations demanding leadership. In summary, Sternberg provides us with a clear picture of his conception of gifted leadership: Leadership involves both skills and attitudes. The skills are developing competencies and expertise based on how well one can execute certain functions of leadership. Gifted leaders are highly skillful in making and implementing decisions that represent creative, intelligent, and wise judgments. The attitudes are developing expertise based on how one thinks about these functions. Gifted leaders seek out the information they need and then process it creatively, intelligently, and wisely. Many leaders have the skills they need to be gifted leaders but not the attitudes: They effectively squander their own gifts. . .. One needs creative skills and attitudes to generate fresh and good ideas for leadership; one needs analytical intellectual skills and attitudes to decide whether they are good ideas, as well as practical intellectual skills and attitudes to implement the ideas and convince others of the value of the ideas; and one needs wisdom-related skills and attitudes to assess the long- and short-term impacts of these ideas on other individuals and institutions as well as oneself. Gifted leaders excel in all three. . . (Sternberg, 2005, p. 37).

The base, then, for Sternberg’s theory of leadership is that the leader produces the idea or vision, for how change will take place. Leadership is, essentially, a “propulsion” through some conceptual space. Depending upon the vision a leader has, a different form of leadership may be required. The change in conceptual space may be replicative (applying a successful model to a new, changed environment or situation), redefined (applying changed perspectives on a successful model to a new, changed environment or situation), forward incrementative (leading the field forward in the direction it is already heading), redirected (leading the field forward in a new direction), reconstructive (returning the field to a previous point to move forward from there), reinitiative (moving the field to a new starting point through transformation), or synthetic (integrating two unrelated or opposing ideas into a new paradigm) . To relate Sternberg’s theory of gifted leadership with the general field of leadership research does not take much of a conceptual leap. When we think of the leader as making some sort of change, Sternberg would say that we have adapted, selected, or shaped the environment in our forward propulsion. The work of various researchers on “transactional

31

Leadership Giftedness

leadership” corresponds well to the adaptation of one’s environment. Transactional leadership entails the mutual achievement of contractual obligations with one’s followers, usually through the provision of incentives, specified task requirements, and rewards for desired performance (Bass, 2002). The leader finds ways to make the working environment help support followers as they proceed with their agreed-upon tasks (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass, 2002). This form of leadership will be most likely in evidence with Sternberg’s replicative, forward incrementative, and reconstructive visions of change. More may be required from the leader when the propulsions through conceptual space are greater or else more radical. Burns (1978), among others, has described another, more encompassing form of leadership, termed transformational leadership. In this form, the transformational leader emphasizes the higher vision to which leader and followers are equally responsible. All work together as equals in bringing about this “morally right” vision or change (Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996). Transformational leaders are much more likely to reject current models and to attempt to revolutionize thinking in a field, more in keeping with Sternberg’s redirected, redefined, reinitiative, and synthetic visions of change. In effect, transformational leaders are selecting and shaping the environment as change is carried out (Sashkin, 2004; Bass, 2002). As for the characteristics of creativity, intelligence, and wisdom that are the ingredients of gifted leadership, Sternberg is specific about the particular skills and attitudes that must be possessed by the gifted leader. Creativity in leadership requires the skills of redefining the problem to be solved, analyzing just what the real problem might be, being able to “sell” one’s solution, and ability to surmount obstacles and solve problems. The creative leader’s attitudes must include non-entrenchment (flexibility of mind set), a willingness to take sensible risks, a belief in one’s own ability to accomplish the task, tolerance for ambiguity, a love of what one is doing, and a need to make progress and see something grow. Intelligence in leadership requires both academic and practical skills, according to Sternberg. The academic skills are comprised of memory, recall/recognition, analysis, evaluation and judgment of information, and capacity to participate in low-stress situations (Fiedler, 2002). In other words, when decisions need to be made but the consequences of

635

the decision do not promise extreme consequences, academic intelligence is moderately helpful. The practical skills include the ability to solve everyday problems using the knowledge gained from one’s previous experiences as well as the ability to manage oneself, others, and tasks. For Sternberg, moreover, these practical skills carry much more weight in leadership effectiveness than the academic skills. Wisdom, for Sternberg, is the appropriate use of intelligence and creativity as moderated by one’s values to reach a common good, balance personal interest and gain with external exigencies, and make a short-term as well as long-term change to the situation or setting in its adaptation, selection, or shaping. In the final synthesis of these components in the effective leader, Sternberg states, Without the application of a high level intelligence, one cannot be a gifted leader. Any leader may have creative ideas that are either flawed from the outset or that fail in implementation. The leader needs the intelligence to distinguish good from bad ideas, and to ensure that followers follow rather than ignore or rebel against the leader. Without wisdom, a leader may choose a path that benefits his or her cronies but few others, as in the case of Mugabe or Saddam Hussein. Gifted leadership requires WICS (Sternberg, 2005, p. 43).

Systematic research on the leadership domain of ability remains sparse. Ellis (1990) identified 10 constructs that distinguish effective leaders in general. These constructs centered on intellectual and communicative abilities, self-awareness, and personal characteristics such as patience, perseverance, enthusiasm, adaptability, and loyalty. Through the use of factorial analyses, Ellis arrived at these constructs. In his work, no mention was made, however, of whether or not these constructs were innate abilities or developed and shaped by the individual’s environment and experiences. Sisk & Roselli (1987) and Parker & Begnaud (2003) suggested four components of leadership among gifted individuals: (1) cognition (going beyond facts to explore and investigate concepts); (2) interpersonal communication (self-realization, concern for others, cooperation, conflict resolution); (3) problem solving (problem finding, definition, incubation, creative thinking, evaluation, implementation); and (4) decision making (values clarification, role playing, simulation). For these researchers there appears to be a belief that leadership is developed by immersion in situations requiring leadership and that through the development of learning “situations” leaders can be prepared to lead.

636

Missing in Sternberg’s theory of giftedness in leadership are any references to personality factors that might be a part of the leadership makeup. Although Ellis makes a start at this, one personal factor that seems to be missing in explanations for a leader’s choices and motivations to lead is altruism. Is altruism part of the reason why leaders ultimately “step up to the plate”? That making of choices for the common good, the wisdom Sternberg referred to, may be colored by the gifted leader’s need to contribute for society’s good. The altruistic differences in gifted individuals have been noted by many researchers in the field of gifted education (e.g., Davis & Rimm, 2004; Roeper, 1988; Silverman, 1993). It has been suggested that this range of behaviors lies on a continuum located between exclusive enhancement of self and exclusive enhancement of others (Krebs & Van Hesteren, 1994). When one conceives of leadership as the production of change for the common good, the connection of giftedness with altruism becomes clear. In their questioning of the fairness of life and events, found significantly more frequently in gifted learners (Roeper, 1995), it is apparent that they will have greater potential to voice and wish to deal with profound social, ethical, and moral concerns (Passow & Frasier, 1996). This may spur gifted individuals to take on leadership roles to see “the social, moral, and ethical needs of society” addressed (Karnes & D’Illio, 1990). The question remains, however, as to whether altruism is an innate quality engendered by gifted individuals’ more perceptive apprehension of their environment or something reactive developed as they perceive the “problems” surrounding them. In 1999, the Gifted Child Quarterly published a provocative study by Roach, Wyman, Brookes, Chavez, Heath, and Valdes. These researchers asserted that the models of leadership giftedness accepted by the field are based on adult models of leadership. They conducted a study of at-risk, culturally diverse students who participated fully in leadership programs both inside and outside of school time, identifying the behaviors and characteristics they observed in these participants who either demonstrated leadership or showed emerging signs of leadership. Data were collected from observations of these students while engaged in the leadership activities, interviews of both students and adult organization leaders, field notes, and audio recordings of everyday activities. In total, 30,000 students between the ages of 8 and 28 years

K.B. Rogers

were included in some form of data analysis within this multi-faceted study. One contribution of this study was the establishment of a set of features that distinguish an “effective” youth organization – one in which potential leaders have a chance to emerge. These features included (1) high performance expectations of youths as resources; (2) multiple opportunities to expect the unexpected, learning to pose as well as solve problems; (3) cycles of task performance that include planning, implementing, and evaluating performance; (4) diverse talents of individuals counted upon by the group; (5) engagement with few rules for maximum impact; (6) high demand learning to move toward performance; (7) individual responsibilities for development embedded within group expectations or excellence; (8) proficiency with multiple symbol systems and fluency in communication precision and expression; (9) self-assessment and accounting for group performance as well; (10) real-world experiences; and (11) high responsibility for making and upholding the rules of the group. When these macro- and micro-features of a youth organization were in place, the research team was able to observe the natural emergence of leadership among participants in the organization. Leadership was not “assigned” but rather fell to the older or more experienced participants, usually through negotiations based on self- and group-identified strengths to match an upcoming task in the organization. The researchers stressed continually in their study that there was little emergence of a single leader, but rather a cadre of leaders each with specific roles and tasks for which they were best suited. Leadership was defined as a “wisdom in spontaneity” – the ability to identify a potential “problem” or situation quickly and “step forward or backward in taking direction for the benefit of the group” (p. 17). Awareness of the common good of the group was defined by the students interviewed as the primary indicator of a leader. Although leadership is frequently touted as the expected outcome for academically gifted students, it tends to be underrepresented in the majority of gifted services offered in the United States. Gifted learners in general are provided with limited exposure to this construct (Addison, Oliver, & Cooper, 1987). In the few instances when it is provided, the programs tend to focus on (1) leadership styles that incorporate student self-assessment and practice with self-assessed leadership skill weaknesses; (2) the traits of the ef-

31

Leadership Giftedness

637

fective leader followed by practice with these traits or behaviors; or (3) situational leadership applications to contexts/scenarios that require leadership practice. The number of well-developed programs for developing leadership is few, but these are described below. Nonetheless, these sample development programs offer some avenues for systematically developing leadership skills and attitudes when and where leadership is identified. The research on Leadership Development Programs has also provided a framework for this study. Passow (1977), Parker (1983), Gallagher (1982), Feldhusen (1986), Sisk & Shallcross (1987), and more recently, Parker & Begnaud (2003) have identified four commonalities among the programs that have been developed and studied: (1) exploration of the meaning of leadership; (2) real-life leadership experiences; (3) awareness of strengths and weaknesses as leaders; and (4) evaluation of potential leadership. In preparation for the activities suggested within such a four-pronged development program, Parker and Begnaud directly

train individuals in two “kinds” of leadership skills. The cognitive leadership skills include ability to withhold judgment, visualization, flexibility, resourcefulness, willingness to take risks, and problem solving. The cognitive skills correlate well with aspects of Sternberg’s creativity and intelligence (academic and practical). Added to these creative and critical thinking skills are futuristic thinking, knowledge, and skills of search. The skills to be trained in for the second form of leadership, affective leadership, include awareness of personal attributes (e.g., enthusiasm, genuineness, independence, self-directedness, self-confidence, assertiveness, dynamism, and intense drive to excel), interpersonal communication skills (e.g., empathy, ability to delegate responsibility, ability to listen, respect, and encourage, ability to manage work and time of others, and to facilitate teamwork), and decision-making skills (e.g., accepting responsibility, judicious use of authority, ability to evaluate, courage of one’s convictions, and high moral/ethical standards). Figure 31.1 illustrates how these skills

Cognition

Interpersonal Communication

Exploration

Self-Realization

Specialization

Empathy

Investigative Skill Training

Cooperation

Research

Conflict Resolution

Cognition

Interpersonal Communication LEADERSHIP

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Problem Perception/Definition

Independence

Incubation

Self-Confidence

Creative Thinking

Responsibility

Analysis

Task Commitment

Evaluation

Moral Strength

Implementation

Fig. 31.1 The Leadership Training Model (Parker, 2003)

638

are developed in Parker and Begnaud’s “Leadership Training Model”. Another well-established program for the development of leadership effectiveness is Karnes and Chauvin’s “Leadership Development Program” (2000). These researchers have asserted that leadership is developed through infusion of practice in all academic content areas as well as in extracurricular school options. For this development program, Karnes and Chauvin derived categories of knowledge and skill from an exhaustive review of the professional literature in the field of leadership. Their nine categories include (1) fundamentals of leadership; (2) written communication skills; (3) speech communication skills; (4) character-building skills; (5) decision-making skills; (6) group dynamic skills; (7) problem-solving skills; (8) personal skills; and (9) scanning skills. The researchers developed the Leadership Skills Inventory in 1985, revising it extensively in 2000. Not only has the instrument been normed and validated on large samples of gifted students, but its use as a self-assessment both before and after the Leadership Development Program has shown significant growth in all nine categories of leadership among participants (Karnes, 1999). Of interest as well is a study conducted by Smyth and Ross (1999), teaching the behaviors/skills of transformational leadership to gifted adolescents in Canada. In their exploratory study, the researchers offered a program of cooperative grouping for scenario and case study problem solving to 58 pre-adolescents across three school districts. The training was based on attempts to identify leadership weaknesses in specific contexts or scenarios and then training the students in the missing skills. The participating teachers found that leadership skills were significantly improved through direct instruction, in cooperative groups, of the weaker leadership skills. The gifted students involved in this study were more likely to naturally employ transformational behaviors in their leadership roles than regular students in applications to case studies and subsequent scenarios. Intersecting with Leadership Development Programs is the concept that practice in leadership must occur. Determining the content underlying this practice is of importance (Kaye, 2004). Service learning has been touted as the potential “grist” for such a leadership development “mill.” When a student identifies personal values or community values that

K.B. Rogers

require change for improvement for the common good, the content for leadership development resides in service learning (Kaye, 2004). In a comprehensive compendium of service learning themes, Kaye provides concrete contexts in which gifted learners can practice, develop, and apply leadership skills and attitudes, specifically in the areas of AIDS education and awareness, animals in danger, community safety, elders, the environment, gardening, hunger and homelessness, immigrants, literacy, and special needs and disabilities. For Kaye, service learning can take four forms: (1) direct service or intervention (affecting and involving the participants); (2) indirect service (benefiting the community as a whole); (3) advocacy (creating awareness of a public interest issue); or (4) research (gathering information on a public interest issue). Kaye argues that engagement in service learning develops a sense of civic responsibility in students, which may ultimately translate into higher order altruistic behaviors among participants. This theme of altruism was pursued, in part, through the upcoming description of a Leadership Development Program and study to be described in the second section of this chapter. In returning to Roach et al.’s (1999) study of leadership, the researchers concluded that the young person’s model of leadership was best developed within an effective youth organization: Effective youth organizations provide settings and critical experiences where youth develop self-understanding and knowledge within specific valued domains that they then connect into other settings, skills, and situations. Here, young people, given extensive responsibility and held to high standards, are encouraged to construct themselves as potential leaders in conjunction with a group and as characters within stories they want others to hear. Individual youth envision themselves as active participants in increasingly broader domains of influence as they take on more and more roles within their organizations – from player to stage manager to dramaturg to curator to board member (p. 20).

In general, when one looks at the forms leadership training takes in gifted programs, this is not the form one will see. The self-knowledge and the development of skills are usually focused upon, but the gradual increase in responsibilities within a single organization does not usually occur. The gifted student, instead, is forced to go outside the gifted setting for further practice in the skills that have been learned. With this in mind, the program described in the second section pro-

31

Leadership Giftedness

639

vides some opportunity for practice in the skills de- Method veloped within the program, and thus may only represent “phase one” of a leadership giftedness developSample ment program that could truly prepare these students for future leadership in their communities and society. Ten males and ten females from the greater Sydney region, ranging in age from 14 to 16 years in grades 9–11, participated in the study. They represented all Development of Leadership Expertise three school organizations in Australia: public schools (“state” or “government” schools in Australian termiThe training program, Young Leaders of Change nology), private schools (“independent” schools), and (YLOC), was provided by the Gifted Education Catholic schools. Eight of the 20 (40%) were from diResearch, Resource and Information Centre (GER- verse cultures. RIC) at the University of New South Wales to gifted adolescents, aged 14–18 years from the greater Sydney area. Over the course of 6 months, the 20 students in the program met with the program leaders at a Instrumentation series of weekend retreats to explore the meaning of leadership, to identify, develop, and implement a Four instruments were administered at two different social issues project in their own setting with help from settings to the participating students. The Ellis Leaderleader-mentors, and to reflect on the success of their ship Strengths Indicator consists of two separate secefforts as leaders of the project implemented. Telstra tions. The first section lists 10 constructs of leadership of Australia contributed funding for the program. in each of the two columns. For the first column the stuThree hypotheses guided the design and implemen- dents are asked to select four characteristics they see as tation of this study: their “strongest” characteristics. For the second column they are to identify two characteristics they would like r The perceived (self-reported) strengths of the initial to strengthen. The second part of the instrument conleadership traits among the sample would increase sists of 40 characteristics (elaborations of the 10 conin salience over the course of the intervention. structs of the first section) to which the students are r The self-reported perceptions of weaknesses in the asked to compare themselves with others their age. A initial leadership traits among the sample would de- 5-point Likert scale is used ranging from “excellent” to crease in salience over the course of the interven- “not so good.” tion. The second instrument used was Goldberg’s r There would be no differences in perceived lead- Leadership Behavior Indicator. This instrument is ership traits either before or after the intervention constructed on a forced choice structure such that stubetween male and female adolescent participants. dents complete an item string with one of two choices. Thirty-two item strings comprise this instrument. Data were collected on the 20 YLOC participants Sisk’s Leadership Skills and Behavior Scale was the at their initial retreat and again at their last meeting. third instrument administered to the sample. Consisting Quantitative measures of self-awareness, self-efficacy, of 32 behaviors, students must rate how frequently they self-regulation, altruism, and self-directedness in- engage in these behaviors, using a 5-point rating scale cluded (1) Ellis’s Leadership Strengths Indicator; that ranges from “almost never” to “almost always.” (2) Goldberg’s Leadership Behavior Indicator; (3) The final instrument, developed by O’Leary in Sisk’s Leadership Skills and Behavior Scale; and 2004, the Development of Personal Strengths Ques(4) O’Leary’s Development of Personal Strengths tionnaire, consists of several sections that cover Questionnaire. Descriptive and inferential analyses leadership behaviors centering on contribution to were conducted on the data collected to determine society and altruism. In essence, there were enough whether changes in traits or behaviors occurred for the differences in conceptions of leadership and behaviors group as well as for gender. that might be associated with leadership, as the first

640

K.B. Rogers

section of this chapter has suggested, that it was felt end. Self-confidence, adaptability, and perseverance all four instruments needed to be administered. continued to be areas on which the participants felt they needed to work, even more strongly than at the project’s beginnings. Patience with people was the only weakness selected significantly more often than Procedure would have been expected by chance ( p ≤ 0.05). At the time the participants were being interviewed for possible selection for the program, the first section of Ellis’s Leadership Strengths Indicator was administered. Then, at the time of the first leadership training retreat, held approximately 2 months later, the remaining Ellis instrument and the three additional measures were administered by the researcher. Six months later, at the last retreat for the group, all four instruments were administered once again to search for possible changes in participant perceptions. Due to the small sample size, nonparametric statistical analyses were undertaken, including related sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests (pre–post responses), Mann Whitney U test analyses (independent sample gender differences), cross tabulations (chi square analyses), and correlations.

Results Perceived Leadership Strengths and Weaknesses: The First Ten Descriptors (Ellis) The traits of intelligence/ability to reason, loyalty, ability to communicate, and patience with people, with self-confidence representing a close fifth in rank preferences, were perceived as the strengths of young leaders at the beginning of the program. Perceived characteristics to strengthen included adaptability, self-knowledge, impatience with limitations, and perseverance. Chi square analyses suggested that loyalty and communication contained significantly more selections than would have been expected by chance. The end perceptions of strengths reconfirmed intelligence/ability to reason, loyalty, and ability to communicate, but adaptability, enthusiasm, and selfconfidence were, at this point, identified by participants as strengths as well. Patience with people dropped out of the list and became a perceived weakness in the

Ellis’ Leadership Strengths Indicator Table 31.1 displays pre- and post-test ratings by participants of their leadership strengths. As can be seen, the students became significantly more positive in being liked by their classmates, being knowledgeable of their surroundings, being problem solvers, and demonstrating enthusiasm. They became significantly less positive about their patience with other people. In general, however, their perceptions ranged from “better than most” to “very good,” with two characteristics close to the “excellent” range: enthusiasm and knowledge of surroundings. There were initial gender-related differences in self-ratings for only one characteristic, the need to be needed: Girls expressed a significantly greater need for this (“very strong”) than boys (“more than most”). Post differences in self-ratings were found for five responses. For girls, there was a significantly more positive response to dealing with abstract concepts, needing to be needed, seeing the consequences of their decisions, listening well to others, and problem finding. In post-test results, the boys showed a significantly stronger response for recognizing the skills and abilities of others. In general, then, gender-related differences became more diverse and pronounced after participation in the program.

Goldberg Leadership Strengths Indicator For the forced choice items on this instrument, frequencies and percentages were calculated. The students, across the course of the study, changed their perspectives for four items. First, the group moved from being uneasy when there was no answer to being patient when such was the case. Initially the group was split on whether to forget and go on or second-guess themselves when a mistake was made, but ultimately

31

Leadership Giftedness

641 Table 31.1 Pre–Post Means of Ellis Strengths Indicator

Strength construct

Pre-mean

Pre-SD

Post-mean

Post-SD

Probability

Intelligence/ability to reason Problem solver∗ Adaptability Loyalty Self-knowledge Knowledgeable of surroundings∗ Self-confidence Liked by classmates∗ Perseverance Enthusiasm Enthusiastic∗ Communication ability Patience with people Patience with people∗ Impatience with other things

3.71 3.58 3.59 3.65 3.65 3.58 3.61 3.32 3.41 3.82 3.79 3.86 3.63 3.21 3.88

0.94 0.77 1.08 1.03 1.09 1.02 1.14 1.05 1.14 1.26 1.18 1.15 1.09 1.36 0.97

4.14 4.26 3.72 3.86 3.96 4.32 3.91 3.89 3.48 4.14 4.32 4.15 3.70 2.74 4.04

0.84 0.81 1.00 1.10 0.90 0.58 1.10 1.05 1.00 1.08 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.10 0.95

0.35 0.02 0.59 0.51 0.46 0.01 0.35 0.02 0.59 0.33 0.03 0.58 0.36 0.05 0.53

M 1.00–1.66=Not so good; M 1.67–2.33=Okay; M 2.33–3.50=Better than most; M 3.51–4.33=Very good; M 4.34–5.00=Excellent ∗ p ≤ 0.05 (Wilcoxon Signed Rank analysis) Note: Additional words or phrases in rows indicate specific test items of significance and clustered within the construct represented in that row.

became more likely to second-guess themselves. For setting a later appointment, the group became significantly less laissez-faire by the program’s end, thus becoming more likely to try to pin down a date immediately. And finally, on whether or not they trusted their friends and whether they trusted in or were skeptical of intuition, the group moved from being split between the two initially to being able to rely on their friends and as skeptical of the value of intuition (vs. planning) by the program’s end. Chi square analyses run to search for gender-related differences found no differences in the pre-assessment, but two differences after program participation. Boys were significantly more likely to be patient when they did not have a ready answer while girls were split between being patient and uneasy. Likewise, girls were significantly more likely to want to set an exact time for a later appointment rather than wait until the last minute. Boys were more split on this forced choice item.

done, and felt a need to put their plan into action. There were no gender differences with either the initial or post-assessment responses. Most responses fell within the “often” range, except for generalizing about events, people, and things (“seldom”), needing to do something worthwhile (“almost always”), interest in the big ideas (“almost always”), ability to observe non-verbal as well as verbal information conveyed by others (“almost always”), sticking to own beliefs (“almost always”), and having good vocabulary to express ideas (“almost always”).

O’Leary Development of Personal Strengths Questionnaire

There were several changes documented through responses to this instrument over the course of the Leadership Development Program. The group grew significantly more likely to agree that they enjoyed helping others and that developing my personal strengths is up Sisk Leadership Strengths Indicator to myself. They grew to more strongly disagree that it will be the schools’ fault if I do not reach my potential. There were some changes in response to this instru- On this instrument, there were a large number of items ment from before to after the leadership program. that fell within the “strongly agree” range, including The group became significantly more positive that (a) better at some things than others; (b) developing my they were capable of generating multiple ideas and strengths is up to me; (c) developing personal strengths solutions, could see patterns in information to help is a priority; (d ) it is essential to reach one’s potential; with solutions, could organize steps in getting a task (e) I want a job that uses my strengths; (f) I want to

642

become a better person; (g) giving is important to society; (h) I enjoy helping others; and (i) helping others makes us a better person. Putting the burden of giving on others and blaming others when my individual potential is not developed were disagreed or strongly disagreed with among the items that addressed these ideas. There was one gender-related difference on the pre-administration. Girls felt more strongly than boys that developing one’s personal strengths was a priority (Mf = 14.88, Mm = 8.86, p = 0.03). Post-test administration of this instrument revealed four differences to which girls were more strongly in agreement than boys: importance of being a better person (Mf = 14.25, Mm = 9.55, p = 0.05), important to attend to global issues (Mf = 14.46, Mm = 9.32, p = 0.06), charities play vital role in society (Mf = 14.75, Mm = 9.00, p = 0.04). Girls were significantly less likely to agree that giving to charities was a waste of time (Mf = 8.88, Mm = 15.41, p = 0.02).

Summary and Conclusions Initially, the four greatest strengths (Ellis) of the group included intelligence/ability to reason, ability to communicate, loyalty, and patience with other people. By the end, however, only the first three continued to be considered extraordinary strengths and to increase in salience. Patience with others was replaced by adaptability, enthusiasm, and self-confidence. It could be that the actual project in which each student engaged colored their perceptions of how adaptable, enthusiastic, and self-confident they were. If they did succeed in getting the project going and it took much effort in getting people to collaborate on it, it is likely their sense of adaptability would be influenced. The success of the project itself would impact on what they perceived as their enthusiasm at the end of the project and their confidence that they led well. The less positive perception of themselves as patient with others may also have much to do with how their projects played out. Did some people they were relying on not play their part, leading them to believe that they might have only themselves to “trust”? Did particular people they had to deal with in getting the project implemented change their perceptions of just how patient they are? Perhaps

K.B. Rogers

they have only been surrounded with fairly compliant and cooperative people and have never had their patience truly tested before. By the end of the project the initial weaknesses of perseverance, adaptability, patience with others, and self-knowledge had changed in salience. Patience with others was considered a greater weakness, needing to be worked on. Adaptability and perseverance were still considered weaker. Likewise, self-knowledge decreased in salience. Again, it is possible that the vagaries of how their projects played out and how successful they were in the implementation probably colored what they now saw as areas needing to be strengthened. In general, the participants became more divergent in what they saw as their strengths and weaknesses after participating in the program. Perhaps, the individuality of their projects led them to recognize and realize different things about themselves, and, depending upon the actual parameters of each project, the skills and behaviors needed to be successful were considerably different. The more extensive delineation of leadership characteristics in the Ellis instrument showed significant changes to some aspects of their perceived leadership strengths. By the project’s end, the group as a whole had improved in their perceptions of problem-solving ability, being knowledgeable about their surroundings, being liked by peers, and being enthusiastic. Girls, from the start of the project felt significantly more strongly that they needed to be needed and this increased in salience across the project span. They also came to recognize themselves as capable of problem finding and of grasping abstract concepts (both clustered in the intelligence/ability to reason construct), seeing the consequence of their decisions (self-knowledge construct), and listening to others’ ideas (patience with people construct). Boys differed from girls at the end of the project in their perceived ability to recognize the skills and abilities of others (patience with people construct). Again, it seems possible that the issues and problems they each needed to confront in carrying out their leadership project influenced these perceptions. For girls to feel more strongly about their abilities, rather than hiding them, and for adolescent boys to be able to “delegate” to others are remarkable characteristics that we hope become permanent parts of these students’ psyches.

31

Leadership Giftedness

With Goldberg’s assessment of leadership beliefs and behaviors, the group initially saw themselves as committed to being challenged, independent in thought and action, able to stick up for their personal beliefs, and tending to rely on reason rather than emotion (but trustful of their intuitive moments). They described themselves as broad readers and as “idea” people. By the project’s end, the intuition, reliance on reason, and seeing themselves as idea people had declined to be replaced with adaptability, capability to solve problems, and ability to multi-task. From the beginning to the end of project participation, the group became more tolerant of complexity and uncertainty, less likely to gloss over their mistakes, more attentive about specific dates and deadlines, and more skeptical of the value of intuition in carrying out a project. These changes do seem strongly related to the focus of the program and what they had to do to get their respective projects implemented. The Sisk measure of gifted adolescents’ cognitive, interpersonal communication, decision making, and problem-solving abilities showed strong, positive perceptions initially in the cognitive, interpersonal, and decision-making categories, with positive but not so strong self-ratings of problem-solving abilities. The most positive aspects were maintained throughout the project: The students continued to be interested in the big issues, to need to do something worthwhile, to be able to stick to their own beliefs, and to know how to “read” others fairly well. They grew in their descriptions of themselves as being able to generate many ideas and solutions, being able to see patterns when gathering information, being able to organize a task into a series of steps, and needing to see their plans put into action. All of these seem to reflect the focus of the program in which they were participating. As such, the instrument appears to be sensitive to measuring perceptions of program outcomes as well as documenting leadership skills growth in the students themselves. With O’Leary’s instrument, some attempt was made to get at the motivations these students might have had for taking on their social issues projects – Was it to develop some skills in themselves, or was it to “solve” what they saw as a societal problem? Their responses suggest that the group were more into participating for the latter reason – a strongly held belief that they should “give” to others. They did hold strongly that their personal development was up to them and that

643

it had to be a priority to develop themselves, but the overriding motive, it seems, for participation in Young Leaders of Change was out of their enjoyment in helping others and feeling that it was important for them to do so. Interestingly, girls felt more strongly about several of these issues than did the boys, but in general, the whole group were remarkably altruistic in a developmental period when one might expect them to really be most motivated to help themselves become unique and developed rather than to help others. In general, then, self-efficacy was not necessarily stronger or more positive at the end of the development project, but perhaps self-awareness of what these adolescents were capable of doing was more realistic and less idealistic. The initial extremes of their viewpoints were rounded off or mellowed by their experience with the successes and pitfalls of their own leadership project attempts. Some elements of selfdirectedness improved across the project, in particular, their attention to detail, their perseverance, and their adaptability. It is again assumed that their personal experiences with their own project taught them the importance of these things. They had no other choice. These students found some of their personal characteristics wanting, perhaps as a result of working on their projects, especially their patience with the weaknesses and foibles of others. The group became more altruistic in terms of wanting to contribute to society and to help others by project’s end, even though they were positive about these things at the beginning as well. What few gender differences there were to be found initially among the sample seemed to increase for perceptions of leadership strengths and for perceptions of their own behaviors and skills of leading. Girls tended to become more confident of their abilities to be leaders (improved self-efficacy), and boys tended to become more likely to trust that others could be relied upon for their own skills and abilities. Self-directedness improvements did not differ between boys and girls at any point in the project.

Implications Participation in a program that teaches adolescents the skills of carrying out a self-selected social issues/service learning project (such as the elimination

644

of bullying at school) can impact their perceptions of their effectiveness as a leader and the frequency of their perceived use of leadership behaviors and skills. It is important in the design of such a program that students be provided with the skills to adapt, to learn more about their own capabilities, to learn how to overcome procrastination and to persevere, and to learn specific strategies for effective interpersonal communication. The fashioning and implementing of a project are what hooked them into a program such as Young Leaders of Change, but if we want to see the experiences engaged in translate into transferable skills, a clear scope and sequence of leadership skills to be taught should be a part of the program. The merits of developed leadership development curricula, such as described in the first section (Karnes & Chauvin, 2000; Parker & Begnaud, 2003), have been supported by the results of this study. Critical as a part of this curriculum, however, is the need to focus on the passionate issues in the real world, which these students have already recognized and brought with them to the program. The chance to make “real” change appears to have been important to these gifted adolescents. That the innate abilities they brought with them were more fully developed was value added. Participation in such a program can help with some aspects of self-directedness, such as perseverance and planning, but the impact is not so direct as for improvement to self-efficacy. Perhaps more of a focus on independence in project implementation without the aid of a mentor would have built this, but then, the adolescents would not have had the mentorship relationships they did experience and enjoy and which the research in gifted education asserts provides academic, social, and emotional gains for them (Rogers, 2002). Implications must remain fairly limited when discussing this short-term skills training program for gifted adolescents. The sample size was small and is an Australian sample. Therefore, the outcomes documented here may not apply to other settings and other countries. Although the project lasted for 6 months, in a larger context, this was a short-term measurement of change. Future research might focus on measuring the longer term gains of such training. Another limitation of the study is that there was no control placed on students within the program to expand or narrow their project scope and likewise no control on their success or failure in achieving their project goals. Each came with an idea for a project they wanted to develop and

K.B. Rogers

each was guided by a mentor as s/he attempted to carry out the project. What is clear is that the students remained very positive about their involvement from beginning to end, which may, perhaps, be an artifact of charismatic leadership in the program rather than on the set of development skills with which the leaders wanted to leave them. Further research is recommended to determine if similar results happen in subsequent offerings of the program, and particular attention should be paid to the actual scope of student projects and achievement of project goals. Then the tenuous connections between project experiences, which were not carefully documented, and the data collected on self-efficacy and self-directedness may be either confirmed or reshaped to fit the circumstances.

Final “Answers” From the instrumentation used in this study, several aspects of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom appeared to be high before engagement in the program. One could argue that intelligence/ability to reason (Sternberg’s Academic Intelligence), loyalty to others (Sternberg’s Wisdom), ability to communicate (Sternberg’s Practical Intelligence), possession of a vision for change and enthusiasm for it (Sternberg’s Creativity), independence in thought and action (Sternberg’s Wisdom), and a powerful need to achieve (Sternberg’s Creativity) were the innate components of leadership the participants brought with them. They viewed these, for the most part, as their strengths, and even though some small positive growth was witnessed for some of these aspects, they remained the constant of each student’s persona as a leader. What appears to have been changed/developed or was partially developed within the experiences of leadership skills training were self-awareness/selfconfidence (Wisdom), acceptance of/patience with others’ foibles and strengths (Wisdom), planning, implementing, organizing, monitoring task (Practical Intelligence), perseverance (Creativity, Practical Intelligence), adaptability (Creativity), and impatience with limitations (Practical Intelligence). One could argue that these are the qualities, behaviors, and traits leadership programs can develop in helping gifted leaders become more effective in carrying out their vision. The issue of altruism, the influence of charisma, and the social magnetism aspects of personality have not

31

Leadership Giftedness

been fully addressed nor answered by the results of this study. Further biographical inventories and fuller incorporation of discussions about ethical issues, consequences, and altruism into leadership programs must be documented and assessed before a conjecture on these more personal aspects of becoming a leader can be provided. In the meantime, it is clear that much can be done within organized Leadership Development Programs to nurture the innate abilities gifted leaders bring to the table as well as the skills they still need to master in order to be most effective in carrying out their vision. They bring the vision with them. We must help them with the rest.

References Addison, L., Oliver, A., & Cooper, C. (Eds.). (1987). Developing Leadership Potential in Gifted Children and Youth. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 285 310). Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Reexamining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462. Bass, B. M. (2002). Cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence of transformational leaders. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp. 105–118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. International Review of Applied Psychology, 45, 5–34. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Davis, G., & Rimm, S. (2004). Education of the Gifted and Talented (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Ellis, J. L. (1990). Leadership Strengths Indicator: A self-report leadership analysis instrument for adolescents. Uniontown, NY: Royal Fireworks Press. Feldhusen, J. F., & Kennedy, D. M. (1986). Leadership training for gifted and talented youth. Leadership Network Newsletter, 1(2), 1–2. Fiedler, F. E. (2002). The curious role of cognitive resources in leadership. In R. E, Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp. 91–104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gallagher, J. J. (1982). A Leadership Unit. Uniontown, NY: Royal Fireworks Press. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1995). Leading Minds. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, J. (1990). On Leadership. New York: The Free Press. Karnes, F. A. (1999). The current effectiveness of the leadership studies program. Unpublished manuscript. Hattiesburg, MS: University of Southern Mississippi. Karnes, F. A., & Chauvin, J. C. (1985). Leadership Skills Inventory. East Aurora, NY: D. O. K.

645 Karnes, F. A., & Chauvin, J. C. (2000). Leadership Development Program. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Karnes, F. A., & D’Illio, V. R. (1990). Correlations between personality and leadership concepts and skills as measured by the high school personality questionnaire and the leadership inventory. Psychological Reports, 66, 851–856. Kaye, C. B. (2004). The Complete Guide to Service Learning: Proven, Practical Ways to Engage Students in Civic Responsibility, Academic Curriculum, & Social Action. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Press. Krebs, D. L., & Van Hesteren, F. (1994). The development of altruism: Toward an integrative model. Developmental Review, 14, 103–158. O’Leary, K. (2005). Developing Personal Strengths Questionnaire. Instrument from unpublished doctoral dissertation. Sydney, Australia: The University of New South Wales. Parker, J. P. (1983, September-October). The leadership training model: Integrated curriculum for the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 29, 8–13. Parker, J. P., & Begnaud, L. G. (2003). Developing Creative Leadership. Portsmouth, NH: Teacher Idea Press. Passow, A. H. (1988). Educating gifted persons who are caring and concerned. Roeper Review, 11, 13–15. Passow, A. H. (1977). Foreword to A New Generation of Leadership: Education for the Gifted in Leadership. Ventura, CA: Office of the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools. Passow, A. H., & Frasier, M. M. (1996). Minority and disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 18, 198–202. Roach, A. A., Wyman, L. T., Brookes, H., Chavez, C., Heath, S. B., & Valdes, G. (1999). Leadership giftedness: Models revisited. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 13–24. Roeper, A. (1995). Selected Writings and Speeches. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Press. Roeper, A. (1988). Should educators of the gifted and talented be more concerned with world issues? Roeper Review, 11, 12–15. Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forming Gifted Education: Helping Teachers and Parents Match the Program to the Child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Sashkin, M. (2004). Transformational leadership approaches: A review and synthesis, In J. Antonakis, A. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Nature of Leadership (pp. 171–196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Silverman L. K. (1993). The gifted individual: The phenomenology of giftedness. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the Gifted and Talented (pp. 55–78). Denver: Love. Sisk, D. (1993). Leadership education for the gifted. In K. Heller, F. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 491–505). New York: Pergamon. Sisk, D. A., & Roselli, H. C. (1987). Leadership: A Special Kind of Giftedness. Uniontown, NY: Royal Fireworks Press. Sisk, D. A., & Shallcross, D. J. (1986). Leadership: Making Things Happen. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited. Sternberg, R. J. (2005). WICS: A model of giftedness in leadership. Roeper Review, 28, 37–44. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). The theory of successful intelligence as a basis for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 265–277. Yates, M. (2002). Leaderships Truths . . . the 4 e’s 2002 Version. Retrieved on March 5, 2002 from http://www.leadervalues.com.

Part VIII

Domain-Specific and Multiple Giftedness

Chapter 32

Scientific Talent: The Case of Nobel Laureates Larisa V. Shavinina

Abstract Nobel Prize is associated with a rare, superior degree of intellectually creative achievements. Although the capacity of Nobel laureates for great scientific discoveries has attracted researchers’ attention for decades, their scientific talent is far from well explained. This chapter argues that Nobel laureates’ unique type of representations—especially their highly objective cognition—is the essence of their talent. They see, understand, and interpret everything in a unique way. Their talent is also determined by extracognitive abilities—specific feelings, preferences, beliefs, intentions, and intuitive processes—which constitute a whole field of unexplored or poorly understood scientific phenomena. An individual’s unique intellectual picture of the world or his or her unique point of view and the extracognitive abilities predict intellectually creative accomplishments of the highest level that result in great discoveries and outstanding scientific talent of Nobel caliber.

vative ideas. Investigators’ efforts have been mainly focused on understanding scientists’ personality traits and interests (Feist, 1999; Friedman-Nimz et al., this volume; Roe, 1952, 1958), creativity (Barron, 1969; MacKinnon, 1978; Root-Bernstein, 2003; Simonton, 2003, 2004; Wallace & Gruber, 1989), cognitive processes (Gruber, 1974, 1996; Poincare, 1952), spatial abilities (Brody, this volume), innovation (Shavinina, 2003), intuition (Root-Bernstein & RootBernstein, 2003), polymathy (R. Root-Bernstein, this volume), the role of the genetic contribution to scientific training and performance (Simonton, in press), as well as domain-specific abilities necessary for success in particular areas of science such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, and so on (Brody, this volume; Simonton, 2004). I will not review these publications here; it was done elsewhere. Instead, as the title of the chapter suggests, I will focus on a special group of scientific talents—Nobel laureates. Nobel laureates in science occupy a special place Keywords Scientific talent · Nobel laureates · Nobel in any discussion of scientific talent. Winning a NoPrize · Unique type of representations · Objectivization bel Prize represents the pinnacle of accomplishment possible in one’s field of expertise. Despite the everof cognition · Extracognitive abilities increasing role of science in society and the quite evident importance of Nobel laureates in contemporary Introduction or Why Is It So Important? science, one should acknowledge that the nature of scientific talent is far from well understood. Nobel laureThe nature of scientific talent has been attracting ates during their childhood encompassed a wide range researchers’ attention for a long time. Scholars were of abilities, including the gifted, gifted underachievers, admired by talented scientists’ ability to make great and children without any special talents. Their diverdiscoveries, produce unique theories, and highly inno- gent trajectories of talent development ultimately led to the same result: amazing scientific discoveries, which testified to the outstanding minds of those who made L.V. Shavinina (B) them. Eventually, all the trajectories led to the same Universit´e du Qu´ebec en Outaouais, Gatineau, Qu´ebec, point: zenith in science. Research on scientific talent Canada aimed at understanding how and why this happened is e-mail: [email protected]

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 32, 

649

650

therefore extremely important, especially if one thinks about its practical implications: that is, what lessons can be derived for the education of today’s children in general and gifted in particular. The discovery of the principles involved in the educational development of Nobel laureates will allow educators to accordingly improve, develop, modify, and transcend areas in the current curriculum in an attempt to cultivate scientific talent, of Nobel caliber, in future generations. The study of scientific talent is thus of immense importance for education, science, and society at large. Nobel Prize is associated with a rare, superior degree of intellectually creative achievements. However, scholars have not yet studied Nobel laureates in science systematically (Miller, 1996; Zuckerman, 1977). Although thorough research on Nobel laureates would definitely advance the field of high abilities by deepening our understanding of the nature of giftedness and talent in general, one should acknowledge that psychologists occasionally study Nobel laureates. With some exceptions (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Eiduson, 1962; Marton, Fensham, & Chaiklin, 1994; Root-Bernstein, 2003; Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 1999, 2003; Rothenberg, 1996; Simonton, 2003), the topic of scientific talent of Nobel laureates thus remains almost terra incognita from a research viewpoint, being partially known primarily from (auto)biographies of famous Nobel laureates. The overall goal of this chapter is to explain the nature of extraordinary scientific talent of Nobel caliber, which manifests itself exceptionally well in the scientific innovations of Nobel laureates. Specifically, the chapter sheds light on the fundamental facet of scientific talent, that is, why Nobel laureates in science were able to produce remarkable intellectually creative achievements. In particular, the chapter focuses on Nobel laureates’ unique representations, objectivization of cognition, and extracognitive abilities, which were not considered in the above-mentioned literature on scientific talent. The chapter argues that the essence of scientific talent is about having a unique point of view on any idea, problem, research question, and the world as a whole. The chapter also draws attention to extracognitive abilities of Nobel laureates, arguing that these abilities represent the highest level of the manifestation of the intellectually creative potential of an individual and predict outstanding scientific talent of Nobel caliber. The chapter presents the model of extracognitive abilities based on autobiographical and bi-

L.V. Shavinina

ographical accounts of Nobel laureates. For the most part, findings from Nobel laureates will be used; however, a few other great scientists of Nobel caliber will also be mentioned. This chapter thus complements and extends existing research on Nobel laureates in science. From the methodological point of view, I will rely on autobiographies and biographies of Nobel laureates in science, which are well suited for capturing the distinguishing characteristics of their talent. Autobiographical and biographical findings are extremely important for the research on individuals or events characterized by their rarity as is the case with Nobel laureates. Autobiographical and biographical data provide a panoramic picture of the studied individuals (Foster, 1986; Frey, 1978), allowing investigators to develop and validate theories grounded in a more direct “observation” of the eminent persons (Gross, 1994; Merriam, 1988). As in the cases with gifted entrepreneurs and great managers (Shavinina, this volume), the use of autobiographical and biographical accounts for research on Nobel laureates in science presents, nevertheless, the following limitations: (1) The potential subjectivity of biographers resulting from their individual interpretations of events, thoughts, and states. These interpretations may be influenced by their personal attitudes toward the person about whom they write, an attitude swayed in part by whether the latter is living or not. Autobiographers can also be subjective and contradictory in their accounts of their own creative processes, thoughts, psychological states, and the surrounding events, which lead up to and follow their scientific discoveries. (2) Time of writing the biography or autobiography, normally after a person has already become an eminent personality, often relies on vague memories of one’s thinking processes which may have likely been weakened or altered over time. Therefore, the conclusions and reports of autobiographers—and especially of biographers—do not always look very reliable. This is why the issue surrounding the validity and reliability of subjective reports when they are used as data was seriously discussed by researchers (Brown, 1978, 1987; Ericsson & Simon, 1980). Interestingly enough, Nobel laureates themselves realized these issues very well. For example, Albert Einstein himself grasped this point clearly when he wrote in his Autobiographical Notes, “The exposition of that which is worthy of communication does nonetheless

32

Scientific Talent

not come easy; today’s person of 67 is by no means the same as was the one of 50, of 30, or of 20. Every reminiscence is colored by today’s being what it is, and therefore by a deceptive point of view. . ..” (Einstein, 1949, p. 47). Holton (1973) further elaborated this point emphasizing that it is not only growth or change that affects ones interpretations, it is also the difference between “experience lived” and “experience reported.” “In this case it is well possible that such an individual in retrospect sees a uniformly systematic development, whereas the actual experience takes place in kaleidoscopic particular situations” (Einstein, 1949, p. 47). Nonetheless, in spite of such limitations, researchers in the area of high abilities view the use of self-reports as an “effective means of learning about scientific thinking” (John-Steiner, 1985, p. 181).

Theoretical Premises: Nobel Laureates’ Unique Point of View As the Nobel Prize in science is awarded for exceptional intellectually creative achievements, the cognitive-developmental theory of giftedness (Shavinina, this volume) is the right one for explaining the nature of scientific talent. According to the theory, giftedness (which manifests itself in the extraordinary achievements in any field of human activity) is a result of a specific organization of an individual’s cognitive experience that functions as a basis or a carrier of all manifestations of giftedness (i.e., its traits and characteristics) and expresses itself in a specific, objective type of the representations of reality (i.e., how an individual sees, understands, and interprets the world around him or her). In other words, cognitive experience of the gifted expresses itself in their unrepeatable, unique picture of the world, which displays itself in a wide range of intellectual, metacognitive, and extracognitive (Shavinina, 1994; Shavinina & Ferrari, 2004) manifestations and is responsible for their exceptional achievements and performance. Cognitive experience of an individual is a result of the protracted inner process of the actualization, growth, and enrichment of one’s own cognitive resources during accelerated mental development, beyond which there are periods of heightened cognitive sensitivity. The developmental foundation of intellectually creative giftedness is connected with sensitive periods,

651

which accelerate a child’s mental development through the actualization of his or her intellectual and creative potential and the growth of the individual’s cognitive resources resulting in the appearance of a unique cognitive experience (Shavinina, 1997, 1999). This leads to advanced development of the gifted and talented. According to the theory, the internal structure of intellectually creative giftedness is presented at six levels: (1) neuropsychological basis of giftedness; (2) its developmental foundation; (3) its cognitive basis; and its (4) intellectual, (5) metacognitive, and (6) extracognitive manifestations. A variety of micro- and macro-social environmental factors—such as family setting, cultural milieu, historical conditions, and political climate—play an important role in developing giftedness. Nobel laureates in science provide a lot of evidence that an individual’s unique type of representations is the essence of scientific talent. For example, Richard Feynman is convinced that new representations are at the heart of great scientific discoveries. According to him, “we have to find a new view of the world. . .. If you can find any other view of the world which agrees over the entire range where things have already been observed, but disagrees somewhere else, you have made a great discovery. It is very nearly impossible, but not quite. . .” (Feynman, 1965). “I will tell you what you need to be a great scientist. . .” says physicist Mitchell Wilson. “You have to be able to see what looks like the most complicated thing in the world and. . .find the underlying simplicity” (quoted in RootBernstein & Root-Bernstein, 2003, p. 380). In one way or another, all great scientists clearly emphasize the primary importance of an individual’s unique point of view of any idea, problem, and the world around as a whole.1 They indeed see everything differently. Thus,

1 It is interesting to note that some scientists are formally inviting artists to help them see, interpret, and understand things differently. For example, Milton Halem, chief of the Space Data and Computing Division at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in the early 1990s invited Sara Tweedie, a design instructor in the Corcoran School of Art to help the NASA engineers perceive new ways to visualize the huge amounts of data being generated from satellite sources. “Visualizing that data, coloring that data, enables the mind to more quickly assimilate the information and the image,” he noted. He says he needs artists such as Tweedie to push “modeling a step beyond where it’s gone in the past” (Mercier, 1990, p. 28). The National Supercomputing Facility and Bell Laboratories (now Lucent Technologies) have hired artists for similar reasons (Root-Bernstein, 2003).

652

many researchers before Albert Einstein thought and tried to understand the nature of relativity, time, and light. However, it was Einstein who saw the right picture and therefore put all pieces of this scientific puzzle together. Here we are approaching a very interesting and important, yet almost ignored and unstudied, phenomenon of the objectivization of cognition without which great achievements are impossible. Einstein’s objectivization of cognition helped him to do extraordinary discoveries in science. It means that Einstein not simply saw the right picture, he saw as it was, as it is, and as it will be in its objective reality. As was mentioned above, objectivization of cognition is an essential element of the unique type of representations of the gifted. Generally speaking, the objectivization of cognition refers to an individual’s ability to see, understand, and interpret everything in a highly objective manner. This occurs when the cognition of an individual goes beyond the limits of the subjective space into the “superpersonal world,” beyond the world of everyday interests, where the global problems of civilization, human beings, natural existence, and science are dominant and where human thinking is concentrated on the analysis of the objective events of reality. This phenomenon is very well seen in the work of Albert Einstein, Robert Burns Woodward, and many other Nobel laureates. The concept of objectivization has been introduced and defined by Uznadze (1966). He differentiated between two kinds of human behavior: impulsive behavior is characterized by full dependence on the internal and external environment (i.e., present demands and current situations and problems). The mechanism of objectivization is the basis of the second kind of behavior, which is connected with cognitive activity and assumes the possibility of conscious control of mental functioning. Uznadze defined objectivization as “. . .the specific act, which transforms the subject or the event of an individual’s activity into a special independent object of his or her observation” (1966, p. 255). The concept of objectivization is therefore about the direction of consciousness to facets of the objective reality and about the cognitive activity required to do this. According to Uznadze (1966), “the capacity for objectivization frees a person from direct dependence on natural aims and opens the way to an independent objective reality. . .” (p. 314). He concluded that objectivization plays the central role in the development of an individual’s intellectual abilities.

L.V. Shavinina

The concept of objectivization of cognition is also found in Piaget’s theory of intelligence (1969) as one of its important elements. In light of this theory, the emergence of “decentration” is a specific manifestation of the intellectual growth of an individual. Decentration is defined as (a) the ability to focus simultaneously on two or more dimensions of a situation and to minimise the possible deformations of the mental image as a result of the comparison of these dimensions; (b) the ability to reproduce the characteristics of an object independently from the personal egocentric point of view. By contrast with decentration, “centration” is characterized by the concentration of attention and cognition on one dimension of an object while all other dimensions are ignored. Centration leads to the deformation of the mental image and, consequently, to inappropriate evaluations of situation and events as a result of the egocentric point of view (Piaget, 1969). Objectivization of intelligence is thus possible through decentration because an individual is able flexibly to combine large parts of reality into something whole and compare different cognitive points of view. Consequently, according to Uznadze and Piaget, the development of intellectual abilities is connected to the formation of such psychological mechanisms, which are responsible for the independence of cognitive activity from subjective personal problems and the characteristics and demands of current situations. Indeed, the objectivization of cognition was one of Piaget’s distinguishing characteristics in his own way of working. For example, “his decision to study the abstract and universal ‘epistemic subject’ ” (Gruber, 1989, p. 12; italics added) testifies to this. Objectivization of cognition of gifted, creative, and talented individuals was analyzed by Kholodnaya (1990) and is one of the central concepts in her theory of human intelligence. Her understanding of intelligence as the mechanism for structuring specific representations of reality (these representations are connected with the reproduction of “objective” knowledge about the world around) suggests that the degree of the development of the ability for the objectivization of cognition determines an individual’s intellectual productivity. She demonstrated that one of the critical characteristics of the gifted’s representations of reality is their objective character. Her most important conclusion in this respect is that . . .the significance of intellectually gifted individuals in society should be seen not only in that they solve prob-

32

Scientific Talent lems well and create new knowledge, but mainly in the fact that they have the ability to create an intellectual, objective picture of the world. That is, they can see the world as it was, as it is, and as it will be in its objective reality. (Kholodnaya, 1990, p. 128; italics added).

These psychological theories show the importance of the objectivization of cognition in the development of extraordinary intellectual abilities. The existing (auto) biographical findings on Nobel laureates—like Einstein, Woodward, and others—support this point of view. Einstein’s case is especially compelling because his ability to objectivize cognition was extremely pronounced. This is very clearly shown in his life ideal: “The cognition of the world in its unity and its rational comprehension” (as cited in Kuznetsov, 1979, p. 326; free translation from Russian; italics added). Being very young, Einstein wanted to go beyond various personal everyday problems to active work on superpersonal rational ideas, which take place in the superpersonal world, beyond the world of daily interests. Later in life, his desire to achieve objective and superpersonal cognition of the world became very strong. He was interested in general laws of the Universe, nature, and existence. He wrote, The most important level in the development of a person like me is reached then, when the basic interest of life goes beyond the temporary and personal, and concentrates on the desire to understand mentally the nature of the world (As cited in Kuznetsov, 1979, p. 326; free translation from Russian; italics added).

Indeed, all Einstein’s scientific activity was at the highest level of abstractness. His special and generalized theories of relativity—the monumental achievements of human mind—are evidence of this. Such a level of abstraction was determined by Einstein’s ability to objectivize cognition. Probably only in the world of objectivization was it possible for Einstein to go beyond the known scientific facts, principles, and laws to the new constructive theories which could adequately explain unknown phenomena of the Universe and nature and move against the prevailing concepts in theoretical physics. In short, Einstein’s productive work on the frontier problems of physics in 1905 depended on his ability to objectivize cognition. It is not therefore surprising that he preferred “to work alone and out of the academic mainstream” (Miller, 1989, p. 171) because only in the world of objectivization can scientists interact directly with their subjects (i.e., experimental and empirical findings, data arising from their

653

thoughts, the so-called “mental experiments,” and reading) to the maximum extent. As a result, Einstein was always able to add fresh and unusual ideas from his thought experiments to the information available in order to formulate his innovative view of physical theory. R. B. Woodward’s case is similar. Very early in his life, Woodward—one of the great organic chemists of all time—had to decide on “the kind of relationship he wanted between his mind. . . and the external world or reality” (Woodward, 1989, p. 244; italics added). He later referred to how, when he was about 10 years old, his imagination was engaged with certain questions current in the chemistry of the day. For example, since “everyone who had given the matter any thought had his own benzene formula. . . I didn’t see why I shouldn’t have mine” (Woodward, 1989, p. 244; italics added). It is clear that from childhood Woodward lived in the world of objective reality; chemistry was such a reality for him. Indeed, “Woodward’s development—personal, cognitive, and affective—was transformed by his very early self-immersion in chemistry. From that, a particular chemistry-oriented development of self arose. . .” (Woodward, 1989, p. 249). Early self-immersion in chemistry is nothing else but his early self-immersion in the world of the objective reality. As a consequence, “Woodward’s development became his development of chemistry and in that form could continue to become. This explains his dislike of interruptions in his work, his reluctance to take vacations, even his unwillingness to spend time with his family. . .along with his lack of rest or physical exercise,”—wrote his daughter (Woodward, 1989, p. 249). Much later many of Woodward’s colleagues drew attention to this special relationship between him and objective reality in which concern for mind had priority, with a careful balance between reality and fantasy. Certainly, the scientist emphasized the importance of imagination over copying nature, but at the same time he also had a strong belief in scientific objectivity (Woodward, 1989, p. 246) in chemical work. For instance, he pointed out that “in the synthesis of naturally occurring substances. . .the chemist is. . .creating. . .forms of matter which have never existed before. . .in nature” (Woodward, 1989, p. 238). At the same time these created objects—the synthesized compounds—were identical to the natural ones (Woodward, 1989). The manifestation of Woodward’s ability for objectivization can also be found,

654

for instance, in his Nobel lecture, in which he stressed “the flexibility essential for any long journey through unknown territory, beset with perils which at best can only be dimly foreseen” (Woodward, 1989, p. 239; italics added). In this phrase Woodward’s aspiration to discover objective new knowledge, which was never discovered before, can be seen. Probably, the only previous research on the objectivization of cognition of great scientists was done in the case of Vladimir I. Vernadsky (Shavinina, 1995). Although he did not formally get a Nobel Prize, his scientific achievements are indeed of Nobel caliber. This is why his objectivization of cognition is worth to be considered here. It will help us to further understand this phenomenon and how it determines the uniqueness of scientists’ type of representation or their unique picture of the world that is ultimately responsible for their great accomplishments. V. I. Vernadsky was an eminent Russian scientist. He was a brilliant geologist, mineralogist, biologist, biochemist, geochemist, geobiochemist, philosopher, and historian of science. Vernadsky founded such sciences as geochemistry, biochemistry, geobiochemistry, and introduced many scientific theories like the theory of biochemistry, the theory of biosphere, the theory of noosphere, just to mention a few. He organized several scientific research institutes such as Vernadsky’s Institute of Biochemistry in Moscow, Russia, and Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in Kiev, Ukraine. His multifaceted giftedness manifested itself in many fields of science as well as in administrative career. There is plenty of evidence demonstrating that Vernadsky had an exceptionally developed ability to see everything in a highly objective manner. The autobiographical findings show that there are at least four facets of his objectivization of cognition. The first facet is related to the most global issues of the world like the general problems of civilization and human nature, which have been studied by many scientific geniuses. The issues include the scientific questions of space and time, the origin of the Universe, and the structure of the world around. Thus, young Vernadsky wrote, “I want to understand those forces, which are hidden in material substance, I want to find the reasons, which form substance into its straight and mathematically harmonic forms, which we see and feel everywhere. . .” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 56; italics added).

Vernadsky’s cognition of the material world extended to the understanding of nature:

L.V. Shavinina “It seems to me, I have found the way to understand the real distances between the most little particles of solid matter. . .. To my mind I have penetrated further and deeper into these problems than human thought has ever done so far. . .” (Vernadsky, 1988, pp. 60–61).

The scientist has seen the solutions of future problems of human civilization just in “general issues”: “There are general problems, which concern the principal ideas. The minds of hundreds of various individuals, of different epochs, nations and generations have been trying to solve these problems. These problems do not seem practically important, but all essence of the matter is mainly there. . .” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 57; italics added). The search for the basic rational laws of the Universe could be considered as the second kind of Vernadsky’s objectivization of cognition. The scientist wrote, “. . . I see the laws. I feel the strength of my mind, which allows me to see pictorially Earth as a planet. It is very difficult! But it seems to me that this picture becomes more clear all the time. And sometimes the general structure of the chemical life of Earth sparkles before my mind. . .” (Vernadsky, 1988, pp. 150–151; italics added). It must be stressed that Vernadsky has felt positive emotions in the process of the search of the basic rational laws of nature and existence. According to him, “it is so good that the mind is going further in these interesting issues, when you mentally analyze the structure of matter and trying to find its laws. . .” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 61; italics added). Vernadsky’s desire to see and to find the laws of all events and all phenomena, which were interesting to him in all scientific fields in which he worked, was also one of the distinguishing characteristics of his cognition. For instance, he was convinced that “the history of science is the history of thought. Human thought has been developing and there are laws of its development like the laws of any other natural phenomenon. . .” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 192; italics added). “I believe that it is possible to understand further the laws of the development of consciousness in the Universe. . .” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 136; italics added). “I think a lot about the way of the discovery and of understanding scientific truth, about the natural-historical law. . .” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 144; italics added). Vernadsky’s striving for the truth of cognition and his interest in the truth are the third manifestation of his ability for objectivization. There are a lot of evidences

32

Scientific Talent

in his diaries that his cognition was directed to finding “truth” in the understanding of nature, the world around, and the puzzles of science. Thus, he wrote, “I am looking for truth and I have quite a strong feeling that I can die and burn out in this process. But it is very important for me to find truth” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 57; italics added). Vernadsky believed, like other scientific geniuses, in the possibility of the existence of truth and in true, objective cognition. For example, he said: “Is not it all beauty in the feeling of thought movement, in the belief in truth, in that what is very well represented by the phrase: ‘Eppur si muove!’ ”2 (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 81; italics added). Vernadsky’s reflections on the ways of the discovery of scientific truth were strongly provoked by his desire for true, objective cognition and by his belief in its existence: “I think a lot about the ways of the cognition of scientific truth” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 144; italics added). “I would like to understand some issues, which are very important. . . The ways of the discovery of the scientific truth are among such issues. . .” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 136; italics added). In this relation V. I. Vernadsky studied geniuses of the past who proved the truth in their fields of science. “The biographies of such individuals as Leonardo da Vinci, F. Bacon, and J. Locke are important. . .. It is very amazing that a person was able to come to right conclusions in the general intellectual darkness of centuries ago. . .” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 136; italics added). Vernadsky’s thoughts on true, objective cognition led him to concrete actions in order to “increase the number of ways to achieve truths,” which, according to him, are “museums, laboratories, and universities” (Vernadsky, 1988, p. 62). Vernadsky’s scientific Weltanschauung should be viewed as the fourth group of manifestations of his objectivization of cognition. Probably, it is the highest stage in the development of his ability for the objectivization of cognition. The scientist himself defined his Weltanschauung as “realism” (objectivism): “First of all there is an axiom of the objective. . . reality of the world around, which every naturalist accepts as a basis for all his scientific activity” (as quoted in Mochalov, 1970, p. 90; italics added).

2

The famous words of Galileo: “But it still moves!”

655

There are many of Vernadsky’s reflections about this “axiom of reality.” I would like to mention here some of them. “Consciousness of the reality of the objects of study is an axiom and it can be found in the basis of scientific knowledge and in the essence of science” (as quoted in Mochalov, 1970, p. 92; italics added). “Science has limits. . .. The real world is one of these limits. The concept of the reality of the world is. . . an axiomatic concept for scientific thought” (as quoted in Mochalov, 1970, p. 92; italics added). To sum up, the objectivization of cognition in the case of great scientists manifests itself in the aspiration to the “superpersonal, beyond everyday problems world,” in the desire to solve the “most global scientific issues” and to understand the basic rational laws of existence, in the interest in the truth of cognition, and in a specific realistic Weltanschauung. The abovementioned findings with respect to the phenomenon of objectivization of cognition in such scientists as Einstein, Woodward, and Vernadsky led me to the following conclusions, which are very important for further advancement of research on the nature of scientific talent. 1. New and great scientific discoveries are generated in the world of objectivization. That is, the highly productive and innovative work of talented scientists is made possible by their ability to objectivize cognition. Important scientific advances (i.e., formulating new laws, discovering new rules, and generating novel ideas) can be considered as the consequence of the objectivization of cognition. The latter also explains to a certain degree the gifted’s capacity for exceptionally hard work, a high aspiration level, as well as “their ability to involve themselves totally in a specific problem or area for an extended period of time” (Renzulli, 1986, p. 70). 2. Uncertainty, which is greatly appreciated by the gifted, takes place in the world of objectivization. Uncertainty, being at the first glance the common basis of all unknown phenomena of nature, the Universe, and science, gives a space for the realization of the potential intellectual and creative abilities of talented scientists because objectivization is not the simple copying of nature. 3. The numerous and famous “Eureka!” and “Aha!” moments of insight in the history of science can be explained by the fact that scientists have persistently been in the world of objectivization for long periods of time and as a result of it objectivization itself begins to gen-

656

erate creative products in the form of new ideas and innovative solutions. In other words, mind continues to work productively, unconsciously, and automatically. Therefore, a sudden insight is probably one of the consequences of a scientist’s ability for the objectivization of cognition. 4. In the light of the objectivization of cognition, the negative reaction of talented scientists to any attempts to impose external standards on their intellectually creative behavior is not surprising. 5. The objectivization of cognition explains the extreme sense of purpose in life of gifted, creative, and talented individuals, which is one of their distinguishing characteristics. The sense of purpose in life of scientific geniuses is very often connected to mixing their work with their life. The latter—if it is productive— just takes place with the help of the mechanism of objectivization. It is not thus surprising that one very often says something like “this eminent scientist and physics (chemistry, biology, etc.) were matched for each other” or “this is a person who does not separate life and work” and so on. Perhaps, the understanding of the gifted, creative, and talented individuals as highly task oriented (Gruber, 1989) is one of the consequences of their objectivization of cognition. 6. The whole development of the gifted—including cognitive, intellectual, affective, and social—is regulated by the world of their objectivization (Shavinina, 1998). All other worlds—human relationships, family life, and so on—exist only as parallel worlds. 7. Objectivization demands a great deal of time and very deep and strong concentration on a task at hand. As a result, gifted, creative, and talented individuals do not like any interruptions, including holidays, from their work. Neglect of their personal needs—for sharing, for rest, for family life, and so on—can be regarded as another consequence of their objectivization. The objectivization of cognition can therefore be considered one of the critical predictors of scientific talent of Nobel caliber and one of the basic criteria of intellectually creative giftedness. The unique cognitive experience of scientists—that manifests itself in their highly objective representations of the world around—forms the psychological basis of scientific talent. As was mentioned above, the cognitivedevelopmental theory of giftedness states that there are three main levels of the manifestations of giftedness. The next section will focus on extracognitive abilities of Nobel laureates, arguing that these abilities repre-

L.V. Shavinina

sent the highest level of the manifestation of the intellectually creative potential of an individual and predict outstanding scientific talent.

Extracognitive Abilities of Nobel Laureates in Science Autobiographical and biographical findings on Nobel laureates show that their mental functioning is determined in part by specific feelings, beliefs, intentions, preferences, and intuitive processes, which can be referred to as extracognitive abilities. For example, a “feeling for the organism” was behind the scientific discoveries of Barbara McClintock (Keller, 1983). Extracognitive abilities refer to four interrelated—and at the same time obviously different—components. These are

r

r r r

specific intellectually creative feelings: feelings of direction, harmony, beauty, and style, including senses of “important problems,” “good” ideas, “correct” theories, elegant solutions and feelings of “being right, being wrong, or having come across something important” specific intellectually creative beliefs and intentions (e.g., belief in elevated standards of performance) specific preferences and intellectual values (e.g., the inevitable choice of the field of endeavor and internally developed standards of working) intuitive processes

The word “specific” embodies the uniqueness of these components in Nobel laureates.3 Figure 32.1 presents them as four overlapping rings, each of which is described below.

Specific Intellectually Creative Feelings The first component encompasses a wide range of feelings, which play an important role in intellectually cre3 It should be noted that other psychologists also use the word “specific” in their explanations of the intellectually creative processes at the highest level. For example, Marton et al. (1994) wrote about a “specific form” of the feeling of being right and made reference to other “specifics” in their research on scientific intuition in Nobel laureates.

32

Scientific Talent

Specific feelings

Preferences and values

657

Specific beliefs and intentions

Intuitive processes

Fig. 32.1 The model of extracognitive abilities of Nobel laureates

ative functioning of Nobel laureates. They include the following

Feeling of Direction (in One’s Own Scientific Activity, in Search of Mentors, and of One’s Own Unique Domain in Science) Albert Einstein, Nobel laureate in physics, 1921, in discussions with Max Wertheimer (1959) about the development of the theory of relativity and the way of thinking, which led to it, highlighted that . . .during all those years there was the feeling of direction, of going straight toward something concrete. It is, of course, very hard to express that feeling in words; but it was decidedly the case, and clearly to be distinguished from later considerations about the rational form of the solution (p. 228; italics added).

esting that they are distinguished by a specific feeling of direction not only in their scientific activity but also in search of mentors and of their own unique domain in science. Thus, in their comparative youth, Nobel laureates “sometimes went to great lengths to make sure that they would be working with those they considered the best in their field” (Zuckerman, 1983, pp. 241– 242). This feeling of direction in search of mentors— frequently explained as good fortune, luck, fate, or chance—led them to the masters of their craft, to the scientists of Nobel caliber. For example, the biochemist Hans Krebs, Nobel laureate in chemistry (1967), wrote, If I ask myself how it came about that one day I found myself in Stockholm, I have not the slightest doubt that I owe this good fortune to the circumstance that I had an outstanding teacher at the critical stage in my scientific career. . . (p. 1444; italics added).

The “good fortune” that Krebs so humbly refers to is nothing else but the deep intellectual feeling of direction in the fulfillment of his own scientific career. Likewise, recalling his work on the creation of monoclonal antibodies, Georges Kohler, Nobel laureate in medicine, 1984, said in an interview with Rothenberg (1996), I was one of the first Ph.D. students in an institution [Basel Institute] which turned out, later on, to be a very important one. I studied genetic diversity of antibodies and I thought that [the somatic mutation hypothesis] was a very clever idea: to have one gene, and from that somatically you can have many variants. I knew there were variants because I started on that in my Ph.D. And variants were made by Cesar Milstein in the lab, so I said, “Okay, I’m going to study how these variants are going to be made. I am going to Cesar Milstein. . .” [in Cambridge, U.K. – L. S.] (p. 227; italics added).

These accounts bring to light the exceptional role of Michael S. Brown, Nobel laureate in medicine, one’s “feeling of direction” and similar feelings— 1985, expressed a similar feeling in a roundtable which are in fact one’s more latent manifestations of discussion—called “Science and Man”—with the the feeling of direction—in the intellectual activity of Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, and medicine Nobel laureates. Their scientific talent is determined by such feelings, which guide Nobel laureates in their by saying that work. . . .as we did our work, I think, we almost felt at times that there was almost a hand guiding us. Because we would go from one step to the next, and somehow we would know which was the right way to go. And I really can’t tell how we knew that, how we knew that it was necessary to move ahead (quoted in Marton et al., 1994, pp. 461–462).

Feeling of Beauty

I am not the first who has identified the important It looks like Nobel laureates have very specific mani- role of aesthetics in the realization of scientific talent. festations of cognitive direction in the studying of sci- Other scholars have also described the importance entific problems and of the world as a whole. It is inter- of the feeling of beauty in outstanding discoveries

658

L.V. Shavinina

(Kuhn, 1970; McMorris, 1970; Miller, 1981, 1992; Ochse, 1990; Rothenberg, 1996; Wechsler, 1978). My findings demonstrate that Nobel laureates are characterized by a highly developed feeling of beauty. Thus, upon receiving the Nobel Prize for physics, Paul Adrienne Maurice Dirac (1963) said,

Likewise, Ochse (1990) emphasized that “Max Born hailed the advent of relativity as making the universe of science not only grander but also more beautiful” (p. 123). Robert Burns Woodward’s sense of beauty in chemistry manifested itself in his love for crystals, in appreciation of “the beauty of their forms” and in the “perception of order and beauty in Nature” (quoted in Woodward, 1989, pp. 237 & 230; italics added). R. B. Woodward’s daughter wrote about her father’s famous “feeling for art” in the synthesis of organic compounds (Woodward, 1989, p. 235; italics added). In the Cope talk of 1973, in which he reviewed the background of his orbital symmetry work in chemistry, Robert Burns Woodward pointed out,

Similarly, discussing his research on x-ray crystallography, Robert Huber, Nobel laureate in chemistry, 1988, said in an interview with Rothenberg (1996), “It’s not just joy. This first stage. . .of seeing a crystal is not only a beauty, there’s also so much promise behind it, so many hopes. . .” (p. 212; italics added). Likewise, describing his discovery of the instructed mixture paradigm, Jean-Marie Lehn, Nobel laureate in chemistry, 1987, noted, “Once you have recognized this harmony which exists in self-recognition, then you should say, ‘But what is the self/non-self?”’ (quoted in Rothenberg, 1996, p. 229; italics added). Nobel laureate in medicine, ethologist, artist, and writer, Konrad Lorenz (1952) expressed a general attitude of a man to the beauty of nature when he emphasized that “He who has once seen the intimate beauty of nature cannot tear himself away from it again. He must become either a poet or a naturalist. . .” (p. 12). In the same way, Allan Cormack, Nobel laureate in medicine, 1979, noticed that “The abstractions [I do in mathematics] are just as beautiful [as in art] and I find them more satisfactory.. . .I think there’s a great deal of satisfaction in seeing ideas put together or related. And there is a structural thing there just as much as in sculpture or painting or anything of that sort—form and economy of means. . .. Very often in biology you say, ‘If suchand-such went that way, will this go that way?’ Very often the reason you ask why is because you found the previous thing to be attractive somehow” (quoted in Rothenberg, 1996, p. 212; italics added). This incredible feeling of beauty predetermines Nobel laureates’ specific scientific taste, which, for instance, manifests itself in their desire for elegant solutions to problems. For Nobel laureates, “deep problems and elegant solutions distinguish excellent science from the merely competent or commonplace” (Zuckerman, 1983, p. 249; italics added). Thus, in an overview of Robert Woodward’s accomplishments, who was one of the great organic chemists of all time and Nobel laureate in chemistry, 1965, his friend and colleague at Harvard University, Frank Westheimer stated,

For almost 50 years now, I have been involved in an affair with chemistry. It has been throughout a richly rewarding involvement, with numerous episodes of high drama and intense engagement, with the joys of enlightenment and achievement, with the special pleasures which come from the perception of order and beauty in Nature—and with much humor (quoted in Woodward, 1989, p. 230; italics added).

Even scientists who mastered his methods could not match his style. For there is an elegance about Woodward’s work—his chemistry, his lectures, his publications—that was natural to him, and as unique as the product itself (quoted in Woodward, 1989, p. 229; italics added).

It seems that if one is working from the point of view of getting beauty in one’s equations and if one has really sound insight, one is on a sure line of progress (p. 47; italics added).

Reflecting on his discovery Dirac (1977) asserted,

of

the

positron,

It was sort. . .of faith. . .that any equations which describe fundamental laws of Nature must have great mathematical beauty in them. . .the beauty of relativity. . . (p. 136; italics added).

Discussing why Ervin Schrodinger failed to publish a relativistic wave equation, Dirac (1963) emphasized, “it is more important to have beauty in one’s equations than to have them fit experiment” (p. 47; italics added). A similar amazing feeling of beauty distinguished the scientific talent of Werner Heisenberg: . . .by speaking of simplicity and beauty I am introducing aesthetic criteria of truth, and I frankly admit that I am strongly attracted by the simplicity and beauty of the mathematical schemes which nature presents us. . . (Heisenberg, 1971, p. 68; italics added)!

32

Scientific Talent

Other famous scientists of Nobel caliber also emphasized the role of beauty in their work. Thus, Jacques Hadamard (1954) in his study on the psychology of invention in the mathematical field cited Henri Poincare, a famous French scientist, who asserted that it may be surprising to see emotional sensibility invoked a propos of mathematical demonstrations which, it would seem, can interest only the intellect. This would be to forget the feeling of mathematical beauty, of the harmony of numbers and forms, of geometric elegance. This is a true esthetic feeling that all real mathematicians know, and surely it belongs to emotional sensibility (p. 31; italics added).

It should be acknowledged that other researchers have also discussed and stressed the importance of the feeling of beauty so strongly expressed by Nobel laureates. Ochse (1990) considered the feeling of beauty in the context of the analysis of aesthetic sensitivity; Rothenberg (1996) in the context of aesthetic motivation; Kuhn (1970) in the context of aesthetic considerations; and McMorris (1970), Miller (1981, 1992), and Wechsler (1978) in the context of aesthetics in science as a whole. Furthermore, Kuhn (1970) argued that application of aesthetic sensitivity—that scientists mainly express as a feeling or sense of beauty—was indeed essential to the progress of science: Something must make at least a few scientists feel they are on the right track, and sometimes it is only personal and inarticulate aesthetic considerations that can do that. Men have been converted by them at times when most of the articulate technical arguments pointed the other way. . .even today Einstein’s general theory attracts men principally on aesthetic grounds, an appeal that few people outside of mathematics have been able to feel (Kuhn, 1970, p. 158; italics added).

659

tific intuitions, what makes the scientist follow them?” Marton et al. (1994) found that 9 out of 72 laureates mentioned a “feeling” that made them persevere. The feeling could be “a feeling of being right , being wrong, or having come across something important. . .. The feeling is often an immediate, intense feeling of certitude. . .” (Marton et al., 1994, p. 463). Thus, describing his own feelings in the process of scientific creativity, Stanley Cohen, Nobel laureate in medicine, 1986, said, . . .to me it is a feeling of. . .“Well, I really don’t believe this result,” or “This is a trivial result,” and “This is an important result,” and “Let us follow this path.” I am not always right, but I do have feelings about what is an important observation and what is probably trivial (quoted in Marton et al., 1994, p. 463; italics added).

Similarly, Arthur L. Schwalow, Nobel laureate in physics, 1981, noted, . . .you store in your mind a feeling for a magnitude of things, how big things really are, so you’ll get a feeling whether something will go, or not, if you try to put two ideas together (quoted in Marton et al., 1994, p. 466; italics added).

Nobel laureates’ feeling of being right is closely related to their specific scientific taste. As Paul Berg, Nobel laureate in chemistry, 1980, highlighted, There is another aspect that I would add to it, and that is. . . taste. Taste in almost the artistic sense. Certain individuals see art in some unindefinable way, can put together something which has a certain style, or a certain class to it. A certain rightness to it (quoted in Marton et al., 1994, p. 463; italics added).

As Zuckerman (1977, 1983) demonstrated, a specific scientific taste is an exceptionally important virtue of Ochse (1990) suggests that behind every famous sci- Nobel laureates. It primarily manifests itself in a sense entist’s expressions about their sense of beauty is “the for important problems, correct theories, and stylish suggestion that underlying scientific creativity is an in- solutions. Niels Bohr’s feeling for correct and incortellectual motivation that is fuelled by a positive evalu- rect theories was a legendary one. For example, after ation of learning and achievement, and guided by aes- hearing Wolfgang Pauli presentation to a professional thetic sensitivity—which may relate to a need for emo- audience about a new theory of elementary particles, tional satisfaction” (p. 124). Bohr summarized the subsequent discussion by saying that “we are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough Feeling of Being Right, Including Feeling for to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is Correct Theories, Important Problems, and Good that it is not crazy enough” (quoted in Cropper, 1970, Ideas p. 57; italics added). Csikszentmihalyi’s (1996) study of 10 Nobel Prize Examining Nobel laureates’ answer to the question winners in science, among other 91 exceptionally cre“In the absence of rational, logical support for scien- ative individuals, provided additional evidence for the

660

existence of a sense for an “important problem.” He emphasized that Nobel laureates are able to differentiate between “good” and “bad” ideas. Thus, Manfred Eigen, Nobel laureate in chemistry, 1967, pointed out that the only difference between Nobel laureates and their less-creative colleagues was that they could tell whether a problem was soluble or not, and this saved enormous amounts of time in addition to many false starts. Likewise, at Linus Pauling’s (Nobel laureate in chemistry, 1954) 60th birthday celebration, a student asked him, “Dr. Pauling, how does one go about having good ideas?” He replied, “You have a lot of ideas and throw away the bad ones” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p. 67). Similarly, George Stigler, Nobel laureate in economics, 1982, claimed,

L.V. Shavinina

with a physical reality” (quoted in Woodward, 1989, p. 237). Such beliefs determine Nobel laureates’ selfconfidence and the extraordinary stability of their intellectually creative work (Shavinina, 1995, 1996). Gruber (1989) found that specific intellectual intentions were important in Charles Darwin’s scientific achievements. Dai (this volume) and Renzulli et al. (this volume) emphasized that intentions are an essential aspect of giftedness.

Specific Intellectually Creative Preferences Choice of “Difficult” Scientific Problems or Problems at the Leading Edge

I consider that I have good intuition and good judgment on what problems are worth pursuing and what lines of work are worth doing. I used to say (and I think this was bragging) that whereas most scholars have ideas which do not pan out more than, say, 4 percent of the time, mine come through maybe 80 percent of the time (quoted in Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p. 61; italics added).

Nobel laureates’ preferences display themselves in a wide range of manifestations. Some have a preference for “difficult” scientific problems, which were and had remained unsolved for many decades. Richard Feynman is an excellent example of this pursuit to solve the unsolved. In his early twenties at Los Alamos, FeynTherefore, the personal accounts of Nobel laureates man was an “enfant terrible, bubbling with quick brildemonstrate that specific scientific taste is a very critliance on the theoretical problems of bomb building ical aspect of scientific talent of an exceptionally high that came his way” (Wilson, 1972, p. 10). According level. As was documented by various examples, this to Feynman, taste expresses itself in a variety of feelings, senses, It was a succession of successes—but easy successes. Afand styles.

Specific Intellectually Creative Beliefs and Intentions Kholodnaya (1991) pointed out that a belief in the existence of some principles and specific standards, by which the nature of scientific research is determined, and a priori confidence in the truth of a certain vision of things are among important beliefs of outstanding scientists. Galileo expressed it very well when he said, “Eppur si muove!” (“But it still moves!”—L. S.). Zuckerman (1977) found that a belief in elevated standards of performance—the methods and quality of first-rate research—is crucial for Nobel laureates. It is appropriate to mention here Robert Woodward’s feeling for experimentation based on his conviction that theory without experimental proof was worthless. “Ideas and theory could have an aesthetic aspect but their beauty and elegance were always tied to a concrete relationship

ter the war, I moved over to the kind of problems (like the self-energy of the electron) that men spend years thinking about. On that level there are no easy successes; and the satisfaction you get when you’re proved right is so great that even if it occurs only twice in a lifetime, everything else is worth it! (quoted in Wilson, 1972, pp. 10–11).

Nobel laureates’ preference for problems at the very frontiers of science is another manifestation of their specific intellectually creative preferences. This desire to understand and explore the unknown areas of a particular field is shown fabulously in the life trajectory of Enrico Fermi. In the 1920s, he was one of the leaders among the young European physicists who were developing the quantum mechanical wave theories of atomic structure. Then in 1929 Fermi made a sharp decision. . ..Fermi felt that. . .the only remaining area of physics to attack where all was still unknown. . .was the heart of the atomic structure—nuclear physics. So in 1929 Fermi moved away from research in atomic theory, where he had made a great reputation, and went into the unknown of neutron physics, where he worked with such ingenuity on the interaction between neutrons and atomic nuclei that within seven years he won a Nobel prize. Fifteen years later, at the end of World War II in 1945, Fermi

32

Scientific Talent changed again. By that time, he probably had learned more about the neutron than anyone else in the world, but now it was nuclear physics that seemed to have been all cleaned up for him. So once again he moved on—this time into the uncharted domain of high-energy particles. To Fermi, it was always necessary to be at work where the big mystery was” (Wilson, 1972, p. 16).

Wilson (1972) concluded, “when there is no longer enough mystery in a subject to attract” scientists, “they move on to new fields” (p. 16). The explanation of such moves lies in scientists’ inner, specific intellectually creative preferences. Nobel laureates always follow them.

Highly Developed Intuitive Processes Poincare (1913) was convinced that “pure logic would never lead us to anything but tautologies. It is by logic that we prove. It is by intuition that we discover” (p. 208; italics added). In a similar way, Rosenblueth & Wiener (1945) emphasized that

661

Likewise, Einstein highly appreciated intuition in creative process. Thus, he wrote about “Bohr’s unique instinct, which enabled him to discover the major laws of spectral lines and the electron shells of the atoms” (Einstein, 1949; cited in John-Steiner, 1985, p. 194). Clearly, “Bohr’s unique instinct,” as referred to by Einstein, is nothing else but his “unique intuition.” Wilson (1972) exemplified the value placed on intuition in this personal observation about the famous Enrico Fermi: Years ago, as a graduate student, I was present at a threeway argument between Rabi, Szilard, and Fermi. Szilard took a position and mathematically stated it on the blackboard. Rabi disagreed and rearranged the equations to the form he would accept. All the while Fermi was shaking his head. “You’re both wrong,” he said. They demanded proof. Smiling a little he shrugged his shoulders as if proof weren’t needed. “My intuition tells me so,” he said. I had never heard a scientist refer to his intuition, and I expected Rabi and Szilard to laugh. They didn’t. The man of science, I soon found, works with the procedures of logic so much more than anyone else that he, more than anyone else, is aware of logic’s limitations. Beyond logic there is intuition. . . (pp. 13–14; italics added).

Researchers found that certain individuals have an intuitive feeling, as they begin their intellectually creative activity, about what their final product will be like (Gardner & Nemirovsky, 1991; Ochse, 1990; Policastro, 1995; Simonton, 1980). This is remarkably true for Nobel laureates, which recognized that intuition is a key aspect of scientific thinking leading to innovative discoveries. Thus, Max Planck (1950) argued that the pioneer scientist working at the frontier of science “must have a vivid intuitive imagination, for new ideas are not generated by deduction, but by an artistically creative imagination” (p. 109). He however recognized that intuition alone is not enough. In his autobiographical account on the discovery of the constant and the quantum of action, Planck noted,

Intuition played an important role in the discovery of DNA structure, for which James Watson and Francis Crick were awarded Nobel Prize. John-Steiner (1985) found that one of Crick’s contributions to the team’s efforts in discovering DNA structure was his “intuition and his ability to work with a minimum number of assumptions while approaching a problem” (p. 187). Marton et al. (1994) studied intuition of Nobel Prize winners analyzing interviews conducted between 1970 and 1986 with laureates in physics, chemistry, and medicine by a Swedish Broadcasting Corporation. Almost all those laureates viewed scientific intuition as a “phenomenon distinctively different from drawing logical conclusions, step by step” (Marton et al., 1994, p. 468). Eighteen out of 72 subjects in this study emphasized that intuition feels different from logical reasoning and cannot be explained in logical terms. Marton et al. (1994) concluded that Nobel laureates consider scientific intuition as “an alternative to normal stepby-step logical reasoning” (p. 468). Nobel laureates in their scientific activity

So long as it [the radiation formula] had merely the standing of a law disclosed by lucky intuition, it could not be expected to possess more than a formal significance. For this reason, on the very day that I formulated this law, I began to devote myself to the task of investing it with true physical meaning (Planck, 1950; p. 41; italics added).

do something or something happens to them without their being aware of the reasons or the antecedents. The acts or the events are, however, guided or accompanied by feelings which sometimes spring from a quasi-sensory experience. Intuition is closely associated with a sense of direction, it is more often about finding a path than arriving

An intuitive flair for what will turn out to be the most important general question gives a basis for selecting some of the significant among the indefinite number of trivial experiments which could be carried out at that stage. Quite vague and tacit generalizations thus influence the selection of data at the start (p. 317).

662 at an answer or reaching a goal. The ascent of intuition is rooted in extended, varied experience of the object of research: although it may feel as if it comes out of the blue, it does not come out of the blue (Marton et al., 1994, p. 468).

To date, Marton et al.’s (1994) study is the only one that conducts a systematic investigation of intuition in Nobel laureates. So far, the important positive role of intuitive processes in the realization of scientific talent of an extremely high level was shown by quoting exceptionally accomplished scientists. However, it is also appropriate to mention the case when the absence of scientific intuition resulted in quite mediocre work. Thus, Robert Oppenheimer was a brilliant interpreter of other men’s work, and a judge who could make piercing evaluations of other men’s work. But when it came time— figuratively speaking—to write his own poetry in science, his work was sparse, angular, and limited, particularly when judged by the standards he himself set for everyone else. He knew the major problems of his time; he attacked them with style; but he apparently lacked that intuition— that faculty beyond logic— which logic needs in order to make great advances. If one were speaking not of science but of religion, one could say that Oppenheimer’s religiosity was the kind that could make him a bishop but never a saint (Wilson, 1972, p. 13; italics added).

Although the above-mentioned personal accounts of Nobel laureates demonstrate that “intuition” plays a significant role in highly creative and intellectual processes, we do not know for sure its psychological nature and origin. The common wisdom is to use the term “intuition” in association with the term “insight” which does not follow logically from available information and is interpreted as inexplicable (so-called instinctive insights) (Ochse, 1990). This kind of insight is often considered to be an innate quality explained by superior functioning of the right hemisphere of the brain. Hadamard (1954) described intuition as something “felt,” in contrast to something “known,” emphasizing that it involves emotional empathy. Ochse (1990) attributed intuitive thinking to the operation of automatic mental routines, “unconsciously triggered by configurations of exogenous and/or endogenous stimuli. More specifically, intuition may be viewed as unconsciously triggered automatic integration of relevant elements of information, and an ‘intuitive feeling’ may be seen as part of the experiential outcome of such processes—somewhat equivalent to a feeling of recognition” (p. 243). His standpoint fits perfectly to Bruner’s (1960) idea that “intuitive think-

L.V. Shavinina

ing characteristically does not advance in careful wellplanned steps. It tends to involve manoeuvres based on an implicit perception of the total problem. The thinker arrives at an answer which may be right or wrong, with little if any awareness of the process by which he reached it” (pp. 57–58). Ochse (1990) also suggested that creators develop “well-established bases for intuition because they are constantly involved with their subject of interest, and this practice would lead to the establishment of routines that enable them to integrate relevant actions and items of information. Moreover, creators work independently rather than following prescribed curricula and instructions, which favors the acquisition of a relatively wide repertoire of generalizable routines” (p. 244). Policastro (1995) differentiates between phenomenological and technical definitions of creative intuition. According to the first, intuition is defined as “a vague anticipatory perception that orients creative work in a promising direction” (p. 99). This definition is phenomenological in that it points to the subject’s experience: How does it feel to have a creative intuition? What is that like? The study by Marton et al. (1994) mentioned above analyzed mainly this kind of intuition in Nobel laureates. The technical definition states that intuition is “a tacit form of knowledge that broadly constrains the creative search by setting its preliminary scope” (Policastro, 1995, p. 100). This implies that intuition is based on cognitive foundations in the sense that it arises from knowledge and experience. Similarly, Simonton (1980) stressed that intuition involves a form of information processing that might be more implicit than explicit, but which is not at all irrational. Policastro (1995) emphasized that both definitions (phenomenological and technical) are important because they complement each other in fundamental ways. Bowers, Regher, Balthazard, & Parker (1990) defined intuition as “a preliminary perception of coherence (pattern, meaning, structure) that is at first not consciously represented, but which nevertheless guides thought and inquiry toward a hunch or hypothesis about the nature of the coherence in question” (p. 74). Bowers et al. conducted experimental studies of intuition, two of which revealed that “people could respond discriminatively to coherences that they could not identify” (p. 72). A third experiment showed that this tacit perception of coherence “guided people

32

Scientific Talent

gradually to an explicit representation of it in the form of a hunch or hypothesis” (p. 72). Despite the differences in the researchers’ interpretation of the nature of intuition in general and scientific intuition in particular, it is nevertheless evident that intuitive processes are extremely important for the productive functioning of human mind. The truth is that any successful scientist—and certainly Nobel laureates—relies on his or her intuition (Shavinina, 2003, 2004). It is important to note that other psychologists also include intuitive processes in their conceptualizations of high abilities. For example, Sternberg et al. (2000) consider intuition as one of the prototypical forms of developed practical intelligence.

663

ing at an answer, that “one was moving towards is illuminated and seen clearly” (i.e., end points; Marton et al., 1994, p. 462). Marton et al. (1994) concluded that “the most fundamental aspect of scientific intuition is that the scientists choose directions or find solutions for which they do not have sufficient data in the computational sense” (p. 468). In describing the close relationship between intuition and sense of direction, Marton et al. (1994) came close to the introduction of the concept of the extracognitive abilities in intellectual functioning of gifted individuals, identifying some of its main components. It seems that there are reciprocal relationships between intuition and various feelings of Nobel laureates described above. It looks like not only intuitive processes form a basis for the actualization and subsequent development of these feelings, but the latter may also The Relationship Between the influence the growth of intuition. As a consequence Components of Extracognitive Abilities of their study of intuition in Nobel laureates, Marton et al. (1994) described a “cumulative structure” of inThis section will address the issue of an exceptional tuition consisting of its higher and lower levels. On the importance for understanding the extracognitive abil- lower level Nobel laureates simply indicated that “the ities of Nobel laureates, namely the relationship be- experience of scientific intuition differs from the expetween the four components taking as an example the rience of making explicit, logical conclusions based on relationship between a feeling of direction and intu- available information” (p. 463). On the higher level a itive processes. What is behind the feeling of direction? crucial component is “a feeling, a feeling of something Marton et al. (1994) suggest that this is one’s own in- being right (or, occasionally, something being wrong)” tuition. They found that although famous examples of (Marton et al., 1994, p. 464). On the next level again a intuition associated with such names as Archimedes, specific form of this feeling has emerged: “the sudden Kekule, and Poincare emphasize arriving at answers appearance of an idea or of an answer accompanied or the solutions to problems, other Nobel laureates in by a feeling of great certitude” (Marton et al., 1994, p. their sample stressed the outcome of intuition as their 464). Therefore, as one can see on the example of the starting rather than end points. In other words, if intu- feeling of direction and intuitive processes, the compoition is considered by Nobel laureates as outcome or nents of the extracognitive abilities are closely related result (i.e., intuition denotes an idea, a thought, an an- to each other. swer, or a feeling), then there are the two main alternative ways of experiencing what intuition yields. The first has to do “with direction when moving from a certain point towards something as yet unknown” (Marton The Extracognitive Abilities et al., 1994, p. 462; italics added). It concerns “finding, choosing, following a direction, a path” (Mar- and Metacognition ton et al., 1994, p. 461; italics added). For instance, 37 out of 72 Nobel laureates see the result of scien- It appears that there is a reciprocal relationship tific intuition as “finding or following a path” (Mar- between the extracognitive abilities and the metacogton et al., 1994, p. 462). It seems safe to assert that nitive processes of an individual. In other words, such an understanding of intuitive processes is behind if an individual possesses any component of the the “feeling of direction.” The other main way of ex- extracognitive—say, feeling of direction or feeling of periencing the outcome of intuition by Nobel Prize beauty (but the findings demonstrate that any Nobel winners deals with coming to a certain point, arriv- laureate has all above-discussed components of the

664

extracognitive)—then he or she is also expected to possess highly developed metacognitive abilities. Metacognition is broadly defined as “any knowledge or cognitive activity that takes as its object, or regulates, any aspect of any cognitive enterprise” (Flavell, 1992, p. 114). The essence of metacognition already implies some psychological phenomena, which exist at the intersection of metacognition and the extracognitive. For example, psychologists studying metacognition use and investigate such concepts as awareness and self-awareness (Ferrari & Sternberg, 1996) and feeling of knowing (Brown, 1978), just to mention a few. The most basic form of selfawareness is the “realization that there is a problem of knowing what you know and what you do not know” (Brown, 1978, p. 82). Very often an individual unconsciously comes to such a realization. It looks like intuition is behind any unconscious understanding of any object of cognition including his or her own cognitive apparatus. Furthermore, the well-known title of Brown’s (1978) famous article, “Knowing When, Where, and How to Remember: A Problem of Metacognition,” which can be considered synonymously with the definition of metacognition, indicates that feeling of direction, specific scientific taste, and feeling of beauty also play a role in metacognitive functioning. Thus, the feeling of direction corresponds to “where” (i.e., guiding function of the extracognitive abilities that will be considered below). Specific scientific taste and the feeling of beauty relate to “how” (i.e., function of evaluation and judgment of the extracognitive abilities that will be discussed below). Altogether—including intuition—they correspond to “when.” Therefore, the extracognitive abilities contribute to the development of a person’s metacognitive abilities. It can be even added that the extracognitive lies somewhere in the heart of metacognition and, consequently, allows psychologists to better understand its anatomy and, hence, its nature. In its turn, metacognition leads to the further development of the extracognitive, strengthening and crystallizing its components in an individual’s intellectual functioning. For example, the person with developed metacognitive abilities will be more open to his or her own feeling of direction, feeling of beauty, and intuitive processes. Research findings support my view about the existence of a direct link between the extracognitive abilities and metacognition. Thus, Marton et al. (1994) con-

L.V. Shavinina

cluded that scientific intuition of Nobel laureates can be interpreted in terms of awareness, namely as an “initially global grasp of the solution, a kind of metaphorical ‘seeing’ of the phenomenon being searched for, an anticipatory perception of its ‘shape’ or its gross structure” (p. 468). For example, the choice of a direction in scientific work might possibly be understood as “reflecting a marginal (not fully conscious) awareness of the nature of a phenomenon, a metaphorical ‘seeing’ of the phenomenon as a whole without knowing its parts, a seeing ‘through a glass, darkly”’ (Marton et al., 1994, pp. 468–469).

The Roles of the Extracognitive Abilities in the Intellectual Functioning of Nobel Laureates The purpose of this section is to discuss the functions of the extracognitive abilities in intellectual creative activity of Nobel laureates. It seems reasonable to distinguish the following functions of the extracognitive: cognitive function, guiding function, function of evaluation and judgment, criterion function, aesthetic/emotional function, motivational function, quality/ethical function, and advancing function. Cognitive function implies that intuitive processes, specific intellectual feelings, beliefs and intentions, and preferences and values provide a mode of acquiring new scientific knowledge—in the form of novel ideas, solutions, models, theories, and approaches. As it was considered above, intuition can be, for example, interpreted as “intuitive understanding” (Marton et al., 1994) or “intuitive thinking” (Bruner, 1960). The extracognitive is, therefore, a particular cognitive mode of human thought that appears in advance of any logical, conscious accounts of an individual’s intelligence. Guiding function of the extracognitive abilities implies that specific feelings, beliefs and intentions, preferences and values, and intuition lead scientists in the process of their creative endeavors toward right theories, approaches, and models. The extracognitive abilities guide scientists’ “sense of ‘this is how it has to be,’ ‘their sense of rightness’ ” (Wechsler, 1978, p. 1) or scientific truth. The quotes of Albert Einstein, Michael S. Brown, Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, Hans Krebs, and Georges Kohler highlighted in this

32

Scientific Talent

chapter clearly demonstrate the guiding function of the extracognitive abilities in their work. Analyzing the Nobel laureates’ views of scientific intuition, Marton et al. (1994) concluded that there appears to be an “experience of the phenomena the scientists are dealing with which is of a quasi-sensory nature and which may encompass all relevant previous experiences of the phenomena. When this experience yields an intensely felt verdict on the direction to go, the step to take or on the nature of the solution to the problem the scientist is engaged in what we speak of ‘scientific intuition’ ” (p. 471; italics added). The function of evaluation and judgment means that the extracognitive abilities play an essential role in the appreciation and, therefore, acceptance or disapproval and, hence, rejection of any new idea, theory, model, or approach. The above-mentioned accounts of Niels Bohr, Stanley Cohen, Paul Berg, George Stigler, Paul Dirac, Werner Heisenberg, and other Nobel laureates emphasize this function of specific feelings, developed intellectual beliefs and intentions, preferences and values, and intuitive processes. These are just “feelings which enable scientists to follow their intuitions in the absence of rational, logical support” (Marton et al., 1994, p. 467). Probably, the scientists’ very first evaluation of everything new in science is unconscious in its nature. At the same time, as one can see from the Nobel laureates’ accounts, it is not, nonetheless, entirely unconscious. The extracognitive abilities—feelings of direction and of beauty, specific preferences and values, beliefs and intentions, and intuition—provide certain criteria for creative work of scientific minds. This is what the criterion function is all about. It should be emphasized that other functions of the extracognitive abilities also execute to some extent the criterion function (e.g., the aesthetic/emotional function). The aesthetic/emotional function highlights the important role of feeling of beauty and specific scientific taste in scientific creativity. First, passionately pursuing their intellectual quest, scientists feel intense aesthetic pleasure (Wilson, 1972) in discovering new laws of nature. Second, the extracognitive abilities help generate “aesthetic criteria of truth” (Heisenberg, 1971) which aesthetic experience presents to scientists. This is well illustrated by Heisenberg’s (1971) quote presented earlier which certainly attests to the importance of the feeling of beauty in his scientific activity. In this respect the aesthetic/emotional function of the extracog-

665

nitive is closely related to its function of evaluation and judgment: the feeling of beauty and specific scientific taste delineate the very initial basis for such evaluation and judgment. Feeling pride, enjoyment, and delight in discovering new scientific laws, in finding fresh perspectives, in generating novel ideas, in penetrating puzzles of nature, and in solving very old and previously unsolved problems, Nobel laureates experience great pleasure and personal happiness, feelings which motivate them go further and further in their intellectual search. This is what the motivational function of the extracognitive abilities is all about. As Wilson (1972) pointed out, scientists’ “success stimulates themselves and their colleagues to still more exacting studies of the phenomena of nature” (p. 16; italics added). High quality/ethical function of the extracognitive abilities is closely related to scientists’ belief in high and far-reaching standards of scientific activity. Having elevated inner standards of performance (Kholodnaya, 1991; Zuckerman, 1977, 1983), outstanding scientists assure an exceptionally high quality of firstrate research choosing or inventing the methods, approaches, and techniques necessary to do so. Because of that they very often cannot accept a work of poor quality. Due to their own superior standards of performance and certain principles, by which the nature of scientific research is determined, Nobel laureates set new or transcend old ethical rules in science. It can concern the behavior of scientists, their important role in the public arena, as well as their social and moral responsibility (Gruber, 1986, 1989). Very often such scientists act as role models for future generations of scientists. Advancing function refers to the important role of the extracognitive abilities in advancing science in general and the intellectually creative activity of individual researchers in particular. It is commonly accepted that in order to advance any field of science, scientists must build on it. Not only must they have a great deal of comprehensive and complex knowledge in the particular discipline but at the same time they should be able to step outside of it consequently expanding it (Chikscentmihalyi, 1996). Viewing this position of scientists as a paradoxical one, Marton et al. (1994) concluded that intuition resolves this paradox providing a sudden shift in the structure of a scientists’ awareness. “Scientific intuition is just a special case of intuitive understanding. It is a sudden shift from a simultaneous

666

awareness of all that it takes for that understanding to come about, to a highly singular, focused awareness of that which the understanding is an understanding of” (Marton et al., 1994, p. 469). The extracognitive abilities therefore are crucial in explaining scientific talent of Nobel laureates. Specifically, they perform the cognitive, guiding, aesthetic/emotional, motivational, and advancing functions, as well as the function of evaluation and judgment, criterion function, and high quality/ethical function. The extracognitive abilities significantly help talented scientists in their work leading to great achievements of the Nobel Prize level. Extracognitive abilities therefore predict intellectually creative accomplishments of the highest level that result in great discoveries and thus outstanding scientific talent of Nobel caliber.

Summary and Conclusions The capacity of Nobel laureates for outstanding scientific achievements has been an attractive research topic for decades. Nevertheless, it is still not quite known why Nobel laureates are so capable of great scientific discoveries. This chapter discussed some hidden psychological mechanisms, which explains their scientific talent. First of all, the scientific talent in the case of Nobel laureates is distinguished by a specific cognitive experience, which manifests itself in their unique type of representations. It means that Nobel laureates see, understand, and interpret everything differently: they have a unique point of view or a unique vision of any scientific problem, issue, idea, and the world around as a whole. An essential aspect of Nobel laureates’ specific viewpoint is their objectivization of cognition. In other words, Nobel laureates perceive everything in a highly objective manner, that is, they see the world “as it was, as it is, and as it will be in its objective reality” (Kholodnaya, 1990, p. 128). According to the cognitive-developmental theory of giftedness, cognitive experience is the cognitive basis of all the manifestations of giftedness presented at the three main levels (Shavinina, this volume). Although Nobel laureates are characterized by many highly developed manifestations of giftedness, their extracognitive abilities are particularly remarkable.

L.V. Shavinina

Specific intellectually creative feelings, beliefs and intentions, preferences and values, as well as intuitive processes make up the four components of Nobel laureates’ extracognitive abilities. To be more precise, the essence of their extracognitive abilities is represented in the model by an overlapping area of these components (see Fig. 32.1). The components are closely related to each other. There is, for example, evidence that intuitive processes form a foundation for the feelings component. For instance, intuition is behind Nobel laureates’ feeling of direction. Marton et al. (1994) found that “the most fundamental aspect of scientific intuition is that the scientists choose directions or find solutions for which they do not have sufficient data in the computational sense” (p. 468). Thirty-seven out of 72 Nobel laureates who were studied by Marton et al. (1994) view the result of scientific intuition as “finding, choosing, following a direction, a path. . .when moving from a certain point towards something as yet unknown” (pp. 461–462; italics added). The extracognitive abilities guide Nobel laureates in their understanding of the nature providing intuitive aesthetic/emotional criteria for the appropriate evaluations and judgments leading to research of exceptional quality and high ethical standards. These abilities also allow Nobel laureates to go beyond the limits of their intellectual pursuits and advance scientific knowledge about the world. The intellectually creative functioning of Nobel laureates is determined in part by their intuitive processes, subjective feelings, beliefs and intentions, as well as internally developed preferences and values, standards and orientations. There are at least a few reasons to consider the extracognitive abilities as the highest level of the manifestation of the intellectually creative potential of scientific talent. First, the fact that so many Nobel laureates—whose extraordinary intelligence and creativity are unquestionable—(a) expressed almost all components of the extracognitive, (b) were very attentive to its manifestations in their own work, and (c) stressed its important role in scientific search testifies to the exceptionally high status of the extracognitive abilities in the structure of Nobel laureates’ giftedness (Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). Second, taking into account the direct link between metacognition and the extracognitive abilities, it becomes apparent that developed metacognition is strongly associated with highly developed intelligence (Shore et al., this volume; Sternberg, 1985, 1988). One can therefore

32

Scientific Talent

conclude that a person displaying feelings of direction and of beauty, specific scientific taste, preferences, intentions, and intuition is also distinguished by exceptional intellectual abilities and scientific talent. Third, the extracognitive abilities carry out such multifaceted and multidimensional functions in the working of Nobel laureates’ mind, which probably no other psychological processes could do. One can, consequently, conclude that if a scientist displays extracognitive abilities in his or her own activity, then it means that he or she has already reached an integrated, well-balanced, and advanced level in his or her intellectually creative development. Altogether, these reasons allow me to conclude that extracognitive abilities can thus be viewed as an important criterion of intellectually creative giftedness and a determinant of outstanding scientific talent of Nobel caliber. These conclusions have important educational implications. For instance, the specificity of an individual’s point of view and his or her extracognitive abilities should be taken into consideration in the process of the identification of gifted and talented children and adolescents for special educational programs. Also, gifted education—both enrichment and acceleration classes—must include elements aimed at the development of students’ cognitive experience and extracognitive abilities. At the same time, intelligence and creativity tests should be developed or modified in ways that would allow psychologists to examine an individual’s extracognitive abilities (Shavinina, this volume). To sum up, this chapter presented rich findings regarding the nature of scientific talent in the case of Nobel laureates. Specifically, some facets of their unique cognitive experience—and particularly the objectivization of cognition—as well as their extracognitive abilities were discussed. The extracognitive abilities cover a whole field of unexplored or weakly explored scientific phenomena (i.e., specific feelings, beliefs and intentions, preferences and values, and intuition). The above-considered findings indicate that an individual’s unique point of view and his or her extracognitive abilities predict scientific productivity of the highest level resulting in significant discoveries and, as such, showing a promising talent of Nobel caliber. It should be noted that research on the cognitive experience and extracognitive abilities in Nobel laureates is a new enterprise. This chapter does not attempt to account for all possible facets of scientific tal-

667

ent in the case of Nobel laureates, and it is sometimes both vague and speculative in its formulations. Nevertheless, it provides a useful attempt to understand and conceptualize the valuable psychological phenomena in the successful functioning of Nobel laureates’ minds leading to great scientific achievements. Future investigations will definitely shed light on many more aspects of outstanding scientific talent of Nobel caliber, which are unknown today.

References Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bowers, K. S., Regher, G., Balthazard, C., & Parker, K. (1990). Intuition in the context of discovery. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 72–110. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, selfregulation, and other even more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 64–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Boston: Harvard University Press. Cropper, W. H. (1970). The quantum physicists. New York: Oxford University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. New York: HarperPerennial. Dirac, P. A. M. (1963). The evolution of the physicist’s picture of nature. Scientific American, May. Dirac, P. A. M. (1977). Recollections of an exciting era. Varenna Physics School, 57, 109–146. Eiduson, B. (1962). Scientists. New York: Basic Books. Einstein, A. (1949). Autobiographical notes. In P. A. Schlipp (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher and scientist (pp. 3–49). New York: The Library of Living Philosophers. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251. Feist, G. J. (1999). Personality in scientific and artistic creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Human Creativity (pp. 273–296). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ferrari, M. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Self-awareness. New York: Guilford Press. Feynman, R. (1965). The character of physical law. London: British Broadcasting Corporation. Flavell, J. H. (1992). Perspectives on perspective taking. In H. Beilin & P. Pufall (Eds.), Piaget’s theory: Prospects and possibilities (pp. 107–139). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Foster, W. (1986). The application of single subject research methods to the study of exceptional ability and extraordinary achievement. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(1), 333–337.

668 Frey, D. (1978). Science and the single case in counselling research. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 56, 263–268. Gardner, H., & Nemirovsky, R. (1991). From private intuitions to public symbol systems. Creativity Research Journal, 4(1), 3–21. Gross, M. U. M. (1994). The early development of three profoundly gifted children of IQ 200. In A. Tannenbaum (Ed.), Early signs of giftedness (pp. 94–138). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Gruber, H. E. (1974). Darwin on man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gruber, H. E. (1986). The self-construction of the extraordinary. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 247–263). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gruber, H. E. (1989). The evolving systems approach to creative work. In D. B. Wallace & H. E. Gruber (Eds.), Creative people at work (pp. 3–23) . New York: Oxford University Press. Gruber, H. E. (1996). Book review. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30(3), 213–228. Hadamard, J. (1954). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. New York: Dovers Publications. Heisenberg, W. (1971). Physics and beyond. New York: Harper & Row. Holton, G. (1973). Thematic origins of scientific thought: Kepler to Einstein. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. John-Steiner, V. (1985). Notebooks of the mind: Explorations of Thinking. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico. Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. San Francisco: Freeman. Kholodnaya, M. A. (1990). Is there intelligence as a psychological reality? Voprosu Psichologii, 5, 121–128. Kholodnaya, M. A. (1991). Psychological mechanisms of intellectual giftedness. Voprosu psichologii, 1, 32–39. Krebs, H. (1967). The making of a scientist, Nature, 215, 1441–1445. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kuznetsov B. G. (1979). A. Einstein: Life, death, immortality. Moscow: Nauka. Lorenz, K. (1952). King Solomon’s ring. New York: Crowell. MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness. Buffalo: Creative Education Foundation. Marton, F., Fensham, P., & Chaiklin, S. (1994). A Nobel’s eye view of scientific intuition: Discussions with the Nobel prize-winners in physics, chemistry and medicine (1970– 86). International Journal of Science Education, 16(4), 457–473. McMorris, M. N. (1970). Aesthetic elements in scientific theories. Main Currents, 26, 82–91. Mercier, A. M. (1990). NASA’s Halem illustrates need for info visualization. Federal Computer Week, (8 Oct), 28. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Miller, A. I. (1981). Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity: Emergence (1905) and early interpretation (1905–1911). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Miller A. I. (1989). Imagery and intuition in creative scientific thinking: Albert Einstein’s invention of the special theory of relativity. In D. B. Wallace & H. E. Gruber (Eds.), Creative

L.V. Shavinina people at work (pp. 171–187). New York: Oxford University Press. Miller, A. I. (1992). Scientific creativity: A comparative study of Henri Poincare and Albert Einstein. Creativity Research Journal, 5, 385–4l8. Miller, A. I. (1996). Insights of genius: Visual imagery and creativity in science and art. New York: Springer Verlag. Mochalov I. I. (1970). Vladimir I. Vernadsky—Personality and Thinker. Moscow: Nauka (in Russian). Ochse, R. (1990). Before the gates of excellence: The determinants of creative genius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Planck, M. (1950). Scientific autobiography and other papers. London: Williams & Norgate. Piaget, J. (1969). Selected psychological papers. Moscow: Nauka. Poincare, H. (1913). Mathematics and science (New York: Dover, 1963). Originally published by Flammarion in 1913. Poincare, H. (1952). Science and hypothesis. New York: Dover. Policastro, E. (1995). Creative Intuition: An Integrative Review. Creativity Research Journal, 8(2), 99–113. Renzulli J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: a developmental model for creative productivity. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53– 92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roe, A. (1952). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd & Meed. Roe, A. (1958). Early differentiation of interests. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), The second (1957) research Conference on the identification of creative scientific talent (pp. 58–108). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Root-Bernstein, R. (2003). The art of innovation: Polymaths and universality of the creative process. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook on Giftedness (pp. 267–278). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (1999). Sparks of genius. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2003). Intuitive tools for innovative thinking. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 377–387). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Rosenblueth, A., & Wiener, N. (1945). Roles of models in science. Philosophy of Science, XX, 317. Rothenberg, A. (1996). The Janusian process in scientific creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 9(2 & 3), 207–231. Shavinina, L. V. (1994). Specific intellectual intentions and creative giftedness. European Journal for High Ability, 5(2), 145–152. Shavinina, L. V. (1995). The personality trait approach in the psychology of giftedness. European Journal for High Ability, 6(1), 27–37. Shavinina, L. V. (1996). The objectivization of cognition and intellectual giftedness. High Ability Studies, 7(1), 91–98. Shavinina, L. V. (1997). Extremely early high abilities, sensitive periods, and the development of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 8(2), 245–256. Shavinina, L. V. (1998). On Miller’s insights of genius: What do we know about it? Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 843–845.

32

Scientific Talent

Shavinina, L. V. (1999). The psychological essence of the child prodigy phenomenon: sensitive periods and cognitive experiences. Gifted Child, 43(1), 25–38. Shavinina, L. V. (2003). Understanding scientific innovation: The case of Nobel Laureates. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 445–457). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Shavinina, L. V. (2004). Explaining high abilities of Nobel laureates. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 243–254. Shavinina, L. V. (2006a). Micro-social factors in the development of entrepreneurial giftedness: The case of Richard Branson. High Ability Studies, 17(2), 225–235. Shavinina, L. V. (2006b). Was Einstein gifted as a child? Invited lecture at the Canadian Museum of Nature on the occasion of the opening of a special exhibition on Albert Einstein (23 November, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada). Shavinina, L. V., & Ferrari, M. (Eds.). (2004). Beyond Knowledge: Extracognitive Aspects of Developing High Ability. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum Publishers. Shavinina, L. V., & Kholodnaya, M. A. (1996). The cognitive experience as a psychological basis of intellectual giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(1), 4–33. Simonton, D. K. (1980). Intuition and analysis: A predictive and explanatory model. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 102, 3–60. Simonton, D. K. (2003). Exceptional creativity across the life span: The emergence and manifestation of creative genius. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 293–308). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

669 Simonton, D. K. (in press). Scientific talent, training, and performance: Intellect, personality, and genetic endowment. Review of General Psychology. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking. Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J. A., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., et al. (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press. Uznadze, D. (1966). Psychological research. Moscow: Nauka. Vernadsky V. I. (1988). Diaries and letters. Moscow: Molodaja Gwardia. Wallace, D. B., & Gruber, H. E. (1989). Creative people at work. New York: Oxford University Press. Wechsler, J. (1978). On aesthetics in science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. West Port, CT: Greenwood Press. Wilson, M. (1972). Passion to know. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Woodward, C. E. (1989). Art and elegance in the synthesis of organic compounds: Robert Burns Woodward. In D. B. Wallace & H. E. Gruber (Eds.), Creative people at work (pp. 227–253) . New York: Oxford University Press. Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite. New York: Free Press. Zuckerman, H. (1983). The scientific elite: Nobel Laureates’ mutual influences. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius and eminence. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Chapter 33

Understanding Mathematical Giftedness: Integrating Self, Action Repertoires and the Environment Shane N. Phillipson and Rosemary Callingham

Abstract A modern conceptualization of mathematical giftedness must take into account different cultural views of the nature of mathematics as well as conform to Ziegler and Heller’s (2000) four postulates of giftedness (temporal precedence, fulfillment of the “inus” condition, personal characteristic and theoretical significance). With the Actiotope Model of Giftedness (Ziegler, 2005) as a conceptual framework, this chapter will focus on recent research in neuropsychology, cognition, personal factors, language and the environment as applied to the development of mathematical excellence. The first section will review recent research that examines aspects of self in the development of mathematical thinking. The next section examines the role of the environment in the growth of mathematical expertise, particularly in the selection and adaptation of action repertoires and the possibility for a collective mathematical cognition. Finally, this chapter will expose some of the emerging pedagogical and political issues in the development of mathematical excellence within the context of increasing globalization.

ematical excellence in order to guide the education of students who have the potential for such achievement. To attain this goal, we will be drawing on recent research from a number of diverse fields regarding the development of mathematical thinking and how this thinking continues to extend in complexity over time. In this regard, the Actiotope Model of Giftedness (Ziegler, 2005) has provided us with a useful framework with which to integrate these different fields. We acknowledge that the choice of what to include, or leave out, reflects our interests and backgrounds. Hence it should be read as a starting point for further exploration. Wieczerkowski, Cropley and Prado (2000) pointed out that the lack of consensus regarding the nature of mathematics itself made the study of mathematical giftedness problematic. For teachers interested in meeting the needs of mathematically gifted students, the difficulty should extend into related areas such as the identification of these students and appropriate content and pedagogy. We use “should” because many curriculum strategies for these students are not Keywords Mathematical giftedness · Mathematics · based on a clear understanding on what it means to Giftedness · Action repertoire · Actiotope Model of be mathematically gifted. Multi-dimensional views of mathematical giftedness include aspects such Giftedness · Achievement Eminence as creativity (Mann, 2005), spatial reasoning skills (Diezmann, 2001) and processing capacity (Geary & Brown, 1991). These views however, in our opinion, Introduction fail to acknowledge the complexity of the environment and personal factors, such as motivation. FurtherThe aim of this chapter is to identify some of the more, a developmental perspective is needed that many factors that influence the development of math- places the attainment of mathematical excellence within a probabilistic rather than a deterministic framework. S.N. Phillipson (B) The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong, China e-mail: [email protected]

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 33, 

671

672

The Study of Mathematical Excellence One of the most widely cited programs for the identification and development of mathematically talented youth is the MVT:D4 (Benbow, Lubinski, Shea, & Eftekhari-Sanjani, 2000; Brody, this volume; Brody & Stanley, 2005). In this program, above-grade-level testing using the SAT-M and SAT-V for students in grade 7 or 8 and the School and College Abilities Test (SCAT) for students in grades 2–6 allows for the early identification of students who would benefit from advanced levels and pace of mathematical instruction. The primary concern of the program continues to be the identification of mathematical precocity as early as possible and in supporting these students in finding appropriate learning opportunities. Their research has yielded a number of insights regarding the provisions that have assisted these students in their subsequent development. It is significant that the MVT:D4 program was not overly concerned with the genesis of mathematical precocity, arguing that its identification and future development were much more important (Brody, this volume; Brody & Stanley, 2005). It is also important to note that the process of identification involved two broad steps. The first step restricted the search to students who scored at or above the 95th percentile on in-grade standardized tests of achievement and then the more advanced level tests in order to further differentiate between them. Once identified, however, the psychological and personality profiles of these youth could be assessed and compared with mathematically non-precocious youth. Moreover, an important aspect of the ongoing research is in the evaluation of the programs that are used to facilitate the development of identified students. In order to understand the basis of mathematical giftedness, most approaches to date have identified mathematically gifted children and then attempted to study the differences between these children and nonmathematically gifted children. Rather than general traits, Wieczerkowski et al. (2000) outlined a number of specific cognitive approaches to understand the nature of mathematical giftedness, citing the research programs of Krutetskii, Kiesswetter, Zimmerman and others.1 In order to understand the cognitive 1 The studies by Kiesswetter and Zimmerman are cited by Wieczerkowski et al. (2000) in their original German language.

S.N. Phillipson and R. Callingham

basis of mathematically gifted school children, Krutetskii (1976) grouped mathematical thinking into three broad cognitive processes, including obtaining mathematical information, processing mathematical information and retaining mathematical information. These qualitative differences in cognitive processes are further embodied in the term “mathematical cast of mind” (p. 302) to describe the tendency of gifted children to view the world within a mathematical frame of reference. According to Wieczerkowski et al., Kiesswetter’s research identified six complex mathematical activities or actions that are central to “purposeful mathematical thinking” (p. 414), including organizing materials, recognizing patterns or rules, changing the representation of problems, comprehending and working with highly complex structures, reversing and inverting processes, and finding (constructing) related problems (p. 415). Other studies by Zimmermann (cited in Wieczerkowski et al.) focused on the cognitive basis of mathematical giftedness. These studies concluded that mathematical giftedness involved “special ways of looking at and attempting to solve mathematical problems” (p. 415) and contrasted with the acquisition of fixed knowledge. Non-cognitive components related to mathematical giftedness were also discussed by Wieczerkowski et al. (2000) and included motivational factors, selfefficacy, assessments of the value and importance of mathematics and the role of a supportive social environment. In terms of gender, they identified a number of studies that showed gender-related differences in mathematically gifted children and proposed reasons for these. Explanations focused on differences in cognition, such as processing speed in the central nervous system or hemispheric differences in global brain function, or sex role differences because of societal or cultural stereotypes. Wieczerkowski et al. concluded that future research that focused on the relationship between culture and gender would prove to be most fruitful in explaining these differences. Cultural and societal influences on mathematics achievement are clear from recent studies such as the Program of International Student Assessment (PISA) (OECD, 2004a) and Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Mullis, Martin, & Foy, 2005). These reports consider achievement in relation to factors such as gender, socio-economic status and, in PISA, possessions related to “classical” culture (OECD, 2004b). Self-efficacy and beliefs about

33

Understanding Mathematical Giftedness

mathematics also play a part, and these factors may also be influenced by gender (Thomson, Cresswell, & De Bortoli, 2004). Such findings are also likely to impact on the identification and nurture of students who are mathematically gifted. For example, in most countries boys are over-represented among the most highly achieving students, even when there is no overall statistically significant difference in performance between boys and girls. Research from the Hamburg Talent Searches (cited in Wieczerkowski et al., 2000) indicated that factor analysis of responses by mathematically gifted students to a self-assessed 63-item questionnaire yielded a six-factor structure that was further categorized into cognitive, motivational and creative factors. This finding provided evidence in support of Renzulli’s (1978, 1986) three-ring model of (mathematical) giftedness. One difficulty with this approach is that the initial identification process itself must involve a preconception of the nature of mathematical giftedness. The three-factor structure may not be altogether surprising because it may merely reflect the basis of the initial identification process. There is growing awareness of the need to nurture mathematical talent. Apart from the work of Julian C. Stanley and co-workers with very highly able students (see Brody, this volume; Brody & Stanley, 2005) there has been little recent research into how this might be achieved. Today, the interest in the study of mathematics at the tertiary level is declining in preference for subjects such as business and technology, despite the concern of many governments (Australian Academy of Science, 2006; Collins, 2001; OECD, 2006). Mathematical knowledge is regarded as an important component of many “knowledge economies,” but from the start of the 1990s although there has been considerable work in the area of giftedness generally, there has been little research in the specific area of mathematical giftedness (Diezmann & Watters, 2002). As well as the antecedents and etiology of mathematical giftedness, we also consider a discussion of these issues as an important aspect of this chapter. Recent developments in brain science seem to support some of the multi-dimensional conceptions of mathematical giftedness (see Geake, this volume). Houd´e and Tzourio-Mazoyer (2003), for example, indicated that two distinct areas of the brain are involved in arithmetic calculations, depending on whether these are presented in numerical formats or

673

as problem-solving tasks. Government policies (e.g., Collins, 2001), however, tend to support a narrower view in which giftedness is seen as very high achievement in traditional school mathematical fields. This notion of mathematical giftedness underpins many programs such as mathematics summer schools and mathematical Olympiads. One aspect that has received scant regard in the research literature is the opportunity for students to develop mathematical interests. For many students identified as mathematically gifted, mentors, teachers or guides played a significant role in their development (Brody, this volume, Brody & Stanley, 2005; Winner, 2000), but there is little systematic research into how mentors or teachers can be effectively linked with mathematically gifted students. It is well established, however, that opportunities to learn, do and practice mathematics does have a significant influence on the development of mathematical thinking. To quote Butterworth (2000), mathematical genius does not appear overnight. It is the intention of this chapter to explore some of these ideas. The conceptual framework for this chapter is the Actiotope Model of Giftedness (AMG) (Ziegler, 2005, this volume; Ziegler & Stoeger, 2004) from the perspective of the critical state view of giftedness (CSG), a meta-theory of giftedness (Ziegler & Heller, 2000). The next section outlines the key features of the CSG and the AMG and the justification for their usefulness in this chapter.

The Critical State View of Giftedness In describing the critical state view of giftedness (CSG), Ziegler and Heller (2000) recognized that giftedness research was often based on circular definitions of giftedness and that gifts were absolutely necessary for achievement eminence (AE). They proposed the CSG as a meta-theory that provided the means to overcome some of these problems because it facilitates the judgment of the utility of any theory of giftedness. This would, in turn, allow for the study of mathematical giftedness, for example, to be placed on a firm theoretical and experimental foundation. In this meta-theory, the terms talented, gifted and expert refer to the successive stages of a person’s development. Achievement eminence specifically refers to the

674

extraordinary and recognizable outcomes of experts within a particular domain such as mathematics, but not the achievements of school children within the context of their school.

Critical States and Achievement Eminence The CSG has two broad stages, clearly referring to the temporal relationship between the critical state (CS) and achievement eminence (AE). The term “critical state” is borrowed from the field of physical sciences and implies a dynamic system rather than a fixed entity (Ziegler & Heller, 2000). The components of the CS include psychological processes, termed gifts, as well as other personality components such as motivation. Both are necessary but insufficient on their own for AE. In other words, individuals do not achieve AE without fulfilling the conditions within the CS. Persons achieve eminence in many domains and there may be a number of CSs that allow for the same AE. Ziegler and Heller (2000) proposed a probabilistic rather than a deterministic relationship between the CS and AE, whereby certain boundary conditions (such as environment) operating directly on the CS either promote or decrease the probability of an individual reaching AE. In the CSG, a person has talent when they possess the necessary psychological processes but have not yet fulfilled the conditions of the CS. The term gifted2 refers to individuals who have fulfilled the CS but not yet reached AE because of unfavorable boundary conditions. Experts are those individuals who have reached AE. Achievement eminence is the most problematic area of the CSG (Ziegler & Heller, 2000). They suggested that AE needs to be understood using a sequential series of problems requiring a clarification of domain, focus, frame of reference and significance, respectively. The domain problem must not only clearly identify the domains of eminence but also whether it is possible to distinguish between levels of eminence. Furthermore, it must also be viewed in cultural and temporal contexts. Different cultures may view mathematics and, hence, achievement eminence differently. Because cul2

In Ziegler and Heller (2000), the original term underachiever (p. 17) was mistranslated from the original German word begabt, meaning gifted person (Ziegler, personal communication, May 11, 2005).

S.N. Phillipson and R. Callingham

ture also changes over time, it is clear that the nature of achievement eminence in mathematics may also change (Lohman & Korb, 2006). The focus problem addresses the need to identify which specific aspect of the domain is to be studied and, again, involves the potential for uncertainty. Different conceptions of mathematics lead to diverse frames of reference within which AE is situated. This frame of reference problem underlies the difficulty in establishing the criteria for AE. Ziegler and Heller (2000) proposed three possible reference points for the assessment of AE: criteria-based, interindividual and intra-individual perspectives.

r r r

Criteria-based references highlight the achievements of individuals based on a set of agreed criteria. Inter-individual standards of achievement, as well as taking criteria into account, also make allowances for age-dependent or developmental stages. Intra-individual differences allow for the possibility of accelerated changes in achievement.

Ziegler and Heller stressed that they were not in a position to choose between the three options, and in the domain of mathematics, achievement eminence may be recognized using all three reference approaches. The significance problem refers to the arbitrariness of deciding the point at which AE is achieved and warrants further investigation. Ziegler and Heller (2000) could not propose a solution other than the continuation of “. . .ad hoc criteria such as percentages or international acknowledgements” (p. 12). This may not be as serious a problem as implied because studies based on a continuum of mathematical achievement may yield important clues to the variability of the psychological processes used in moving toward AE even if the point at which AE is achieved is not agreed.

Nature of Gifts Within each CS, the components of initial interest are the psychological processes. Ziegler and Heller (2000) referred to these processes as gifts, hence the study of mathematical giftedness might begin with the study of the processes that lead to AE. The gift is necessary but in itself insufficient for the AE since other components

33

Understanding Mathematical Giftedness

675

within the CS are also important. According to Ziegler Ziegler (2005), Ziegler and Stoeger (2004) and Ziegler and Heller (2000), the gift must satisfy four postulates: (this volume).

r r

Postulate 1 The gift temporally precedes the AE and there must be a causal and non-trivial relationship between the gift and the achievement. Postulate 2 The fulfillment of the inus condition. The psychological process, or gift, is an “. . .insufficient but non-redundant part of an unnecessary but sufficient condition” (Ziegler & Heller 2000, p. 13). Gifts are therefore necessary but in themselves do not guarantee the AE. Ziegler and Heller pointed out that the gifts are one component within the CS, and all components must be present if there is a chance of achieving AE. Postulate 3 Gifts are personal (i.e., psychological processes) and not environmental variables. Postulate 4 The gift must hold some significance in the explanation of the AE, and a probabilistic rather than a deterministic relationship between the gift and AE is made explicit. In the domain of mathematics, for example, the ability to reason spatially does not qualify as a gift because a direct and causal relationship between it and AE cannot easily be determined. In the CSG, Ziegler and Heller emphasized that any understanding of the development of AE must be directed toward the interactions between the various components and not just the psychological processes within the CS.

The Actiotope Model of Giftedness

Ziegler (2005, this volume) rejected both unitary and multiple intelligences in explaining extraordinary achievement, stating that “the wide-ranging abundance of behavior exceeded the explanatory power of one psychological construct by far” (2005, p. 412). He suggested that expanding the role of the environment in models such as the Differentiated Model r of Giftedness and Talent (Gagn´e, 2000) did little to illuminate the processes involved in the development r of giftedness because the relationship between the gift and achievement remained unclear. Furthermore, models of giftedness viewed the involvement of environment as unidimensional, with gifts still playing the central role. Finally, Ziegler was mindful of a field in which there were no means by which the “explanatory power of different conceptions of giftedness” (p. 412) could be critically compared. He concluded that not only was it difficult to agree on the terminology but also that the theories were unable to provide a clear relationship between gift and achievement, rendering the conceptions (or theories) of giftedness incapable of being verified. When applying the CSG in the domain of mathematIn response to these criticisms, Ziegler (2005, this ics, a number of guiding questions can be formulated volume) proposed the Actiotope Model of Giftedness (Gagn´e, 2000; Ziegler & Heller, 2000), including (AMG). This model describes a systems approach to r How is eminence in the domain of mathematics rec- achievement eminence together with a focus on the continual development of action repertoires and, hence, ognized? Do different cultures view achievement is unique among models of giftedness. The AMG is eminence in mathematics differently? r What are the components of the critical state that based on a number of clearly articulated premises: lead to AE in mathematics? r What are the psychological processes which con1. Gifts are psychological constructs that are intitribute directly and non-trivially to AE in mathematmately related to the environment. Gifts are not, ics? r What are the interactions between the psychologihowever, personal attributes, but attributions made by “scientists” and other witnesses in the domain cal, personality and environmental conditions that and, hence, are of limited value in explaining excontribute to AE in mathematics? r Under which conditions is the psychological relatraordinary achievement. In contrast, the development of a number of actions, termed action tionship between CS and AE in mathematics valid? repertoires, are of fundamental importance. AcThe next section briefly describes the essential features tions have a phase structure and can be based on of the Actiotope Model of Giftedness as described in motor skills or cognitive processes.

676

2. Rather than focus on some random percentage of persons as gifted, it is more important to identify the specific actions that lead to AE. 3. Although the product of the action is important, the focus of any research should be on the action itself that leads to AE, including the context (such as, for example, prior knowledge and experience). 4. Explanations of excellence must include a developmental perspective involving long periods of time. 5. The actions of persons are governed by goals, initially the pursuit of pleasure but eventually the faultless execution of the “action repertoires.” 6. The development of excellence depends on the adaptation and continual expansion of “action repertoires.” 7. An individual subjectively evaluates the effectiveness of each action, yielding a “subjective action space.” The individual is then free to choose an action(s) from the “subjective action space” in order to realize an “effervescent wish.” 8. The role of a highly organized learning environment is of importance, including the role of professional instruction, schools, learning material, times, locations and content. 9. The components of the AMG (i.e., development, actions, goals, action repertoire, subjective action space and environment) are part of a network. 10. Interactions within the network are in the form of feedback and feed forward loops. The interactions of these various components at any given point in time constitute an individual’s Actiotope. The term Actiotope is broadly analogous to the term biotope, whereby biological organisms both respond to and actively influence the environment and in doing so, evolve over time. In contrast to the biotope, the AMG focuses on the individual, hence an Actiotope is a personal perspective and is neither generalized nor generalizable. In the AMG, actions leading to AE both respond to and actively influence the environment. The actions also expand and adapt over time, but only when the individual is pursuing excellence. At the point of AE, the Actiotope has undergone a series of progressive adaptations rather than reaching equilibrium (Ziegler, 2005). Education plays an important role in the AMG – within the components of the Actiotope itself, the adaptability of the Actiotope and the “system” nature of the Actiotope.

S.N. Phillipson and R. Callingham

Framework for This Chapter The structural framework for this chapter is based on the two major components of the Actiotope Model of Giftedness (AMG), namely aspects of “self” (action repertoire and its determinants, the subjective action space, goals) and the wider learning environment (Ziegler, 2005; Ziegler & Stoeger, 2004). Although largely untested experimentally, we consider the AMG suitable for this purpose because not only are the terms clearly defined, the achievement of excellence in mathematics is developmental and dependent on the interactions with the environment of “self.” Furthermore, the model’s focus on the expansion and adaptation of action repertoires as well as the antecedents of these actions, rather than the study of the psychological traits of an individual that lead to high achievement in mathematics, makes the a priori identification of “mathematically gifted” individuals irrelevant. Lastly, the AMG is probabilistic rather than deterministic in its approach. Thus, there is no need to identify specific developmental pathways that guarantee achievement eminence. Prior to considering interactions between self and environment, however, it is necessary to consider the domain problem.

The Domain Problem – What Is Mathematical Excellence? According to the Actiotope Model of Giftedness (AMG), the achievement of eminence in any domain represents the end point of a developmental process that takes a considerable amount of time (Ziegler, 2005). Equally important, however, are exhibitions of autonomy, tolerance and social responsibility. In the domain of mathematics, as in any other domain, AE requires the execution of a large number of effective actions and acceptance of the product as socially valuable when judged against some standard of excellence. Fundamental to the discussion of mathematical excellence is the nature of mathematics itself. Wieczerkowski et al. (2000) recognized that mathematics can be conceived in a number of different ways. These different conceptions could lead to differences in curriculum, instruction and, consequently, in the nature

33

Understanding Mathematical Giftedness

of mathematical giftedness itself and Wieczerkowski et al. remarked that a debate in this area is long overdue. Understanding the different conceptions of mathematics helps to develop an understanding of the action repertoires necessary for AE and, more importantly, to identify some of the common areas in the developmental process.

The Societal Perspective of Mathematics Mathematics can be understood from the perspectives of both society and those professionals who work in the domain. It is clear, however, that these viewpoints are related to each other in a number of different ways. Over many years, mathematics has been presented as a human endeavor in many books designed to make accessible the sometimes difficult and abstract aspects of mathematics (e.g., Guillen, 1983; Hogben, 1937; Jacobs, 1982; Mankiewicz, 2001; Pickover, 1995; Reimer & Reimer, 1990). Mathematics is portrayed as humankind’s greatest creative act with both utilitarian and aesthetic value. Mathematics is the code by which the universe is written and the greatest achievement of our mathematicians is to discover this code. Popular books refer to notable individuals within a cultural context and are offered to demystify mathematics for non-mathematicians and as exemplars for younger readers to follow. In contrast, a popular view of mathematics is that it is particularly difficult. Many people perceive themselves as being unable to do mathematics, despite being very competent at everyday mathematical tasks (Damarin, 2000). A common image of mathematicians is that they are eccentric, boring middle-aged males (Devlin, 2001). This stereotyping may impact on students who are mathematically competent.

The Educator’s View of Mathematics The societal views of mathematics are institutionalized by governments which, through their departments of education, take a curriculum perspective which is limited to the years children spend at school. The arguments for including mathematics in the school curriculum range from those in which mathematics is seen as

677

training the mind to think logically and deductively to the utilitarian view in which mathematics is justified as the basis of technology which furthers society’s economic progress. The philosophy of mathematics has developed over many centuries, but today there are two broad views of the nature of mathematics. One view, the realist perspective, contends that mathematical objects are real in their own right and that mathematics exists independently of mind, language and culture. The opposite view is that there are no mathematical objects, and these are not presupposed in mathematical activity. A specific group of realists takes a structuralist view of mathematics, in which mathematical activity consists of finding relationships among mathematical objects (Shapiro, 2000). This structural view of mathematics appears to underpin most modern curriculum documents, regardless of origin, and mathematics is often described as “the science of patterns”(Resnick, 1999). In Western societies, the rise of secondary education for all following the Second World War has led to a shift in the perceptions of mathematics and its place in the school curriculum. When most people left school in their early teens, mathematics was mainly regarded as arithmetic and had a functional purpose in fitting people for employment. Those who went on with education were exposed to a “liberal” curriculum, in which the educated person has some acquaintance with a wide range of subjects, and knowledge was regarded as immutable and waiting to be discovered rather than created. Beyond secondary education was a level of specialization, in which novices were inducted into a field of endeavor (Kilpatrick, 2005). In the latter part of the 20th century, however, the move toward a more utilitarian view has created a debate about the place of mathematics in the curriculum and the nature of what needs to be taught and learned in schools (National Council on Education and the Disciplines, 2001). To some extent this reflects the debate about the nature of mathematics, whether it is a way of describing the world and awaiting discovery or whether it is a tool invented to explain natural phenomena. Functional views of mathematics can originate from both perspectives and have gained popularity in curriculum documents where this perspective may be termed “numeracy” (e.g., Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers, 1997), “quantitative literacy” (National Council on Education and the Disciplines, 2001) or “mathematical literacy” (OECD, 2000). This functional view at one

678

level suggests that mathematics may mean “number sense” – which relates to the emphasis on arithmetic. At another level, mathematics refers to abstract, logical thinking processes and mathematical thinking relates to cognitive processes such as spatial reasoning (Brody & Stanley, 2005). The different approaches to mathematics in the curriculum impact on the development of talents. When mathematics equated to arithmetic, students with mathematical talent would be those able to compute quickly and easily; today’s functional views are more likely to identify talented problem solvers who can draw on a range of experiences. The action repertoires developed by individuals may also differ in response to these views.

The Mathematician’s Perspective of Mathematics Another way to define the domain of mathematics is from the perspective of mathematicians working within the field, specifically asking them the question, “What do mathematicians do?” Van Bendegem and Van Kerkhove (2004) response to this question was to describe the MathPract model, consisting of at least seven elements: MathPract =< M, P, F, PM, C, AM, PS, . . . >, where M = community of mathematicians (m 1 , m 2 , . . . m i . . .), P = research program ( p1 , p2 . . . p j . . .), F = formal language ( f 1 , f 2 . . . f k . . .), PM = proof methods ( pm 1 , pm 2 , . . . pm i . . .), C = concepts (c1 , c2 . . . cn . . .), AM = argumentative methods (am 1 , am 2 . . . am s . . .), PS = proof strategies ( ps1 , ps2 . . . pst . . .) (p. 534) According to Van Bendegem and Van Kerkhove (2004), this list of seven only begins to describe the practice of mathematics and other elements may yet be included. Furthermore, they suggest that mathematics is embedded in society at many different levels, including the other sciences, education, economic reality, popularization, politics and religion. They argued that the relationship between mathematics and the sciences is largely one way because pure mathematicians are not generally concerned with the need to find an application for their work. Scientists from the other disciplines often find that mathematicians have

S.N. Phillipson and R. Callingham

“. . . already . . . developed exactly (or roughly) [the models] . . . they have been looking for” (p. 541). If this is the case, then exceptional achievements in the other sciences might facilitate the recognition of the exceptional but earlier achievement in mathematics. One example of this is in the work of John Nash, popularized in the book and later in the film A Beautiful Mind (Nasar, 1998). Nash’s breakthrough work in Game Theory was publicly recognized through the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1994, after it had been applied and developed further through diverse applications. A closer examination of the MathPract model may help to distinguish content from processes as well as to identify areas where exceptionality in both the practice and context of mathematics may be possible. Within any community, membership is conferred on an individual through a process involving consensual understanding by the existing members of the community. The rigorous process of peer review applied in mathematics is exemplified by Andrew Wiles’ proof of Fermat’s last theorem. One reviewer found a fault in one component of the proof and it took Wiles’ another year to fill this gap (Singh, 1997, pp. 277–301). A number of different communities are described by Van Bendegem and Van Kerkhove (2004), and membership in one community does not imply membership in another. One possible demonstration of “exceptionality” in this element is early membership in the community. However, such exceptionality may not in itself be enduring nor of great importance to the community. Mathematicians are distinguishable from each other on the basis of their idiosyncratic ability (or personal style) to bring together creatively various elements of mathematics, thereby opening new research opportunities (Van Bendegem & Van Kerkhove, 2004). In terms of research programs, this personal style can link with the work of a particular community and may imply that exceptional individuals add to the community of mathematicians through this individual contribution. The third element of MathPract, formal language, describes the core of the mathematical domain, including its “axioms, definitions and body of formal proofs” as typical answers to typical problems within a research program (Van Bendegem & Van Kerkhove, 2004, p. 529). According to Chalmers (1994), this would represent the “hardcore” of the domain and helps to define and distinguish one research paradigm from another. In communicating

33

Understanding Mathematical Giftedness

new ideas, mathematicians are sometimes forced to invent new notation in order to effectively communicate their ideas. Here is another opportunity for mathematicians to show eminence. At least nine proof methods are described in MathPract that are accepted by mathematical communities within the domain of mathematics. Additional proof methods may yet be discovered and their first description and acceptance may again offer opportunities for the exhibition of exceptionality. The next element, concepts, refers to the body of knowledge that is applied to proof methods. A body of supporting knowledge is assumed when a problem is analyzed but concepts can also be derived as a result of the proof method. Thus, individuals may be recognized for their exceptionality when they use existing proofs and concepts to define new concepts. Formal language, proof methods and concepts are three elements of a mathematician’s “toolkit” (Van Bendegem & Van Kerkhove, 2004, p. 533). Proof strategies, the final element in the MathPract model, are the methods that mathematicians employ when using the various elements of their toolkit to best advantage. Van Bendegem and Van Kerkhove described proof strategies as the final step of successfully solving problems. Although they did not specifically use these terms, the effective use of proof strategies could be referred to as executive or meta-cognitive functions and their use might help to distinguish exceptionality.

Aspects of Self in the Achievement of Mathematical Excellence This section is concerned with aspects of self in the move toward mathematical AE. Of direct relevance to this chapter is the origin of complex mathematical thinking (Fayol & Seron, 2005; Hauser & Spelke, 2004). Accordingly, we will begin by outlining some of the research that is helping to unravel the development of mathematical thinking, including the antecedents to actions.

679

sense as understood in the field of psychology, at both the cognitive and neural level. This research may help to shed light on the development of early action repertoires relating to more complex mathematical thinking. Although Kaufmann and Nuerk (2005) stressed that the link between number sense and more complex mathematical thinking is yet to be established, much less the link with the basis of exceptionality, others have speculated that the interplay between two relatively simple arithmetic cognitive tasks may lead to the emergence of mathematical intuition (Dehaene, Spelke, Pinel, Stanescu, & Tsivkin, 1999; Feigenson, Dehaene, & Spelke, 2004). Recent research is beginning to identify some variability in number sense that may lead to both qualitatively and quantitatively different action repertoires. Number sense is a term that has been used to describe the innate numerical abilities of human (see Feigenson et al., 2004) and non-human species (Brannon, 2005). As Kaufmann and Nuerk (2005) pointed out, many children have mastered a number of core mathematical concepts before they begin formal schooling that cannot be explained by other learning experiences. These concepts include numerosity (F´eron, Gentaz, & Streri, 2006; Wood & Spelke, 2005; Xu, Spelke, & Goddard, 2005), the use of number words (Lipton & Spelke, 2006), ordinal numerical knowledge (Brannon, 2002, 2005), magnitude (Dehaene, 2003) and arithmetic expectations (Kobayashi, Hiraki, Mugitani, & Hasegawa, 2004; Langer, Gillette, & Arriaga, 2003). In addition to a brief outline of these concepts and their experimental paradigms, this section will also outline some of the computational models for their insights into possible differences in mathematical excellence.

Numerosity

The capacity of humans (and non-humans) to make representations of numbers of objects (i.e., without the use of cardinal numbers) is termed numerosity. In human infants, numerosity is studied by observing their preference for novel stimuli. In a typical experimental procedure, infants are allowed to become familiar with Antecedents of Action Repertoires sets of objects containing a certain number of items. Their ability to discriminate between sets containing The study of numerical development is concerned with different numbers of items is measured by their preferunderstanding the origin and development of number ence for attending to new, or novel, sets rather than sets

680

they are familiar with. This paradigm depends on the experimenter’s skill in controlling confounding variables such as luminosity while changing the number of items in the sets (Feigenson, Carey, & Spelke, 2002). Human infants of between 5 and 6 months of age are able to distinguish between sets of objects that differ by a ratio of 2 for up to four objects for visual-spatial (Xu et al., 2005), audial (Lipton & Spelke, 2003) and tactile information (F´eron et al., 2006), suggesting that numerosity is amodal. Lipton and Spelke also believed that they found evidence to suggest that numerosity precision increases over the relatively short time frame of between 5 and 9 months. In studies that contrasted the ability of 6-month-old human infants to discriminate between sets containing small and large numbers of objects, Xu et al. (2005) found further evidence for two distinct cognitive systems for the representation of numerosity (Hauser & Spelke, 2004). The first system operates on precise numbers of objects but has an upper limit of three objects (Feigenson & Carey, 2005), and the second operates on sets containing larger numbers of objects (n = 16), representing approximate numbers of objects. The distinction between cognitive processes that operate on precise numbers as opposed to an approximate number of objects mirrors studies in human adults where arithmetic problems requiring exact solutions share language-dependent cognitive processes, whereas arithmetic problems requiring approximate solutions are independent of language processes (Dehaene et al., 1999). Most research to date is concerned with finding broad trajectories in the development of numerosity. Although not explicitly addressed by the researchers, some infants are reported as failing to respond to the tasks for a variety of reasons (see, for example, Lipton & Spelke, 2003; Xu et al., 2005). In the future it may be possible to design tasks that measure individual differences in these trajectories and to link this variability to differences in higher forms of mathematical cognition and achievement.

Use of Number Words Counting systems and number words exist in all cultures (Bishop, 1991). The nature of the words used and how they are linked to symbol systems relates to the culture within which they evolved: Australian

S.N. Phillipson and R. Callingham

Aboriginal languages, for example, developed subtle ways of dealing with small numbers whereas the much larger Chinese society developed methods for counting and recording large numbers (Menninger, 1969). These considerations imply that mathematical giftedness, if perceived as being related to counting, could be different across cultures. In most school curricula, the basis of taught mathematics is counting, that is, the use of specialist words to represent cardinal values. Many children are able to recite number words to 100 by the age of about 6 years (Maclellan, 1997), and Lipton and Spelke (2006) showed that 5-year-old children understood that cardinality refers to a specific number of objects and that cardinality changes when objects are added or removed from a given set. Munn (1997), however, warns that young children may appear proficient at counting but their competence may break down if they are asked to count objects arranged randomly, or if the position of the objects is changed – the principle of conservation of number (Eggen & Kauchak, 2007; Piaget, 1952). Young children, less than 5 years, are likely to judge relative quantities of two sets by eye, only counting when specifically prompted (Munn, 1997). In a study that tested the hypothesis that cardinality is independent of the need to learn how to count, Benoit, Lehalle and Jouen (2004) demonstrated that for 3-year-old children, the process of subitizing seems to be a more primitive tool than counting to identify the number of items in a given array. The researchers concluded that subitizing is the “necessary developmental pathway for understanding the significance of the first few number words” (p. 304).

Additive and Subtractive Expectations As well as numerosity, infants have a capacity for simple arithmetic computation (Bisanz, Sherman, Rasmussen, & Ho 2005). Typical experiments rely on a violation-of-expectation task where participants are assessed for their preference for unexpected rather than expected outcomes. Three- to five-month-old infants, for example, looked longer at the incorrect (1 + 1 = 1) rather than the correct (1 + 1 = 2) outcomes of visual displays of objects (Clearfield & Westfahl, 2006). The demonstration of computation skills in 5-month-old infants also includes cross-modality tasks involving combinations of visual and auditory stimuli (Kobayashi

33

Understanding Mathematical Giftedness

et al., 2004). These infants preferred to look at unexpected outcomes (1 object + 2 tones = 2 objects and 1 object + 1 tone = 3 objects) rather than expected outcomes (1 object + 1 tone = 2 objects and 1 object + 2 tones = 3 objects). These studies rely on separating out the confounding effects of prior familiarization to the stimuli and accounting for preferences for complex rather than simple stimuli. When infants are deliberately familiarized with correct outcomes, they showed no preference for either correct or incorrect outcomes (Clearfield & Westfahl, 2006). When they are familiarized with incorrect outcomes, on the other hand, they show a subsequent preference for correct outcomes. Rather than merely confounding the demonstration of arithmetic skills, the role of familiarization may be more complex than first thought. These fundamental computation skills in infants may only predict how the world is organized and can be modified by experience. In other words, arithmetic computation schemas in infants predict that 1 + 1 should equal 2, as is in accordance with reality when the situation is presented in concrete ways. When the infant is confronted (or familiarized) with evidence that is contrary to this expectation, then the infant’s modified schema (i.e., 1 + 1 does equal 1) predicts this as the “correct” outcome. The relationships between these kinds of studies and later mathematical giftedness warrant further study. Further developments describing individual differences have been reported in McCrink and Wynn (2004) and Moore and Cocas (2006). In a replication of Wynn’s (1992) study, Moore and Cocas reported differences between 5-month-old boys’ and girls’ responses to simple arithmetic tasks, with boys being more influenced by their familiarity with the test displays than girls. It is not possible at this stage to discount either of the two possible explanations for these findings – boys and girls have similar capacities for arithmetic computation but that there are sexdependent differences in their capacity to disengage from their environment, or boys are developmentally behind girls in their capacity for these types of computation.

Ordinal Numbers As a separate preverbal skill, ordinal number knowledge has been demonstrated in 11-month-old but not

681

9-month-old infants (Brannon, 2002). The research paradigm again depends on measuring infants’ attentional preferences to unfamiliar stimuli. Brannon habituated infants to three sets of stimuli of increasing numerosity, such as two, four and eight small squares in that sequence. Two additional sequences were presented to the infants, both containing 3, 6 and 12 small squares but with one sequence of decreasing rather than increasing numerosity. The results indicated that the 11-month-old infants preferred to look at the sequences of decreasing rather than increasing numerosity – that is, they preferred to look at the reverse of the sequence to which they were habituated – whereas 9-month-old infants had no preference. As well as human sensitivity to ordinality, other studies have shown that non-human primates also share this ability (Brannon, 2005; Cantlon & Brannon, 2006; Judge, Evans, & Vyas, 2005; Orlov, Amit, Yakovlev, Zohary, & Hochstein, 2006), suggesting that there is a single evolutionary mechanism for ordinality as well as numerosity. There is experimental evidence for the increasing sophistication of ordinal number knowledge with increasing age and verbal skills. Two- and three-year-old children showed an increasing dependence on verbal skills for counting rather than relying on ordinal information (Brannon & Van de Walle, 2001), suggesting that differences in languages may influence these skills. Miller, Major, Shu, and Zhang (2000) remarked that naming ordinal numbers (first, second, third, etc.) is typically learned after the names of cardinal numbers are learned. They also opined that languages differ in terms of the regularity in which they form ordinal names and, hence, there will be differences in their acquisition and use. In a study involving separate groups of both Chinese-speaking and English-speaking children, ranging from 5 to 10 years of age, corresponding to kindergarten and 4th grade, Miller et al. (2000) showed that Chinese children were better at counting for both cardinal and ordinal numbers, with the advantage for ordinal numbers being most dramatic. Miller et al. postulated that the complexity of the English language contributed to the cognitive burden related to learning the names for both cardinal and ordinal numbers in young children, helping to explain the relative advantage of Chinese children for mathematical achievement as well as a potential source of ongoing difficulty for English children. It is also possible that developmental differences between children within a

682

given language group may contribute to the subjective assessment by parents and/or teachers of either “exceptionality” or “special needs” for any one child. The advanced counting skills of monolingual Chinese-speaking children in comparison with American English-speaking children at ages 3–5 years (Rasmussen, Ho, Nicoladis, Leung, & Bisanz, 2006) may be misinterpreted as mathematical talent. Rasmussen et al. (2006) also showed that the advantage of Chinese monolingual children for counting was not generally evident for Chinese bilingual (Chinese and English)-speaking children when responding in either Chinese or English, pointing to the possibility that acquisition and use of English negated any advantage of the Chinese language. Hence, bilingual children who are able to maintain their “Chinese” advantage might be considered mathematically talented. The early onset of ordinality may be helpful in the future development of mathematical talent.

Magnitude Representations Given that number sense is evident in pre(non)verbal infants and that mathematical knowledge skills continue to develop before formal schooling begins, an important question concerns how quantities are mentally represented. Kaufmann and Nuerk (2005) contrasted a number of models of pre(non)verbal quantity representations, including mental model, mental model account, subitizing account and pattern recognition view as well as adult calculation models. They noted that each of the pre(non)verbal models focus only on one of the many elementary tasks and do not provide any explanatory power for more complex arithmetic skills or mathematical reasoning. The evidence for two core systems of number in both human and non-human species has been discussed in Dehaene (2003), Feigenson et al. (2004) and Nieder (2005). The first core system is concerned with approximate representation of numerical information obtained across a number of modalities, including visual and auditory stimuli, and occurs in both infants and adults. This system represents this information on a mental number line using a logarithmic scale with fixed variability. In practice, this means that the adjacent numerosities are frequently confused, making it difficult for human infants, for example, to discriminate between two and three items. The

S.N. Phillipson and R. Callingham

ability to discriminate between numerosities depends on certain ratio limits that seem to alter as the person becomes older. Whereas 6-month-old infants require a ratio of 1:2, adults can discriminate ratios as small as 7:8. Clearly, individual differences in the timing of these developmental changes may manifest themselves in observable mathematical behaviors that are linked with early mathematical precocity. Evidence from neurological studies has supported the postulate of logarithmic scaling of numerosity with the demonstration of neurons having optimal responses to three items, for example, but fewer responses to two or four items, and no response to one and five items (Nieder, Freedman, & Miller, 2002; Sawamura, Shima, & Jun, 2002). The logarithmic scale with fixed variables also explains the neurological basis of Weber’s law, where the ability to discriminate between two stimulus intensities depends on the magnitude of the original stimulus (see Dehaene, 2003; Jordan & Brannon, 2006). The fixed variability also explains the number distance effect and the number size effect (Dehaene et al., 1999; Phillipson, 2004). Attempts to link both effects to IQ-dependent differences were unsuccessful, although the restricted range of IQ scores limited the usefulness of the study (Phillipson, 2004). The second core system is concerned with the representation of precise numbers of objects. Pre(non)verbal infants as young as 5 months are able to mentally represent the precise number of individual objects in simple arithmetic tasks (Clearfield & Westfahl, 2006; Kobayashi et al., 2004), although the upper limit in this representational system appears to be three items (Feigenson & Carey, 2005). In adults, similar limits are observed. Feigenson et al. postulated that adults employ the first core system to represent one to four items but with increased accuracy. The nature of the mental line for this system remains speculative, although it is likely to be similar to the mental line described for core system 1 (Dehaene, 2003; Feigenson et al., 2004). In contrast to the pre(non)verbal models, adult calculation models postulate the existence of a mental number line where points on the line represent sequences of numerical (Bull & Benson, 2006; Dehaene, 2003; Feigenson et al., 2004; Fias & Fischer, 2005) rather than non-numerical information (Zorzi, Priftis, Meneghello, Marenzi, & Umilt`a, 2006). Feigenson et al. (2004) argued for the existence of two core systems of number, reflecting the processing of approximate representations of number and the

33

Understanding Mathematical Giftedness

precise representation of distinct entities, respectively. The spatial representation of number, however, is not fixed and coding appears likely to depend on spatial parameters that are not under direct control (Fias & Fischer, 2005). Although mental number lines are likely to underpin the processing of the two core systems, precise and approximate representations, in both human and non-human species, Feigenson et al. believed that the human capacity to compare directly and become aware of discrepancies between the two core systems, together with an active desire to reconcile these differences, distinguishes the human from the non-human mind. This difference enables humans to develop higher order mathematical competencies such as the manipulation of fractions, negative and complex numbers. The characterization of the mental number lines is beginning to be explored and research has revealed some aspects that are both universal and provide potential sources of individual differences (Fias & Fischer, 2005). Such research will help unravel not only the basis of simple arithmetic calculations but also its role in higher forms of mathematics (Barth et al., 2006; Dehaene, Dehaene-Lambertz, & Cohen, 1998; Feigenson et al., 2004). Some researchers have speculated that dysfunctions in this mental representation may help to explain the basis of dyscalculia (see Kaufmann & Nuerk, 2005; No¨el, Rouselle, & Mussolin, 2004; Zorzi et al., 2006). At this stage, however, the relationship between individual differences and competency in higher level mathematics, much less differences related to exceptional performance in mathematics, remains highly speculative. Research has indicated that the mental number line is orientated from left to right, corresponding to low and high magnitudes, respectively (Bull & Benson, 2006), including negative numbers (Fischer, 2003). Evidence of this orientation comes from experiments where human participants are required to complete numerical judgment tasks such as whether a number is even or odd (see Bull & Benson, 2006). In these tasks, faster responses are obtained with the left hand to numbers of low magnitude whereas faster responses are obtained to larger numbers with the right hand. Known as the SNARC (Spatial Numerical Association of Response Codes) effect (Dehaene, Bossini, & Giraux, 1993), there is now neuropsychological evidence for the interaction between number and space (Dehaene, 2003). Interestingly, the strength

683

of the SNARC effect seems to be related to prenatal (and possibly adult) levels of the hormone testosterone (Bull & Benson, 2006), extending the relationship of this hormone to simple rather than more complex skills such as mental rotation and other tests of spatial ability (Benbow & Stanley, 1980; Benbow, 1988, 1992). What is yet to be investigated is the relationship between the strength of the SNARC effect and success in the higher forms of mathematics. It is also possible that the orientation of the number line from left to right is a learned response since this is the conventional representation of numbers. As pointed out in Nieder (2005), the metaphor of a mental number line has a parallel with the mental “experience” (p. 9) of numbers. Francis Galton (1880, cited in Nieder, 2005) reported “that some people imagine ‘visualized numerals’ when they think of numbers. . .[and that these numbers]. . .are usually linearly organized” (p. 9). Past research on this phenomenon (Seron, Pesenti, No¨el, Deloche, & Cornet, 1992), together with our current understanding of the mental number line, links this visualization skill with mathematical achievement. It is worth noting, however, that Thomas and his associates found children identified as gifted visualized numbers in a variety of ways, not just number lines or arrays, and that their mental representations were not static. In contrast students not identified as gifted predominantly used number lines or arrays when asked to visualize numbers (Thomas & Mulligan, 1995; Thomas, Mulligan, & Goldin, 2002). The interaction between mental number lines, visual imagery and linguistic relativity needs also to be investigated, particularly when language-dependent differences in number representation in children (Alsawaie, 2004) and multiplication errors (Lefevre, Lei, & Smith-Chant, 2001) have been reported. Feigenson et al. (2004) (see also Dehaene, 2003) have proposed that the number line is initially based on a logarithmic scale (with fixed variability) up to age 5 years but this soon changes to a mixture of logarithmic and linear scales and then to a linear scale by about age 8 years (Siegler & Booth, 2004). It is unclear, however, whether this change is dependent on developmental changes or the effects of formal schooling. It is significant that Siegler and Booth also reported individual differences in number line estimation and positive correlations between estimation accuracy in numerical estimation tasks and mathematics achievement

684

test scores, although a causal relationship cannot be established. The representation of magnitude using a mental number line is amodal and appears to be independent of an intact visual system (Castronovo & Seron, 2007). The use of auditory information with congenitally blind individuals elicited the same distance and SNARC effects as those in sighted individuals. The processes by which verbal numbers are “coded” onto the mental number line may be influenced by language. Recent research has shown differences in error rates between German-speaking and French-speaking children when re(trans)coding verbal numbers into Arabic numbers (Lochy, 2003, cited in Kaufmann & Nuerk, 2005) and in the errors made by Chinesespeaking adults when solving verbally presented multiplication of number problems compared to English-speaking adults (Lefevre et al., 2001). Other research has hinted that number processing depends on how the numerical information is presented and not just the numerical information per se (Cohen Kadosh, Cohen Kadosh, Kaas, Henik, & Goebel, 2007), including the language that is used (Hodent, Bryant, & Houd´e, 2005; Ito & Hatta, 2003; Nuerk, Weger, & Willmes, 2005). Clearly, the interaction between language and number representation and future mathematical achievement is an important area of future research.

S.N. Phillipson and R. Callingham

however, is likely to be related more to the development of schemas, related to concept development. Skemp’s (1987) seminal work on mathematical development clearly outlines the growth of conceptual understanding in mathematics by considering the relationships among concepts. Lower order concepts are language independent but higher order concepts require language that is used to detach the concept from the concrete situation (p. 15). By organizing these concepts into hierarchies, and then into “webs” of connections, called schemas, mathematical understanding is enhanced and developed. When considered against the evidence of infants’ mathematical capacities, numerosity and counting by subitizing would be considered lower order concepts that lay the foundations for further mathematical development. It is not until language develops that children begin to think mathematically, that is, group primary, lower order concepts into patterns of thinking that allow for further understanding to grow. The power of this approach to learning mathematics is that by coding information as a schema, or groups of related concepts, the processing load is reduced (Skemp, 1987).

Computation

Computational skills, such as instant recall of number facts, are often considered to be pointers to mathematical giftedness in primary school (Silva, Moses, Rivers, & Johnson, 1990). Success in computation requires the Action Repertoires for Talented integration of several factors, including memory capacMathematics Students ity (Royer et al., 1999) and opportunity to learn. Students who are successful in computation appear to opIn this section, aspects of the action repertoires that erate in two ways. Some develop a relational undermay be necessary for the development of mathemati- standing of numbers (Skemp, 1976) and, from a young cal gifts are examined. These repertoires are developed age, will deliberately seek out number bonds that make prior to achieving excellence and may thus provide the computation easier, such as 6 + 4. They can expointers to the development of AE in the mathemati- tend these facts to broaden their computational range, cal domain. such as seeing 16 + 4 as “10 + 6 + 4 is 10 + 10 = 20.” Other students operate in “instrumental” ways (Skemp, 1976), applying rules and recalling number Memory facts almost instantaneously (Royer et al., 1999). Both of these actions have the effect of reducing the cogniSome aspects of computation are related to memory tive load of computation. capacity. For example, in simple multiplication or The strategies used by skilled and unskilled students addition tasks, processing time increases with the when calculating indicate some differences suggesting size of the numbers involved (Royer, Tronsky, Chan, diverse action repertoires. Of the unskilled students, Jackson, & Marchant, 1999). Mathematical giftedness, 86% used some mental representation of a standard

33

Understanding Mathematical Giftedness

paper and pencil algorithm. In contrast, skilled students drew on a variety of strategies that relied on connections among numbers, and these students also used more memorized large number facts (Hope, 1986; Hope & Sherrill, 1987). In a later study, more able 11year-olds preferred to use strategies that used “complete” numbers, middle level students used a form of the written algorithm and low-ability students used “split” methods when calculating mentally (Foxman & Beishuizen, 2002). These findings suggest that rather than straightforward recall of number facts, it is the kinds of thinking used that distinguishes students with mathematical talent. Callingham (2005) found that the kinds of strategies used by students tended to depend on their familiarity with the computation. If the type of computation was one that was within curriculum expectations, students of all abilities were more likely to use relational approaches, whereas when calculating problems that were less familiar they drew on instrumental strategies.

685

Spatial Cognition There is some suggestion that spatial reasoning skills may also play a part in the development of mathematical ability (e.g., Casey, Pezaris, & Nuttall, 1992; Geary, 1996), particularly contributing to sex differences. This hypothesis, however, has been challenged (Dowker, 1996; Friedman, 1995). Spatial ability may be linked to visualization. Students who have been identified as gifted appear to have “dynamic” processes of visualization in which numbers can be moved or manipulated (Thomas & Mulligan, 1995; Thomas et al., 2002). The nature of visualization and its role in developing mathematical understanding has been recognized for many years (e.g., Mason, 1992; Pirie & Kieren, 1994; Presmeg, 1986). A capacity to visualize may develop from the process of subitizing – discussed in the previous section. Using alternative mental representations, both iconic and abstract, is likely to be an action used by students who are mathematically gifted.

Logical Reasoning The extent to which arithmetic skills are related to later conceptions of mathematical giftedness has been questioned. Neiderer and associates working in New Zealand, for example, found that using a standardized test that was largely arithmetic in nature did not always identify good problem solvers. They argued that if mathematical giftedness is defined as the ability to solve problems, then an arithmetic test had only 78% accuracy (Niederer, Irwin, Irwin, & Reilly, 2003). Such a finding may be related also to the nature of mathematics itself. Higher mathematics is increasingly abstract in nature; hence, to develop mathematically students need to be able to reason algebraically (Skemp, 1987). Algebraic reasoning implies being able to generalize number patterns and recognize relationships, which make higher cognitive demands than simply carrying out computations. It is well recognized that the shift to understanding mathematical relationships is one barrier to mathematical development in the middle years of schooling (e.g., Siemon, Virgona & Corneille, 2001; Silva et al., 1990). Mathematically gifted students appear able to develop deeper levels of understanding of these crucial aspects than their age peers (Johnson, 2000).

Creativity Creativity in mathematics usually relates to unusual problem-solving approaches or novel ways of using mathematical ideas (Treffinger, Young, Selby, & Shepardson, 2002). Krutetskii (1976) suggested that problem formulation, invention, independence and originality were indicators of creative approaches to mathematics. Two key approaches to mathematical problem solving have been identified that relate to creativity. One is an intuitive approach, often drawing on geometrical thinking. The other is a logical, rational approach working from a set of fixed premises (Carlton, 1959). Creativity in mathematics can be seen in young children as well as in established mathematicians and may be one of the important action repertoires that identify mathematically gifted students. Mann (2005), however, found that prior mathematical achievement predicted 23% of the variance on mathematical creativity scores, and a further 12% was predicted by students’ attitudes. Clearly, there is a link between ability and mathematical creativity but the extent to which one causes the other is yet to be established.

686

Intuition Hersh (1997) states that “intuition is an essential part of mathematics” (p. 61). Dehaene and co-workers (Dehaene, 2003; Feigenson et al., 2004) have repeatedly referred to the roles played by the two core systems (see section on Magnitude Representation, this chapter) in the development of mathematical intuition. It is difficult, however, to define either what it is or its role. Mathematicians recognize that intuition plays a part in mathematical thinking, although they may use language such as “insight” or “instinct,” and they also talk about how intuition can lead to incorrect thinking (Burton, 1999a). It is clear, however, that mathematicians do not understand intuition as simply “gut feeling.” Rather it is based on deep knowledge and experience of mathematics that allows the mathematical ideas to come together. In mathematics education it seems that intuition is ignored at all levels, from school to university. The rationality and scientific nature of mathematics are paramount and the subject is perceived as objective and scientific (Burton, 1999b). Koichu and Berman (2005) may have had this in mind when describing the tension felt by mathematically capable students between the utilitarian approach to solving a problem and the elegance of the solution. Krutetskii (1976) used the term “cast of mind” to describe students who appeared to have a leaning toward mathematics. It is not clear, however, to what extent this refers to an intuitive sense of what mathematics is about or simply a liking for doing mathematics, which may come from a sense of order. Apart from Fischbein (1987), there appears to have been little attempt to examine the role of intuition in mathematics.

Action Repertoires and MathPract Of relevance here are the actions and developmental trajectories necessary for exceptional achievement, linking the elements of MathPract, as a model of being a mathematician, with the action repertoires expected by AMG. Early membership in the mathematical community could be attained through rapid performance and high grades in both undergraduate and postgraduate studies, relying on cognitive and metacognitive skills related to the mathematical domain.

S.N. Phillipson and R. Callingham

Although an individual at this stage of development would be considered “gifted,” such achievements, per se, would not necessarily be considered exceptional (Ziegler, 2005). Further modification, adaptation and extensions to the action repertoire are necessary before the individual could be considered an “expert” and hence capable of truly exceptional achievements. Van Bendegem and Van Kerkhove (2004) proposed that personal style is a significant factor in the development and recognition of mathematical achievement excellence, where style refers to an individual’s proclivity to blend the various aspects of the mathematical toolkit in a readily identifiable pattern. It becomes possible to identify a mathematician by his or her personal style, thereby increasing the chance of being recognized for exceptional achievements. The idea of creativity in mathematics may develop into a personal style as an individual approaches AE. The action repertoires necessary for proof methods and other argumentative methods must be identified, developed and rehearsed. Their accurate and useful application depends, in part, on the mathematician’s successful use of proof strategies – a meta-cognitive skill that comes with further expansion of the action repertoire. Because AE may largely depend on the interdependence of actions, a lack of appropriate skills may become a limiting factor. Meta-cognitive skills are likely to be part of the necessary action repertoires of experts as well as opportunity to learn the necessary skills and techniques of the discipline of mathematics. This relates to the notion of schemas (Skemp, 1987). Arguably, persons who reach AE have well-developed schemas that allow them to draw on a range of interconnected concepts when using proof strategies. Likewise, the action repertoires necessary for the development of concepts are necessary for achievement excellence, but they do not guarantee it. According to Ziegler (2005), the early and rapid attainment of concepts helps the individual to reach the critical state of giftedness, but further development is necessary for achievement excellence. Many cultures view exceptionality not in terms of the outcomes of individuals but as the characteristic of groups of individuals (see Phillipson & McCann, 2007). A community of mathematicians (Van Bendegem & Van Kerkhove, 2004) can be viewed as a sub-culture, with membership of a limited number of individuals. Exceptional achievement in these communities may be the result of interactions

33

Understanding Mathematical Giftedness

between members of this community. Watts (2003), for example, describes how the development of the mathematics of small world networks was achieved through the interactions of researchers from several different disciplines. Although the AMG is primarily a description of the development of an individual toward AE, the model also recognized that AE may depend on the interactions of several actiotopes. Ziegler (2005) coined the term sociotope (p. 431) to reflect this interaction.

Subjective Action Space In addition to the development of action repertoires, affective aspects are likely to impact on the development of mathematical giftedness. Such aspects include selfefficacy, self-esteem, motivation, orientation to learning and attributions of mathematical competence.

Motivation and Goals People are motivated by needs, some of which are innate, such as food, sleep and so on. Mathematics, on the other hand, is a learned behavior, and motivation to learn mathematics will come from two sources. Extrinsic motivation refers to those actions outside the person, such as desire for status or money, both of which can be motivators for adults learning mathematics who see mathematics as a tool for satisfying their needs. Intrinsic motivation, on the other hand, refers to the internal satisfaction that a person may get from engaging in mathematical activity and is likely to be the motivation that encourages mathematicians (Skemp, 1987). Dweck (1986) argued that motivation to succeed can come from setting two different types of goals. Performance goals are set by individuals who seek to increase others’ opinions of their competence whereas learning goals are those in which the individual seeks to improve or master something new. Individuals who set performance goals, that is, those who are more likely to be extrinsically motivated, tend to use less sophisticated learning strategies, such as rote learning (Skemp, 1987; Kohn, 1993), and to perform less well than those who are intrinsically motivated to learn (Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 1994). It would seem likely those persons who reach AE set learning

687

goals and are intrinsically motivated by mathematics. In terms of reaching AE in mathematics, lack of opportunity to learn mathematics in ways that develop intrinsic motivation is likely to inhibit the development of mathematical talent (Stolp, 2005).

Beliefs About and Attitudes Toward Mathematics Beliefs and attitudes relating to mathematics are recognized as affecting mathematical learning. The most widely used instrument for identifying attitudes toward and beliefs about mathematics is the Fennema– Sherman Mathematics Attitude Scales (Fennema & Sherman, 1976). Many recent studies from various parts of the world have confirmed earlier work that beliefs and attitudes in mathematics tend to be gendered, that is, different between males and females (Forgasz, Leder, & Kloosterman, 2004). There are beliefs about mathematics as a male domain (e.g., Andre, Whigham, Hendrickson, & Chambers, 1999; Barkatsas, Forgasz, & Leder, 2002), that boys do not need to work at mathematics whereas girls do (Magnusdottir, 2005 cited in Steinhorsdottir & Sriraman, 2006) and that girls have less belief in their capacity to do mathematics and higher levels of anxiety (Wiest, 2004). Many of these beliefs are also held by parents (Leedy, LaLonde, & Runk, 2003). Of interest here is that these gender stereotypic beliefs are similar for students identified as gifted (Leder, 2004). This finding is somewhat surprising but indicates that beliefs about mathematics and attitudes toward mathematics are deep seated and likely to be influenced by societal factors more than ability.

Self-Efficacy and Self-Esteem The effect of self-efficacy beliefs on success in mathematics has been established in a variety of contexts (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Hackett & Betz, 1989). High selfefficacy in relation to mathematical problem solving has been found to be a substantial predictor of success, for example (Pajares & Miller, 1994). Of particular relevance here is the finding that general ability strongly affected students’ self-efficacy in relation to mathematics (Pajares & Kranzler, 1995). Further, when Pajares (1996) compared the self-efficacy of middle school students identified as gifted with that of

688

their peers, he found that gifted students had higher self-efficacy and lower anxiety in relation to mathematics. In this study, sex did not appear to affect performance among regular students, but there was a direct effect, favoring boys, on self-efficacy. Among the gifted group, however, sex, favoring girls, had a significant effect on performance, but did not affect selfefficacy. Since self-efficacy should increase with performance, the finding that when girls outperformed boys in mathematics they had similar self-efficacy to those girls who did not achieve highly suggests that other factors are coming into play. As in other studies of beliefs, girls identified as gifted tended to show underconfidence. Similar findings have been reported from elsewhere. For example, a recent study from Germany suggested that in terms of mathematical performance, there is a convergence between girls and boys in high schools to the extent that girls tend to perform slightly better (Schober, Reimann, & Wagner, 2004). Other factors, however, such as confidence, remain lower in girls, confirming findings from international studies such as PISA (OECD, 2004a). Hong and Aqui (2004) found no differences in beliefs about their ability in mathematics among three groups of high school students that they characterized as non-gifted, academically gifted and creatively talented in mathematics. The two groups identified as academically gifted and creatively talented, however, perceived themselves to have high mathematical ability and self-efficacy and valued learning mathematics more highly than non-gifted students. Attitudes and beliefs, including self-efficacy and self-confidence, appear to be mediated by societal values. For example, middle years’ students in the United States rank highly in terms of feeling confident about mathematics but perform poorly compared with some Asian countries such as Korea and Singapore. In these high achieving Asian countries, however, students do not feel confident, even though they have high performance levels (Loveless, 2006). A Finnish study considered the attributions of effort and ability to success in mathematics, comparing three different groups. Effort was found to be more important than ability in all groups, including Mathematics Olympians, highly achieving high school students and practically oriented polytechnic students, and girls in all groups were more likely to state this than boys (Nokelainen, Tirri, & Merenti-V¨alim¨aki, 2002). Similar findings have been reported from other countries (e.g., Chan, 1996; Feng,

S.N. Phillipson and R. Callingham

Campbell, & Verna, 2001; Tirri, Nokelainen, & Campbell, 2002). There appears to be a complex interaction effect between ability and affect that may influence the likelihood of achieving AE in the mathematical domain, and this may be particularly true for girls. Having considered aspects of action repertoires and subjective action space in the domain of mathematics, the next section addresses aspects of the environment that may support or inhibit the development of mathematical talent and giftedness.

Environmental Aspects in the Achievement of Mathematical Excellence The AMG specifically emphasizes interactions with the environment, including education, with the expansion of the action repertoires. The role of education in the movement toward AE is clearly important, but there are many different aspects of education that may play a part, as well as other environmental factors such as family support and culture. In this section we consider some of the environmental factors that have been found to have an impact on the development of mathematical talent.

Learning Environment The different organizational arrangements of schools may play a part in the mathematical development of gifted students. There are three common models of schooling: heterogeneous classes generally grouped by age, streaming, setting or tracking classes grouped by some measure of ability and acceleration where particular groups of students study the implemented curriculum but at a faster rate than their age peers. Where classes are grouped by ability, the curriculum may be the same but studied at a faster rate, or it may be designed to provide greater depth or breadth in mathematics. Each of these arrangements may impact the growth of mathematical achievement. Regardless of organization, good quality instruction is needed that meets the needs of gifted students. One problem, however, is that there are few research studies on the effectiveness of different approaches to teaching or

33

Understanding Mathematical Giftedness

organizational structures on mathematical giftedness (Stepanek, 1999). Streaming, tracking or setting is sufficiently well established in high schools in most countries of the world to be considered the norm. In addition, some countries also have separated classes for highly able students, although this is less common. In a three-country study undertaken as part of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), Stevenson and Nerison-Low (1998) found that although tracking or streaming was undertaken in Germany, Japan and the United States, different approaches were available for gifted students. The education systems of Germany and Japan ensured that gifted students were assigned to the highest classes, ensuring challenging mathematics for the most able students. In the United States, acceleration was the most common approach, with students missing whole grades where appropriate. In addition, all three countries had extra-curricula programs available for students displaying mathematical gifts. Acceleration of talented individuals has been pursued for several decades, particularly in the United States (see Brody, this volume; Colangelo et al., this volume; Noble et al., this volume). There is evidence from various sources that those students who were accelerated achieve at high levels later, suggesting the attainment of AE in mathematics or mathematically related domains (e.g., BleskeRechek, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2004; Ma, 2005). Precocious students whose progress was followed over time not only achieved highly but also reported satisfaction with their increased intellectual challenge (Lubinski, Webb, Morelock, & Benbow, 2001). Current curriculum documents, however, support catering for differences within heterogeneous classes (see Sriraman & Dahl, this volume). This perspective arises from a view of education as inclusive of all individuals, regardless of capacity, embedded in the UNESCO Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994). The most common attempt within heterogeneous classes to cater for mathematically gifted students is differentiation of the curriculum. Reed (2004) provides a description of various ways in which a teacher provided differentiation, including provision of extension, investigative tasks and student-negotiated activities. These approaches are consistent with views about the nature of mathe-

689

matics teaching in schools. Mathematical modeling has developed with the advent of advanced computer applications and is now widely used in a wide range of disciplines. It is argued that school mathematics should also become integrated, mimicking the ways in which mathematics is used in society (Sriraman & Dahl, this volume). An alternative view expressed by many mathematicians is that young students need to learn the underpinning mathematical skills and knowledge, termed the “Big Picture,” before addressing integrated themes (Burton, 1999a). Associated with the ideas of an integrated approach, drawing on multiple disciplines, is the pedagogy of cooperative learning. Cooperative learning has been promoted as one way of developing the skills of team work and working with others, which are recognized as necessary to society. Neber, Finsterwald, and Urban (2001) undertook a meta-analysis of 12 published studies of cooperative learning with gifted students. Despite criticism on the grounds of methodology, they concluded that cooperative learning did have the potential to improve the quality of gifted students’ classroom experience. Students who are mathematically gifted have been reported as being bored or unchallenged in mathematics classrooms, often leading to disengagement and underachievement (Stoeger & Ziegler, 2005). The causes of underachievement are complex, but one major reason appears to be lack of motivation (Dai, Moon, & Feldhusen, 1998). Some gifted students may also have specific learning problems, leading to their potential for development toward AE being overlooked in the effort to reduce any disability (Reis & McCoach, 2002). A particular tension unique to talented mathematics students is that between effectiveness and elegance in their problem solutions. Koichu and Berman (2005) argued that students should be able to appreciate the aesthetics of mathematics, and by recognizing and articulating the conflict between using powerful, effective problem-solving strategies that reduce an unusual problem to one that is routine and the struggle to bring original and creative approaches to bear on a given problem may help to elucidate the kinds of thinking that gifted individuals use. Pedagogical approaches that are effective for gifted students are difficult to identify but it does seem that these students need to feel challenged and intellectually engaged.

690

Social Support In addition to the diverse approaches taken by systems and schools to cater for the educational needs of mathematically gifted students, support from family and mentors is also likely to be crucial. Students gifted in mathematics may be subject to more pressure than other kinds of gifted students because of the negative attitudes toward mathematics in the general community, and mathematically gifted girls may be particularly vulnerable to negative perceptions (Damarin, 2000). Hence, if they are to achieve AE, mathematically gifted students will need to be resilient. Mentoring does appear to be an important and effective approach to supporting mathematically gifted students, and this may be particularly important for female students. Mentoring provides more than intellectual support and can influence students’ career choices and future development. Students who experience working with a mentor value the experience highly (Casey, 2000). Family support also seems to be more effective for female students than male students, and girls from high socio-economic status families are more likely to achieve (Verna & Campbell, 1999). An unusual study from Iceland, however, indicates that the mathematically gifted are more likely to suffer from and have a family history of psychosis, suggesting some genetic factor at work (Karlsson, 1999).

Technology The use of computer-based technology in mathematics classrooms has been the subject of research for a considerable period of time. The nature of the program appears to play a part, with Integrated Learning Systems that provide practice at different grade levels and keep track of students’ performances apparently being the most effective (Kulik, 2002). Their effectiveness with gifted students has been questioned, however, with the benefits reportedly being greater for low achievers (Pisapia, 1993). Using technology in innovative ways, however, could provide opportunities for mathematically gifted students to engage in solving interesting and motivating problems (e.g., Asp & Stacey, 2006). Many programs for mathematically gifted students advocate the use of technology as a mo-

S.N. Phillipson and R. Callingham

tivator but there appears to be little research on their effectiveness with groups of gifted students.

Discussion In this chapter, we use the AMG to describe the development of achievement eminence in mathematics, recognizing that this application could be extended to any other domain. The focus of this chapter is to describe the interactions of self (action repertoires, subjective action space, goals) and the wider learning environment within an individual’s Actiotope. As noted earlier, an Actiotope reflects a personal rather than a generalized trajectory. At this stage, we can only discuss in broad terms the aspects of the Actiotope that may be important in the attainment of mathematical excellence in any one individual, but we have attempted to identify factors that may play a part using the AMG as a framework. The dependence of more advanced mathematical skills (or actions) on the simple number skills reflecting the two core systems of number, and including numerosity, use of number words, additive and subtractive expectations and ordinality, remains speculative. Underpinning these number skills is the mental number line, where some studies seem to indicate changes during its maturation from logarithmic to linear scaling as well as dependence on language, whereas other studies do not. In participants so far studied, the number line is orientated from left to right and the behavior that is dependent on this orientation, the SNARC effect, may be mediated by the hormone testosterone (Bull & Benson, 2006), leaving open the possibility of a biological origin of sex differences in later tests of cognitive ability (Benbow, 1988, 1992; Benbow & Stanley, 1980; Benbow et al., 2000). When considered in relation to the subjective action space evidence, however, physical effects alone may be too simplistic. The evidence that mathematically gifted girls have the same self-efficacy as girls not so identified suggests some other factors at play. The “nature/nurture” debate still appears relevant in the area of mathematical giftedness. This is clearly a potentially productive area of future research if it can bring together the various kinds of research paradigms and areas of expertise. Mathematical actions are observable in infants from as young as 5 months old, well before the child begins

33

Understanding Mathematical Giftedness

formal schooling. Differences in the actions of one 5year-old child in comparison with other 5 year olds, for example, may be interpreted as arithmetic precocity, or delay, depending on the stage of development and when the behavior is first noted. The different behaviors may, in turn, produce different expectations in parents and teachers, with the precocious individual expected to persist in their difference – the beginning of environmental influences on the actions of the child, including the setting of goals and expectations. The link between the behaviors reflecting number sense and later skills in higher level mathematics, much less mathematical talent, giftedness and expertise, remains speculative but should be the subject of research. In particular, the role of dishabituation and/or miscues in the inhibition of the normal development of number sense and the extent to which this may delay future mathematical development is one potentially fruitful area of research. Furthermore, the speculation that the interplay between the two core systems of precision and approximation is necessary for higher level and abstract mathematics (Dehaene et al., 1998, 1999; Feigenson et al., 2004) warrants a research effort. Although language has been implicated in the development of number sense, again further research is required in order to fully understand the relationship between language and the operational mental number line in, for example, speakers of Asian languages and their subsequent mathematical achievement. The actions and cognitive skills that are directly responsible for achievement in mathematics at the school level are better understood and include memory, computation skills, logical reasoning, spatial cognition, creativity and intuition. According to the AMG, the adaptations, expansions and additions to these skills in any one individual occur in the identification of necessary goals and motivational aspects of self, as well as selfassessments of the usefulness of these cognitive and behavioral skills (the subjective action space). In terms of the CSG, the actions are personal and not environmental processes, temporally precede the AE, fulfill the inus condition and hold some significance for AE – although at the same time the actions do not guarantee AE (see earlier, this chapter). The role of education (helping to set student goals, teaching styles, curriculum and pacing) and the wider environment (parents, mentors, cultures) in the Actiotope play two important roles in the development of AE. The first is in helping to shape the subjective ac-

691

tion space of the individual (particularly self-efficacy, self-esteem, short-term goals, goal orientations) and in the expansion and adaptations of action repertoires. The second role concerns the motivational profiles and longer-term goal setting of the individual toward mathematical talent and giftedness. Important here are the different expectations placed on boys and girls in different cultures. Goals may be explicitly or implicitly presented and include aesthetic and/or utilitarian perspectives. Benbow et al.’s (2000) follow-up study of 2,752 participants representing the top 1% of students in their Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) regarded exceptional educational outcomes in terms of the degrees (bachelors or doctorates) that were achieved by the (then) 33 year olds. Other aspects of the study included their career choices with many of the top choices being non-mathematical areas such as executives and administrators, medical doctors and health care professionals as well as engineers and, mathematics and computer science, secondary teachers. Only a very small percentage entered academe. Clearly, many of the final occupations of the mathematically precocious youth, males and females, included membership in mathematical communities (Van Bendegem & Van Kerkhove, 2004), as well as emphasizing the possible embeddedness of mathematics in other occupations such as business and sciences. Benbow et al. did not, however, determine eminence in the sense that their subjects distinguished themselves in their chosen occupation. Despite the participants being in the top 1% of mathematical ability at age 13 years, the lack of eminence, in the sense of being distinguished in their field, is surprising, suggesting that other factors are at work. At age 33 years, however, many of these participants would still be in the early stages of their careers and their Actiotopes would still be developing. A valuable area of research would be to investigate how their precocity and subsequent training have helped to distinguish them in their current occupations and in doing so more clearly define the reference points of AE in each occupation as required by the AMG.. In modeling the trajectory toward AE in mathematics using the AMG, future research may benefit from computer modeling of the complex interactions of an individual’s Actiotope using cognition and multi-agent modeling tools such as SOAR or ACT-R (Sun, 2006). These tools could supplement the

692

approach described in Stoeger and Ziegler (2005) and Ziegler and Stoeger (2004) in describing the current and likely development of an individual’s Actiotope and the ultimate attainment of eminence in mathematics. These models require a deeper characterization of the individual components of the Actiotope and the interactions between these components within an educational and cultural environment in relation to short- and long-term goals. The models will also require a clear understanding of the different frames of reference of eminence in each of the domains that require mathematics. Much of this characterization has already been reported in both the psychological and educational literature although the modeling itself remains to be attempted. Although the content of this chapter has been our personal choice, the use of the AMG has given us an invaluable framework within which to both identify areas on which to focus and to illuminate the lack of communication between the different fields of research that we considered. It is notable, for example, that the work on brain research is not often used to inform education planning, or that developmental approaches widely observed in education are not well articulated with psychology. One possible reason for this lack of communication is that it is often not clear how this research fits into an educational framework. The AMG as a framework for the study of giftedness is sufficiently flexible to allow for the description of a range of possible components and their interactions with each other and the wider environment. The framework is developmental, demonstrating a clear beginning and end point and, although a trajectory is described, it does not guarantee AE. It is also significant that the AMG is able to integrate findings from a number of usually disparate fields of research, including child and adult models of mathematical thinking and cognition and their disorders, applied cognitive neuroscience, developmental psychology, mathematics and gifted education. Although Kaufmann and Nuerk (2005) recommended a convergence of similar research programs in order to better understand numerical development, the AMG provides a framework for how this convergence can be achieved. Significantly, the AMG provides a framework for giftedness in other domains, such as intellectual, aesthetic and psychomotor. The AMG identifies tensions between the various components that may enhance or inhibit the expression of action repertoires of any one person. In terms

S.N. Phillipson and R. Callingham

of mathematical giftedness, these tensions include the needs of children and their capabilities, including selfperceptions of capabilities and mathematical knowledge of their teachers, the interdisciplinary nature of mathematics (as evidenced in Benbow et al., 2000), and the misperceptions and prejudices by other people as to the nature of mathematics and, hence, mathematical giftedness. As emphasized in the SMPY, the early provision of an appropriate and continuously provided curriculum is important for the top 1% of identified students. Yet to be determined is the nature of this curriculum, for example, whether it should be the same but faster than for other students, or whether it should be broader, including mathematical topics not generally dealt with in the mainstream curriculum, or deeper, addressing mainstream curriculum content in ways that promote mathematical thinking. Other important tensions include the influence of mentors, cultural aspects of the environment specifically language and attitudes by people in the child’s immediate circle toward the nature and importance of mathematics. We cannot assume, however, that the relative influence of these tensions would be the same at all points of the trajectory or for every individual. Because the AMG is probabilistic in nature, however, the role of “luck” in giftedness (Gagn´e, 2000) is no longer relevant.

Provision for the Mathematically Gifted The use of the AMG not only clarifies potential tensions but also provides information on which those charged with the mathematical education of students might act to develop mathematical talent. Because it avoids the issue of identification, it can provide a “road map” that allows all students to develop what gifts they have. In addition, by considering current research it can point out areas which are unlikely to lead to improvement for particular individuals. For example, talented female students or underachieving male students may benefit from interventions to improve their selfefficacy, but this appears unlikely to help male students identified as talented to develop. Motivation is another important aspect of the subjective action space, and encouraging approaches to mathematics that emphasize the internal satisfaction obtained when a tricky mathematical problem is solved or an elegant solution is ob-

33

Understanding Mathematical Giftedness

tained may be more effective in encouraging further mathematical development than extrinsic rewards. There is also the philosophic issue of provision for the development of mathematical gifts. The separate provision, some might say elitist, approach taken by the MVT:D4 (Brody, this volume) contrasts with the aim of generalized provision for all students enshrined in the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994). Different countries approach these issues differently, and this cultural aspect also impacts the development of mathematical gifts. That such issues have not been considered in the research field may have more to do with research funding models, which are predominantly utilitarian, than lack of interest by researchers. Finally, there are aspects of mathematical giftedness that have not been addressed in this chapter. What aspects of mathematical giftedness are socially valuable, for example, and what are the moral dilemmas created by mathematical gifts? How does research in the area on mathematical giftedness apply in other domains, and what differences can be identified? There are many more potentially interesting and worthwhile questions, and the Actiotope Model of Giftedness appears to provide a useful framework for the exploration of these and other issues.

References Alsawaie, O. N. (2004). Language influence on children’s cognitive number representation. School Science and Mathematics, 104(3), 105–110. Andre, T., Whigham, M., Hendrickson, A., & Chambers, S. (1999). Competency beliefs, positive affect, and gender stereotypes of elementary students and their parents about science versus other school subjects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 719–747. Asp, G., & Stacey, K. (2006) Using dynamic diagrams to motivate and assist problem solving by algebra. In Mathematics – the way forward. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference of the Mathematical Association of Victoria. Melbourne: MAV. Australian Academy of Science. (2006). Mathematics and science: Critical skills for Australia’s future. Melbourne: Author. Accessed December 2006 from http://www.review.ms.unimelb.edu.au/FullReport2006.pdf Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers. (1997). Numeracy = everyone’s business. Report of the Numeracy Education Strategy Development Conference. Adelaide: Author. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

693 Barkatsas, A. N., Forgasz, H. J., & Leder, G. C. (2002). The stereotyping of mathematics: Gender and cultural factors. Themes in Education, 3, 191–216. Barth, H., La Mont, K., Lipton, J. S., Dehaene, S., Kanwisher, N., & Spelke, E. S. (2006). Non-symbolic arithmetic in adults and young children. Cognition, 98(3), 199–222. Benbow, C. P. (1988). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, and possible causes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 169–183, 225–232. Benbow, C. P. (1992). Academic achievement in mathematics and science of students between ages 13 and 23: Are there differences among students in the top one percent of mathematical ability? Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 51– 61. Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. S. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact? Science, 210, 1262–1264. Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (2000). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability at age 13: Their status 20 years later. Psychological Science, 11(6), 474–480. Benoit, L., Lehalle, H., & Jouen, F. (2004). Do young children acquire number words through subitizing or counting? Cognitive Development, 19, 291–307. Bisanz, J., Sherman, J. L., Rasmussen, C., & Ho, E. (2005). Development of arithmetic skills and knowledge in preschool children. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 143–162). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Bishop, A. (1991). Mathematical enculturation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Bleske-Rechek, A., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2004). Meeting the educational needs of special populations: Advanced Placement’s role in developing exceptional human capital. Psychological Science, 15, 217–224. Brannon, E. M. (2002). The development of ordinal numerical knowledge in infancy. Cognition, 83, 223–240. Brannon, E. M. (2005). What animals know about numbers. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 85–107). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Brannon, E. M., & Van de Walle, G. A. (2001). The Development of Ordinal Numerical Competence in Young Children. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 53–81. Brody, L. E., & Stanley, J. C. (2005). Youth who reason exceptionally well mathematically and/or verbally: Using the MVT:D4 model to develop their talents. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2 ed., pp. 20– 37). New York: Cambridge University Press. Bull, R., & Benson, P. (2006). Digit ratio (2D:4D) and the spatial representation of magnitude. Hormones and Behavior, 50, 194–199. Burton, L. (1999a). The practices of mathematicians: What do they tell us about coming to know mathematics? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37(2), 121–143. Burton, L. (1999b). Why is intuition so important to mathematicians but missing from mathematics education? For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(3), 27–32. Butterworth, B. (2000). The mathematical brain. London: Papermac. Callingham, R. (2005). Primary students’ mental computation: Strategies and achievement. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton,

694 D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonough, R. Pierce, & A. Roche (Eds.), Building connections: Research, Theory and Practice (Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 193– 200). Sydney: MERGA. Cantlon, J. F., & Brannon, E. M. (2006). Shared system for ordering small and large numbers in monkeys and humans. Psychological Science, 17(5), 401–406. Carlton, V. L. (1959). An analysis of the educational concepts of fourteen outstanding mathematicians, 1790–1940, in the areas of mental growth and development, creative thinking, and symbolism and meaning, Dissertation Abstracts, 20(06), 2131. Casey, K. M. A. (2000). Mentors’ contributions to gifted adolescents’ affective, social, and vocational development. Roeper Review, 22(4), 227–231. Casey, M. B., Pezaris, E., & Nuttall, R. L. (1992). Spatial ability as a predictor of math achievement. The importance of sex and handedness patterns. Neuropsychologia, 30, 35–45. Castronovo, J., & Seron, X. (2007). Semantic numerical representation in blind subjects: The role of vision in the spatial format of the mental number line. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(1), 101–119. Chalmers, A. F. (1994). What is this thing called Science? (2 ed.). Queensland, Australia: The University of Queensland Press. Chan, L. (1996). Motivational orientations and metacognitive abilities of intellectually gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 184–193. Clearfield, M. W., & Westfahl, S. M.-C. (2006). Familiarization in infants’ perception of addition problems. Journal of Cognition and Development, 7(1), 27–43. Cohen Kadosh, R., Cohen Kadosh, K., Kaas, A., Henik, A., & Goebel, R. (2007). Notation-Dependent and -Independent Representations of Numbers in the Parietal Lobes. Neuron, 53(2), 307–314. Collins, J. (Chair) (2001). The education of gifted children. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Dai, D. Y., Moon, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Achievement motivation and gifted students: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 45–63. Damarin, S. (2000). The mathematically able as a marked category. Gender and Education, 12(1), 69–85. Dehaene, S. (2003). The neural basis of the Weber-Fechner law: A logarithmic mental number line. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 7(4), 145–147. Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396. Dehaene, S., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., & Cohen, L. (1998). Abstract representations of numbers in the animal and human brain. TRENDS in Neurosciences, 21(8), 355–361. Dehaene, S., Spelke, E. S., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R., & Tsivkin, S. (1999). Sources of mathematical thinking: Behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. Science, 284, 970–974. Devlin, K. (2001). As other see us. Mathematical Association of America Online.Accessed January 2007 from http://202.38.126.65/mirror/www/maa.org/devlin/devlin 2 01. html. Diezmann, C. M. (2001, November). The origin and process of mathematical reasoning. Paper presented at the Third International Spearman Conference, Sydney.

S.N. Phillipson and R. Callingham Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2002). Summing up the education of mathematically gifted students. In B. Barton, K. C. Irwin, M. Pfannkuch, & M. O. J. Thomas (Eds.), Mathematics education in the South Pacific (Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 219–226). Sydney: MERGA. Dowker, A. (1996). How important is spatial ability to mathematics? Commentary to Geary, D.C. Sexual selection and sex differences in mathematics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 251. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2007). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. Fayol, M., & Seron, X. (2005). About numerical representations: Insights from neuropsychological, experimental, and evolutionary studies. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 3–22). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Feigenson, L., & Carey, S. (2005). On the limits of infants’ quantification of small object arrays. Cognition, 97, 295–313. Feigenson, L., Carey, S., & Spelke, E. S. (2002). Infants’ discrimination of number vs. continuous extent. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 33–66. Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. S. (2004). Core systems of number. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 8(7), 307–314. Feng, A., Campbell, J., & Verna, M. (2001). The talent development of American physics olympians. Gifted and Talented International, 16(2), 108–114. Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1976). Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitude scales. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 6, 31. (Ms. No. 1225) F´eron, J., Gentaz, E., & Streri, A. (2006). Evidence of amodal representation of samall numbers across visuo-tactile modalities in 5-month-old infants. Cognitive Development, 21(2), 81–92. Fias, W., & Fischer, M. H. (2005). Spatial representation of numbers. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 43–54). New York: Psychology Press. Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics: An educational approach. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Fischer, M. H. (2003). Cognitive representation of negative numbers. Psychological Science, 14(3), 278–282. Forgasz, H. J., Leder, G. C., & Kloosterman, P. (2004). New perspectives on the gender stereotyping of mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(4), 389–420. Foxman, D., & Beishuizen, M. (2002). Mental Calculation methods used by 11-year-olds in different attainment bands: A reanalysis of data from the 1987 APU survey in the UK. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51(1–2), 41–69. Friedman, L. (1995). The space factor in mathematics: Gender differences. Review of Educational Research, 65, 22–50. Gagn´e, F. (2000). Understanding the complex choreography of talent development through DMGT-based analysis. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 55–79). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Geary, D. C., & Brown, S. C. (1991). Cognitive addition: Strategy choice and speed-of-processing differences in gifted,

33

Understanding Mathematical Giftedness

normal, and mathematically disabled children. Developmental Psychology, 27(3), 398–406. Geary, D.C. (1996). Sexual selection and sex differences in mathematical abilities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 229–247. Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Role of parental motivational practices in children’s academic intrinsic motivation and achievement, Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 104–113. Guillen, M. (1983). Bridges to infinity: The human side of mathematics. Los Angles, CA: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc. Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1989). An Exploration of the Mathematics Self-Efficacy/Mathematics Performance Correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 261–273. Hauser, M. D., & Spelke, E. S. (2004). Evolutionary and developmental foundations of human knowledge: A case study of mathematics. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (3rd ed., pp. 853–864). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hersh, R. (1997). What is mathematics, really? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hodent, C., Bryant, P., & Houd´e, O. (2005). Language-specific effects on number computation in toddlers. Developmental Science, 8(5), 420–423. Hogben, L. (1937). Mathematics for the million. London: Allen and Unwin. Hong, E., & Aqui, Y. (2004). Cognitive and motivational characteristics of adolescents gifted in mathematics: Comparisons among students with different types of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 191. Hope, J. A., & Sherrill, J. (1987). Characteristics of unskilled and skilled mental calculators. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18(2), 98–111. Hope, J. A. (1986). Mental computation: Anachronism or basic skill? In H. L. Schoen & M. L. Zweng (Eds.), Estimation and mental computation (1986 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). Reston, VA: MCTM. Houd´e, O., & Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. (2003). Neural foundations of logical and mathematical cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 507–514. Ito, Y., & Hatta, T. (2003). Semantic processing of Arabic, Kanji, and Kana numbers: Evidence from interference in physical and numerical size judgments. Memory & Cognition, 31(3), 360–368. Jacobs, H. R. (1982) Mathematics, a human endeavor: A book for those who think they don’t like the subject. New York: W.H. Freeman. Johnson, D. T. (2000). Teaching mathematics to gifted students in a mixed-ability classroom. ERIC EC Digest #E594. Accessed 20 November 2006 from http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/eric/e594.html Jordan, K. E., & Brannon, E. M. (2006). A common representational system governed by Weber’s law: Nonverbal numerical similarity judgments in 6-year-olds and rhesus macaques. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 95, 215–229. Judge, P. G., Evans, T. A., & Vyas, D. K. (2005). Ordinal representation of numeric quantities by brown Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal behavior processes, 31(1), 79–94.

695 Karlsson J. L. (1999). Relation of mathematical ability to psychosis in Iceland. Clinical Genetics, 56, 447–449. Kaufmann, L., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2005). Numerical development: Current issues and future perspectives. Psychology Science, 47(1), 142–170. Kilpatrick, J. (2005). The many faces of the school mathematics curriculum. Plenary address given at ICMI - EARCOME 3: The 3rd East Asian Regional conference on Mathematics Education. Shanghai: ICMI. Kobayashi, T., Hiraki, K., Mugitani, R., & Hasegawa, T. (2004). Baby arithmetic: One object plus one tone. Cognition, 91(2), B23–B34. Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Koichu, B., & Berman, A. (2005). When do gifted high school students use geometry to solve geometry problems? The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, XVI(4), 168–179. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren (J. Teller, Trans.). In J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirszup (Eds.), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kulik, J. (2002). School mathematics and science programs benefit from instructional technology. Infobrief, 03-301, Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Langer, J., Gillette, P., & Arriaga, R. I. (2003). Toddlers’ cognition of adding and subtracting objects in action and in perception. Cognitive Development, 18(2), 233–246. Leder, G. C. (2004). Gender differences among gifted students: contemporary views. High Ability Studies, 15(1), 103–108. Leedy, M. G., LaLonde, D., & Runk, K. (2003). Gender equity in mathematics: Beliefs of students, parents, and teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 103(6), 285–292. Lefevre, J.-A., Lei, Q. W., & Smith-Chant, B. L. (2001). Multiplication by eye and ear for Chinese-speaking and Englishspeaking adults. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(4), 277–284. Lipton, J. S., & Spelke, E. S. (2003). Origins of number sense: Large-number discrimination in human infants. Psychological Science, 14(5), 396–401. Lipton, J. S., & Spelke, E. S. (2006). Preschool children master the logic of number word meanings. Cognition, 98(3), B57– B66. Lohman, D. F., & Korb, K. A. (2006). Gifted today but not tomorrow? Longitudinal changes in ITBS and CogAT scores during elementary school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 451–484. Loveless, T. (2006). The 2006 Brown Center report on American education: How well are our students learning? Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 718–729. Ma, X. (2005, April). Effects of early acceleration of students in mathematics on mathematics coursework. Paper presented at the International Statistical Institute, 55th session, Sydney. Maclellan, E. (1997). The importance of counting. In I. Thompson (Ed.), Teaching and learning early number (pp. 33–40). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press ´ veit alveg fullt of hlutum en Magnusdottir, B. R. (2005). “Eg . . .”. Hin kynjaða greindarorðræða og birtingarmyndir hen-

696 nar meðal unglinga ´ı bekkjadeild [“I know lots of things but . . .”. The gendered discourse among classroom teenagers5]. In A. H. Jonsdottir, S. H. Larusdottir, & Th. Thordardottir (Eds.), Kynjamyndir i skolastarfi (pp. 151–172) Reykjavik, Iceland: Iceland University of Education. Mankiewicz, R. (2001). The story of mathematics. London, UK: Cassell Paperbacks. Mann, E. L. (2005). Mathematical creativity and school mathematics: Indicators of mathematical creativity in middle school students. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut. Accessed December 2006 from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/Dissertations/Eric%20 Mann.pdf Mason, J. (1992). Doing and construing mathematics in screenspace. In B. Southwell, B. Perry, & K. Owens (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia (pp. 1–17). Sydney: University of Western Sydney. McCrink, K., & Wynn, K. (2004). Large-number addition and subtraction by 9-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 15(11), 776–781. Menninger, K. (1969). Number words and number symbols: A cultural history of numbers. Translated from the 1958 revised German edition by Paul Broneer. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. Miller, K., Major, S. M., Shu, H., & Zhang, H. (2000). Ordinal knowledge: Number names and number concepts in Chinese and English. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54(2), 129–139. Moore, D. S., & Cocas, L. A. (2006). Perception precedes computation: Can familiarity preferences explain apparent calculation by human infants? Developmental Psychology, 42(4), 666–678. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (2005) TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report. Boston: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study School. Munn, P. (1997). Children’s beliefs about counting. In I. Thompson (Ed.), Teaching and learning early number (pp. 9–20). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Nasar, S. (1998). A Beautiful Mind: A Biography of John Forbes Nash, Jr., Winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, 1994. New York: Simon and Schuster. National Council on Education and the Disciplines. (2001). Mathematics and democracy: The case for quantitative literacy. Princeton, NJ: Woodrow Wilson Foundation. Neber, H., Finsterwald, M., & Urban, N. (2001). Cooperative learning with gifted and high-achieving students: A review and meta-analyses of 12 studies. High Ability Studies, 12(2), 199–214. Nieder, A. (2005). Counting on neurons: the neurobiology of numerical competence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(3), 1– 14. Nieder, A., Freedman, D. J., & Miller, E. K. (2002). Representation of the Quantity of Visual Items in the Primate Prefrontal Cortex. Science, 297(5587), 1708–1711. Niederer, K., Irwin, R. J., Irwin, K. C., & Reilly, I. L. (2003). Identification of mathematically gifted children in New Zealand. High Ability Studies, 14(1), 71–84. No¨el, M.-P., Rouselle, L., & Mussolin, C. (2004). Magnitude representation in children: Its development and dysfunction. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 179–195). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

S.N. Phillipson and R. Callingham Nokelainen, P., Tirri, K., & Merenti-V¨alim¨aki, H. (2002). SelfAttributions of Mathematically Gifted. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Self-Concept Research Conference. University of Western Sydney, Self Research Center. Nuerk, H.-C., Weger, U., & Willmes, K. (2005). Language effects in magnitude comparison: Small, but not irrelevant. Brain & Language, 92(3), 262–277. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2004a). Learning for tomorrow’s world. First results from PISA 2003. Paris: Author. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2004b). Problem solving for tomorrow’s world. First measures of cross-curricular competencies from PISA 2003. Paris: Author. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2006). Evolution of student interest in science and technology studies. Policy report. Paris: Author. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). PISA Online (2000). Mathematical literacy. Retrieved January 22 2004 from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pisa/math.htm Orlov, T., Amit, D. J., Yakovlev, V., Zohary, E., & Hochstein, S. (2006). Memory of ordinal number categories in Macaque monkeys. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(3), 399– 417. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-Efficacy beliefs and mathematical problem-solving of gifted students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 325–344. Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 426–443. Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). The role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem-solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193–203. Phillipson, S. N. (2004). Analogue equivalents in number processing of simple arithmetic sums. Educational Psychology, 24(2), 217–229. Phillipson, S. N., & McCann, M. (Eds.). (2007). Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives. Marwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Piaget, J. (1952). The child’s conception of number. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul. Pickover, C. A. (1995). Keys to infinity. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: how can we characterise it and how can we represent it? In P. Cobb (Ed.), Learning mathematics: constructivist and interactionist theories of mathematical development (pp. 61–86). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pisapia, J. (1993). Learning technologies and student performance. MERC Research Brief. Available http://www.soe.vcu.edu/merc/briefs/brief4.htm Presmeg, N. C. (1986). Visualization in high school mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(3), 42–46. Rasmussen, C., Ho, E., Nicoladis, E., Leung, J., & Bisanz, J. (2006). Is the Chinese Number-Naming System Transparent? Evidence from Chinese-English Bilingual Children. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(1), 60–67. Reimer, L., & Reimer, W. (1990). Mathematicians are people, too: Stories from the lives of great mathematicians. Parsippany, NJ: Dale Seymour Publications.

33

Understanding Mathematical Giftedness

Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2002). Underachievement in gifted and talented students with special needs. Exceptionality, 10(2), 113–125. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). New York: Cambridge University Press. Resnick, M. D. (1999). Mathematics as a science of patterns. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Royer, J. M., Tronsky, L. N., Chan, Y., Jackson, S. J., & Marchant, H. (1999). Math-fact retrieval as the cognitive mechanism underlying gender differences in math test performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 181–266. Sawamura, H., Shima, K., & Tanji, J. (2002). Numerical representation for action in the parietal cortex of the monkey. Nature, 415(6874), 918–922. Schober, B., Reimann, R., & Wagner, P. (2004). Is research on gender-specific underachievement in gifted girls an obsolete topic? New findings on an often discussed issue. High Ability Studies, 15(1), 43–62. Seron, X., Pesenti, M., No¨el, M.-P., Deloche, G., & Cornet, J. A. (1992). Images of numbers, or ‘when 98 is upper left and 6 is sky blue’. Cognition, 44, 159–196. Shapiro, S. (2000). Philosophy of mathematics: Structure and ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Siegler, R. S., & Booth, J. L. (2004). Development of numerical estimation in young children. Child Development, 75(2), 428–444. Siemon, D., Virgona J., & Corneille, K. (2001). The middle years numeracy research project: 5–9. Final report. Melbourne: RMIT University. Accessed 20 November 2006 from http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/curricman/ middleyear/research/MYNumeracyreport010401.doc Silva, C. M., Moses, R. P., Rivers, J., & Johnson, P. (1990). The algebra project: Making middle school mathematics count. The Journal of Negro Education, 59(3) 375–391. Singh, S. (1997). Fermat’s last theorem. London: Fourth Estate. Skemp R. R. (1976). Relational and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26. Skemp, R. R. (1987). The psychology of learning mathematics. (Expanded American Edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Steinhorsdottir, O. J, & Sriraman, B. (2006). Iceland and rural/urban girls- PISA 2003 examined from an emancipatory viewpoint. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, Monograph 1 (pp. 169–178). Accessed December 2006 from http://www.math.umt.edu/TMME/Monograph1/ Stepanek, J. (1999). Meeting the needs of gifted students: Differentiating mathematics and science instruction. Portland, OR: Mathematics and Science Education Center, North-West Regional Educational Laboratory. Stevenson, H. W., & Nerison-Low, R. (1998). To sum it up: Case studies of education in Germany, Japan, and the United States. National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and Assessment, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Available from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/SAI

697 Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2005). Evaluation of an elementary classroom self-regulated learning program for gifted mathematics underachievers. International Education Journal, 6(2), 261–271. Stolp, D. (2005). Mathematics miseducation: The case against a tired tradition. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Education. Sun, R. (Ed.). (2006). Cognition and multi-agent interaction: From cognitive modeling to social simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, N. D., & Mulligan, J. T. (1995). Dynamic imagery in children’s representations of number. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 7(1), 5–25. Thomas, N. D., Mulligan, J. T., & Goldin, G. A. (2002). Children’s representation and structural development of the counting sequence 1–100. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 117–133. Thomson, S., Cresswell, J., & De Bortoli, L. J. (2004). Facing the future: A focus on mathematical literacy among Australian 15-year-old students in PISA 2003. Melbourne: ACER. Tirri, K., Nokelainen, P., & Campbell, J. (2002). Crosscultural findings of computer literacy among the academic olympians. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, April 3, 2002, New Orleans, USA. Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E.C., & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Salamanca: UNESCO and Ministry of Education and Science, Spain. Van Bendegem, J. P., & Van Kerkhove, B. (2004). The unreasonable richness of mathematics. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(3/4), 525–549. Verna, M. A. & Campbell, J. R. (1999). Differential achievement patterns between gifted male and gifted female high school students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 10(4), 184–195. Watts, D. J. (2003). Six degrees. The science of a connected age. London: Heinemann. Wieczerkowski, W., Cropley, A. J., & Prado, T. M. (2000). Nurturing Talents/Gifts in Mathematics. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2 ed., pp. 413–425). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Wiest, L. R. (2004). The critical role of an informal mathematics program for girls. Paper presented at the quadrennial conference of the International Congress on Mathematical Education (ICME 10), Copenhagen, Denmark. Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist 55(1), 159–169. Wood, J. N., & Spelke, E. S. (2005). Infants’ enumeration of actions: Numerical discrimination and its signature limits. Developmental Science, 8(2), 173–181. Wynn, K. (1992). Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature, 358, 749–750. Xu, F., Spelke, E. S., & Goddard, S. (2005). Number sense in human infants. Developmental Science, 8(1), 88–101.

698 Ziegler, A. (2005). The Actiotope Model of Giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Ed.), Conceptions of Giftedness (2 ed., pp. 411–436). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A., & Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2 ed., pp. 3–21). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

S.N. Phillipson and R. Callingham Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (2004). Identification based on ENTER within the conceptual framework of the Actiotope Model of Giftedness. Psychology Science, 46(3), 324–341. Zorzi, M., Priftis, K., Meneghello, F., Marenzi, R., & Umilt`a, C. (2006). The spatial representation of numerical and nonnumerical sequences: Evidence from neglect. Neuropsychologia, 44, 1061–1067.

Chapter 34

Cinema Talent: Individual and Collective Dean Keith Simonton

Abstract Cinema is an unusual form of achievement in that it involves both (a) extensive collaborative effort and (b) considerable financial resources. A series of investigations examines the operation of both these characteristics in large samples of award-winning films. These empirical studies reveal the multidimensional complexity of cinematic products and indicate the dimensions that are most critical for understanding individual contributions to the collective products. Especially crucial are those who contribute to the dramatic qualities of film, especially the screenplay and direction. Hence, future research should focus on the factors that underlie giftedness and talent in screenwriters and directors. Keywords Cinema · Cinema talent · Award-winning films · Cinematic products · Individual contributions · Collective products · Screenplay · Screenwriters · Cinema directors

Introduction Cinema has a very distinctive place in the arts. In the first place, it can be considered as the single most significant new art form to appear since the advent of opera in the late 16th century. Sculpture, architecture, painting, poetry, drama, fiction, and music all go back millennia, whereas the first feature-length films appeared only about a century ago. Hence, filmmaking must be considered a relatively new form of talent. D.K. Simonton (B) University of California at Davis, Davis, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Moreover, cinematic creativity is inherently a collective endeavor. For most works of art a single creator can conceive and even execute a piece (with or without the help of assistants or subordinates), whereas it is impossible for the typical feature film to emerge from a sole intellect, no matter how talented. On the contrary, each motion picture represents the collaborative contributions of dozens of creators, talents, and technicians. Films are often the joint product of screenwriters, directors, actors, cinematographers, editors, production designers, costume designers, make-up artists, experts in special visual effects, sound engineers, sound editors, composers, and even song writers. Just think of how long the credits roll at the end of any feature film. How does that compare to the name below the title of a poem or the signature at the bottom of a painting? The collective nature of cinema means that we must speak of several distinct kinds of talent, including how that talent combines into a group product. The required teamwork may also suggest that some of the talent resides in a synergistic relationship among the collaborators. Moreover, cinema is not just a form of artistic expression but also a particular type of potentially lucrative business enterprise. Most films are designed to make money, and the most successful films make lots of money. Indeed, many filmmakers have gotten very rich in the movie business, as the lavish lifestyles of Hollywood moguls amply illustrate. Yet this financial aspect of film has a dark side: A mainstream narrative movie costs a tremendous amount to make – sometimes exceeding a $100 million. These production costs indicate that a film can do well in the box office and still lose money. In fact, the rule of thumb in the industry is that 7 out of 10 movies will lose money. Needless to say, only a rare few will rise to the status of genuine

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 34, 

699

700

blockbusters. Ironically, those films that become box office hits are not necessarily those that receive critical acclaim, and some films that earn rave reviews may totally bomb in the theaters. This implies that there may be two forms of cinematic talent, one concerning aesthetic creativity and the other concerning entrepreneurial leadership (Hirschman & Pieros, 1985; Holbrook, 1999). These special features may help explain why very little empirical research concerns cinematic talent, creativity, or genius. The bulk of the literature is devoted to (a) cinematic aesthetics, (b) the cinema as an indicator of trends in popular culture, and (c) psychoanalytic interpretations of film content. However, in the past several years some scientists have taken interest in cinema as a distinctive form of creativity (Simonton, 2004c; Zickar & Slaughter, 1999). Although much work remains to be done, we have now learned enough to provide a tentative treatment of talent in the cinema. Here I will examine the following four questions: First, what is the nature of the collaborations? Who is collaborating with whom and what is the product of that collaboration? Second, which of these collaborations are most crucial to a film’s success? Are some collective contributions more crucial to a film’s achievement as art while others are more central to a film’s box office performance? Third, to what extent is cinematic success contingent on having a big budget to cover production costs? Is cinematic talent constrained by cash? Or might it be possible that the best filmmakers can make more with less? Fourth, what are the characteristics of the individuals and the group collaborations that contribute to cinematic success? Are there any personal or group traits that have predictive utility with respect to either box office or critical acclaim? After answering these four questions I will conclude with a discussion of the major gaps in our knowledge that should be addressed in future research. But before beginning the review I need to discuss briefly the methodological approach adopted by most studies in this area.

D.K. Simonton

that investigators have to adopt methods that depart significantly from mainstream research (Simonton, 2006). The first departure regards the unit of analysis. Psychologists are most accustomed to studying individuals. Individual children, adolescents, or adults – most often college students – are subjected to various experimental manipulations and psychometric measurements. This practice is consistent with the person definition of creativity, talent, and achievement. However, in the case of film it is often more useful to apply the product definition. After all, it is the cinematic product – the theatrical release – that must undergo evaluation by film critics and the movie-going public. The collective efforts of all of the contributors culminate in that given work. With few exceptions, the unit of analysis for most investigations reported in the chapter will be the single film. A second departure has to do with sampling. In theory, most psychological research uses random samples drawn from a larger population. Of course, in practice we really know that random sampling is seldom employed except in certain kinds of survey research. Most often psychologists rely on convenience or volunteer samples – such as college students earning extra credit when they take an introductory psychology course. Nevertheless, researchers prefer to pretend that their samples are random for the sake of statistical analysis. Studies of cinematic achievement have adopted a very different sampling procedure, namely, significant samples (Simonton, 1999). Rather than sample randomly from the entire population of films these investigations tend to focus on the best exemplars of cinematic achievement. The films are selected because they have done well in the box office, have received sufficient critical acclaim, or have received nominations or awards from professional organizations (e.g., Litman & Ahn, 1998; Simonet, 1980; Simonton, 2002). There are several reasons for adopting this sampling strategy. The most fundamental is simply to ensure that the sample includes the purest cases of the phenomena under study – the blockbusters or critical favorites or best pictures. A random sample drawn from the 500+ films released each year would most likely give the investigator collection of films that were seldom seen and even less appreciated. Even worse, these lesser films would have too many missing data anyway. For example, inUnits, Sampling, and Assessment formation about production costs is most often available for mainstream motion pictures. Hence, signifiPerhaps the main reason why there has been a dearth cant samples will contain the best-known films about of empirical investigations on cinematic achievement is which researchers can obtain the most information.

34

Cinema Talent: Individual and Collective

Third and last departure involves the manner of assessing creativity, talent, or achievement. A great deal of research defines these variables via psychometric instruments, such as intelligence, creativity, and achievement tests (e.g., Getzels & Jackson, 1962; Lubinski, Webb, Morelock, & Benbow, 2001; Terman, 1925). Yet this is not the only available operational definition. A reasonable alternative is to use receipt of major awards. For instance, the impact of scientists can be gauged by such honors as the Nobel Prize or election to the National Academy of Sciences (e.g., Feist, 1993; Zuckerman, 1977), a practice that goes all the way back to Francis Galton’s (1874) English Men of Science. In the case of cinematic achievement, the most conspicuous examples are the awards bestowed by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (Simonton, 2002). These annual honors are granted to the leading contributions to all principal categories of cinematic contributions. Yet these “Oscars” are not by any means the sole honors available to differentiated levels of attainment. Several other professional and critical award ceremonies attempt to recognize the most outstanding cinematic accomplishments each year. Although these alternative awards are often seen as rivals to the Academy Awards, empirical research shows that all of the major awards bestowed each year show a substantial consensus, as judged by standard reliability coefficients (Simonton, 2004b). Just as important is the fact that these awards correlate highly with critical evaluations (Simonton, 2004b,c). Hence, award measures are not just reliable but valid besides. Given these three methodological clarifications, we can now turn to the substantive conclusions.

Cinematic Collaborations The Oscars are currently awarded in the following categories: picture, direction, male and female lead, male and female supporting actors, screenplay (both original and adaptation), art direction/set decoration (henceforth just called art direction), costume design, makeup, cinematography, film editing, score (original and adaptation), song, visual effects, sound effects editing, and sound. It should be apparent that some of these categories are closely related. For instance, the director and actors are all on the set together realizing the dramatic action and dialogue portrayed in the screen-

701

play. And the art director must work closely with the costume designer and makeup artist. To the extent that these separate talents are all closely bound in their collaborative effort, it should be the case that the corresponding awards should cluster together. For example, a director may be more likely to get an Oscar if he or she works with Oscar-winning actors. This conjecture was tested on a sample of 1,327 films (Simonton, 2004c). The sample was defined as all English-language, narrative, life-action feature films released between 1968 and 1999 that received special recognition in at least one of the foregoing award categories. In particular, the recognition had to take the form of a nomination or an award from one of the following seven professional societies: (a) the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (a professional honorary organization with a membership now exceeding 6,000 individuals who have received special recognition for their own contributions to filmmaking); (b) the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (or BAFTA, a similar organization with a current membership of over 4,000 individuals actively involved in either film or television production); (c) the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (a society currently consisting of 80 movie journalists representing almost 50 nations); (d) the National Board of Review (an organization made up of teachers, actors, writers, and workers in film production and which publishes the magazine Films in Review); (e) the National Society of Film Critics (currently constituted by 48 leading critics from major US publications and media outlets); (f) the Los Angeles Film Critics Association (whose membership currently includes over 50 critics in the LA area who review movies for newspapers, magazines, television, and online media); and (g) New York Film Critics Circle (consisting of strictly print-only film critics who write for such NYC-based publications as Newsweek, Time, The New Yorker, Village Voice, The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, National Review, Christian Science Monitor, and Rolling Stone). These seven organizations were picked because (a) they all have been in existence for at least a quarter century, (b) they have consistently granted annual awards in most of the major categories, and (c) they focus on widely distributed English-language motion pictures that are most likely to be included in movie/video guides (unlike movies honored at film festivals, such as Cannes, Venice, Berlin, or Sundance).

702

The next step was to quantify measures of the various categories of cinematic achievement for each of the seven award societies. This quantification adopted the simple form of 2 points if the film received an award, 1 point if it received a nomination, and 0 points if it received neither (Simonton, 2004c). This scaling may seem a bit crude, but previous and subsequent research has showed that a 0-1-2 measure does a good job of capturing the underlying dimension (Ginsburgh, 2003; Simonton, 2002, 2004b, 2007b). Specifically, for samples of this kind – films nominated for major awards – the interval between 0 and 1 has about the same consequence as that between 1 and 2. It turns out that the awards for a given category are highly intercorrelated. Despite discrepancies here and there, those who receive the Oscar for best direction also tend to receive comparable recognition from the other six professional societies (i.e., the reliability is 0.76). That high correspondence allows us to add the separate scores for each of the six societies to produce a single composite score for that category. This new score now ranges from 0 to 14 rather than 0 to 2, and hence is a much finer discriminator of relative degrees of accomplishment. The composite score also is independent of any idiosyncrasies of any one award ceremony (e.g., Academy politics or “sympathy votes”; see Bennett & Bennett, 1998). These composite measures could then be subjected to a factor analysis to determine how the various cinematic contributions clustered together. Four distinct factors appeared:

D.K. Simonton

2. The visual cluster defined by the contributors responsible for cinematography, art direction, costume design, and makeup. What all of these collaborators share is involvement in the “look” of a film – how it appears when the sound is turned off. Furthermore, if these talents do not work together the effort of one can undermine the effort of another. For example, all of the imaginative designs of the art director will prove of no avail if the cinematographer decides to slightly underplay their impact in the final images. 3. The technical cluster consists of those persons who make their contributions to visual effects, sound effects editing, and sound. Most of the work contributed by these technicians takes place in complete independence of those involved in either dramatic or visual clusters. Two of the contributions involve the sonic features of the film, while another two concern special effects. 4. The musical cluster involves the score composer and the songwriter. The affinity and cooperative nature of these two contributions require no explanation. Significantly, the work of these two talents often does not enter until after the film is already shot and edited.

The four factors were almost orthogonal, the interfactor correlations ranging from −0.01 (dramatic and technical) to 0.28 (dramatic and visual), with a median correlation of 0.10. Moreover, if composites are generated by adding up the scores for each of the cat1. The dramatic cluster consisted of those contrib- egories defining a cluster, the resulting measures are utors responsible for direction, male lead, female highly reliable, with the possible exception of the mulead, male supporting actor, female supporting ac- sic cluster. In any case, the dramatic, visual, technical, tor, screenplay, and film editing. This cluster makes and musical clusters can be interpreted as representing sense from the standpoint of collaborative effort. the four major talent groups in filmmaking. Although Very often the directors, actors, and writers will the separate achievements within clusters are closely work together, refining the interpretation and even interdependent, the accomplishments between clusters revising the script. The only distinctive addition is are largely independent. For instance, great film music the film editor, yet the film editor often collaborates can be wasted on a dramatically weak film. with the director, and sometimes also with certain screenwriters and actors (i.e., at least those with the power to ensure that they do not “end up on the cutting-room floor”). Indeed, when that working re- Film as Art Versus Film as Business lationship breaks down between the editor and other members of this group, the film often suffers as a re- The outcome discussed in the previous section raises sult (e.g., Orson Welles’ 1942 The Magnificent Am- a very important issue: Which of the four clusters bersons, the editing of which was taken over by the is most responsible for a film’s success? Which the least? Which is irrelevant? These questions cannot be studio).

34

Cinema Talent: Individual and Collective

answered without first accommodating a point implicit in the chapter’s introduction section: There is more than one way to judge cinematic success. In the first place, it is essential to distinguish between film as art and film as business (Simonton, 2005b). Art films are part of that general class of artistic genre that includes literature, the visual arts, and music. The filmmaker’s aim is the expression of ideas or feelings independent of whether the product becomes a blockbuster. Business films, in contrast, are focused on the profit most likely to be generated. The filmmaker’s aspiration is to get rich, or at the very minimum to earn a comfortable living. This goal means that entertainment values must be placed before aesthetic integrity. Hence, cinematic success criteria must be distinguished according to whether they assess artistic merit or financial benefit. Yet even within each of these two categories the criteria can be further subdivided. In the case of film as art there are three main standards: the critical reviews received at time of theatrical release (published in print and electronic form), the cinematic awards usually earned after the release season is over (i.e., the end of December), and the critical evaluations obtained after the film goes into video or DVD format (as recorded in various movie guides). With respect to film as business there are two main methods: the first-weekend domestic gross and the total US domestic gross at the end of the theatrical run. The latter excludes foreign earnings that have somewhat different correlates than domestic box office (Litman & Ahn, 1998). So do these rival criteria of cinematic success relate to the dramatic, visual, technical, and musical talent collaborations? Unfortunately, few investigations assess the impact of these particular clusters, and most research only looks at one criterion at a time. Indeed, most investigators concentrate on box office gross to the exclusion of all other standards of cinematic success (e.g., Terry, Butler, & De’Armond, 2003). Nonetheless, one recent inquiry looked at the relations between the four clusters and all major measures of success (Simonton, 2005a). The sample consisted of 203 films released from 1997 to 2001 that satisfied the same basic sampling criteria as the earlier study. The financial success of each film was accessed by first-weekend earnings and total gross (both domestic and logarithmically transformed). The aesthetic impact of each film was measured in three ways:

703

1. Metacritic scores were adopted from Metacritic (at http://www.metacritic.com/). Here the judgments taken from as many as 40 critical reviews are compiled into a single “metascore” along a 100-point scale. These scores are based on reviews published during the film’s theatrical run. 2. Best picture honors was a composite measure constructed in the same way as the individual measures making up the four clusters (Simonton, 2004c). That is, it was the sum of seven separate measures where 2 points were given for a best picture award, 1 for a nomination in the same category, and 0 if neither. Hence, it could range from 0 to 14. 3. Movie guide ratings were a summary index of film evaluations based on five different movie and/or video guides. Previous investigations have shown that these film evaluations exhibit a substantial consensus (Boor, 1990, 1992; Holbrook, 1999; Simonton, 2004c). Consequently, the five ratings were converted into a single quantitative measure represented by a “5-star” scale in which 5 = “masterpiece” or “classic” and 1 = “turkey” or “bomb.” This assessment represents critical judgment long after the film’s theatrical run (usually by a year or more). Statistical analyses revealed very telling relationships between the four clusters and the five criteria of film success (Simonton, 2005a). On the one hand, the dramatic cluster displayed a strong positive association with all three aesthetic criteria, the Metacritic evaluations, best picture awards, and movie guide ratings (for the latter two, see also Simonton, 2004c). This means that film as art is associated with great screenwriters, directors, actors, and editors. On the other hand, the dramatic cluster was not significantly correlated with first-weekend box office and only had a very small relationship with total box office. The latter effect largely reflects the desire of many moviegoers to see awardwinning and critically acclaimed films. On the other hand, the other three collaborative clusters have minimal relevance. The visual cluster only has a small positive association with best picture honors (see also Simonton, 2004c), while the technical cluster only has a small positive association with box office gross and the musical cluster does not have any association whatsoever with any of the give criteria (see also Simonton, 2007a). Hence, the main message seems to be that the talents making up the dramatic cluster are the primary

704

agents of a film’s artistic success, but are largely irrelevant to the film’s financial success. The original factor analysis had revealed that it was the screenplay that had the biggest factor loading on the dramatic cluster (Simonton, 2004c). Therefore, the screenwriter’s contributions might be especially crucial in discriminating the artistic and business aspects of the cinematic product. This inference was confirmed in a follow-up study in which the sample consisted of 1,436 English-language, narrative films released between 1968 and 2002 (Simonton, 2005b). Various specific characteristics of the screenplay were found to distinguish film as art from film as business. For example, money-making films are less likely to be adaptations from successful plays or to be dramas or to receive an MPAA rating of R (“Restricted”), but they are more likely to be sequels (see also Chang & Ki, 2005; De Vany & Walls, 1999; Ravid, 1999; Sawhney & Eliasberg, 1996). In contrast, artistic films are more likely to be play adaptations, to belong to the genre of drama, and to receive an R rating, but are less likely to be sequels (see also Prag & Casavant, 1994). In other words, artistic productions have a higher likelihood of being focused on a serious message. That same focus tends to be box office poison (see also De Vany & Walls, 2002; Holbrook, 1999; Litman & Kohl, 1989; Medved, 1992; Sochay, 1994). This generalization falls in line with another empirical result, namely, that films which did best by the aesthetic criteria tended to have the directors participate directly in the creation of the movie script, particularly as the sole writer (Simonton, 2005b). This finding supports the “auteur theory” of filmmaking in which the best cinema is conceived by a single creative talent (Blandford, Grant, & Hillier, 2001, pp. 16– 18; see also Allen & Lincoln, 2004). A writer-director has more artistic control over the final product than would be possible from collaboration between a separate writer and director (see also Cattani & Ferriani, in press). This control is enhanced all the more by the fact that the director is second only to the screenwriter in determining the dramatic qualities of a film (Simonton, 2004c). So when the two contributions are found in the same person, the creative input is magnified. This phenomenon can be seen in classic filmmakers like Pedro Almod´ovar, Woody Allen, Ingmar Bergman, Luis Bu˜nuel, Federico Fellini, Franc¸ois Truffaut, and Orson Wells. Despite the prestige associated with such auteurs, films made by writer-directors tend to do much

D.K. Simonton

less well in the box office in comparison to films in which the screenplay and direction responsibilities are assigned to two different talents.

Production Costs and Cinematic Success But to what extent can the film auteur attain artistic success on a minimal budget? Are production costs associated with artistic greatness? Or are big budgets only associated with film as business? Because the vast majority of the research has concentrated on box office success, we now have an abundance of investigations indicating that production costs are strong predictors of financial performance (e.g., Chang & Ki, 2005; De Vany & Walls, 1999; Prag & Casavant, 1994; Simonton, 2005a). This relationship holds for both first-weekend and gross receipts and for both domestic and foreign receipts. So in a business sense money does buy the movie. Although much fewer studies have looked at aesthetic impact, such as critical praise and awards, those investigations suggest that big-budget films are not necessarily great art (Simonton, 2005a). In fact, production costs have no correlation with best picture awards and correlate negatively with critical evaluations, as gauged by both Metacritic and movie guide ratings (Simonton, 2005a). In addition, production costs are positively correlated with winning a “Razzie award” for Worst Picture of the year (Simonton, 2007b). Of course, these findings have to be interpreted with caution. The correlations cannot be said to imply that the lower the budget the better. All of the films in the samples were mainstream products that meet the minimum standards with respect to production values (the Blair Witch Project being the sole exception). Hence, a better conclusion would be that from an artistic perspective big-budget films tend to be inferior to average-budget films. Why? More detailed inquiries have teased out some of the reasons for the aesthetically adverse impact of big budgets. One clue can be found in the correlations between production costs and the film’s score on the four collaborative clusters (Simonton, 2005b). Although the film’s budget correlates positively with the visual, technical, and musical clusters, the correlation with the dramatic cluster is zero (and actually slightly negative). Yet as was pointed out in the previous section, only the dramatic cluster correlates consistently with all aes-

34

Cinema Talent: Individual and Collective

thetic criteria. Hence, when lots of money is thrown into a film, it tends to be thrown in the wrong place. Instead of buying lots of talent with respect to screenplay, direction, acting, and editing, the cash tends to purchase expensive sets, costumes, makeup, and cinematography, costly special effects and sound, and luxurious scores and songs. This misdirection is most evident in the status of the writer-director – the supposed auteur of cinematic achievement. Big-budget films are actually less likely to have one talent participate in both screenwriting and direction roles (Simonton, 2005b). If a producer has money to burn, it seems that the cash is used to get the best persons for each job. And this may even appear, from a business perspective, to be an excellent choice. As noted above, writer-directors are less likely to have good first-weekend and gross earnings. Yet these same talents also tend to produce better works of cinematic art! In fact, big-budget films are less likely to be dramas and to be R rated but more likely to be sequels, differences that corroborate the divide between the two kinds of cinematic product. It is particularly difficult to imagine a true auteur even doing a sequel!

Individual and Collective Talents So far I have focused on how collaborative groups affect a film’s cinematic success by two separate sets of criteria, one aesthetic and the other economic. For example, it was noted that the aesthetic criteria are strongly related to the dramatic cluster of collaborative relationships defined by the screenwriter, the director, the lead and supporting actors, and the film editor. The more awards and nominations received in these categories the higher the film’s critical acclaim and the more awards it receives in the best picture category. At the same time, it was observed that sometimes a degree of individualism takes precedence over collective effort. Most particularly, “auteur” writer-directors who are involved in both screenplay and direction tend to produce superior works of cinematic art in comparison to when those contributions are made by separate talents in a dramatic collaboration. Hence, to understand the role of cinematic talent requires that we examine both individuals and collaborative groups. We then must ask if it is possible to identify the attributes

705

of those individuals or groups that underlie the special talent.

Individual Talent The amount of research on the personal basis of cinematic talent is minimal. With the exception of one study of the life expectancy of Oscar-winning screenwriters (Redelmeier & Singh, 2001) and the personality characteristics of cinematographers (Domino, 1974), the research has concentrated on directors and actors. The rest of the film crew is simply ignored. Perhaps this emphasis is justified by the fact that directors and actors are the two most conspicuous agents behind a cinematic product. When moviegoers are asked to specify the reasons why they go to see a particular film at the theater, they will often mention the actors and less often the director, but will not mention any of the other talents involved in the work (De Silva, 1998; see also Linton & Petrovich, 1988). For instance, people rarely if ever buy a movie ticket because they want to hear the music of a favorite film composer or see the visual virtuosity of a pet cinematographer. As a consequence, in this review I concentrate on directors and actors – all the while lamenting that I must ignore the important contributions of the dozens of other talents who make a film a success.

Directors Earlier I mentioned the theory of the auteur. Although the auteur can be the film producer – Cecil B. De Mille providing a classic case – the designation is most often assigned to the director. The director is the person who has the most responsibility for what actually happens during the filmmaking process. He or she in pre-production, production, and post-production phases will almost invariably have direct contact with all of the other talents involved – not just in the dramatic clusters but in the visual, technical, and musical clusters besides. The director is thus ideally positioned to exert a personal creative impression on the resulting work. If the director is truly functioning as a bona fide auteur, the final film can be almost as personal as

706

a poem, painting, or other forms of individualistic creativity. It is therefore surprising that although there is a lot of research on the characteristics of most artistic creators, there is virtually none on film directors. The sole exception is the work that has concentrated on a single question: the relation between age and directorial achievement. A very large number of empirical and theoretical studies have been devoted to the age–achievement relationship (Simonton, 1988). Indeed, the first scientific study on this question was published in 1835, in an inquiry into the age curve for the output of plays in the careers of eminent English and French dramatists (Qu´etelet, 1835/1968). Regardless of the specific area of creative achievement, the same consistent pattern appears: a single-peaked function described by an “inverted backward-J” curve (Simonton, 1997). In other words, creativity first rises fairly rapidly to a peak somewhere in the late 30s or early 40s and thereafter slowly declines. The same longitudinal pattern holds for directors, at least judging from a study conducted by Lehman (1941) who plotted the ages at which directors made annual “best director” lists. Directors had the highest probability of making the list around ages 35–39. Moreover, the probability of making the list was zero prior to ages 25–29 and became close to zero after ages 55–59. This asymmetrical outcome is very typical; the career peak is closer to the career onset than to the career termination (Simonton, 1997). Interestingly, the same curves emerged regardless of whether Lehman looked at a highly selective list of elite directors. Hence, the peak in the latter half of the 30s holds regardless of the magnitude of the directorial talent. About a half century later these conclusions were largely replicated using slightly different measures and statistical methods (Zickar & Slaughter, 1999). The goal was to calculate the age–achievement curve for 73 Hollywood directors who made at least 20 featurelength films. Each director’s films were evaluated according to the ratings they received from film critics. The investigators then estimated the association between this measure of aesthetic success and the film’s order in the director’s career. As expected, the cinematic performance of the 73 directors was described by the same curvilinear function. In particular, the critical evaluations the films received first increased to a single peak and thereafter declined. The most typical outcome was for a significant decline in performance to set in

D.K. Simonton

after the 10th film. Nevertheless, there were substantial differences across directors in the specific form of this curve. For instance, those directors who had higher rates of cinematic output tended to reach higher levels in peak performance, an effect found for virtually all creative domains (Simonton, 1997). More surprising was the finding that directors who launched their careers with an exceptionally successful film were most likely to exhibit a linear decline in performance rather than rise to a yet higher peak. This subgroup probably represents directors whose initial performance was due to luck, and thus the subsequent decrement can be attributed to regression toward the mean. Taking these two investigations together, it appears that a director’s talent does not grow with increased experience. In other words, it does not increase according to some positive monotonic learning curve (cf., Ohlsson, 1992). In this respect, the career patterns of directors are more like creators than like experts (Simonton, 2000). This result can be interpreted as support for an auteur perspective, at least for the most highly talented directors.

Actors Lehman’s (1941) study also looked at the career trajectory of male and female actors. The trajectory was assessed in two ways, one aesthetic and the other economic. The former involved the age at which an actor was credited with a “best performance” by the editors of a respected industry magazine, whereas the latter concerned the age at which an actor was listed among the top moneymakers. The overall shape of the curves was similar no matter what the criterion. In particular, the same single-peaked function emerged that was found with the directors – the inverted backward-J curve. However, the precise location of the peak and the magnitude of the post-peak decline differed dramatically across genders. On the one hand, for female actors the curve began in the teens, rapidly attained a peak in the late 20s, and then precipitously declined, so that their careers were basically over by the 50s. On the other hand, for male actors the trajectory did not take off until the early 20s, reached a high point in the early 30s, and then dropped off much more gradually, so that the men could still be said to exhibit some talent as money earners or performers well into their 60s. Thus, female actresses launch successful careers earlier than

34

Cinema Talent: Individual and Collective

men do, peak earlier, and have shorter overall careers than men. Subsequent research has replicated various aspects of this last generalization using different methods. For example, one inquiry looked at Oscar winners, Oscar nominees, Emmy winners, and Grammy winners, finding that, on average, the women so honored were younger than the men (Gilberg & Hines, 2000). With respect to just the Academy Awards, women also have a much narrower age interval in which they are likely to win an Oscar (Markson & Taylor, 1993). In particular, whereas only about one quarter of the female recipients are older than age 39, about two-thirds of the male recipients are aged 40 or older (see also Gilberg & Hines, 2000). Accordingly, gender differences in the ages at which actors receive Oscars closely parallel what Lehman (1941) found for top earnings and best performances. Women may become stars sooner than men, but their stardom is extinguished sooner. How can this gender contrast be explained? To begin with, there is good reason for believing that the earlier female peak can be attributed to the tendency for women to start their acting careers earlier than men (Levy, 1989; Lincoln, 2004). One could then argue that this early start may reflect gender differences in acting talent, with women having the advantage. As indirect support for this explanation we can cite the fact that female movie starts are less likely to have studied acting – whether at professional schools or universities or via workshops or coaches – in comparison to men (Levy, 1989). Nonetheless, male and female actors differ in so many background circumstances that there can be more than one explanation for female acting precocity. In particular, the female movie stars are more likely to have parents associated with the acting profession, they are more likely to be born in Los Angeles (near Hollywood), and to come from higher socioeconomic class (Levy, 1989). Moreover, this precocious talent interpretation cannot account for why women’s acting prominence is shorter than the men’s. A more telling difference is that female stars are much more likely to have started out as models; 25% of the women fell into this category in comparison to 0% of the men, who are more likely to start in theater (Levy, 1989). This contrast suggests that male and female actors might be recruited for very different roles (Levy, 1990). Alternatively, the leading men and women may need “sex appeal,” in which case the age gap in recruitment may reflect differences in the

707

optimal age for physical attractiveness – certainly a very crucial factor for the lead roles required to attain movie stardom. This last point may also account for the fact that male actors have much longer careers than female actors. The ideal age interval for female physical attractiveness may be shorter than for male physical attractiveness. This differential is often betrayed in movies where a romantic relationship develops between male and female leads even when the former is old enough to be the latter’s grandfather! Nonetheless, it may also be more probable that these gender differences reflect some form of sex discrimination in the movie industry. After all, female actors not only have appreciably shorter careers than do male actors but in addition they earn much less money, both over the career course and at their career peak (Lehman, 1941; Markson & Taylor, 1993). In 2003, the 12 stars with the top gross salaries – those who earn about $20 million per film and average about 12% of the gross – included only one woman, Julia Roberts, who nonetheless earned half as much as the two top men, Tom Cruise and Bruce Willis (E! Online, 2003). In line with these contrasts, gender is intimately related to the attainment of the much-coveted position of the “movie star.” For example, according to one investigation, 78% of movie stars were identified as male (Wallace, Seigerman, & Holbrook, 1993). Nor is there any evidence that this sex difference has improved over the years (Levy, 1989). On the contrary, the differential was the smallest in the 1930s when stardom was split almost 50–50 between men and women. There even have been years when there were no female movie stars whatsoever (Levy, 1989). As additional evidence for gender bias, older women are not just underrepresented relative to older men but are also more often depicted as more unattractive, unfriendly, and unintelligent than men (Bazzini et al., 1997; see also Lincoln & Allen, 2004). These biases appear to carry over to the best acting awards bestowed on the best performances each year. Male recipients have a high probability of receiving their award for a performance in a film that was nominated or received best picture recognition, whereas female recipients have a high probability of having their performances “ghettoized” in much lesser cinematic vehicles (Simonton, 2004a). The combined impact of all of these discriminatory forces may be abbreviated female careers in the acting profession. Their dramatic talents may be largely wasted in a maledominated movie business.

708

Before moving to the question of group talent, I should make a couple of final observations about movie stardom and cinematic talent. The first point is that only an extremely small percentage of actors, male or female, attain star status (Levy, 1989). The vast majority of performers must count themselves fortunate if they can consider themselves “working actors” adding a film credit to their resume from time to time. A huge percentage do not earn enough from acting to justify “quitting their day jobs,” and an even larger percentage are technically unemployed, even those who are members of the Screen Actors Guild. The cross-sectional distribution of earning power and degree of fame is so extremely skewed that it is very unlikely that the differences are based on genuine contrasts in talent (for further discussion, see Adler, 1985; Chung & Cox, 1994; Rosen, 1981). So a movie star may not necessarily be more talented in acting than some contemporary trying to make ends meet by waiting on tables, incessantly but vainly hoping for the “big break.” The second observation concerns the possible consequence of the first observation, namely, that movie stars have a somewhat ambivalent connection with the cinematic product. The entrepreneurs whose livelihoods depend on blockbusters rather than flops commonly assume that movie stars are essential to a film’s box office success. At least the presence of stars can be said to reduce somewhat the uncertainty of a high-risk business (Albert, 1998; De Vany & Walls, 1999). Even so, the empirical evidence suggests that movie stars play a much less potent role. Although including star names on the marquee sometimes seems to raise the probability of good gross returns (De Vany & Walls, 1999; Kindem, 1982; Neelamegham & Chintagunta, 1999; Sawhney & Eliasberg, 1996), the relationship is very inconsistent, even capricious (Litman, 1983; Litman & Ahn, 1998; Litman & Kohl, 1989; Sochay, 1994). One problem is that their presence may not make the film profitable because their exorbitant salaries add an immense increment to the production costs that cannot always be recovered in the box office (Canterbery & Marvasti, 2001; Sedgwick & Pokorny, 1999). Profitability may also be undermined when stars seek to establish their status as “serious” actors by insisting on performances in R-rated dramas (De Vany & Walls, 2002). Another complication is that the impact of stars appears to be more crucial for films that receive bad initial reviews,

D.K. Simonton

their influence becoming much less important for films that earn good reviews (Basuroy, Chatterjee, & Ravid, 2003). Finally, and most irksome of all, the repercussions of a star cannot be predicted from one film to the next. For instance, one inquiry into “star power” found highly divergent trajectories for various actors (Wallace, Seigerman, & Holbrook, 1993). The curves could be positive linear, negative linear, U and inverted U, and J shaped – almost any imaginable pattern. That is, some performers gain, some lose, some gain then lose then gain again, and some lose some then gain some then lose some. In other words, fame is fickle, and stars go in and out of fashion according to the whims of the viewing public (De Vany & Walls, 1999). Needless to say, this very instability calls also into question whether stardom corresponds in any precise way with authentic talent.

Collective Talent It may seem absurd to speak of collective talent. Talent is a concept that is highly individualistic in essential significance. Nevertheless, I have already opened the door to discussing collective talent when I discussed the four collaborative clusters. Each cluster can be considered a particular configuration of talent, one dramatic, another visual, yet another technical, and the final one musical. Moreover, we have already seen how some of these talent clusters are more germane to cinematic success than others. The dramatic cluster, in particular, plays a particularly significant role in aesthetic impact. Hence, with that preparation it seems justified to ask whether there are certain characteristics of collaborative groups that make some more talented than others. Unfortunately, there is not a whole lot of research on this question, but two recent investigations deserve special discussion, one focusing on collaborations among core crew members and the other on the director’s ties to collaborators.

Cinematic Teams The goal of the first study was to determine how the aesthetic success of a film is determined by the social networks established among those who collaborate on a given cinematic product (Cattani & Ferriani, in

34

Cinema Talent: Individual and Collective

press). The focus was on the 11,974 “core crew” members – producers, directors, editors, cinematographers, production designers (art directors), and composers – who collaborated to make 2,137 films distributed by major US studios and independents. The overall effectiveness of the film product was determined by the awards and nominations received from 10 professional associations, including both general award ceremonies (e.g., Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) and specific guild awards (e.g., the Producers Guild of America). This composite indicator of cinematic impact was then found to be a curvilinear inverted-U function of two team attributes: (a) coreness, a measure of the extent to which the crew members have exhibited extensive collaborations with other professionals in the film industry and (b) repeated ties, an assessment of the degree to which crew members had worked together in past film collaborations (over the past 3 years). Thus, the success of the cinematic product depends on having a film crew that has the optimal degree of coreness and repeated ties (cf. Faulkner & Anderson, 1987). If the collaborators are core members of the industry who have worked with many others or who have often worked together on past projects, the cinematic product will suffer. But the outcome will also suffer if the crew members have a peripheral position in the industry, with involvement in very few collaborative relationships, or if the crew members have no past experience working together on film projects. In a sense, the most talented film teams are those who represent the “golden mean” between two extremes, one representing uncreative expertise and the other inexperienced creativity.

709

product independent of the team’s contribution. That is, part of the film’s success may be attributed to the collective talent and another part may be ascribed to the individual talent who put together the collective talent. The duel contributions of individual and collective talent are demonstrated in a recent study of 108 Italian films (Delmestri, Montanari, & Usai, 2005). The Italian film industry provides an excellent site for addressing this issue because of the central role that Italian directors play in assembling the requisite collaborations (much like the independent film in the United States). The investigation began by assessing the movies on two independent criteria: (a) artistic merit as gauged by critical reviews and awards and (b) commercial success as gauged by Italian box office data. In line with our earlier discussion, these two measures are uncorrelated, one representing film as art and the other film as business. The film’s director was then assessed on two parallel attributes: (a) artistic reputation, based on the average critical rating the director’s films had received in the previous 5 years and (b) economic reputation, based on the average commercial success of the director’s films in the previous 5 years. It was assumed that these two measures assess two distinct types of directorial talent, and the lack of a correlation between the two endorses that assumption. Finally, two parallel kinds of collaborative relationships were assessed for each film: (a) the strength of horizontal artistic ties and (b) the strength of vertical economic ties (cf. Ferriani, Corrado, & Boschetti, 2005). The former variable concerns the frequency and exclusiveness of the director’s past collaborations with the film’s producer and distributor, whereas the latter variable concerns the frequency and exclusiveness of the director’s past collaborations with the film’s screenwriters, director of photography Director Collaborators (cinematographer), leading actor, and leading actress. The investigators predicted that commercial sucThe above study examined the characteristics of colcess would be a positive function of the director’s laborations that render some more talented than others. economic reputation and the strength of vertical ecoYet these findings do not completely rule out the imnomic ties, while aesthetic merit would be a posipact of individual talents, including so-called auteurs. tive function of the director’s artistic reputation and In the first place, some professional has to assemble the a negative function of the strength of horizontal artisteam for a given film project, implying that the quality of the product will depend on that professional’s tic ties (because of the creative stagnation that would choices. In fact, one of the ways that the auteur exerts ensue from repeatedly working with the same screenhis or her unique vision on the final film is through the writers, cinematographers, and actors). The data supjudicious selection of collaborators. Second, that same ported the predictions. Hence, this study nicely illusfilmmaker may exert a personal impact directly on the trates how cinematic impact is independently deter-

710

mined by individual and collective talent. In this particular case, the director’s economic and artistic talents combine with his or her economic and artistic collaborations to influence the film’s eventual commercial success and artistic merit.

Conclusions A considerable body of research has accumulated regarding the factors that contribute to the success of a narrative feature film. Yet it should be clear that the literature is plagued by many gaps and disparities. One very prominent problem is that a disproportionate number of empirical investigations concentrate on film as business rather than film as art. Perhaps this focus is reasonable if the desire is to enhance our store of practical knowledge. Given people that can get rich or go broke making films and given the major economic benefits that accrue from the Hollywood film industry, the factors that differentiate blockbusters from box office flops can have significant financial repercussions. Even so, I believe that this excessive emphasis on commercial success has three main disadvantages. First, box office performance is an extremely troublesome and erratic variable. The distribution displays such extreme dispersion that it can be said to have an infinite variance (De Vany & Walls, 1999). Furthermore, box office performance is often contaminated by extraneous variables, such as the timing of the release and the nature of the competition (De Vany & Walls, 1997; Krider & Weinberg, 1998), specific marketing strategies (Zufryden, 1996, 2000), and unpredictable “information cascades” founded on unreliable “word of mouth” (cf. De Vany & Lee, 2001). As a consequence, it is very difficult to find predictors that will hold up from one decade to the next or from one movie market to another (e.g., Litman & Ahn, 1998; Smith & Smith, 1986). Second, economic criteria of success do not correspond very well with alternative measures of merit that would seem to have comparable value or interest. In particular, box office receipts do not correlate highly with critical acclaim or film awards (Reinstein & Snyder, 2005), and whatever correlation may exist may reflect the longer term influence of critics and awards on box office (Dodds & Holbrook, 1988; Sommers, 1983– 1984; Taylor, 1974; cf. Eliashberg & Shugan, 1997).

D.K. Simonton

So, at the very least, the blockbuster is a different sort of film than the masterpiece. Therefore, to focus on the former is to ignore a large inventory of films that will never make anyone rich and yet are still capable of providing audiences with moving, even sublime, cinematic experiences – experiences that may also stand the test of time much better. Many films now counted as classics did poorly in the box office. Third, it is possible that the inattention to film as art has deflected inquiry against understanding filmmakers as artists rather than as entrepreneurs. As a psychologist I find it astonishing that there have been so few studies concentrating on the personal characteristics of cinematic talents. This research pales in comparison to that available on other talent domains. We know incredibly more about the psychology of great poets, presidents, athletes, and even chess players than we do about great directors, screenwriters, cinematographers, production designers, etc. (Simonton, 1994). Given the unquestionable standing of cinema as a form of achievement, this disparity is inexcusable. So perhaps by looking more closely at film as art it will be possible to appreciate better the psychological features of cinematic talent.

References Adler, M. (1985). Stardom and talent. American Economic Review, 75, 208–212. Albert, S. (1998). Movie stars and the distribution of financially successful films in the motion picture industry. Journal of Cultural Economics, 22, 249–270. Allen, P. A., & Lincoln, A. E. (2004). Critical discourse and the cultural consecration of American films. Social Forces, 82, 871–894. Basuroy, S., Chatterjee, S., & Ravid, S. A. (2003). How critical are critical reviews? The box office effects of film critics, star power, and budgets. Journal of Marketing, 67, 103–117. Bazzini, D. G., McIntosh, W. D., Smith, S. M., Cook, S., & Harris, C. (1997). The aging women in popular film: Underrepresented, unattractive, unfriendly, and unintelligent. Sex Roles, 36, 531–543. Bennett, K. L., & J. M. Bennett (1998). And the winner is . . .: A statistical analysis of the best actor and actress Academy Awards. Stats, 23, 10–17. Blandford, S., Grant, B. K., & Hillier, J. (2001). The film studies dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press. Boor, M. (1990). Reliability of ratings of movies by professional movie critics. Psychological Reports, 67, 243–257. Boor, M. (1992). Relationships among ratings of motion pictures by viewers and six professional movie critics. Psychological Reports, 70, 1011–1021.

34

Cinema Talent: Individual and Collective

Canterbery, E. R., & Marvasti, A. (2001). The U.S. motion pictures industry: An empirical approach. Review of Industrial Organization, 19, 81–98. Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. (in press). A relational perspective on individual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organization Science. Chang, B.-H., & Ki, E.-J. (2005). Devising a practical model for predicting theatrical movie success: Focusing on the experience good property. Journal of Media Economics, 18, 247– 269. Chung, K. H., & Cox, R. A. K. (1994). A stochastic model of superstardom: An application of the Yule distribution. Review of Economics and Statistics, 76, 771–775. De Silva, I. (1998). Consumer selection of motion pictures. In B. R. Litman (Ed.), The Motion Picture Mega-Industry (pp. 144–171). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. De Vany, A., & Lee, C. (2001). Quality signals in information cascades and the dynamics of the distribution of motion picture box office revenues. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 25, 593–614. De Vany, A., & Walls, W. D. (1997). The market for motion pictures: Rank, revenue, and survival. Economic Inquiry, 35, 783–798. De Vany, A., & Walls, W. D. (1999). Uncertainty in the movie industry: Does star power reduce the terror of the box office? Journal of Cultural Economics, 23, 285–318. De Vany, A., & Walls, W. D. (2002). Does Hollywood make too many R-rated movies? Risk, stochastic dominance, and the illusion of expectation. Journal of Business, 75, 425–451. Delmestri, G., Montanari, F., & Usai, A. (2005). Reputation and strength of ties in predicting commercial success and artistic merit of independents in the Italian feature film industry. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 975–1002. Dodds, J. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1988). What’s an Oscar worth? An empirical estimation of the effect of nominations and awards on movie distribution and revenues. In B. A. Austin (Ed.), Current research on film: Audiences, economics and law (Vol. 4, pp. 72–88). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Domino, G. (1974). Assessment of cinematographic creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 150–154. Eliashberg, J., & Shugan, S. M. (1997). Film critics: Influencers or predictors? Journal of Marketing, 61, 68–78. Faulkner, R. R., & Anderson, A. B. (1987). Short-term projects and emergent careers: Evidence from Hollywood. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 879–909. Feist, G. J. (1993). A structural model of scientific eminence. Psychological Science, 4, 366–371. Ferriani, S., Corrado, R., & Boschetti, C. (2005). Organizational learning under organizational impermanence: Collaborative ties in film project firms. Journal of Management and Governance, 9, 257–285. Galton, F. (1874). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. London: Macmillan. Getzels, J., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. New York: Wiley. Gilberg, M., & Hines, T. (2000). Male entertainment award winners are older than female winners. Psychological Reports, 86, 175–178. Ginsburgh, V. (2003). Awards, success and aesthetic quality in the arts. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17, 99–111.

711 Hirschman, E. C, & Pieros, A., Jr. (1985). Relationships among indicators of success in Broadway plays and motion pictures. Journal of Cultural Economics, 9, 35–63. Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Popular appeal versus expert judgments of motion pictures. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 144– 155. Kindem, G. (1982). Hollywood’s movie star system: A historical overview. In G. Kindem (Ed.), The American movie industry: The business of motion pictures (pp. 79–94). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Krider, R. E., & Weinberg, C. B. (1998). Competitive dynamics and the introduction of new products: The motion picture timing game. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 1–15. Lehman, H. C. (1941). The chronological ages of some recipients of large annual incomes. Social Forces, 20, 196–206. Levy, E. (1989). The democratic elite: America’s movie stars. Qualitative Sociology, 12, 29–54. Levy, E. (1990). Stage, sex, and suffering: Images of women in American films. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8, 53–76. Lincoln, A. E. (2004). Sex and experience in the Academy Award nomination process. Psychological Reports, 95, 589– 592. Lincoln, A. E., & Allen, M. P. (2004). Double jeopardy in Hollywood: age and gender in the careers of film actors, 1926– 1999. Sociological Forum, 19, 611–631. Linton, J. M., & Petrovich, J. A. (1988). The application of the consumer information acquisition approach to movie selection: An exploratory study. Current Research in Film, 4, 24– 45. Litman, B. R. (1983). Predicting success of theatrical movies: An empirical study. Journal of Popular Culture, 16, 159–175. Litman, B. R., & Ahn, H. (1998). Predicting financial success of motion pictures: The early ‘90s experience. In B. R. Litman (Ed.), The Motion Picture Mega-Industry (pp. 172–197). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Litman, B. R., & Kohl, L. S. (1989). Predicting financial success of motion pictures: The ‘80s experience. Journal of Media Economics, 2, 35–50. Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 718–729. Markson, E. W., & Taylor, C. A. (1993). Real versus reel world: Older women and the Academy Awards. Women and Therapy, 14, 157–172. Medved, M. (1992). Hollywood vs. America: Popular culture and the war on traditional values (1st ed). New York: HarperCollins. Metacritic (n.d.). Accessed from http://www.metacritic.com/ Neelamegham, R., & Chintagunta, P. (1999). A Bayesian model to forecast new product performance in domestic and international markets. Marketing Science, 18, 115–136. Ohlsson, S. (1992). The learning curve for writing books: Evidence from Professor Asimov. Psychological Science, 3, 380–382. E! Online. http://www.eonline.com/Features/Features/Salaries/ index2.html. Accessed on March 26, 2003. Prag, J., & Casavant, J. (1994). An empirical study of the determinants of revenues and marketing expenditures in the motion picture industry. Journal of Cultural Economics, 18, 217–235.

712 Qu´etelet, A. (1968). A treatise on man and the development of his faculties. New York: Franklin. (Reprint of 1842 Edinburgh translation of 1835 French original). Ravid, S. A. (1999). Information, blockbusters, and stars: A study of the film industry. Journal of Business, 72, 463–492. Redelmeier, D. A., & Singh, S. M. (2001). Longevity of screenwriters who win an academy award: Longitudinal study. British Medical Journal, 323, 1491–1496. Reinstein, D. A., & Snyder, C. M. (2005). Influence of expert reviews on consumer demand for experience goods: A case study of movie critics. Journal of Industrial Economics, 53, 27–51. Rosen, S. (1981). The economics of superstars. American Economic Review, 71, 845–858. Sawhney, M. S., & Eliasberg, J. (1996). A parsimonious model for forecasting gross box-office revenues of motion pictures. Marketing Science, 15, 113–131. Sedgwick, J., & Pokorny, M. (1999). Movie stars and the distribution of financially successful films in the motion picture industry. Journal of Cultural Economics, 23, 319–323. Simonet, T. S. (1980). Regression analysis of prior experience of key production personnel as predictors of revenues from high-grossing motion pictures in American release. New York: Arno Press. Simonton, D. K. (1988). Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after a century of research? Psychological Bulletin, 104, 251–267. Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York: Guilford Press. Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Significant samples: The psychological study of eminent individuals. Psychological Methods, 4, 425–451. Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creative development as acquired expertise: Theoretical issues and an empirical test. Developmental Review, 20, 283–318. Simonton, D. K. (2002). Collaborative aesthetics in the feature film: Cinematic components predicting the differential impact of 2,323 Oscar-nominated movies. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 20, 115–125. Simonton, D. K. (2004a). The “Best Actress” paradox: Outstanding feature films versus exceptional performances by women. Sex Roles, 50, 781–795. Simonton, D. K. (2004b). Film awards as indicators of cinematic creativity and achievement: A quantitative comparison of the Oscars and six alternatives. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 163–172.

D.K. Simonton Simonton, D. K. (2004c). Group artistic creativity: Creative clusters and cinematic success in 1,327 feature films. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1494–1520. Simonton, D. K. (2005a). Cinematic creativity and production budgets: Does money make the movie? Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 1–15. Simonton, D. K. (2005b). Film as art versus film as business: Differential correlates of screenplay characteristics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 93–117. Simonton, D. K. (2006). Cinematic creativity and aesthetics: Empirical analyses of movie awards. In P. Locher, C. Martindale, & L. Dorfman (Eds.), New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (pp. 123–136). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing. Simonton, D. K. (2007a). Film music: Are award-winning scores and songs heard in successful motion pictures? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 53–60. Simonton, D. K. (2007b). Is bad art the opposite of good art? Positive versus negative cinematic assessments of 877 feature films. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 25, 143–161. Smith, S. P., & Smith, V. K. (1986). Successful movies: A preliminary empirical analysis. Applied Economics, 18, 501– 507. Sochay, S. (1994). Predicting the performance of motion pictures. Journal of Media Economics, 7, 1–20. Sommers, P. M. (1983–1984). Reel analysis. Journal of Recreational Mathematics, 16, 161–166. Taylor, R. A. (1974). Television movie audiences and movie awards: A statistical study. Journal of Broadcasting, 18, 181–186. Terman, L. M. (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Terry, N., Butler, M., & De’Armond, D. (2003). Determinants of the box office performance of motion pictures. Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Studies, 8, 23–27. Wallace, W. T., Seigerman, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (1993). The role of actors and actresses in the success of films: How much is a movie star worth? Journal of Cultural Economics, 17, 1–27. Zickar, M. J., & Slaughter, J. E. (1999). Examining creative performance over time using hierarchical linear modeling: An illustration using film directors. Human Performance, 12, 211– 230. Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite. New York: Free Press. Zufryden, F. S. (1996). Linking advertising to box office performance of new film releases: A marketing planning model. Journal of Advertising Research, 36, 29–41. Zufryden, F. S. (2000). New film website promotion and boxoffice performance. Journal of Advertising Research, 40, 55–64.

Chapter 35

Reading, Writing, and Raising the Bar: Exploring Gifts and Talents in Literacy Rachel Schnur and Sarah G. Marmor

Abstract This chapter begins with a discussion of the characteristics of gifted and talented readers and writers. It examines the relationship between reading and writing in children who exhibit high potential in literacy. The chapter explores critical reading, writing, listening, and speaking as integral components in leading a literary life. It also focuses on suggestions for choosing quality literature in order to stimulate critical thinking and provide a model for students to write well. The chapter stresses the need for excellence in writing skills, as is posited in Genius Denied (2004) that “a gifted, creative child needs that creativity honed and trained” (p. 104). Common frustrations experienced by gifted students are also discussed. The chapter also examines how the current “age of accountability” hinders our gifted students’ writing initiatives. The chapter also contains suggestions for raising the bar for those with gifts and talents in literacy.

Introduction Children with gifts and talents in literacy are considered to have domain-specific giftedness, that is, they are gifted specifically in reading and writing, but not necessarily in any other subject. This chapter presents the characteristics of these children as well as the challenges they face, and the ways in which education can meet their needs by raising the bar on student products and educator expectations. Matthews and Foster (2005, p. 19) write that “the most important component of gifted-level achievement may well be hard work done consistently over many years with an attitude of problem-finding and problem-solving. Opportunities to learn are very important, as are the guidance and supports children find along the way.”

Characteristics of Gifted and Talented Readers and Writers

Keywords Domain-specific giftedness · Gifted literacy · Gifted readers · Gifted writers · Multicultural lit- The National Association for Gifted Children (2006) erature · Technological literacy · Children’s literature identifies a gifted individual as one “who shows, or has the potential for showing, an exceptional level of perIf a man has a talent and cannot use it, he has failed. If he formance in one or more areas of expression.” Gifted has a talent and uses only half of it, he has partly failed. If readers and writers, therefore, display their talents and he has a talent and learns somehow to use the whole of it, he has gloriously succeeded, and won a satisfaction and a expression through the use of words. As schools push triumph few men ever know. to incorporate writing into every subject across the curThomas Wolfe, 1939 (Bartlett, 1992) riculum, including math and science, reading and writing skills are becoming increasingly important. Those students who exhibit talents in these areas need to be recognized and supported. How do we recognize students who are gifted in litR. Schnur (B) The ASHAR School, Monsey, NY, USA eracy? Gifted readers are often those who read books e-mail: [email protected] above their grade level. They often read at least two or L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 35, 

713

714

three years above their grade and are able to recall details and understand difficult concepts (Dooley, 1993). The primary method of identifying children as gifted in reading is by tests and other assessments to determine their reading and comprehension levels. Moore (2005) points out that it is imperative to determine a child’s reading comprehension as well as reading level because many students who are able to read fluently at a young age can quickly fall behind when confronted with sophisticated material requiring advanced comprehension. It is interesting to note that most tests to determine giftedness in general are based on reading comprehension. Cramond (2004) asserts that this creates a situation in which most children identified as gifted in general are, in fact, gifted in reading. This does not consider other domain-specific giftedness such as math or other areas. Reading at an advanced level is not the only indicator of giftedness in literacy. Smith (1991) explains that the characteristics of gifted readers include those who read fluently and often have extensive vocabularies, long attention spans, memories for what they read, and have the ability to analyze and evaluate information. Glass (2004) identifies one characteristic of gifted children as “precocious language development.” Glass asserts that many gifted children often have “extensive vocabularies and use of complex sentence structure” (p. 25) by the age of two or three. Alber, Martin, and Gammill (2005) suggest that gifted students have advanced cognitive skills as well as a love of language itself coupled with a deep understanding of the subtleties and inferences authors use. Advanced cognition includes the ability to analyze texts and ideas as well as comprehension of the various hidden meanings and intricacies of the language itself. What characteristics identify gifted writers? According to Piirto (1999), children with verbal talents not only score well on standardized reading comprehension tests and other assessments, but “also exhibit certain characteristics in their writing such as imagination and use of unusual syntax” (p. 240). She indicates that gifted writers encompass the following skills: the unusual use of writing conventions, figurative language, grammar, a level of comfort and intimacy with language, a willingness to manipulate and “play” with language, as well as a sense of humor. Are gifted readers necessarily gifted writers? The connection between reading and writing is undeniable.

R. Schnur and S.G. Marmor

Children who read often and are exposed to different types of literature and writing are the ones who become comfortable with language. They are introduced to different styles and techniques and learn to appreciate language and the ability to communicate using the written word. In a survey of both adult and child poets, Piirto discovered that these writers began reading when young, read often, and had parents who read to them. “The verbally talented engage the written word with fervor and with a qualitative difference that is hard to miss” (p. 243).

Notable Gifted Readers and Writers Based on current definitions of giftedness, we can identify many notable authors as being gifted in literacy. As children, these authors exhibited many of the characteristics and behaviors we use to identify our gifted students today. Perhaps one of the most well-known examples is Louisa May Alcott, the author of Little Women. Alcott based the character of her heroine, Jo March, on her own childhood (Saxton, 1977). In the story, Jo was a voracious reader and writer. Her actions were very similar to those of Alcott herself. As a child, Alcott also wrote constantly, especially plays and poetry. She used her writing to express her deep feelings, especially about nature (Saxton, 1977). John Steinbeck, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1962, was also an avid reader. Steinbeck’s fascination with words and writing began when he received a book for his ninth birthday. His mother, a former school teacher, often told her son stories as a child and encouraged reading out loud as family entertainment (Ito, 1994). As a student, Steinbeck excelled in English and was greatly influenced by his teachers who encouraged him to write. The famous playwright, Eugene O’Neill, spent much of his childhood immersed in books. O’Neill’s interest in drama began as a child while spending much time backstage as his actor father performed (Gelb & Gelb, 1964). O’Neill had a difficult life with an often absent father and medicated mother, and reading and writing became his escape. He kept notebooks full of his observations throughout his life. O’Neill, famous for his plays The Iceman Cometh and A Long Day’s

35

Reading, Writing, and Raising the Bar

Journey into Night, won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1936. There are many other famous authors who read and wrote constantly as children. Many of these writers decided at a young age that they would be authors as adults. Piirto cites as historical examples George Eliot (Marian Evans Cross), Stephen Crane, Jane Austen, Dylan Thomas, Tennessee Williams, and the Bronte sisters, all “voracious readers in houses with books” (p. 244). Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein, came from a family of writers, married a famous poet, and associated with other writers (Alber et al. 2005). Betty Smith, whose book, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, was selected as one of “Books of the Century” by the New York Public Library decided at age eight that she would be a writer after receiving an “A” on a school composition (PS, 2001).

Critical Reading Gifted students who have successfully achieved grade level reading competency should be taught how to utilize higher order thinking to broaden their vistas in literacy. It is important for educators to realize that gifted students can go beyond the literacy expectations of the class. Critical reading should allow gifted readers to distinguish relevant from irrelevant information, make inferences, formulate interpretations, realize implications, examine consequences, look at authentic language of the text, analyze actions and assumptions, take multiple perspectives, and evaluate the evidence and the text itself (Dooley, 1993). Van Tassel-Baska, Zuo, Avery and Little, (2002) recommend that teachers utilize special reading programs such as the Junior Great Books Foundation Shared Inquiry program or the College of William and Mary Integrated Curriculum Model for Gifted Learners (ICM) to teach students how to read and discuss critically. Moore (2005) suggests that critical reading includes skimming over the text before readjusting background knowledge and connecting with other texts. There are many ways to teach critical reading skills. We suggest keeping a reading response journal where students can record their thoughts about characters and events in the story. It is also helpful for students to comment on the way the author writes, not just what

715

is happening in the actual story; analyzing author style can help students develop their own writing skills. Another suggestion to develop critical reading skills is to conduct character studies. Students can write character biographies, create charts or lists exploring qualities of the character, or simply write down their thoughts about a character. It is very useful to have students cite the specific quotation from the text which led them to use a particular adjective or characteristic to describe a given character. Giving students the opportunity to become a character can also be a useful way to conduct a character study. One way of accomplishing this is to have students write a monologue from a given character’s perspective in that character’s voice. This allows students to explore character emotions as well as voice, dialect, and language. Incorporating drama into the classroom can also encourage students to read critically. Having students dramatize a scene from a text encourages them to look critically at character relationships and reactions to situations. Similarly, having students apply texts to their own lives can create a deep understanding of the story. For example, when reading Our Town by Thornton Wilder, assign students to rewrite the opening monologue to describe their own life and town or have students create their own island with their own leaders and government when reading Lord of the Flies by William Golding. Other suggestions include rewriting parts of the stories or continuing on after the author has finished, drawing parallels to other texts, writing book reviews, or writing a transformative piece in which students adapt a text into another genre (e.g., a story into a narrative poem). Incorporating outside material such as art and music of the same time period or subject as a given text is always helpful to promote student understanding. Finally, in the case of historical fiction, integrating the literature lessons with the historical perspective learned in social studies increases meaning for the reader.

Critical Writing Gifted writing, according to Dixon, Cassady, Cross, and Williams (2005), is a “vehicle through which students can readily express their critical thinking” (p. 181). Students grow as writers by reading quality

716

books and having opportunities to discuss books (Peterson, 2006). Gifted writers benefit from having the freedom to express themselves, to choose their medium and mode of investigation, and to be supported by a creative classroom environment (Sak, 2004). That does not mean that gifted writers should be left to write without the benefit of instruction or evaluation. There are strategies that gifted writers should be taught. For example, See (2002) suggests mapping out a story by drawing a map of the town, a picture of the house in the story, street names, etc. “Your geography cradles your work, rocks it, brings it alive, makes it real,” she says (p. 159). It is important that gifted writers research background information when writing about a place or subject they are unfamiliar with, and teachers should insist on the fact checking and information gathering. As See (2002) states, “as a writer, sometimes you’ll find yourself writing about something of which you’re entirely ignorant. One solution to this is to stop and do some research. . .” (p. 167). Another option is to only write about what you know, an advice that is often given to new writers. Peer editing is a strategy used by many teachers. However, there are inherent problems with having students evaluate each other’s work. As explained by Kaufman, Gentile, and Baer (2005), when peers edit each other’s writing it often does not move the writing to a higher level and often does not include suggestions of how the writing can go deeper. Based on our observations, this is especially true of students in younger grades or gifted students in a regular class. Kaufman et al. found that peer editing done by gifted student writers is almost as competent as expert adult writers. We find that peer editing can be done successfully with gifted students in older grades if the reader is given specific guidelines to follow and then confers with the writer. Nonetheless, the teacher still needs to edit each writing endeavor. Teacher conferences are an integral part of the writing experience. We believe teacher conferences should be frequent and mandatory over the course of producing a writing piece. However, oftentimes students expect teachers to fully edit their work for spelling and grammar during their conferences. This does not help the students develop their critical writing skills. Instead, students should be required to come to a conference prepared with specific questions or writing issues they wish to be addressed. It is also imperative that

R. Schnur and S.G. Marmor

students first edit their own work before approaching a teacher. Editing can often be difficult for students. We have found that many gifted students are reluctant to reread their own work. They find it tedious and unnecessary. However, editing skills are crucial. Students must be taught how to properly edit and should be required to submit edited drafts to their teacher. It is helpful when editing to read the work aloud as the ear may recognize mistakes that the eye will not catch. For all forms of writing, teacher/writer conferences should be conducted, skill building should be incorporated in the teaching of writing, and higher level thinking should be utilized.

Critical Listening Listening skills are often neglected in the classroom (Cramond, 1993). In some reading programs, such as the Junior Great Books, critical listening is an important component of the model. Black (2005) claims that active listening is important for gifted children when they are exposed to storytelling, since these youngsters have the opportunity to feel the language, pick up the rhythm and voice, and react emotionally to the story. When a teacher constantly stops the storytelling to ask or respond to questions, the active listening is interrupted.

Critical Discussion Critical discussion is an integral part of gifted literacy, especially when connected to world events. The exchange of ideas enables students to make sense of their world and allows them to explore their identity (Cross, 2002). For older students, “teachers may use current school and community issues in which students are stakeholders as opportunities to explore the reasoning in a very focused way, organizing their questioning around the specific elements and allowing students to participate as concerned citizens, with attention to both their intellectual and emotional involvement” (Little, 2002, p. 59). In our experience, critical discussion is a place for leadership opportunities to emerge. We have utilized

35

Reading, Writing, and Raising the Bar

“Socratic seminars” where gifted students engage in critical discussion about important topics and “big ideas” in life and literature. In a Socratic seminar, students facilitate the discussion; they come prepared with questions and comments and discuss the text as a group without teacher involvement. This gives students a sense of ownership and responsibility for the class discussion and often results in very deep and insightful conversations. Debate can also be a very useful way for students to develop their critical discussion skills. Giving students the opportunity to debate issues with their classmates can help them develop strong research skills as well as public speaking skills. Preparing an argument, posing questions, and challenging other students’ ideas require high-level critical thinking skills. We suggest that whenever possible, teachers should facilitate classroom simulations such as mock trials or scene re-creations to enhance student understanding of a given text.

The Interrelationship of Reading, Writing, Listening, and Speaking

717

The genre of poetry has a strong place in the classroom due to its special rhythm, language, flow, and creative energy. Heard (1999) explains that poetry is transformational, in that it can relate to the heart and the senses. Gifted children are usually very sensitive to the suggestibility of language (Black 2005), and reading or listening to poetry can inspire children gifted in literacy to play with language and write sophisticated poems.

Choosing Quality Literature Gifted children read many different books, prefer to read to themselves, have a favorite place at home to read, tend to prefer reading to writing, and occupy themselves with lots of incidental reading for looking up information, both at school and at home (Stainthorp & Hughes, 2004). Educators should carefully select novels and other reading materials, such as journals, magazines, newspapers, and reference books for use in the classroom. Alber et al. (2005) recommend exposing gifted children to classic authors: “by studying the literary masters – their works, influences, and personal lives – gifted students can develop advanced perspective and original thought” (p. 51). The authors explain that activities such as comparing and contrasting the lives and works of different authors and looking at what was going on in the world at the time a given text was written are important components in a gifted child’s literacy menu. Fletcher and Portalupi (1998) write that student writing “can only be as good as the classroom literature that surrounds and sustains it” (p. 10). Exemplary books for gifted readers should contain elements such as “language, structure, perspective or point of view, ambiguity, and . . . professional role models.” (Austin, 2003, p. 32). We have found that reading quality books about other youngsters with gifts and talents in literacy is an enjoyable and stimulating pursuit for gifted children. There are also books that deal with the global issues and interests of gifted children, and there are less familiar books that contain universal themes. The following are some of our suggestions for gifted readers in middle school: Books about other gifted readers and writers:

Reading, writing, listening, and speaking are linked together. For example, reading about and discussing social issues may lead to writing letters to the editor of a local newspaper to publicize a problem, or taking another social action step (Leland & Harste, 2005). Writing journals can inspire important classroom discussions or the generating of topics for papers (Shaughnessy & Gerkey, 1986). Although there have been numerous understandings of the “Balanced Literacy” model, according to Cassidy and Cassidy (2004) the term implies “instruction that maintains some equity between the mechanics of literacy instruction (such as phonics, spelling, and comprehension skills) and the more holistic instruction, which involves process writing, literature based instruction, and reader response”(p. 16). Cramond (1993) writes that a true literacy program should include foreign language study, debates, dramatics, constructive and rebuttal speeches, Shakespeare, interviewing, and sociodrama. Foreign language study is especially valuable because it reinforces the students’ active listening and speaking 1. Emily of New Moon/Emily Climbs/Emily’s Quest by skills. L.M. Montgomery

718

2. 3. 4. 5.

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn by Betty Smith Sahara Special by Esme Codell The Color of My Words by Lynn Joseph Up a Road Slowly by Irene Hunt

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

“To Build a Fire” by Jack London “The Last Leaf” by O. Henry “All Summer in a Day” by Ray Bradbury “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell “Dragon, Dragon” by John Gardner

R. Schnur and S.G. Marmor

English grammar, vocabulary, syntactic structure of English, vocabulary development, understanding of word relationships and origins (etymology), appreciation for semantics, and knowledge of the history of language. Books about other gifted children: According to Martin (2005), many gifted children are victims of whole language instruction. They have 1. Yolanda’s Genius by Carol Fenner difficulty with spelling, grammar, and punctuation. 2. Someday Angeline by Louis Sacher They rely on teachers or word processing programs to 3. The Mozart Season by Virginia Euwer Wolf correct any grammatical errors or spelling mistakes. 4. Rules of the Road by Joan Bauer However, many adults have these difficulties as well. 5. Surviving the Applewhites by Stephanie S. Tolen Truss (2003) indicates that one of the most frequent Books about important themes for gifted class- issues with rules of writing in the general population rooms: is punctuation. For example, what does one do with an apostrophe: is it necessary and where does it go? Some 1. Red Kayak by Priscilla Cummings people think an apostrophe is necessary for plurals. 2. Each Little Bird That Sings by Deborah Wile Others get mixed up with “it’s” and “its”; others just 3. So B. It by Sarah Weeks don’t use an apostrophe at all, ever, at the risk of 4. Chasing Redbird by Sharon Creech 5. The Day They Came to Arrest the Book by Nat putting one in the wrong place. Thompson (2002) claims that although the direct Hentoff instruction of vocabulary and grammar is sometimes Books about world events for gifted classrooms: missing in programs for gifted children, “these rigorous content areas are prerequisite to the highest 1. A House of Tailors by Patricia Reilly Giff fulfillment of curricular goals in language arts” (p. 2. When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit by Judith Kerr 60). Thompson recommends the study of words and 3. The Devil’s Arithmetic by Jane Yolen vocabularies, as well as the study of the Latin and 4. After the Dancing Days by Margaret Rostkowski Greek foundations of English and foreign languages 5. A Separate Peace by John Knowles with strong English cognate connections, such as Latin Short Stories for Gifted Students: and Spanish.

The Need for Excellence in Writing Skills It is imperative that gifted writers learn and master writing skills such as grammar, spelling, vocabulary, and punctuation. Davidson and Davidson (2004) state in Genius Denied that “a gifted creative child needs that creativity honed and trained. He needs to learn grammar. He needs to have his work critiqued by other talented writers. He needs to learn how to edit himself and organize his thoughts, to learn how word choice can help a composition soar” (p. 104). VanTassel-Baska (2003) recommends formal study of

Common Frustrations of Gifted Readers and Writers Gifted readers and writers face their own set of unique difficulties and frustrations, both external and internal. Many of these issues revolve around finding the appropriate level of school instruction for gifted students, while others involve the gifted child’s own motivations and internal struggle to succeed.

External Difficulties Facing Gifted Readers and Writers A common problem for gifted children, not just those who are gifted in literacy, is school instruction. Many schools fail to adjust curriculum and instruction

35

Reading, Writing, and Raising the Bar

to the needs of the gifted student. In a study by Stainthorp and Hughes (2004), the authors conclude that “schools need to have clearly articulated policies for able children. One requirement of such a policy would be the use of systematic assessments to identify children at the earliest possible opportunity. However, identification is not enough without an enriched, challenging curriculum” (p. 119). Glass (2004) suggests that lack of funding, increasing enrollment, and lack of teacher skill in teaching gifted programs severely limits schools’ abilities to create high-level programs for gifted students (citing Jost, 1997). According to the National Association for Gifted Children, the federal government does not provide any direct funding to school districts for gifted education programs. It therefore falls upon individual school districts and programs to provide the necessary materials for gifted learning. The skills of teachers for the gifted and talented have become an important issue. Although New York State now requires a gifted and talented extension to a teacher’s license in order to teach in gifted and talented programs, that does not guarantee that teachers have domain-specific skills. Children gifted in literacy really do need teachers with specific writing and reading skills and interests. Educators need to be able to conduct critical discussions of literature and challenge the gifted reader; they need to be familiar with the advanced literature a gifted child might read. Educators need to be able to edit and constructively criticize the work of gifted students. Moore (2005) suggests that many educators are not equipped to differentiate curriculum to accommodate gifted students. Peterson and Kennedy (2006, p. 37) looked at elementary teachers’ comments on students’ work and noted that “elementary teachers’ feedback influences the skills, attitudes, and perspectives on what constitutes good writing that elementary students carry into their postsecondary courses and beyond into their work lives.” That is an important responsibility that cannot be taken lightly. Anyone editing children’s written work has to have excellent grammar, spelling, and punctuation skills, along with ideas for stretching the writing and giving suggestions for scope and depth. In schools without challenging curricula and educators, gifted students may begin to lose interest in learning. “Children gain self-confidence through intellectual challenge. The key lies in providing a range of activities that allow all students, including the gifted, to display their fullest abilities” (Glass, 2004, p. 28).

719

The lack of formal writing instruction is another obstacle for many gifted writers. Educators and parents often assume that because a child is considered gifted, he or she is able to write (Martin, 2005). Yates, Berninger, and Abbot (1995) state that higher level programs for gifted students often neglect basic writing skills and concentrate instead on higher level thinking and writing. Without basic skills, gifted writers can become very frustrated and lose the motivation and desire to write. An additional issue facing gifted children is the identification of learning disabilities. Yates et al. (1995) suggest that learning disabilities are often not recognized in gifted children because the assumption is that gifted children do not have learning disabilities. They assert that little attention is given to this area because of several factors: the difficulty in believing that gifted children might have disabilities, the belief that gifted children’s problems only stem from low motivation or boredom, the belief that gifted children should be gifted in all areas, and finally, the misconception that disabilities do not necessarily occur in all areas of writing.

Internal Difficulties Facing Gifted Readers and Writers Gifted writers often seem unmotivated and reluctant to write. Perfectionism is one of the characteristics that can hinder a gifted writer’s ability to complete assignments. According to Rinard (2004), “some gifted children, too caught up in the mechanics of writing, focus on small concerns like capitalization and grammar which prevents them from expressing their complex ideas.” Martin (2005) suggests that perfectionism is one of the reasons that gifted children are often hesitant to write creatively. She claims that gifted students often like answers with a right or wrong response; a definitive answer can then appease the perfectionist within. Gifted writers can also be hampered by physical constraints. The physical act of writing can be very arduous for some gifted students and can make them reluctant to begin writing. The mind of gifted writers will often move faster than their hands can write, thereby leading to messy, often illegible writing which can be extremely frustrating to the child (Osborn, 2001). The

720

author suggests several solutions such as dictating to someone who could write for the student or for the student to present his or her information orally. With today’s technology, allowing students to type assignments can greatly reduce anxiety and frustration over poor handwriting. However, with standardized testing incorporating an increasing number of written components, students still need to work on developing their handwriting. Gifted writers often face difficulties completing tasks in a timely manner. Osborn (2001) suggests that gifted writers have difficulty adjusting their thoughts to the scope of the given assignments; they often wish to write much more than assignments require. Williams (2005) suggests that extra time be allotted for gifted writers to finish their writing. Sak (2004) cites research by Morgan and Foster (1999) claiming that creativity can be hindered by time constraints. The reality of time restrictions is undeniable and gifted children must be assisted in learning to cope with these constraints. While still allowing for students to explore their interests and develop their ideas, educators can structure assignments so that there is ample time for completion. Another option is to allow advanced students to continue their work beyond the guidelines of the assignment and become an “expert” in their topic. “Experts” could then present their material to the class at a later date. Open-ended projects are also beneficial for gifted readers and writers. One example is an author project in which the students choose an author and read several books by him or her. Written components can include book reviews and/or an author biography study. Assignments such as these would allow the students to decide their topic and choose books that can be as short or as lengthy as they wish. As with gifted writers, gifted readers also have their share of obstacles. Perhaps one of the most frustrating issues facing gifted readers is finding appropriate material. Gifted readers may push themselves to read a text before they have the emotional maturity to fully comprehend its meaning (Moore, 2005). It may be difficult to find texts that are at an advanced reading level but with content that the child can understand. Gifted readers may also be hesitant to write their ideas down. Rinard (2004) suggests that gifted children may be hesitant to write because they do not feel the need to prove themselves by writing down what they know.

R. Schnur and S.G. Marmor

Age of Accountability In today’s schools, standardized tests and “test prep” have become the norm. Students are tested throughout their schooling, whether by state or local assessments, school assessments, or exams for high school or college admissions. Teachers are faced with a difficult task: to prepare students for these exams while maintaining a well-balanced language arts curriculum. When faced with this problem, most often curriculum is sacrificed to prepare students for assessments. Martin (2005) claims that where once, students were encouraged to be creative and take risks, students today are being taught to do well on standardized tests. She suggests that this can make students very reluctant to write. The need for test preparation can also make differentiation very difficult. Brighton (2002) discusses the difficulties faced by teachers in providing a challenging differentiated curriculum while still adhering to standards and preparing students to score well on standardized tests. In her study, she followed one teacher as this teacher struggled to find a balance between test prep and curriculum. Eventually, test preparation took precedence. The author suggests accountability as a possible factor in the teacher’s choice as well as the desire to see students perform well. In a time when test scores determine admittance to middle schools, high schools, colleges, graduate schools, and other programs, it becomes a teacher’s responsibility to ensure that his or her students perform well, often at the expense of quality instruction and curriculum. The writing format for the tests can be very rigid. When teachers devote so much time preparing students to write in this manner, it hinders the students’ creative writing abilities.

Gifted Education and Literacy: Whispers of Change Multiculturalism Diversity Is the Rule, Not the Exception Gifted education has been concerned recently with screening, identifying, and meeting the needs of gifted

35

Reading, Writing, and Raising the Bar

721

children of diverse ethnicities, and with good reason. According to the Demographic and Socioeconomic Forecasts of the Regional Transportation Plan of New York (2005, p. 7) for the region of New York City, New Jersey, and the Mid-Hudson, “the Region’s population is expected to grow from 22 to 26.1 million by 2030, or by 0.7% annually. . . Minority population as a share of the Region is projected to jump from 41.8% in 2000 to 65.1% in 2030. The Region’s increasing racial/ethnic diversity, as well as its renewed growth, reflects the ongoing impact of foreign immigration.” We need to ensure that all our diverse high learners are identified for gifted programs and that they actualize their potential.

ing of data, the analysis and organization of data, and data-driven technological learning (Siegle, 2004). It is not enough for gifted students to use the computer for word processing. It is also not enough for these gifted readers and writers to use the computer for educational games or to glean information from the Internet for research purposes. Gifted learners must be taught to use their critical thinking skills to evaluate the validity of Internet information. “The need for critical reading is increased as there is no vetting of most of the information that is posted on the Web. Students now, more than ever, need to learn how to judge the veracity of the information they read based upon the dependability and objectivity of the source of the information” (Cramond, 2004, p.34). Some suggestions in the classroom include looking Multicultural Literature at websites to learn how to discern reliable informaWe need to make certain that diverse learners who are tion, checking sources of Internet sites, learning how to gifted readers and writers are exposed to and chal- create appropriate websites, and learning how to access lenged by multicultural literature. Although in many reliable journal databases. For example, the journal and classrooms multicultural books are available and read article databases for the New York City Public Library by students and teachers, gifted literacy students also are now available online to those with a library card. require quality multicultural books for dialogue about important issues, knowledge about the history of many cultural groups, and exploration of complex ideas and Technologically Equipped Schools concepts. Ford, Howard, and Harris (2005) point out that it is important to expose both the minority and Utilizing computers to their fullest benefit in the classthe non-minority students to multicultural literature. room can change the teacher’s role from direct instrucThese authors believe that pluralistic thinking and un- tor to facilitator, where the gifted student works indederstanding in a gifted classroom can be achieved with pendently with guidance from the teacher. In order to certain goals in mind, such as respecting other cultures, be a successful facilitator, teachers must be trained in learning to work together, studying cultural systems, integrating technology into their language arts curricuand increasing students’ confidence in their abilities. lum. When a student gifted in literacy sits at a computer and works on complex problems, transfers knowledge, develops novel ideas, and integrates his/her work with Technology several other subjects, successful learning is occurring. Literacy Is Changing There is another emerging type of literacy: technolog- Teacher Preparation ical literacy. Literacy as a concept needs to be broadened, and technological literacy is a subject that our Teacher Preparation in Children’s Literature gifted learners should be studying (Siegle, 2004). Studies regarding teachers show that they need What Are the Necessary Skills more help and guidance in selecting appropriate for the Information Age? and high-level books for gifted learners (Sullivan & Donoho, 1994). Gifted readers enjoy reading many Current thoughts about gifted literacy students suggest different kinds of books, including informational texts. that these youngsters should be exposed to the gather- Teachers should themselves read these books in order

722

to effectively make recommendations and conduct classroom discussions.

R. Schnur and S.G. Marmor

Metacognition can help gifted writers and readers advance in their work. According to Williams (2003), gifted children have metacognitive awareness of their learning styles and what helps or impedes their learning process. Williams writes (p. 250) that adults Teacher Preparation for Differentiation can help these students become more aware of “what of Curriculum they need to think about when reading or writing.” As with any other kind of differentiation in the class- Based on Williams’ research in interviewing young room, there needs to be differentiation of curriculum gifted literacy students, students become aware of and expectations for gifted literacy students. That does their own strategies (like finding patterns in certain not mean reading an extra book or writing an extra words), using background knowledge to solve literacy paragraph in the writing journal. As Moore (2005, p. situations (knowing the differences between fiction 41) points out, “a teacher who gives a young gifted and non-fiction helped them plan out certain literacy reader an advanced text to read quietly while he or projects), and even thinking out loud how to best she performs drills with the rest of the class is not pro- approach a literacy task successfully. viding sufficient programming for this child.” So what kind of training does the teacher need to have in order to facilitate high-level reading and writing of gifted Assessment students? Training should include mastery of skills. As Moore continues (p. 42), “Advanced readers who have mastered on-grade-level skills need to have access to The Ceiling Effect skill instruction that is above grade level.” Teachers can check on skill mastery by using rubrics, which delin- When gifted readers and writers score a level 4 on their eate clear expectations to the students. Rubrics can also New York State standardized language arts tests, what hold students to high expectations for the fluency, clar- does that mean? Actually, a level 4, which is the highest level to obtain on the test, is not indicative of anything ity, and accuracy of their writing. Educators can also make use of pre-/post-testing to at all for the gifted literacy student who can probably determine the child’s mastery of skills. For example, score a level 10 if that were a possibility. Due to the there is no need for a child who gets a perfect score ceiling effect, we are not testing high-level literacy stuevery week on spelling tests to continue taking the dents as to how far they can reach or how much knowlweekly spelling tests. The child can, instead, work on edge they have. word origins or conduct a word study of more difficult words. Teachers should be comfortable recommending lit- Standardized English Tests for Non-English eracy mentors or professional writers to support gifted Speakers Who Are Gifted in Literacy: An literacy students. As Davidson and Davidson (2004, p. Oxymoron? 56) point out, “the brightest students in America waste most of their time in school. They read books aimed The new mandate to test all students, even immigrants years below their capabilities and write five-paragraph or those from an immigrant home, with the standardessays on trees.” Students should be empowered to be- ized English test after 1 year of attending American schools (Berger, 2006) means that there may be imcome independent learners (Alber et al., 2005). VanTassel-Baska et al. (2002) remind us that educa- migrant youngsters with talents in reading and writing tors should still regard state and national standards as who will test poorly and not be accepted into gifted important benchmarks for students, even in a differen- programs. This ruling comes under the No Child Left tiated curriculum for gifted learners. Brighton (2002) Behind Act (NCLB). One of the authors of this chapter concurs, stating that “the standards themselves can be on literacy has had the experience of coming to Amereffective support structures for units and help to link ica as an immigrant child with no knowledge of Enmultiple concepts, skills, or topics under the theme and glish. She had been a voracious reader and fluent writer in her native language. During her first week of school, across several grade levels” (p. 33).

35

Reading, Writing, and Raising the Bar

when she arrived in December, intelligence tests were administered to the entire school body (this was in the late 1950s). Due to very poor scores she received the author was classified as special needs and had to spend her first year in a New York City public school in the lowest possible class (classes were tracked then) which contained severe disciplinary problems and the lowest functioning students. Needless to say, she learned nothing that year. Testing immigrant children on an English standardized test for the purpose of information and baseline will impede gifted children with talents in literacy from performing well and being accepted to gifted programs. There should be a “wait and see” attitude where these children can be monitored in dynamic assessment.

723

ucators to use in working with children who are gifted in reading and writing. There should be an understanding that these learners need to collaborate with peers on investigative projects that lead to higher levels of literacy knowledge and expression. We would also like to see innovative technology-based literacy programs, not only for processing essays or information gathering for research papers, but also for synthesizing ideas and evaluating materials. According to Glass (2004, p. 27), “To promote and encourage students, gifted curricula stress high expectations and stimulation, which, when combined with care and support, foster an environment where talents can develop and flourish.” We need to ensure that all gifted students have an appropriate learning environment.

Dynamic Assessment Dynamic assessment is the continuous monitoring and evaluating of a student’s progress as he or she grows as a learner; the teacher checks that the child has mastered the material, teaches more material, and assesses again, continuing the cycle. It is very difficult to evaluate a child who is gifted in reading and writing if that individual, for example, has not mastered the English language. The most accurate student evaluations include dynamic assessment. Portfolio assessment, where teachers keep track of student work throughout the year, is an excellent way to monitor student progress. It is a valuable tool for all gifted students, although some teachers have indicated that it requires much time to manage the selection and filing of the child’s work (Cassidy & Cassidy, 2004). We would suggest that the student be involved in the process of selection and compiling his or her work for the portfolio, under the teacher’s guidance. This allows students to take an active role in managing their learning.

Updating the Schools

According to Wallis and Steptoe (2006, p. 50), “there’s a dark little joke exchanged by educators with a dissident streak: Rip Van Winkle awakens in the 21st century after a hundred-year snooze and is, of course, utterly bewildered by what he sees. Men and women dash about, talking to small metal devices pinned to their ears. Young people sit at home on sofas, moving miniature athletes around on electronic screens. Older folk defy death and disability with metronomes in their chests and with hips made of metal and plastic. Airports, hospitals, shopping malls—every place Rip goes just baffles him. But when he finally walks into a classroom, the old man knows exactly where he is. ‘This is a school.’ He declares, ‘We used to have these back in 1906. Only now the blackboards are green.”’ We need to update the schools. Classrooms should be studentcentered, replete with trade books and computers. Students should be working together in cooperative groups on investigative projects. Teachers should be facilitators who walk around the room to monitor and guide the children. Problems in all disciplines should include Suggestions and Implications hands-on, real-world applications. Technological advances should be noticeable in the schools. Gifted litWell-Defined Gifted Literacy Expectations eracy students should be discussing big ideas about life and scholarship. Rip Van Winkle would be in unWe believe that, no matter what the programming is at familiar surroundings because schools would be carea particular school, there need to be clear literacy ex- fully organized for optimal learning in new and excitpectations and concrete literacy curricular ideas for ed- ing ways.

724

Raising the Bar

R. Schnur and S.G. Marmor

Johnsen & J. Kendrick (Eds.), Language Arts for Gifted Students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Gelb, A., & Gelb, B. (1964). O’Neill. New York: Dell PublishRaising the bar for gifted readers and writers is no ing. longer an option but, in light of tomorrow’s world, a Glass, T. F. (2004). What gift? The reality of the student who is gifted and talented in public school classrooms. Gifted Child necessity. As is stated in Time (December 18, 2006) Today, 27(4), 25–29. by Wallis & Steptoe, our students must “learn to apply Heard, G. (1999). Awakening the Heart. Portsmouth, NH: Heineacademic principles to the real world, think strategimann. cally and solve problems” (p. 56), because right now, Ito, T. (1994). The Importance of John Steinbeck. San Diego, CA: Lucent Books. “a yawning chasm. . .separates the world inside the Jost, K. (1997). Education gifted students: are US schools neschoolhouse from the world outside” (p. 52). glecting the brighest young? CQ Researchers, 7, 265–268. Kaufman, J. C., Gentile, C. A., & Baer, J. (2005). Do gifted student writers and creative writing experts rate creativity the same way? Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(3), 260–264. Leland, C. H., & Harste, J. C. (2005). Doing what we want to References become: preparing new urban teachers. Urban Education, 40(1), 60–77. Little, C. (2002). Reasoning as a key component of language Alber, S. R., Martin, C. M., & Gammill, D. M. (2005). Using the arts curricula. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, literary masters to inspire written expression in gifted stuXIII(2), 52–59. dents. Gifted Child Today, 28(2), 50–59. Austin, P. (2003). Challenging gifted readers. Book Links, 12(5), Martin, C. (2005). Tips for parents: writing and the gifted child. Davidson Institute for Talent Development/Young 32–37. Scholars Seminar, Retrieved from http://www.GTBartlett, J. (1992). Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, 16th Edition. Cybersource.org/Record.aspx?NavID=2 0&rid=14075. Kaplan, J., Ed., Toronto, Canada: Little, Brown, & Co. Berger, J. (2006, December). Immigrant children shielded Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2005). Being Smart about Gifted Children. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. from state tests, but for whose protection? Retrieved December 27, 2006 from http://www.nytimes.com/ Moore, M. (2005). Meeting the educational needs of young gifted readers in the regular classroom. Gifted Child Today, 2006/12/27/education/27education.html? r=1&oref=slogin& 28(4), 40–50. ref... Black, S. (2005). Adventures with words: storytelling as lan- Morgan, S., & Forster, J. (1999). Creativity in the classroom. Gifted Education International, 14, 29–43. guage experience for gifted learners. In S.K. Johnsen & J. Kendrick (Eds.), Language Arts for Gifted Students. Waco, National Association for Gifted Children. (2006). http:://www.nagc.org. Texas: Prufrock Press. Brighton, C. M. (2002). Straddling the fence: implementing best New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. (2004), 2005– 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (Appendix C , repractices in an age of accountability. Gifted Child Today, trieved December 27, 2006 from http://narc.org/uploads/ 25(3), 30–33. File/Transportation/Library/MemberDoes/NYMTC c.pdf Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, D. (2004). Literacy trends and issues today: An on-going study. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20, Osborn, J. (2001). Issues in educating exceptionally gifted students. The Davidson Foundation. Retrieved from http://www. 11–28. GT-Cybersource.org/Record.aspx?NavID=2 0&rid=11471 Cramond, B. (2004). Reading instruction for the gifted. Illinois Peterson, N. (2006). What your child needs as a writer. EnReading Council Journal, 32(4),31–36. couraging Your Child’s Writing Talent: The Involved Parent. Cramond, B. (1993). Speaking and listening: key components Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. of a complete language arts program for the gifted. Roeper Peterson, S. S., & Kennedy, K. (2006). Sixth-grade teachers’ Review, 16 (1), 44–48. written comments on student writing: genre and gender inCross, T. L. (2002). Gifted students and the adults who provide fluences. Written Communications, 23(1), 36–61. for them: lessons learned from terrorism. Gifted Child Today, Piirto, J. (1999). Talented Children and Adults: Their Develop25(2), 33–35. ment and Education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Davidson, J., & Davidson, B. (2004). Genius Denied. New York: Rinard, B. (2004). Tips for parents: the reluctant writer. Simon & Schuster. Davidson Institute for Talent Development. Young Dixon, F., Cassady, J., Cross, T., & Williams, D. (2005). Effects Scholars Seminar. Retrieved from http://www.gtof technology on critical thinking and essay writing among cybersource.org/Record.aspx?NavID-2 0&rid=13329. gifted adolescents. The Journal of Secondary Gifted EducaSak, U. (2004). About creativity, giftedness, and teaching the tion, XVI(4), 180–189. creatively gifted in the classroom. Roeper Review, 26(4), Dooley, C. (1993). The challenge: meeting the needs of gifted 216–222. readers. The Reading Teacher, 46(7), 546–551. Fletcher, R. & Portalupi, J. (1998). Craft Lessons. York, Maine: Saxton, M. (1977). Louisa May: A Modern Biography of Louisa May Alcott). Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Miflin. Stenhouse Publishing. Ford, D. Y., Howard, T. C., & Harris III, J. (2005). Using mul- See, C. (2002). Making a Literary Life: Advice for Writers and Other Dreamers. New York: Random House. ticultural literature in gifted education classrooms. In S. K.

35

Reading, Writing, and Raising the Bar

Shaughnessy, M., & Gerkey, S. (1986). The gifted and writing. ERIC #ED283169. http://www.eric.ed.gov// ERICWebPortal/home.portal? nfpb=true& PageLabel= RecordDetails&... Siegle, D. (2004). The merging of literacy and technology in the 21st century; a bonus for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 27(2), 32–35. Smith, C. B. (1991). Literature for gifted and talented. The Reading Teacher, 44(8), 608–609. Stainthorp, R., & Hughes, D. (2004). An illustrative case study of precocious reading ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(2), 107–119. Sullivan, E. P. & Donoho, G. E. (1994). Reading interests of gifted secondary school writers. ERIC # ED381760. http://us.f398.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?Search=&Idx =3&yy=22344y&y5beta=ye. Thompson, M. C. (2002). Vocabulary and grammar: critical content for critical thinking. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, XIII(2), 60–66. Truss, L. (2003). Eats, Shoots & Leaves. New York: Gotham Books.

725 VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Differentiating the language arts for high ability learners. ERIC Digest #E640. Eric Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, Va. www.ericec.org. VanTassel-Baska, J., Zuo, L., Avery, L. D., & Little, C. A. (2002). A curriculum study of gifted-student learning in the language arts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(1), 30–43. Wallis, C., & Steptoe, S. (2006, December 18). How to bring our schools out of the 20th century. Time, 168(25), 50–56. Williams, M. (2005). Challenging gifted and talented children during literacy hour. Gifted Education International, 20, 70– 79. Williams, M. (2003). The importance of metacognition in the literacy development of young gifted and talented children. Gifted Education International, 17, 249–258. Yates, C., Berninger, V., & Abbot, R. (1995). Specific writing disabilities in intellectually gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18(2), 131–155.

Chapter 36

The Elusive Muse: Understanding Musical Giftedness Roland S. Persson

Abstract Many labels exist to outline musical giftedness or aspects of it; a profusion resulting from different epistemological positions, disagreements, and the considerable complexity of the issue. In this chapter, musical giftedness as a sub-cultural attribute is discussed as well as the problems inherent in attribution by consensus procedures. Based on available research a conceptual model of musical giftedness is outlined based on domain generality and domain specificity, thus proposing an understanding of musical giftedness as a set of core skills and sets of key skills, particular for specific domains. The question of heredity is brought to the fore as is the significance of accumulated practice over time. Differences between the development of Western Classical musicians and popular musicians are demonstrated. Recent research on giftedness identification is also discussed followed by a concluding overview of potential research pitfalls as the understanding of musical giftedness continues to be explored. Keywords Musical giftedness · Musical talent · Musical capacity · Musical intelligence · Domain generality · Domain specificity · Heredity · Genotypes · Phenotypes

a majority of others in one or more musical domains has prompted the use of a number of different labels, often used quite loosely in the literature. This is also true, to some extent, of giftedness research and gifted education in general (cf. Gagn´e, 1985; Ziegler & Raul, 2000). The many available labels reflect not only differing epistemological worldviews but most certainly also disagreements and the considerable complexity of the matter at hand. However, I propose that many of these labels can be more or less subsumed under either genotype (genetically determined potential) or phenotype (the developed and observable behavior resulting from a certain genotype). In addition, there are also terms in use, which comprise every musical activity or aspect of musical behavior (see Table 36.1). While nomenclature relating to either genotype or phenotype is usually scientific, the all-inclusive terms are more commonly used outside the world of science.

Genotype Labels

Among labels proposed as more or less genotypes in nature are musical aptitude, musical capacity, and musical intelligence. Aptitude for music is considered to consist of one general or several fundamental cogniMaking Sense of Nomenclature tive skills, which can all in various ways be identified by standardized tests (Shuter-Dyson & Gabriel, 1981; Any effort to define musical giftedness must first Shuter-Dyson, 1982). It has been suggested by Gordeal with nomenclature. An individual superior than don (1995) that musical aptitude has a qualitatively different basis than nonmusical aptitudes. He terms this basis audiation, which is “to hear and to comprehend R.S. Persson (B) J¨onk¨oping University, J¨onk¨oping, Sweden music for which the sound is no longer or never has e-mail: [email protected] been present. Audiation is to music what thinking is to L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 36, 

727

728

R.S. Persson

Table 36.1 The variety of labels used in the literature of musical behavior Genotype

Phenotype

All-inclusive terms

Musical aptitude Musical capacity Musical intelligence

Musical talent

To be musical

Musical ability

To be “unmusical”

Musical achievement Creative musical talent Musical expertise Musical excellence Musical eminence Musical elite talent Musical genius Musical competence

language” (p. 173). Audiation as a term, however, is not widely spread or used. To speak more generally of musical and the mind, which several researchers prefer, then “the musical mind” seems a more user-friendly term (Bamberger, 1991; Sloboda, 1985; Storr, 1992). Musical capacity is used interchangeably with aptitude in the literature. Musical intelligence, however, is a more recent expression (e.g., Bamberger, 1991). Arguing that music is an intelligence proper may well be a valid claim per se (Gardner, 1983), but it is my observation that the popularity of the term has spread worldwide for other reasons than the theoretical appropriateness of the term. Music has been declared a panacea of sorts for being effective both in therapeutic intervention and as a means to boost cognitive efficiency. While music as therapy in various ways has won considerable recognition in the scientific community a well as in medical practice (e.g., Bunt, 1994; Unkefer, 1990), music as having somehow “magical” effects on cognitive functions—particularly spatial task performance— is much more controversial. The so-called Mozart Effect (Campbell, 2001; Rauscher, Shaw, & Ky, 1993; Tomatis, 1991) whereby listening to music, especially that of Mozart, allegedly raises short-term IQ, is hotly debated (Bruer, 2002) and often even declared a dubious, if not invalid, claim (Chabris, 1999; McKelvie & Low, 2002; Steele, Bass, & Crook, 1999). In the wake of this debate there arose an interest among educators whether music could in fact help improve achievement in other subjects more academic in nature. Consistent with findings that more or less undermine the Mozart Effect, the specific influence of music and art on more general achievement in educational settings has often also proven dubious or at the very least difficult to

substantiate (Eisner, 1998). However, Winner & Hetland (2000) having evaluated much of this line of research take middle ground. They argue that there is indeed evidence of causal links between, for example, music and spatial-temporal reasoning and learning to play music and spatial reasoning, and between classroom drama and verbal skills. But that there are no evidence of, and therefore no causal links, between arts education and verbal and mathematics scores/grades; art education and creative thinking; learning to play music and mathematics; learning to play music and reading; visual arts and reading; dance and reading; dance and nonverbal reasoning. In this light, claiming that music is an intelligence provides music and art education with potential negotiation power in trying to fit the arts into a rationalist and technocratic social context, where the arts as profit and achievement enhancers would turn them into something more than “merely” being esthetical. In Winner & Hetland’s (2001) words: “Let’s stop requiring more of the arts than of other subjects. The arts are the only school subjects that have been challenged to transfer as a justification for their usefulness . . . Anyone who looks closely as we have done will see that these claims do not hold up unequivocally . . . The arts are a fundamentally important part of culture, and an education without them is an impoverished education leading to an impoverished society” (p. 5).

Phenotype Labels Among the phenotype labels are musical talent (Evans, Bickel, & Pendarvis, 2000; Freeman, 1984; Haroutounian, 2002) and musical ability (Coon & Carey, 1989; Shuter-Dyson, 1982; Howe, Davidson, Moore & Sloboda, 1995), both of which are also used interchangeably in the literature. However, they always refer to a manifest set of cognitive skills such as memory, aural discriminatory skills, and motor skills; skills that are assumed to be necessary for musical achievement, which is another term used in this context, the connotation of which is that which musicians have learnt on the basis of their aptitude (Shuter-Dyson, 1982). Creative musical ability, however, has a more specific use. Most often it refers to composing, improvising or arranging music (Brenneis, 1990; Piirto, 1992; Haroutounian, 2002). Note that while Jazz musicians

36

The Elusive Muse

are expected to be creative in various ways as they perform (Andreas, 1993; Kenny & Gellrich, 2002; Pressing, 1988) the same is not typically true of Western Classical musicians found performing in concert halls all over the world. They do not normally exceed the general norm for how a certain piece of music is to be played (Persson, 1993, 2000, 2004). To play “authentically” means that the score, the interpretational markings added by the composer, and the believed style of playing typical of a certain era constitute the more or less absolute norm (e.g., Haskell, 1988). A typical concert pianist, for example, pursues “reproductive art” and is not creative—at least not when performing the traditional repertoire (Polony, 1995). Also among the phenotype labels are, I suggest, expertise (Sloboda, 1991; Ericsson, Krampe, & TeschR¨omer, 1993; Sternberg, 2000; Ericsson, Nandagopal & Roring, this volume) and excellence (Krampe & Ericsson, 1996; Sloboda & Howe, 1991; Trost, 2000), which are terms that are being increasingly used in reference to giftedness. However, they represent an entirely different research tradition that, unlike other traditions, does not usually view genetic potential as crucial in developing musical skills. It is rather argued that there are environmental factors that play a significant role and that virtually any skill, honed extensively and more systematically in comparison to an average person may, under more or less optimal circumstances, develop from novice to expert within a period of about 10 years – prompting the use of the so-called 10-year rule (Simon & Chase, 1973; Simonton, 1992). In this research context scientists on occasion also use musical eminence (Barret, 2006; Simonton, 1989), which is “much more than mere recognition” (Albert, 1992, p. xvii). Eminence has a lasting impact on the social context, and redefines or changes understandings, styles, or, even to a degree, history itself. Subotnik (2000, 2003) has recently added a further dimension to this array of music phenotype labels as a result of studying extreme talent at the Juilliard School of Music, New York. Beyond expertise, she suggests, comes elite talent. One might argue perhaps that elite talent—an extreme form of giftedness—is an important prerequisite of becoming eminent and that elite talent is the same as the nowadays rarely used term genius (e.g., Kivy & Ky, 2002). Furthermore, the term musical competence (De la Motte-Haber, 1985; Deli`ege & Sloboda, 1996) is also found in the literature. Although all-inclusive it tends

729

to be used somewhat loosely as well. It is originally a social-psychological construct representing selfefficacy: the inherent human desire to perceive oneself as able (Sternberg & Kolligian, 1990). Observe, however, that competence is a social construct in that a musician’s experienced competence is also the result of acknowledged ability by the surrounding social context (Bandura, 1990). We are therefore generally motivated to strive to feel competent by striving also to be recognized as able or even highly able. Musicians are of course, for a variety of reasons (Persson, Pratt, & Robson, 1992), motivated to achieve, to gain, and to sustain competence in their field of pursuit (O’Neil & McPherson, 2002). Finally, in use to describe human musical behavior are of course to be musical and musicality or, by implication, to be “unmusical.” These are all-inclusive terms comprising the ability (or inability) to play, sing, compose, and to appreciate music and so on (Revesz, 1953; Zuckerkandl, 1973). In the following discussion the term musical giftedness will be used when referring to individuals who for any possible reason appear “more musical” than most others; they learn musical structures quicker, have better memory for music, more easily discriminate tonal and rhythmic patterns, are more expressive, more emotionally attuned to music, and more sensitive to timbre and, depending on type of musical skill, also have a propensity for efficient motor learning that surpasses a majority of other individuals and so on. Implicit in the term is also social recognition for market profit, which might not be an issue early in a musician’s development but certainly becomes an issue as they make music performance their profession. Musical giftedness is in a sense all-inclusive as a term also, but it is here intended to integrate the knowledge of different research traditions without taking an extreme epistemological stance. The nature of musical giftedness will be discussed in greater detail further on and a conceptual model of the nature of musical giftedness will be proposed.

The Difficulties in Defining Musical Giftedness It is obvious from the variety of labels that are in use to describe musical behavior that there is both contention,

730

perhaps also some confusion, what musical giftedness should be considered as. Music, after all, and its understanding as a cultural phenomenon has been the focus of scrutiny by philosophers, scientists, and mystics of different traditions, convictions and insights for very a long time. One of the major controversies in defining musical giftedness, at least in modern times, regards whether one general capacity or several separate and more or less independent capacities underlie music as human behavior; which of course reflects the similar controversy regarding the nature of human intelligence (see Dennis & Tapfield, 1996; Howe, 1997). Seashore (1938), for example, one of the pioneers in studying music behavior, recognized musical ability as complex. He argued for several, more or less independent, specific abilities. Others like Wing (1941) would rather understand music as one general cognitive function; a notion which has fairly recently been echoed also in proposing that the human capacity for music is, in fact, not only a single general function but even a specific intelligence inclusive of all behaviors musical (Gardner, 1983). Most likely both positions have merit. Music behavior is both something general and something specific. However, before suggesting what dimensions may be missing in early attempts to identify musical giftedness, and make an effort to actually understand what the complex nature of musical giftedness could be, there are other confounding issues relating to the attribution of talent that need to be addressed.

Musical Giftedness as a Sub-cultural Attribute Research into musical giftedness has almost exclusively been pursued in one sub-cultural setting only, namely that of Western Classical Music. This leaves giftedness with regard to other cultures’ music and musical expressions virtually unaccounted for. Musical giftedness—or as termed by most of the labels listed in Table 36.1 above—is therefore unavoidably a limited, if not ethnocentrically biased, attribute (cf. Triandis, 1990). In Europe, North America, Australia, Japan, and other countries cherishing a Western classical music legacy, a concert pianist or opera singer would be more likely to be regarded and talked about as excep-

R.S. Persson

tionally gifted rather than well-known popular music groups or artists such as Mot¨orhead, Deep Purple, Judas Priest, U2, KISS, Backstreet Boys, Rammstein, ABBA, NSYNC, or Country and Western stars like Garth Brooks, Johnny Cash, and Dolly Parton, just to take a few random examples from different genres of Western music. Needless to say, these have all been recognized as gifted but not by researchers or music educators. Boyd & George-Warren (1992) discovered when they interviewed 75 contemporary and popular musicians, all of whom have made a name for themselves, that a few wanted to start out learning a formal and basic Western classical music skill to help realizing their dreams in another genre. Their classically trained teachers, however, did certainly not recognize them as gifted. On the contrary, they would not accept them at all, and sometimes even punished any effort to be unique and deviate from claimed Western classical music norms. Further formal music teaching became an obstacle to these popular musicians’ goals and dreams. They left formal education in music to learn on their own and were in the end identified as talented by market agents instead. In contrast to the gifted Western Classical musicians, popular musicians are much more likely to be identified by their listeners, their marketing agents, or by so-called talent search companies. Once identified they may be on their of way turning into “superstars.” The nature of the giftedness definition then becomes entirely different from that so far proposed by educators and psychologists: He or she who has the greatest potential to generate profit has “talent”—quite irrespective of any attention to cognitive attributes and environmental precursors to excellence. They may even reach superstardom; a phenomenon which, according to Rosen (1981), is argued to exist “when relatively small numbers of people earn enormous amounts of money and seem to dominate the fields in which they engage” (p. 849) and furthermore “small differences in talent become magnified in larger earnings differences with greater magnification of the earnings-talent gradient increases sharply near the top of the scale” (p. 846). Although this argued relationship between degree of talent and differences between talents and record sales is not clear (Adler, 1985; Hamlen, 1991), it nevertheless demonstrates the considerable interest of the market to search for talent in, for example, popular music. Needless to say the possibility of fame has attraction to many (Braudy, 1997). Would-be superstars also seek

36

The Elusive Muse

out talent search companies of which, in time of writing this, the concept of “American Idol” and its many spin-off TV productions in 100 different countries is a very good example (e.g., Martin, 2006; or the original website at http://www.americanidol.com). The idea is that anyone who is convinced of their own potential as a future pop star can come to advertised and scheduled auditions where a screening takes place in front of a jury of already famed and established artists and representatives of the music industry. Jurors’ deliberations and assessments, especially of participants who fail to win the jury’s approval, in a somewhat ethically doubtful way, become a major “entertainment value.” In the end a handful potential superstars remain. One is voted winner and receives professional assistance to launch a career as superstar. In order to more fully understand the notion of musical giftedness science cannot afford to be subculturally biased in this way and use as a research sample musicians from one type of context only—not for as long as we argue there is only one type of musical giftedness. Such a research sample would be unacceptable in almost any other kind of research if the desire is to generalize results. Therefore, it is appropriate to argue that we know only to some degree what musical giftedness is and that this knowledge is in a sense domain specific in that it relates to Western Classical music almost exclusively. We know much less how musical giftedness is constituted and manifested in other cultures and sub-cultures. Hence, any further study of musical giftedness as a general phenomenon will need to extend samples to include representatives of other cultures, sub-cultures, and genres too. Also the social reality of being gifted in music, especially when making it a professional career, needs to be considered and included. In a market economy giftedness becomes a commodity and someone’s talent is assessed in accordance with their potential to generate profit. Probably three lines of research need to be made distinct: (1) Music ability as domain generality (the question of genotype); (2) musical activities as domain-specific research per sub-culture or culture; perhaps even per musical instrument (the question of phenotype); and also (3) the social dynamics of being musically gifted, which to an extent could be understood as “success or failure in the light of supply and demand.” That which we crave sells, whereas that which we do not want—for various reasons—will have no attraction whatsoever irrespective of an indi-

731

vidual’s objective status of giftedness (see Subotnik, Jarvin, Moga, & Sternberg, 2004; Persson, 2006). This is also to some extent the direction that, for example, research on creativity is taking: “Creativity,” say Lubart & Guignard (2004), “is partly generalized ability, partly a set of domain specific abilities, and partly a set of task-specific abilities” (p. 43).

The Ambiguity of Social Consensus Focusing on the notion of domain-specific giftedness in the Western classical tradition, there is yet another confounding issue in defining what musical giftedness means. To be identified as more or less gifted in musical performance (instrument or voice) is often made by a consensus procedure. When prospective students seek admission to an institution for higher learning auditions usually play an important role. Students are asked to perform in front of a jury. The ones considered—by deliberation and sometimes also by vote—the most talented and promising are accepted to the applied-for program at the conservatory or at the department of music where the student wishes to study. The same principle applies at a music contest: a jury listens to all the contestants. A selection is made by deliberations with the objective to identify the most promising ones, who will be allowed to proceed to a second round. In the end the jury nominates a winner. On rare occasions there will perhaps be a tie between two contestants, if jurors cannot reach consensus on who out of two contestants considered the best should win. One could argue that the appointed winner is the most gifted one. He or she has been evaluated thoroughly in a competitive setting and found to be the most promising performer for the future. However, in a consensus procedure subjective preferences come into play and who should win or be admitted to a program is often decided on the basis of a compromise— what the majority of jurors decide. Unless of course the jury is unanimous, which is not likely to happen often. Thompson & Waterman (1990) report the many contentions that have taken place in juries at the The Leed’s Piano Competition over the years: . . .celebrated pianists though they confer star status on a competition, are not guaranteed to be good judges. Many great pianists are great out of fierce single-mindedness.

732 Some great pianists only admire the qualities reflected in their own playing. And cannot empathize with other points of view . . . The kind of college professor who tends to appear on juries now are looking for a certain kind of academic correctness. They should be looking for attributes way beyond that—for that quality of revelation, wonder, magic, that indefinable special something, apprehended but not comprehended, something which is beyond technique (pp. 109–110).

Bastian (1987) reports in his study of competitions for young gifted musicians in Germany that jurors sometimes have personal biases too when ranking one contestant higher than another. This makes an interesting comparison to Kingsbury’s (1988) unique study of the social dynamics of an American, well-respected, music conservatory. He found that students were usually attributed with talent not necessarily according to what they actually did on stage performing but according to which teacher they studied with. The more famed the teacher the more talented his or her students were considered. Thus, inherent in the Western Classical music sub-culture is also a complex pattern of biases. While it is argued by some that aesthetic quality certainly may be assessed successfully by consensus of experts (Elliot, 1987; Machotka, 1982; Mills, 1987), the procedure makes identification or ranking unreliable for at least research purposes when in search of “gifted performance” or any creative product for that matter, the reason being that jurors base their assessments on different criteria. Therefore, their understanding of giftedness by necessity also differs. That which is performance excellence to one juror is not necessarily excellence in the eyes of another. It has been known for some time that individuals vary in how they appreciate art and music. Music preference has been studied fairly extensively and several typologies have been developed (e.g., Hargreaves, 1986; Hedden, 1973; Persson, 1993; Wing, 1941). While it is simplistic to regard one’s attitude to music as a dichotomous dimension between affective and analytic only (Hargreaves, 1986), such a simplistic dichotomy nevertheless serves well in demonstrating the opposing views in a music contest jury. They, too, have preferences according to which they evaluate a performance. Not infrequently do jurors, and Western Classical musicians in general, actually adopt dichotomous terms such as “academic, technical, intellectual” and use these as opposites to being “magical, emotional, artistic” in order to evaluate what they have just heard (cf. Dubal, 1985). Bastian (1987), for example, refers to contest performances being ei-

R.S. Persson

ther “technical, artistic, or a show-off circus act void of artistry.” While most Western classical musicians would agree on how to define at least some key aspects of musical giftedness (cf. Roberts, 1990; Subotnik et al., 2004; see also Subotnik this volume), they would most certainly disagree on which performance was the “best”, if all were presented with a number of performers playing the same piece of music, as was clearly demonstrated in a study by Persson (1993).

The Multi-dimensionality of Musical Giftedness The following discussion endeavors to understand what musical giftedness is as based on available research. However, in so doing I will venture to propose a conceptual model. The empirical knowledge available has to my knowledge so far not been brought together in a synthesis, but rather musical giftedness has been explored within the boundaries of different research traditions. The result, as shown earlier in this chapter, has certainly been one of promising beginnings but also one of some confusion since researchers have taken more or less an “either/or stance” on music as a general ability or as several specific and separate abilities; and the fact that educators, musicians, and others tend to use labels given to various aspects of the music phenomenon differently. The expertise research tradition avoids the use of giftedness as a term altogether and has introduced the notion of expertise as an alternative. It is my contention that in addition to a human general capacity for music there are also a variety of cognitive, affective, and social aspects, the numbers and significance of which vary with the social context in which musical skills develop. These aspects are not necessarily acoustical in nature. There is undeniably also a subjective dimension to music, which as far as I know no objective test of musical potential takes into consideration. This subjective dimension—termed musical reality by Persson (1993, 2001)—has become the focus of systematic empirical research only in recent years (Juslin & Sloboda, 2001). That there exists an obvious relationship between musical expression and emotional experiences—irrespective of musical genre and context—has been known since Antiquity (e.g., Strunk, 1965). Presumably also for as long as music

36

The Elusive Muse

has been known to mankind, often in a religious context (Rouget, 1985). However, while musicians’ subjective reality is real and very tangible to them and their educators (e.g., Juslin, 2001; Gabrielsson, 2001; Simonton, 2001), how it relates to the notion of giftedness requires further research, but because of its phenomenological significance it must nevertheless be part of a conceptual model. Such a model of musical giftedness rests on a series of feasible assumptions, some of which are the direct results of research and others that are in need of research though their feasibility is at the very least implicated in the already existing body of empirical knowledge. In regard to the model discussed in the following, the assumptions concerning musical giftedness are (cf. Simonton, 1999; Oerter, 2003):

r r r r r r r r

Musical giftedness needs to be understood in terms of core skills common to all domains in which giftedness is to be studied or identified. Musical giftedness needs to be understood in terms of key skills specific to particular musical domains. Musical giftedness is dependent on heredity, but biologically determined potential must be stimulated and allowed to develop in a suitable environment to manifest. The nature of stimulation and development differs between musical domains. Everyone has musical capacity unless there is a neurological dysfunction. But everyone is not, nor can they become, musically gifted. Lack of individual and developed musical skill is not to be equaled to being void of musical capacity. Extensive practice of skills is the only means to develop a gifted individual to mastery of those skills thereby reaching full potential. Identification of musical giftedness is threedimensional: (1) objective and generalizable, (2) subjective and individual, and (3) social as based on estimated value or appreciation in a context of supply and demand.

The Core Skills of Musical Giftedness To find an exact and commonly agreed-upon definition of intelligence in the literature is a difficult quest, but suggestions range from the strangest of notions

733

regarding intelligence “as that which intelligence tests measure” to understanding intelligence as a neurological process, where differences in intelligence are understood in terms of the efficiency and capacity of the central nervous system (Eysenck, 1988; Kyllonen, 1996). More recent understandings focus more on intelligence function, namely to find and solve problems. Klein (1991), for example, defines general intelligence (g) as “a general reasoning capacity useful in problem-solving tasks of all kinds” (p. 6), whereas Sternberg and co-writers (2000) in arguing for another kind of intelligence explain that “practical intelligence is what most people call common sense. It is the ability to adapt to, shape, and select everyday environments. Intelligence as conventionally defined may be useful in everyday life, but practical intelligence is indispensable” (p. xi). Howard Gardner (1983), however, is the only one to date to propose in theoretical terms why mankind’s ability to listen to, appreciate, and make and play music should be considered an intelligence in its own right. Gardner’s criteria for labeling a distinct set of cognitive functions an intelligence are (1) potential isolation by brain damage; (2) the existence of savants, prodigies, and other exceptional individuals; (3) an identifiable core operation or set of operations; (4) a distinctive developmental history together with a definable set of expert “end-state performances”; (5) an evolutionary history and plausibility; (6) support from experimental psychological tests; (7) support from psychometric testing, and (8) susceptibility to encoding in a symbol system. One indication that music is a separate intelligence in a Gardnerian sense is the nature of the William– Beuren Syndrome (WBS), a neuro-developmental genetic disorder characterized by peaks and valleys in mental function. There are substantial impairments in cognitive domains such as reasoning, arithmetic ability, and spatial cognition. But interestingly musical skills are more or less intact (Levitin et al., 2004; Hopyan, Dennis, Weksberg, & Cytrynbaum, 2001). Also magnetoencephalographic (MEG) and positron emission topographic investigations (so-called PETscans) of the brain indicate that the brain does indeed process music differently than, for example, language (Tervaniemi, 2001). Furthermore, the history of music is replete with anecdotal evidence as well as studied cases of both prodigies (Revesz, 1925; Bastian, 1989) and savants (Miller, 1989).

734

The core operations of musical intelligence are those often included in psychometrically constructed musical aptitude tests: pitch, rhythm, tempo, timbre, loudness, and spatial location (Levitin, 2000; Justus & Hutsler, 2005). However, included in this set of cognitive auditory functions should most likely also be added emotional responses to music (cf. Peretz, 2001; Hopyan et al., 2001). It is difficult to imagine any kind of musical activity without emotional responses being an integral part, although these are clearly less important to some and more so to others (Persson, 1993). Musical intelligence is also beyond doubt subject to development; that is, the skills involved can be influenced by training and change from none to some by practicing them, and even further to an expertise level given extensive practice and suitable environments (Sosniak, 1985; Sloboda, 1991). However, more is likely to be required to actually be considered musically gifted. As discussed above, expertise scholars generally do not recognize genetic potential as significant in developing higher levels of achievement and accomplishment (Howe, Davidson, & Sloboda, 1989; Sloboda & Howe, 1999). A majority of the scientific community does however (e.g., Hassler, 1990; Thompson & Plomin, 1993; Baltes, 1998; Gagn´e, 1999; Winner, 2000). It is the assumption for this conceptual model of musical giftedness also that development potential is determined by genetic factors. Thus, musical intelligence is separate from expertise behavior but not unrelated. Also, Gardner’s (1983) claim that musical intelligence has an evolutionary history is reasonably well substantiated in the literature. But this is also the intelligence criterion most open to speculation. Evidence for music as subject to evolution, and across species, is for the time being best regarded as suggestive and feasible rather than in any way absolute (Huron, 2001; Justus & Hutsler, 2005). Primates, our closest evolutionary relatives, appear indeed to process music much like the human species does (Wright, Rivera, Hulse, Shyan, & Neiworth, 2000), but they still do not make music. Gorillas simply do not sing opera! But it has been suggested that the song-like sounds of the gibbon monkey, bird song in general, and whale song are related to human song by function, namely sexual courtship (Miller, 1998). “Love me tender, love me sweet” serenaded Elvis Presley in his time. “I am wounded by love” lamented Guillaume de Machaut

R.S. Persson

some 700 years before him. “My only idol is Love” is declared from stage in Hector Berlioz’ opera Benvenuto Cellini. Is not love, in all its possible expressions, what singers through the centuries have mainly cherished in their art?

The Key Skills of Musical Giftedness The key skills of musical giftedness are more difficult to outline because there is as yet no agreed definition of musical domain specificity, which they are and what constitutes them. However, while all musically gifted probably share the musical core skills, which additional skills they then need to excel in their chosen field of pursuit must by necessity differ to some degree. Researchers of musical giftedness could perhaps learn from Sport Sciences, where the physical attributes known to be significant for success in a certain sport also are of importance when screening for potentially gifted athletes (Adolph, 1978).

The Case of Voice Artists Popular music icon Rod Stewart, for example, tours the world with great success (Ewbank & Hildred, 2004). Thousands pilgrimage to his concerts and purchase his albums. But he would be unlikely to have made it as an opera singer, for the simple reason that his type of voice on stage would never be accepted by opera aficionados. Perhaps it also lacks the potential to even develop into a typical Western Classical opera voice. On the other hand, most opera singers could also not take Rod Stewart’s place as an artist, because they do not have his unique voice and type of stage charisma. A voice is much more than merely the vocal chords. Its quality is dependent not only on their size and shape, on the technique learnt, practiced, and employed but also on the acoustical environment afforded by the body and its resonating spaces (cf. Sundberg, 1987). Hence, physical constitution plays a role too. In discussing voice and giftedness with famed American opera singer Dennis M. Heath (personal communication, 13 November, 2006), a former student of the legendary opera icon Birgit Nilsson among others, he defined “great singing” to me as follows:

36

r r r r r r r r

The Elusive Muse

Voice quality: resonant, clear, flexible, spontaneous, healthy, and with enough unforced volume to be heard. Range and registration: the need to know and use different registers Flexibility: an ability to effective fine motor control Language: students should learn the four basic language of the stage (German, French, Italian, and English) Musical style: knowledge of different historical periods and their musical practice. Musicianship: musical self-efficacy and general musical skills Health: taking care of one’s voice as well as body and mind Stage presence: expression, communication, charisma

Both voice quality and flexibility are physiological characteristics. To identify giftedness in singing without taking these two into account, at least in Western Classical music, would not make sense. However, there are also different demands on the opera singer as opposed to the popular singer. The opera singer needs to hone his or her acting skills for a successful career (Halper, 1999), whereas the superstars of popular music are currently more likely to be in need of considerable dancing skills—Madonna being the supreme example (St Michael, 2004). Both acting and dancing are non-musical skills in that they do probably not relate to the core skills. They are each domains of giftedness in their own right (Van Rossum, 2001; Noice & Noice, 2002; compare also Simonton’s chapter on cinematic talent this volume). In addition, the reasons for an individual to take on an acting career may be related to type of personality (Kavolis, 1963; Marchant-Haycox & Wilson, 1992).

Physical Attributes in Mastering a Musical Instrument

735

a few studies have investigated the physical attributes thought necessary to become a successful symphony orchestra musician, though with different outcomes. Lamp & Keys (1932) tested how certain physical attributes could predict aptitude for specific instruments. They chose length and slenderness of fingers (violin), evenness of teeth (clarinet), and thickness of lip in relation to diameter of the mouth piece (Brass horn). Thickness of lips, they found, had some predictable value, whereas neither slenderness of fingers nor evenness of teeth seems related to success in their view. Musicians themselves, however, beg to differ—strongly! Mills (1985) surveyed three professional symphony orchestras to cull their observations and experiences of which physical attributes they considered essential in mastering a certain type of musical instrument (see Table 36.2). Further research will have to establish whether making physical attributes a part of musical domain specificity is a fruitful way ahead, and if so also how. If so, one issue that then needs to be considered is the compensation phenomenon, where someone void of appropriate attributes actually succeeds exceedingly well in spite of this fact (e.g., Feldman, 1986). Next to be considered for musical domain specificity are motor skills, especially the finer motor skills needed for mastering musical instruments. Motor skills are, needless to say, also subject to heredity. Some will be able to learn them more efficiently and quicker than others. Fox, Herschberger, & Bouchard, (1996) write of motor skills that practice with feedback is funda-

Table 36.2 Physical attributes considered significant for mastering musical instruments (adapted from Mills, 1987) Types of instruments

Proposed physical significant attributes

Bowed strings

Overall physical coordination Broad left-hand fingertips Large hands (for cello and bass especially)

Wind

Overall physical coordination Even teeth, no protrusion, no gaps No double-jointedness Large hand span Thin lips (flute, trumpet, horn) Thick lips (trombone and tuba)

That musical giftedness is multi-dimensional is an important point. It means that in order to specify what is domain specific in regard to musical giftedness there is a need to go beyond that which is auditory and also Harp and turn to social components and in addition also physiopercussion logical components, depending of course on the function and purpose of the musical domain. To this end

Tall Large hand span (harp) Fleshy finger tips (harp) No double-jointedness (harp)

736

mental in acquiring motor skills. However, heredity cannot be overlooked because with practice “everyone improves, but some improve more than others” (p. 356). A musically fairly capable individual therefore, may well have all the cognitive attributes as well as emotive skills of musical giftedness but might simultaneously be wanting in efficient motor learning, which in reality would mean having great musical ideas but not sufficient technical skill to manifest them. It could also be the other way round, which is more often talked about among musicians: someone has a brilliant, almost unbelievable, facility for technique, but appears simultaneously to be lacking in musical ideas to communicate. Pianist Paul Badura-Skoda (in Dubal, 1985), for example, observes that “today so many pianists play like robots . . . I can admire their technique but they leave their audiences cold” (p. 52). Another pianist of renown, Jorge Bolet, believes mechanical aptitude is an inborn talent: “What I do at the keyboard has always been done with a certain amount of ease” (in Dubal, 1986, p. 78). Presumably, the musically gifted musician has both the cognitive attributes and a considerable facility for motor learning. But what exactly is the nature this “considerable facility”? A fair assumption would be that it corresponds to different levels of information processing constraints at a neuronal level as demonstrated by Eysenck (1988) in reference to the possible cause for differences in intelligence level (see also Stelmach, 1982; Illert, 1993). It has been suggested that the maximum normal speed at which, for example, fingers can be made to move per second in scale playing is about 15–20 times. Note that the virtuoso repertoire often exceeds these constraints suggesting that some are indeed more able to execute certain motor patterns than others (Sloboda, 2000; Collins, 2002). Expressive skills are also an inevitable candidate for considering domain-specific musical gifted behavior. A good amount of research has been done in order to understand what musical expression actually is in terms of motor behavior (Shafer, 1976; Clarke, 1988; Palmer & Meyer, 2000). In fact, research has arrived at enough an understanding of motor programming in this respect that it is now possible to program computer algorithms and recreate by Artificial Intelligence means an artistically appealing and synthesized performance (Sundberg, 1988; Friberg, 1991). However, cognitive scientists have remained true to study observed behavior only. While we know a great

R.S. Persson

deal of overt musical behavior, few have devoted themselves to the conceptual learning of music, which in all likelihood dictates how a piece of music is actually performed. Musicians from all eras, writes Persson (2001), “and no doubt in all genres of music, are indeed ‘sensors of emotions and sensitivity’, and subjectivity is, in a variety of ways, most probably the basis of the musical pursuit. It is helpful then, both for future research and in understanding the phenomenology of musical endeavors, to term the dynamic nature of this emotional basis from which musicians appear to draw motivation, construe artistic understanding, and generate performances, a musical reality akin to the Kellyan (1963) notion of personal constructs” (p. 284). How musical reality affects the nature of a performance in terms of tempo, dynamics, articulation, and so on is easily demonstrated by asking a musician to depict a certain event or scenario in the way that he or she plays (Persson, 1993). Manipulating the musical structure affects in various ways how the musician and his or her audience perceive the performance in terms of emotional response (Juslin, 2001). For example, it would be difficult to experience or communicate a feeling of sadness if tempo is very rapid. How then does a musical reality relate to giftedness? Given that emotionality, although construed in different ways by musicians, is an inevitable and intrinsic part of making and performing music, it could be argued that there are traits of personality involved in musical giftedness. Kemp (1996) in surveying the research on musical ability and personality found that musicians tend to score highly on Cattell (1973) pathemia, and sensitivity as well as on Eysenck’s (1967) introversion, the significance of which involves, Kemp suggests (1996), “the kinaesthetic sensation in musical performance, offering support to the notion that visceral brain activity is of fundamental importance” (p. 84). It is reasonable to argue therefore that as a further additional aspect of domain specificity would be emotive skills: a propensity for emotional self-indulgence in a variety of ways, or hedonism, in that particularly musicians and singers would strive to optimize their emotional experiences when playing and that this strive, or perhaps need, would also be stronger in a gifted individual than in an able but not necessarily gifted musician. A relationship between music ability and altered states of consciousness has for example been amply demonstrated (Biasutti, 1990; Tart, 1990).

36

The Elusive Muse

737

The last potential aspect of musical giftedness domain specificity discussed here is inner hearing, which Campbell (1989) explains is “. . . [when] one using notation ‘hears what he sees. And sees what he hears’ once the skill has been developed (p. 304). Brodsky & Henik (1997) were able to demonstrate by a series of experiments first that musical inner hearing really does exist as a distinct form of cognition (see also Crowder & Pitt, 1992; Halpern, 1992: Gordon, 1995) and second that not all musicians in their research sample had this ability although they were all highly trained musicians. Similar results were obtained by Hallam (1995). She found that only two out of three musicians were able to hear music from the printed page of a score. While these researchers studied performers and surmised that inner hearing in one way or another is part of highly skilled musicians array of abilities, I would suggest differentiating that assumption by arguing that while inner hearing is no doubt a facilitating asset to performers who has the ability, it is crucial to a composer or a conductor. I propose that inner hearing particularly is a skill characteristic of a musically gifted composer or conductor. Danish composer Vagn Holmboe (1991) describes the genesis of his Symphony no. 6: “. . . without my knowing one note of the music. It stood quite clear to me as a larger totality in my consciousness; I knew how it had to be . . . sounds streamed forth now as if on their own; they sang in me, and I had to use all the abilTable 36.3 A suggestion how musical giftedness could be outlined in terms of giftedness domains and their domain specific skills. Note that this division pertains to Western classical music

ity and technique I had” (p. 39). Furthermore, Hans von B¨ulow, the first of the Maestro Conductors divided conductors somewhat facetiously into two groups: those with their head in the score and those with the scores in their head (see Bamberger, 1965). Conductors need to be able to hear the score from the score alone. In conclusion, musical giftedness is a multidimensional construct. In order to make sense of the multitude of research into musical behavior and facilitate future research and a better understanding of giftedness in music, as opposed to music as a general capacity common to all, it needs to be studied as a domain-specific phenomenon. There are clearly certain aspects of musical behavior that are more important in one pursuit than in another. Few of them have previously been brought together in a model outlining musical giftedness (cf. Chan, 2005). I therefore tentatively suggest the following division of domain-specific skills (see Table 36.3). This proposal cannot be understood as conclusive or exhaustive in any way. It is mainly an effort to piece together many years of research in several fields of study as well as to bring together scattered ideas and anecdotal assumptions of the musicians themselves. Also, the piecing together of the model unavoidably rests on my own subjective evaluation of available information: empirical and other. At the very least the outline can serve well as a heuristic for future research.

Giftedness domain

Domain specific key skills

Type

Voice quality Voice motor function

Physiological Physiological

Acting skills

Personality

Auditory skills Musical memory

Cognitive Cognitive

Emotive skills

Personality

Motor function Appropriate physical attributes

Physiological Physiological

Auditory skills Musical memory

Cognitive Cognitive

Emotive skills

Personality

Voice performance

Instrument performance

Composing/Conducting/Arranging Auditory skills Inner hearing Creativity Emotive skills

Cognitive Cognitive Personality Personality

738

Musical Giftedness and Heredity As the musical upbringing of gifted Western Classical musicians has been systematically charted and is now well known and the significance of extensive practice, mentors, and supportive and stimulating environments well documented (Sosniak, 1985; Bastian, 1989; Manturzewska, 1990; Sloboda, 1991; Ericsson et al., 1993; Sloboda & Howe, 1991; Howe & Sloboda, 1991a,b), it seems that the question of nature versus nurture has rekindled with considerable intensity. However, while encouragement, opportunity, and extensive practicing certainly would mean a great deal to any musician, gifted or not, it is difficult to overlook individual limits to what can be achieved (Hunt, 1997). Arguments against genetic impact on various aspects of development come into a different light when compared with how sport scientists currently understand future talent identification in sports. McArdle, Katch, & Katch, (2001) envision the following regarding future gifted athletes: The next decades . . . research will build upon the rapidly developing knowledge base about gene expression and the human gene map for performance and health related phenotypes. In the not-too-distant future, sport scientists will routinely incorporate simplified molecular techniques to assess and individual’s potential for strength, endurance, and other traits important to exercise performance . . . Coaches and trainers in the future decades will undoubtedly apply technologies from molecular medicine to genetically screen young children for gene clusters that indicate potential for desirable athletic traits (p. 994).

Thus, sport scientists have a different basis and a somewhat different—and I think a more candid and correct—debate. There is no denial of the impact of genetic predisposition, but there exists a debate what to do with the knowledge we do have. Not everyone thinks screening on the basis of genetic predisposition is desirable, and it does raise a number of ethical questions (Murray, 1991; Mallia & ten Have, 2005; Miah & Rich, 2006). However, the current state of molecular medicine nevertheless makes it possible to envision genetic identification of talent given that the physiological and cognitive prerequisites for any given domain of pursuit are known. Surely music in this respect could not be much different than sports? To a degree musically gifted individuals such as performers and singers could well be looked upon as athletes.

R.S. Persson

Unfortunately hidden more or less political agendas sometimes interfere in deciding what is “true” and what is not, quite irrespective of what evidence actually suggest (Segerstr˚ale, 2000). Never is controversy more rampant than when heredity is discussed. It would be more honest and definitely more correct, like in sports, to debate with regard to musical giftedness what kind of a future we wish to have rather than trying to construct a future based on ignoring certain facts

The Nature of Stimulation and Development Differs Between Domains Kleinen (2002) argues that studying popular musicians will probably extend the scientific understanding of musical giftedness. He even goes so far as to say that the research effort to date has been “blocked by the cult of genius and other unreflected myths” (p. 8). Rosenbrock (2003) makes much the same observation and claim. It is worth noting again the parallel to the quest for understanding human intelligence. “In seeking to understand intelligence,” Sternberg (1988) suggests, “we should inhibit our desire to look in obscure nooks and crannies, and dampen our fascination with the unusual and the bizarre. Instead, we should look in the most obvious of places—ordinary people living their everyday lives—to gain some insight into what intelligence is, how it should be measured and how it might be improved” (p. 6). Kleinen (1997) studied Jazz and Rock musicians and did indeed find differences between Western classically trained musicians, always strictly and formally trained, and popular musicians, who have more or less learnt their musical skills much on their own (Table 36.4). Campbell-Robinson, Buck, & Cuthbert (1991), on the other hand, studied a number of local and traditional musicians in various countries. They also found that formal training in music was usually missing and that the early beginnings of their musical development tended to be a very lonely one: The portrait we have painted of the local musicians we have interviewed is one of lonely, talented children who turn to music with an incredible dedication at an early age. Often their formal musical education, if any, is minimal, and they begin to train themselves, relying frequently on the help of other musicians, some of whom are family members. As adults our musicians see themselves as less

36

The Elusive Muse

Table 36.4 Some differences between the musical development of Western Classical musicians and Jazz and Rock musicians (adapted from Kleinen, 1997)

739 Variables of study

Western Classical

Jazz and Rock

Technique Social facilitators Social situation Performance priorities Nature of learning

Has highest priority Parents and teachers Loneliness By notation and exactitude Formal teaching by others

Feeling is more important Group members, friends Member of a group By ear, by feeling Learning on your own

bound by the traditional mores and values of the social surroundings, being both more tolerant and socially sophisticated than friends from the past who have pursued more mainstream occupations (p. 223).

Thus, a widened study of musical giftedness, differentiating research samples by encompassing different genres of music as well as cultures, could substantiate and extend the findings that, for example, well-known precursors of developing musical giftedness in a Western Classical music context (Howe & Sloboda, 1991a,b; Manturzewska, 1990; Sloboda & Howe, 1991) are different for talented musicians of other genres, sub-cultures, and cultures.

Everyone Has Musical Capacity Shuter-Dyson (1982) concludes that “the ability to make and apprehend music is inherent in all humans, but in another sense aptitude varies among individuals and may set a limit on ultimate achievement, no matter how favorable the environmental influences nor how highly motivated the person” (p. 393). It is very difficult to overlook the notion of a human general capacity for music. All known cultures, present and past, have or have had music—as opposed to nonmusic (see Merriam, 1964)—as an integral part of that culture (Blacking, 1995; Cross, 2001). It is difficult to argue, for example, that an individual is not musical, since most people at least to some extent have all the perceptual and cognitive attributes considered particularly related to music. The few who are de facto “unmusical” are likely to be neurologically dysfunctional—congenitally or traumatically—in relation to this general music capacity (Kalmus & Fry, 1980; Ayotte, Peretz, Rousseau, Bard, & Bojanowski, 2000; Peretz et al., 2002; Stewart & Walsh, 2002). Humans are a musical species, and lack of individual skill is not to be equaled to being void of musical capacity (Blacking, 1987; Sloboda, Davidson, & Howe, 1994; Koelsch, Tomas, & Friederici, 2000).

Shuter-Dyson (1981) further points out that if Seashore’s (1919, 1938) idea of separate musical functions was accurate, intercorrelations between the tests included in the battery he devised to assess musical aptitude would as a rule be low and the search for underlying factors would yield specific ones. This has proven not to be the case. However, while these results may be true in a psychometrical sense, a test is also subject to construct validity. Is the way that Seashore operationalized his notions on independent abilities actually reflected in the test battery? What does it really measure? While high intercorrelations between the tested musical functions perhaps deflate the intentions of Seashore’s (1919) test battery assessing aural skills such as pitch, consonance, tonal memory, time and rhythm, it does not necessarily make the idea of multiple musical functions null and void. There may well be other skills at play, which were not considered by Seashore and others at the time; skills which are not necessarily tied to auditory perception as already demonstrated in this chapter on musical giftedness. It follows of course that lack of individual and developed musical skill is not to be equaled to being void of musical capacity. Irrespective of whether general or specific musical behavior playing an instrument or singing first needs learning and practicing—supervised or by one’s own accord. Practicing therefore has attracted many researchers particular interest.

Practice Makes Perfect It is not possible to even consider becoming an expert in any field without first having accumulated a considerable amount of time practicing the skills required to reach an expert level (cf. Ericsson, 1996). Several studies over the years have scrutinized musicians and their practicing. Comparisons were made, for example, between conservatory student violinists likely to become internationally recognized in due time,

740

good student violinists, and music teachers (Ericsson et al., 1993). By 18 years of age the difference in self-reported accumulated practice is considerable: the most promising students had invested 7,410 hours of practicing, while good students reached 5,301 hours and music teachers 3,420 hours. Note that practicing in the development toward expert levels is deliberate (Ericsson, Tesch-R¨omer, & Krampe, 1990). This means planned, strategic, and to some extent enforced practicing in that extrinsic motivation is stronger than intrinsic motivation. Practicing is not necessarily enjoyable, but there are events such as contests or concerts ahead for which practicing is necessary. So, musicians practice anyway. Less successful musicians, like amateurs, turn their practicing into something more enjoyable and interact with others more than practice systematically; an indulgence which, according to Ericsson et al. (1993), leads to little improvement in skill. As Harnischmacher (1997) puts it: “. . .practice times—without the extrinsic “push” of performance preparation—tend to be influenced by planning and action-oriented aspects of personality” (p. 84). Also, practicing must be kept up over time to maintain the skill (Krampe & Ericsson, 1996). Beyond any doubt, behind every gifted musician is a considerable investment in systematic training of the skills required for their chosen pursuit. Expertise, or in Subotnik’s (2000) terminology: elite level talent, does not come cheap!

Identifying Musical Giftedness

R.S. Persson

musical giftedness by and large is biased toward Western Classical music and that social consensus assessment of talent, at least for research purposes, is too ambiguous to be of much value. Musical giftedness therefore needs to be identified, and understood, along three dimensions: (1) as something objective and generalizable, (2) as something subjective and individual, and (3) as something social as based on estimated value or appreciation within a context of supply and demand. Implied here is also that there are both commonalities and unique features to each domain of musical pursuit. Shuter-Dyson (1981) has provided an excellent evaluation of the earlier attempts to identify musical giftedness, so better here to focus on more recent attempts to outline musical giftedness and what separates the gifted from the non-gifted. These attempts have, more or less, all been impressed by expertise research and fully acknowledge the tantamount significance of practice and social precursors in order to develop excellence to its fullest in a musical domain. They have in addition also kept the significance of auditory skills. But apart from components such as these the understanding of musical giftedness has become more elaborate (Table 36.5).

Table 36.5 Identifying markers for musical giftedness as suggested in the recent literature. Note that markers suggested by Winner & Martino (2000) and Haroutounian (2000, 2002) are culled from empirical studies, whereas Bastian (1989) and Subotnik et al., (2004) report musicians’ own understanding of what musical giftedness is and/or what it takes to be recognized as such Winner & Martino (2000):

Haroutounian (2000, 2002):

In surveying the literature on the many aspects of muEarly interest in musical sounds Perceptual awareness sical behavior one issue stands out clearly regarding Musical memory Perceptual discrimination Perfect pitch Metaperception the identification of musical giftedness: early attempts Musical generativity Creative interpretation by pioneering researchers to detect musical aptitude by Multiple music-cognitive Behavior/ psychometric testing are far from sufficient. The rearepresentation Performance son is that musical giftedness is not a matter of auSensitivity to emotion in music Motivation ditory cognition and perception only. However, in reBastian (1989): Subotnik et al. (2004): cent years, with further research and also because reExpressive abilities Persistence searchers have turned to other sources of data than Emotionality Self-confidence Learning with ease Knowledge of Self what perceptual testing can provide; they have turned Musical memory Socially skilled to musicians themselves to ask qualitative questions. Physical suitability Self-promotive The understanding of musical giftedness has as a result Auditory skills Learning with ease extended considerably. As has been discussed earlier, Multi-skilled across domains Risk-taking Intrinsic motivation however, these efforts are still in their infancy since Charisma there is an urgent need to recognize that the notion of

36

The Elusive Muse

Winner & Martino (2000), as part of cognition, suggest musical memory and perfect pitch as identifying markers. They also state that musically gifted individuals cognitively represent music in more ways than non-gifted individuals (cf. Bamberger, 1991). In addition, they point out that an early interest in musical sounds and perfect pitch are typical. The early interest in musical sounds, or perhaps rather an oversensitivity to sound, has been suggested by Noy (1968) and Nass (1975) also. Perfect (or absolute) pitch, however, may not necessarily be associated with giftedness. It is not an uncommon phenomenon. In one study 15% of the participants had perfect pitch (Baharloo, Johnston, Service, Gitschier, & Freimer, 1998) and in another 32% (Gregersen, Kowalsky, Kohn, & WestMartin, 1999). It can be learnt by some and has been demonstrated in both gifted individuals and individuals with developmental disorders alike (Dixon-Ward & Burns, 1982). When studying piano performance in Sweden and Canada in the 1980s, I quickly learned that more than anything the possession of perfect pitch awarded social status. Students who did not have the ability were usually in awe of those who did. Musically gifted individuals are generative. By this Winner and Martino mean that they are able to transpose, improvise, and compose. It is worth noting that composer and musician was often one and the same prior to the twentieth century, and it was more rule than exception that they improvised also. It is only quite recently in history that musicians have become more or less specialized and, particularly, performance and composing are regarded as unique professions. In popular music, especially at the outset of an artist’s career, this tradition largely remains. Popular musicians tend to perform their own music. New to the signifiers of musical giftedness Winner and Martino introduce sensitivity to emotion in music. This is an important addition and one that has been conspicuously absent from early scientific attempts of trying to understand musical giftedness. Haroutounian (2000, 2002) produces a similar set of signifying aspects of musical giftedness, but she encompasses the cognitive skills by using several and, in all likelihood, somewhat overlapping terms such as perceptual awareness and discrimination, behavior and performance, and metaperception. Perceptual awareness and discrimination are considered “biological givens.” They are equal to musical intelligence and

741

involve, in Haroutounian’s understanding, above all a propensity for awareness of sound and listening carefully. Motivation is perhaps an obvious issue to consider, although motivation for pursuing a musical career differs from one musician to another: (1) a hedonic motive—the search for positive emotional experiences, (2) a social motive—the importance of group identity and belonging, and (3) achievement motives (Persson et al., 1992). In reference to creative interpretation as one important signifier Haroutounian (2000) writes: “The most decisive factor of determining potential musical talent in children, according to respondents in every interview, rested on criteria that were related to the child’s creative and expressive involvement in musical activities” (p. 146). The core skills of musical giftedness: auditory skills and musical memory are subsumed under behavior and performance. One important criterion in Haroutounian’s checklist is metaperception, which is defined as the perceptual and cognitive process in which the musician: (a) senses the sound internally, (b) remembers this sound, (c) manipulates the sound to match expressive intentions, and (d) communicates this creative interpretations of sound to others. Bastian (1989) presents an entirely different, but complimenting, list of criteria culled from questionnaires answered by highly gifted young German musicians. Needless to say, cognitive skills like musical memory, learning with ease, and auditory skills are central. But from musicians’ perspective expressive abilities are considered the most important skills by far closely followed by emotionality; a musician’s ability and will to experience music affectively. These musicians also, like the one’s interviewed by Mills (1985), argue for the importance of certain physical attributes to facilitate mastering a musical instrument. One very interesting finding by Bastian in this major research project is the fact that a surprising number of the participants were polymaths; they were multitalented (see Root-Bernstein, this volume). Some played several instruments to a very high level, whereas others in addition to their instrument wrote poems also or devoted themselves to visual arts—all pursued to a high level of skill. One example is the following poem of a 17-yearold bassoonist. The poem here is rendered in translation from German by the current author (appearing anonymously in Bastian, 1999; p. 290)

742

The homeless Barely in sight he lies, chameleon of the city, between withered grass and leaves sees growing above him the sky In green markings “founded by city. . .” to him belongs no bench in the park, only the sky in between Already the bottle is hidden with which he would be able to change colors The last, and currently the most recent study, discussed in this context is a study by Subotnik and her fellow researchers (2004; see also Subotnik this volume) on “secrets of success in music performance”. Questions posed to participants do not directly address the question of giftedness but rather what it currently takes to succeed as a professional gifted musician. This is an inventive way of enquiring about giftedness. It prompts respondents to account for aspects of being musically gifted rarely addressed in research. As valuable and welcome this is, it raises further questions also. Only one cognitive prerequisite is mentioned by the participants: the importance of learning with ease. All the other characteristics regarded as necessary relate, one way or another, to personality, namely persistence, self-confidence, risk-taking, intrinsic motivation, and charisma. However, the successful gifted individual, according to participants, must also be self-promoting, socially skilled, and have a considerable knowledge of Self—three characteristics, which in part could be subsumed as ambition. In this perspective, the successful gifted musician is well aware of market forces and the principle of supply and demand. The long-lasting image of the musician of the Romantic Era as the inspired, exalted and divinely touched prophet, has transformed into a more or less stout entrepreneurial business person aiming to negotiate his or her own contracts with the best concert agents around the world, taking every opportunity to

R.S. Persson

finding something that will further their career (see Shavinina’s chapter on entrepreneurial giftedness in this volume). Given that this really outlines successful musicians; that is, describes what respondents felt what successful gifted musicians actually are like rather than how they in their experience would need to be like, the suggested characteristics provide a most interesting comparison to Kemp’s (1996) overview of research on musicians and their typical type of personality: Evidence . . . support the notion that introversion appears to be positively linked to levels of musical performance. In musicians, the trait appears to manifest itself particularly in a tendency to direct energy inwards, resulting in a reserved and introspective temperament. At the same time, however, it suggests considerable resourcefulness, self-sufficiency, and personal inner strength. The musician can be perceived as a “bold introvert” who possesses the capacity to be comfortable in solitude during long periods of practice but at the same time is able to mobilize sufficient degrees of autonomy in performance. This form of introversion appears to take on aspects of the “schizoid” personality, individuals developing their sense of control over aesthetic objects and generating a sense of their own omnipotence (pp. 49–50).

In addition, Rovics (1984) has found that musicians often suffer from a serious lack of self-esteem, while Storr (1972) regards the creative mind as schizoid. As such the creative individual is introverted and somewhat reclusive, using his or her creativity instrumentally to remain aloof from social contexts but yet uphold a sense of mastery, if not a sense of omnipotence. It seems that the research on musicians’ personality to some extent speaks against the respondents interviewed by Subotnik and her colleagues (2004) suggesting a discrepancy between who musicians often are and the persons they perhaps need to be in a rationalist and market-oriented context (Ritzer, 1992). Celebrated violinist Nigel Kennedy (1991) came to study at the Juilliard School of Music in New York, after having been brought up musically by Yehudi Menuhin. He disliked the famous music school intensely and made the following observation: “Don’t misunderstand me, the Juilliard School was full of brilliant players all hungry to succeed, but it was their progress which preoccupied them and not the discovery of the music and its emotions” (p. 18). The multitude of research done in Performance Art Medicine focusing on musicians’ health hazards, physical and psychological, suggests that mu-

36

The Elusive Muse

sicians generally do not fare well in controlled rationalist environments. They are prone to develop a variety of stress-related problems and anxieties (Ostwald & Avery, 1991; Nagel, 1993; Persson, 1995; Phyland, Oates, & Greenwood, 1999; Amadio & Tubiana, 2000). Another line of research has looked at the relationship between what Redfield-Jamison (1993) terms “the artistic temperament” and above all manic-depressive illness. She poses a question worth considering, namely “if manic-depressive illness and its associated temperaments are relatively common in artists, writers, and composers, and if the illness, at least to some extent, an important part of what makes the work what it is, what are the implications of treating the underlying disease and its temperaments?” (p. 241). In other words, if no emotional problems (or emotionality in more general terms), then maybe also no astounding creative production. Rothenberg (1990) makes similar reflections. Irrespective of whether gifted musicians are at times psychologically disordered or not, psychiatric studies and observations of artists nevertheless reinforces the notion of the artist as an emotionally oriented individual further. That is to say, the introverted ones who have developed a considerable affective relationship to their music making are likely to be as far from “stout entrepreneurial business persons” as can possibly be, which in turn raises the question who are the persistent, self-promoting, charismatic, and intrinsically motivated risk-taking entrepreneurs that Subotnik and colleagues seek (see also Subotnik, 2003)? If, in Kennedy’s (1991) words, The Juilliard School of Music and other similar institutions “[have] the stench of raw ambition, of ruthless professional people only too happy to conform to whatever is musically suitable to succeed” (p. 18), then maybe these famous institutions of musical learning are not necessarily the most opportune places in which to find musical giftedness based emotive and creative skills? Beyond any doubt, however, musical giftedness can be identified by its core skills. For this there is consensus. Musical giftedness needs also be identified by its key skills, but research is scarce and so far only in its infancy. Finally, identification must be understood as contextual. The attribution of giftedness is more that just inherent ability or capacity. Social acceptance and tolerance are also issues to consider

743

(Persson, 2006) and to my knowledge such research has not yet even begun.

Concluding Remarks By involving musicians, their teachers, parents, and mentors in the research process by interview and observation, thereby extending empirical knowledge beyond psychometric notions of ability, much has been gained. It is certainly of interest to know, at an individual level, how music is experienced; how motivational triggers, development, instruction, the nature of practicing, and so on, are understood and construed. However, there are pitfalls in this line of research, be it either quantitatively or qualitatively oriented. We cannot assume that respondents are always correct and that they always know themselves well enough to be able to establish for example causality. That which is true in a phenomenological sense may not correspond to how things actually are in a more objective sense. Sloboda, Davidson, & Howe (1994) term this problem “folk psychology”. One good example of the problem in question is asking different relevant groups what they believe makes an individual musically gifted. This is what researchers Evans, Bickel, & Pendarvis, (2000) did. They found that students attribute much of their success to innate talent and hard work, whereas they also feel that family and friends have, in fact, discouraged their musical development. Their parents, on the other hand, report their children to be of only moderate innate ability and rather emphasize the significance of support and encouragement given by themselves and their friends. Who is correct? We cannot know without redesigning the study and follow a different research strategy. Another possible pitfall in research, especially when involving young children in a study, is to use “grownup” conceptions of what goes on in a child’s mind. What we interpret as “delight in musical sounds,” for example, may be nothing of the sort. It could simply be a child’s—any child’s—natural heightened attentiveness to novelty (Sloboda, 1985). I think similarly we must be wary of attributing aspects such intentional creativity, musical expression, and musical involvement also. There is certainly a danger that we see

744

what we wish to see and thus risking to invalidate the research. A third problem in researching musical giftedness is of course, in view of what has been discussed in this chapter, whether the ones subject to study in various research projects are truly and objectively gifted? Considering the bias towards Western classical music in research, the social forces of supply and demand, and the ambiguity of social consensus procedures, it would be somewhat presumptuous to argue that everyone studied as musically gifted actually is. At the very least many, perhaps most, have certainly been gifted—but perhaps in different ways due to lack of a general definition of musical giftedness!

References Adler, M. (1985, March). Stardom and talent. American Economic Review, 75(1), 208–212. Adolph, H. (1978). Talentsuche und Talentf¨orderung im Sport als Kooperationsfeld von Schule und Verein [The search for talent and talent training in sport as a field of cooperation between school and parents] PhD Dissertation in psychology/Sport Science no. 0E05 (Gesamthochschule Kassel, Germany). Albert, R. S. (1992). Genius and eminence (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Amadio, p. C., & Tubiana, R. (2000). Medical problems of the instrumentalist musician. London: Martin Dunitz. Andreas, R. (1993). Improvisation. In H. Bruhn, R. Oerter, & H. R¨osing (Eds.), Musicpsychologie. Ein Handbuch (pp. 506– 513). Hamburg, Germany: Rohwolts Encyclop¨adie. Ayotte, J., Peretz, I., Rousseau, I., Bard, C., & Bojanowski, M., (2000). Patterns of music agnosia associated with middle cerebral artery infarcts. Brain, 123, 1926–1938. Baharloo, S., Johnston, p. A., Service, S. K., Gitschier, J., & Freimer, N. B. (1998). Absolute pitch: an approach for identification of genetic and non-genetic components. American Journal of Human Genials, 62, 224–231. Baltes, p. B. (1998). Testing the limits of ontogenetic sources of talent and excellence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 407–408. Bamberger, C. (Ed.). (1965). The conductor’s art. New York: Columbia University Press. Bamberger, J. (1991). The mind behind the musical ear. How children develop musical intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bandura, A. (1990). Conclusion: Reflections on nonability determinants of competence. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian, Jr. (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 315–362). London: Yale University Press. Barret, M. (2006). Creative collaboration: an eminence study of teaching and learning in music. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 192–218.

R.S. Persson Bastian, H. G. (1987). Jugend musiziert. Der Wettbewerb in der Sicht von Teilnehmern und Verantwortlichen [Young musicians perform. Competitions from the perspective of participants and contest organizers]. Mainz, Germany: Schott. Bastian, H. G. (1989). Leben f¨ur Musik. Eine Biographie-Studie u¨ ber musikalische (Hoch-) Begabungen [To live for music. A biographical study of musical high ability]. Mainz: Schott. Biasutti, M. (1990). Music ability and altered states of consciousness: an experimental study. International Journal of Psychosomatics, 37(1–4), 82–85. Blacking, J. (1987). A common-sense view of all music. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Blacking, J. (1995). Music, culture and experience. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Boyd, J., & George-Warren, H. (1992). Musicians in tune. Seventy-five contemporary musicians discuss the creative process. New York: Fireside Books. Braudy, L. (1997). The frenzy of renown. Fame and its history. New York: Vintage Books. Brenneis, D. (1990). Musical imaginations: comparative perspectives on musical creativity. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 170–189). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Brodsky, W., & Henik, A. (1997). Demonstrating inner hearing among musicians. Paper presented at the Third Triennial Conference of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music (ESCOM), Uppsala, Sweden, 7–12 1997. Bruer, J. T. (2002). The myth of the first three years. A new understanding of early brain development and lifelong learning. New York: Free Press. Bunt, L. (1994). Music therapy. An art beyond words. London: Routledge. Campbell, p. S. (1989). Dalcroze reconstructed: an application of music learning theory to the principles of Jacques Dalcroze. In D. L. Walters & C. C. Taggart (Eds.), Readings in Music Learning Theory (pp. 301–315). Chicago, Ill: GIA Publishers, Inc. Campbell, D. (2001). The Mozart Effect: Tapping the power of music to heal the Body, strengthen the mind, and unlock the creative spirit. London: Quill. Campbell-Robinson, D., Buck, E. B., & Cuthbert, M. (1991). Music at the margins. Popular music and global cultural diversity. London: Sage. Cattell, R. B. (1973). Personality and mood by questionnaire: a handbook of interpretive theory, psychometrics, and practical procedures. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chabris, C. F. (1999). Prelude or requiem for the “Mozart effect”?. Nature, 400, 826–827. Chan, A. (2005). The solo pianist. A critical analysis of concepts of giftedness (Thesis in partial fulfillment of the Master of Arts Degree), Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. Clarke, E. F. (1988). Generative principles in music performance. In J. A. Sloboda (Ed.), Generative processes in music. The psychology of performance, improvisation, and composition (pp. 1–26). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Collins, N. (2002). Relating transhuman virtuosity to human performance. Proceedings of MAXIS, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK, April 12–14.

36

The Elusive Muse

Coon, H., & Carey, G. (1989). Genetic and environmental determinants of musical ability in twins. Behavior Genetics, 19(2), 183–193. Cross, I. (2001). Music, mind and evolution. Psychology of music, 29(1), 95–102. Crowder, R. G., & Pitt, M. A. (1992). Research on memory/imagery for musical timbre. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), Auditory imagery (pp. 29–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dennis, I., & Tapfield, p. (Eds.). (1996). Human abilities. Their nature and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. De la Motte-Haber, H. (1985). Handbuch der Musikpsychologie [A handbook of music psychology]. Laaber, Germany: Laaber-Verlag. Deli`ege, I., & Sloboda, J. A. (Eds.). (1996). Musical beginnings. Origins and development of musical competence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Dixon-Ward, W., & Burns, E. M. (1982). Absolute pitch. , In D. Deutsch (Ed.), The psychology of music (pp. 431–451). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc. Dubal, D. (1985). The world of the concert pianist. Conversations with 35 internationally celebrated pianists. London: Victor Gollancz. Eisner, E. W. (1998). Does experience in the arts boost academic achievement? Journal of Art & Design Education, 17(1), 51–60. Elliot, D. (1987). Assessing musical performance. British Journal of Music Education, 4(2), 157–188. Ericsson, K. A. (Ed.). (1996). The road to excellence. The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-R¨omer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. Ericsson, K. A., Tesch-R¨omer, C., & Krampe, R. T. (1990). The role of practice and motivation in the acquisition of expert-level performance in real life. In M. J. A. Howe (Ed.), Encouraging the development of exceptional skills and talents (pp. 109–130). Leicester, UK: The British Psychological Society. Evans, R. J., Bickel, R., & Pendarvis, E. D. (2000). Musical: innate or acquired? Perceptions of students, parents, and teachers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(2), 80–90. Ewbank, T., & Hildred, S. (2004). Rod Stewart: The new biography. London: Portrait. Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Eysenck, H. J. (1988). The biological basis of intelligence. In S. H. Irvine & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Human abilities in cultural context (pp. 87–104). New York: Cambridge University Press. Feldman, D. H. (1986). Giftedness as a developmentalist sees it. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 285–305). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Friberg, A. (1991). Generative rules for music performance: a formal description of a rule system, Computer Music Journal, 15, 56–71. Fox, p. W., Herschberger, S. L., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1996). Genetic and environmental contributions to the acquisition of a motor skill. Nature, 384, 356–358.

745 Freeman, J. (1984). Talent in music and Fine Art. Gifted Education International, 2, 107–110. Gabrielsson, A. (2001). Emotions in strong experiences with music. p. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Music and emotion. Theory and research (pp. 431–452). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Gagn´e, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(3), 103–112. Gagn´e, F. (1999). Nature or nurture? A re-examination of Sloboda and Howe’s (1991) interview study. Psychology of Music, 27, 38–51. Gardner, H. (1983). The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gordon, E. E. (1995). Testing musical aptitudes from preschool through college. In M. Manturzewska, K. Milkaszewski, & A. Bialkowski (Eds.), Psychology of music today (pp. 170– 176). Warsaw, Poland: Fryderyk Chopin Academy of Music. Gregersen, p. K., Kowalsky, E., Kohn, N., & West-Martin, E. (1999). Absolute pitch: prevalence, ethnic variation, and estimation of the genetic component. American Journal of Human Genetics, 65, 911–913. Halpern, A. R. (1992). Musical aspects of auditory imagery. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), Auditory imagery (pp. 1–28). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hamlen, W. A. Jr. (1991, November). Superstars in popular music. Empirical evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(4), 729–733. Hallam, S. (1995). Professional musicians’ approaches to the learning and interpretation of music. Psychology of Music, 23, 111–128. Halper, R. (1999). Acting in opera: some humorous and random thoughts. Unpublished essay, available http://users. california.com/∼rhalper/ACTING IN OPERA.doc [Downloaded November 12, 2006] Hargreaves, D. J. (1986). The developmental psychology of music. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Harnischmacher, C. (1997). The effects of individual differences in motivation, volition, and maturational processes on practice behavior of young instrumentalists. In H. Jørgensen (Ed.),Does practice make perfect? Current theory and research on instrumental music practice (pp. 71–87). Oslo, Norway: Norges musikkhøgskole. Haroutounian, J. (2000). Perspectives of musical talent: a study of identification criteria and procedures. High Ability Studies, 11(2), 137–160. Haroutounian, J. (2002). Musical talent. Kindling the spark: recognizing and developing musical potential. New York: Oxford University Press. Haskell, H. (1988). The early music revival: a history. London: Thames & Hudson. Hassler, M. (1990). Functional cerbral asymmetric and cognitive abilities in musicians, painters, and controls. Brain and Cognition, 13, 1–17. Hedden, S. K. (1973). Listeners’ responses to music in relation to autochtonous and experiential factors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 21, 225–238. Holmboe, V. (1991). Experiencing music. A composer’s notes. London: Toccata Press.

746 Hopyan, T., Dennis, M., Weksberg, R., & Cytrynbaum, C. (2001). Music skills and the expressive interpretation of music in children with Willams-Beuren Syndrome: pitch, rhythm, melodic imagery, phrasing, and musical affect. Child Neuropsychology, 7(1), 42–53. Howe, M. J. A. (1997). IQ in question. The truth about intelligence. London: Sage. Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W., & Sloboda, J. A. (1989). Innate talents: reality of myth? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 399–442. Howe, M. J. A., & Sloboda, J. A. (1991a). Young musicians’ accounts of significant influences in their early lives. 1. The family and the musical background. British Journal of Music Education, 8, 39–52. Howe, M. J. A., & Sloboda, J. A. (1991b). Young musicians’ accounts of significant influences in their early lives. 2. Teachers, practicing and performing. British Journal of Music Education, 8, 53–63. Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W., Moore D. G., & Sloboda, J. A. (1995). Are there early childhood signs of musical ability? Psychology of Music, 23(2), 162–176. Hunt, E. (1997). Nurture vs. Nature: a feeling of dej´a vu. In R. J. Sternberg & E. Grigorenko (Eds.), Intelligence, heredity, and environment (pp. 531–551). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Huron, D. (2001). Is music an evolutionary adaption? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 930, 43–61. Illert, M. (1993). Die Motorik des Musizierens [The motor skills of music performance]. In H. Bruhn, R. Oerter, & H. R¨osing (Eds.), Musikpsychologie: Ein Handbuch (pp. 639– 649). Hamburg, Germany: Rowohlts Encyklop¨adie. Juslin, p. N. (2001). Communicating emotion in music performance: a review and a theoretical framework. In p. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Music and emotion. Theory and research (pp. 309–340). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Juslin, p. N., & Sloboda, J. A. (Eds.). (2001). Music and emotion. Theory and research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Justus, T., & Hutsler, J. J. (2005). Fundamental issues in the evolutionary psychology of music. Assessing innateness and domain specificity. Music Perception, 23(1), 1–27. Kalmus, H., & Fry, D. B. (1980). On tune deafness (dysmelodia): frequency, development, genetics and musical background. Annals of Human Genetics, 43, 369–382. Kavolis, V. (1963). A role theory of artistic interest. The Journal of Social Psychology, 60, 31–37. Kelly, G. A. (1963). A theory of personality: the psychology of personal constructs. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Kemp, A. E. (1996). The musical temperament. Psychology and personality of musicians. Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press. Kennedy, N. (1991). Always playing. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Kenny, B. J., & Gellrich, M. (2002). Improvisation. In R. Parncutt & G. E. McPherson (Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance. Creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 117–134). New York: Oxford University Press. Kingsbury, H. (1988). Music, talent, and performance: a conservatory system. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Kivy, p. A., & Ky, p. (2002). The possessor and the possessed: Handl, Mozart, Beethoven, and the idea of musical genius. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

R.S. Persson Klein, p. (1991). Intelligence. The psychometric view. London: Routledge. Kleinen, G. (1997). Die biographische Dimension musikalischer Begabumh. Jazz und Rockmusik als Untersuchingsgebiet [The biographical dimension of musical giftedness. Studying Jazz and Rock music]. In H. Gembris, R. D. Kraemer, & G. Maas (Eds.), Musikp¨adagogische Forschungsberichte 1996. Singen als Gegenstand der Grundlageforschung (pp. 257– 266). Augsburg, Germany: Wissner Verlag. Kleinen, G. (2002). Creativity beyond the classical hemisphere. In M. Britta & M. M´elen (Eds.), La cr´eativit´e musical – Musical creativity (pp. 1–12). Li´ege, Belgium: ESCOM. Koelsch, S., Tomas, G., & Friederici, A. D. (2000). Brain indices of music processing: “nonmusicians” are musical. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(3), 520–541. Krampe, R. T., & Ericsson, K. A. (1996). Maintaining excellence: deliberate practice and elite performance in young and older pianists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(4), 331–359. Kyllonen, p. C. (1996). Is working memory capacity Spearman’s g? In I. Dennis & p. Tapsfield (Eds.), Human abilities. Their nature and measurement (pp. 49–75). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lamp, C. J., & Keys, N. (1932). Can aptitude for specific musical instruments be predicted? The Journal of Educational Psychology, 26, 587–596. Levitin, D. J. (2000, Fall). In search of the musical mind. Cerebrum: The DANA Forum on Brain Sciences, 2(4), 31–49. Levitin, D. J., Cole, K., Chiles, M., Lai, Z., Lincoln, A., & Bellugi, U. (2004). Characterizing the musical phenotype in individuals with Williams Syndrome. Child Neuropsychology, 10(4), 223–247. Lubart, T., & Guignard, J. H. (2004). The generality-specificity of creativity: a multivariate approach. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity. From potential to realization (pp. 43–56). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Machotka, p. (1982). Esthetic judgment warm and cool: cognitive and affective determinants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 100–107. Mallia, P., & ten Have, H. (2005). Pragmatic approaches to genetic screening. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 8, 69–77. Manturzewska, M. (1990). A biographical study of the life span development of professional musicians. Psychology of Music, 18, 112–139. Marchant-Haycox, S. E., & Wilson, G. D. (1992). Personality and stress in performing artists. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 1061–1068. Martin, L. (2006, 17 January). “It’s going to be a very strong season, I think”: An interview with American Idol producer Nigel Lythgoe. Reality News Online. http:// http://www.realitynewsonline.com/cgi-bin/ae.pl? mode=4&article=article9455.art&page=1 [Viewed 06/11/3] McArdle, W. D., Katch, F. I., & Katch, V. L. (2001). Exercise physiology (5th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. McKelvie, P., & Low, J. (2002). Listening to Mozart does not improve children’s spatial ability: Final curtains for the Mozart effect. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 241–258.

36

The Elusive Muse

Merriam, A. p. (1964). The anthropology of music. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University Press. Miah, A. & Rich, E. (2006). Genetic tests for ability? Talent identification and the value of an open future. Sport, Education and Society, 11(3), 259–273. Miller, L. K. (1989). Musical savants. Exceptional skills in the mentally retarded. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Miller, G. F. (1998). Mate choice: a cognitive perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 161–201. Mills, J. (1985). Gifted instrumentalists: how can we recognize them? British Journal of Music Education, 2(1), 39–49. Mills, J. (1987). Assessment of solo musical performance: a preliminary study. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 91, 119–125. Murray, T. (1991, January). Ethical issues in human genome research. The FASEB Journal, 5, 55–60. Nagel, J. J. (1993). Stage fright in musicians. A psychodynamic perspective. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 57(4), 492–503. Nass, M. L. (1975). On hearing and inspiration in the composition of music. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 44, 431–449. Noice, T., & Noice, H. (2002). The expertise of professional actors: a review of recent research. High Ability Studies, 13(1), 7–20. Noy, p. (1968). The development of musical ability. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 93, 332–347. Oerter, R. (2003). Biological and psychological correlates of exceptional performance in development. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 999, 451–460. O’Neil, S. A., & McPherson, G. E. (2002). Motivation. In R. Parncutt & G. E. McPherson (Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance. Creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 31–46). New York: Oxford University Press. Ostwald, P., & Avery, M. (1991). Psychiatric problems of performing artists. In R. T. Sataloff, A. Brandfonbrenner, & R. Lederman (Eds.), Textbook of performing arts medicine (pp. 319–335). New York: Raven Press. Palmer, C., & Meyer, R. K. (2000). Conceptual and motor learning in music performance. Psychological Science, 11, 63–68. Peretz, I. (2001). Listen to the brain: a biological perspective on musical emotions. In p. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Music and emotion. Theory and research (pp. 106–134). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Peretz , I., Ayotte, J., Zatorre, R. J., Mehler, J., Ahad, P., Penhune, V. B., & Jutras, B. (2002). Congenital amusia. A disorder of fine-grained pitch discrimination. Neuron, 33(2), 185–191. Persson, R. S., Pratt, G., & Robson, C. (1992). Motivational and influential components of musical performance: a qualitative analysis. European Journal for High Ability, 3, 206–217. Persson, R. S. (1993). The subjectivity of musical performance. An exploratory music-psychological real world enquiry into the determinants and education of musical reality (Doctoral dissertation, School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield). Boston Spa, Wetherby, UK: The British Library Document Supply Centre. Persson, R. S. (1995). Psychosocial stressors among student musicians: a naturalistic study of the teacher-student relationship. International Journal of Arts Medicine, IV(2), 7–13.

747 Persson, R. S. (2000). Survival of the fittest or the most talented? Deconstructing the myth of the musical maestro. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(1), 25–38. Persson, R. S. (2001). The subjective world of the performer. In p. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Music and emotion. Theory and research (pp. 275–290). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Persson, R. S. (2004). Learning a musical instrument. Creativity or tradition? Education Today, 54(4), 4–7. Persson, R. S. (2006). The social function of giftedness. Proposing a socio-biological taxonomy. Manuscript submitted for publication. Phyland, D. J., Oates, J., & Greenwood, K. M. (1999). Selfreported voice problems among three groups of professional singers. Journal of Voice, 13(4), 602–611. Piirto, J. (1992). Understanding those who create. Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press. Polony, L. (1995). Krystian Zimerman’s reproductive art. In M. Manturzewska, K. Miklaszewski, & A. Bialkowski (Eds.), Psychology of music today (pp. 295–302). Warsaw, Poland: Fryderyk Chopin Academy of Music. Pressing, J. (1988). Improvisation: methods and models. In J. A. Sloboda (Ed.), Generative processes in music. The psychology of performance, improvisation, and composition (pp. 129–178). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Rauscher, F. H., Shaw, G. L., & Ky, K. N. (1993). Music and spatial task performance, Nature, 365, 61. Redfield-Jamison, K. (1993). Touched with fire. Manicdepressive illness and the artistic temperament. New York: The Free Press. Revesz, G. (1925). The psychology of a musical prodigy. New York: Harcourt Brace. Revesz, G. (1953). Introduction to the psychology of music. London: Longmans Green. Ritzer, G. (1992). The McDonaldization of Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Roberts, B. A. (1990). Social construction of talent by Canadian university music education majors. Canadian Music Educator, 32(3), 62–73. Rosen, S. (1981, December). The economics of superstars. American Economic Review, 71, 845–858. Rothenberg, A. (1990). Creativity and madness. New findings and old stereotypes. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rovics, H. (1984). Musical development through personal growth. Music Therapy, 4(1), 39–46. Rouget, G. (1985). Music and trance. A theory of the relationship between music and possession. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Rosenbrock, A. (2003). Creativity with a large C and creativity with a small c. Paper given at the Fifth Triennial ESCOM Conference, 8-13 September, Hanover, Germany. Seashore, C. E. (1919). The psychology of musical talent. New York: McGraw-Hill. Seashore, C. E. (1938). Psychology of Music. New York: Dover Books. Segerstr˚ale, U. (2000). Defenders of the truth. The battle for science in the sociobiology debate and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press. Shafer, L. H. (1976). Intention and performance. Psychological Review, 83(5), 375–393.

748 Shuter-Dyson, R., & Gabriel, C. (1981). The psychology of musical ability. London: Methuen. Shuter-Dyson, R. (1982). Musical ability, In D. Deutsch (Ed.), The psychology of music (pp. 391–408). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc. Simon, H. A., & Chase, W. G. (1973). Skill in chess. American Scientist, 61, 394–403. Simonton, D. K. (1989). The swan-song phenomenon. Lastworks effects for 172 Classical composers. Psychology and Aging, 4(1), 42–47. Simonton, D. K. (1992). The social context of career success and course for 2026 scientists and inventors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 452–463. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Talent and its development. Psychological Review, 106, 435–457. Simonton, D. K. (2001). Emotion and composition in Classical music: historiometric perspectives. In p. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Music and emotion. Theory and research (pp. 205–222). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Sloboda, J. A. (1985). The musical mind. The cognitive psychology of music. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Sloboda, J. A. (1991). Musical expertise. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise. Prospects and limits (pp. 153–171). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sloboda, J. A. (2000). Individual differences in music performance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(10), 397–403. Sloboda, J. A., & Howe, M. J. A. (1991). Biographical precursors of musical excellence. An interview study. Psychology of Music, 19(1), 3–21. Sloboda, J. A., & Howe, M. J. A. (1999). Musical talent and individual differences in musical achievement. A reply to Gagn´e. Psychology of Music, 27, 52–54. Sloboda, J. A., Davidson, J. W., & Howe, M. J. A. (1994, August). Is everyone musical? The Psychologist, 349–354. Sosniak, L. A. (1985). Learning to be a concert pianist. In B. S. Bloom (Ed.), Developing talent in young people (pp. 19–67). New York: Ballantine Books. St Michael, M. (2004). Madonna talking. London: Omnibus Press. Steele, K. M., Bass, K. E., & Crook, M. D. (1999). The mystery of the Mozart effect: Failure to replicate. Psychological Science, 10(4), 366–369. Stelmach, G. E. (1982). Motor control and motor learning: the closed-loop perspective. In J. A. Scott-Kelso (Ed.), Human motor behavior. An introduction (pp. 93–115). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind. A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Penguin Books. Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Giftedness as developing expertise. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 55–66). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Sternberg, R. J., & Kolligian, Jr., J. (Eds.). (1990). Competence considered. London: Yale University Press. Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J. A., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., et al. (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Stewart, L., & Walsh, V. (2002). Congenital amusia: all the songs sound the same. Current Biology, 12, R420–R421.

R.S. Persson Storr, A. (1972). The dynamics of creation. London: Penguin Books. Storr, A. (1992). Music and the Mind. London: HarperCollins Publishers. Strunk, O. (1965). Source readings in music history. 1. Antiquity and the Middle Ages. London: Faber & Faber. Subotnik, R. F. (2000). Developing young adolescent performers at Juilliard: an educational prototype for elite level talent development in the arts and sciences. In. C. F. Van Lieshout & p. G. Heymans (Eds.), Talent, resilience, and wisdom across the life span (pp. 249–276). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Subotnik, R. F. (2003). Adolscent pathways to eminence in Science: Lessons from the music conservatory. In p. Csermely & L. Lederman (Eds.), Science education, talent recruitment, and public understanding (pp. 295–304). New York: IOS Press. Subotnik, R. F., Jarvin, L., Moga, E., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Wisdom from gate-keepers: secrets of success in music performance. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 4(2), 1–7. Sundberg, J. (1987). The science of the singing voice. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group. Sundberg, J. (1988). Computer synthesis of music performance. In J. A. Sloboda (Ed.), Generative processes in music. The psychology of performance, improvisation, and composition (pp. 52–69). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Tart, C. T. (Ed.). (1990). Altered states of consciousness (3rd ed.). San Fransisco, CA: Harper. Tervaniemi, M. (2001). Musical sound processing in the human brain. Evidence from electric and magnetic recordings. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 930, 259–272. Thompson, L. A., & Plomin, R. (1993). Genetic influence on cognitive ability. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. Harry Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 103–114). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Thompson, W., & Waterman, F. (1990). Piano competition: The story of The Leed’s. London: Faber & Faber. Tomatis, A. (1991). Pourquoi Mozart? [Why Mozart?]. Paris: Editions Fixot. Triandis, H. C. (1990). Theoretical concepts that are applicable to the analysis of ethnocentrism. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 34–55). London: Sage. Trost, G. (2000). Prediction of excellence in school, higher education, and work. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 317–330). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Unkefer, R. F. (Ed.). (1990). Music therapy in the treatment of adults with mental disorders. Theoretical bases and clinical interventions. New York: Schirmer Books. Van Rossum, J. H. A. (2001). Talented in dance: the Bloom Stage Model revisited in the personal histories of dance students. High Ability Studies, 12(1), 181–198. Wing, H. D. (1941). A factorial study of musical tests. British Journal of Psychology, 31, 341–355. Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist, 55(1), 159–169. Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (2000). Introduction. The arts in education: Evaluating the evidence for a causal link. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3–4), 3–10.

36

The Elusive Muse

Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (2001). The arts and academic achievement: What the evidence shows. Arts Education Policy Review, 102(5), 3–6. Winner, E., & Martino, G. (2000). Giftedness in non-academic domains: the case of visual arts and music. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 95– 110). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Wright, A., Rivera, J. J., Hulse, S. H., Shyan, M., & Neiworth, J. J. (2000). Music perception and octave generalization in Rhe-

749 sus monkeys. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(3), 291–307. Ziegler, A., & Raul, T. (2000). Myth and reality: a review of empirical studies on giftedness. High Ability Studies, 11(2), 114–136. Zuckerkandl, V. (1973). Man the musician. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Chapter 37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport Jacques H. A. van Rossum

Abstract The chapter starts with three examples, as a short, but concrete introduction into the field of sports. Next, a classic study by Bloom (1985) is addressed and discussed extensively. In this study, the career of talented individuals from the domains of art, science and sport is outlined in three phases. Bloom’s study is used as a stepping stone to various aspects of talent development in sports. Characteristics of successful athletes are presented. Next, three topics are addressed which are often believed to be talent facilitators: the athlete’s motivation for achievement, the coach, and the amount of the athlete’s practice. Then, three topics are introduced which are often thought of as talent inhibitors: the athlete’s parents, schooling, and injury. To end the chapter, the three introductory examples are re-addressed successively in the context of prediction of athletic achievement, the issue of athletic dropout, and the interpretation of ‘winning’. In addition to presenting relevant findings from the scientific literature, pertinent findings will be introduced from a recently finished 8-year longitudinal study on talent development in sports by the author.

Keywords Athletics · Coach · Dropout · Elite athletes · Gifted-Motivation · School · Sport · Talented

J.H.A. van Rossum (B) Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction In this chapter, giftedness and talent are addressed in the context of athletics. The topic is introduced in the Handbook of Giftedness for the first time. In earlier editions of handbooks on giftedness and talent (Colangelo & Davis, 2003; Heller, M¨onks, Sternberg, & Subotnik, 2000; Heller, M¨onks & Passow, 1993) the issue of sports was usually not introduced. In the subject indexes of each of these volumes, one searches in vain for words such as athletics, athletes, or sport. There is one exception, though: in Wolfgang Schneider’s contribution to the second edition of the International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (Heller et al., 2000), two athletic disciplines are presented: chess and tennis. In each of these cases, Schneider (2000) introduced unique examples of scientific studies on gifted or talented individuals. The absence of sports in earlier handbooks contrasts sharply with the domains that have been distinguished within the various ‘high-ability’ models introduced over the years. In an early and much cited contribution to the Handbook of Gifted Education (Colangelo & Davis, 1981), the Canadian scholar Franc¸oys Gagn´e introduced four domains of high ability. In addition to the intellectual, the creative, and the socio-affective domains, the sensori-motor domain is addressed. The latter is described as the domain in which both the visual acuity of the archer and the auditory discrimination of the musician are discussed (cf. Gagn´e’s contribution to the Heller et al., 1993 volume). Further, in Gardner’s (1993) discussion of the ‘multiple intelligences’, five forms of intelligence were distinguished: linguistic intelligence, musical intelligence, logico-mathematical intelligence, spatial

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 37, 

751

752

J.H.A. van Rossum

intelligence, and, indeed, bodily kinesthetic intelliIn Rumania, for instance, tots are singled out gence. The latter encompasses two types of people. as young as age four for training at one of the First, those who have directed control over their own country’s elite sport schools. To gain admission, bodies are mentioned by Gardner as mime artists, the tumbling tykes not only have to excel at tests dancers, and swimmers. A second group mentioned by that demonstrate speed, flexibility, and abdominal Gardner is composed of those who are able to handle strength, but they must also convince coaches objects with precision and finesse, such as artisans, that they possess that unquantifiable drive that ball-players, and instrumentalists. While Gardner’s makes for champions. Once admitted, they find distinction between movement as a goal in itself (the that their academic schedules and lives revolve body being one’s instrument) and movement aimed around training” (Smolowe, 1988, p. 56). Only 10 at a goal outside the body has high relevance within years later, the more talented will find themselves the discipline of human movement sciences as well members of their country’s national and Olympic as within motor learning theories, we will not deal teams’ (Gagn´e, 1991, p. 65–66)2 . with it in this chapter (but see, for example, Thomas, 3. ‘After years of hard work, Dave became a member of the U.S. Ski Team. He had always set outcome Gallagher, & Thomas, 2001). goals for himself: becoming the fastest skier in his As a last example, we refer to the chapter on conlocal club, winning regional races, beating arch riceptions of giftedness in the second edition of the Invals, and placing at nationals. Unfortunately, he got ternational Handbook by Ziegler and Heller (2000). In off to a rocky start on the World Cup circuit. He addition to the two above-mentioned models, by Gagn´e wanted to be the fastest American downhiller and and by Gardner, they introduce the Munich Model of to place in the top three at each World Cup race, but Giftedness and Talent. Seven domains (or, as they call with so many good racers it became impossible to it, talent dimensions) are distinguished, one of which beat them consistently’ (Weinberg & Gould, 1999, is the psychomotor domain, referring to hand and body p. 62). motor skills. From the three examples, we can simply conclude that a chapter devoted to giftedness and talFrom the three examples presented above, various ent in sports is long overdue. We end this introduction questions might be raised. Do children who later bewith three examples, thereby introducing the domain come world class athletes have special characteristics of sports in a more concrete way: which set them apart from their peers at an early age? 1. ‘When Greg Louganis, Olympic and world cham- That is, is it possible to detect the talented and gifted pion diver, was only 18 months old, he accompa- at a young age? The first example suggests that there nied his mother to his older sister’s dance class. might be signs of physical precocity. An issue to be During this short visit he showed a great sense of addressed in this chapter concerns the detection and balance and a precocious mastery of muscular control by learning to do a headstand and a somersault. 2 A wonderful example of this education is gymnast Nadia CoAt the age of 9 he began a more systematic training maneci (1961–). At the Olympic Games of 1976 (Montreal, in diving and he confirmed the international caliber Canada) she won three gold and one bronze metal as an indiof his talent in this field by the age of 15 (Michel- vidual gymnast, and a silver metal as member of the Romanian team. She was discovered at the age of 6 years by gymnastics more, 1988)’ (Gagn´e, 1991, p. 65)1 . coach Bela Karolyi and selected for the Romanian youth squad. 2. “The strength of the East Europeans is hard earned. In 1970, at the age of 9 years, she obtained the junior champiTheir rigorous training practices are legendary. onships of Romania. In 1975, 14 years old, she participated in the 1 Greg Louganis (1960–). This American athlete holds gold medals in the diving disciplines springboard and platform, at the Olympic Games of 1984 (Los Angeles, USA) and 1988 (Seoul, South Korea); he did win a silver medal at the Games of 1976 (Montreal, Canada) and was world champion in 1978, 1982, and 1986. He dominated without exaggeration, the world of male diving between 1978 (when he won the American championships for the first time) and 1988 (when he retired from active sport).

European championships for senior athletes and did win the ‘allaround’ title as well as three gold medals in the equipment finals. Nadia Comaneci earned as first gymnast ever a perfect score of 10.0 at the Olymic Games of Montreal, on the uneven bars. She won gold medals at the 1980 Olymics (Moscow), on beam and floor. She fled Romania in 1989, and lives in the United States since then. Her coach Bela Karolyi also lives in the United States; he was successful as head coach of the U.S. gymnastics team at the 1984 Olympics (Los Angeles), with star gymnast Mary Lou Retton (1968–).

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

selection of talented athletes. The second example illustrates a quite different perspective on world class athletes. It suggests that to become a world class athlete, one has to submit oneself to a strict and hard training regime for a number of years. Since the number of hours of practice are numerous and practice is often intense, probably not much energy is left for schoolwork. When the sport is of higher importance than school, special facilities are necessary in order for the aspiring adolescents to combine school and athletic work. The third example given is a perfect illustration of a young athlete who seemingly has everything going for him. But, as will be presented later in this chapter, research in sport psychology has discovered that this promising youth might turn out to be a classic example of an athlete who is badly prepared for taking on the challenges. His coach and his parents should have known better – they should have been better educated about the issues at hand. This chapter will address one of the first questions posed by coaches and other interested parties: Is it possible to predict outstanding achievement? From that question, it is only a small step to such questions as: ‘Which characteristics distinguish successful athletes from those who do not excel in sports?’ and ‘Do talented athletes need special guidance?’ That is, we need to focus attention on factors that are believed to be helpful in promoting one’s athletic career, as well as those that are often thought of as detrimental. In order to sketch the career of athletes, from their first attempts in sports to top-level achievement, the classic study by Bloom (1985) is taken as a convenient vehicle. In Bloom’s study, the careers of talented individuals from the domains of art, science, and sport are described in three phases. Bloom’s classical study is used as a stepping stone to discuss the issues of the amount of practice necessary to reach a high level of performance and the various roles of parents and coaches in the career phases of a talented athlete. Three topics, which are often believed to be talent facilitators, are addressed: the athletes’ motivation for achievement, the coach, and the amount of practice of the athlete. In addition, three further topics are discussed which are often thought of as talent inhibitors: parents, school, and injury. Since large investments are often done into a promising athletic career, from a personal, a familial, and a societal perspective, and only a small number of talented athletes will ultimately reach the intended top, it might be of interest to study those

753

who drop out. Further, since such investments are often made for a period of 10–15 years, one wonders what drives these people. Here, intrinsic motivation might serve us well. In this chapter, we will refer to relevant findings from the human movement science literature, more specifically from sport psychology and exercise physiology, on each of the topics mentioned. In addition, some pertinent findings will be introduced from a recently finished 8-year longitudinal study on talent development in sports by the author (Van Rossum, 2005).

A Classical Study In the 1980s, American scholar Benjamin Bloom interviewed a large number of talented people. The results of that study are published in a sizable collection of papers, entitled ‘Developing Talent in Young People’ (Bloom, 1985). The book describes the career of 120 talented individuals from three talent domains: arts, science, and sports. Each of the talents has reached world level in their domain, as concert pianists or sculptors, as mathematicians or neurologists, as tennis players or swimmers. From interviews with the talents themselves and their parents, mentors, teachers, and coaches, the routes traveled to the top were reconstructed. Bloom’s reconstruction sketched a route with three stages, or phases. These phases are applicable to each talent career, whether it is in the arts, sciences, or athletics. Bloom (1985) named the phases ‘the early years’, ‘the middle years’, and ‘the later years’. Probably the terms coined by Salmela (1994) are more useful from an athletic perspective. The first is the Initiation phase – coming into contact with athletics and setting the first steps in a particular sport, followed by the Developmental phase – becoming committed to the sport, when play becomes work, and the training load is greatly increased. In the last phase, Mastery phase, the athlete’s life has become dominated by the sport, and all other activities have become secondary to sports. According to Bloom (1985), each phase is typified by characteristics of the talented person, his/her parents, mentors, teachers, and coaches. Table 37.1 lists these characteristics as keywords, adapted from the first handbook chapter ever published on talent development in sports (R´egnier, Salmela, & Russell, 1993), and is based on the descriptions of Bloom (1985). The age indications

754

J.H.A. van Rossum

Table 37.1 Characteristics of the mentor/teacher/coach and of the parents, at each of the three phases of the career of a talented individual (after Bloom (1985); in R´egnier et al., 1993, p. 296) Phase 1:

Phase 2:

Phase 3:

‘early years’:

‘middle years’:

‘later years’:

initiation

development

perfection

Talented

Joyful, playful,

‘Hooked’,

Obsessed,

person

excited, ‘special’

committed

responsible

Mentor,

Kind, cheerful, caring

Strong, respecting,

Successful,

coach,

process-centered

skilled, demanding

respected/feared,

teacher Parents

emotionally bonded Shared excitement,

Made sacrifices,

–

supportive, sought

restricted activity

–

Childhood

Adolescence

Adulthood

one of the leisure

the (leisure) activity

(professional) life

mentors, positive

activities

as well as the presumed role that athletics play in each of the phases in the athlete’s life were added by the present author. The most striking conclusion to be taken from Table 37.1 is that the role of the significant persons changes during the athletic career. The perfect coach for the first career phase is not the most appropriate one for the second or third phase. In the summarizing statements about the ‘middle years’, Bloom (1985, p. 523) writes ‘The teachers at this stage (the second stage, JvR) typically worked only with outstanding students in the talent field and they expected much from their students. They were businesslike in their teaching and demanding of great perfection in what the student was to do’. Interestingly, Bloom adds in a footnote, ‘We speculate that if these had been their first teachers in the talent field, many of these talented individuals might have dropped out of the field in a few years. On the other hand, if these talented individuals had remained with the very comfortable, highly rewarding, and playful first teachers, they would not have reached the levels of talent development that were necessary by the end of this period’ (Bloom 1985, p. 523; italics in original). Therefore, during the usual developmental course of the athletic career, athletes will encounter several coaches, unless, of course, the coach is able to change his or her behavior in accordance with the demands of

the career phase concerned. It is indeed very unusual for one person to coach an athlete throughout the whole athletic career. It is even more exceptional for a parent to act as coach during each of the phases of the athletic career, for this presumes not only that coaching and parental roles have been adapted over time, but also that these two very different roles have not collided. The British athlete Sebastian Coe was coached all through his career by his father, Peter Coe (Dale & Cameron, 1994). Both celebrated the gold medal for Sebastian’s winning of the 1500 m track-and-field event at the Olympic Games in Moscow in 1980 and in Los Angeles in 1984. The age indications in Table 37.1 are only rough estimates. More specific information is given in some studies for various other sports. In the British TOYA study (TOYA = Training Of Young Athletes), a 5-year longitudinal study of 453 young talented athletes in gymnastics, soccer, swimming, and tennis, both athletes and their families were involved (Rowley, 1995). The age at which the young athletes entered their sports differed. Talented soccer players (n = 64) had a mean age of 7.6 years when they started playing soccer and the tennis sample’s (n = 114) mean starting age was 7.4 years. The gymnasts (n = 119) and the swimmers (n = 156) started their sport significantly earlier, at 6.3 years of age (Rowley, 1992). In a Dutch longitudinal study, athletes of two sports, track-and-field

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

Fig. 37.1 Average age for three phases in athletic carrer, taken from the British study ‘The development of sporting talent 1997’ (English Sports Council, 1998; Fig. 6, p. 5); reprinted with permission of Sport England. In the survey the athletes (all elite athletes, n = 924, mean age 23 months and 5 months) were asked

and volleyball, were studied for a period of 8 years (Van Rossum, 2005), and in addition to the talented group, there was also a control group. The talented athletes in both sports entered their sport at an earlier age than did the control athletes: 8.4 versus 9.3 years in track-and-field and 8.8 versus 9.6 years in volleyball. Figure 37.1 presents mean ages which were obtained in a large-scale British survey (n = 924) among elite and pre-elite performers in 12 sports. The ages for athletic participation in the early years, or initiation phase, are given, as are the ages for performance in the middle years, or commitment phase, and the age for excellence in the later years, or mastery phase. While in a few sports children started well before their 10th birthday, in some others they only started after their 15th birthday. Further, the differences between sports in the duration of each phase should be noted: a relatively long period of ‘early years’ in cricket and rugby league and a short one in rowing. Not much is known, at present, about the duration of the third phases. While Bloom’s study has been influential and directional for studying talent development in sports, four critical comments about his study can be made.

755

to look back over their athletic careers. ‘Participation’ is similar to the first Bloom phase (the early years; Initiation phase), ‘Performance’ is Bloom’s second phase (the middle years; Developmental phase), and ‘Excellence’ is the third phase (the later years; Mastery phase)

in the bottom right corner of Table 37.1 is not caused by a typographical error. According to Bloom (1985) the role of parents can be adequately described in the first and second career phase, but in the third phase the parents are actually absent. While this might be a suitable situation for the U.S. samples in Bloom’s study, the same findings were not replicated in a study with Dutch top-level athletes (Van Rossum, 1992, 1995a). Dutch parents appeared to play a leading part in the lives of the 192 Dutch athletes, who were all members of national teams in judo, speed skating, table tennis, and swimming. A second category of absentees in Bloom’s study is that of peers, which might be distinguished further into schoolmates and fellow athletes. Bloom discerns the relevance of fellow athletes since athletes need partners, as in tennis for example, or teammates, as in basketball. While there is a lack of studies on the role and impact of fellow athletes, there have been a handful of studies done regarding the role of other peers (e.g., Patrick et al., 1999). Further studies with talented athletes might find a starting point in a recent overview of work done on peer relationships in physical activity contexts by Weiss and Stuntz (2004). Regarding fellow athletes, an early study with Dutch top-level athletes (Van Rossum, 1992, 1995a) confirms that, according Parents and Peers to the top-level athletes themselves, fellow athletes are viewed as highly important for their athletic career. An The first comment concerns the conspicuously absent interesting but not yet investigated issue within the athpeople in the life of the talented athlete. The empty cell letic context is that of gifted adolescents seeking the

756

company and friendships of older individuals (Schultz & Delisle, 2003). Such peers might be called ‘athletic ability mates’, or peers of similar sporting ability, since it is quite common among top-level junior athletes to participate in competitions and teams with even much older, senior level opponents or fellow athletes, often in addition to competing with similar aged peers. This issue might tie in with the enrichment – acceleration discussion (cf. Gallagher, 2000; Schiever & Maker, 2003), as athletically gifted adolescents do not always appear to thrive in adult-dominated, national league squads.

Males and Females: Individual and Team Sports A second comment concerns the composition of the samples in the Bloom (1985) study. From the 120 talented persons who participated in Bloom’s study, 40 were scientists, 41 artists, and 39 athletes, and the majority was male – only 34 subjects (28%) were female. The participants in Bloom’s study were from individual type sports, such as swimming and tennis. Therefore, it could have been inferred that Bloom’s findings hold truer for males and for athletes of individual sports. In order to find out about the suitability of Bloom’s career description to female subjects, as well as to team sport athletes, two studies were carried out by the present author. In each of these studies, subjects were asked to describe a typical practice session as well as the coach in the various phases of their career, using a list of adjectives. Bloom’s findings were confirmed in a study of 129 young adult professional dance students with a mean age of 22 years (Van Rossum, 2001a). In the world of dance, women are in the majority, as is probably well known, and in this study 80% of the subjects were female. A second study, with 125 volleyball players, also supported Bloom’s findings (Derksen, Veldstra, & Van Rossum, 2002). Here, three samples of Dutch top-level volleyball players were involved: 68 talented young players, selected for the Dutch National Volleyball School by the Dutch Volleyball Association (mean age 15.0 year), all 22 members of the Dutch national youth squad ‘Jeugd Oranje’ (mean age 16.7 year), and 35 athletes competing in the highest Dutch league (mean age 23.6 year). In sum, the results obtained with a dance sample as well as with the volleyball samples confirmed Bloom’s (1985) find-

J.H.A. van Rossum

ings, suggesting that his findings in the athletic domain are applicable to male and female athletes, and to individual as well as team athletes.

Four or Five Stages? The third comment concerns the adequacy of Bloom’s sketch of the athletic career in three phases. A study with elite U.S. figure skaters (Scanlan, Ravizza, & Stein, 1989) suggests that a description of a career should not end with the third phase. A relatively small sample of 26 former figure skaters were interviewed about their athletic careers, 10 competing at U.S. national novice/junior levels, 8 at the U.S. national senior level, and 8 former members of a U.S. world or Olympic teams. Findings suggest that a fourth phase in an athletic career is the phase of retirement from active participation at a high level of competition, while a fifth phase might be of returning to the sport in a role other than as an active participant. While Scanlan et al.’s (1989) study did not present detailed information about the two added career phases, it might be assumed that those who return to the sport often opt for a coaching role. For example, U.S. athlete Lee Calhoun, Olympic gold medal winner in the 110-m hurdles event at the 1956 Olympics in Melbourne, Australia and in 1960 in Tokyo, Japan, became a successful track coach at the universities of Grambling State, Yale, and Western Illinois. Only few former talented athletes appear to return to their sport in a different role, such as physician, physical therapist, scientist, or consultant. We illustrate this with two examples, one in track-and-field and one in baseball. As a first example, David Hemery, winner of the gold medal in the 400-m hurdles event at the Olympics in Mexico in 1968, investigated sport’s highest achievers, earning a Masters Degree in Education from Harvard University. For his study, Hemery (1986) interviewed 63 world class athletes from 22 sports and 12 countries, asking himself ‘What makes a sporting champion?’ As another example, an interesting career shift was made by the American baseball player Billy Bean. As a high school sophomore, he was the best in everything: ‘the highest scorer on the basketball team, the quarterback of the football team, and the best hitter on the baseball team’ (Dweck, 2006, p. 82), but he never really made it in the major league. Years

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

later, Bean returned to baseball as an executive. In 2002, he became the general manager of the Oakland Athletics, and ‘led his team to a season of 103 victories – winning the division championship and almost breaking the American League record for consecutive wins’ (Dweck, 2006, p. 83). The three Bloom phases were partly supported in a small-scale study by Cˆot´e (1999). Based on 15 interviews with members of three families of elite rowers and one family of an elite tennis player, Cˆot´e identified three phases of sport participation before the age of 18: the sampling years, the specializing years, and the investment years. The latter two comprise a subdivision of the second phase distinguished by Bloom, ‘the middle years’, or in Salmela’s (1994) terminology: ‘developmental phase’. Since the four elite athletes were 18 years of age at the time of the interviews, Cˆot´e could only suggest a fourth phase in their future athletic career: the perfection or performance stage. This fourth stage is, of course, identical to Bloom’s ‘later years’ or Salmela’s ‘mastery phase’. There have been a few suggestions to extend the three stages of Bloom’s model with a fourth stage, a stage which is for the ‘happy few’ of the still actively participating athletes. One suggestion comes from research on expertise. The three stages in the acquisition of expert level performance, which were labeled I, II, and III by Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-R¨omer (1993), are very reminiscent of Bloom’s phases. A fourth phase, ‘a qualitatively different phase of efforts to attain eminent achievements’ (Ericsson, 1998), was added to include those individuals that in a way ‘change’ the talent domain in which they already excel. This fourth phase of expertise is reached when experts attempt to go beyond the available knowledge in the domain, in order to make a creative contribution. In the athletic domain, one might think of Pel´e or Johan Cruijff in soccer, Tiger Woods in golf, Wayne Gretzky in ice hockey, Earvin ‘Magic’ Johnson or Michael Jordan in basketball. A second suggestion of adding a fourth stage was done in a recent, small-scale study including interviews with ten former world or Olympic champions (four males and six females) by Durand-Bush and Salmela (2002). Six athletes were still actively involved in athletics, and four had retired (three of them within the last 3 years). These champions perceived their career in four stages. The first three stages are reminiscent of Bloom’s stages, and were indicated in this study as the sampling years,

757

specializing years, and investment years. The fourth stage, called maintenance years, ‘consisted of the stage the athletes entered once they reached the pinnacle of sport, that is, once they won a gold medal at the Olympics or World Championships’ (p. 158). This fourth stage is therefore a peculiar stage, since it will not be attained by most top-level athletes. While at first sight the division of an athletic career would not appear to matter much, its relevance comes from the impact of transitions between the phases (Stambulova, 2000). A study with a sample of Dutch young, pre-professional dancers describes two transitions, one from the first to the second phase and another from the second to the third phase (Van Rossum, 2001a). From the descriptions of the dance classes and the dance teachers in each of the phases, it was clear that the transition from the first to the second phase, that is, from local dance school to preprofessional dance education, is very substantial, while the transition from the second to the third phase, that is finishing the pre-professional education and starting a professional education, is a smoother one. However, while the learning climate is very similar in the second and third phases, this transition is at the same time also a switch from part-time dance education, that is, combining 10–15 hours of dance instruction and regular school, to full-time dance education, that is, 20–30 hours of dance classes, necessitating careful guidance in order to prevent physical injury.

Talented and/or Gifted A fourth comment concerns the term ‘talented’. Bloom (1985, p. 5) gives the following description of talent: ‘By talent we usually mean high level of demonstrated ability, achievement or skill in some special field of study or interest’. By defining ‘talent’ as ‘eminent achievers’, Bloom takes a rather different perspective on talent from what is perhaps common in everyday conversation about sporting talent. Talent is often regarded as a future potential, or a high achievement to come. Talent as a disposition for high achievement is often used by German scholars (Joch, 1992). Yet, scientific studies on talented or gifted athletes nearly always involve athletes who presently perform at a high level of achievement: national squads, participants at Olympic Games, or world

758

championships, sometimes professional athletes, often amateur athletes. In line with Bloom’s starting point, Gagn´e (1993) prefers to use the term talented for ‘performance that is distinctly above average in one or more fields of human activity’ (p. 66). He differentiates talented from gifted. In his view, ‘gifted’ corresponds to the often genetically based aptitudes or ‘untrained and spontaneously expressed natural abilities’ (Gagn´e, 2000, p. 67). Thus, according to Gagn´e (1993) talent is the result of a process in which gifts are considered the initial building blocks. In other words, talent ‘designated the superior mastery of systematically developed abilities (or skills) and knowledge’ (Gagn´e, 2000, p. 67). Although one of the earliest reviews in the athletic domain is entitled ‘Giftedness in sport’ (Kane, 1986), the term ‘talented’ is much more common in the athletic domain than the term ‘gifted’, as a simple search in the major database of sports publications SportDiscus shows. In contrast, searching a database of psychology publications such as PsycLit yields the opposite result. Indeed, Winner (1996) already concluded that ‘There is no justification for calling academic children “gifted” and artistic ones “talented” ’, and ‘It is a false distinction to classify some as gifted and others as talented’ (Winner, 1996, p. 307). It might therefore be wise, at least in scientific endeavors, not to use different terms for identical phenomena. In this chapter, we will follow Gagn´e’s proposition and use the term ‘talent’ in case of outstanding achievers, and confining the use of the term ‘gift’ to initial, to be developed building blocks.

J.H.A. van Rossum

structions (e.g., Bloom, 1985; Hemery, 1986; Scanlan et al., 1989), should thus not be viewed as solid facts, but should be regarded as working hypotheses. A concomitant problematic feature of a reconstructive study is that a description of the talented group in itself may not be sufficient, even if proper care is given to the trustworthiness of the data gathered. A control, or reference group, needs to be included in the study if one wants to be able to conclude that the results found are characteristic of the ‘high-ability’ sample investigated. This is a relevant problem with many of the studies (Bloom, 1985; Hemery, 1986; Scanlan et al., 1989; Rowley, 1995; Cˆot´e, 1999; DurandBush & Salmela, 2002). Within the domain of athletics, only a few studies, which attempted to reconstruct the athletic career, included a control group in their research design. In a study by Carlson (1988), five male and five female Swedish tennis players, each within a top 15 international ranking, were compared to a group of tennis players who, even though during their adolescent years were at a comparable performance level, never reached the international top. Athletes, coaches, and parents were interviewed. Another study by Breivik (1999) also investigated athletes of individual sports. The best 18 Norwegian athletes, who in the foregoing 4 years were successful at world championships, world leagues, or Olympic Games, were interviewed. A sample of less-successful athletes was used as reference group. Both the Carlson and the Breivik studies concluded that prediction of later toplevel achievement is not possible on the basis of what Carlson (1988, p. 241) calls ‘individual talent’. Such personal characteristics, whether physical, anatomical, or psychological, receive their relevance only in interaction with context variables. However, a good and A Control or Reference Group long-lasting relationship with a coach is considered of overriding importance. Breivik’s (1999) study deterA fifth, and final, comment concerns the approach that mined that the successful athletes, compared to their was adopted by Bloom (1985). By interviewing the tal- less-successful colleagues, played a lot in their childented people after the fact, forcing them to think back, hood, trained hard, did not specialize athletically at an their career was reconstructed. This procedure imposes early age, and were strongly supported by their parents. limitations, since it relies heavily on the memories of athletes and others involved. One central limitation is that memory research has shown human memory to be rather flexible when dealing with past reality in a co- Concluding Remarks hesive manner (Loftus, 1979; Wagenaar, 2005). Therefore, stories that people tell about their own past are It is safe to say that Bloom’s (1985) study can be renot always as reliable as one might expect. Findings garded to have set the stage for more recent studies. of scientific research, which makes use of such recon- While one should remain careful and not base gen-

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

eral statements on the relatively few studies to date, the career of a talented athlete can successfully be approached in phases. A career is therefore not a simple straight line, moving upward. Each of the phases of an athletic career can be found in individual histories of athletes. For Greg Louganis, the athlete in the first example, many years would pass between his headstand and somersault at the age of 18 months and the start of his career as a diver. For a Rumanian gymnast like Nadia Comaneci, as in the second example, the second and third phases of the athletic career would be very closely guarded and would consist of hard work. Downhill skier Dave of example 3 has just entered phase three of his athletic career, and he will soon find out whether the effort and experiences of the preceding years will suffice. The implicit question, underlying many studies is ‘what makes the difference between those who succeed and those who do not?’ Hemery (1986), himself an Olympic champion, sought an answer to the question: What makes a sporting champion? Hemery’s study can be considered biased as his sample consisted of 51 male athletes out of a total sample of 63, and 63% of track-and-field athletes. In addition, 40% of the sample consisted of professional athletes and 46% consisted of Olympic athletes. There appeared to be no simple answer to the question Hemery posed but a mix of qualities and an unfolding process. As he writes in his conclusions ‘they maintain total control of themselves. It is this quality of maintaining a calm and controlled approach while “fired-up”, that allows them to perform at their best under the most intense competitive fire’ (p. 200). Hemery then continues to list a series of characteristics applicable to many of the champion athletes. ‘In a great proportion of cases, these achievers did not specialize until quite late on in their sporting life. (. . .) Specialization could take place when the athlete was ready to make his or her commitment to their sport. If the personal desire did not come from inside the athlete, no amount of external pushing was going to help. Once these achievers had made their decision to specialize, they usually had the help of a coach or some other significant person or group. As mature individuals, they chose to seek personal improvement by pushing themselves. The work ethic was very highly evolved’ (p. 201). ‘Apart from intensity, duration of training was a factor. These athletes developed their abilities over years

759

of consistent training and competition. In many cases they did not even realize the level to which they could aspire. It was a step-by-step progression. This highlighted two valuable points. Personal goal-setting must establish a challenging yet realistic target. Set too high and the impossibility of the task can kill enthusiasm, the goal being unrealistic. Set too low, and the goal produces no challenge or incentive. The second point is that high achievers set new goals each time they fulfil a task’ (p. 201). ‘Almost all of these achievers found humour an invaluable part of life, seeing it as a tension breaker. (. . .) Another characteristic of these achievers was their determination not to give up’ (p. 202). ‘Most of the achievers believed, to a large extent, that they controlled their own destiny. This is reflected in the fact that they took responsibility for their actions’ (p. 203). ‘The mental aspects in this study provided conformation that this is the area for further exploration. We become what we think ourselves to be. Virgil wrote, “They can because they think they can”. These athletes pictured themselves succeeding in high-risk situations’ (p. 203). The characteristics in Hemery’s study are selfdescribed, taken from his special, top-level sample. Next, we will continue to address Hemery’s question, but with answers from studies that used scientific instruments (‘tests’). Are athletes like Greg Louganis, Nadia Comaneci, and Dave special because of qualities that set them apart? If such qualities exist, are these present from the start, like Greg Louganis’ headstand and somersault? And if such qualities exist, are they stable qualities, or do the various phases of the athletic career demand different qualities? The next section addresses the differences between successful and less-successful talented athletes.

Characteristics of Top-Level Athletes The German skater Karin Kania started practicing figure skating when she was 6 or 7 years old. The adolescent growth spurt around her 12th birthday made her unfit, at least according to East German coaches, to attain excellence in figure skating. She was referred to speed skating, where body height apparently is less of a limiting factor, and developed into a champion of world

760

caliber. In a book about the career of top-level tennis player Boris Becker, tennis coach Breskvar stated that his former pupil was extensively measured as a young adolescent (Breskvar, 1987). His adult height was predicted to be 1.90 m, which turned out to be fairly accurate since his actual adult height was 1.91 m. This prediction had a strong influence on the tennis training of Boris Becker during his adolescence. Practice was directed on playing serve-volley instead of baseline play. These two examples illustrate that the body can have a decisive impact on important decisions regarding the athletic career. A tall body is helpful in sports like basketball and volleyball, but is often an insurmountable obstacle for gymnasts and dancers. In many sports, the size of the body is much less decisive, but might be used to one’s advantage. Among the classical publications about the body structure, or physique, of Olympic athletes are the extensive documents by Tanner (1964) and Carter (1982). Carter (1982) described the athletes participating at the Olympics in Montreal in 1976. If one compares the physique of the swimmers in Carter’s sample with that of swimmers competing at the Olympics in Sydney in 2000, the latter appeared to be significantly taller and heavier (Van Rossum, 2001b). Characteristic bodily features may thus change over time, sometimes reflecting changes in task dimensions of the sport. A recent overview of anthropometrical and physiological characteristics, summarized by sport, is given by Garrett and Kirkendall (2000).

An Early German Study About 30 years go, 76 West German national coaches rated the qualities of top-level athletes (Gabler & Ruoff, 1979). Of course, the coaches mentioned a large number of sport-specific characteristics: anthropometric, physical and anatomical, physiological, and motor skills. For example, body heights of 1.84 m were considered minimal for a successful career in basketball, hammer throwing, modern pentathlon, rowing, and waterpolo. Long arms were considered advantageous in wrestling, canoeing, rowing, judo, swimming, and waterpolo, while long legs were preferred in speed skating, wrestling, high jump, and hurdles. A long trunk was regarded relevant for gymnastics and a low bodily centre of gravity for

J.H.A. van Rossum

alpine disciplines in ski events, such as downhill, alpine combination, giant slalom, slalom, and super G. While such anthropometric characteristics of the body are vitally important for excellence in some athletic tasks, we will not discuss this topic here in detail. It is not possible to describe the ‘overall’ athletic body, although, of course, many would agree that most athletes would tend to be a mesomorphic somatotype, or have relative muscularity and skeletal robustness. Carter (1988) presents an overview of the somatotypes of young athletes of varying competitive levels in 12 sports. While certain body configurations are not suitable for some sports, and could therefore be used as an eliminating tool, young athletes in sports such as gymnastics, diving, and certain winter sports tend to have somatotypes that are similar to those of successful adult athletes (Malina, 1996). The Gabler and Ruoff (1979) study is more remarkable and therefore still of interest, since a high degree of agreement appeared among the sample of coaches, originating from 30 different sports, about the series of characteristics which were considered ‘very important’. This array of characteristics has a high ‘psychological-skills’ quality and is certainly well beyond the sport specifics such as the anthropometric characteristics listed above. This series of psychological characteristics might therefore better qualify for describing ‘The’ top-level athlete. Table 37.2 presents the list of these ‘very important’ qualities as perceived by the German coaches. Some of the qualities listed three decades ago by the German coaches have meanwhile been supported in empirical studies. In the preceding section we introduced Bloom’s (1985) study on the development of talented persons. Summarizing the work done, Bloom (1985, p. 544) speaks of three qualities which surfaced time and time again in the interviews, in each of the talent fields: ambition (‘desire to reach a high level of attainment in the talent field’), hard work (‘willingness to put in the great amounts of time and effort needed to reach very high levels of achievement in the talent field’), and commitment (‘strong interest and emotional commitment to a particular talent field’). The three qualities of a talented person as cited in Bloom’s study are in part reminiscent of the qualities Trost (1993) mentions in his review of research on cognitive talent: ‘Aside from ability variables, probably the most powerful predictor of excellence is a high and

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

Table 37.2 Characteristics of top-level athletes according to coaches of (West) German athletic associations (the so called ‘Deutsche Sport Bund’), from 30 branches of sport (n = 76) (Gabler & Ruoff, 1979). Each characteristic listed below was assessed by the coaches as very important (in German: ‘sehr bedeutsam’) for an athlete in each of the 30 branches of sport (the original German teminology is added). – Competitiveness, diligence (Leistungsbereitschaft; Trainingsfleiss) – Persistence (Beharrlichkeit) – Willingness to physical exertion/strain (K¨orperliche Anstrengungsbereitschaft) – Goal-directed determination (Zielstrebigkeit) – Make an all-out effort in athletic games (voller Einsatz in Wettkampf) – Dealing with stress and pressure (F¨ahigkeit zur Bew¨altigung von Stresssituationen) – Concentration (Konzentrationsf¨ahigkeit) – Ability to learn (Lernf¨ahigkeit) – Capability to carry physical load (physische Belastbarkeit) Of course, in addition to the above characteristics, several variables were also considered ‘very important’ by the coaches, but dependent upon the branch of sport: anthropometric variables, physical-physiological variables, and technical (that is: motor skill) variables.

task-oriented motivation. Its importance has been confirmed in practically all studies searching for the determinants of outstanding achievement. Aspects of it are the willingness to work hard and persistently on things that are of particular interest to the individual, perseverance in the face of obstacles, a high level of aspiration, competitiveness and ambition’ (Trost, 1993, p. 332).

Further Studies: Top-Level Athletes In Hemery’s (1986) study introduced earlier in this chapter, he interviewed 63 athletes of world caliber. Characteristic features of these ‘champions’ or ‘winners’, as Hemery specified his sample, can be inferred from the answers to questions the athletes agree on to a high extent; 97% of the athletes thought that training intensity made a difference, 97% indicated that they consistently trained hard, and 90% stated that they were fast learners of sporting skills. Each of the 63 athletes said that their mind was totally involved in playing their sport, 92% said that they could adapt to sudden changes, and 92% indicated that they were competitive against themselves. Only 53% said that their aim in competition was to win, 89% felt in control of

761

their own destiny, and 87% was confident of producing their best. Further, 64% did not feel that social life had been sacrificed and 80% did not consider life to be imbalanced; 88% felt it was important what others thought of them and 92% wanted to please others. Hemery’s study was more or less replicated on a much smaller scale, involving four male and six female champions (Durand-Bush & Salmela, 2002). The qualitative analysis of interview data yielded the following four relevant personal characteristics: self-confidence, motivation, creativity, and perseverance. In each of these two studies (Hemery, 1986; Durand-Bush & Salmela, 2002) the athletes were asked about their career and about relevant personal characteristics. In a Dutch study, coaches of top-level athletes were asked about the characteristics of athletes selected for national squads (Van Rossum & Gagn´e, 1994). In a study of 65 coaches of Dutch international and national caliber athletes, they rank-ordered characteristics of top-level athletes in three sports: field hockey, golf, and track-and-field. In a more recent publication (Van Rossum, 2004a) data from three other sports were added: cycling, badminton, and tennis. Across the six sports, a total of 195 coaches were involved. The coaches were asked to divide 100 points between 10 listed factors, weighing the number of points according to the successfulness of athletes in their own squads or national teams. This procedure did not yield a simple list of relevant factors, but made a weighed assessment of factors possible. First of all, there does not appear to be one decisive factor; coaches divided their 100 points between 6 and 8 factors. The large majority of points, over 80%, were given to the following six factors: mental fitness (17.1%), natural endowment (17.0%), physical fitness (16.4%), quantity of training (11.6%), sport-specific motor skills (11.4%), and tactical ability (9.2%). The results therefore point to the fact that top-level achievement springs from a combination of relevant characteristics. The 100-point task was also presented to athletes. In general, coaches and athletes showed a high level of agreement about the importance of the various factors. There was one exception; coaches consistently attributed more points to ‘natural endowment’ than athletes, thereby indicating to award a higher relevance to the genetic factor (Van Rossum, 2004a). A second remark to be made here is that coaches of Dutch toplevel athletes also ranked psychological characteristics

762

(Van Rossum, 1996). Again, no singular mental characteristic was found; a combination of six characteristics received about 70% of the points. The six most relevant characteristics were competitiveness, concentration, persistence, ability to take setbacks, will to win, and self-confidence.

Toward a Preliminary Conclusion Most of the characteristics described above originate from successful top-level adult athletes. It is not clear whether these characteristics can be generalized to talented athletes of younger ages. For example, Orlick (1992) has made a case for two variables, commitment and self-confidence, as the two most important psychological variables related to elite performance, without clarifying whether these variables just ‘assist’ adult top-level athletes or are already important from the start of an athletic career. As a further example, Durand-Bush & Salmela (2001) open their section on ‘Psychological characteristics involved in the development of talent’ with often-heard statements like ‘this athlete has a natural drive’ or ‘this athlete can focus naturally’, but unfortunately do not cite any studies supporting such statements. Another often-mentioned characteristic is being a fast learner (cf. Bloom, 1985; Hemery, 1986). While this appeared to be an unsubstantiated statement for a long time, some empirical evidence has been presented recently. In an 8-year longitudinal study with adolescent and young adult athletes (Van Rossum, 2005), the athletes were asked to evaluate their own speed of learning, that is, how easily they picked up new things like motor skills or tactics – slow, normal, fast, in comparison to athletic peers of the same age and gender. Compared to the control group of ‘regular’ athletes, significantly more talented athletes considered themselves a fast learner (57 versus 79%). The group of talented athletes can be further subdivided into those who, after 8 years, are still among the best (‘top-level talented athletes’; n = 14) and those who do not compete at the highest level after 8 years (‘formerly talented athletes’; n = 49). Statistically, there was no significant difference between the percentages for these groups in terms of being fast learners: 67 versus 80%. It is possible that the characteristic of being a fast learner is a distinctive feature in the first and the second phases of the athletic career, and loses its strength when the

J.H.A. van Rossum

larger group of talents is further subdivided. This suggestion seems in agreement with the notion put forward by Jarvin and Subotnik (2006) in their model of talent development in the academic setting: ‘speed of learning is especially helpful in the first stage of talent development (. . .), whereas during later stages, speed is replaced in importance by deep acquisition and creative exploration of a domain’ (Jarvin & Subotnik, 2006, p. 210). At present, there is not enough scientific evidence for giving a solid answer to the question whether characteristics are ‘valid’ throughout the athletic career. Some characteristics of adult athletes are, however, reminiscent of the three characteristics of talented children as mentioned by Winner (1996): ‘precocity’, achieving at a much higher level than peers of the same age, ‘an insistence on marching to their own drummer’, the talented child’s need to go his or her own way, in his or her own preferred tempo, and ‘a rage to master’, the talented child’s need to get a good grip on the skills needed. While the first characteristic mentioned by Winner (1996) is certainly easy to observe by everyone, even non-experts, the combination of precocity and rage to master might be taken to indicate that the performance of a talented person is highly dependent upon the orientation of the athlete toward his or her own progression. While within the context of athletics, the general perspective is strongly directed to final results at games and tournaments, in Winner (1996) view, a characteristic feature of a talented person is that he or she appears to be focused on his or her own improvement, instead of being primarily directed on the end result. Further, the second characteristic of a talented person (‘marching to their own drummer’) is probably familiar to coaches, as talented persons are sometimes difficult to get along with. This characteristic sometimes poses great demands upon a coach’s competence. A coach should realize that a form of passionate, single-minded curiosity is one of the reasons talented people continue pursuing their interest in the given talent domain. In the 8-year longitudinal study with adolescent and young adult athletes (Van Rossum, 2005), the questionnaire, employed in the final measurement, contained questions about factors which advanced or hindered the athletic career. Using a similar mode of comparison as used with ‘the fast learner’ concept, the ‘top-level talented athletes’ were compared to ‘formerly talented athletes’. Regarding the ‘negative’

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

factors, not one of the 15 factors which were listed in the questionnaire was considered ‘very much of a burden’ during the preceding 8 years, a finding which applied to both groups. This is in contrast to findings of a large-scale Australian survey (Oldenziel, Gagn´e, & Gulbin, 2003) where ‘lack of money’, ‘repeated injuries and illnesses’, and ‘self-doubts about physical and psychological attributes’ formed the top three of impeding factors. With respect to the positive or beneficial factors, 3 of the 12 factors were considered ‘very important’. Two of these significantly more so by ‘top-level talented athletes’ than by ‘former talented athletes’: ‘own effort and persistence’ (81 versus 59%), ‘love for the sport’ (62 versus 57%), and ‘intensity of training’ (52 versus 30%)3 .

Psychological Traits of Elite Athletes Reviewing the relationship between psychological characteristics and sport performance, Vealey (1992) concluded that ‘no distinguishable “athletic personality” has been shown to exist’ (p. 50). While it is documented that successful athletes differ from their less-successful colleagues on personality traits such as self-confidence, competition anxiety, and achievement motivation, a recent review questions the existence of a unique set of psychological characteristics for toplevel athletes across all sports (Vanden Auweele, Nys, Rzewnicki, & Van Mele, 2001). Another recent review, limiting itself mainly to soccer, is harsh in its criticism: ‘As in the area of psychological characteristics and sports performance generally, research on all football codes is piecemeal and atheoretical in nature. In addition, samples are often opportunistically selected, definitions of “success” or “high performance” vary across studies, and no account is taken statistically of the multiple comparisons made’(Morris, 2000, p. 722). The very same author concluded some 3 Talent development in sports is geared toward the achievements of the individual athlete and is not addressing successful teams (a topic, which is better handled in the context of group dynamics). Nevertheless, we mention here in passing that Gould, Guinan, Greenleaf, Gould, Guinan, Greenleaf, Medbery, & Peterson (1999) studied eight U.S. teams, which were successful in the Olympic Games of 1996 in Atlanta. Such teams appeared to have extensively prepared themselves mentally, were focused and committed, received support from family and friends, and spend much time practicing together.

763

years earlier (Morris, 1995) that Eysenck’s theory on introversion–extraversion and neuroticism led to ‘some clear predictions for sport’ (p. 9). Morris added, ‘Unfortunately, these sort of predictions have rarely been put to the test of personality and sport research’, and indicated why this had occurred: ‘This is largely because the predominantly American research has typically not employed Eysenck’s theoretical framework’ (p. 9). Eysenck’s scientific study of temperamental traits has been well-accepted for some decades (Eysenck, Nias, & Cox, 1982). Cortical arousal levels were presumed to be related to behavior. Extraverted persons tend to seek experiences and events that will stimulate their generally low level of cortical arousal. In contrast, neurotic or emotionally unstable persons tend to close themselves off for external stimulation, as their cortical arousal level is generally high. Eysenck’s proposition holds that the tendency to maintain optimal cortical arousal results in very different behavior in extraverts and emotionally unstable persons. Extraverts ‘are more likely to take up sports and excel in them, because their low arousal levels lead them to seek sensory stimulation’ (Kremer & Scully, 1994, p. 17). Emotionally unstable persons are assumed to have a central nervous system, which reacts fast and intensely in stressful situations. Sports would therefore not be a preferred activity. Recently, Eysenck’s theoretical notion was investigated in three samples of talented adolescent athletes. A first sample consisted of 110 athletes (67 boys and 43 girls) of individual type sports. Each athlete was selected for the Dutch national squad in judo, speed skating, swimming, or table tennis. A second sample consisted of 95 field hockey players (48 boys and 47 girls), selected for the Dutch national under-18 squads in three successive years. The third sample consisted of 125 young volleyball players (62 boys and 63 girls), admitted to the Dutch National Volleyball School of the National Volleyball Association. This total sample of talented athletes (n = 330) had a significantly higher mean score on extraversion and a significantly lower score on neuroticism than the norm based on ‘regular’ adolescents (Van Rossum, 2006a). Further analyses showed, however, an interesting difference between individual and team sport samples: while in the two team sport samples a large number of athletes scored high on extraversion, this phenomenon did not occur in the individual sport sample. Regarding neuroticism, there was a significant under-representation of high scoring

764

in this aspect in each of the samples. The findings of this study support Eysenck’s theory. It might also give some insight to the earlier quote by Morris about the inadequacy of research on personality and achievement. With regard to psychological traits and mental skills, peak performers appear to have some common characteristics (Williams & Krane, 2001). Such characteristics are high levels of concentration, selfconfidence, motivation, commitment, a well-developed competitive routine and plan, coping skills for dealing with unexpected events and distractions, appropriate goal-setting skills, visualization skills, and the ability to regulate arousal levels. This set of characteristics is very reminiscent of the list by the German coaches presented earlier (Table 37.2). Recently, further support was obtained in a study of 10 Olympic champions. The four males and six males were winners of 32 Olympic medals collectively. Four of them had participated in ‘winter games’ and six in ‘summer games’, and eight athletes had retired from elite competition (Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002). In addition to having interviewed the athletes, a coach (most often the coach during their elite periods), and a significant other (most often a parent), a battery of tests, or ‘psychological inventories’, was also administered. The findings suggested the addition of three ‘new’ variables that are characteristic of champion athletes: adaptive perfectionism, dispositional hope, and dispositional optimism. As Gould et al., (2002) indicate, in many cases there are no norms or reference data available to assess the test scores of such elite samples properly. In a similar vain, an interesting first step was recently taken to add another variable to the list of defining characteristics of top-level athletes: ‘mental toughness’. An operationalization attempt is documented, in which ten ‘international performers’, seven men and three women, each ‘represented their country in major events (e.g., Olympic or Commonwealth Games)’ (Jones, Hanton, & Connaughton, 2002, p. 207) took part. Such studies, while interesting in themselves, easily bring back to mind the earlier quoted criticism by Morris (2000) about piecemeal and a-theoretical research endeavors.

Concluding Remarks Developing and keeping focus on a goal and working with great persistence are possibly the most valid and

J.H.A. van Rossum

solid characteristics of a talented person throughout his or her career. It has also become clear from the empirical work completed that there is not one single factor that makes the difference. In this respect, the athletic domain is not different from the cognitive domain (Trost, 1993). As a further warning remark, it should be noted that most of the characteristics mentioned are derived from adult top-level athletes, that is, athletes who have reached Bloom’s third career phase. Incidentally, in an earlier report on this classical investigation, Bloom (1982) reported that the three characteristic elements (hard work, ambition, commitment) have actually surfaced in the interviews with the teachers, mentors, and coaches, who were guiding these talents in their third career phase. It appears, therefore, still open for further debate whether such qualities can be regarded as characteristics for talented athletes in earlier phases of their athletic career. Within the area of personality, it might be worth limiting further investigation to theory-guided endeavors. Eysenck’s theory on extraversion–introversion and neuroticism is a good candidate here. There appears to be another single personality variable that is traditionally of high relevance here, namely the motivation for achievement. We have only mentioned it above in passing, but this variable has received much attention within the field of sport psychology over the last 15 years. In this context, another interesting theory has been developed over the years, in which two types of achievers were identified. We will address this achievement motivation variable in a special section in the context of talent facilitators.

Factors Influencing the Process of Talent Development A rich variety of factors can be mentioned that probably influence the athletic career. Many of these factors are listed and categorized in models, which were devised to describe the process of talent development. One such model is Gagn´e’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) (Gagn´e, 2000, 2003, 2004). The model distinguishes ‘gift’ (natural abilities) from ‘talent’ (systematically

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

developed skills), and lists various ‘catalysts’ influencing the process of talent development. The DMGT might easily be applied to the fields of academics, arts, business, leisure, social action, sports, and technology. Recently, the DMGT was used as a framework to organize information about talent development in sports (Van Rossum & Gagn´e, 2006; Tranckle & Cushion, 2006). The process of talent development is influenced by intrapersonal factors, such as motivation, interest and perseverance, and personality factors, such as self-confidence and extraversion. These factors might have a positive or career-promoting impact; the higher one’s perseverance or one’s self-confidence is, the better the chances are for a successful career. They might also have a negative or career inhibitory influence; a high level of neuroticism, or emotional instability, might easily decrease one’s chances of a successful career. Further, careers might be influenced by all kinds of external forces, such as people, places, interventions, events, or simply chance. ‘People’, for instance, will include the coaches, the athlete’s parents as well as other relevant people both within the athletic context, such as team mates, training mates, the athlete’s manager, the sponsor, the physician, the physical therapist, the sport psychologist, and external to the sports, such as partner, friends, school teacher, and family members. ‘Places’ that impact outcomes might be not only the accommodation or training locations, training camps, and the household with several athletes, but also pitches or game locations. ‘Interventions’ might comprise of summer camps for elite athletes, a short period of practice with an expert foreign coach, counseling session with a dietician or a sport psychologist. ‘Events’ can be a perfect game played, unexpectedly winning a tournament, earning a stipend, watching another athletes perform well. It is not possible to review each potential factor – most have not yet attracted the attention of scholars. In this chapter, six factors will be highlighted, three of which are often considered positive and facilitative and three are usually seen as negative or inhibitory. The positive factors are achievement motivation, the coach, and practice. Talent inhibitors addressed are the athlete’s parents, school-based education, and injury.

765

Talent Development Facilitators in Athletics Achievement Motivation A first operationalization of achievement motivation, which was specifically designed for athletes, that is, to be employed in the domain of sports, was published at the end of the 1980s. The Sport Orientation Questionnaire (Gill & Deeter, 1988) made a distinction between two elements of achievement motivation: ‘win orientation’ and ‘competitiveness’. According to Gill and Deeter (1988) ‘win orientation’ is ‘the desire to win in interpersonal competition in sport’ (p. 195) or ‘a focus on interpersonal comparison and winning in competition’ (Gill, 1993, p. 318). In contrast to this orientation, which is directed toward the end result of the athletic contest, ‘competitiveness’ focuses on the process of being active in the athletic contest. According to Gill and Deeter (1988) the latter is ‘a desire to enter sport achievement situations, to strive for success, to work hard, to master skills, and an eagerness to meet competitive challenges’ (p. 195) or ‘an enjoyment of competition and a desire to enter and strive for success in competitive sport achievement settings’. In recent years these two elements of sport achievement motivation have come to be referred to as ego orientation (win orientation) and task orientation (competitiveness) (Hanrahan & Biddle, 2002). This distinction has been a central theme in sport psychology research over the last decade (Gill, 1993), yielding many studies. The relevance of distinguishing ego, or outcome, from task orientation will be clarified with the story of the earlier-mentioned athlete Dave (cf. Example 3 in the introductory section of this chapter), the young member of the U.S. Ski Team who discovered that it was much more difficult to win races in the World Cup circuit than he had grown accustomed to in his athletic career. In short, while in the ‘win orientation’ one is battling with the opponent for superiority, ending in a win or a loss, the battle in ‘competitiveness’ is primarily with oneself, attempting to improve one’s own past performance. ‘Unfortunately, he got off to a rocky start on the World Cup circuit. He wanted to be the fastest American downhiller and to place in the top three at each World Cup race, but with so many good racers it became impossible to beat them consistently. To make matters worse, because

766

J.H.A. van Rossum

with the exception of the study about youth soccer players of the Dutch professional soccer club Ajax Amsterdam (Van Yperen & Duda, 1999). A positive relationship appeared to exist between outcome, or ego, orientation, and the belief that innate talent is a strong determinant of athletic success. In contrast, task orientation appeared to be related to the beliefs that effort, team play, and parental support contribute to athletic success. Another study, with elite tennis players (Newton & Duda, 1993) showed that the goal orientation of these athletes was primarily task oriented, as opposed to ego oriented. In a recent study with young elite Korean athletes Yoo and Kim (2002) determined that Dave’s story illustrates that one can be inappropri- task-oriented athletes found enjoyment in intrinsically ately prepared mentally in the earlier years of one’s ath- rewarding sources, such as ‘perceived competence’ letic career. According to the researchers ‘an outcome and psychological benefits. In contrast, athletes with goal orientation focuses on comparing performance high ego orientation and low task orientation, that is with and defeating others, whereas a task goal orienta- strongly outcome-oriented athletes, received their ention focuses on comparing performance with personal joyment primarily from social recognition and tangible standards and personal improvement. It is best to adopt rewards. In sum, one might distinguish two types of athletes, a task orientation, which emphasizes comparisons with different in terms of goal orientation: your own performance standards rather than with the performance of others’ (Weinberg & Gould, 1999, p. 62). “Ego-involved athletes view their ability as stable and In the 8-year longitudinal study referred to earlier fixed, thereby limiting the effect that high levels of effort could have on their performance. Their priority is to (Van Rossum, 2005), it was found that talented athletes show ability, often at the expense of effort. Naturally, they scored significantly higher on task orientation at the judge themselves relative to others and have to demonfirst time of measurement than the control athletes did, strate superior ability in order to gain a positive percepand no differences were apparent on outcome oriention of themselves.” “A task-involved athlete is concerned with the develtation. Those talented athletes that had remained at opment of his or her competence and uses levels of effort elite levels 8 years later, had at the initial measurement and task completion to assess his or her competence in a shown a significantly higher score on task orientation self-reflective manner. He or she views ability as somethan the talented athletes, who 8 years later were thing that is improvable; therefore, he or she is satisfied if he or she performs at a level that extracts the best of found to be unsuccessful. There was no difference his or her current ability by mastering a particular techbetween these two groups on outcome orientation. nique, increasing tactical awareness, or making personal That is, the outcome orientation was not different improvements in a given skill.” (Harwood, 2005, p. 20) between the group of talented and the group of control The typical way in which Dave, as member of the athletes, nor between the successful and the unsuccessful talented athletes. Task orientation was different U.S. Ski Team, has learned to interpret his own combetween each of these comparisons. This finding is petitive outcome has given him a clear disadvantage. not unexpected, given the huge number of studies in During Bloom’s first and second career phases, athwhich task orientation was already documented as a letes as well as parents, and above all coaches, should more effective orientation in achievement situations not instill a frame of mind in which winning is what (Duda, 1992, 2001; Duda & Treasure 2001; Gill, 1993; counts. Young athletes should be taught to think in Brustad, Babkes & Smith, 2001; Petlichkoff, 1994; terms of a ‘healthy philosophy of winning’ (Smoll & Reilly, Williams, Nevill & Franks, 2000; Trea- Smith, 2001; Smith & Smoll, 1996a), since ‘goal orientations are believed to be relatively stable and enduring sure, 2001; Whitehead; 1986). Unfortunately, a large majority of studies have in- characteristics that are largely formed by mid- to late volved ‘regular’ athletes (Weiss & Ferrer-Caja, 2002), adolescence’ (Harwood, 2005, p. 23). Such goal orienof his lowered world ranking Dave skis well back in the pack (after the course has been chopped up by the previous competitors), which makes it virtually impossible to place in the top three. As Dave becomes more frustrated by his failures, his motivation declines. He no longer looks forward to competitions; he either skis out of control, focused entirely on finishing first, or skis such a safe line through the course that he finishes well back in the field. Dave blames his poor finishes on the wrong ski wax and equipment. He does not realize that his outcome goal orientation, which served him well at the lower levels of competition where he could more easily win, is now leading as well to lower confidence, self-doubts, and less motivation’. (Weinberg & Gould, 1999, p. 62)

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

tations tend to be highly related to perceived ability or self-efficacy perceptions (McAuley, 1992) . For taskoriented athletes, there is always room for improvement. In contrast, outcome-oriented athletes are often vulnerable and ‘personal judgments of their perceived ability depend on comparing well to others. Therefore, as long as they are winning, there is likely to be a positive association between ego orientation and perceptions of ability’ (Harwood, 2005, p. 25; italics in original). The fixation of some athletes on the athletic outcome might also be interpreted as a ‘fixed mindset’. In a recent overview of the relevance of the cognitive element in successful people, Dweck (2006) makes a distinction between a ‘fixed’ and a ‘growth’ mindset. When someone believes that his or her qualities ‘are carved in stone’, it ‘creates an urgency to prove yourself over and over’ (Dweck, 2006, p. 6). Someone is said to have a ‘growth mindset’ if he or she beliefs that his or her ‘basic qualities are things you can cultivate through your efforts’ (Dweck, 2006, p. 7). The view someone learns to adopt for themselves therefore ‘profoundly affects the way you lead your life’ (Dweck, 2006, p. 6). Even gifted athletes with the ‘wrong’ mindset will eventually not reach the desired performance level. It is not just the personal goal orientation that determines the way an athlete handles the athletic task. Research in recent years has indicated that the motivational climate plays an important role as well (Kavussanu & Roberts, 1996, Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1998). In these studies, two extremes of the motivational climate are distinguished. In a task, or mastery, oriented climate the learning process, personal improvement, effort, and participation are encouraged, while in a result, or ego, oriented climate normative feedback, public evaluation, differences between athletes, and the process of social comparison are central. Here, the coach plays an important part, since he or she is the main force in steering and enforcing a motivational climate. From Bloom’s (1985) (Table 37.1) description of the athletic career it is not difficult to see that, whatever the personal goal orientation of the athlete, an outcome or ego climate is probably disastrous for many athletes in the long run. Whether a mastery or task climate is to be preferred in the later phases of a talent career cannot be determined yet, although recent research suggests this climate to be optimal, even for top-level athletes (Van Rossum, 2004b).

767

‘Athletes with a high task/high ego orientation are potentially the highest achievers’ (Harwood, 2005, p. 25).

Concluding Remarks One might expect talented athletes to have higher scores on achievement motivation. How the two aspects of achievement motivation work together over the course of a long-term commitment to an athletic task, however, is not fully understood. A relatively low correlation was found between scores on outcome and task goal orientation, for example, in the Dutch national under-18 field hockey squads (n = 95), while a significantly higher correlation was found in a sample of adult international field hockey players (the male and female senior national squads of Australia, South Africa, and Holland; n = 92) (Van Rossum & Vergouwen, 2003). This suggests that initially largely unrelated aspects of achievement motivation become more intertwined in successful athletes. While the distinction between the two goal orientations appears to be a very fruitful one, there is still much to be investigated with regard to an optimal learning or achievement climate.

The Coach A necessary first step in any athletic career is making the choice to participate in a sport. From then on, the coach becomes a pivotal person. According to the findings in the classical study by Bloom (1985) the mentor or teacher or coach notices that the talented person is a fast pupil, while parents observe their child to be ‘special’. In a study with elite athletes, the majority indicated that their coach discovered their athletic talent at that time (Van Rossum, 1992). It must be added, though, that not every athlete who later became a member of a Dutch national squad, was recognized as a talented person when he or she was young. Being labeled ‘talented’ is thus not a prerequisite for becoming a successful athlete. The coach has not only a pivotal role in the early phase of an athletic career, but also stays a central person in later phases of the career (Table 37.1). In a sample of 192 members of Dutch national squads of four Olympic sports, presumably all in phase three

768

of their athletic career, 91% indicated that the coach had been of high significance in the preceding year Van Rossum, 1992, 1995a). The role of the coach has been subject to some investigation. We introduce two often-used instruments in such studies. First of all, research with the ‘Leadership Scale of Sport’ (LSS, Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) has yielded two characteristics of an ideal coach that the large majority of athletes appear to prefer, whatever his or her age, gender, sport, or competitive level might be. The first characteristic of the ideal coach is expertise or, in terms of the LSS, a high score on the scale ‘Training and Instruction Behavior’ (T&IB): ‘Behavior of the coach aimed at improving the performance of the athletes by emphasizing and facilitating hard and strenuous training, by instructing them in the skills, by clarifying the relationship among the members, and by structuring and coordinating the activities of the members’ (Chelladurai, 1990, 1993; Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998). The second characteristic which is highly valued in an ideal coach is ‘Rewarding Behavior/Positive Feedback’ (RB/PF), which is the ‘behavior of the coach which includes providing reinforcements for an athlete by recognizing and rewarding good performance’ (Chelladurai, 1990, 1993; Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998). While the LSS has been administered in many studies, there have only been one or two studies with talented athletes. To illustrate the typical findings, the results of a study will be presented in which Dutch adolescent athletes are involved. In a special sport-oriented secondary school indicated as a ‘LOOT school’4 a sample of talented athletes responded to the ‘ideal coach’ version of the LSS. In addition, the LSS was filled out by a sample of class mates, athletically active at a lower competitive level (Van Rossum, 1997). On both the T&IB-scale and the RB/PF-scale there were no statistically significant

J.H.A. van Rossum

differences between the talented athletes and the competitive athletes. There were also no differences noted between boys and girls, nor between athletes of individual sports and team sports. Thus, the ideal coach is described in similar terms for talented athletes and non-talented athletes, whatever their gender and sport. A second instrument which has often been used in studies with athletic coaches is the ‘Coaching Behavior Assessment Scale’ (CBAS) (Smith, Smoll, Curtis, & Hunt, 1977). This observation instrument contains 12 ‘types of reactions of the coach’. Of these, eight are classified as reactive behaviors, such as reinforcement, mistake-contingent encouragement, punishment, and keeping control, and four are categorized as spontaneous behaviors, such as general technical instruction and general communication. Several studies have been executed, most with adolescent athletes at a competitive level (Smith & Smoll, 1996a; Smoll & Smith, 2001). A typical finding is that of 51 U.S. baseball coaches with a total of 57,213 observations, where 36.8% of the observations turned out to be reactive behaviors, while 63.2% were spontaneous coach behaviors (Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1978). The three CBAS categories, in which most of the coaches’ behaviors were classified, were the following: ‘general technical instruction’ (27.3%), ‘general encouragement’ (21.4%), and ‘reinforcement’ (17.1%). While the first two categories are labeled as ‘spontaneous coaching behavior’, the third CBAS category is considered ‘reactive behavior’. It is fair to conclude that the U.S. coaches in this study were much too general and much too vague in their behavior toward the athletes to be effective. To increase coaches’ effectiveness, an intervention program was designed within a cognitive-behavioral framework: ‘Coach Effectiveness Training’ (CET). This program emphasizes positive control rather than aversive control and increases coaching behaviors in four CBAS categories: reinforcement, mistake4 In the Netherlands 24 secondary sport-oriented schools are contingent encouragement, corrective instruction, anno 2007 active, with a regional function (in Dutch these and technical instruction. Therefore, CET-trained schools are indicated as ’LOOT’-school; LOOT stands for ’Lan- coaches should show more ‘reactive behaviors’. In a delijk Overleg Onderwijs en Topsport’, National Consultation recent study with Dutch volleyball coaches of talented School-Education Elite-Sport). Talented athletes from various branches of sport are admitted to the ’sport stream’, provided athletes selected from the volleyball school of the Naeach is qualified as talented by his/her national sports associa- tional Volleyball Association, a task-oriented climate tion, and this label is confirmed by the Dutch Olympic Com- was found (Pleizier, 2003). This was evident not only mittee. Being in a ’sport stream’ provides the adolescent athlete from the questionnaires measuring the perception of extra opportunities for athletic practice during school hours and the athletes and the perception of the coaching staff, opportunities to adapt school demands to the athletic demands.

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

but also in the behavior of the coaches, using the CBAS. Based on 7,795 observations of six coaches, 65.3% of the observations appeared to be reactive behavior, while 34.8% were spontaneous behavior. Further, most of the coaches’ behaviors were classified in the CBAS category as ‘mistake-contingent technical instruction’ (21.4%, in contrast to 4.2% in the U.S. sample). The differences between the United States and the Dutch coaches are also clearly evident in the CBAS category of ‘general technical instruction’. This category contained the highest degree of coaching behavior in the U.S. sample with 27.3%. In contrast, the Dutch sample showed only 7.3% coaching behavior. Further, the Dutch coaches of talented volleyball players were specific in their encouragement, as is clearly shown in two CBAS categories. First, the ‘mistake-contingent encouragement’ category exhibited 10.3% coaching behavior, compared to 3.1% in the U.S. sample. Further, ‘general encouragement’ represented 13.1% of the Dutch coaches’ behavior, while it was 21.4% for the U.S. coaches. These figures demonstrate that there are behavioral differences between more effective and less effective coaches. The efficacy of the CET program has been empirically demonstrated (Smith & Smoll, 1996a) through higher self-esteem of the athletes, higher team cohesion, more enjoyment, less anxiety, and less dropout at the end of the season. There was, however, no change in the won–lost record, so while the CET-trained coaches may be more effective in certain ways, this was not reflected in the league standings. A working model of coach effectiveness was introduced by Horn (2002). She combined the Chelladurai model of coaching behavior (LSS) with the Smoll and Smith perspective (CBAS and the CET program). The model emphasizes that coaching behavior does not occur in a vacuum. Antecedents, such as the social– cultural context, the organizational climate, and personal characteristics of the coach all play a role. These antecedent factors mediate expectations, values, and goals, as well as the beliefs of the coach. Further, coaching behaviors influence the behavior of athletes both directly and indirectly, for example through the perceptions of the athletes, mediated by the athlete’s personal characteristics, forming the basis for the athlete’s self-perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes, which in turn influence the athlete’s motivation. It is clear, therefore, that the effectiveness of coaching behavior is mediated by both environmental factors and by factors re-

769

lated to individual differences, for example differences in goal orientation in athletes, such as ego and task orientation. While the model presents an interesting outline of the complexities of coach behaviors, it has not yet been tested. An intriguing question is whether the level of competition makes a difference in the coach effectiveness. Judging based on the present findings, the suggestion is that both competitive and talented or elite athletes would profit from CET-trained coaches, regardless of which of Bloom’s three career phases the athletes are at the time. Interestingly, a recent paper by Mallett and Cˆot´e (2006) used a newly devised instrument, the ‘Coaching Behavior Scale for Sport’ (CBS-S), to assess behaviors of high-performance coaches during training and competition and in organizational settings. In their words, ‘the primary focus (. . .) has been on providing criteria other than “winning” and “losing” to evaluate the work of high performance coaches’(Mallett & Cˆot´e, 2006, p. 220). Seven dimensions of coaching behaviors are distinguished: Physical Training and Planning, Goal Setting, Mental Preparation, Technical Skills, Personal Rapport, Negative Personal Rapport, and Competitive Strategies. The CBS-S is filled in by athletes and provides ‘comprehensive and useful feedback to coaches’, as it was designed ‘for use in a manner akin to methods used for evaluating teaching in college and university settings’(Mallett & Cˆot´e, 2006, p. 216). The CBS-S has been used with Olympic athletes and coaches in the United States, Canada, and Australia, yielding anecdotal support so far. A recent British study listed the sources of stress for players, as perceived by athletes and their coaches (Bawden, Chell, & Maynard, 2006). The study involved twenty 13- to 18-year-old talented table tennis players (11 males, 9 females) at the English national training center and their four male coaches. For the athletes, the highest ranked stress source was ‘the critical eye of the coach’, which might make one wonder about the nature of the learning climate in the training center, as well as whether a CET program might help in changing the athletes’ views. According to the coaches, the major source of stress for their talented athletes was parents. In one of the early studies on coaching behaviors, one of the conclusions was that ‘coaches were, for the most part, blissfully unaware of how they

770

behaved’(Smoll & Smith, 2001, p. 381). Such a statement would not seem likely in a positive learning climate. Indeed, the statement is based on behaviors of pre-CET coaches. Any of the instruments presented in this section could be used to support coaches in learning about themselves and about behaving effectively. Easy access to the CET notion is published in a booklet entitled Coaches Who Never Lose (Smoll & Smith, 1997), which provides coaching dos and don’ts.

Hard Work: Practice, Practice, Practice In the classical study on the development of talented people (Bloom, 1985), one of the pillars of a successful career appeared to be practice or, as it was termed by Bloom, willingness to work hard. The relevance of this factor has been ascertained during the last decade in various investigations on expertise (Ericsson, 1998; Starkes & Ericsson, 2003). In contrast to the studies on athletic achievement motivation, and the work done on coaching effectiveness, the research on expertise has been focused on elite levels from the outset. To become an expert in any domain requires years of practice. These hours are not just filled with drilled practice, but with the intent to make progression. Therefore, these hours of relentless training should be goal directed. Within the context of the study of expertise, the training is indicated as ‘deliberate practice’. One of the ‘rules’ put forward by the research to date is that international caliber experts in the fields of music and athletics have spent about 10,000 hours of accumulated deliberate practice to perform at an international level. This huge number of practice hours comes down to about 15–20 hours per week for 10– 15 successive years. A corollary to this rule of thumb is the finding that at lower levels of expertise there are less hours of accumulated practice. So, for example, Belgian male field hockey players of international level accumulated about 10,000 hours of individual and team practice, while national players playing on teams in the highest national league in Belgium accumulated about 9,000 hours and provincial players playing on teams in the fourth division accumulated about 6,000 hours (Starkes, 2000). Thus, superior performance is reflected in a higher total number of accumulated practice hours.

J.H.A. van Rossum

Another aspect evaluated by ‘deliberate practice’ studies is that the number of weekly practice hours is increasing over the years. In the early years of the athletic career, 5–10 hours of practice per week is quite normal for violinists, pianists, figure skaters, wrestlers, soccer players, as well as field hockey players (cf. Figure 1 in Starkes, 2000, p. 437). By the time that the athlete has about 10 years of practice, the number of practice hours is about 15 hours per week, and by the time they have about 15 years of practice, the number of hours has increased to 20–25 hours. There is no indication that accumulated hours of deliberate practice is related to the age at which athletic practice is started (Starkes, 2000, p. 437). In Starke’s (2000) study, wrestlers began practice at the age of 13 or 14, figure skaters started at the age of 5, as did the soccer players, while the field hockey players started practice at about 8 years of age, and they all accumulated about 10,000 hours over the next 15 years. While studies on expertise began in the domain of arts, notably music (Ericsson, Krampe, & TeschR¨omer, 1993), the idea spread fast to the domain of sports (Durand-Bush & Salmela, 2001). Research with elite athletes led to at least three observations, which comment on the hitherto undisputed findings. A first comment concerns the definition of deliberate practice. Initially ‘deliberate practice’ was described as activities which require effort, are not inherently enjoyable, and are relevant for the improvement of the current level of performance (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-R¨omer, 1993). Within the context of athletics the ‘not inherently enjoyable’ part did not appear to be adequate. Studies in which athletes rated all athletic activities on the four dimensions of relevance, physical effort, enjoyment, and mental concentration showed a positive correlation between relevance and enjoyment. Activities which were considered highly relevant were also, in contrast to the earlier findings with musicians, considered enjoyable. The athletic studies therefore raise doubts about the adequacy of the original definition of deliberate practice within the domain of sports (Starkes, Deakin, Allard, Hodges, & Hayes, 1996). Another related comment concerns the calculation of accumulated practice. It is not uncommon to find that many elite athletes in ball sports spend hours in solo practice ‘juggling the ball’, especially in the early phases of their athletic career. It is highly relevant that in the original definition of deliberate practice, such activities would be discarded as playful, not deliberate.

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

Within the context of sport, the definitional issue yielded a distinction between ‘free play’, ‘deliberate play’, ‘structured practice’, and ‘deliberate practice’ (Cˆot´e, Baker, & Abernethy, 2003). A retrospective study of 20-year-old professional ice hockey players showed that deliberate play, as in street hockey, back yard ice rinks, and mini sticks, was the major activity these athletes were involved in between the ages of 6 and 13. They spent most practice hours in deliberate practice, like organized practices, power skating, and dry land training, from age 15 onward (Soberlak & Cˆot´e, 2003). It appears important, therefore, to treat deliberate practice in a more nuanced manner in order to arrive at a valid description of the process through which athletic expertise is obtained. It should be underlined here that deliberate practice should not be confined to physical activities. It makes sense, first of all, to distinguish solo practice from team practice in team sports. One might correctly assume that team practice makes the difference between levels of expertise, as it was indeed found in soccer; however, in field hockey individual practice was the discriminating element (Starkes, 2000). Within these two general practice categories, various types of practice were noted. In solo or individual practice, the following elements were considered relevant by the athletes (Starkes, 2000, Table 1, p. 435): weights, flexibility, running, game video analysis, coach alone, and technical skills. In team practice, the following elements were relevant: games, exhibition games, tactical skills, technical skills, running, and flexibility. A third category of deliberate practice was ‘hockey related’, containing the following relevant elements: mental imagery, watching hockey, professional conversation about hockey, coaching, and game-analysis. In a last deliberate practice category, ‘everyday life’, only sleep was considered relevant. A final comment regarding deliberate practice is about the almost magical number of 10,000 practice hours. In a study with Belgian male field hockey players, the highest level of expertise, i.e., members of the national squad, accumulated 10,237 hours. However, Belgian field hockey takes a modest position at international competitions. Considering the statement, ‘the higher the level of attained performance, the larger (the) amount of practice’ (Ericsson, 1996, p. 23), it would be of interest to calculate the accumulated practice hours of Dutch field hockey players, since Holland

771

has ranked among the four best countries in the world over the last decades5 . A calculation was carried out, employing a database of 880 Dutch field hockey players (655 junior players and 225 adult players) (Van Rossum, 2000a). While the data were gathered for other purposes, the question about the weekly practice activities is of prime importance here. In the database, there are several Dutch national squads present, such as the under-18 and under21 teams, the senior male and female national teams, as well as several regional selections of talented junior players. It was concluded that Dutch field hockey players came nowhere near the number of 10,000 practice hours. The rule of thumb of 10,000 hours cannot, therefore, be considered a prerequisite for expert performance in sport. A statement recently confirmed this: ‘To the contrary, expert performance in sports where peak performance generally occurs after the age of 20 has been achieved with 3,000–4,000 hours of sport specific training (i.e., deliberate practice; Cˆot´e, Baker, & Abernethy, in press)’ (Fraser-Thomas & Cˆot´e, 2006, p. 3). Such findings seriously question both the rule that 10,000 hours would seem to be a necessary amount of practice for reaching international level and the rule that higher level of expertise goes hand in hand with a higher number of deliberate practice hours. It does not, of course, question that large amounts of practice hours are necessary in order to become an elite athlete. The research on expertise is often interpreted as supporting a ‘nurture’ interpretation of talent development (Howe, Davidson, & Sloboda, 1998). One should not forget, however, that, possibly, those who are able and willing to spend this many hours for a number of successive years practicing might be genetically predisposed to do so (Bouchard, Malina, & P´erusse, 1997). While there is

5 ‘Starkes indicates the level of expertise of the international players sample (that is, the Belgian top level field hockey sample, JvR) by stating that most of these players participated in the 1994 World Championships, the 1995 European Championships and the 1996 pre-Olympic tournament (the Belgian team tanked 12th, 4th and 7th in these tournaments, respectively). The Dutch team, the 1990 World Champion, finished as runner-up in both the 1994 World Championships and the 1995 European Championships, won the 1996 pre-Olympic tournament, and won the Olympic title later that year in Atlanta (Belgium did not qualify for the 1996 Olympics). In 1998, the Dutch team won the 1998 World Championships, and, recently, also won the highly prestigious “Champions Trophy”, becoming the first team in history to hold the main three international titles concurrently’ (Van Rossum, 2000a, p. 453).

772

no doubt that large amounts of practice are necessary, this cannot be interpreted to mean than practice is all that matters. To end this section, a final remark is based on the findings obtained in the 8-year longitudinal study with talented athletes in track-and-field and in volleyball (Van Rossum, 2005). It speaks for itself that at the first time of measurement, the talented athletes (n = 178) practiced more hours per week than the control athletes (n = 174). Eight years later, the successful talented athletes (n = 22) were still performing at national level, while the unsuccessful talented athletes did not (n = 156). At the first time of measurement, the group of talented athletes who later became successful turned out to practice significantly more hours per week than the talented athletes who were not successful later on. It was not possible, however, to predict, on the basis of the first measurements, which of the talented athletes would become successful (Van Rossum, 2005). For the group of 14 successful talented athletes, 6 from track-and-field and 8 from volleyball, the weekly practice hours could be charted over the 8 years of the study. The volleyball players showed an increase from about 8 hours per week to over 14 hours of weekly practice, while the track-and-field athletes remained quite steadily over this 8-year period at about 9–10 hours of practice per week. While the mean duration of a practice session is steadily increasing over the years for the successful volleyball players (from about 2 hours to a little over 3 hours per session), practice sessions for the successful track-and-field athletes remain throughout the study between 1.5 and 2 hours. Given that five of the six successful track-and-field athletes practice ‘technical’ disciplines, such as javelin, shotputting, long jump, and high jump, and given the intensity of such sessions, practice sessions of more than 2 hours might in fact be counter-productive. The ‘deliberate practice’ curve might thus be sport specific.

J.H.A. van Rossum

of the information, longitudinal studies will be necessary to assess the validity of the presently available insights. More sport-specific studies need to be executed, testing the ‘rules’ and key assumptions of the expert performance approach, especially those that relate to the notion of deliberate practice (Abernethy, Farrow, & Berry, 2003).

Talent Development Inhibitors in Athletics There are probably a million factors that can impede or endanger an athletic career. Lacking a good coach at the right time during the career can certainly be regarded an inhibitor, although, of course, a coach is generally considered a facilitator. In a similar vein, fearing failure during a game or tournament can have negative effects, while overcoming one’s fear, whether or not with the help of a sport psychologist, is often a solid facilitator. Perfectionism in an athlete might be just as much a facilitator as it helps with the repeating of exercises until they are ‘perfect’, as it might be an inhibitor when one is annoyed by not having executed a perfect movement sequence, be it a stroke, kick, or throw, during a game. This section addresses three highly relevant inhibitors, that is, factors that are often viewed as having a negative impact on the athletic career: parents, school, and injury. These factors seem to show their effects mostly during the first two phases of the athletic career.

Parents

The study on sources of stress in British elite junior table tennis players was introduced earlier (see page 769). According to the coaches of these talented athletes, the main source of stress for the athletes are parents (Bawden, Chell, & Maynard, 2006). The athIn Conclusion letes themselves placed parents only at the sixth position on the list of stress sources, after critical eye of The focus of the research on expertise has put de- the coach, personal expectations, the constant need to liberate practice at the center of attention. Doing so, win, living at the academy, and other player’s percepexpertise research has yielded relevant and interesting tions of their ability. Many coaches seem to have the insights into one of the central factors of talent devel- tendency to consider parents a liability, thinking that opment in sport. The majority of the studies are, how- over-involved parents are the rule and not the excepever, based on recall as athletes are asked to think back tion. As an illustrative example, a study among athletes and list the number of hours practiced. While in most of four Olympic sports, all members of the Dutch nastudies checks were carried out to ensure reliability tional squad in judo, speed skating, swimming, or ta-

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

ble tennis, determined that their parents played important roles in their athletic life. However, the coaches of these athletes wished that these parents would not be present during practice or at games. Of course, the coaches did not mind having parents play various supportive roles at home or in the background (Van Rossum, 1995a), such as arranging their household so it would fit the athletic situation, arrange for transportation, give moral and other mental support, as well as financial support. With respect to financial support, a large-scale survey among elite and pre-elite British athletes of 12 sports determined that ‘for most performers, families were the main source of finance. At performance level, 56% were supported mainly by their families while at excellence level, it was 40%’ (English Sports Council, 1998, p. 11). In a chapter on the relationship between the coach and the parent, Smoll (1986) distinguished five types of parents. This typological list of the sport parent is still present in a recent update of the text (Smoll & Cummings, 2006): – The disinterested parent: a parent who is absent from athletic activities to a degree that is upsetting to their child – The overcritical parent: this parent often scolds and berates their child; this parent is seldom or never satisfied with their child’s performance, but gives the definite impression that it is more their game than it is their child’s game – The parent who screams from behind the bench: this parent is targeting everybody, not just their own child, child’s team mates or their child’s coach – opponents and officials are also frequently ‘spoken to’ – The sideline coach: the parent often makes suggestions, sometimes leaning over the bench, which frequently contradict the coach’s instructions and therefore are often disruptive to the team – The overprotecting parent: the parent who is characterized by her worried look (most often this parental type is the athlete’s mother) and her comments about the dangers involved in the sport. In a Dutch study with talented young tennis players, their parents, and their coaches, two parental types were added: the parent who easily identifies him or herself with the young athlete, and the realistic parent, who puts things into perspective (De Beijer, 1997). Further, room was given to add one’s own description of the sport parent. First of all, the extra room for addi-

773

tion was not needed for coaches, as they reported that each of the given parental types was present in the parents whose talented children they coached. Most often, they saw the overprotective parent, but the sideline coach, the overcritical parent, and the easily identifiable parent were often present too. Only 1 out of 5 parents were, according to the coaches, a normal, i.e., realistic parent. Thus, in the view of the tennis coaches, the overwhelming majority of parents were feared, since they might in one way or another present ‘problems’ to the coach, especially at practice sessions and during games or matches (Van Rossum, 1995b). This was not the reality of the parents about themselves; 10 of the 44 parents involved in the study admitted to being a problem-parent, an easily identifiable parent (5 parents), an overcritical parent (3 parents), an overprotective parent (1), and a sideline coach (1). The other tennis parents saw themselves as realistic or wrote down their own positive description in the extra space provided for in the questionnaire. The talented tennis players described their parents as realistic (28%) or wrote in their own words a positive description emphasizing the supportive role of their parents (32%). Nevertheless, the talented athletes also described their parents as sideline coach, overprotective, and easily identifiable (each between 15 and 20%). One is tempted to conclude that, judging from the agreement between coaches and athletes, parents have a too optimistic view on their own behavior in the athletic context. In a recent study with tennis coaches of Tennis Competition Training Centers throughout the United States, the coaches’ perceptions of parental roles were charted (Gould, Lauer, Rolo, Jannes, & Pennisi, 2006). Interestingly, they found not only that coaches felt that parents are very important in junior tennis success, that about 1 out of 3 parents ‘hurt their child’s tennis development’, but also that nearly 60% of the parents had a positive influence. Most common problems were that parents overemphasized winning, that parents had unrealistic parental expectations, that parents coached their own child, criticized their child, and spoiled their child. Further, parents lacking emotional control were also considered a serious problem. Parents, however, also showed very positive behaviors, such as providing unconditional love and support, providing logistical and financial support, holding the child accountable for on-court behavior, emphasizing a positive attitude, modeling values, and providing appropriate discipline for poor sportsmanship. The conclusion drawn by the

774

authors highlights the need for parents to be educated, because ‘although many parents do an excellent job (. . .) and contribute positively to their child’s development, the experienced coaches we studied also felt that a significant number of parents unknowingly interfere with their child’s development. This is not surprising given that sport parents receive little or no training about how to help their child to develop and are exposed to a youth sports environment that is increasingly professional’(Gould et al., 2006, p. 635).

J.H.A. van Rossum

One might expect that the family is especially important during the second phase of the talent career. In a study in a U.S. Midwestern semi-urban community, a group of 208 talented students, from five talent fields (art, athletics, mathematics, music, and science), was followed from the first to their last year of high school (Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993). It was found that “moderate to high family cohesiveness coupled with high adaptability, seems to provide the best context for adolescent development” (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993, p. 71). Such families would protect talented individuals against dropping out of the talent field. These findings were supported in a British study, The Driving or Pushing Parent with talented athletes from four sports (soccer, gymnastics, swimming, tennis) (Rowley, 1995) but were In her monograph on gifted children, Winner (1996) not supported in a replication study with Dutch athletes discusses as myth no. 6 the ‘Driving Parent’. The no- of various sports (Van Rossum & Van der Loo, 1997). tion within the ‘common’ audience is that children or In the latter study, talented athletes had a more negayouth who are very good at something must be pushed tive image of their family than a control group of notby their parents because they do not believe that chil- talented peers of the same age, while the parents of the dren would do something if they were given a choice. two groups of athletes did not differ in their view of However, reality paints another picture, according to their family. Further studies, focusing on the family during the Winner (1996, p. 309), ‘no matter how gifted, children second career phase (cf. Table 37.1), are particularly do not develop their gifts without a parent or surrowelcome. In those years, the talented individual goes gate parent behind them encouraging, stimulating, and through an important period, becoming more strongly pushing. But the parents do not create the gift. The children are usually pushing the parents, sending out involved in the sport and having to adapt to a more inclear signals of their need for a stimulating environ- tense practice schedule. Much more should be known about how the family, as the most central supporting ment. Parents try to accommodate’. The image of the ‘meddling parent’, the trouble- system, typically reacts to these forms of strain. some and difficult-to-handle sport parent the media is so eager to present, seems to be exaggerated, but does not come from a completely biased perspective. In Conclusion Parents do not always use the best procedures when dealing with their talented child. In her monograph, The role of parents and the family of the talented Winner (1996) shows her awareness of this aspect of athlete are increasingly being recognized. There parental involvement by saying that ‘parents can de- remains, however, much to be learned about the role stroy a gift. When parents live vicariously through their of parents and of the family as a whole. In a review child’s gift, caring more about their child’s achieve- of parental involvement in children’s sport,Woolgar ments than their emotional life, they are likely to end and Power (1993) identified three elements that could be used to assess parental behavior. First, parents up with a bitter dropout’ (ibid, p. 309). A talented individual might easily become the focus should provide support to the athlete, whether it be and central person of the family. This might result in emotional, informational, or tangible, like logistics or the destruction of the whole family structure. How such finances. Further, parents should be role models, and a process typically unfolds and how it might be reme- present the correct behavioral example to their child. died is eloquently described by Hellstedt (1995). Hell- Third, parents should be aware of their expectations stedt’s chapter is good reading for those coaches and and keep these in balance with their child’s abilities. parents who want more information before embark- Not only should these roles be further investigated ing on a new process they do not know much about. in different sports at various levels of competition,

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

the findings should also be communicated to sports parents. Presently, the three elements mentioned appear to be equally applicable to any sport context. As a matter of fact, these elements are also emphasized in some brochures available to sport parents (Smoll & Smith, 1999; American Sport Education Program, 1994).

School Research on the development of expertise has validated the idea that a career in athletics often takes at least 10 years and a large amount of practice (cf. Section “Achievement motivation”). The implication is that an individual pursuing top-level achievements in sports, has a full-time job already at a relatively early age. For many branches of sport, long periods of time have to be spent practicing during the adolescent years (Fig. 37.1). In Western society, these years are traditionally reserved for secondary schooling, and the investment in a sport career is often not easily combined with secondary school. While the mean ages presented in Fig. 37.1 suggest that many athletes must have been in the second phase of the athletic career during their secondary school years, for some sports, such as cricket, rugby league, rugby union, or rowing, the athletic career presents itself only in later years. For the latter sports, adolescents probably do not have to invest as many practice hours and will, therefore, not be hindered in their secondary schooling as much by the burden of athletic practice. For them, school does not, in all probability, present itself as an inhibitory factor to the athletic career. Even if attending school is a concept most athletically talented adolescents have to come to terms with, parents and teachers might attach more importance to the school progress than the talented athletes themselves might be inclined to do. In a study with talented Dutch adolescents from three domains (athletics, dance, music) the importance of the secondary school was assessed in relationship to other important aspects in their life (Van Rossum, 2003). While, as might have been expected, each of the samples of talented adolescents found their preferred activity of athletics, dance, and music of the utmost importance, other things also mattered in the life of talented adolescents. School, however, was not considered as important, especially to those individuals who were talented in dance or music.

775

In the 4-year study on talented U.S. high school students from five domains (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993), a special procedure was used to collect information from the adolescents during their daily activities. Beepers would warn them ‘to fill out a detailed report of their current activities, thoughts, companions, and feelings’ (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993, p. 49). It was found that, although attention was quite high and focused in the classrooms, ‘three fourths of the time when the talented teens reported from the classroom they did not want to do what they were doing. When they did want to do what they were doing, they tended to be doing and thinking about something other than academic work’ (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993, p. 180). As a tentative conclusion, one can say that school is not as important to adolescents as parents and teachers might want it to be. To a talented adolescent, the next game or performance is often of more interest than the next examination in science or the English essay. In a study with talented Dutch athletes in volleyball (De Weerd, 1994) the simple question about how the adolescent manages to balance school and athletics turned out to be highly relevant. Those who indicated that they had trouble combining the obligations from school and athletics seemed at the brink of overtraining. This observation was repeated in a study with talented Dutch dancers who were admitted to a pre-professional dance education (Van Rossum, 2000b). Those who answered that they felt that school and dance education could not be well combined indicated that the school and the parents were less satisfied with their school progress, parents had more problems with the time and energy that went to the dance education, and they were less content themselves with their own dance progression. They were also less content with their health, were injured more often, would have preferred more dance classes, reported more sleeping, eating, and body weight problems compared to those talented dancers who felt that the combination of school and dance was not a problem. In order to help adolescent athletes combine the athletic demands and the obligations of secondary school, special sport-oriented schools have been established, for example the so-called LOOT school in the Netherlands (Note 4). The central aim of such schools is that more time be spent in supervised athletic practice. A study evaluating the effects of such experimental sport schools in Finland (Suomalainen et al., 1990)

776

suggests that simply organizing flexible teaching arrangements will not automatically yield more practice hours in the sport domain. It was found that on a regular school day, athletically talented boys attending such sport high schools had about twice as many training hours as talented boys attending regular high schools. This difference was not observed for girls attending these two types of high school. Further, the effect was more pronounced for athletes of individual type sports than for team sport athletes. Lastly, the experimental high school appeared to be a more effective facilitator for athletically talented athletes at the regional level than at the national level. While the period of the secondary school is a crucial one in the athletic career, and the combination of sport and school education is often a difficult one for the individual talented athlete, the provision of a sport-friendly facility will not in itself solve the problem.

In Conclusion While the most important activity for the talented adolescent is often in the talent domain, this is not always recognized by parents or schoolteachers. Provisions such as secondary sport schools might be helpful. Injury Injuries often occur in sport participation. Research on the frequencies of injuries indicates large differences between the different branches of sports. To make comparison possible, the number of injuries is calculated per 1,000 hours of sports participation. A national scale survey in the Netherlands, for example, yielded a injury ratio of 2.0 for soccer, 2.1 for field hockey, and 2.4 for volleyball, which makes these team sports much less dangerous than for example indoor soccer with 6.3 and skiing with 10.1 (Hildebrandt, Ooijendijk, Stiggelbout, & Hopman-Rock, 2004). These figures are, however, very low in comparison to those of, for example, women’s professional basketball with 19.3 (National Basketball Association athletes) and 24.9 (Women’s National Basketball Association) (Deitch, Starkey, Walters, & Moseley, 2006). In contrast, the 2001 Beach Volleyball World Championships yielded 3.1 injuries per 1,000 competition hours and 0.8 injuries per 1,000 training hours (Bahr & Reeser, 2003).

J.H.A. van Rossum

It provides less insight, however, if a ‘pure’ number of injuries is reported: a study on injuries during international soccer tournaments, for example, reported 901 injuries from 334 matches, which is 2.7 injuries per match (Junge, Dvorak, Graf-Baumann, & Peterson, 2004). Another way of expressing injury rate is by presenting the number of athletes injured. A recent review of sport injuries in young U.S. athletes reported that 40–61% of the athletes in football are injured each year; the percentage in wrestling and gymnastics is 40– 46%, in basketball 31–37%, and in volleyball, baseball, soccer, cross country, softball, and track-and-field 7–8% (Adirim & Cheng, 2003). Generally, no distinction is made in such studies between levels of participation. This is unfortunate, since it is possible that a higher number of practice hours and more games or tournaments, which is highly likely at higher levels of achievement, might increase injury risk. One might also assume that better equipment, higher awareness of the athlete, better coaching, as well as better medical care, which are also more likely at higher levels of achievement, might result in a lower injury risk. Injuries are relatively often mentioned by athletes as one of the reasons for quitting. In a Scottish study among talented adolescents in basketball, gymnastics, and swimming 26% of the dropouts referred to injuries as a cause (Whyte, 1993). In the Dutch 8-year longitudinal study on track-and-field and volleyball athletes, 24% of the dropouts mentioned injury as an important reason (Van Rossum, 2005). Further, in a German study with female elite track-and-field athletes (Bussmann & Alfermann, 1994) a high rate of injury-related dropouts was found. ‘For a big majority of the dropouts (n = 12) the main reason for terminating the career is a serious injury (or even a series of injuries)’ (p. 113). In general, two types of injuries are to be distinguished: the acute injury and the overuse injury. The acute injury occurs suddenly and often appears as a concurrence of circumstances. In addition to fractures, which are relatively seldom in the athletic context, there are the so-called soft tissue injuries like sprains and contusions, which are also acute injuries. Increasing levels of aggression in the sport, especially during games, must also be taken into consideration. A recent study with Canadian adolescents and young adults, who were athletically active at high school and university levels, indicates that inter-athlete aggression cannot be neglected. The percentage of athletes who indicated that they wanted to physically injure opponents

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

at least once per game varies from 19 to 78 at the high school level and from 12 to 50 at the university level (Widmeyer, Dorson, Bray, & McGuire, 2002). The percentages are considerably higher in males compared to females. The other type of injury, the overuse injury, is often also indicated as a chronic injury. This injury takes time to develop. If a small injury, which would need a couple of days of rest for complete recovery, is neglected or not completely healed, it might easily lead to a chronic injury. Such injuries cannot be considered the result of a concurrence of circumstances. In chronic injuries, coaching demands often coincide with an ego or outcome climate. Athletes who fear not being selected for a squad might decide to conceal a small injury. On the other hand, a chronic injury might occur from long repetitions of similar movements, as for example in throwing a baseball. This type of injury frequently occurs in those branches of sports where high intensities and many repetitions during practice are considered normal, such as in gymnastics and swimming. There is an ongoing debate on the effects of vigorous athletic training on growth and maturation. F´ederation Internationale de Medicine de Sport (FMIS) published a position statement on ‘Excessive physical training in children and adolescents’ in 1991 (FIMS, 1991). One of their conclusions is that athletic participation contributes to the physical, emotional, and intellectual development of children and adolescents and that participation in sports can increase self-confidence as well as social competence. However, with increasing demands, for example in high-intensity and frequent athletic practices, one should be concerned about the negative effects. A more recent review of the positive and negative effects of intense sport participation claims that there are hardly any solid studies on which to base a conclusion (Baxter-Jones & Helms, 1996), despite the fact that there are reports of overuse injuries on bones and joints, as well as on disturbed growth, and physical and psychological burn out. It is not at all clear, however, whether these incidents primarily result from athletic practice. In a longitudinal study it was recently concluded that both normal and intense physical training have neither negative nor positive effects on growth and physical maturation (Malina, 2000).

777

Sometimes, one is inclined to conclude from the small and light figure of a gymnast, for example, that it is probably an effect of the heavy training load for an extensive period of time. This, however, overlooks other, more plausible explanations. Studies on the onset of menarche support this rival hypothesis: mean ages in gymnastics are at about 15, while in swimming it is at about 13 (Beunen & Malina, 1996). In the British TOYA study, talented adolescent male and female athletes from four sports, namely gymnastics, swimming, tennis, and soccer, were followed longitudinally (Baxter-Jones & Helms, 1996). No effects on growth and maturation were observed. The mean menarche age of the female gymnasts appeared late compared to the menarche age of female tennis players and female swimmers. The same pattern, however, was observed in the ages of menarche for the mothers of these athletes, suggesting that recruitment from different genetic pools should certainly be considered a relevant factor here, instead of taking it for granted that excessive training loads in female gymnasts must be the primary factor. However, the discussion is not yet completed. While some still contend that elite competition quite possibly inhibits growth and delays maturation in gymnastics (Caine, Bass, & Daly, 2003), others give the answer that this is probably not the case (Baxter-Jones, Maffuli, & Mirwald, 2003). One might be inclined to search for more definite answers in a voluminous textbook such as that on Growth, maturation, and physical activity (Malina, Bouchard, & Bar-Or, 2004). The book contains a special chapter on the young athlete, with a section entitled: ‘Gymnastics and ballet: Special cases?’ Here, the answer is clearly negative. ‘The data for female gymnasts and ballet dancers need to be considered in the context of extremely selective physical and aesthetic criteria of both sports’ (Malina et al., 2004, p. 641). But with respect to the impact of intensive training, no answer can be found. ‘Child and adolescent athletes grow in a manner similar to nonathletes’ (Malina et al., 645). The focus is on the regular or normal child and adolescent. The talented or elite athlete is not a special case. The index of the textbook does not contain keywords like talented, gifted, or intensive practice. The most extensive study on the growth of adolescent athletes was done in tennis and swimming and is known as the The University of Western Australia Growth and Development Study (Blanksby,

778

Bloomfield, Ackland, Elliott, & Morton, 1994). ‘The aim of this project was to bring together, for anthropometric and physiological study during growth, a group of subjects who, from the outset, participated with some degree of success at an early age in competitive swimming and tennis, and to compare them with each other and with a group of similar age and socio-economic status who did not compete in any sport’ (Blanksby et al., 1994, p. xi). It is not uncommon in tennis as well as in swimming to start systematic practice at an early age6 . Three samples were involved in the Australian study: a sample of 8to 12-year-old ‘swimmers, finalists in State swimming championships’, a sample of 8- to 14-year-old tennis players who were ‘leading junior tennis players, based on recommendations by professional coaches and selected on Western Australian tournament results’, and a control sample of 7- to 12-year-old children ‘who were not involved in regular, formal training for any sport’. The participants were followed for five successive years, and a total number of 45 measurements and assessments were taken twice a year7 . The original samples were large with 114 swimmers (56 boys, 58 girls), 90 tennis players (48 boys, 42 girls), and 229 control children (113 boys, 116 girls). However, no answer can be given to the question whether regular, more or less intensive exercise of children in the athletic samples harm or promote growth, compared to children in the control samples. No analyses are reported on similarities and differences between the samples of swimmers, tennis players, and control subjects (Bloomfield, Blanksby, & Ackland, 1990/1994; Ackland, Blanksby, & Bloomfield, 1994). On a positive note, the study provided a wealth of normative data regarding young elite tennis players, on anthropometrical, physiological, and psychological variables (Elliott, Ackland, Blanksby, Hood, &

J.H.A. van Rossum

Bloomfield, 1989; Ackland, Elliott, Blanksby, Hood & Bloomfield, 1989). A more relevant study in the context of growth and development in young elite athletes is the British TOYA study, the longitudinal study on the effects of intensive training on a talented child’s development. In addition to the effects on physiological development, effects on the child’s psychological development were also explicitly mentioned. Four samples of talented athletes, from gymnastics, swimming, tennis, and soccer, who were all ‘elite’ for their age according to criteria provided by the governing body of each sport were studied from 1987 to 1992. A total number of 453 athletes (222 females, 231 males) aged between 8 and 16 years, were measured for three consecutive years on anthropometric characteristics and sexual maturation. For the male athletes, gymnasts were found to be late maturers, while swimmers were found to be early maturers, a finding which is ascribed to some form of sport-specific selection. ‘Training did not appear to have affected these young athletes’ growth and development; rather their continued success in sport appeared to be related to inherited traits’ (Baxter-Jones et al., 1995, p. 381).

In Conclusion

Injuries are unfortunately a fact of life for athletes. Injury, or a series of injuries, can be a major cause for dropping out. One should distinguish acute injuries from overuse injuries. Within the category of overuse injuries, scientific evidence is inconclusive regarding the harmful effects of an overload of practice on the adolescent growth. One must be careful, however, not to interpret variations related to genetic recruitment as indications of training overload. No definite conclusion 6 Unfortunately no information is presented in ‘The University can be drawn about the effect of intensive athletic exof Western Australia Growth and Development Study’ about the ercise. It is quite certain, however, that intensive physical exercise cannot be considered only from a negative age at which the subjects started practicing their sport. 7 Information was gathered on a large number of variables (asperspective. sessed according to the Tanner procedure), 19 anthropometric variables (such as length and width of body segments), body composition (6 skinfolds; bodyweight), somatotype (HealthCarter method), pulmonary function tests (forced vital capacity, Cerniak procedure, peak flow), physical exercise capacity (aerobic capacity by bicycle test), motor skills (vertical jump, 40-m sprint, agility run), flexibility (5 variables among which the wellknown sit-and-reach test), 4 strengh tests, and 3 paycho-social tests (10 variables).

Conclusions In this section we will look again at the three examples given in the introduction. We will return to the example

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

of diver Greg Louganis within the context of prediction: is it possible to predict at an early age who will become a future champion? This question also addresses the often-discussed issues of talent detection and selection. After all, if one cannot predict who is going to be a successful athlete in the future, why bother with the characteristics of those who are at the brink of an athletic career? The second example in the introduction sketched the harsh and relentless training of young athletes during the old days of the Rumanian regime. This example might be taken to stand for a traditional manner of dealing with athletic talent in which outcome was all-determining. This tradition is often thought to be coupled with the East European and Russian talent development approach (Riordan, 1986). However, this attitude was not just a privilege of the former East European countries, but is still very much alive in Western sport. While it is only natural that many of the young talented athletes will not be able to attain an international achievement level, it should be prevented that athletes drop out of athletic programs for the ‘wrong’ reasons. Assessing the athletic endeavor just by its outcome might result in more ‘casualties’ than necessary. We will address the often forgotten young athletes who did not make it to the top and dropped out. These unsuccessful talented athletes might inform us about neglected relevant factors. The third example given in the introduction was about downhill skier Dave, who was mentally prepared to focus on the outcome of each athletic event. Against the background of this example, we will address the general notion of winning. For many adults and coaches, the ultimate aim of any sport is to win, to defeat opponents, to show one’s superiority. The question addressed here is whether winning is the only goal by which an athletic event should be evaluated. In addition, the issue of an optimal performance climate is discussed.

Prediction? Greg Louganis showed early skill in learning a handstand while visiting his sister’s dance class. It suggests that already at a very young age, there were indications foretelling his outstanding performance at a much later age. Is it realistic to expect that science can be of help in predicting future athletic champions? In January 1986, a symposium was held in Germany on ‘The Talent Problem in Sports’. The sympo-

779

sium was the fifth in a series on interdisciplinary research in the field of sport science. A 5-year mixed longitudinal study in alpine skiing was reported. Anthropometric features, physiological parameters, motor abilities in general and specific skiing skills were measured, and information was gathered about the athlete’s socialization. The conclusion was disappointing: ‘one of the main results was that a talent search with respect to individual sports disciplines hardly seems possible; only scientifically based support of already identified talented athletes appears to be indicated’ (Bartmus, Neumann & De Mar´ees, 1987). The issue of predicting the athletic future was taken up again in the first sport psychology handbook chapter on talent development in sport (R´egnier et al., 1993). ‘All attempts at talent detection are fundamentally based upon prediction of the future performance of athletes given their present level of attributes and capacities and the environment in which they evolve’ (p. 303). Having a specific definition of future performance, based on appropriate performance criteria, will make or break this approach. For unidimensional sports like the sprint, long jump, high jump, and javelin disciplines in track-and-field, this would seem straightforward, since performance is measured in time, distance, or height. It would be different, though, in case of sports where performance criteria are not unidimensional or are not immediately obvious. This would hold not only for most team sports, but also for individual sports in which a direct confrontation between opponents is decisive, as in judo or tennis. At the symposium in 1986 in Germany, the results were presented ‘of a longitudinal study of talent search in tennis during the period from 1978 to 1982, in which 100 tennis players aged 8–20 took part’ (Bartmus et al., 1987, p. 115). The data gathered in this investigation was statistically re-analyzed several years later (Schneider, B¨os & Rieder, 1993; B¨os & Schneider, 1997) from a perspective of predicting future performance. First of all, the tennis career was followed during the years from 1985 to 1992, that is, for a period of 6 years after the 1986 symposium was held. It was found that 18 of the 107 talented players developed into professional adult tennis players, ranking on the international ATP list. Ranking was employed in this re-analysis as performance criterion. Complex statistical techniques were used to identify relevant junior variables to predict future ATP ranking. A large variety of variables were measured in the adolescent

780

tennis players, such as general motor abilities, specific tennis skills, anthropometric and physiological measures, psychological inventories, medical anamnesis, and orthopedic information. Further information was gathered in questionnaires administered to athletes, parents, and coaches, and through home interviews with parents. The results of the re-analysis were startling. Schneider (2000, p. 172) succinctly presents the conclusions as follows: ‘. . .results of causal modeling procedures showed that parent’s support, the amount and intensity of practice, as well as the level of achievement motivation significantly predicted children’s tennis rankings several years later’. He adds, however, that the relevance of the motor abilities and skills should not be ignored. ‘Although tennis-specific skills and the amount and intensity of practice accounted for most of the variance in children’s tennis rankings several years later, the effects of basic motor abilities on tennis performance could not be ignored. That is, when the basic ability construct was omitted from the model, the model no longer fitted the data. Although individual differences in basic motor abilities were not large in this highly selected sample, they made a difference when it came to predicting individual tennis performance’ (Schneider 2000, p. 172). Recently, a similar study was completed in Dutch field hockey (Van Rossum, 2006b). The male and female players, selected for the under-18 national squads for three successive seasons (1994 through 1996) were involved, and anthropometric, physiological, medical, and psychological measurements were taken at that time. In 2005, for each of the 95 former youth, the athletic career was reconstructed from the archives. It turned out that 30 players (32% of the sample) were selected for the Dutch national senior squad and played at least one official international game (mean number of international games: 56.9), indicating attainment of world class level at one point in their athletic career (Note 5). The statistical analysis (logistic regression analysis) showed that successful and less-successful athletes could be well distinguished on the basis of a set of 10 predictor variables (91.3% correct classifications). Within this set, some of the variables were from the medical anamnesis (e.g., food), others were psychological (e.g., commitment, extraversion), while a third group of variables was related to athletic practice (Van Rossum, 2006b).

J.H.A. van Rossum

In conclusion, both the German tennis study and the Dutch field hockey study indicated that a combination of variables might yield a reliable prediction of future performance level. Note, however, that these predictions are not based on information from untrained persons at the beginning of the athletic career. In both studies, the talented athletes already had shown to be one of the best among their peers during the adolescent years. Being among the best in adolescence is, in itself, hardly sufficient. Both studies show that even from these samples, most did not attain top performance levels. Predicting future, that is, third career phase performance (cf. Bloom, Section 2) from second career phase measurements, has an inherent difficulty which is not always taken into account. Commenting on the results of a large-scale survey, the English Sports Council (1998) wrote, ‘Most NGBs (National Governing Bodies, i.e., sports associations, JvR) were concerned about the transition from junior to senior levels because many potentially talented individuals failed to negotiate the change due to a lack of support structures. Typically this transition took three to four years and occurred sometime between 16 and 24 years of age’ (p. 12). ‘The path to sporting excellence does not consist of a smooth progression from promising junior to Olympic champion. This study has demonstrated that a key transition period occurs when junior competitors move into the ranks of senior sports. This is often a jarring and demotivating experience for the individual who one minute is at the “top of the pyramid” and next is an “also ran”’ (p. 13). It would seem unrealistic, therefore, to hope for prediction of athletic performance far ahead in the future, on the basis of early age predictors. This would certainly be unrealistic in team sports, and would even in unidimensional sports require information which is both multivariate and multidisciplinary. The Australian Institute of Sports has employed a nationwide talent search program, in which 11- to 15year-old adolescents in a limited number of sports were tested on anthropometric and physiological variables (Hoare, 1996). Individuals with scores within the top 2% on any of these variables were invited for more detailed lab measurements at the regional level. Those who obtained high scores at the regional level were invited to a national talent development program. The program has been considered successful, since it has yielded many junior world medalists (Hoare, 1998).

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

781

The program appears attractive at first sight and has been adopted in several countries. A large-scale empirical evaluation of the program in Scotland, however, revealed that early maturers appear to have distinct advantages (Abbott & Collins, 2002). The Australian program might therefore de-select many prematurely talented children, because of its strong emphasis on the physical dimension of talent selection. In short, offering financial contracts to talented boys in soccer under the age of 10, which is a common routine in professional European soccer today, can certainly not be justified on scientific grounds. Prediction of future elite performance at an early age is at present unsupported by scientific evidence, especially in the case that the child is still largely untrained in the sport at hand.

clear that those who do not progress to the next phase in their athletic career have two options: enter the recreational years or quit sport altogether. Scientific attention to sport dropout or attrition is mainly concerned with ‘ordinary’ athletes, that is, athletes who do not compete at the elite level (Butcher, Lindner, & Johns, 2002; Petlichkoff, 1994; Petlichkoff, 1996; Brustad, Babkes, & Smith, 2001). Only a handful of studies have been done with talented or elite athletes (Van Rossum, 2004c). This might be astonishing, given that quitting or dropping out is a phenomenon inherent in the process of talent development. ‘Selection initially involves elimination of many individuals and subsequently cutting of others as competition becomes more specialized and rigorous. The merit of selection programs is usually cast in the context of the number of successful athletes (gold medals). Little, if anything, is ever indicated Dropout? about the individuals who do not make it through the process, and they are the vast majority’ (Malina, 1996, In the second example presented in the introduction, p. 183). It is certainly true that in overviews of talent ‘rigorous training practices’ is presented as a relevant development in sport this issue is overlooked (Baker, factor in explaining the athletic successes of (former) Horton, Robertson-Wilson, & Wall, 2003; DurandEastern European countries. It is not known, however, Bush & Salmela, 2001; Tranckle & Cushion, 2006) or how many young, talented athletes have not reached given minimal attention (R´egnier et al., 1993). In this the international level and dropped out. Such ‘casu- section we will, first of all, present some figures about alties’ are in a way the logical result of a talent development process, since only the best will survive, that is, compete on the national team and in the inter- tion: field hockey in the Netherlands has in the year 2006 about national arena. There are, however, not many studies 185 thousand active members, organized in 308 local clubs of which have directed attention to the dropout issue in varying size-club membership varies from some dozen to, much more often, one thousand to over two thousand (www.knhb.nl). talented athletes. In large clubs, there are often about as many youth members In any athletic career, there comes a time to quit. If (6–18 years) as there are senior members (18 and above). Most the career develops according to one’s dream, this mo- of the adolescent talented players, selected in the national underment will not occur before Bloom’s third career phase 18 squad, are invited to play for a club team in the highest (Section 2). For most young talented athletes, the ath- national league (cl. Van Rossum, 2006b). Such talented youth players might subsequently be selected in the national under-21 letic career will not last that long. Cˆot´e and Hay (2002) squad or in the national (senior) squad (and in the latter case, proposed a model for children’s sports participation in given the achievement record over the last decades, ‘automatiwhich, in addition to the earlier described three stages cally’ belong to one of the four best national squads in the world). (sampling, specializing, and investment years), another If not, they would often as an adult continue playing in the highest national league and should not be considered participating at phase is added to indicate the recreational years8 . It is a recreational level. There are separate national leagues for male 8 While the term ‘recreational years’ might be appropriate for North America sports organization and participation, the term is very inappropriate for Dutch sports. In the Netherlands school sport is not the major sports organization, as is the case in most Anglo-Saxon societies. Sport is organized in local, private clubs, separately for each branch of sport. A club is, as member of the national sports association, entitled to participate in national and regional competitions (leagues) with club teams. As an illustra-

and for female club teams. In each, 12 club teams, consisting of selections of 16–22 players, are competing for the national championship. Anno 2007 the first three male teams in the final ranking of the national league qualify for the European League. In the Netherlands three levels of sport participation are commonly distinguished: top or elite level, competitive level, and recreational level. Those field hockey players who participate in a club team in the highest league are considered to participate at a competitive level; those who are selected for a national squad are participating at elite level.

782

dropout rates in talented athletes and second, address the reasons athletes give for quitting or dropping out. An early Belgian study with talented adolescent track-and-field athletes (Vanden Auweele et al., 1988) found that after 5 years, only 29 of 167 talented athletes were still participating at the national level, which is a success rate of 17%. Regarding the others, who were seen as talented athletes 5 years before, 31% had come to a standstill (now competing at regional level), 28% were considered under-achievers (now competing at club level), and 24% dropped out (had quitted sport). In a study among talented Scottish adolescents in basketball, gymnastics, and swimming, it was found that after only 1 year, 54% had quit the sport, 11% participated at club level, and 35% still competed at elite level (Whyte, 1993). A German study with talented track-and-field athletes started with 51 young athletes (Bussmann & Alfermann, 1994). Four years later, 14 were still active at elite level (27%), but only one more year later, that is, 5 years after the start of the study, only five elite athletes remained (10%). The 8-year longitudinal study, which was introduced earlier (Van Rossum, 2005), started with a sample of 178 talented Dutch athletes. At the time of the last measurement, only 22 were still active at the elite level, which is a success rate of 12%. In a German study on the prediction of future athletic success in tennis players (B¨os & Schneider, 1997), out of an original sample of 107 talented adolescent athletes, 18 (17%) turned out to be successful as adult professional tennis players. Here, the success rate was calculated in a time frame of 7 years. In a study with talented Dutch field hockey players, 32% of the 95 youth eventually became an adult member of the national squad (Van Rossum, 2006b). Here, a timeframe between 4 and 10 years was employed. These figures clearly illustrate that the large majority of athletically talented adolescents will drop out in the near future. Their athletic career will often end before they enter the third career phase (Section 2). In the Scottish study (Whyte, 1993), the athletic dropouts filled out a questionnaire with a list of 36 motives for dropping out. The statistical analysis was based on the motives, which were either ‘important’ or ‘extremely important’ in the athlete’s decision to drop out. The top-ranked motive was ‘Took up too much time’ (43% of the respondents considered it ‘important’ or ‘extremely important’), followed by ‘Interfered with schoolwork’ (38%) and ‘Had other things to do’ (30%). The next four highest ranked motives were

J.H.A. van Rossum

‘I was injured’ (26%), ‘Did not like pressure’ (25%), ‘Not as good as I wanted to be’ (23%), and ‘Training was boring’ (23%). The Scottish list was adapted for use in the Dutch 8-year longitudinal study (Van Rossum, 2005). In the first 5 years of the study, 55 athletes quitted their sport and filled out an extensive dropout questionnaire. A similar analysis as was done in the Scottish study revealed that the top-3 motives for quitting were identical in both studies: ‘Other things to do’ (71%), ‘Took up too much time’ (49%), and ‘Interfered with schoolwork’ (49%). The next five highly ranked motives were: ‘Not enough fun’ (46%), ‘Not enough challenge’ (40%), ‘Too serious’ (31%), ‘Training was boring’, (29%) and ‘Did not like being part of the squad’ (29%). Further analyses showed that on only one motive a difference was found between the athletes who dropped out at national level, those who dropped out at regional level, and those who dropped out at local level. ‘Too serious’ turned out to be a significantly more important reason for quitting for national-level athletes than for those at the other two competitive levels. The Scottish and the Dutch study were in line with earlier U.S. studies with ‘competitive’ young athletes (Gould, Feltz, Horn, & Weiss, 1982) as well as with recent Spanish studies (Molinero, Salguero, Tuero, Alvarez, & Marquez, 2006; Salguero, Gonzalez-Boto, Tuero, & Marquez, 2003) about the high importance of the motive ‘other things to do’. In the first one of these Spanish studies competitive swimmers were studied (Salguero et al., 2003), while the dropouts in the second study (Molinero et al., 2006) came from 11 sports. Spanish dropouts at national, regional, and local levels appeared to be different on 4 of the 29 dropout motives, namely that ‘It was boring’, ‘Did not like the coach’, ‘Not exciting enough’, and ‘Did not win enough’. In the Dutch longitudinal study (Van Rossum, 2005), the number of ‘important’ or ‘extremely important’ motives were calculated: dropouts had an average of 8.2 motives (SD: 4.6; median: 8), which suggests that dropping out is a multi-causal event. An interesting approach to studying the process of dropping out was taken in a rare study on talent development in adolescence. The Csikszentmihalyi et al., (1993) study was introduced earlier in the context of the optimal family structure, in Section “Parents”. The study attempted to answer the question why some adolescents continued to be actively involved in the talent field, while others quit during the high school years. The findings indicated that a

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

strong resemblance existed between the five domains (arts, athletics, mathematics, music, and science), and emphasized that dropping out or quitting is strongly related to decreasing intrinsic motivation. The main reasons for remaining in the talent domain are in the activities themselves: they provide pleasure and fun as well as a sense of competence. Adolescents who continued to be active in the talent domain often reported events that motivated them. These so-called ‘flow’ experiences, or ‘optimal achievement situations’ (Jackson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1999), are characterized by students being totally absorbed in what they are doing, with everything going smoothly, seemingly without effort. People seem to go on automatic pilot, while they are optimally concentrated and focused, and attention is only directed toward elements that are relevant for the task at hand. To keep involved, extrinsic reasons like popularity, traveling, status, or money were not considered relevant. Apparently, intrinsic motivation is of much higher importance than extrinsic motivation for staying involved in the talent field. In the Csikszentmihalyi et al. (1993) study a short questionnaire was used to determine intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. A translated version of this questionnaire was administered to talented athletic samples of Dutch adolescents in field hockey, tennis, and volleyball (Van Rossum, 1998). In each of the samples, the intrinsic motivation mean score was significantly higher than the extrinsic one. This would indicate a healthy balance. In fact, a study with French adolescent girls participating in handball at a regional level showed that those who dropped out (22% dropout rate over 21 months) had lower levels of intrinsic motivation (Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury, 2002). The implication is clear, ‘intrinsic motivation should be nurtured in order to facilitate athletes’ persistence in sports’ (Sarrazin et al., 2002, p. 414). Such nurturance, however, does not go hand in hand with a climate in which the outcome of athletic events is dominant (cf. Section Achievement motivation). Similar findings were obtained in the 8-year longitudinal study (Van Rossum, 2005), using the translated version of the 1993 Csikszentmihalyi et al. questionnaire to measure intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. The athletes who dropped out in the first 5 years of the study had a significantly lower mean score on intrinsic motivation at the first time of measurement, compared to those who remained active

783

over the years. There was no difference, however, in extrinsic motivation. At the first time of measurement of the 8-year longitudinal study there was, as expected, a significant difference on intrinsic motivation between talented athletes and control athletes, while both groups were statistically not different on extrinsic motivation (Van Rossum, 2005). Before ending this section, it should be said that dropout is a big decision. For many athletes, the decision to quit altogether is not made overnight. It might be that athletes who have invested many years already, feel entrapped. They do not really enjoy sports any more (high costs, low rewards), but remain involved. These athletes are ‘locked into the role of being an athlete’ (Raedeke, 1997, p. 410). In such cases athletes might be prone to experience burnout. In an interesting study with adolescent swimmers, Raedeke (1997) was able to distinguish four clusters of athletes: the enthusiastic swimmer, the malcontented swimmer, the obligated swimmer, and the indifferent swimmer. If one depicts these four clusters on a time line, one might draw out the route of a talented athlete toward final dropout. During this journey, the originally high intrinsic motivation will be replaced by extrinsic sources of motivation, and finally pine away, resulting in leaving the sport. In sum, most of the talented athletes will not become elite athletes, competing at international level. A small number of studies to date suggest that for many of those talented athletes who drop out, several of the most important reasons appear to be unavoidable; that is, not under the control of sports officials. On the other hand, dropouts among the talented athletes do indicate several motives that are related to the achievement climate. Here, the coach is strongly in control and should avoid an ego-involved or outcome-oriented climate.

Winning? A recent study among nearly 1400 12- to 18-year-old British male and female athletes ranked 18 values, answering the question ‘When I do sport, it is important to me that. . .’ (Lee, Whitehead, & Balchin, 2000). Enjoyment (. . .I enjoy myself and have fun) was rated highest, followed by Personal Achievement (. . .I improve my performance) and Sportsmanship (. . .I show good sportsmanship). The value ranked last was Winning (. . .I can show that I am better than others). Ac-

784

cording to the authors, these figures ‘can be taken to represent the value systems typical of adolescent athletes in England’ (Lee et al., 2000, p. 318). These youth are ‘regular’ athletes, not-talented athletes. Another recent study about parents of talented athletes surveyed the extent and seriousness of parental behaviors toward their children (Gould et al., 2006). The number one problem according to the tennis coaches involved was the overemphasis on winning, both in extent and in seriousness. These findings are probably implausible to many adults, that is, to many athletic coaches and most sport parents who would ask: isn’t sport about winning? The third example in the introduction portrayed a first lesson in sport psychology, a lesson, which is still to be learned by many coaches and parents. Skier Dave has probably been taught by virtually everybody in his environment – his coach, his parents, his friends, his team mates, and journalists – at the beginning of his career that sport is just about winning and about showing superiority. ‘Goal orientations are believed to be relatively stable and enduring characteristics that are largely formed by mid- to late adolescence’ (Harwood, 2005, p. 23). Dave’s athletic ‘upbringing’ made him believe in this one-sided perspective on sports. ‘During his years as coach of the Green Bay Packers, Vince Lombardi created a professional football dynasty. His team was the powerhouse of the NFL during the 1960s – a team driven to near perfection by an intensely competitive, perfectionist leader. Lombardi’s image was immortalized in the famous statement “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing”. But did you know that Lombardi never actually said that? Years after his death, his son revealed that his father had been misquoted. What Lombardi actually said was “Winning isn’t everything, but striving to win is” ’ (Smith & Smoll, 1996b, p. 15–16). While winning is an important goal in sports, it is not the only goal. Nowadays, success and failure seem to have become mixed up with ‘winning’ and ‘losing’. While the latter apply to the outcome of a game or match, success and failure do not. Indeed, the only thing that is in the athlete’s control is his or her effort. In some games, maximum effort might not be enough to win. In this approach to sports, winning is kept in perspective – ‘a healthy philosophy of winning’. In the words of the famous NBA-basketball coach John Wooden, ‘success is peace of mind, which is a direct result of selfsatisfaction in knowing you did your best to become

J.H.A. van Rossum

the best that you are capable of becoming’ (quoted in Smith & Smoll, 1996b, p. 16). Within sport psychology, performance goals are distinguished from outcome goals. The first are about beating oneself, while the second are about beating an opponent. This distinction is identical to that presented earlier between ego and task orientation in achievement motivation (cf. Section Achievement motivation). Performance goals are in the athlete’s control, while outcome goals are often strongly controlled by others, like opponents and referees. According to Harwood (2005, p. 23), ‘the key message here is that the availability of task-involving cues in sports that are naturally ego involving allows the athlete to develop a more taskinvolved approach to competition’. Generally, parents might convey their ego or outcome orientation just by asking ‘did you win?’ when the child comes home from an athletic event. Similarly, coaches can inform the athlete about the ultimate goal with a simple remark, such as ‘he’s much lower in the rankings – it should not be a problem to beat him’. Since outcome goals are abundantly present in the sports media, both coaches and parents need to carefully avoid outcome-oriented remarks. Ric Charlesworth was the head coach of the Australian national women’s field hockey team that dominated the international competitions from 1993 through 2000, winning gold medals at the Olympics in 1996 and 2000, and winning the World Championships in 1994 and 1998. He is a strong believer in a simple sport psychology principle, as was evidenced in his autobiography: ‘Leading can be as difficult as being behind. The error that competitors make in both of these situations is to think about the outcome rather than paying attention to what they must do for the rest of the game to secure the desired result. Attention to outcome over process can be fatal. This is a message that any novice student in sports psychology will learn at their first lecture. Yet many participants continually make this mistake to their detriment’ (Charlesworth, 2001, p. 85). In a second book, he added that his philosophy did not center around winning: his keyword was improvement. ‘Athletes learn most by doing, and with good coaching their experience becomes one of continuous learning and growth. This, too, is the essence of an ever-growing organization that remains at the cutting edge of innovation and improvement. Such organizations know that learning and training never end. They find that the outcomes look after themselves if

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

they focus on the practices and processes of being the best they can be’ (Charlesworth, 2002, p. 5). We seem to take for granted that the portrayal of professional sports in the media is a truthful picture. This picture has, however, its limitations. Our thoughts about youth sports, even if it involves talented young athletes, should not automatically be colored by outcome-oriented goals. While the outcomes might have a higher priority in professional or top-level sports, the outcome goals should not be overpowering (cf. Charlesworth, 2001). Talent development is a longterm process. Athletes have to develop and improve physical as well as mental skills and abilities in order to improve their performance. This is fundamentally an investment into an unforeseeable future. Therefore, long-term goals should be connected to short-term goals. Here, having become intrinsically motivated is of help. In the classical study by Bloom (1985) the three pillars of a successful career were described as ambition, commitment, and hard work. However, ‘merely spending hour after hour at an activity for many years will not ensure successful learning. Time invested in learning must be well spent, of course. But there are no shortcuts to excellence. A central problem in the development of any kind of excellence, then, is the problem of keeping a student at an activity for the many years necessary to learn unusually well’ (Bloom, 1985, p. 503).

Concluding Remarks In this chapter, I have tried to review the scientific literature about talent development in sports. The classical study by Bloom (1985) has been taken as a departure point and as solid grounds to build upon. In spite of some critical comments, Bloom’s study is still considered of high value. His conclusion appears to be even more valid today than it was earlier, given the strong empirical support that is presently available. ‘The study provided strong evidence that no matter what the initial characteristics (or gifts) of the individuals, unless there is a long and intensive process of encouragement, nurturance, education and training, the individuals will not attain extreme levels of capability in these particular fields’ (Bloom, 1985, p. 3). Talent has been distinguished from gift. Excellence or outstanding performance takes many years of strong

785

commitment, and very hard, intense work. These qualities are not sufficient, though. Special environments and significant others in the form of coaches, parents, and others are also a necessity. Most importantly, the talented person experiences pleasure or fun while performing at a level that most people do not even think about. The process of talent development should therefore not be regarded as being about talent detection and selection, but about guidance, or ‘talent surveillance’, as R´egnier et al. (1993) observed. While talent development is never a solo activity and many others are often involved in the process, even in the context of the so-called individual sports, the most important role is played by the talented athlete. While for some sports, special anthropometrical or physiological characteristics are necessary, as for example height for sports like basketball and volleyball, stamina for distance running or triathlon, such characteristics appear to have been surpassed by ‘mind’ variables over the last few years. As discussed earlier, athletes with an ego orientation might very well be hindered in attaining elite levels of success, while those with a task orientation appear to be better off. In this context, the distinction made by Dweck in her recent monograph between two mindsets, fixed and growing, are illuminating. ‘The belief that cherished qualities can be developed creates a passion for learning. (. . .) The passion for stretching yourself and sticking to it, even (or especially) when it’s not going well, is the hallmark of the growth mindset’ (Dweck, 2006, p. 7). A mindset oriented on growing does seem to be conditional for a successful journey into the third career phase. Even in a domain as physical as athletics, being ‘gifted’ might not be transformed into being ‘talented’ because of an opposing mindset. While scientific research on talent development in athletics has been justly described as a multivariate and multidisciplinary enterprise, the qualities to ‘take on the world’ might be strongly psychological. How to deal with goals and disappointments might turn out to be decisive. While this reminds us of the conclusion drawn by Trost (1993, p. 332) – ‘probably the most powerful predictor of excellence is a high and task-oriented motivation’ – it also appears to indicate that excellence might be validly described as a long and winding journey, not just as a goal to be attained. In an interesting monograph, Brim (1992) sketches a continuous process of attaining desired goals as a process of keeping up the level of ‘just manageable difficulties’. Where the journey will end is probably principally un-

786

certain, especially for those who just started their journey. ‘We believe that the goal is the final end, and that if we achieve it we will have no more to do in this line of endeavor. But in most human life there are no final ends, no terminal goals. The achievement of what we thought was our final purpose only opens up more that can be done; and in hindsight, the end we pursued turns out to be instrumental to new ends’ (Brim, 1992, p. 165). Talent development might very well be a journey or process that never ends. This of course is not much news to task-oriented athletes, who are blessed with a growing mindset.

References Abbott, A. & Collins, D. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of a ‘state of the art’ talent identification model. High Ability Studies, 13(2), 157–178. Abernethy, B., Farrow, D. & Berry, J. (2003). Constraints and issues in the development of a general theory of expert perceptual-motor performance: A critique of the deliberate practice framework. In J. L. Starkes & K. A. Ericsson (Eds.), Expert performance in sports; Advances in research on sport expertise (pp. 349–369). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Ackland, T. R., Blanksby, B. A. & Bloomfield, J. (1994). Physical growth and motor performance of adolescent males. In B. A. Blanksby, J. Bloomfield, T. R. Ackland, B. C. Elliott & A. R. Morton (Eds.), Athletics, growth, and development in children (pp. 200–215). Camberwell, Australia: Harwood Academic Publishers. Ackland, T. R., Elliott, B. C., Blanksby, B. A., Hood, K. P. & Bloomfield, J. (1989). Profiling junior tennis players Part 2: The practical application of normative data. The Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 21, 22–24. Adirim, T. A. & Cheng, T. L. (2003). Overview of injuries in the young athlete. Sports Medicine, 33(1), 75–81. American Sport Education Program. (1994). Sport parent survival guide. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Bahr, R. & Reeser, J. C. (2003). Injuries among world-class professional beach volleyball players. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 31, 119–125. Baker, J., Horton, S., Robertson-Wilson, J. & Wall, M. (2003). Nurturing sport expertise: Factors influencing the development of the elite athete. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 2, 1–9. Bartmus, U., Neumann, E. & de Mar´ees, H. (1987). The talent problem in sports; Report on a symposium at the Academy for Management and Administration of the German Sports Federation, Berlin, January 16–18, 1986. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 8, 415–416. Bawden, M. A. K., Chell, B. J. & Maynard, I. W. (2006). The sources of stress for junior table tennis players who attend the English national training centre. Journal of Sport Sciences, 24(4), 333–334.

J.H.A. van Rossum Baxter-Jones, A. D. G. & Helms, P. J. (1996). Effects of training at a young age: A review of the training of young athletes (TOYA) Study. Pediatric Exercise Science, 8, 310–327. Baxter-Jones, A. D. G., Maffuli, N. & Mirwald, R. L. (2003). Does elite competition inhibit growth and delay maturation in some gymnasts? Probably not. Pediatric Exercise Science, 15, 373–382. Baxter-Jones, A. D. G., Helms, P., Maffulli, N., Baines-Preece, J. C. & Preece, M. (1995). Growth and development of male gymnasts, swimmers, soccer and tennis players: A longitudinal study. Annals of Human Biology, 22(5), 381–394. Beunen, G. & Malina, R. M. (1996). Growth and biological maturation: Relevance to athletic performance. In O. Bar-Or (Ed.), The child and adolescent athlete (pp. 3–24). Oxford: Blackwell. Blanksby, B. A., Bloomfield, J., Ackland, T. R., Elliott, B. C. & Morton, A. R. (1994). Athletics, growth, and development in children. Camberwell, Australia: Harwood Academic Publishers. Bloom, B. S. (1982). The role of gifts and markers in the development of talent. Exceptional Children, 48(6), 510–522. Bloom, B. S. (1985). Generalizations about talent development. In B. S. Bloom (Ed.), Developing talent in young people (Chapter 14, pp. 507–549). New York: Ballantine Books. Bloomfield, J., Blanksby, B. A. & Ackland, T. R. (1990/1994). Morphological and physiological growth of competitive swimmers and non-competitors through adolescence. In B. A. Blanksby, J. Bloomfield, T. R. Ackland, B. C. Elliott & A. R. Morton (Eds.), Athletics, growth, and development in children (pp. 91–109). Camberwell, Australia: Harwood Academic Publishers. Reprinted from: The Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 1990, 22(1), 4–12. B¨os, K. & Schneider, W. (1997). Vom Tennistalent zum Spitzenspieler; Eine Reanalyse von L¨angsschnittdaten zur Leistungsprognose im Tennis. Hamburg: Czwalina Verlag. [German: From talented tennis player to elite tennis player; A reanalysis of longitudinal data in order to predict achievement in tennis] Bouchard, C., Malina, R. M. & P´erusse, L. (1997). Genetics of fitness and physical performance Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Breivik, G. (1999). Personality, performance and role conflicts in elite sport. In E. M¨uller, F. Ludescher & G. Zallinger (Eds.), Science in elite sport (pp. 146–162). London: E&F Spon. Breskvar, B. (1987). Boris Becker’s tennis: The making of a champion. London: Springfield Books. Brim, G. (1992). Ambition; How we manage success and failure throughout out lives. New York: Basic Books Brustad, R. J., Babkes, M. L. & Smith, A. L. (2001).Youth in sport; Psychological considerations. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 604–635). New York: Wiley. Bussmann, G. & Alfermann, D. (1994). Drop out and the female athlete – A study with track and field athletes. In D. Hackfort (Ed.), Psycho-social issues and interventions in elite sports (pp. 89–128). Frankfurt am Main (Germany): Peter Lang. Butcher, J., Lindner, K. J. & Johns, D. P. (2002). Withdrawal from competitive youth sport: A retrospective ten-year study. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25(2), 145–163.

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

Caine, D., Bass, S. L. & Daly, R. (2003). Does elite competition inhibit growth and delay maturation in some gymnasts? Quite possibly. Pediatric Exercise Science, 15, 360–372. Carlson, R. (1988). The socialization of elite tennis players in Sweden: An analysis of the players’ backgrounds and development. Sociology of Sport Journal, 5, 241–256. Carter, J. E. L. (Ed.). (1982). Physical structure of Olympic athletes. (Medicine and Sport, Vol. 16) Basel: Karger. Carter, J. E. L. (1988). Somatotypes of children in sports. In R. M. Malina (Ed.), Young athletes: Biological, psychological, and educational perspectives (pp. 153–165). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Charlesworth, R. (2001). The coach; Managing for success. Sydney: Pan Macmillan Australia. Charlesworth, R. (2002). Staying at the top. Sydney: Pan Macmillan Australia. Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, 328–354. Chelladurai, P. (1993). Leadership. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 647–671). New York: Macmillan. Chelladurai, P. & Riemer, H. A. (1998). Measurement of leadership in sport. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 227–253). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Chelladurai, P. & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34–45. Colangelo, N. & Davis, G. A. (1991). Handbook of gifted education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Colangelo, N. & Davis, G. A. (2003) (3rd ed.). Handbook of gifted education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Cˆot´e, J. (1999). The influence of the family in the development of talent in sport.The Sport Psychologist, 13, 395–417. Cˆot´e, J. & Hay, J. (2002). Children’s involvement in sport: A developmental perspective. In J. M. Silva & D. E. Stevens (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (2nd ed., pp. 484– 502). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Cˆot´e, J., Baker, J. & Abernethy, B. (2003). From play to practice; A developmental framework for the acquisition of expertise in team sports. In J. L. Starkes & K. A. Ericsson (Eds.), Expert performance in sports; Advances in research on sport expertise (pp. 89–113). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K. & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dale, R. & Cameron, C. (1994). The Contenders. London: Boxtree. De Beijer, M. F. (1997). De tennisouder: Een hoofdrol op de achtergrond. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Vrije Universiteit. (Unpublished research report) [Dutch: The tennis parent: A leading role in the background] De Weerd, N. S. G. (1994). Jeugdige sporters en hun onderwijs. Groningen, the Netherlands: Groningen University. (Unpublished research report) [Dutch: Adolescent athletes and their school education] Deitch, J. R., Starkey, C., Walters, S. L. & Moseley, J. B. (2006). Injury risk in professional basketball players. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 34, 1077–1083. Derksen, E. H., Veldstra, J. & Van Rossum, J. H. A. (2002). Op weg naar de top: De fasen die een sporter doorloopt. Richting

787 Sport-Gericht, 56(2), 6–10. [Dutch: En route to the top: The career phases of an athlete] Duda, J. L. (1992). Motivation in sport settings: A goal perspective approach. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 57–91). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Duda, J. L. (2001). Achievement goal research in sport: Pushing the boundaries and clarifying some misunderstandings. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 129–182). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Duda, J. L. & Treasure, D. C. (2001). Toward optimal motivation in sport: Fostering athletes’ competence and sense of control. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (4th ed., pp. 43–62). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Durand-Bush, N. & Salmela, J. H. (2001). The development of talent in sport. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 269–289). New York: Wiley. Durand-Bush, N. & Salmela, J. H. (2002). The development and maintenance of expert athletic performance: Perceptions of world and Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 154–171. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset; The new psychology of success. New York: Random House. Elliott, B. C., Ackland, T. R., Blanksby, B. A., Hood, K. P. & Bloomfield, J. (1989). Profiling junior tennis players Part 1: Morphological, physiological and psychological normative data. The Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 21, 14–21. English Sports Council. (1998). The development of sporting talent 1997; An examination of the current practices for talent development in English sport. London: English Sports Council (ESC/833/2M/9/98) Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games (pp. 1– 50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ericsson, K. A. (1998). The scientific study of expert levels of performance: General implications for optimal learning and creativity. High Ability Studies, 9 (1), 75–100. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T. & Tesch-R¨omer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. Eysenck, H. J., Nias, D. K. B. & Cox, D. N. (1982). Sport and personality. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 4(1), 1–56. FIMS. (1991).Excessive physical training in children and adolescents. Sport Health, 9(1), 23–24. Fraser-Thomas, J. & Cˆot´e, J. (2006). Youth sports: Implementing findings and moving forward with research. Athletic Insight, the Online Journal of Sport Psychology, 8(3), 1–13 (www.athleticinsight.com) Gabler, H. & Ruoff, B. A. (1979). Zum Problem der Talentbestimmung im Sport. Sportwissenschaft, 9, 164–180. [German: Regarding the determination of talent in sports] Gagn´e, F. (1991). Toward a differentiated model of giftedness and talent. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 65–80). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

788 Gagn´e, F. (1993). Constructs and models pertaining to exceptional human abilities. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 63–85). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Gagn´e, F. (2000). Understanding the complex choreography of talent development through DMGT-based analysis. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 67–79). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Gagn´e, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 60–74). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gagn´e, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119– 147. Gallagher, J. J. (2000). Changing paradigms for gifted education in the United States. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 681–693). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind; The theory of multiple intelligences. (2nd ed.) London: Fontana Press. Garrett, W. E. & Kirkendall, D. T. (Eds.). (2000). Exercise and sport science. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Gill, D. L. (1993). Competitiveness and competitive orientation in sport. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 314–327). New York: Macmillan. Gill, D. L. & Deeter, T. E. (1988). Development of the sport orientation questionnaire. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59, 191–202. Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K. & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and their development in Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 172–204. Gould, D., Feltz, D., Horn, T. S., & Weiss, M. R. (1982). Reasons for attrition in competitive youth swimming. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 16, 124–140. Gould, D., Guinan, D., Greenleaf, C., Medbery, R., & Peterson, K. (1999). Factors affecting Olympic performance: Perceptions of athletes and coaches from more and less successful teams. The Sport Psychologist, 13(4), 371–394. Gould, D., Lauer, L., Rolo, C., Jannes, C., & Pennisi, N. (2006). Understanding the role parents play in tennis success: A national survey of junior tennis coaches. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 40, 632–636. Hanrahan, S. J. & Biddle, S. J. H. (2002). Measurement of achievement orientations: Psychometric measures, gender, and sport differences. European Journal of Sport Science, 2(5), 1–12. Harwood, C. (2005). Goals: More than just the score. In S. Murphy (Ed.), The sport psych handbook (pp. 19–36). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Heller, K. A., M¨onks, F. J., & Passow, A. H. (Eds.). (1993). International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. Oxford: Pergamon. Heller, K. A., M¨onks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.). (2000). International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

J.H.A. van Rossum Hellstedt, J. C. (1995). Invisible players: A family systems model. In S. H. Murphy (Ed.), Sport psychology interventions (pp. 117–146). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hemery, D. (1986). The pursuit of sporting excellence: A study of sport’s highest achievers. London: Willow Books. Hildebrandt, V. H., Ooijendijk, W. T. M., Stiggelbout, M., & Hopman-Rock, M. (2004). Trendrapport Bewegen en Gezondheid 2002–2003. Rijswijk: TNO. [Dutch: Trend report Movement and Health 2002–2003] Hoare, D. (1996). The Australian national talent search program. Coaching Focus, 31, 3–4. Hoare, D. (1998). Talent search: A review and update. Sports Coach, Spring, 32–33. Horn, T. S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 309–354). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W., & Sloboda, J. A. (1998). Innate talents: reality or myth? Behavior and Brain Sciences, 21(3), 399–442. Jackson, S. A., & Csikszentmihalyi , M. (1999). Flow in sports: The keys to optimal experiences and performances. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Jarvin, L., & Subotnik, R. (2006). Understanding elite talent in academic domains. In F. A. Dixon & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 203–220). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Joch, W. (1992). Das sportlichte Talent; TalenterkennungTalentf¨orderung-Talentperspektiven. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer Verlag. [German: Athletic talent; identification, nurturing and perspectives] Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). What is this thing called Mental Toughness? An investigation of elite sport performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 205–218. Junge, A., Dvorak, J., Graf-Baumann, T., & Peterson, L. (2004). Football injuries during FIFA tournaments and the Olympic Games, 1998–2001. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 32, 80S–89S. Kane, J. E. (1986). Giftedness in sport. In G. Gleeson (Ed.), The growing child in competitive sport (pp. 184–204). London: Hodder and Stoughton. Kavussanu, M., & Roberts, G. C. (1996). Motivation in physical activity context: The relationship of perceived motivational climate to intrinsic motivation and efficacy. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5, 168–176. Kremer, J., & Scully, D. M. (1994). Psychology in sport. London: Taylor & Francis. Lee, M. J., Whitehead, J., & Balchin, N. (2000). The measurement of values in youth sport: Development of the Youth Sport Values Questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 22, 307–326. Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Malina, R. M. (1996). The young athlete: Biological growth and maturation in a biocultural context. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (pp. 161–186). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark. Malina, R. B. (2000). Growth and maturation: do regular physical activity and training for sport have a significant influence? In N. Armstrong en W. van Mechelen (Eds.), Paediatric ex-

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

ercise science and medicine (pp. 95–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Malina, R. M., Bouchard, C., & Bar-Or, O. (2004). Growth, maturation, and physical activity. (2nd ed.). Chapaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Mallett, C., & Cˆot´e, J. (2006). Beyond winning and losing: Guidelines for evaluating high performance coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 213–221. McAuley, E. (1992). Self-referent thought in sport and physical activity. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 101–118). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Molinero, O., Salguero, A., Tuero, C., Alvarez, E., & Marquez, S. (2006). Dropout reasons in young Spanish athletes: Relationship to gender, type of sport and level of competition. Journal of Sport Behavior, 29, 255–269. Morris, T. (1995). Psychological characteristics and sports behaviour. In T. Morris & J. Summers (Eds.), Sport psychology: Theory, applications and issues (pp. 3–28). Brisbane: Wiley. Morris, T. (2000). Psychological characteristics and talent identification in soccer. Journal of Sport Sciences, 18, 715–726. Newton, M., & Duda, J. L. (1993). Elite adolescent athletes’ achievement goals and beliefs concerning success in tennis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 15, 437–448. Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S. J. H. (1998). The relationship between competitive anxiety, achievement goals, and motivational climates. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(2), 176–187. Oldenziel, K., Gagn´e, F., & Gulbin, J. (2003). How do elite athletes develop? A look trough the ‘rear-view mirror’. Canberra: Australian Institute of Sport, Australian Sports Commission. Orlick, T. (1992). The psychology of personal excellence. Contemporary Thought on Performance Enhancement, 1, 109– 122. Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., Alfeld-Liro, C., Fredricks, J. A., Hruda, L. Z., & Eccles, J. S. (1999). Adolescents’ commitment to developing talent: The role of peers in continuing motivation for sports and the arts. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28(6), 741–763. Petlichkoff, L. M. (1994). Dropping out of sport: Speculation versus reality. In D. Hackfort (Ed.), Psycho-social issues and interventions in elite sports (pp. 59–87). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Petlichkoff, L. M. (1996). The drop out dilemma in youth sports. In O. Bar-Or (Ed.), The child and adolescent athlete (pp. 418–430). Oxford: Blackwell. Pleizier, J. (2003) Het leerklimaat op de NVS; Verbeteren om uiteindelijk te kunnen winnen. Utrecht: University of Utrecht. (unpublished Masters Thesis) [Dutch: The learning climate at the Dutch National Volleyball School; Progression in order to win in the end] Raedeke, T. D. (1997). Is athlete burnout more than just stress? A sport commitment perspective. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 396–417. R´egnier, G. Salmela, J., & Russell, S. J. (1993). Talent detection and development in sport. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphy, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 290–313). New York: Macmillan. Reilly, T., Williams, A. M., Nevill, A., & Franks, A. (2000). A multidisciplinary approach to talent identification in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 695–702.

789 Riordan, J. (1986). The selection of top performers in East European sport. In G. Gleeson (Ed.), The growing child in competitive sport (pp. 220–238). London: Hodder and Stoughton. Rowley, S. (1992). TOYA (Training Of Young Athletes study): Identification of talent. London: Sports Council. Rowley, S. (1995). Identification and development of talent in young athletes. In J. Freeman, P. Span, & H. Wagner (Eds.), Actualizing talent: A lifelong challenge (pp. 128–143). London: Cassell. Salguero, A., Gonzalez-Boto, R., Tuero, C., & Marquez, S. (2003). Identification of dropout reasons in young competitive swimmers. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 43, 530–534. Salmela, J. H. (1994). Phases and transitions across sport careers. In D. Hackfort (Ed.), Psycho-social issues and interventions in elite sports (pp. 11–28). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L., & Cury, F. (2002). Motivation and dropout in female handballers: A 21month prospective study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 395–418. Scanlan, T. K., Ravizza, K., & Stein, G. L. (1989). An indept study of former elite figure skaters: 1. Introduction to the project. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 54–64. Schiever, S. W., & Maker, C. J. (2003). New directions in enrichment and acceleration. In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 163–173). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Schultz, R. A., & Delisle, J. R. (2003). Gifted adolescents. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 483–492). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Schneider, W. (2000). Giftedness, expertise, and (exceptional) performance: A developmental perspective. In: K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 165–177). Oxford: Elsevier Science/Pergamon. Schneider, W., B¨os, K., & Rieder, H. (1993). Leistungsprognose bei jugentliche Spitzensportler. In: J. Beckmann, H. Strang, & E. Hahn (Eds.), Aufmerksamkeit und Energetisierung; Facetten von Konzentration und Leistung (pp. 277–299). G¨ottingen: Hogrefe. [German: Predicting future performance in young elite athletes] Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1996a). The coach as a focus of research and intervention in youth sports. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (pp. 125–141). Madison: Brown & Benchmark. Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1996b). Way to go, coach! A scientifically-proven approach to coaching effectiveness. Portola Valley, CA: Warde Publishers. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (1978). Coaching behaviors in Little League Baseball. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Psychological perspectives in youth sports (pp. 173– 201). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., Curtis, B., & Hunt, E. B. (1977). A system for the behavioral assessment of athletic coaches. Research Quarterly, 48, 401–407. Smoll, F. L. (1986). Coach-parent relationships: Enhancing the quality of the athlete’s sport experience. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology (pp. 47–58). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

790 Smoll, F. L., & Cummings, S. P. (2006). Enhancing coach-parent relationships in youth sports: Increasing harmony and minimizing hassle. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology (5th ed., pp. 192–204). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1997). Coaches who never lose: Making sure athletes win, no matter what the score. Portola Valley, CA: Warde Publishers. Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1999). Sports and your child: A 50-minute guide for parents. Portola Valley, CA: Warde Publishers. Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (2001). Conducting sport psychology training programs for coaches: Cognitive-behavioral principles and techniques. In: J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (4th ed., pp. 378–400). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. Soberlak, P., & Cˆot´e, J. (2003). The developmental activities of professional ice hockey players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15(1), 41–49. Stambulova, N. B. (2000). Athlete’s crises: A developmental perspective. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31(4), 584–601. Starkes, J. (2000). The road to expertise: Is practice the only determinant? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31(4), 431–451. Starkes, J. L., & Ericsson, K. A. (Eds.). (2003). Expert performance in sports; Advances in research on sport expertise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Starkes, J. L., Deakin, J. M., Allard, F., Hodges, N. J., & Hayes, A. (1996). Deliberate practice in sports: What is it anyway? In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games (pp. 81–106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Suomalainen, M., Telama, R., Kemppainen, A., & Pulkkanen, A. (1990). Time budget and life-style of athletes at ordinary high schools and at special sport high schools. In R. Telama, L. Laakso, M. Pieron, I. Ruoppila, & V. Vihko (Eds.), Physical education and life-long physical activity (pp. 592–599). Jyvaskyla, Finland: Reports of Physical Culture and Health 73. Tanner, J. M. (1964). The physique of the Olympic athlete. London: George Allen and Unwin. Thomas, K. T., Gallagher, J. D., & Thomas, J. R. (2001). In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 20–52), New York: Wiley. Tranckle, P., & Cushion, C. J. (2006). Rethinking giftedness and talent in sport. Quest, 58, 265–282. Treasure, D. C. (2001). Enhancing young people’s motivation in youth sport: An achievement goal approach. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 79– 100). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Trost, G. (1993). Prediction of excellence in school, university and work. In: K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 325–336). Oxford: Pergamon. Van Rossum, J. H. A. (1992). Talent-ontwikkeling: Loopbaan en kenmerken van topsporters. Een onderzoek bij de Nederlandse selecties van vier olympische takken van sport. Arnhem: NOC∗NSF. [Dutch: Talent development: Career and characteristics of top-level athletes] Van Rossum, J. H. A. (1995a). Talent in sport: Significant others in the career of top-level Dutch athletes. In M. W. Katzko &

J.H.A. van Rossum F. J. M¨onks (Eds.), Nurturing talent: Individual needs and social ability (pp. 43–57). Assen: Van Gorcum. Van Rossum, J. H. A. (1995b). Ouders in de sport: Ongewenste gasten? Richting Sport-Gericht, 49(3), 157–164. [Dutch: Sport parents: Unwelcome guests?] Van Rossum, J. H. A. (1996). Psychological characteristics of elite athletes according to top level coaches. High Ability Studies, 7(1), 15–23. Van Rossum, J. H. A. (1997). Leiderschap in de sport: De trainer/coach. Richting Sport-Gericht, 51(6), 321–328. [Dutch: Leadership in sports: The coach] Van Rossum, J. H. A. (1998). ‘Ik sport omdat...’: Intrinsieke en extrinsieke motivatie bij junioren. Richting Sport-Gericht, 52(2), 48–53.[Dutch: I practice sports because. . .; Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in elite adolescent athletes] Van Rossum, J. H. A. (2000a). Deliberate practice and Dutch field hockey: An addendum to Starkes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31(4), 452–460. Van Rossum, J. H. A. (2000b). Belasting en belastbaarheid van jeugdige dansers; Een onderzoek bij leerlingen van een dansvooropleiding. Amsterdam: Dans-opleidingen, Hogeschool voor de Kunsten (Unpublished research report) [Dutch: Load and loadability in young dancers; A study of pre-professional dance students] Van Rossum, J. H. A. (2001a). Talented in dance: The Bloom Stage Model revisited in the personal histories of dance students. High Ability Studies, 12(2), 181–197. Van Rossum (2001b). De ‘Body Mass Index’ van Olympische sporters. Richting Sport-Gericht, 55(4), 36–41. [Dutch: The Body Mass Index of Olympic athletes] Van Rossum, J. H. A. (2003). Getalenteerd in sport, muziek of dans: hoe belangrijk is de school eigenlijk? In G. de Boer (Red.), Talent leert; Hoogbegaafde leerlingen in de klas, Basis- en voortgezet onderwijs (pp. 93–100). Amersfoort: CPS Onderwijsontwikkeling en advies. [Dutch: Talented in sport, music or dance: how important is school after all?] Van Rossum, J. H. A. (2004a). Perceptions of determining factors in athletic achievement: An addendum to Hyllegard, et al. (2003). Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98, 81–86. Van Rossum, J. H. A. (2004b). Coaches who never lose – a valid approach even in top-level sports? In E. Van Praagh & J. Coudert (Eds.), Book of abstracts (CD-Rom; Proceedings of 9th Annual Congress of the ECSS). Clermont-Ferrand, France: European College of Sport Science. Van Rossum, J. H. A. (2004c). La science et la fiction de l’abandon des sportifs. In J. P. Call`ede (Ed.), Le cr´epuscule des dieux: Issue maˆıtris´ee ou issue fatale? (pp. 79–86). Pessac Cedex: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme d’Aquitaine. [French : Science and fiction regarding athletic dropouts] Van Rossum, J. H. A. (2005). Volhouden of afhaken: Een longitudinaal onderzoek naar talent-ontwikkeling in de sport, met aandacht voor dropouts en toppers. Den Haag/Amsterdam: VWS/Stichting HQ&P. (Research report) [Dutch; Carry on or pull out; A longitudinal study on the development of talent in sports, considering both dropouts and elite athletes] Van Rossum, J. H. A. (2006a). Talent-scouting: Jeugdige topsporters zijn extravert en emotioneel stabiel. Sport-Gericht, 60(5), 18–24. [Dutch: Talent scouting: Young elite athletes are extraverted and emotionally stable] Van Rossum, J. H. A. (2006b). Voorspelling van hockey(top-) talent; Een onderzoek naar de voorspellende waarde van gegevens op juniorenleeftijd voor een succesvolle

37

Giftedness and Talent in Sport

sportloopbaan als volwassen sporter. Den Haag/Amsterdam: VWS/Stichting HQ&P. (Research report) [Dutch: Prediction of elite field hockey talent; A study on the predictive value of adolescent information for a successful adult athletic career.] Van Rossum, J. H. A., & Gagn´e, F. (1994). Rankings of predictors of athletic performance by top level coaches. European Journal for High Ability, 5, 68–78. Van Rossum, J. H. A., & Gagn´e, F. (2006). Talent Development in Sports. In F. A. Dixon & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 281–316). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Van Rossum, J. H. A., & Van der Loo, H. (1997). Gifted athletes and complexity of family structure: A condition for talent development? High Ability Studies, 8, 19–30. Van Rossum, J. H. A., & Vergouwen, P. C. J. (2003). De jeugdige getalenteerde hockeyer; Een beeld vanuit medisch, psychologisch en inspanningsfysiologisch perspectief. Arnhem: NOC∗NSF. [Dutch: The talented young field hockey player; A medical, psychological and exercise physiological view.] Vanden Auweele, Y., Nys, K., Rzewnicki, R., & Van Mele, V. (2001). Personality and the athlete. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 239–268). New York: Wiley. Vanden Auweele, Y., Van Parijs, M., & Vankerckhoven, G. (1988). Topsport, hoe kom je er (niet) toe? Studie van het carri`ereverloop van jonge talenten. Sport, 30, 19–26. [Dutch: Elite sports, what is helping or hindering? A study on the career of young talents] Van Yperen, N. W., & Duda, J. L. (1999), Goal orientations, beliefs about success, and performance improvement among young elite Dutch soccer players. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 9(6), 358–364. Vealey, R. S. (1992). Personality and sport: A comprehensive view. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 25–59). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Wagenaar, W. A. (2005). The popular policeman and other cases: Psychological perspectives on legal evidence. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

791 Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (1999). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology. (2nd ed.) Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Weiss, M. R., & Ferrer-Caja, E. (2002). Motivational orientations and sport behavior. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 101–183). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Weiss, M. R., & Stuntz, C. P. (2004). A little friendly competition: Peer relationships and psychosocial development in youth sport and physical activity contexts. In M. R. Weiss (Ed.), Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective (pp. 165–196). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Whitehead, J. (1986). Achievement goals and drop-out in youth sports. In G. Gleeson (Ed.), The growing child in competitive sport (pp. 240–247). London: Hodder and Stoughton. Whyte, I. (1993). Scottish elite young performers in selected sports: Motives for dropping out. Edinburgh: The Scottish Sports Council. Widmeyer, W. N., Dorson, K. D., Bray, S. R. & McGuire, E. J. (2002). The nature, prevalence, and consequences of aggression in sport. In J. M. Silva & D. E. Stevens (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 328–351). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Williams, J. M., & Krane, V. (2001). Psychological characteristics of peak performance. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology; Personal growth to peak performance (4th ed., pp.162–178). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and reality. New York: Basic Books. Woolgar, C., & Power, T. G. (1993). Parent and sport socialization: Views from the achievement literature. Journal of Sport Behavior, 16, 171–189. Yoo, J., & Kim, B. J. (2002). Young Korean athletes’ goal orientation and sources of enjoyment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 1043–1049. Ziegler, A., & Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective. In: In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 3–21). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Chapter 38

On Entrepreneurial Giftedness Larisa V. Shavinina

around.. . . selling the sodas at five cents each, for a nickel profit. Back in Omaha, he bought soda pop from his grandfather’s grocery and sold it door-do-door on summer nights while other children played in the street” (Lowenstein, 1996; p. 10). The boy became a famous businessmen and the second richest person in the world. His name is Warren Buffett. This quote from his biography clearly indicates the beginning of the developmental trajectory of entrepreneurial giftedness. Such a developmental path is common for all gifted entrepreneurs (Branson, 2002; Dell, 1999). Entrepreneurial giftedness refers to talented individuals who have succeeded in business by creating new ventures (fulfilled entrepreneurial giftedness) with at least a minimal financial reward or who demonstrated an exceptional potential ability to succeed (prospective entrepreneurial giftedness). A gifted entrepreneur is an individual who successfully carries out new business ventures. He or she always starts with an idea and finishes with real products, services, Keywords Entrepreneurial giftedness · Entrepreneur- or processes. As well, he or she usually learns quickly ship · Entrepreneurial talent · Entrepreneurial ability · and often operates in the absence of formal education Business talent · Practical intelligence · Innovation · (Shavinina, 2007b). As research on entrepreneurial giftedness is in its initial stage and we do not know creativity a lot about this phenomenon, it seems reasonable to use the concepts “entrepreneurial giftedness,” “entrepreneurial talent,” and “entrepreneurial ability” Introduction: Where Did All Great interchangeably. In short, this chapter is about an Entrepreneurs Come From? unexplored yet exciting topic within the field of giftedness: entrepreneurial giftedness. As Herbert Simon (2002), the Nobel Prize winWhen he was six, a boy “managed to buy a six-pack of Cokes for twenty-five cents; then he waddled ner in economics correctly pointed out serious systematic research on entrepreneurship is just beginning. Three main directions of research can be identified in L.V. Shavinina (B) the body of literature on entrepreneurship. The first is Universit´e du Qu´ebec en Outaouais, Gatineau, Qu´ebec, Canada about the role of venture capital in entrepreneurship e-mail: [email protected] Abstract Being a successful entrepreneur and founding a very profitable company or group of companies represents the pinnacle of accomplishments possible in business. Successful entrepreneurship is associated with a high degree of practical intelligence, creative, and innovative abilities, as well as managerial and business talent. Nonetheless, scholars have not yet studied gifted entrepreneurs. Although entrepreneurship is exceptionally important for the prosperity of any society, one should acknowledge that the phenomenon of entrepreneurial giftedness is terra incognita from a research viewpoint. The chapter introduces the concept of entrepreneurial giftedness, explains its nature mainly via analyzing the early manifestations of entrepreneurial giftedness, discussing its developmental trajectories, and considering micro-social factors that facilitate the emergence of gifted entrepreneurs. It thus fills an apparent niche in research on high abilities.

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 38, 

793

794

(i.e., how to get it to start new ventures) and of other social institutions (e.g., local universities, as well as related issues; Hamel, 1999; Huffman & Quigley, 2002; Shavinina, 2004). A few years ago researchers even started to talk about mentor capitalists who help entrepreneurs with everything from recruiting top talent to attracting their first million in seed money. By playing many different roles—sculptor, psychologist, diplomat, king maker, talent magnet, process engineer, and rainmaker—mentor capitalists seed Silicon Valley in California with expertise and knowledge, augmenting or even substituting for classes in entrepreneurship at local universities (Leonard & Swap, 2000). Huffman & Quigley (2002) explored the role of universities in attracting high-tech entrepreneurship in the Silicon Valley and found the importance of academic institutions in attracting human capital to the local areas and in stimulating entrepreneurial talent in the region. They concluded that governments should generously invest in high-quality educational institutions because the return on the augmented human capital stock in regions will be substantial. The second direction in research on entrepreneurship studies entrepreneurs’ skills such as problemsolving skills, domain-specific knowledge, or the role of education in general, as well as personality traits. Krishnamurthy (1998), for instance, found that successful entrepreneurs are not interested in predicting the future; they are interested in shaping it. “Shaping the future” means paying close attention to what is possible and feasible, because the feasibility of an idea is highly sensitive to the time when it is proposed. Krishnamurthy (1998) also found that, in building a team, entrepreneurs look for a variety of people with general and special talents. They place great emphasis on “loyalty,” by which they typically mean loyalty to a set of ideas, goals, and a path, not to a person. Ferrante (2005) found, confirming previous studies on the topic, that education is an important part of entrepreneurial human capital. Education is the main factor that can sustain small firms’ competitiveness in a globalizing economy and thus help entrepreneurs to survive. Fraser & Greene (2006) studied the effects of experience on entrepreneurial optimism and uncertainty. They found that entrepreneurs are usually more optimistic than employees, and both optimism and uncertainty diminish with experience.

L.V. Shavinina

The third research direction in the study of entrepreneurship focuses on analyzing the link between entrepreneurship, innovation, and economy. That is, the entrepreneur is correctly viewed as an innovator (Shavinina, 2004). According to Drucker (1998), for example, entrepreneurs appear to not have a certain type of personality in common, but a commitment to the systematic practice of innovation. He understands innovation as “the means by which the entrepreneur either creates new wealth-producing resources or endows existing resources with enhanced potential for creating wealth” (Drucker, 1998, p. 149). Entrepreneurship and innovation are closely related and both fuel economic competitiveness around the world. This is why the development of entrepreneurial giftedness should be a key component of innovation education (see Shavinina’s chapter on innovation education, this volume). On the other hand, Henrekson (2005, 2006) found that entrepreneurship is largely ignored or treated in a highly simplified way in many economic theories (e.g., in endogenous growth theory). In spite of the widely recognized fact that entrepreneurial talent is important for economic growth, innovation, and job creation, the author’s in-depth examination of how the supply of productive entrepreneurship is affected by tax and welfare arrangements that prevail in some mature welfare states (e.g., Sweden) yields pessimistic results. He shows that key welfare state institutions tend to reduce economic incentives for entrepreneurship. A number of measures can be implemented to strengthen entrepreneurial incentives within extensive welfare states, but an entrepreneurial culture and a welfare state are very remotely related. As a consequence, the respective cultures are unlikely to be promoted by a similar set of institutions. It is not hence surprising that from the point of view of some early economists the entrepreneur is simultaneously one of the most intriguing and elusive characters in the cast that constitutes the subject of economic analysis (Baumol, 1965, p. 64, as referenced in Ferrante, 2005). Therefore, even a short look at the existing literature on entrepreneurship demonstrates that researchers working in this field have not yet studied entrepreneurial giftedness systematically. It should be emphasized that the above-mentioned investigations of entrepreneurs’ skills are not equal to entrepreneurial giftedness. On the other hand, giftedness researchers also have not yet made entrepreneurial giftedness a

38

On Entrepreneurial Giftedness

subject of systematic research.1 The given chapter thus introduces the concept of entrepreneurial giftedness to the field of high ability and thus fills an apparent niche in research on this important topic. When an area of research is in its infancy—as is the case with the study of entrepreneurial giftedness—then the most reasonable research strategy is to study those talented entrepreneurs whose entrepreneurial giftedness is undeniable. In other words, we have to concentrate on the cases of fulfilled entrepreneurial giftedness such as Richard Branson, Michael Dell, Bill Gates, Akio Morita, Fred Smith, and the like. The next logical step is to focus on the exploration of early manifestations of their entrepreneurial giftedness. As the above-mentioned quote from Warren Buffett’s biography shows, early signs of entrepreneurial giftedness are really important indicators of the correct start of the developmental trajectory of entrepreneurial giftedness. Furthermore, research demonstrates that external social influences on the initial stages of the development of high abilities are significantly more important than later ones (Simonton, 1978). Thus it seems reasonable to also begin the investigation of entrepreneurial giftedness by studying the social context in which talented entrepreneurs develop. This chapter therefore consists of the two main parts: the first describing early manifestations of entrepreneurial giftedness and the second discussing micro-social factors that facilitate the emergence of talented entrepreneurs. Both provide valuable findings about the developmental trajectories of entrepreneurial giftedness and shed light on the scientific understanding of its nature. The concluding section summarizes the main issues considered in the chapter, including findings of the case study, and points out the importance of the study of entrepreneurial giftedness for the field of high abilities as a whole. Successful, gifted entrepreneurship in adulthood is associated with a high degree of practical intelligence, creative abilities, innovation, intuition, wisdom, excellence, managerial talent, and courage. These attributes are described in my chapters on managerial talent and innovation education (Shavinina, this volume). Consequently, I will not discuss these issues in this chapter but will focus only on entrepreneurial giftedness in childhood.

795

From the methodological point of view, I will rely on (auto)biographical accounts of great entrepreneurs, which capture the early signs of entrepreneurial giftedness. (Auto)biographical literature is crucial for research on individuals distinguished by their rarity, as is the case with gifted entrepreneurs.2 I will thus adopt a very different sampling procedure, significant samples (Simonton, 1999), because every gifted entrepreneur, who achieved a remarkable success in business, is a significant sample. Specifically, (auto)biographical accounts of Richard Branson, Michael Dell, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett will be used in this chapter.

Early Signs of Entrepreneurial Giftedness Two types of early manifestations of entrepreneurial giftedness can be identified: specific and general. Specific manifestations refer to those actions, abilities, skills, or personality traits that are directly related to entrepreneurial giftedness. For example, the creation of ventures with money-making potential belongs to the specific manifestations of entrepreneurial giftedness. General manifestations refer to those actions, abilities, skills, or personality traits that can also be useful in other types of giftedness and are not exclusively associated with entrepreneurial giftedness. For example, competitiveness as a personality trait is helpful in business and sports alike. It seems appropriate to identify the following interrelated yet different specific manifestations of entrepreneurial giftedness: 1. Constantly generate ideas on how to make money. Creative abilities conducive to entrepreneurial giftedness. The above-mentioned 6-year-old Warren Buffett is a good example. Others will be discussed below. 2. Love to generate and implement real-life projects with at least a minimal financial reward. This is the key characteristic of entrepreneurial giftedness that incorporates both creative and innovative abilities of entrepreneurs. This is because innovation is mainly about the implementation of creative ideas into practice in the form of new products, processes, or services. The ability to implement ideas into practice implies

2

1

My research on entrepreneurial giftedness is probably an exception (Shavinina, 2006).

For more information about the case study method and the use of (auto)biographical literature in giftedness research please refer to Shavinina et al. chapter on managerial talent included in this volume.

796

highly developed executive or metacognitive abilities (see Shavinina’s chapter on innovation education, this volume). Examples are abundant. When Richard Branson was 12 years old, he made his mind up to grow Christmas trees. Specifically, “One Easter holiday, I decided to follow my mother’s example and make some money. Undeterred by the school’s lack of faith in my ability with numbers, I saw an opportunity to grow Christmas trees. . .I went round to talk Nik into the plan. He was also on holiday from his school. . .We would plant 400 Christmas trees in the field. . .By the Christmas after next, they would have grown to at least four feet and we would be able to sell them. Nik and I agreed to do the work together, and share the profits equally. That Easter we furrowed the ground and planted the 400 seeds. . .We worked out that, if they all grew to six feet, we would make £2 a tree, creating a grand total of £800, compared with our initial investment of just £5 for the seeds. In the following summer holiday, we went to investigate the trees. There were one or two tiny springs above ground, but the rest had been eaten by rabbits. We exacted dire revenge and shot and skinned a lot of rabbits. We sold them to the local butcher for a shilling each, but it wasn’t quite £800 we had planned” (Branson, 2002, p. 37). However, this failure did not stop Richard. The following Christmas Nik’s brother was given a budgerigar as a present. This gave him “the idea for another great business opportunity: breeding budgies! For a start, I reasoned, I could sell them all year round rather than just during the fortnight before Christmas. I worked out the prices and made some calculations about how fast they could breed and how cheap their food was, and persuaded my father to build a huge aviary” (Branson, 2002, p. 37–38). Another quite impressive example is Michael Dell who at the age of 12 organized his own stamp auction. The father of his best friend in Houston was a pretty avid stamp collector, so naturally Michael and his friend wanted to get into stamp collecting, too. “To fund my interest in stamps, I got a job as a water boy in a Chinese restaurant two blocks from my house. I started reading stamp journals just for fun, and soon began noticing that prices were rising. Before long, my interest in stamps began to shift from the joy of collecting to the idea that there was. . . ‘a commercial opportunity’ ” (Dell, 1999, p. 3). “It was obvious to me from what I’d read and heard that the value of stamps was

L.V. Shavinina

increasing, and being a fairy resourceful kid, I saw this as an opportunity. My friend and I had already bought stamps at an auction, and since I knew even then that people rarely did something for nothing, I assumed that the auctioneers were making a decent fee. Rather than pay them to buy the stamps, I thought it would be fun to create my own auction” (Dell, 1999, p. 4). That is, he decided to create his own auction where he “could learn even more about stamps and collect a commission in the process” (Dell, 1999, p. 4). He got neighbors to consign their stamps to him, and then advertised “Dell’s Stamps” in Linn’s Stamp Journal. Finally, he typed, with one finger, a 12-page catalogue (he did not yet know how to type, nor had a computer) and mailed it out. He made $2,000 on his very first business venture. The roots of the famous “direct model”3 of Dell Computer Inc. lie here, when Michael first experienced the power and the rewards of being direct (i.e., eliminating the middleman). He also learned an important lesson that “if you’ve got a good idea, it pays to do something about it” (Dell, 1999, p. 4). 3. Love doing real business plans with predicted financial outcomes. The case in point is Richard Branson. While neither of his childhood ventures had the effect of making money as he wanted, they did teach him something about maths. “I found that it was only when I was using real numbers to solve real problems that maths made any sense to me. If I was calculating how much a Christmas tree would grow, or how many budgies would breed, the numbers then became real and I enjoyed using them. Inside the classroom I was still a complete dunce at maths. I once did an IQ test in which the questions just seemed absurd. I couldn’t focus on any of the mathematical problems, and I think that I scored about zero. I worry about all the people who have been classified as stupid by these kinds of tests. Little do they know what often these IQ tests have been dreamt up by academics who are absolutely useless at dealing with the practicalities of the outside world. I loved doing real business plans—even if the rabbits did get the better of me” (Branson, 2002, pp. 38–39).

3 It is not therefore surprising that he started a company based on eliminating the middleman (i.e., bypassing the dominant method of computer distribution). Dell Computer Inc. sells computers directly to customers, deals directly with its suppliers, etc., all without the unnecessary and inefficient presence of intermediaries.

38

On Entrepreneurial Giftedness

4. Work passionately and hard on executing their plans. Young gifted entrepreneurs are able to work hard on implementing their projects. They do everything necessary for their projects to succeed. For instance, gifted entrepreneurs from early years are able to convince other people (e.g., parents, friends, and other relatives) to participate in the implementation of their ventures. Thus, Richard Branson involved his parents in all his projects. As mentioned above, Richard persuaded his father to build a huge aviary for his second business venture. He wrote to Dad from the school and explained the financial implications: “So few days now until the holidays. Have you ordered any material we might want for our giant budgerigar cage? I thought our best bet to get the budgerigars at reduced rate would be from Julian Carlyon. I feel that if the shops sold them for 30sh., we would get say 17sh. And we could buy them off him for 18 ir 19sh. Which would give him a profit and save us the odd 10sh. per bird. How about it?” (Branson, 2002, p. 38). His father “reluctantly built the aviary and the birds bred rapidly. However, I had overestimated the local demand for budgies. Even after everyone in Shamley Green had bought at least two, we were still left with an aviary fool of them. One day at school I got a letter from my mother breaking the bad news that the aviary had been invaded by rats which had eaten the budgies. It was only many years later that she confessed she had been fed up with cleaning out the aviary so on day had left the cage door open and they all escaped. She didn’t try too hard to recapture them” (Branson, 2002, p. 38). 5. Wish to do “real” things that bring money and try to do whatever possible to cut unnecessary steps. It can be considered as one of the manifestations of practical intelligence in young gifted entrepreneurs. Michael Dell is a good example. “I’ve always have been fascinated with eliminating unnecessary steps. When I was in third grade, I sent away for a high school diploma. I had seen the advertisement in the back of a magazine: ‘Earn your high school diploma by passing one simple test,’ it said. It’s not like I had anything against school; I liked third grade. And getting a good education had always been really important to my family. But at that age, I was both impatient and curious. If there was a way to get something done more quickly and easily, I wanted to try it. And trading nine years of school for ‘one simple test’ seemed like a pretty good idea to me” (Dell, 1999, p. xv). “Early one evening, a woman from the testing company appeared at the door of my fam-

797

ily’s home in Houston. My mother answered, and the woman politely asked for Mr. Michael Dell. At first, my mother was puzzled. But after asking a few questions, she figured out what was going on. ‘He’s taking a bath right now, but I’ll call him’, she said. Much to the woman’s surprise, out I came, an eight-year-old, in a red terrycloth bathrobe. Both my parents and the woman from the testing company thought I had applied to take the test as a joke. But I was quite serious. Since an early age, I’ve been fascinated with the idea of eliminating unnecessary steps” (Dell, 1999, pp. xv–xvi). The general signs of entrepreneurial giftedness include the following interrelated characteristics: 1. Perseverance to succeed: If I put my mind to something, I can do almost everything. The best manifestation of gifted entrepreneurs’ persistence is the fact that they do not give up after the first failed project(s). Failures do not stop them at all. The case of Richard Branson is appropriate here again. For instance, when his venture to grow Christmas trees failed, soon after he decided to breed budgies. Another manifestation of gifted entrepreneurs’ determination to succeed is their underlying belief that they are able to do everything as soon as they put their mind to something. Bill Gates is a good example. The 11-year-old Bill won the challenge presented annually by Reverend Dale Turner and as a prize he was invited to have a dinner at Space Needle, a fancy restaurant 600 feet above Seattle. The story is as follows. At the beginning of each school year, the Reverend would challenge his students to memorize several chapters from the Book of Mathew, which is a difficult passage to memorize. “The words do not rhyme, the sentence structure is disjointed, and it is very long—the equivalent of nearly four standard newspaper columns of type. Twenty-five years later, Turner can still remember the afternoon he sat down with Gates in the living room of the Gates’ home, to hear him recite the passage” (Wallace & Erickson, 1992, p. 6). “Listening to Gates, Turner was astounded. No one, in all his years in the ministry, had been able to make it through the entire passage without stumbling over at least a few words or lines. But Gates had recited the passage nonstop from the beginning, never missing a line. I needed only to go to his home that day to know that he was something special,” Turner later recalled. “I couldn’t imagine how an 11-year-old boy could have a mind like that. And my subsequent questioning of him revealed a deep understanding of the passage” (Wallace & Erickson, 1992,

798

p. 7). “He loved challenges, Turner said.. . . As Gates has told the pastor that day in his house, ‘I can do anything I put my mind to’ ” (Wallace & Erickson, 1992, p. 8). 2. Optimism and “change the world” attitude. Gifted entrepreneurs from early years believe in themselves and their ability to change the world by succeeding with their projects. They have a positive vision of the future and of every venture they initiate. For instance, Richard Branson did not give up after his very first venture failed. Soon he saw “another great business opportunity: breeding budgies” (Branson, 2002, p. 37) and fully concentrated on it. Optimism helps gifted entrepreneurs succeed. This supports scientific findings demonstrating that optimists always outperform pessimists (Carver & Scheier, 2003). 3. Early exposure to challenges. It is amazing how gifted entrepreneurs liked challenges from their early years and had a lot of exposure to them. Their environments indeed provided a wide range of exposure to challenges (see the next section of the chapter for more about this issue) and, as a result, the love of challenges became one of the distinguishing characteristics of talented entrepreneurs. 4. Competitiveness, excellence, and perfection. As a consequence of the early exposure to challenges or an intensive involvement in sport activities, young gifted entrepreneurs possess competitive personalities. When they compete, they always try to be the best and win. Bill Gates is a case in point. His closest childhood friend was Carl Edmark, who later said of Bill: “He was very eccentric even back then.” Even as a child Gates had an obsessive personality and a compulsive need to be the best. “Any school assignment, be it playing a musical instrument or writing papers, whatever, he would do at any or all hours of the day” said Edmark. What seemed like eccentric behavior to fellow fourth graders, however, was likely nothing more than his competitive spirit. One of his first major assignments in his fourth grade class was to write a four- or five-page report on a particular part of the human body. Gates wrote more than 30 pages. Later, the class was told to write a short story of no more than two pages. Trey’s4 story was five times that length. “Everything Bill did, he did it to the max,” said Edmark, “What

4

Trey was a nickname of Bill Gates.

L.V. Shavinina

he did always went well, well beyond everyone else” (Wallace & Erickson, 1992, pp. 11–12). 5. Neglect of academic subjects. Probably because gifted entrepreneurs live in their own world of “real practical” projects (often with money-making potential), school subjects do not make much sense to them. Many do not do well at school and simply ignore academic subjects (e.g., Richard Branson). This is also because teachers usually do not demonstrate the practical applications of those subjects; they just ask children to memorize a great deal of knowledge. This directly contradicts the essence of the practical mind of gifted entrepreneurs who are eager to do “real” things in real life; not in the classroom for their teachers. With respect to this characteristic, there are some exceptions. Bill Gates is one of them. For instance, he was doing well in the elementary school. However, it is not clear whether Bill’s success in academic subjects was determined by his intellectual abilities or by his extraordinary competitiveness mentioned above. 6. Independence in thoughts and actions. Rulebreaking attitude. From early years gifted entrepreneurs are very independent in their thoughts and actions: authorities do not exist for them. For example, Mary Gates, in describing her son, Bill, has said that “he has pretty much done what he wanted since the age of eight” (Wallace & Erickson, 1992, p. 11). As a result of their extreme independence, a rule-breaking attitude is another distinguishing characteristic of young entrepreneurs. This is why talented entrepreneurs are innovators: they are able to break all the existing rules of the game and introduce something new. This is how great innovations happen. It is indeed interesting that the above-presented specific and general signs of entrepreneurial giftedness in childhood became strong characteristics of talented entrepreneurs in their adulthood. The case in point is Richard Branson. As an adult, he is often characterized as an exceptional challenger, an entrepreneur with a highly independent spirit, an unbelievable optimist, and an initiative citizen (to be also considered below). However, he had all of these characteristics from early childhood. They shaped the developmental trajectory of his entrepreneurial giftedness. The same is true for Michael Dell, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and other entrepreneurs. For example, as it was discussed above, the famous business model of Dell Computer Inc. takes its origins in Michael Dell’s wish to cut unnecessary

38

On Entrepreneurial Giftedness

steps in everything that very clearly manifested itself in childhood (Dell, 1999, p. 4). This section therefore described general and specific characteristics of entrepreneurial giftedness. In the rest of the chapter I will discuss the micro-social factors in the development of entrepreneurial giftedness. It is important to note that researchers differentiate between micro-social and macro-social factors. The micro-social factors refer to the influence of such social institutions as family, school, university, and proximal social surrounding (e.g., childhood friends). The macro-social factors refer to those societal, cultural, and historical contexts in which individuals live (i.e., the contemporary Zeitgeist). Certainly, macro-social factors often operate through micro-social factors. The goal of the next section is to analyze the existing studies about the role of the micro-social factors in the development of giftedness.

The Impact of Micro-social Environment on Developing High Ability: Literature Review Research demonstrates that micro-social factors significantly contribute to the development of exceptional talents. Scholars found that many children showing signs of giftedness in their childhood do not manifest an outstanding level of achievement and performance in school and adult life (Howe, 1990, 1993; Tannenbaum, 1986). One explanation for this discrepancy between promise and fulfillment can be the family milieu and educational opportunities (Lewis & Michalson, 1985). Families provide opportunities for the mental growth of their children and thus play an essential role in talent development. All human achievements are considered to be interaction between inner potential and the resources and opportunities provided by the surrounding environment (Gardner, 1993; Freeman, 2000; Howe, 1990, 1993; McCurdy, 1992; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995; von Ardenne, 1996). Although much has been written about the impact of the family on the development of high ability (e.g., Albert & Runco, 1986; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Feldman, 1986, 1993; Freeman, 2000; Gardner, 1993; McCurdy, 1992; Radford, 1990; Reichenberg & Landau, this volume), there is no consensus on what the major family influences are. Tannenbaum (1986) con-

799

cluded, “all that can be said about children destined for greatness is that they vary widely in their relationship with parents” (p. 46). Yet researchers agree that there has to be a fit between high ability and the child’s circumstances, for the exceptional talents to really flourish (Cropley & Dehn, 1996; Gardner, 1993; Lewis & Michalson, 1985). Thus, parents should be competent judges of children’s potential and make the effort to provide adequate opportunities for growth (Freeman, 2000). Mothers of gifted children are distinguished by high sensitivity to the unique cognitive needs of their babies. The total amount of cognitive stimulation is not important, but the amount of stimulation directed toward the child is (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Parents of gifted children spend a great deal of time with their children, read frequently to them, and answer their questions in a proper way. They actively, not passively, participate in children’s activities (Howe, 1993). Probably, because of the very active cognitive stimulation, more gifted are found to be first-born children (Cropley & Dehn, 1996; Lewis & Michalson, 1985). The family milieu plays a crucial role in providing good learning opportunities (Feldman, 1986, 1993). Parents of gifted children are almost always highly educated; mothers’ educational level is very important (Freeman, 2000). Often parents of talented children are their first teachers (Howe, 1990, 1993; McCurdy, 1992; Storfer, 1990). Parents maintain the optimal balance of freedom and pressure that most favorably influence a child’s motivation to learn (Lewis & Michalson, 1985). Gifted children get a lot of encouragement, guidance, and support from parents (Feldman, 1986, 1993; Freeman, 2000; Gardner, 1993). Family values and family climate also facilitate the development of high ability. For example, prodigies are generally born into families that recognize and value the talent when it emerges (Feldman, 1986; Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998). The socio-economic status of the family is another significant variable, because it enables a wide diversity of educational and cultural experiences. Many gifted children come from the middle and upper socio-economic classes (Howe, 1990; Gardner, 1993; Lewis & Michalson, 1985). Contact with role models and/or significant others is of great importance for the development of giftedness. Parents, relatives, teachers, and the like may be role models and/or significant others. They manifest the abilities and skills in some areas of talent, the

800

values and attitudes associated with it, and the selfimage required for successful performance (Cropley & Dehn, 1996; Simonton, 1978). The opportunity of personal interaction with great contemporaries or eminent models is very important for the fulfillment of an individual’s gifted potential. Although school influences the development of high abilities in many ways, I will not analyze the existing literature in details. Rather, I will only mention its major influence, namely formal education. Research shows that a key role of school consists in traditional knowledge acquisition (i.e., formal education; Cropley & Dehn, 1996; Simonton, 1978; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995), and an individual’s knowledge base plays a critical role in the development of giftedness (Chi & Greeno, 1987; Kholodnaya, 1997; Schneider, 1993; Shavinina, 1997, 1999; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996; Rabinowitz & Glaser, 1985). Overall, research demonstrates that gifted children get the greatest amount of parental investment usually manifested in a high degree of attention focused upon the child and in abundant love from parents (Feldman, 1986; Howe, 1990, 1993; McCurdy, 1992). The educational level of parents and socio-economic status of the family also matter. Often the gifted have a few “significant others” or role models in their lives, who influence them mainly via formal education. Schools may stimulate or inhibit developing talents (Shavinina, 2007a,b). The purpose of the remaining part of the chapter is to identify the microsocial factors in the development of entrepreneurial giftedness.

L.V. Shavinina

Money, Virgin Hotels, Virgin Vision, just to mention a few. Branson’s personal fortune is estimated at $3.2 billions thus making him the sixth richest individual in the UK and the 170th richest person in the world (Forbes, 2005). Besides that Branson broke a few world records in crossing the Atlantic by boat and in hot-air ballooning. Definitely, an individual with such a remarkable record of achievements in business is of great interest to giftedness researchers. Nevertheless, this is not the whole story. The significance of the study of Richard Branson for the field of high ability consists of being a twice-exceptional child during the childhood and adolescence. He was dyslexic and underachiever in school, yet by demonstrating practical intelligence and creative abilities, Branson was able to achieve unbelievable success in business. Another important aspect is that 16-year-old Richard started his first entrepreneurial venture— Student magazine—from scratch: he did not have any financial resources. The same was true for Virgin Record Shops and Virgin Music, his second and third ventures, respectively. Finally, Richard’s entrepreneurial motivation deserves the attention of high-ability scholars, because creativity has been the driving force behind all of his ventures. Business can be “a creative enterprise in itself. If you publish a magazine, you are trying to create something that is original, that stands out from the crowd. . . Above all, you want to create something you are proud of. . .” (Branson, 2002, p. 57). The data source used in this case study was Richard Branson’s (2002) autobiography. The use of the autobiographical accounts and the case study method can be to a certain extent a controversial matter. However, any attempt at a comprehensive understanding of talented, highly accomplished entrepreneurs and other distinThe Case Study of Entrepreneurial guishing individuals is not feasible without reliance Giftedness: The Impact of the on such accounts. These accounts and the case study Micro-social Factors on the Development method are perfectly suited for capturing the special of Richard Branson’s Talents characteristics of gifted individuals. Autobiographical literature is essential for the research and description Specifically, this section discusses the family milieu, of persons or events distinguished by their rarity as is “significant others,” and great contemporaries in the the case with exceptionally successful entrepreneurs. case of Richard Branson, the most successful en- Using this literature, psychologists can describe the idtrepreneur in the UK. Born in 1950, he is the founder iosyncratic features of talented individuals including and owner of the Virgin group of companies. By the characteristics of their micro-social environment. 2002, the Virgin group included 48 companies, which Autobiographical accounts provide a holistic view of successfully function in various areas of business the subject (Foster, 1986; Frey, 1978) allowing psy(Branson, 2002). Virgin Music, Virgin Airways, Virgin chologist to develop and validate theories grounded in

38

On Entrepreneurial Giftedness

a more direct “observation” of the individuals (Merriam, 1988). Usually, the use of autobiographical literature for the study of outstanding individuals presents certain limitations: (a) The possible subjectivity and contradictions of autobiographers in their accounts of their own thinking processes, psychological states, and the surrounding events which lead up to and follow their achievements. (b) The timing of writing the autobiography, normally after an individual has already become a famous personality. In this case the writer relies on vague memories of his thinking processes, which may have likely been weakened or altered over time. It definitely raises the question about the validity and reliability of subjective reports as data (Brown, 1978, 1987; Ericsson & Simon, 1980). Nonetheless, these concerns are only partially true in the case of Richard Branson. First, he wrote his autobiography himself at the relatively young age of 43 when even details about his childhood and similar distant events were still quite fresh in his memory. Second, his parents, sisters, and other relatives were alive at the time of writing the autobiography and Richard Branson consulted with them regarding the accuracy of details. Third, he has always documented his life, and the autobiography is thus based on numerous notebooks, which he “fills in every day” (p. 511). This is what makes Branson’s (2002) autobiography quite a reliable data source. The rest of this section identifies the micro-social factors, which played an important role in developing entrepreneurial giftedness of Richard Branson. The next section discusses these factors. The developmental trajectory of Richard Branson’s entrepreneurial giftedness supports many of the findings about the exceptionally important role of the family milieu in developing children’s abilities reviewed above (Albert & Runco, 1986; Howe, 1990; Feldman, 1993; Freeman, 2000; McCurdy, 1992; Tannenbaum, 1986). It seems that his family predetermined the appearance and growth of Richard’s entrepreneurial talent in a number of ways. The factors identified below demonstrate that his abilities were developed in a highly stimulating family environment: 1. Talented parents, with a wide range of interests. Three generations of Bransons—on father’s side—had been lawyers. His grandfather was a High Court judge,

801

and his father, Ted—who graduated from Cambridge University—was a lawyer. “As children we discussed Dad’s legal cases. . .” (Branson, 2002, p. 23). Richard’s father was an “inventive” person, whose main interest was to collect ancient artifacts and fossils, which he called his “museum.” Richard’s mother, Eve loved sports and dancing, and aged 12 she appeared in a West End revue written by famous Marie Stopes. Later Eve was dancing for The Cochran Show at Her Majesty’s Theatre. During wartime she “learnt how to glide and then began to teach the new pilots. . . After the war Eve became an air hostess, at the time a most glamorous job” (p. 21). She excelled in many things (e.g., in golf), in which even 43-year-old Richard could not beat her. 2. Abundant parental love for children, and for each other. “I cannot remember a moment in my life when I have not felt the love of my family. We were a family that would have killed for each other—and we still are. My parents adored each other, and in my childhood there was barely a cross word between them” (p. 18). 3. Parental trust in children. There are many examples. When the Customs and Excise officials arrested the 20-year-old Richard because of the illegal profit, which Virgin had made from avoiding the purchase tax, he spent one night in prison. “The next morning Mum arrived to meet me at the court. I applied for legal aid since I had no money to pay for a lawyer. The magistrate told me that if I applied for legal aid I would have to stay in prison as I obviously had no money for bail. If I wanted to be released, I would have to put up bail of $30,000. . . Mum told the magistrate that she would put up. . . her home, as security. I was overwhelmed by the trust she showed in me. . . The trust that my family had in me had to be repaid. . . ‘You don’t have to apologise, Ricky,’ Mum said. . . ‘I know that you’ve learnt a lesson. . . We’ve got to get on and deal with this head on.’ Over the summer I confronted the problem with far less shame than I would have done if my parents had added to the burden. I kept a clear head; I was sorry; I wouldn’t do it again. . .” (pp. 101–102). Parents’ trust in Richard stimulated him to do his best. 4. Supportive parents. They supported Richard in all possible ways. When 15-year-old Richard decided to breed budgies and persuaded his father to build a huge aviary, his father built it. “They always encouraged me to go ahead and do whatever I wanted to do, and if they did not always praise my projects they never expressed less sympathy and support. The last thing my

802

father wanted to do was to spend his weekends building a cage for my budgerigars, but he never told me. My mother was extremely keen to help me with Student, and wrote articles, gave me pocket money that she could scarcely spare and thought of people whom I should approach. Once when I told her that I wanted to get in touch with David Frost, she spent weeks asking all her friends whether they knew anyone who knew anyone who knew David Frost” (p. 47). 5. Open, sincere relationships with parents. “I was lucky. I always felt that I could speak to my parents as if they were my closest friends. . .” (p. 47). A 16-yearold Richard noticed that many of his friends “stopped confiding in their parents, but I never felt embarrassed or rebellious towards mine” (p. 47). Likewise, after opening the Student Advisory Centre Richard found that one of the biggest problems was that “teenagers were unable to confide in their parents. Hearing others’ stories made me realize how lucky I was in my relationship with my own parents. They had never judged me, and always supported me, always praised the good things rather than criticized the bad things: I had no qualms about admitting my problems, worries and failures” (p. 69). 6. Parental treatment of children as equals. “My parents always treated my two sisters. . . and me as equals whose opinions were just as valid as theirs. . . We grew up talking as friends to our parents. . . My parents always encouraged us to have our own opinions and rarely gave us advice unless we asked for it” (pp. 22–23). “As children we . . . argued about pornography and whether drugs should be legalized long before any of us knew what we were really talking about” (p. 23). 7. High ethical standards. Parents set high standards of ethical behavior for him. “My parents had always drummed into me that all you have in life is your reputation: you may be very rich, but if you lose your good name you’ll never be happy. The thought will always lurk at the back of your mind that people don’t trust you” (p. 100). At the same time Richard’s family milieu was an environment specifically favorable for the development of his entrepreneurial ability. The following factors played an important role in developing Richard’s entrepreneurial talent: 1. Mother—a role model of entrepreneur. Richard’s parents had very little money during his childhood and because of this his mother was always thinking of ways

L.V. Shavinina

to make money. She made “wooden tissue boxes and wastepaper bins which she sold to shops. . . Eventually Mum began supplying Harrods with her tissue boxes, and it became a proper little cottage industry” (p. 24). The mother was therefore a role model of entrepreneur for Richard and that was her main impact on her son’s developing entrepreneurial giftedness. At the age of 12 he decided to follow his “mother’s example and make some money” by growing Christmas trees (p. 37). 2. Early exposure to challenges. “My parents continually set us challenges. My mother was determined to make us independent. When I was four years old, she stopped the car a few miles from our house and made me find my own way home across the fields” (p. 15). Or one January morning “Mum had decided I should cycle to Bournemouth. . . Mum packed some sandwiches and an apple and told me to find some water along the way. Bournemouth was fifty miles away from our home in Shamley Green, Surrey. I was under twelve, but Mum thought that it would teach me the importance of stamina and a sense of direction. I remember. . . finally walking into the kitchen like a conquering hero, feeling tremendously proud of my marathon bike ride and expecting a huge welcome. ‘Well done, Ricky,’ Mum greeted me. . . ‘Was that fun? Now, could you run along to the vicar’s? He’s got some logs he wants chopping and I told him that you’d be back any minute.’ (p. 15). Our challenges tended to be physical rather than academic, and soon we were setting them for ourselves” (p. 16). 3. Rule-breaking attitude. “I think my parents must have instilled a rebellious streak in me. I have always thought rules were there to be broken. . .” (p. 39). 4. “Change the world” attitude. “My parents had brought me up to think that we could all change the world” (p. 39). So when a 15-year-old Richard began to think how to change his high school rules, he certainly believed that he “could make a difference. . . I felt sure that I could do it better” (p. 39). 5. Parental love of adventure. “Both my parents had a love of adventure.” His father wanted to be an archaeologist. At wartime he voluntarily went to war. Richard’s mother wanted to be a pilot, “but was told that these jobs were available only to men. Undeterred, she chatted up one of the instructors, who relented and secretly gave her the job so long as she pretended to

38

On Entrepreneurial Giftedness

be a boy. . .” (p. 21). Richard’s love of adventures was therefore genetically predetermined. 6. Hard working and sense of teamwork. The ability to work hard is an essential for a successful entrepreneur, and Richard acquired it at early childhood. “At home Mum. . . always generated work for us. . . Whenever we were within Mum’s orbit we had to be busy. If we tried to escape by saying that we had something else to do, we were firmly told we were selfish. As a result we grew up with a clear priority of putting other people first” (pp. 24–25). There was “a great sense of teamwork within our family” (p. 24). 7. Independence in thoughts and actions. “Irreverence for authority ran on both sides” of his family (p. 25). As mentioned above, Richard’s mother wanted to make her children independent. Everything said above concerns a “nuclear family,” that is, his parents. Let’s now look at Richard’s extended family: other relatives such as grandparents, uncles, and aunts. They demonstrated similar outstanding qualities as his parents: 1. Talented, accomplished relatives, with a wide range of interests. Richard’s grandmother was one of them, “who holds two British records: aged 89 Granny became the oldest person in Britain to pass the advanced Latin-American ballroom-dancing examination, and aged 90 she became the oldest person to hit a hole in one at golf” (p. 20). “She never stopped learning. Her attitude was, you’ve got one go in life, so make the most of it” (p. 20). Richard learned this lesson, and his wish to “push myself to my limits” originates from Granny (p. 238). 2. Supportive and devoted relatives. Relatives supported Richard in many ways, yet were devoted to him and his sisters. Auntie Joyce, his father’s sister is the best example. When the bank did not lend enough money for 20-year-old Richard to buy the Manor house to set up his recording company, she lent it to him. “I knew that Auntie Joyce was being extraordinary kind to me and had probably accepted that she would never see the money again. . . ‘Look,’ she said, ‘I wouldn’t lend you the money if I didn’t want to. What’s money for, anyway? It’s to make things happen. And I’m sure you’ll make things happen with this recording studio just as you won that ten shillings off me when you learnt to swim.’ I promised to myself that, whatever happened, I would repay that money to her. . .” (p. 87). 3. Relatives’ trust in Richard. The above-mentioned quote exemplifies how Richard’s relatives trusted in

803

him. At that time there were no obvious signs that he would have succeeded in business. Yet auntie Joyce trusted in Richard’s ability to make the Manor a success. Such trust could probably be based on her love for Richard and her knowledge of his persistence, determination, and ability to overcome obstacles. Nevertheless, the influence of the extended family was not limited by these factors. The two other factors were extremely important for developing Richard’s entrepreneurial giftedness: 1. Aunt Clare as a role model of entrepreneur. Not only was Richard’s mother a role model of entrepreneur for him, but so was her sister. “Aunt Clare was as much of an entrepreneur as Mum. She was obsessed with Welsh Mountain sheep, which were then an endangered species, and she bought a few of these black sheep in order to save them from extinction. . . She eventually. . . set up a business. . . The Black Sheep Marketing Company and started selling pottery decorated with pictures of black sheep. . . She worked very hard to build up Black Sheep as a trade name, and she succeeded: over forty years later it’s still going strong” (p. 27). 2. Challenges set up by relatives. In addition to parents, other relatives set up challenges, too. When 4- or 5-year-old Richard was on holidays with parents and aunts, auntie Joyce had bet him 10 shillings that he “couldn’t learn to swim by the end of the fortnight” (p. 16). Richard spent hours in the sea learning to swim, but by the last day he still couldn’t do it. “Never mind, Ricky. There’s always next year,” said Auntie Joyce. But he “was determined not to wait that long” (p. 16). On the way home Richard saw the river and asked his father to stop the car. “. . .I was still bobbing up and down, but. . . I suddenly felt released: I could swim” (p. 17). Besides parents and other relatives, there were “significant others” in Richard’s life who influenced the development of his entrepreneurial ability: 1. Aunt Clare should be mentioned again, as her importance in Richard’s childhood had a long-lasting effect on both his private and business lives. She flew a biplane, could parachute out of the plane for fun, and was an entrepreneur. “I decided that when I grew up I wanted to be like Aunt Clare” (p. 26). Richard named his first child Clare after aunt Clare. In his entrepreneurial business Richard relied on aunt Clare’s intuition. For instance, once she called him saying that “. . .one of my sheep has started singing. . . I want to

804

make a recording. . . Can you send some sound engineers out here?” He sent. . . and Virgin Music released the single “Baa Baa Black Sheep,” which reached number four in the charts. 2. Childhood friend Nik Powell was a synonym of friendship to Richard. They were best friends. “I can’t remember a time when Nik and I weren’t friends” (p. 24). Nik played a significant role in developing Richard’s sense of competition. “My friendship with Nik was based on affection but also on a strong element of competition. I was determined to do everything better than he did” (p. 28). Later Richard invited Nik to join the Student magazine and some of his other ventures. Nik contributed to their success. 3. High school friend Jonny Gems played an important role in further development of Richard’s rulebreaking attitude. They often talked about changing rules in their school, which “had as many rules and regulations as the army—many of them. . . completely anachronistic and pointless” (p. 39). They saw the best way to change the existing rules through the creation of an “alternative magazine with a fresh attitude” (p. 41). “We were fifteen years old and felt we could do anything” (p. 45). Jonny therefore significantly contributed to the emergence of Richard’s first entrepreneurial venture, Student magazine, which led to subsequent ventures. At least three “great contemporaries” can be identified, which were Richard’s distant relatives: 1. Great-uncle Jim became a celebrity because he advocated eating grass. As the second-world war progressed, David Stirling set up the Special Air Service (SAS), a “crack regiment designed to operate behind enemy lines. The SAS had to travel light, and soon. . . Jim Branson was advising. . . David Stirling and his elite troops on how to live off grass and nuts” (pp. 19–20). Richard learned from Jim that (a) this is fine if you are different from other people, (b) if you have a great idea—follow it, even if others consider you to be crazy, and (c) great ideas will eventually get attention. 2. Scott of the Antarctic, who was Richard’s “childhood hero” (p. 392). Richard’s grandfather on dad’s side was his cousin. “I remember being taken as a child to visit Bertie Scott. . . I used to sit on the sofa beside him. . . while he told all kinds of stories about Scott and his fatal race to the South Pole. I was mes-

L.V. Shavinina

merized by Scott’s battle against the elements and determined to try to do something similar” (p. 392). 3. Later in life Richard met and also greatly admired Scott’s son, Sir Peter Scott, who was “an extraordinarily talented man, a true Renaissance man” (p. 392). He fought in the war as a commando, won a bronze medal at the Olympic Games for sailing, won the world record for the longest flight, set up the World Wildlife Fund and Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, created the lake, and encouraged Richard to build his own lake as a wildfowl reserve. Richard learned from him that “if you put your mind to something you can do almost anything” (p. 392).

Discussion The previous section identified the micro-social factors, which played an important role in developing Richard Branson’s entrepreneurial giftedness. I found that Richard had talented parents, with a wide range of interests, who loved each other and their children a great deal. Parents trusted in the children, had open, sincere relationships with them, treated them as equals, supported them in all possible ways, and set up high ethical standards for them. These seven factors can be called “general supportive factors” as they created a generally favorable milieu for the development of Richard’s abilities. Yet such an environment would have stimulated any talent, not particularly entrepreneurial one (Gardner, 1993; Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 1998; Shavinina, 1999). It seems that “general supportive factors” are not enough to guarantee that potential entrepreneurial giftedness will be developed. They are necessary, but not sufficient to ensure the fulfillment of entrepreneurial ability. It looks like something else should be available in order to create a milieu conducive to the development of entrepreneurial talent. In this regard I found that Richard’s mother served a role model of entrepreneur for him; he was exposed early to challenges; parents instilled “change the world” and rule-breaking attitudes in him; they also loved adventures, were independent in thoughts and actions, and taught children to work hard and developed a sense of teamwork. I call these factors “specific” factors aimed particularly at developing entrepreneurial giftedness.

38

On Entrepreneurial Giftedness

Like his parents, Richard’s other relatives were also talented, with a wide range of interests. They were equally devoted, supportive, and trusted in Richard a great deal. These are the “general” factors of the extended family. Its “specific” factors consist of (a) a powerful influence which aunt Clare had on Richard as a role model of entrepreneur and (b) challenges set up by relatives. I also identified “significant others” and great contemporaries, which contributed to the development of Richard’s entrepreneurial ability. To a great extent, the identified micro-social factors predetermined his entrepreneurial talent. The following Richard’s personality traits developed in such an environment testify to this:

r r

r

r

r

r

Strive for excellence. “Anything I do in life I want to do well and not half-heartedly. I feel I am doing my best in Student,” wrote 16-year-old Richard in a letter home (p. 46). Rule breaking. “I have always enjoyed breaking the rules, whether they were school rules or accepted conventions, such as that no seventeen-year-old can edit a national magazine,” summarized a 20-yearold Richard (p. 100). Initiative. He was not just a rebel who wished to break rules. Richard always proposed something better instead of the existing rules. When he wanted to change the school rules, he wrote a few letters to the headmaster suggesting how to reorganize the system of school meals and other things. Creativity. Richard is always full of new ideas and open to creative ideas of other people. His philosophy of business is based on creativity: “I have never gone into any business purely to make money. . . A business has to. . . exercise your creative instincts” (p. 58). Independence. As a 20-year-old Richard put it, “I have never enjoyed being accountable to anyone else or not being in control of my own destiny. . . I had lived life entirely on my own terms, following my own instincts” (p. 100). Love of challenges and adventures. “I knew that I would attempt another balloon flight because it’s one of the few great challenges left. . . Both the series of balloon flights and the numerous Virgin companies I have set up form a seamless series of challenges which I can date from my childhood” (pp. 13–14).

805

It is amazing to see a striking similarity between Richard-child/teenager and Richard-adult, a highly accomplished entrepreneur. The micro-social factors identified in the previous section had a long-lasting effect on Richard and his entrepreneurial career. And this is another evidence that those factors really predetermined the development of his entrepreneurial giftedness. Thus, he always discusses his business with parents and other relatives. His business ethics is based on parents’ lessons about honesty and good reputation. Parents support Richard in all his ventures, including hot-air ballooning, accompany him to departure sites and meet him at final destinations. Richard-entrepreneur has been following the pieces of advice from his “significant others,” and great contemporaries have inspired him a great deal.

Conclusions This chapter introduced the concept of entrepreneurial giftedness and thus filled an apparent niche in research on high abilities. It has shed light on the nature of entrepreneurial giftedness by discussing its early manifestations and micro-social factors that facilitate the emergence of gifted entrepreneurs. Specifically, the following manifestations of entrepreneurial giftedness were identified: constantly generate ideas on how to make money, love to generate and implement real-life projects with at least a minimal financial reward, love doing real business plans with predicted financial outcomes, work passionately and hard on executing their plans, wish to do “real” things that bring money and try to do whatever possible to cut unnecessary steps, perseverance to succeed, optimism and “change the world” attitude, early exposure to challenges, competitiveness, excellence and perfection, neglect of academic subjects, and independence in thoughts and actions. The first five characteristics constitute specific manifestations of entrepreneurial giftedness; the last six constitute its general manifestations. This chapter also presented the case study of Richard Branson whose entrepreneurial giftedness is undeniable. The study was aimed at identifying micro-social factors, which played an exceptionally important role in developing Richard’s entrepreneurial giftedness. It was found that parents (i.e., nuclear family) and other relatives (i.e., extended family),

806

“significant others,” and great contemporaries are among the micro-social factors conducive to the appearance of exceptional entrepreneurial talent in the case of Richard Branson. First of all, I identified general supportive factors such as talented parents with a wide range of interests, who loved each other and their children a great deal. Parents trusted in the children, had open, sincere relationships with them, treated them as equals, supported them in all possible ways, and set up high ethical standards for them. These factors are necessary but not sufficient for the development of entrepreneurial giftedness. Something else must be in play, specifically aimed at the actualization and growth of entrepreneurial ability. In this light, I identified specific factors, which were uniquely directed to the development of Richard’s entrepreneurial talent. I also identified “significant others” and great contemporaries, which influenced Richard’s developing entrepreneurial ability. The two evidences, which prove that the identified micro-social factors were indeed important and predetermined the development of Richard’s entrepreneurial giftedness, are (a) the personality and creativity traits of Richardadult and (b) the long-lasting effect of those factors on both Richard-person and his entrepreneurial career. The unique combination of the identified micro-social factors greatly contributed to the appearance of Richard Branson—brilliant, highly accomplished entrepreneur. Research on entrepreneurial giftedness is important for the advancement of the field of high ability in a number of ways. First, it fills an obvious niche in the study of high abilities by introducing the concept of entrepreneurial giftedness. Second, it sheds light on an unexplored phenomenon—entrepreneurial talent as a special type of giftedness—which has not yet been studied by psychologists systematically. Third, it shows that the micro-social factors described in high-ability literature are not enough for developing entrepreneurial giftedness. The presented case study thus revealed additional micro-social factors, which are aimed specifically at the development of entrepreneurial ability. Finally, parents and teachers concerned with developing children’s talents get interesting insights for practical implications. Future research is needed to provide a comprehensive understanding of this multidimensional and multifaceted phenomenon called “entrepreneurial giftedness.”

L.V. Shavinina

References Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1986). The achievement of eminence: a model based on a longitudinal study of exceptionally gifted boys and their families. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 332–357). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Branson, R. (2002). Losing My Virginity: The Autobiography. London: Virgin Books. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, selfregulation, and other even more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 64–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Carver, C., & Scheier, M. (2003). Optimism. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive Psychological Assessment (pp. 75– 87). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Chi, M. T. H., & Greeno J. G. (1987). Cognitive research relevant to education. In J. A. Sechzer & S. M. Pfafflin (Eds.), Psychology and educational policy (pp. 39–57). New York: The New York Academy of Sciences. Cropley, A. J., & Dehn, D. (1996). A broader view of giftedness. In A. J. Cropley & D. Dehn (Eds.), Fostering the growth of high ability (pp. 3–20). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Dell, M. (1999). Direct from Dell. New York: Harper Business. Drucker, P. F. (1998). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 149–157 (originally published in May-June 1985). Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251. Feldman, D. H. (1986). Nature’s gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York: Basic Books. Feldman, D. H. (1993). Cultural organisms in the development of great potential. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context (pp. 225–251). Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum. Ferrante, F. (2005). Revealing entrepreneurial talent. Small Business Economics, 25(2), 159–174. Forbes (2005). Available at www.forbes.com (accessed on 29 April 2005). Foster, W. (1986). The application of single subject research methods to the study of exceptional ability and extraordinary achievement. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(1), 333–337. Fraser S., & Greene, F. J. (2006). The effects of experience on entrepreneurial optimism and uncertainty. Economica, 73(290), 169–192. Freeman, J. (2000). Families, the essential context for gifts and talents. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), The International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 573–585). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Frey, D. (1978). Science and the single case in counselling research. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 56, 263–268. Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books.

38

On Entrepreneurial Giftedness

Hamel, G. (1999). Bringing Silicon Valley inside. Harvard Business Review, Sep-Oct, 71–84. Henrekson, M. (2005). Entrepreneurship: a weak link in the welfare state? Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3), 437–467. Henrekson, M. (2006). Entrepreneurship and the welfare state: a reply. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15(3), 579–593. Howe, M. J. A. (1990). The origin of exceptional abilities. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Howe, M. J. A. (1993). The early lives of child prodigies. In G. R. Bock & K. Ackrill (Eds.), The origins and development of high ability (pp.85–105). Chichester: Wiley. Huffman, D., & Quigley, J. M. (2002). The role of the university in attracting high tech entrepreneurship: A Silicon Valley tale. Annals of Regional Science, 36(3), 403–419. Kholodnaya, M. A. (1997). The psychology of intelligence. Moscow: APN Press. Krishnamurthy, (1998). How do firms come to be? Towards a theory of the pre-firm. Doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Leonard, D., & Swap, W. (2000). Gurus in the garage. Harvard Business Review, 78(6), 71–82. Lewis, M., & Michalson, L. (1985). The gifted infant. In J. Freeman (Ed.), The psychology of gifted children (pp. 35–57). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Lowenstein, R. (1996). Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist. New York: Main Street Books. McCurdy, H. G. (1992). The childhood pattern of genius. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius and eminence (pp. 155–169). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Rabinowitz, M., & Glaser, R. (1985). Cognitive structure and process in highly competent performance. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented (pp.75–97). Washington, DC: APA. Radford, J. (1990). The problem of the prodigy. In M. J. A. Howe (Ed.), Encouraging the development of exceptional skills and talents (pp. 32–48). Leicester: British Psychological Society. Robinson, A., & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1998). Giftedness: An exceptionality examined. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 117–139. Schneider, W. (1993). Domain-specific knowledge and memory performance in children. Educational Psychology Review, 5(3), 257–273.

807 Shavinina, L. V. (1997). Extremely early high abilities, sensitive periods, and the development of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 8(2), 245–256. Shavinina, L. V. (1999). The psychological essence of the child prodigy phenomenon: Sensitive periods and cognitive experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(1), 25–38. Shavinina, L. V. (2004). Silicon Valley North: The High Tech Cluster of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Shavinina, L. V. (2006). Micro-social factors in the development of entrepreneurial giftedness: The case of Richard Branson. High Ability Studies, 17(2), 225–235. Shavinina, L. V. (2007a). Early childhood and adolescent education of Nobel Laureates in science: Implications for classroom practice. Paper presented at the World Conference on Giftedness (9 August, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK). Shavinina, L. V. (2007b). From entrepreneurial giftedness to innovation education for the gifted. Workshop presentation at the World Conference on Giftedness (8 August, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK). Shavinina, L. V., & Kholodnaya, M. A. (1996). The cognitive experience as a psychological basis of intellectual giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(1), 4–33. Simon, H. A. (2002). Achieving excellence in institutions. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The Pursuit of Excellence through Education (pp. 181–194). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Simonton, D. K. (1978). The eminent genius in history. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22(2), 187–195 . Simonton, D. K. (1999). Significant samples: The psychological study of eminent individuals. Psychological Methods, 4, 425–451. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (1995). Defying the crowd. New York: Free Press. Storfer, M. D. (1990). Intelligence and giftedness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Giftedness: a psychosocial approach. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 21–52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. von Ardenne, M. (1996). Facilitating the development of talents. In A. J. Cropley & D. Dehn (Eds.), Fostering the Growth of High Ability: European Perspectives (pp. 29–39). Nortwood, NJ: Ablex. Wallace, J., & Erickson J. (1992). Hard Drive. New York, NY: Harper Business.

Chapter 39

Ilk Hunting: Newbies, Cyberpunks, Coders and the Search for Elusive, Ego-Twisted, Talented Computer Hackers Thomas E. Heinzen and Louis M. Picciano

ternet powers, both real and imagined. But there is a positive side. Talented computer hackers also advance pure computer knowledge, demonstrate the applicability of a good theory, clarify the ethical boundaries of creativity (by muddying the concept of giftedness), and profoundly threaten the integrity of the democratic voting process while simultaneously providing protection against those threats. That is a heady cocktail of possible outcomes that suggests that hackers are far more than a rude annoyance. Hackers are a powerful, creative, social force that may be used for both positive and negative outcomes. We need to understand them. Such potentially creative power can be an intoxicating mixture for the young men who seem to be demographically over-represented among the hacker population. So, it is easy to speculate that psychologically immature individuals gain gleeful pleasure at Keywords Context-sensitive revelation · Creative the trouble that they can cause for millions of people play · Creative vandalism · Child curiosity · Coders · with the mere touch of a finger on a keyboard. Our purpose in this chapter is to lure the reclusive comCrackers · Computer hackers puter hacker out of the shadows and into the light of understanding by mixing our own irresistible cocktail of theory, participant observation, and speculation. Introduction To accomplish that goal, this chapter puts three theories (the social psychology of creativity, motivational To everyday computer users, computer hackers repre- need hierarchy, and social identity theory) in a blender, sent the dark side of creative computer talent. Hack- mixes them with principles of developmental psycholers and their ilk send viruses that ruin our work, con- ogy, adds measured insights from participant observasume our time, abscond with our money, publicize tions, and then tosses in a dash of speculation to reach dangerous information, and steal our identity. Further- its social-psychologically informed conclusions. Each more, they persistently lurk in our collective psyche of these sometimes counter-intuitive conclusions only and feed our anxieties by virtue of their intrusive in- makes sense within the context of a social psychology of creativity (Amabile, 1996), so we begin our effort to understand talented computer hackers by reviewing T.E. Heinzen (B) the general social psychological framework for underWilliam Paterson University of New Jersey, NJ, USA standing behavior. e-mail: [email protected] Abstract Talented computer hackers enjoy leverage within the larger computing community, a level of influence that may be turned toward both positive and negative activities. Hackers, however, are differentiated along several characteristics. So, this effort to understand talented computer hackers (1) reviews a taxonomy of computer hackers; (2) blends three theories (the social psychology of creativity, social identity theory, and a motivational hierarchy of needs); (3) reports empirical findings regarding the demographic characteristics, social roles, and personality observations of hackers; and (4) adds observations from a long-time participant in the IT culture. We use the social psychology of creativity to offer three propositions that can contribute to our understanding and management of talented computer hackers.

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 39, 

809

810

T.E. Heinzen and L.M. Picciano

Social Psychology as a Framework for Understanding Talented Computer Hackers The social psychology of anything, including the behavior of creative computer hackers, explains behavior by going beyond exclusively personality-driven, individual difference explanations. It is not that personality does not matter. To the contrary, the key to understanding personality via social psychology is usually in the verb. So, for example, the key to understanding the social psychology of creative computer hackers is that situations can overwhelm, shape, and reveal the individual differences that inspire one hacker to wreak havoc and another to provide protection. That is, hackers themselves do not know how much they need affiliation with others or the professional recognition made possible by social comparisons with others until they find themselves in a situation (of their own creating) that reveals themselves to themselves. This modest yet profound social psychological insight – that situations can overwhelm, shape, and reveal personality – leads us to three propositions whose rationale constitutes the remainder of this chapter. Computer hackers 1. Vary in their psychological need for affiliation and recognition 2. Require situations to reveal their individual levels of need 3. Enjoy hacking because it facilitates multiple levels of self-discovery In other words, we are proposing that a significant portion of the appeal of computer hacking is that it is an intrinsically rewarding journey of self-discovery. For all of us, the revelation of who we are remains a compelling, motivating drama, even when what we discover about ourselves may not be very pleasant. Gifted computer hackers and their ilk vary in their need for affiliation and recognition along a spectrum that is energized by a gleeful catch-me-if-you-can attitude. One end of the spectrum is anchored by a high need for affiliation and recognition (recognition cannot happen without some form of affiliation) and ac-

companied by a desperate “Please do not make me do something drastic in order to be recognized” plea. Its polar opposite is anchored by a very low need for affiliation and recognition and accompanied by an almost missionary “It is my job to make your computer defenses better for your own sake” attitude. Both extremes would seem to contain potential for both great harm and great benefit to the computing community because they are, by definition, out of balance. Needs for affiliation and recognition, of course, represent those portions of Maslow’s motivational hierarchy of needs (see Maslow, 1958, 1943 for original descriptions of his theory) that correspond to love needs and esteem needs as precursors for self-actualization. So, where an individual hacker falls along the spectrum of need (illustrated in Fig. 39.1) for affiliation and recognition likely shapes their behavior toward the rest of us, at least to some degree. Our second proposition is that the talented, creative computer hackers cannot know where they will fall on this personality spectrum until an interacting situation overwhelms, shapes, and reveals their own personality to themselves. Self-knowledge through the interaction between situations and personality-driven mental constructions of those situations is one of social psychology’s core insights even as it continues to be an evolving debate (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). For example, both the guards and the prisoners in the famous mock prison experiment at Stanford University (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973) tended toward three types of behavior. Guards tended to adopt a guard role as tough guy, a firm but fair guard, or a compliant follower; prisoners tended to take on the role of rebel, cooperative negotiator or they were pathetically compliant. Whether these represented pre-existing, latent personality types or psychologically coerced social roles may be a distinction in name only. In either case, the follow-up interviews with the participating individuals in the study suggested that they were all surprised by their own behavior. So, both theory and an experimentally controlled demonstration suggest that an individual hacker does not really know how he or she will behave until they find themselves in a situation of poten-

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Low needs for affiliation/recognition

High needs for affiliation/recognition

Fig. 39.1 The degree of need for affiliation and recognition can shape the behavior of talented computer hackers

39

Ilk Hunting

tial social influence within the computing community – a situation that they created for themselves via hacking. That is why our third proposition is that talented computer hacking is a process of co-discovery (discovering new aspects of the self while hacking toward solutions of computer problems) that explains the life-encompassing, intrinsically motivating efforts that characterize hackers. Hackers are hard workers who, as we can now document, tend to be undeterred by minimal financial and organizational support as they persevere in their chosen tasks. Only some powerful combination of intrinsically motivating conditions can account for such depth of commitment. We are proposing that hacker talent is animated by the process of co-discovery: the internal fascination of layered selfdiscovery that results from the external achievement of successful hacking. The act of computer hacking contributes to the hacker’s sense of self in many different ways: as technically competent, as the kind of person who rises to a difficult challenge, as therefore acceptable to the community of hackers, and as particularly talented within their domain – and that provides them with meaningful comparative information regarding their level of creative talent compared to others (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). So, not only does hacking provide intrinsic satisfaction to the hacker, it also yields intrinsically fascinating information about mental capabilities and relative creativity compared to other hackers.

Hacker Ilk: A Taxonomy We have already alluded to some of the research that suggests who the hackers are and what kind of world they live in. Fortunately, the ilk have names, but let us first review the clues provided by the empirical literature regarding hackers’ demographics, social roles, and personality. First, the demographic profile suggests that hackers tend to be juveniles, 12–30 years old (Yar, 2005), from a middle-class background, and are predominantly male Caucasians (Chandler, 1996). The maleness of the hacker culture has been attributed to the internet’s image as a frontier opportunity calling on evolutionary-ascribed male attributes (Adam, 2003). Second, their social role as hackers tends to be as pranksters (∼70%) prone to leave calling cards and taunts rather than destructive time bombs, with the balancing (∼30%) mostly politically motivated. Third,

811

while some assert that hackers do not appear to be the stereotypically lonely, isolated, asocial individual (Woo, Kim, & Dominick, 2004), Rogers (2002) summarizes the research of others (Littman, 1995; Hafner & Markoff, 1995; Sterling, 1992) that finds hackers to be “loners, who have limited social skills and perform poorly in school. . .are usually not career oriented, but show an aptitude with computers and other electronic equipment.” So, while the personality pathology of hackers may be only a stereotype, it is not surprising that a distinctive sociology of hackers has nevertheless evolved with customs, traditions, ethical expectations, and a distinct sense of identity (Jordan & Taylor, 1998). Perhaps more importantly, for many hackers the intrinsic attraction of hacking is that it produces a creative sense of “flow” that corresponds to Maslow’s notion of self-actualization. Curiously, this satisfying condition seems to be experienced more by the most competent and the least competent hackers but hardly at all by hackers of moderate talents (Voiskounsky & Smyslova, 2003). Lakhani & Wolf (2005) confirmed this important, intrinsic feature of hackers in a web-based survey administered to 684 software developers in 287 F/OSS projects. They wanted to understand the motivation behind these highly skilled, well-established professional programmers. They concluded that “enjoyment-based intrinsic motivation, namely how creative a person feels when working on the project, is the strongest and most pervasive driver. We also find that user need, intellectual stimulation derived from writing code, and improving programming skills are top motivators for project participation.” Writing code is experienced as an emotionally positive, intellectually engaging, cognitively challenging activity that absorbs their attention and thereby nourishes their creative potential. So, whatever their demographic, social role, or personality profile might prove to be in the long run, we have this possible insight that both the beginning as well as the best hackers are attracted to computer hacking, in part, by the creative experience of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999). Despite the possibility of asocial tendencies, Rogers notes that “the larger hacker community contains several groups or clubs that these individuals belong to. . .the hacker community holds yearly conventions to discuss attacks and law enforcement efforts to control their activity.” So, the emerging picture

812

of hackers is a diverse group of individuals with contradictory impulses for isolation and community, accompanied by an attraction to creative flow inherent in the experience of rising to a difficult challenge. In short, they sound rather normal: complicated people who are trying to find meaning in the work of their everyday lives. What is abnormal about hackers is the relative ease and degree with which they can influence the daily lives of millions of other people. In this computer-intense, information-age economy, we can safely assert one compelling feature of computer hackers: talented hackers have leverage. Since hackers display wide individual differences in personality, capability, and motivation, it is not surprising that Rogers reminds us that the term hacker is constantly evolving, is overly general, and consequently not very useful. He provided both a taxonomic history and an updated taxonomy of hackers that seems to have gained some level of acceptance since it was first proposed. Specifically, Rogers notes the several features of previous efforts to organize the sub-types within the community of hackers, the often hierarchical nature of these descriptive attempts, the implied values within each organizing scheme, and the often negative psychological attributions frequently assigned to hackers. He offered the following perspective on hackers and their sub-types (in other words, the ilk), organized by technical ability from the lowest (NT) to the highest (OG, CT): 1.

2.

3.

4.

T.E. Heinzen and L.M. Picciano

5. Old-guard hackers (OG) are also more technically advanced and, according to Rogers’s understanding, “appear to have no criminal intent although there is an alarming disrespect for personal property.” They are more motivated by the intellectual endeavor of hacking than material rewards; Rogers’ title implies that they represent older members of the hacking community who uphold some of the ethical standards and in-group cultural mores. 6. Professional criminals (PC). 7. Cyber-terrorists (CT) are identified by Rogers as “probably the most dangerous. They are professional criminals and ex-intelligence operatives who are guns for hire. . . are usually extremely well trained, and have access to state of the art equipment.”

Rogers dutifully notes that there has been little empirical research and that understanding the world of hackers is complicated by misleading media attention that focuses on cyberpunks. It seems clear that individual hacker talent exists as part of a larger sub-culture, in spite of the self-isolating nature of hacking. It is not clear, however, whether hackers display more personal pathology than exists in the general population; it seems likely that hackers with a pathological urge to harm others gain the lion’s share of media attention and from the general computing community. So, the stereotype of the asocial, alienated computer hacker may have some validity, but it is simply too soon from a research perspective to determine if the convenient, Newbie/tool kit (NT), also called script kiddies, demedia-driven stereotype is shaping our impressions or scribes hackers who rely on software created by if hackers are just like the rest of us in terms of personothers to attack computer users. ality, but happen to be engaged in an activity that is poCyberpunks (CP), also called crackers (Parker, sitioned to influence our world more broadly. In either 1998), are more advanced than Newbies, break into case, we can turn our attention back to the social psyphone systems (phreakers) and commit “malicious chology of the hacking community, how it influences (computer) acts such as web defacement, credit individual hackers, and what, if anything, we can learn card number theft, telecommunication fraud, or about their collective behavior. spamming” (Arief & Besnard, 2003). Internals (IT) are unhappy employees or former employees who use their inside organizational knowledge and technology skills to attack targeted users. Take Three Theories: A Social Rogers asserts that this group accounts for most of Psychological Model of Creativity, Social the computer-related criminal activity identified by Identity Theory, and a Motivational Power (1998) and have been called “dangerous inHierarchy of Needs siders” by Post, Shaw & Ruby (1998). Coders (CD) appear to be technically more advanced and perhaps be motivated by more complex Three theories within social psychology articulate how to find and influence talented computer hackers – and aspirations.

39

Ilk Hunting

the identified point of influence is in evolving situations rather than in enduring personality, where most people expect it to be. The first theory articulates that a particular talent, such as expert programming skills, is not sufficient for creativity because it is only part of one of three components necessary and sufficient for the creation of novel outcomes and products (Amabile, 1983). The second theory reminds us that selfidentity is fluid and socially influenced (Onorato & Turner, 2004). Social identity theory suggests that creative computer hackers’ sense of self depends on a mixture of their personal identity (what they believe about themselves) plus their social identity (their social affiliations that shape what they believe others believe about them) and how they look by comparison (Suls, Martin, & Wheeler, 2002). The third theory implies that hackers are developmentally moving from affiliation to esteem to self-actualization. Self-actualization realized via computer hacking may also sound counter-intuitive but our participant observations described below, empirical research, and theoretical predictions all make such a humanistic model of developmental growth a plausible explanation. Merging these models suggests a way to understand computer hackers in a developmental context that allows us to predict the course of their activity over time. Merging these models also clarifies the most vulnerable point at which we might successfully influence harmful hackers toward better community behavior. That is, by understanding and addressing needs for social recognition at a particular point in their personal development, we can maximize the probability of influencing hackers to use their talents to benefit both themselves and the larger community of computer users.

813

vation, an internally driven involvement in the task at hand, which can be influenced significantly by the social environment. Different types of giftedness, in this definition, are embedded with the domain-relevant component and the creativity-relevant component. So, if we look to capability alone, then we will never find creativity and certainly fail to understand the creative force that hackers represent. So, the social psychology of creativity 1. places gifted computer talent within a broader, conceptual framework that acknowledges giftedness as only one of three necessary components needed to actually realize creativity (Amabile, 1983; Amabile, 1996) 2. clarifies that the fundamental attribution bias leads all of us to explain gifted computer talent as a virtuous, stable, personality-driven trait rather than the potentially harmful, malleable, situation-sensitive phenomenon it really is (Heinzen, 1995) 3. creates opportunities for intelligent interventions, if they are called for

Social Identity Theory

Our sense of self does not develop in a vacuum (Tajfel, 1974; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Our sense of who we are is birthed and nurtured within a setting established by significant others such as parents; it then matures within a shifting, social dynamic composed of siblings, peers, and authority figures such as fellow students, family members, and teachers; and it is maintained through choices that invoke constant social comparisons with neighbors and co-workers. Social identity theory simply asserts that our sense of A Social Psychological Model of Creativity self results from the mixture of our private sense of self plus our public sense of self influenced by our Amabile (1983, 1996) formally developed the social various group affiliations. psychology of creativity into three necessary and sufFor example, regardless of whatever their private ficient components. For example, she demonstrated sense of self may contain, academics at prestigious resome of the model’s descriptive ability in an analysis search institutions carry within them a different social of John Irving’s strengths as a novelist (Amabile, 2001) identity than academics at a small liberal arts teachand explained that the three components are domain- ing university, and both institutions confer on their prorelevant skills, competencies and talents applicable to fessors a different identity than that communicated to the domain or domains in which the individual is work- those who teach at a comprehensive state university. ing; creativity-relevant processes, the personality char- To some academics, their affiliation is crucial to their acteristics, cognitive styles, and work habits that pro- sense of identity, and their self-esteem would suffer if mote creativity in any domain; and intrinsic task moti- they taught in a community college rather than at a

814

T.E. Heinzen and L.M. Picciano

world famous institution. The effects of an interacting situation become apparent with a mere thought experiment: How would the individual professor’s sense of self change if he or she were fired from the world famous institution and could only find work at the local community college? Real estate agents are similarly sensitive to the social identity attached to the panache of buying a home in a particular neighborhood, especially when an identical home in a different neighborhood carries less monetary value. Real estate agents make a great deal of money through their everyday recognition of the importance of social identity theory. So, any individual’s sense of self is a mixture of these two sources of self-identity: the private and the public. To complicate matters, some individuals care very little about what the rest of the world thinks of them, but may care very deeply about a sub-set of their peers. That is why social identity theory poses an interesting problem in its effort to describe and understand computer hackers whose tasks isolate them from others, restrict many of their peer comparisons to virtual relationships, and limit their opportunity for broad-based social comparisons. That is why we propose that one of the relevant individual difference variables that shape the behavior of computer hackers is their need for affiliation and recognition.

tion to recognition). The pull of self-actualization via the strange allure of computer hacking is as powerful as it is available (literally at their fingertips as they touch their keyboards). So this developmental context provides the larger frame within which these powerful, psychological transitions are occurring. Merging these models, the social psychology of creativity and social identity theory, in terms of the need for recognition, produces the result represented in Table 39.1 and articulates the need for a developmental perspective with regard to how we might best respond to particular types of computer hackers. For example, domain-relevant skills refer to the particular programming capabilities and level of competence noted by Rogers’ taxonomy. Some hackers are simply more accomplished than others. That is necessary but insufficient for creative hackers, no matter how talented they might be. Creativity-relevant processes refer to the cognitive ability to perceive and respond to familiar stimuli in a distinctive way, to solve the problem efficiently, to have work habits conducive to creativity, and to add that extra something that is stereotypically associated with creative individuals. But these creative inclinations are also insufficient to produce innovative computer solutions. Even when combined with a high skill level, we merely have creative potential but without anything original and effective actually being produced. The third component that is both necessary and, in combination with the two other components, sufficient for creativity is intrinsic task motivation. The debate A Motivational Hierarchy of Needs following Amabile’s (1983) initial presentation of the componential social psychological model of creativity The relevant developmental perspective supplied by focused on intrinsic task motivation. Others asked the Maslow’s familiar hierarchy of needs is that hack- question that Amabile had been aware of all along, ers are changing. More specifically, we are propos- what we might call the “Great Performer” question: ing that their needs change from one stage to another What constitutes intrinsic motivation? For example, within the middle of Maslow’s hierarchy (from affilia- some people as well as individuals working in particuTable 39.1 A blended model: The social psychology of creativity and a developmental/motivational model articulating how to influence talented computer hackers

Domain-relevant skills

High need for affiliation/recognition

Low need for affiliation/recognition

Creativity-relevant processes

Intrinsic task motivation

39

Ilk Hunting

lar domains (such as poetry) might find competition to be a distraction that undermines creativity; for others (such as athletes), competition is itself the intrinsically motivating feature; keeping score at anything triggers their creativity. So Amabile’s (1996) update allowed “certain extrinsic motivators, which support competence development and deep involvement in the work,” creating what she refers to as “motivational synergy.” So, according to Amabile’s componential model, the necessary and sufficient components for creative computer hackers are a high skill level, a largely cognitive ability to perceive and pursue new solutions, and an intrinsically motivating involvement in the task itself. So, where is the optimal point of influencing a computer hacker? According to this merging of models, domain-relevant skills seem unlikely to change, regardless of an individual’s need for recognition or affiliation. We suppose we could initiate a drastic action such as cutting off a malevolent hacker’s hands to suppress their skills, but that would surely drive them (motivationally) deeper into hiding. Besides, hackers enjoy having and developing their domain-relevant skills. A second opportunity similarly destined for ineffectiveness is to intervene with their creativity-relevant skills. We suppose we could keep malevolent hackers in comatose states through various chemical restraints, but there is more than a small ethical problem with so ridiculous (but historically effective) techniques for managing those who trouble us (Winship, 2006). Furthermore, that would likely inspire the rebel role among some portion of talented computer hackers and, once again, drive them (motivationally) deeper into hiding. So, the remaining and optimal point of intervention, if there is one, is likely to be motivational because a punishment model for management is not going to be effective generally, and probably reactive if applied to talented computer hackers. In short, these merged models propose that the best thing we can do for ourselves in terms of managing talented computer hackers is to give them what they want by focusing on the motivational component of creativity. This is important because we need to remember that (a) hackers are probably more creative than you at their task and (b) they have leverage. So, if the need for affiliation or recognition is very low, attempting to satisfy that need will be difficult; instead, give them the complicated, cognitive computer challenge they crave. Trust them. On the other hand, if the need for affilia-

815

tion or recognition is high, then provide them with social comparisons and role models of individual hackers who devoted their talents to a socially positive outcome. For example, if a hacker fits the troublesome profile of an Internal (a resentful employee with inside knowledge), then the smartest thing for a manager to do is to acknowledge that the hacker has leverage and find out what it is they are fighting for, or help the hacker to discover it for him/herself. Listen for what the hacker really wants, because he (or she) is probably trying to tell you through their taunts and computer surprises. The industries of civil dispute mediation, conflict resolution, and divorce mediation rest upon this old but still vibrant psychological truth: People want to be heard, so allow them their day in court (Erickson & McKnight, 2001). The motivational component is your target as well when you provide them with social comparisons by embedding stories of equally or more talented computer hackers who have turned their skills to social good. Hackers are talented, committed, and motivated individuals. As a manager, it is your job to direct rather than suppress that talent.

Alternative Developmental Contexts Developmental psychology offers more than one larger context regarding the search for understanding the emergence and disappearance of talented computer hackers. Yar’s (2005) observation that computer hackers tend to be young calls for a list of possible explanations. Here are some overlapping possibilities:

1. Hacking is a distracting adolescent coping mechanism that declines with maturity (Li, DeGiuseppe, & Froh, 2006). 2. The fascination of hacking corresponds with a developmental burst of neural connections and therefore becomes less interesting in postadolescence (Lewis & Gonzalez-Burgos, 2000; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Sisk & Foster, 2004). 3. Hacking satisfies similar needs in non-athletic adolescent boys the same way sports does for athletic boys (Thurlow, 2002).

816

T.E. Heinzen and L.M. Picciano

4. Hacking is an adaptive response to shifting cultural has been active in various aspects of Information influences on ways to establish a sense of identity Technologies since the early 1980s – including sysduring adolescence (Baumeister & Muraven, 1996). tems analysis, design, and development in a variety of enterprise-scale large database environments. As a We suggested that hacking is appealing on many lev- medical doctor and IT consultant, he consulted within els and developmental psychology expands the list of the pharmaceutical and medical industries across a self-identity functions that hacking might serve. Our time of profound transformations and has a unique intuition guides us toward a focus on how hacking ad- perspective on the history of IT, hacking, and efforts to dresses needs for affiliation and recognition, an activ- resist hackers. He has also served in various business ity that fits with adolescent identity development. How- roles and exercised responsibility for identifying, ever, if talented computer hackers are finding multiple recruiting, and mentoring talent from a wide range levels of satisfaction in the process of self-discovery, of skills and backgrounds and has had significant we would expect that the appeal of hacking would de- hands-on experience managing inspiration. cline as those needs are satisfied in various ways. On So, we can offer here an insider’s perspective on the other hand, if hacking offers a persistent, approach- (1) the distinction between hackers and hacks; (2) how able path to the goal of self-actualization, it could be- the experience of joy in hacking creates an opportunity come a life-long commitment. But most of these de- for intelligent management of talented computer hackvelopmental perspectives suggest that if your goal is ers; (3) how Microsoft’s omnipresence helped nourto manage malevolent hackers, then the odds are that ish the role of hacker as anti-establishment rebel; (4) they will eventually grow out of it – at the same time a short history of computer hacking; (5) the resulting that some younger boy is discovering that hacking can hacker ethos; and (6) speculation into the future of satisfy multiple needs of a vigorous, adolescent brain computer hacking. Taken together, these observations straining to discover its limits within a social context. support Amabile’s model of the three necessary and So, our propositions have some support from the sufficient components for creativity – an assertion of research literature; it is at least plausible that hackers the value of having a social psychology of creativity to (1) vary in their psychological need for affiliation and help us understand talented computer hackers. Morerecognition; (2) require situations to reveal their indi- over, these observations of hackers and the hacker culvidual levels of need; and (3) enjoy hacking because ture clarify that the hacker ethos hinges on the drama it promotes multiple levels of self-discovery. So, let us of a developing self-identity that shapes the decisions turn to the most vivid and possibly the least trustworthy hackers make about themselves: specifically, what kind source of evidence that tests these propositions: partic- of hacker and, more profoundly, what kind of person ipant observation. Even though there are hacker con- they choose to be. Given the leverage hackers exercise ventions, hacking itself is a fairly reclusive activity and every time we log on to our computers, hackers will be 13-year-olds are unlikely to have the capability of mak- able to profoundly influence the rest of us. ing it to Las Vegas, much less expressing a willingness to participate in our studies. So, participant observation may be one of the best ways to observe hackers and learn what we can about their strange craft and its Hackers Versus Hacks potent attractions. As hackers have grown up, some of them have taken, dare we say it, real jobs. Simultaneously, even the term hacker itself has taken on a new, relatively positive conParticipant Observations of Intrinsic notation so that it is now worn as a badge of honor Motivation Among Computer Hackers within the community that marks an informally accredited expert in his/her field. In any case, the term hacker In our effort to concoct a mixture of approaches that should never be confused with “hack.” Far from it! To can lure hackers into the light of understanding, we be accepted in this close-knit community, the hacker now inject a dash of potent participant observations has already proven his chops; his/her domain-relevant from an insider’s perspective. One of the authors (L.P.) skills have long since been tested. One of the best case

39

Ilk Hunting

studies for this evolution is that of Richard Stallman. Author of Free Software, Free Society, Stallman (2002) left his job, in 1984, to form the Free Software Foundation, an organization based on the principle that all software should be free – to be copied, explored and, most importantly, improved for the benefit of all users. Before this, Stallman earned a BA in physics at Harvard. Was Stallman just another talented youth? Perhaps, but how many college students can also lay claim to the title “Staff Hacker” at MIT’s Artificial Intelligence Lab? (Stallman, 1996). We can, therefore, recognize that while his intrinsic motivation will have been to effect real social change, Stallman’s exploits have gained him worldwide acclaim as one of the great personalities of hacking, more than satisfying any need for extrinsic acknowledgement. To this day, MIT’s Artificial Intelligence Lab stands as a major center for creative thinking in many areas of technology. Humancentered computing, genomics, computer–neural connectivity, and synthetic brains are just a few of its current areas of research. It is interesting that the word “hacking” never appears on the center’s web site, while hacking is, essentially, its core mission (MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, 2007). Still, who is the hacker? Given Stallman’s history, there may be no better definition of hacker than his own: “Someone who loves to program and enjoys being clever about it” (Stallman, 1998). Granted: targeted, malevolent computer attacks draw the attention of the media and law enforcement, in addition to the ire of users. Stallman and others, however, are quick to point out that these activities should not be considered hacking (Dibona, Ockman & Stone, 1999). And if the fear of being shunned by one’s tribal unit has been thought of as the most likely source of social anxiety, we can even draw parallels between the hacker’s need to belong with our most primitive, fundamental survival instincts. Goleman (2006) has invoked Canetti’s (1973) landmark study, Crowds and Power, in suggesting how a common passion can lead to unified action in the sometimes high-stakes arena in which hackers play; that this need to belong to a crowd is as primitive an instinct as that for survival, corresponding to our suggestion that the needs for affiliation and recognition have deep roots in a hacker’s social identity. In this context, we can more easily understand his single passion/common emotion model of motivations for excellence in such a community.

817

The Joy of Hacking: A Seduction In Hackers, Steven Levy (1984) traces the origins of hackerdom to MIT’s Tech Model Railroad Club (that’s right, model trains!) and a wonderful example of university-level creative play: To add over-engineered elegance to run train signals and track power on their elaborate micro-worlds, TMRC members turned to the best tech toy they could find: MIT’s newly purchased – and implausibly powerful – DEC (Digital Equipment Corp.) minicomputer. The spirit of hacking may have emerged from this simple joy of mischievous creation. Understanding when and how these motivations emerge in young minds can probably be turned around to advantage. If we choose to nourish talented hackers, the educational system could dare to provide open laboratories (such industry test beds are often called sandboxes), including all the tools and reinforcements necessary to supplant the current underground system, and thereby expand itself by meeting the hacker’s need to belong. These digital safe-havens would support – and even reward – all forms of creative thinking, while precluding any risk to the outside world. Granted, though this may remove some of the appeal of hacking, we would suggest this loss would be more than offset – in the minds of young hackers – by benefits flowing from affiliation with and recognition by their peers and teachers; after all, how often are schools able to encourage an activity notoriously associated with bad behavior? Moreover, since computing technology races ahead and generations of gifted youth arrive eager to exploit it, our educational system will need to provide these resources on an ever-earlier basis; for talented computer hackers, the high-school level is probably much too late for such intelligent social support to keep up. Hackers experience a powerful “Aha” moment of discovery that, in turn, leads them to discover others who understand their unique experience. Hackers then become seduced and socialized into the hacker community through films like The Matrix (Silver, Wachowski, L. & Wachowski, A. 1999) that glamorize and invite viewers into the inner sanctum of their mysterious, dark, and beautiful world. But it is more than just a virtual world in which the hacker matches wits with the darkest possibilities of technological evolution – an establishment run amok, in which prescient machines now control the humans. So their

818

joy in hacking seduces them into something like an occult society that thrives in utter secrecy while still remaining in full view. Its denizens are armed only with pseudonyms, their wits, and a good broadband connection. The Matrix, for example, brings us through an entire developmental cycle of the hacker’s self-realization, from his struggle for individual identity and group acceptance through to discovery of purpose. We are presented personifications of the hacker as good guy, hero, and, eventually, messiah, calling on the same everimportant themes of self-discovery, redemption and salvation which have driven story lines across generations of story-telling (Picciano, 1974). Simply understanding that there is joy in hacking can help us make sense and shape talented computer hackers. Like an addiction, the experience of joy seduces hackers into striving deeper into the intellectual commitment needed to experience that same joy once again.

From MIT to Microsoft: Nourishing the Role of the Rebel At the advent of what would become the Internet, DEC machines, and the operating systems which ran them, provided the communications backbone between research institutions and government. Originally envisaged as a mechanism for protecting essential government communications and data in time of war, the ARPAnet itself emerged as the perfect target, catalyst, and distribution medium for the emerging hacker rebellion. In the archetypical paradigm shift (a phrase which still stands as the encapsulated, bare-bones mission statement of the hacker ethos), MIT students were allowed the bold step of tossing the DEC operating system altogether, setting out to write their own from scratch, and even daring to make it incompatible with standards of the day. The hacker’s rebellious spirit was in its infancy, but developing: Why should a computer run only one operating system – the closed, proprietary one provided by people we do not know – people beyond our tribe? Or, more probably: Why should it have to? Can we not do this better? To its credit, MIT encouraged these questions and provided fertile ground in which to cultivate the answers, allowing their students free rein in their exercise

T.E. Heinzen and L.M. Picciano

of creative vandalism. It was this cocktail: a healthy shot of intellectual arrogance, the chops to back it up, and the willingness to question everything, whipped up in the blender of a supportive environment, which would change forever the future of computing. Here, at the core of the hacker ethos, is the same questioning of all assumption – a twist on the leaps of imagination which may be near the core of creativity. This digital tribalism is a fundamental blend of well-worn motivators: Us Versus Them, Not Invented Here, and a variation on the theme of defining tribe as an extended family, in this case, a close cohort of colleagues working toward – even hunting – a common purpose. The parallels in the motivations driving these close-knit microsocieties with those of our ancient extended family units cannot be escaped. Both groups are driven by the same search for identity and common purpose, in essence, for survival. The risks to the individual of being ostracized by the tribal unit, whether on an African savannah, in the developing social sense of an adolescent whiz kid, or in the reputation-conscious halls of academia, drive and elicit the same primal motivators and anxieties. To the dispassionate viewer, the hacker’s crusade – to effect real change – might sometimes seem not far from religious zeal. One illustration of how this zeal may be targeted – in this case as “Get Microsoft!” – is provided by Taylor (2006) in his blog: ‘you have a Raggedy Andy-type doll of Bill Gates that you stick long pins into, and your PC screensaver is an animation of a large ape atop the Empire State Building with Bill Gates in a death grip. . .’

But Microsoft is only the latest Goliath in this epic battle; this anti-establishment preoccupation traces its origins to the very earliest days of computing, and it can be no accident that the richest period of innovation in the computer industry was an early, if not inevitable, follow-on to the profound social changes centered in the areas around San Francisco. It was probably inevitable that the apple of this rebellious spirit would not fall far from its tree, choosing a home in what would become Silicon Valley. So, UNIX, IBM, and Microsoft play the role of The Establishment in a drama that demands the role of a rebel. Talented computer hackers are our countless Davids, usually adolescent males developing their own sense of identity, discovering a pre-existing social role as neatly prescribed as that of a prisoner or guard in Zimbardo’s famous prison simulation.

39

Ilk Hunting

A Short History of Hacking: An Evolving Ethos

819

September 1991, when a relatively unknown young hacker, in a faraway land, the son of radical communists and grandson of a poet, published the first kernel of the nascent operating system to a mostly oblivious world. He did not predict his own impact: “I’m doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be big and professional. . .” (Hagib, 1999). But Linus Torvalds’ contribution – in the form of new, original software code and, more importantly, the philosophy that the work would be made available – for free – to anyone who wanted it, would revolutionize the computer industry virtually overnight, sending seismic waves through the halls of IBM, Microsoft, Sun, Hewlett-Packard, and others. Only a short time earlier, an entrepreneurially minded college dropout and his partner had purchased the precursor of the Disk Operating System (DOS) from a Seattle hacker, which would become the basis of a computing empire. By some accounts, Bill Gates paid only $50K for a piece of software which, through a bit of deft marketing, would ultimately run the vast majority of desktop computers worldwide within only a few years. Microsoft’s death grip on desktop computing – users had no choice but to pay for DOS and, eventually, Windows – would leave many users feeling both underserved and trapped, planting the seed for the next wave of hackers. In keeping with the hacker spirit, Torvald’s role as Project Coordinator over development of the Linux kernel has been titled Benevolent Dictator for Life. Making the jump into popular culture, Torvalds was personified as the #1 hacker in the world, as the character Axl Torvalds in the 2001 film Swordfish. If hackers are a community, let us take a look at the social contract they share. Shortly after his arrest, another early hacker, known as The Mentor (Blankenship, 1986), offered perhaps the best early insight into the mind of a hacker:

To understand how such motivations against, for example, Microsoft could have evolved, we should look at some of the history of hacking. Most historians (Ward, 2000) will trace the roots of hacker culture to a confluence of events and effects. While the hacker ethos was evolving within several contexts simultaneously, with small tribal units developing at a number of research universities, these islands of creativity were yet to coalesce into one, cohesive force. No one thing could have done more to propagate and intensify the impact of hacker culture than the ARPAnet. Its impact on the acceleration and cross-pollination of technological research, with the attendant follow-on benefits reaped by these institutions and society as a whole, cannot be overstated. But the same digital catacombs excavated by the ARPAnet were also being used by a developing hacker community, facilitating the flow of programming code, tips, tricks, and “hacks,” which would provide a virtual community center for this new digital underground. This technological bad neighborhood would develop its own caf´es, “jargon” (a melding of the emerging cryptospeak and technical shorthand) as well as its own set of standards and practices. All of this survives today – in mostly invisible, encrypted traffic – over the same wires over which we order our holiday gifts, send baby photos to grandma and do our banking, traffic to which most of us remain blissfully unaware. This new, open approach to writing software provided a basis for countless technological innovations in computing, illustrating the power of the emerging hacker synergy – synergies developing in hacker-university, hacker-industry, and inter-group contexts. Enter Linux, GNU, and Free Software. To really understand the history of hacking, Free Software, and Linux, we need some context. Through the 1980s, in “I made a discovery today. I found a computer.. . . And then it happened. . .a door opened to a world. . .rushing the larger computer, primarily academic and corpothrough the phone line like heroin through an addict’s rate, worlds, UNIX had been holding sway. A prodveins (. . .) This is it. . .this is where I belong. . .. I know uct of New Jersey’s Bell Labs, and later championed everyone here (. . .) I know you all. . . by Sun Microsystems, IBM, and other huge corporate Yes, I am a criminal. (. . .) My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me players, the costs of UNIX and its closed architecture for.” kept it from wider acceptance in the wider world. On the other hand, universities and corporate needs guaranteed an ever-deepening pool of UNIX technical ex- The Mentor had been exploring bulletin board syspertise. The birth of Linux is widely accepted to be tems – or BBSs – precursors to newsgroups and, ultimately, today’s community-based web sites. These

820

offered the basis of a system in which the hacker could be assured complete anonymity, while earning – and basking in – the respect and recognition of his peers.

The Future of Computer Hacking Is Torvalds on the vanguard of the latest trends in the world of hacking – one which recognizes that open source software will eventually have to play nice in the wider world of proprietary software? Controversially, Torvalds has even espoused use of proprietary software in relation to Linux distributions – the ultimate hacker heresy! In a recent conversation with a high school student interviewer (Maverick, The, 2005), Torvalds said, “My goal is to do something fun and interesting, that makes a difference, and Linux has been all of that. In that sense I’ve achieved it and just want to continue it. It doesn’t have to be Linux, but just do something interesting. It doesn’t have to be something that helps people out.” So, hacking’s counter-culture roots have provided not only the basis of innovation, but have even been leveraged at the very core of marketing efforts in the industry. In the earliest days of the personal computer industry, Apple worked its way into the hearts of millions, answering mass objections to the newly emerging technologies: “No, not me!” with the deeply emotional appeal of a computer for the rest of us. In what profound ways does such an approach address the need for a majority of people to belong to that special minority – effectively, the cognoscenti? This computer counter-culture is at the very heart of creativity in the computer world. It has its own social structure, even its own rock stars (Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds). Moreover, these spiritual leaders of the hacking community have a big vision. Richard Stallman was a featured speaker at the most recent worldwide hacker’s conference HOPE (Hackers on Planet Earth), with speakers’ topics ranging from Building the Anti-Big Brother Databases, How to Steal Someone’s Implanted RFID – And Why You’d Want To to Weird Technology (HOPE Number Six, 2006). The success of free software and open source computing, begun in the image of Torvalds and Stallman, has been so powerful that it is cited as critical to international economic development in what Friedman (2005) describes as a new, flat world of cross-boundary information exchange. At the very roots of hacking, principles of

T.E. Heinzen and L.M. Picciano

free software first espoused by Stallman have proved so influential that they have spawned all manner of challenge, both legal and illegal, to the intellectual property foundations of software, the music industry, the written word, and the sciences. There is conflict as well as opportunity in this new world. One of the persistent threads in any consideration of hacker motivation must be the fundamental tension between creation and ownership – the same forces today defining struggles in the music, pharmaceutical, and publishing industries. In the same way that any artist/creator wants proper attribution, the hacker seeks more than simply a recognition of what Amabile would call his domain-relevant skills – he is willing to relinquish ownership, in some cases to the entire world, in exchange for the more powerful intrinsic motivation of being identified, and acknowledged, as its creator. Perhaps this explains the essential absence of traditional remuneration as a motivator. Fast forward to the 21st century, and these same considerations now vex our efforts at grappling with issues concerning ownership of our very DNA – literally, our operating system. The sciences, law, and societies themselves wrestle with melding precedents for ownership with an instinctual impulse telling us we are skating on very thin intellectual ice. We pit these competing priorities against each other in a system which allows ownership of whole organisms – a battle presaged by hackers in their collective visceral aversion to big corporations, The Suits and The Establishment. In the same way that the digital hacker’s skills are seen by some to be potentially damaging, many would hold that science hackers in areas of biochemistry and genetic research are slipping rapidly toward the same precipice. The work does not have to be good, bad, or even important. The value is in the creation itself, in the newness of it. It is in this whirlpool of ideas that innovation is found. One comprehensive definition of hacking has been proposed by Wark (2004) to include endeavor in all manner of discipline, from arts in the written word through to music and the sciences. It is the manner of thinking which is itself the hack. It is the creation of an abstraction in which multiple layers of reality can interact. And the similarities with the current state of the art in sciences should not be lost on readers. Hacking is the definitive outside-the-box thinking. The hacker spirit is hard at work when complex technology is distilled to its bare essence, delivering ultra-inexpensive water filtration or wind-up radios to hundreds of mil-

39

Ilk Hunting

lions. It is front and center in medicine’s efforts to trick viruses into delivering cures for cancer. Most importantly, perhaps, it exists in the countless failed experiments yet to bear fruit. It encompasses a blend of Amabile’s creativity-relevant personality traits and cognitive styles, among the most valued, and elusive, assets sought within both the corporate and scientific realms.

Hacking Is Non-moral Of course, most of us will not see such lofty goals in our first brush with the hacker ethos. Given the ubiquity of computers, now even in our cell phones and washing machines, we are much more likely to focus on the virus delivered by an innocent-looking e-mail or the spyware grinding our workday to a halt. On the other hand, given the baseline level of risk which society presents us in our everyday lives, we might choose to see these transgressions in a new light. Not very long ago, our preoccupations would have been with the risks of predation and starvation. Though the risk of death may be somewhat diminished, the myriad risks added by life in the digital age only make life more complex with, hopefully, plenty of agreed benefit, perhaps even as a collective investment in our future. From elections to financial statements, hackers put us at risk. From elections to financial statements, hackers can rescue us from such risk. On this basis, we assert that hacker creativity is essentially non-moral: If the adolescent brain does not yet have the wiring to concern itself excessively with matters of right and wrong, then, without the executive center’s oversight, how can we effectively gauge the actions of a young hacker in a framework of right and wrong? The same frontal cortex, still struggling with the circuitry of our most complex human cognitive functions, is deeply implicated in the flashes of genius which may result in our most treasured outcomes. At the very least, we should probably be thinking of hacker culture as moving from relatively non-moral beginnings among adolescents to morally demanding as hackers age. Hacking does indeed seem to be part of a process of self-discovery with particular appeal to those with a need for recognition. What other area of endeavor offers its practitioners a nearly worldwide canvas on which to work and essentially immediate, worldwide

821

recognition of his/her exploits? (Yes, hackers’ works are most often known as exploits, so-called because they most often exploit security holes in an operating system or in a company’s security framework.) By contrast, most architects, for example, can only imagine full fruition of works envisioned in their teens! Hacking presents a rare opportunity for these young professional unknowns to get their work built. In addition, it provides professional recognition, and even a form of peer review, in the same sense that honor among thieves drives criminals’ recognition of their colleagues’ accomplishments.

Conclusions In our efforts to understand and occasionally manage talented computer hackers, we proposed that hackers vary in their psychological need for affiliation and recognition; that hackers require situations to reveal their individual levels of need; and that hackers enjoy hacking because it facilitates multiple levels of self-discovery. We blended three theories (the social psychology of creativity, social identity theory, and motivational needs hierarchy), considered them within other developmental contexts (humanistic, social, neurological, and moral), and added insights from participant observation. So, what do we have? What does the world of the talented computer hacker taste like? The alcohol metaphor seems apropos for two reasons: First, hacking is a heady cocktail of potent influences. Second, some individuals can drink alcohol without damaging their own lives or the lives of those around them while others are predisposed to alcoholism with all its profoundly negative personal and community consequences. Third, alcoholics and hackers both seem capable of damaging the lives of others with minimal sense of alarm. Alcoholics may do so out of denial while hackers achieve the same end via immaturity and developmental self-centeredness. We have proposed that the most likely personality need that can turn a hacker toward positive or negative behavior is a need for affiliation and recognition, a need that is likely to decline with normal maturation. That is why community standards within the hacker community serve as a powerful socializing force that can shape talented hackers.

822

If the leaders of the hacking community tell the story of hacking’s distinctive history, then there are opportunities for shaping talented computer hackers toward intellectual discovery, advancing knowledge, and a wide range of innovations. But if we allow hackers to be isolated, then their opportunities for maturation and a healthy social identity will be blunted. So, counterintuitively, the social psychology of creativity seems to urge managers to lure talented computer hackers into the open, to recognize and trust them as people, and to establish the conditions that will encourage them toward self-actualization. These mostly young men already have leverage and they know it; intelligent trust may be our only option. Talented young hackers also know that they can develop their social leverage within the thrilling secrecy of a parallel, virtual world. But needs for affiliation and recognition are needs we can meet. So, the social psychology of creativity suggests that we welcome the people we fear, that we make a place for talented youthful hackers in our community, and that we acknowledge, respect, support, and even teach their distinctive skills. Think of Amabile’s useful social psychology of creativity as a practical guide that lets us shape hackers’ positive work habits, mental jumps and intuitions, and love for layered self-discovery to flourish within an environment that turns them into allies rather than enemies.

References Adam, A. E. (2003). Hacking into hacking: Gender and the hacker phenomenon. Computers and Society, 33, 3. Amabile, T. M. (2001). Beyond talent: John Irving and the passionate craft of creativity. American Psychologist, 13, 333–336. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. Springer-Verlag: New York. Answers.com. Bill Gates, Business Personality. Retrieved January 6, 2007, from http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-gates. Arief, B. & Besnard, D. (2003) Technical and human issues in computer-based systems security. University of Newcastle upon Tyne: Newcastle upon Tyne. Baumeister, R. F., & Muraven, M. (1996). Identity as adaptation to social, cultural, and historical context. Journal of Adolescence, 19(5), 405–416. Blankenship, L. (aka The Mentor) (1986). The Conscience of a Hacker (The Hacker Manifesto ). Archives of the underground ezine Phrack. Retrieved January 3, 2007, from http://www.phrack.org/archives/7/P07-03.

T.E. Heinzen and L.M. Picciano Canetti, E. (1973). Crowds and Power. New York: Continuum. Chandler, A. (1996). The changing definition and image of hackers in popular discourse. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 24, 229–251. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: HarperCollins. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–688. Dibona, C., Ockman, S., & Stone, M. (Eds.). (1999). Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media. Erickson, S. K., & McKnight, M. S. (2001). The Practitioner’s Guide to Mediation: A Client-Centered Approach. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Free Software Foundation, The. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from http://www.fsf.org. Friedman, T. (2005). The World is Flat. (A brief history of the twenty-first century). New York: Farrar, Straus, Reese, and Giroux. Goleman, D. (2006). Social Intelligence. New York: Bantam Dell. Hafner, K., & Markoff, J. (1995). Cyberpunks: Outlaws and hackers on the computer frontier. Toronto: Simon and Schuster. Hagib, R. (1999). History of Linux. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux. Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology & Penology, 1(1), 69–97. Heinzen, T. (1995). The ethical evaluation bias. Creativity Research Journal, 8(4). Special issue: Attributional approach to creativity. pp. 417–422. HOPE Number Six (Hackers on Planet Earth, 2006). Retrieved January 12, 2007, from http://www.hopenumbersix.net. Jordan, T., & Taylor, P. (1998). A sociology of hackers. The Sociological Review, 46, 757. Lakhani, K. R., & Wolf, R. G. (2005). Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. In J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. A. Hissam, & K. R. Lakhani (Eds.), Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software (pp. 3–21). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Levy, S. (1984). Hackers. New York: Anchor/Doubleday (Random House). Lewis, D. A., & Gonzalez-Burgos, G. (2000). Intrinsic excitatory connections in the prefrontal cortex and the pathophysiology of schizophrenia. Brain Research Bulletin, 52, 309–317. Li, C. L., DeGiuseppe, R., & Froh, J. (2006). The roles of sex, gender, and coping in adolescent depression. Adolescence, 41, 409–415. Linus Torvalds. (n.d.). Retrieved January 4, 2007, from Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Linus Torvalds. Littman, J. (1995). The Fugitive Game: online with Kevin Mitnick. Toronto: Little Brown & Company. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396. Maslow, A. H. (1958). A dynamic theory of human motivation. In C. L. Stacy & M. Demartino, (Eds.), Understand-

39

Ilk Hunting

ing human motivation, (pp. 26–47), Cleveland, OH: Howard Allen Publishers. Maverick, The. (2005). An Interview with Linus Torvalds. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from http://hs. riverdale.k12.or.us/maverick/?q=node/257. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268. MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL). Retrieved January 4, 2007, from http:// www.csail.mit.edu. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The construction of meaning through vital engagement. In C. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing (pp. 83–104). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books. Onorato, R. S., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Fluidity in the selfconcept: The shift from personal to social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 257–278. Parker, D. (1998). Fighting computer crime: A new framework for protecting information. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Picciano, E. M. (1974). Personal communication. Post, J., Shaw, E. & Ruby, K. (1998). Information terrorism and the dangerous insider. Paper presented at the meeting of InfowarCon’98, Washington, DC. Rogers, M. (2002). A New Hacker Taxonomy. Retrieved December 27, 2006, from http://www.dvara.net/HK/taxonomy.doc. Shonkoff. J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Silver, J. (Producer), Wachowski, L., & Wachowski, A. (Directors). (1999). The Matrix [Motion picture]. United States: Warner Brothers Entertainment. Sisk, C. L., & Foster, D. L. (2004). The neural basis of puberty and adolescence, Nature Neuroscience, 7, 1040–1042. Stallman, R. (1996). Richard Stallman’s Personal Home Page. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from http://www.stallman.org. Stallman, R. (1998). The GNU Project. Retrieved January 12, 2007, from http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject. html.

823 Stallman, R. (2002). Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. Boston: GNU Press. Sterling, B. (1992). The Hacker crackdown: Law and disorder on the electronic frontier. Toronto: Bantam Books. Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with what effect? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 159. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13, 65–93. Taylor, D. (2006). Signs U R 2Wired . Retrieved January 4, 2007, from http://dpaultaylor57.blogspot.com/2006/12/signs-u-r2wired.html. Thurlow, C. (2002). High-schoolers’ peer orientation priorities: A snapshot. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 341–349. Torvalds, L. (1991). Linus Torvalds announces Linux. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from http://www.linux.org/ people/linus post.html. Torvalds, L., & Diamond, D. (2001). Just for Fun (The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary). New York: Collins. Voiskounsky, A. E., & Smyslova, O. V. (2003). Flow-based models of computer hackers’ motivation, CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6, 171–180. Ward, M. (2000). Hacking: A History. Retrieved Jan 12, 2007 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/994700.stm. Wark, M. (2004). A Hacker Manifesto. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. Winship, G. (2006). Further thoughts on the process of restraint. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 13, 55–60. Woo, H., Kim,Y., & Dominick, F. (2004). Hackers: Militants or merry pranksters? A content analysis of defaced web pages. Media Psychology, 6, 63–82. Yar, M. (2005). Computer hacking: Just another case of juvenile delinquency? Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(4), 387–399.

Chapter 40

What Makes a Gifted Educator? A Design for Development Marion Porath

May my teaching drop like the rain, my speech condense like the dew; like gentle rain on grass, like showers on new growth. Deuteronomy 32:2

Abstract What characterizes the ability to work with students in ways that appear to surpass notions of effectiveness or competence? What is the quality that makes some teachers “a teacher” in a deep sense? Research and conceptual frameworks that attempt to answer these questions are examined and a model is proposed for understanding and researching gifted teaching. The model is developmental, suggesting a hierarchical progression in the integration of understandings of self, other, and pedagogy. Central conceptual understanding is key to the model, providing a centrepiece for characterizing what makes a gifted educator. Implications for research and teacher education are discussed.

Keywords Gifted educators · Giftedness · Educator · Development · Neo-Piagetian theory · Expertise · Above-level testing · Acceleration · Center for Talented Youth · Discovery · Description · Development · Dissemination · Early college entrance · Gender differences · Predictive validity · Social and emotional adjustment · Study of Exceptional Talent · Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth · Talent Search · Twice-exceptional students

M. Porath (B) University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction There is considerable interest in, and effort directed towards, good teaching in contemporary educational circles, as evidenced in the increased use of competency-based assessments of teachers in our school systems and university-based initiatives to raise the profile and standard of teaching (e.g. Clay, 2003; DeAngelis, 2003; Dittman, 2003). But to what standards of excellence do we aspire? What underlies the kind of teaching described with such beauty in scripture centuries ago? Albom (1997), using a different metaphor, offers a contemporary framework for thinking about these questions: Have you ever really had a teacher? One who saw you as a raw but precious thing, a jewel that, with wisdom, could be polished to a proud shine? If you are lucky enough to find your way to such teachers, you will always find your way back (p. 192).

Albom’s words imply the ability of outstanding teachers to see potential and support its realization, an almost indefinable quality that makes a true difference in the lives of their students. Wisdom is likely a key component in such teachers’ ways of being, part of what makes them gifted educators. As with definitions of giftedness in general, there is little consensus on what it means to be an educator who is recognized as outstanding, with definitions ranging from restrictive to ad hoc (Sternberg & Horvath, 1995). Complicating the matter is that, in comparison to the body of research on giftedness, we have much less to go on to help us articulate what makes

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 40, 

825

Substantive and syntactic knowledge of subjects; beliefs about subjects (orientation and conceptions of what is important to know)

Domain expert; “adaptive expertise” brought to bear on new problems

Content specialist

Arlin (1999) Wisdom as a developmental phenomenon

Rich factual knowledge of subject

Sternberg and Horvath (1995) Sensitivity to the deep Use higher order executive structure of a subject; processes to plan, well-integrated monitor, and reflect on knowledge instruction. Develop models of problems and come up with insightful solutions Coleman (2004) Flow and optimal experience

Turner-Bisset (1999) Knowledge of child development; empirical or social knowledge of learners

Berliner (2001) Expert inference of student understanding with students who are known to the teacher

Shulman (1986) Teachers must organize instruction in terms of students’ preconceptions

Rich factual knowledge about teaching; rich procedural knowledge of teaching strategies; practical knowledge of when and how to use both

Professional practical knowledge (PPK): “Implicit sense of how the class should be proceeding” (p. 134)

Well-developed structure for planning instruction; connection of student feedback to learning objectives

General pedagogical knowledge and beliefs about teaching (views of the process of education)

Automaticity for repetitive operations allows for “reinvestment” of cognitive resources in higher level activity

How topics, principles, strategies in different subjects are understood, learned, misconstrued

A constructive process that includes understanding students’ perspectives on the curriculum

Curricular innovation coupled with practical knowledge of how to “work the system” to implement innovations

Draws on teachers’ deep knowledge of their subject to teach curricular knowledge; critical analysis of curricular materials

Deep knowledge provides a structure within which to interpret curriculum

How knowledge is organized and “packaged” for instruction

Sense of the context of instruction and the context in which students are being instructed (p. 13)

Practical knowledge of the social and political context in which they teach; possession of tacit knowledge

Knowledge of educational settings.Knowledge of a particular group of learners’ knowledge, actions, and understanding

Flexible teaching that accommodates and responds to student needs; “complexifying” the world (p. 477)

Multiple classroom “worlds”

Teacher as learner Orientation Willingness to take risks and be comfortable with uncertainty

The emotional state of “being a teacher”: When things “work” or “do not work”

Identity as a teacher and its relationship to personal identity

Rich and personal sources of information brought to solution of problems

Teacher thoughts and feelings in relation to actions

Understanding of curricular Understanding of and sensi- Knowledge of self knowledge tivity to context

Table 40.1 Characteristics of Expert Teachers

Cognitive psychology of in- Understanding of subject Understanding of pedagogy struction matter

826 M. Porath

40

What Makes a Gifted Educator?

an educator gifted, although we do have significant starting points, as summarized in Table 40.1. There is agreement in educational research that teachers matter. What they do to inspire and support meaningful learning is obviously important, especially so now, as we face a paradigm shift in education that is questioning old models of teaching and educational systems (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Dodge, 2006). We seem to know gifted teaching when we see it but what exactly underpins the ability to work with students in ways that appear to surpass notions of effectiveness or competence? What is the quality that allows some teachers to see students as jewels, that makes some teachers “a teacher” in the profound sense that Albom implies? This chapter examines research and conceptual frameworks that attempt to answer these questions and proposes a model for understanding and researching gifted teaching. It leaves aside, for the moment, the question of whether or not there is an “added dimension” necessary to teach gifted children but discusses that question at the conclusion of the chapter. Gardner (1983) described the various “end states,” or mature exemplars, of interpersonal intelligence – gifted leaders, teachers, or therapists – as individuals who demonstrate exceptional ability to ascertain and respond to others’ thoughts, feelings, and intentions. What constitutes exceptional ability to respond to others’ thoughts, feelings, and intentions in the educational context? Moreover, how does a teacher use what is ascertained in combination with knowledge of the curriculum, pedagogical strategies, student abilities and inclinations, and the educational context to optimize learning? Schwab (as cited in Shulman, 1986) described teaching as an art:

827

Bransford et al. cite Miller’s (1978) characterizations of adaptive experts as “virtuosos” and skilled experts as “artisans.” The virtuoso accomplishes the kind of teaching that results when the model of mind that underpins one’s practice is that of students as thinkers who need to be supported in connecting their personal knowledge with the established knowledge of the culture (Bruner, 1996). Learners’ ways of knowing – their thoughts and questions about the curriculum as well as their feelings, desires, and intentions related to learning – are used as a basis for instruction; learners are helped to build bridges between their own conceptions of knowledge and those of the culture. This chapter engages in pushing the boundaries of conceptions of giftedness by expanding the discussion to include teaching as an instantiation of giftedness – a virtuoso performance – and offering questions and conceptualizations as frameworks for understanding giftedness in teaching. Database searches of “gifted teaching” or “gifted teacher” yield a plethora of citations on teaching gifted children. Volumes abound on curricula, programmes, and teaching strategies targeted to the needs of gifted learners. Descriptors such as “teacher effectiveness” and “teaching quality” result in citations focused on procedural aspects of teaching based on existing mandated criteria that reflect a skilled expert, or artisan, orientation. “Expert” teaching comes closer to the mark. While acknowledging that expert teachers are hard to find due to the lack of objective criteria, Berliner (2001) believes that expert teachers share the same characteristics as experts in other fields. In particular, they offer challenging curricula; demonstrate deep representations of subject matter; and are skilful in monitoring their students’ learning and providing feedback. Every art, whether it be teaching, stone carving or judicial These characteristics are similar to Morelock and control of a court of law. . .has rules, but knowledge of the rules does not make one an artist. Art arises as the knower Feldman’s (2003) description of a master teacher who of the rules learns to apply them appropriately to the parhas superior knowledge of their subject and its history ticular case. Application, in turn, requires acute awareand is able to impart that knowledge in a manner that ness of the particularities of that case and ways in which engages children’s interest. However, the characterthe rule can be modified to fit the case without complete abrogation of the rule. In art, the form must be adapted to istics of the person in context who ignites passion the matter (p. 31). in learners and makes learning meaningful are not Schwab’s definition implies “adaptive expertise” well articulated. Ability as an educator is understood (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000) – expertise here not simply as “in the head of” the teacher (cf. that is flexible and adaptable to external factors (i.e. Barab & Plucker, 2002) but, rather, as situated – as the students’ feelings, desires, intentions, and knowledge) teacher in context, an individual who is reciprocally as opposed to skilled expertise that is essentially influenced by/influencing the educational environment adherence to a strong, well-integrated knowledge base. and is connected in important ways to his or her Consistent with a conceptualization of teaching as art, students.

828

M. Porath

The Gifted Educator as Interpersonally Intelligent

Wisdom: A Characteristic of the Gifted Educator

Gardner (1983) proposed interpersonal ability as an intelligence that is valued in our culture. In its advanced, or gifted, form, interpersonal intelligence is the ability “to read the intentions and desires – even when these have been hidden – of many other individuals and, potentially, to act upon this knowledge. . .” (Gardner, p. 239). To be interpersonally intelligent, this action on knowledge of others’ mental states must be effective (Gardner & Hatch, 1989). This ability is similar to Bruner’s (1996) notion of intersubjectivity – “how people come to know what others have in mind and how they adjust accordingly” (p. 161). Bruner argued for the centrality of having theories about why others act the way they do in order to live life effectively. The same argument can be made for teaching; if others’ points of view are conceived of as resources (Vecchi, 2001), they become an important tool for learning about others’ mental states. Gifted educators are among those individuals who may demonstrate highly developed interpersonal intelligence (Gardner, 1983). The ability to understand their students’ intentions and desires seems, intuitively, to underpin the fostering of growth and “polishing” of learners’ capabilities accomplished by gifted educators, as do relational abilities, group and community development abilities, and facilitation skills (Cohen & Porath, 2006). The importance of interpersonal intelligence is underscored by Nieto (2003) who stated that schools are “not simply sites where particular strategies are enacted. They are, above all, places where relationships are created, relationships that can be tremendously significant in either positive or negative ways for young people” (p. 387). Knowledge of what exactly takes place in the classrooms of interpersonally able educators where positive relationships are created – the “acting upon” knowledge of students’ mental states – is still emerging (see, for example, Berliner, 2001; Bransford et al., 2000; Leinhardt & Steele, 2005). Gardner’s notion of interpersonal giftedness is an important starting point. Other conceptions of outstanding teaching reflect Gardner’s description of interpersonal giftedness (Towers & Porath, 2001), bringing us closer to what it means to be a gifted educator.

Arlin’s (1993, 1999) work on the wise teacher provides indicators of what may actually take place in educational interactions. Arlin (1999) described the wise teacher as one who reflects “an orientation toward self, students, and teaching that highlights the teacher as learner in the act of constructing knowledge with her students” (p. 12, emphasis added). Central to the act of teaching is revealing, understanding, and appreciating students’ points of view (Arlin; Bransford et al., 2000; Paley, 1986), implying an excitement about the complexity of thinking and learning. “This requires the teacher to be inside the context, fully participating, above all because she is curious to understand the various ways that children observe, interpret, and represent the world” (Rinaldi, 1997, p. 103). Wisdom is a profound, developmental phenomenon encompassing understanding of and interest in the nature of knowledge, ambiguity, and others’ minds and the contexts in which learning unfolds (Arlin, 1999). Wise teachers have

r r r r r

Rich factual knowledge about teaching and about their subject matter Rich procedural knowledge about teaching strategies and the practical knowledge of how and when to use them A sense of the context of instruction and the context in which the students are being instructed An awareness of the relativism associated with variations in values and priorities of both their peers and their students An uncertainty about the effects of specific teaching decisions coupled with a willingness to take risks and to try a variety of ways to actively participate with the students in the learning process (Arlin, 1999, p. 13)

Understanding Learners’ Perspectives Point of view is a critical notion. It involves the ability to take the perspective of others, as suggested by Gardner (1983), and to be comfortable with the uncertainty engendered by different understandings. Wise teachers “have the humility and courage to live with uncertainty

40

What Makes a Gifted Educator?

and take the risk of questioning whether they can do better. . .” (Arlin, 1999, p. 16). This active participation requires that “someone must be there to listen, respond, and add a dab of glue to the important words that burst forth” (Paley, 1986, p. 127). These acts of listening with respect to what learners have to say, responding with genuine curiosity, and knowing how and when to apply a dab of glue are some aspects of the gifted educator (Towers & Porath, 2001).

What Makes an Educator Wise? As a young gifted child once told me, wise is not the same as smart (Porath, 1997), an observation supported by research (see also Ferrari, this volume, regarding the difference between wisdom and intelligence). By itself, intelligence does not predict wisdom (Baltes & Staudinger, 2000). The interplay of intelligence and personality (openness to experience, personal growth, and “psychological mindedness”) and what results in this interplay (creativity, cognitive style, and social intelligence) are the ingredients of wisdom. Older does not mean wiser; experience matters only when it interacts with intelligence and personality (Baltes & Staudinger). This finding is similar to Berliner’s (2001) contention that “talented” teaching “is probably an extremely complicated interaction of many human characteristics” (p. 465) in addition to the interaction of person and teaching environment.

The Gifted Educator as Intrapersonally Intelligent Gardner (1993) described intrapersonal intelligence as a correlate, or “companion intelligence,” of interpersonal intelligence. Together they comprise the “personal intelligences.” Intrapersonal intelligence turns inward the abilities to read intentions and desires and to act upon this knowledge. Gardner (1983) described the core capacity of intrapersonal intelligence as “access to one’s own feeling life” (p. 239). In its most advanced form, “intrapersonal knowledge allows one to detect and to symbolize complex and highly differentiated sets of feelings” (Gardner, 1983, p. 239). A gifted educator may use his or her own depth of knowledge

829

of self in relating to, supporting, and understanding students. Similarly, Arlin (1999) incorporates “orientation toward self” (p. 12) in her definition of a wise teacher. Wise teachers see themselves as co-learners with their students, thus blending interpersonal (teacher) and intrapersonal (learner) constructions of self. They are comfortable with the risks and challenges inherent in uncovering diverse points of view. A strong identity as a teacher is essential for engagement in reflection on one’s own practice and relationship to the profession; teaching “demands a heavy investment of the self” (Turner-Bisset, p. 46). Glaser (as cited in Berliner, 2001) described expertise as the acquisition of agency; experts are self-regulated, controlling their learning environment and the level of challenge needed for their own development. Cohen & Porath (2006) described gifted educators in a similar fashion, noting that they use their classroom experience as feedback in a personal growth process. Other critical intrapersonal abilities are self-awareness, the ability to do personal inner work, and passion for their profession (Cohen, 2005; Cohen & Porath). Another way of thinking about this personal dimension of teaching is to cast teachers in the role of researchers of their own practice (Jordan, Porath, & Bickerton,, 2003). Teachers learn about their students and themselves by engaging with students in learning and trying “to make sense of it as it happens” (Duckworth, 1987, p. 134). Teacher curiosity (Paley, 1986) is an essential ingredient in these interactions. Gifted educators take the risk of asking research questions ? What such as, “What do students think about do students bring to their thinking in terms of skills and background? How do my pedagogical practices enhance or constrain student learning?” (Jordan, Porath, & Bickerton). These questions help them to come to a better understanding of their students’ learning and the effects of their practice on this learning. An important version of the last question above is to reflect on our own perspectives on knowledge and the curriculum.

Understanding One’s Own Perspectives A critical addition to the understanding of students’ perspectives on the curriculum and schooling is that teachers themselves have preconceptions that must be recognized and reflected upon (Shulman, 1990). These

830

preconceptions can influence students’ understanding. As Shulman pointed out, we can be captured by our own metaphors for problem solutions; these metaphors may result in cessation of thought and/or incorrect solutions to problems. We must be alert to this possibility and prepared to reflect on it.

Interobjectivity As noted at the beginning of the chapter, the focus in this discussion is on the gifted educator as person in context. Context both affects the development of gifted educators, for example, through educational policies, community expectations, school climate, and historical and cultural influences (Berliner, 2001) and is affected by them. This is sometimes a “space left empty” (Latour, 1999, p. viii) in consideration of what happens in classrooms. Glick (2002) emphasized the importance of interobjectivity; the environment is as important as the people who inhabit it. Teachers work in real worlds; there is more to classroom life than intentional beings in intentional worlds (Glick). What happens in this blending of human action and the action of settings is critical in education.

M. Porath

The Environment as the “Third Teacher” Educational environments are critical in providing the experiences that optimize potential. Teachers in the world-renowned schools of Reggio Emilia, Italy, refer to the environment as the “third teacher” (Strozzi, 2001). The structure, complexity, and aesthetics of educational environments together with outstanding educators and teaching materials facilitate learning. The way we arrange our classrooms, considering space, light, colour, and design, affect the expression of knowledge. Gifted educators need to be artisans in this respect as well, designers of aesthetic classrooms that convey a sense of welcome and invitations to engage in learning where materials are arranged provocatively to foster creative thought. Such educational environments awake learners to new possibilities in learning (Barbour & Shaklee, 1998). This ability to craft stimulating educational environments, in combination with advanced inter- and intrapersonal intelligence, allows gifted educators to polish their students to the proud shine described by Albom (1997).

Smart Contexts

A Model of Social Expertise Relevant to Teaching

Excellence is promoted in particular social, cultural, and educational settings. Excellence results from both individual competence and “smart contexts” (Barab & Plucker, 2002). Ferrari (2002) asks the important question, “What sort of social and personal conditions promote excellence, and what sort of actions can educators take to assure that students will learn to become excellent in ways that both they and society value?” (p. viii). Gifted educators orchestrate meaningful, dynamic student–environment transactions that take place in rich contexts and encourage participation in valued social practices (Barab & Plucker). Such complexity in educational environments supports the possibility of more students discovering and realizing their potential (Jackson, 2000), consistent with a relativistic conception of student ability that takes account of different patterns and pathways in children’s development.

Case’s (1985, 1992; Case & Okamoto, 1996) neoPiagetian theory of development describes the conceptual underpinnings of understanding in a number of domains from birth to adulthood. Four major stages describe the qualitative shifts in thinking across development, while three substages within each stage describe the quantitative shifts that take place. Thinking becomes progressively more complex within each stage. While predominantly rationalist in its orientation, Case’s theory blends stage, information processing, and sociocultural theories (Case, 1992), allowing the structural, cognitive processing, and contextual aspects of teaching to be mapped. The hierarchical integration of structures of mind is the explanatory construct for development of increasingly complex thinking. The domain that appears to capture the essence of this discussion of giftedness in teaching is the social narrative domain (McKeough, 2005), a

40

What Makes a Gifted Educator?

domain that also encompasses understanding of self (Griffin, 1992). In the social narrative domain, narrative is the predominant mode of meaning-making (Bruner, 1986). Meaning-making is also hierarchical in nature. Novices tend to action-based explanations of meaning where feelings and intentions are explained in terms of external events and actions – the “landscape of action” (Bruner). More mature explanations involve references to the “landscape of consciousness” (Bruner). Meaning-making involves the coordination, or simultaneous construction, of these two landscapes. “One is the landscape of action, where the constituents are the arguments of action: agent, intention, or goal, situation, instrument. . .. The other landscape is the landscape of consciousness: what those involved in the action know, think, and feel, or do not know, think or feel” (Bruner, p. 12). The conceptual core of the social domain as defined by Case (1992; Case & Okamoto, 1996) is structural in nature. Case (1992, 1998) described central conceptual structures in a number of domains. These structures are “blueprints” of understanding – internal mental entities that consist of the relations among a number of concepts. Structures are conceptual because these relations are semantic, focused on the meanings we assign to concepts, and central because a structure forms the basis for understanding a wide range of tasks within a domain (Case & Okamoto). Every central conceptual structure is unique in the content of the “blueprint,” serving “as a tool for the acquisition of higher order insights into the domain in question” (Case, 1998, p. 328). A central social structure is the conceptual core of social expertise. It bears a resemblance to the prototype, or central exemplar, of expert teaching proposed by Sternberg and Horvath (1995). Central social structures are characterized by the relations among concepts that relate to understanding self and/or others, the meanings we ascribe to these concepts, and the core understanding that shapes the form and content of reasoning and behaviour. If teaching is mapped onto a central social structure, the components of the structure become the following:

r

Structure: Relations among understanding students’ and one’s own mental states, the knowledge of the discipline, and pedagogical knowledge.

831

r

r

Conceptual: Semantic relations among students’ and one’s own mental states, the knowledge of the discipline, and pedagogical knowledge, that is, the meaning attached to each of these “nodes” and the interrelationship that results. Central: Having a structure of mind that integrates mental state knowledge, disciplinary knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge allows one to reason about a wide range of educational situations and act accordingly.

Central conceptual structures change qualitatively as thought and knowledge develop. The nature of the conceptual core can be characterized differently at each stage of development; however, each core construct forms the foundation for subsequent core constructs. In the social domain, first order understanding focuses on observable actions and events in understanding others in context. There is a familiarity with common mental states (e.g. happiness, sadness, anger) and an understanding that mental states are influenced by actions and events but these two understandings are not yet integrated. Second order central social understanding is intentional in nature (McKeough, 1992). There is an increasingly complex ability to consider mental states in explaining intentions underlying one’s own and others’ actions. In third order understanding, the conceptual core is interpretive in nature (McKeough & Genereux, 2003) as elaborate intentional thinking is hierarchically integrated with higher order social–psychological understandings of, for example, personality, dispositions, and psychological self. The development of social narrative structure described above has been researched in early childhood through adolescence with age-related patterns identified. However, the hypothesized sequence is not a rigid, age-related hierarchy of development. A range of entry points has been identified with beginning teachers (Newman, 1993, 2002), and it is likely that context would impact demonstration of higher order understanding (Berliner, 2001). Development of expertise is non-linear and affected by context and culture (Berliner). Case (1985) acknowledged that development continues in adulthood but, to date, no articulation of central conceptual structures has been undertaken beyond adolescence. Articulation of fourth order understanding does appear to be needed to capture the rich na-

832

M. Porath

ture of gifted teaching. Based on work on postformal thought (Arlin, 1975, 1989) and existing work on expertise in teaching (i.e. of the adaptive sort that results in virtuoso performance), it is hypothesized that the central understanding in adulthood integrates interpretive thought with knowledge of teaching (i.e. knowledge of the discipline and pedagogy) broadly defined in a relativistic way (Arlin, 1999) that takes account of context. Teachers who demonstrate this type of conceptual understanding bring together interpretive knowledge of their students and themselves, knowledge of the developmental structure of disciplines, and pedagogical knowledge vis-`a-vis the sociocultural and educational contexts of their classroom, school, and community. They are aware of the changing landscape of student knowledge and mental states in any one classroom at any given moment as it interacts with their own knowledge and mental states. Latour’s (1999) notion of mediation is helpful here. Mediators cannot be exactly defined by their input and resulting output. Gifted educators mediate “the many entanglements of practice” (Latour, p. 307) in ways that are not easily parsed. Gifted educators are also aware of the role of the learning environment (physical space, aesthetics, learning resources) – what Meichenbaum and

Biemiller (1998) call a “nurturant resourceful environment” (p. 13) – in this interplay. This stage of development may be akin to “being a teacher” (Coleman, 2004), an experience that reflects successful integration of the variables described above. Coleman compares this experience to optimal experience, or flow (Csikszentmihalyi, as cited in Coleman). This proposed mature stage of development is a close match to the wise teacher (Arlin, 1999) – the teacher who has understanding of and interest in the nature of knowledge, ambiguity, and others’ minds and the contexts in which learning unfolds. Latour’s (1999, pp. 310–311) terms from semiotics capture what likely happens in exceptional teaching. Gifted educators may relate different frames of reference to one another, “shifting out” from one to another, “shifting in” to the original frame of reference, and “shifting down” when a completely new frame of reference is evident. These shifts result in a “depth of vision” (p. 311), a term that captures the rich integration of multiple variables described above. It is hard to find a term that captures the complexity of this stage of development. Recognizing that, by trying to capture it in a word or two, there is the danger of the richness of what happens in gifted teach-

Table 40.2 Stages in the Development of Gifted Educators Teaching as action Teaching as intentional

Teaching as interpretive

Teaching as orchestration

Classroom events and student behaviours are understood as occurring in the physical world of actions and events 1. Classroom events and students behaviours are understood in terms of a single mental state/intention that motivated the event or behaviour 2. Dual mental states/intentions are related to motivation for events or behaviours 3. Dual mental states/intentions, simple traits, or social rules are related to motivation for events or behaviours in an integrated fashion that leads to a plan for instruction and/or intervention 1. Understanding shifts to why particular mental states are held. Students are understood in terms of psychological profiles (constellations of mental states or social circumstances) that are represented across time and situations at school. A single psychological trait is considered in reflection on student intentions. Reflection on intentional actions, thoughts, and feelings is coordinated with enduring traits and social rules 2. Dual, conflicting traits or rules create a social/psychological dialectic that is considered in understanding students’ learning and/or behaviour 3. The dialectical relation between traits/social rules is an integrating device leading to a coherent plan for instruction and/or intervention that has long-term implications for student development 1. Psychological profiles of students and self are integrated, understood as shifting frames of reference, and coordinated with pedagogical content knowledge 2. Relativistic knowledge of students and self is related to pedagogical content knowledge and knowledge of the developmental structure of the discipline 3. The changing landscape of relativistic thought as related to pedagogical content knowledge and knowledge of the developmental structure of the discipline is understood in the sociocultural context

Note: Action-based, intentional, and interpretive descriptors were adapted from McKeough & Genereux (2003) and McKeough, Malcolm & Misfeldt (2005).

40

What Makes a Gifted Educator?

ing being simplified or trivialized, orchestration is proposed as a characterization of fourth order thinking. The developmental progression outlined above is summarized in Table 40.2. Orchestration incorporates the end result of a similar progression in understanding self as teacher, summarized in Table 40.3. That is, orchestration is the result of integration of mature forms of understanding of the act of teaching and self as teacher. Case’s (1992; Case & Okamoto, 1996) contemporary interpretation of stage theory, through its detailed explanations of the form and meaning associated with each stage and substage of development and the centrality of this form and meaning to other learning within domains, suggests meaningful educational implications. The theory is essentially a “design for development” (McKeough, Okamoto, & Porath, 2002); conceptual development can be nurtured using the progression implicit in the theory. A teacher’s current level of thought can be assessed, and support planned to help them “bridge” to the next stage of development. Furthermore, central conceptual structures are the “conceptual glue” that is an essential feature of expert understanding and performance. They provide the central understanding within which to apply teaching skills. As we know from studies of expertise in other domains, this conceptual integration results in cohesive and complex knowledge structures (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1986; diSessa, 1988; Spoehr, 1994).

833

Rethinking Foundations

Shulman (1990) advocates turning the foundations of education (i.e. psychology, philosophy, history, sociology) upside down by putting the content of the curriculum first and asking the foundational discipline to adapt to the content. In this way, students of education work with a literary text or scientific concept, for example, and discover foundational principles by pondering what it takes to understand the text or concept, bringing them to an understanding of “conceptual landscape” (Leinhardt & Steele, 2005). Shulman argues that the true foundations are the arts and sciences. Taking this idea further, if beginning teachers are to understand education “not as a rhetoric of conclusions but as a narrative of inquiry, as human events and human constructions rooted in human contexts” (p. 308), as has been argued in this chapter, then, to paraphrase Shulman, the only way to offer teacher education is through case studies of education. In this way, pedagogy is scaffolded throughout by foundations; to use Shulman’s metaphor of a skyscraper, pedagogy is internally supported rather than “built on top of” foundational knowledge and is stronger for it. To truly engage in a narrative of inquiry about education rather than a rhetoric of conclusions, however, attention must be paid to the internal support that Shulman describes. Without such meaningful, theorydriven inquiry, engagement in case studies and related methodologies like problem-based learning (PBL) runs the risk of teachers forming “one-time-only” theories (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2000, p. 187). Bereiter and Scardamalia point out the critical difference between Educational Implications: A Design for a theory of the case or problem and general theories. “One-time-only” theories apply strictly to the problem Development of Gifted Educators under discussion. In contrast, a general theory has the potential for more broad explanation, allowing students Knowledge of the nature of expert performance in a doto account for inconsistent information and incorporate main and its developmental precursors can inform how new support for theory, consistent with the scaffolding we support and nurture teacher development (cf. Erapproach advocated by Shulman. A “design for develicsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, this volume, who disopment” allows us to keep a conceptual roadmap front cuss the importance of reproducible performance and and centre in our support of teachers. mediating mechanisms in defining and supporting expertise). Descriptions of how conceptual knowledge is constructed, integrated, and elaborated are important in facilitating a match (Donaldson, 1989; Porath, 1991; Gifted Educators: Multiple Ways of Being Strauss, Globerson, & Mintz, 1983) between teachers’ existing knowledge and understandings and strategies There are multiple pathways to, and demonstration for teacher education and development. of, giftedness in any one domain (Fischer, Knight, &

834

M. Porath Table 40.3 Development of Understanding of Self as Teacher

Action based

No reflection on one’s self as related to one’s role as a teacher. Teaching is viewed as a series of actions

Dimensions of self

1. Simple relation of an emotion to teaching events 2. Two emotions related to teaching events; no social or moral judgement made 3. Integration of emotions and teaching events with a social or moral judgement or social–educational rule. Judgements and rules are applied in a rote way without consideration of the consequences for not following rules 1. Understandings and insights about one’s self are generalized to different situations. Consequence of not following a social rule or judgement is offered 2. Enhanced self-understanding as one questions one’s own beliefs and values 3. Self-understanding incorporates an abstract principle or concept that focuses on a rule for teaching or elaborated belief about teaching and learning. Questioning of beliefs and values does not need resolution 1. Detect and symbolize complex and highly differentiated sets of feelings (Gardner, 1983) as they relate to elaborated beliefs and values about teaching practice 2. Complex feelings, beliefs, and values provide the basis for “inner work” (Cohen, 2005) related to teaching practice 3. Depth of knowledge resulting from inner work is used in relating to, supporting, and understanding students

Interpretations of self

Self as teacher

Note: Action-based, dimensional, and interpretive descriptions of self-understanding were adapted from Malcolm (2005).

Van Parys, 1993; Golomb, 1992; Porath, 1993, 2000; Robinson, 1993). Sternberg and Horvath (1995) hypothesized the notion of a prototype, or central exemplar, of expert teaching because they recognized that teachers are experts in different ways. Berliner (2001) questioned whether teachers are “general experts”; one’s giftedness as an educator may be specific to an age range, a subject area, or a particular context (e.g. urban vs. rural). Added to this variability is the influence of culture – what is considered gifted teaching in Western cultures may not be considered so in other cultural contexts (Berliner). The model proposed in this chapter allows for this variability. The meanings assigned to conceptual relations and the skills one “glues” to the relevant conceptual structure result in multiple demonstrations of giftedness in education. It is important to emphasize, however, that while there are multiple ways in which an educator may demonstrate giftedness, the notion of central exemplar/central conceptual structure provides a way of understanding what is shared among gifted educators – in Sternberg and Horvath’s terms, the “family resemblance” (p. 9).

Gifted Educators and Gifted Children Given that there are likely different manifestations of gifted teaching, it may be that there are gifted teach-

ers who are a better match to gifted learners than others (cf. Mills, 2003). However, this possibility presupposes a model that places ability in “the head of” individuals (Barab & Plucker, 2002). The model of gifted educators’ knowing proposed in this chapter has the potential to result in the orchestration of smart environments that engage talent development (Barab & Plucker). Such knowing takes account of student perspectives such as those that follow (examples from elementary and junior secondary students) in highly complex ways that acknowledge the relativistic nature of the complex landscape of self, other, pedagogy, and disciplinary knowledge. What does learning mean? Well, learning means to me, like, when you learn something, your brain kind of makes grooves and the more you learn, the deeper they get. And I think that learning is kind of like that. You’re digging and it gets deeper and deeper the more you learn. What is happening when you are learning? Your brain is engaged. You actively seek to acquire knowledge. Where does learning come from? Your brain responds to certain stimuli. Everyone responds to different stimuli so everyone learns differently. Finding out something new that you’re interested in and feel that you need to know for yourself rather than just by being fed. If you’re just fed this information it’s not useful to you, you just have it and most of the time you won’t retain it, but if you have a passion for it, then you are really learning something. I think learning comes from our instincts. We just have to keep exploring new things. That’s what drives evolution. Improving on things, learning new things. . .cause in the evolution theory we – if we weren’t driven to learn new things, experience new things, we probably would

40

What Makes a Gifted Educator? have stayed back among the apes (Porath & Lupart, in progress; questions from Bickerton, 1994).

Directions for Research Several directions for research to test the model outlined in this chapter are suggested. These can be described as getting in touch “with the qualitative world we inhabit” (Eisner, 1993, p. 5) by using qualitative approaches. Like the model it will test, this “getting in touch” is “a fine-grained, sensitively nuanced selective process” (Eisner, p. 5). Research in this vein needs the approaches advocated by Eisner – stories, narrative, film, video, multiple displays via computer, and “poetically crafted narrative” (p. 8).

Studies of Exemplary Practice Many teachers have case knowledge of students, themselves, and their practice that is valuable in helping us understand the developmental course of giftedness (Jackson, 2000) and what may support or constrain reaching a level of orchestration (cf. Coleman, 2004). Studies of exemplary practice will contribute to the growth of smart educational contexts (Barab & Plucker, 2002). It is also important to study exemplary practice with an eye to the reciprocal relationship between education and psychology. Knowledge based on our practice and experience is important but, as with the scaffolding described by Shulman (1990), “it must be compared to knowledge from other sources, connected with knowledge based in research, and interwoven with knowledge derived from theoretical perspectives to be made useful” (Snow, 2001, p. 8). The reciprocity in this connection is that the personal knowledge of excellent teachers, made systematic, contributes to research and theory.

835

practice can surface tacit knowledge of what it means to educate (Coleman, 2004), adding significantly to our models of expertise. Similarly, teachers can be researchers of their own practice (Duckworth, 1987; Jordan, Porath, & Bickerton,, 2003; Paley, 1986), contributing eloquent descriptions of how they orchestrate learning.

Gifted Educators or Gifted Contexts? This chapter proposes a developmental model of gifted teaching. The objective in doing so is to offer a design for development of sophisticated, deeply thoughtful practice. While this design for development can facilitate the identification of gifted educators, the intent is to do so with the goal of informing gifted teacher education contexts (cf. Barab & Plucker, 2002). As Berliner (2001) emphasizes, the role of talent in teaching is “of little practical interest to those who study pedagogical expertise” (p. 465). What we must attend to is extensive practice guided by the principles espoused by Shulman (1990) and context. The characteristics of a gifted educator emerge in the interaction between teacher and schools and communities (Berliner). What contexts are “gifted” in their support of thoughtful practice? What opportunities exist for practice and coaching? Berliner notes that teachers have little opportunity for the kind of extensive, deliberate practice that has been documented in studies of experts in other fields (e.g. Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, 2006). Consonant with recent calls for reconceptualization of what makes giftedness (e.g. Barab & Plucker, 2002; Borland, 2005), the model of the gifted educator presented here should not become a “find the gifted teacher” model with the individual as the unit of analysis (cf. Barab & Plucker). It should serve to inform how we craft contexts that support the development of teachers who are the best they can be.

References Teacher Involvement Teachers must be involved in articulating what it means to be a gifted educator. Too often, they are the victims of top-down thinking about what education should be (Lupart & Webber, 2002). The act of reflection on one’s

Albom, M. (1997). Tuesdays with Morrie. An old man, a young man, and life’s greatest lesson. New York: Doubleday. Arlin, P. K. (1975). Cognitive development in adulthood: A fifth stage? Developmental Psychology, 11, 602–606. Arlin, P. K. (1989). Problem solving and problem finding in young artists and young scientists. In M. L. Commons, J. S. Sinnott, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Adult develop-

836 ment: Comparisons and applications of developmental models (Vol. 1, pp. 197–216). New York: Praeger. Arlin, P. K. (1993). Wisdom and expertise in teaching: An integration of perspectives. Learning and Individual Differences, 5, 341–349. Arlin, P. K. (1999). The wise teacher: A developmental model of teaching. Theory into Practice, 38, 12–17. Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55, 122–136. Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165–182. Barbour, N. E., & Shaklee, B. D. (1998). Gifted education meets Reggio Emilia: Visions for curriculum in gifted education for young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 228–237. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning – a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 12–25. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1986). Educational relevance of the study of expertise. Interchange, 17(2), 10–19. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2000). Commentary on Part I: Process and product in problem-based learning (PBL) research. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problembased learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 185–195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 463–482. Bickerton, G. (1994, June). Narrative knowledge as revealed in children’s perceptions of learning. Paper presented at the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Borland, J. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children: The case for no conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 1–19). New York: Cambridge University Press. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. New York: Academic Press. Case, R. (Ed.). (1992). The mind’s staircase: Exploring the conceptual underpinnings of children’s thought and knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Case, R. (1998). The development of conceptual structures. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (5th ed., pp. 745–800). New York: John Wiley. Case, R., & Okamoto, Y. (1996). The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children’s thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61(1–2, Serial No. 246). Clay, R. A. (2003). Molding effective teachers. Monitor on Psychology, 34(8), 50.

M. Porath Cohen, A. (2005, April). Contemplations and rumours about the inner life of the educator: That which we are we shall teach. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Montreal. Cohen, A., & Porath, M. (2006, May). Gifted educators. Paper presented at the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, York University. Coleman, L. J. (2004). “Being a teacher”: Emotions and optimal experience while teaching gifted children. In J. J. Gallagher (Ed.), Public policy in gifted education (pp. 131–145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. DeAngelis, T. (2003). Higher-ed movement aims to elevate teaching. Monitor on Psychology, 34(8), 53. diSessa, A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. E. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49– 70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dittman, M. (2003). Raising the bar. Monitor on Psychology, 34(8), 53. Dodge, B. (2006, July). From nouns to verbs: Turning fossilized content into lively learning. Paper presented at the International Conference PBL, Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Per´u, Lima. Donaldson, M. (1989). The mismatch between school and children’s minds. Human Nature, March, 155–159. Duckworth, E. (1987). “The having of wonderful ideas” and other essays on teaching and learning. New York: Teachers College Press. Eisner, E. W. (1993). Forms of understanding and the future of educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(7), 5–11. Ericsson, K. A., Nandagopal, K., & Roring, R. W. (2006). Giftedness viewed from the expert-performance perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 287–311. Ferrari, M. (Ed.). (2002). The pursuit of excellence through education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Fischer, K.W., Knight, C.C., & Van Parys, M. (1993). Analyzing diversity in developmental pathways: Methods and concepts. In R. Case & W. Edelstein (Eds.), The new structuralism in cognitive development: Theory and research on individual pathways (pp. 33–56). Basel: Karger. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4–10. Glick, J. (2002, November). Keynote address. Hominus 02, University of Havana, Havana, Cuba. Golomb, C. (1992). The child’s creation of a pictorial world. Berkeley: University of California Press. Griffin, S. (1992). Young childrens awareness of their inner world: A neo-structural analysis of the development of intrapersonal intelligence. In R. Case (Ed.), The mind’s staircase: Exploring the conceptual underpinnings of children’s thought and knowledge (pp. 189–206). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jackson, N. E. (2000). Strategies for modeling the development of giftedness in children. In R. C. Friedman & B. M. Shore (Eds.), Talents unfolding: Cognition and development (pp. 27–54). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

40

What Makes a Gifted Educator?

Jordan, E., Porath, M., & Bickerton, G. (2003). Problem-based learning as a research tool for teachers. In A. Clarke & G. Erickson (Eds.), Teacher inquiry: Living the research in everyday practice (pp. 141–153). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Latour, R. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Leinhardt, G., & Steele, M. D. (2005). Seeing the complexity of standing to the side: Instructional dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 87–163. Lupart, J., & Webber, C. (2002). Canadian schools in transition: Moving from dual education systems to inclusive schools. Exceptionality Education Canada, 12(2 & 3), 7–52. Malcolm, J. (2005). A developmental analysis of adolescents’ life stories: Narrative coherence and meaning-making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary. McKeough, A. (1992). A neo-structural analysis of children’s narrative and its development. In R. Case (Ed.), The mind’s staircase: Exploring the conceptual underpinnings of children’s thought and knowledge (pp. 171–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. McKeough, A. (2005, August). Introduction to the symposium, Developmental trajectories in narrative thought: Contributing factors and underlying mechanisms. Presented at the European Conference on Developmental Psychology, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain. McKeough, A., & Genereux, R. (2003). Transformation in narrative thought during adolescence: The structure and content of story composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 537–552. McKeough, A., Malcolm, J., & Misfeldt, D. (2005, August). Developmental change in adolescents’ narrative interpretation of family and life stories. Paper presented at the European Conference on Developmental Psychology, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain. McKeough, A., Okamoto, Y., & Porath, M. (2002, April). A design for development: The legacy of Robbie Case. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Meichenbaum, D., & Biemiller, A. (1998). Nurturing independent learners. Helping students take charge of their learning. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Mills, C. J. (2003). Characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students: Teacher background and personality styles of students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 272–281. Miller, R. B. (1978). The information system designer. In W. T. Singleton (Ed.), The analysis of practical skills (pp. 278– 291). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Morelock, M. J., & Feldman, D. H. (2003). Extreme precocity: Prodigies, savants, and children of extraordinarily high IQ. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 455–469). Boston: Pearson Education. Newman, L. J. (1993). The beginnings of expertise: A neoPiagetian perspective on student teachers’ representation of the problem of adapting instruction to individual differences among learners. Learning and Individual Differences, 5, 351–371. Newman, L. J. (2002). An analysis of student teachers’ representations of real life teaching problems: A neo-Piagetian perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of British Columbia.

837 Nieto, S. (2003). Challenging current notions of “highly qualified teachers” through work in a teacher’s inquiry group. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 386–398. Paley, V. G. (1986). On listening to what the children say. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 122–131. Porath, M. (1991). Educational implications of a developmental perspective on giftedness. Exceptionality Education Canada, 1(4), 61–76. Porath, M. (1993). Gifted young artists: Developmental and individual differences. Roeper Review, 16, 29–33. Porath, M. (1997). Gifted children’s understanding of intelligence. Roeper Review, 20, 95–98. Porath, M. (2000). Social giftedness in childhood: A developmental perspective. In R. C. Friedman & B. M. Shore (Eds.), Talents unfolding: Cognitive and developmental frameworks (pp. 195–215). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Porath, M., & Lupart, J. L. (2007, May). The child as psychologist: Gifted students making meaning of learning and knowledge. Paper presented at the Canadian Society for the study of Education, University of Saskatchewan. Rinaldi, C. (1997). A measure for friendship. In M. Castagnetti & V. Vecchi (Eds.), Shoe and meter (pp. 101–103). Municipality of Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children. Robinson, N. M. (1993). Identifying and nurturing gifted, very young children. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), Research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 507–524). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon Press. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3–36). New York: MacMillan. Shulman, L. S. (1990). Reconnecting foundations to the substance of teacher education. Teachers College Record, 91, 300–310. Snow, C. E. (2001). Knowing what we know: Children, teachers, researchers. Educational Researcher, 30, 3–9. Spoehr, K. T. (1994). Enhancing the acquisition of conceptual structures through hypermedia. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 75–101). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). A prototype view of expert teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(6), 9–17. Strozzi, P. (2001). Daily life at school: Seeing the extraordinary in the ordinary. In C. Giudici, C. Rinaldi, & M. Krechevsky (Eds.), Making learning visible: Children as individual and group learners (pp. 58–77). Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children. Strauss, S., Globerson, T., & Mintz, R. (1983). The influence of training for the atomistic schema on the development of density concept among gifted and nongifted children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 4, 125–147. Towers, E., & Porath, M. (2001). Gifted teaching/Thought and action. Roeper Review, 23, 202–206. Turner-Bisset, R. (1999). The knowledge bases of the expert teacher. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 39–55. Vecchi, V. (2001). The curiosity to understand. In Project Zero & Reggio Children (Eds.), Making learning visible: Children as individual and group learners (pp. 158–213). Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children.

Chapter 41

Understanding Managerial Talent Larisa V. Shavinina and Marianna Medvid

Abstract This chapter is about the nature of managerial talent. It specifically discusses the existing findings that explain the very essence of this phenomenon. It reviews the Gallup organization’s study of more than 80,000 great managers worldwide and presents a new theory of managerial talent aimed at understanding the fundamental nature of this phenomenon. According to the theory, the managerial talent emerges at the intersection of unique vision, unusual creative and innovative abilities, highly developed intuition and wisdomrelated skills, excellence-based performance, and entrepreneurial giftedness. This chapter presents the case study of the manager who is a talented manager by all standards. This case study supports the theory and the Gallup’s findings.

important for the successful existence of any organization (Branson, 2002; Dell, 1999; Morita, 1987), one should acknowledge that managerial talent is terra incognita from a research viewpoint. The existing literature does not explain the nature of the phenomenon. It mainly concentrates either on CEOs, their reputation, success–failure, succession planning, and how to attract and retain them by using monetary and other rewards (Angel & Fumas, 1997; Arya & Mittendorf, 2005; Batten, 2002; Fernandez-Ar´aoz, 2005; Finkelstein, 2006; Martin & Moldoveanu, 2003; Moore, 2007; Sinclair-Desgagne & Cadot, 2000; Sorensen, 1999; Sridhar, 1994; Takii, 2003) or on trends in executive education emphasizing the need to develop managers for top positions (Narayandas, 2007; Thornton & Cleveland, 1990). The study Keywords Managerial talent · Great managers · of these issues does not shed light on the essence of Unique vision · Creative abilities · Individual innova- managerial talent. It should be noted that although tion · Intuition · Wisdom · Excellence · Entrepreneurial the available literature does not explain the nature of this phenomenon, it nevertheless highlights the giftedness importance of talented managers. For example, Fernandez-Ar´aoz (2005) found that companies that are able to identify and attract the most qualified managers Introduction have a considerable advantage. This is because there are two types of costs associated with hiring the wrong It sounds unbelievable, but it is true: there are many person: cost to the company in terms of performance managers in any private, public, and not-for-profit and the opportunity cost. Even if a person promoted or organization and the very success of those organiza- hired is not a clear failure, the company may still have tions depends to a great extent on managers. However, a significant opportunity cost in terms of the forsaken management scholars and giftedness researchers alike performance had the right individual been appointed have not yet studied the phenomenon of managerial (Fernandez-Ar´aoz, 2005). talent. Although talented managers are exceptionally Two other studies should be mentioned here because they shed light on some personality characteristics and skills of talented managers such as risk-taking attitude, L.V. Shavinina (B) forecasting abilities, and honesty. Takii (2003) demonUniversit´e du Qu´ebec en Outaouais, Gatineau, Qu´ebec, Canada strated that talented business school graduates choose e-mail: [email protected]

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 41, 

839

840

to work in risky industries. This finding contrasts with the traditional view that talented managers concentrate in large companies. Sridhar (1994) found that a more talented manager has both better forecasting abilities and higher productivity than a less talented manager. It is shown that while a more talented manager always reports her assessment of a company’s project truthfully, a less talented manager’s report depends on the magnitude of the difference in productivities between the more and the less talented managers. When this productivity gap is large, the less talented manager conceals her lack of talent by claiming that the project’s returns are low so as to discourage investment by the company. Shifting blame to factors beyond her control protects the manager’s reputation. Such managerial misreporting results in underinvestment by the company. In contrast, where the productivity gap between the less talented manager and a more talented manager is small, a less talented manager guards her reputation by sometimes reporting favourable prospects and sometimes unfavourable prospects. This leads the company either to over- or underinvestment of its resources, respectively. Thus, managerial misreporting occurs in equilibrium because a less talented manager tries to masquerade as a more talented manager, resulting in investment distortions. Sridhar (1994) also explained managerial investment distortion in the choice between short-term and long-term projects. Consider a scenario in which the outcome of a short-term project is observed publicly earlier than that of a long-term project. It is shown that managerial reputation incentives, coupled with superior two-dimensional private information, would cause a more talented manager to implement a short-term or a long-term project as dictated by the company’s interests, whereas a less talented manager with low productivity would choose a long-term project. These studies clearly demonstrate that talented managers are exceptionally important for organizational success. Nonetheless, they do not explain the nature of managerial talent. An unprecedented exception in this regard is the Gallup’s investigation (Buckingham & Coffman, 1990). The Gallup organization conducted an exceptional research on managerial talent: they studied more than 80,000 great managers worldwide. The next section of the chapter reviews this study. The third section presents the case study of a great manager, Richard Branson, that supports the Gallup’s findings.

L.V. Shavinina and M. Medvid

The fourth section presents a new theory of managerial talent that seeks to explain the nature of this phenomenon. The theory states that the managerial talent emerges at the intersection of managers’ unique vision, unusual creative and innovative abilities, highly developed intuition and wisdom-related skills, excellence-based performance, and entrepreneurial giftedness.

Breaking all the Rules of Conventional Management Wisdom: The Study of Great Managers Before the beginning of their research on great managers, the Gallup researchers found that over the last 20 years there have been 9,000 systems and principles developed to explain managerial secrets. The amount of books published on management and leadership increased from 200 in 1975 to 600 by 1997. They also found that the advice on great management was conflicting and it lacked precision and simplicity. There was little quantitative research and no standards for measuring the characteristics of great managers (i.e., no one interviews the best managers in the world and no one compares them with their less successful colleagues, that is, average managers; Buckingham & Coffman, 1990). However, the Gallup study of more than 80,000 great managers worldwide was a result of another research aimed at understanding the link between engaged employees and organizational unit outcomes. In other words, the Gallup wanted to figure out what makes a great, strong workplace, which attracts talented employees who wish to stay there and to excel in their respective jobs. Certainly, excellent performance predetermines such crucial organizational outcomes as productivity, profitability, employee retention, and customer satisfaction. This research revealed the critical role of managers everywhere. This is why the Gallup began an unprecedented study of more than 80,000 great managers in the world. Let us briefly mention the main findings of their investigation of the core factors involved in creating a great, strong workplace. More than a million employees were interviewed and hundreds of different questions were asked in order to reveal what makes such a workplace. It was an exploratory study. The results of statistical analysis indi-

41

Understanding Managerial Talent

cated that the strength of a workplace can be described by 12 simple questions. These questions measure the main elements of the workplace needed to attract, focus, and keep the most talented employees. The questions are as follows: (1) Do I know what is expected of me at work? (2) Do I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right? (3) Do I have the opportunity to do what I do best everyday? (4) In the last 7 days, have I received recognition or praise for good work? (5) Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person? (6) Is there someone at work who encourages my development? (7) Do my opinions seem to count? (8) Does the mission/purpose of my organization make me feel like my work is important? (9) Are my co-workers committed to doing quality work? (10) Do I have a best friend at work? (11) In the last 6 months, have I talked with someone about my progress? (12) At work, have I had opportunities to learn and grow? The most amazing finding is that these 12 questions do not deal with pay, benefits, senior management, or organizational structure (Buckingham & Coffman, 1990). The Gallup researchers’ next step was to see whether or not engaged employees do indeed drive positive outcomes. It was expected that employees who answered those 12 questions positively would work in higher-performing organizational units. A total of 105,000 employees from across 2,500 organizational units participated in this study. Their answers were compared with performance outcomes, which included productivity, profitability, employee retention, and customer satisfaction. The results demonstrated that employees, who responded more positively, really worked in organizational units with higher levels of productivity, profitability, employee retention, and customer satisfaction. Therefore, if managers wish to retain employees and build a strong and productive workplace, then they have to secure high—that is, positive—scores to at least the first 6 questions and to address all the 12 questions in the right order. Using the mountain climbing analogy, Buckingham & Coffman (1990) grouped the 12 questions as follows: Base Camp, Camp 1, Camp 2, Camp 3, and Summit. The Base Camp (“what do I get?”) contains questions 1 and 2 from the list of 12 questions mentioned above. Camp 1 (“what do I give?”) addresses questions 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively. Camp 2 (“do I belong here?”) includes questions 7, 8, 9, and 10, accordingly. Camp 3 (“how can we all grow?”) consists of questions

841

11 and 12, and eventually the summit is reached. The right order means that managers should start at “Base Camp” and “Camp 1.” It would be wrong to begin building the strong, great workplace from trying to address the questions that belong to Camp 3. This is why the mountain climbing analogy is appropriate here: the nature of human beings prohibits us from reaching the summit instantly (e.g., with the help of helicopter), because we will develop high-mountain disease. It is impossible for human lungs to adapt to high altitude immediately. Another exceptionally important finding of the second study conducted by the Gallup was that managers—not the pay, benefits, or a corporate leader—were the critical players in building a strong workplace. More precisely, researchers found that the immediate managers were more essential than anything else, because people leave managers not organizations (Buckingham & Coffman, 1990). Therefore, the Gallup organization realized that the next logical step is to study great managers themselves. The study of over 80,000 great managers in the world was conducted through interviews and later “average managers” were compared to “great managers.” The goal was to find common patterns, that is, to address the following questions: What do the best managers have in common? What does distinguish them from their less successful colleagues? However, the first pressing issue was how to identify great or best managers. The Gallup researchers found that different organizations have various definitions of who a best manager is. Eventually, they decided to ask senior administration the only one question: “Which of your managers would you love to clone?” It was a very wise question to ask: everyone could understand what it meant and this allowed the Gallup to really identify the best managers in any type of organization. The research per se consisted of personal interviews with each of 80,000 great managers. The interview included, for instance, the following questions: (1) “You have an extremely productive employee who consistently fouls up the paperwork. How would you work with this person to help him or her be more productive?” (2) “You have two managers. One has the best talent for management you have ever seen. The other is mediocre. There are two openings available: the first is a high-performing territory, the second is a territory that is struggling. Neither territory has yet reached its potential. Where would you recommend the excellent

842

manager be placed?” (3) “As a manager, which would you rather have: an independent, aggressive person who produced $1.2 million in sales or a team player who produced about half as much? Please explain your choice.” The answers of great managers to these questions were as follows: (1) Great managers would find out why this person is fouling up the paperwork (e.g., she/he is new to the role or she/he could benefit from some training). If the problem is lack of talent for paperwork, they would find a solution to manage around the employee’s weakness for administration and focus on his or her productivity instead. (2) Great managers place the most talented manager in the higher-performing territory. According to them, less talented manager will never make the most of the higher-performing territory, and the lower-performing territory may well defeat your talented manager. So, you may set up two people to fail and halved your productivity. Therefore, they use excellence as their measure: only the talented manager has a chance to help the higher-performing territory reach its true potential. (3) Great managers prefer an independent, aggressive person. They are not looking for people who are easy to manage (i.e., the independent person was more talented but harder to manage. The team player was less talented for the role but much easier to manage). They are looking for people who have the talent needed to be world class. So, they prefer the challenge of taking a talented person and focusing him or her towards productivity rather than the challenge of trying to make a less productive person talented. The findings of this study of more than 80,000 great managers worldwide are amazing. The Gallup researchers found that best managers in the world do not have much in common, except that they break all the rules of conventional management wisdom and share some unique insights. Specifically, great managers are convinced that people do not change that much, therefore do not waste time trying to change somebody. Instead, they focus on what was left out and try to draw out what was left in. In other words, the best managers capitalize on human strengths, not on weaknesses. They strongly believe that the greatest room for human improvement is in the area of our strengths, not in the area of our weaknesses. This is why they would put the most talented manager in the high-performing territory.

L.V. Shavinina and M. Medvid

According to the great managers, their main role is to reach inside each employee and release his or her unique, potential talents into high performance. This main role can be realized via exercising the four most important responsibilities, namely selecting the right individuals, setting expectations, motivating, and developing people. Organizations should keep every manager focused on these four most important responsibilities and should not force every manager to manage his or her teams in exactly the same way. Each manager will employ his or her own style. The difference between managers and leaders is that great managers look inward, that is, inside each team member and try to figure out what motivates him or her in order to transform his or her potential abilities into performance. Great leaders look outward: towards competition, current and future trends in their respective areas of business, and so on. The Gallup study demonstrates that great managers break all the rules of conventional management wisdom in a unique way. For example, the conventional management wisdom recommends managers to

r r r r

Select and hire people based on their experience, intelligence (i.e., education), and determination (i.e., persistence, willpower), because it makes sense Set expectations for employees by defining the right steps Motivate people by helping them identify and overcome their weaknesses Develop employees by helping them learn and get promoted

The best managers in the world completely reject this wisdom. Thus, when selecting the person, great managers select for talent, not simply for experience, intelligence, or determination. They define the talent as a recurring pattern of thought, feeling, or behaviour that people do often and that can be productively applied in any field of human activity. Conventional wisdom assumes that behaviours can be trained later and they are not important to performance on the job. Great managers believe that talents are the prerequisites for excellence in all roles (e.g., empathy in nurses or assertiveness in salespeople). According to them, every role, performed at excellence, requires talent, because it requires certain recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behaviour. Talents are the driving force behind an individual’s job performance and only the presence of the right talents—recurring patterns of behaviour that

41

Understanding Managerial Talent

fit the role—can account for a range in performance. Great managers therefore think that they have to select for talent because it is impossible to teach it. One of the greatest myths about talents is that they are rare and special. Another common myth is that some roles are so easy that they do not require talent. According to the great managers, the first step in finding talent is to know what talents you are looking for. They are convinced that it is possible to find right talent if enough information about a potential employee is gathered (i.e., internal best practice discovery). This is why managers and organizations have to study their best (Nonaka, Sasaki, & Ahmed, 2003; Shavinina, 2007). Great managers set expectations by defining the right outcomes (managing by remote control), rather than the right steps, which are embraced by conventional wisdom. By defining the right outcomes, great managers avoid the temptation of trying to control their people. They recognize that in certain situations steps are required and must be followed, especially when you are working in industries dealing with accuracy or safety (e.g., banks, nuclear plants, air traffic control, or oil and gas industry). In short, if steps are part of an organization or industry standard, the best managers in the world definitely follow them. Another unique insight of great managers is their conviction that there are no steps leading to customer satisfaction; required steps only prevent dissatisfaction. Conventional management wisdom assumes that managers have to motivate their employees by helping them identify or overcome their weaknesses. Great managers entirely ignore this wisdom. They motivate individuals by focusing on their strengths, because, as was mentioned above, the greatest area for our enhancement is in the zone of human strengths, not in the zone of human weaknesses. This explains why great managers would put the most talented manager in the high-performing territory, because only the most talented manager will be able to push that territory to even higher-performing heights. Great managers’ focus on human strengths also explains why they manage by exception; that is, they recognize individual differences existing between employees and customize their managerial approach according to those differences. One of the key manifestations of the management by exception is that great managers think that most of their time should be spent with the best people, not with the worst (e.g., less

843

productive team members). They indeed spend more time with their best employees, because this is the only way how great managers can demonstrate a true appreciation of ever-increasing, exceptionally high performance. If managers follow the conventional management wisdom and spend more time with their less productive employees, then they send a very de-motivating message to their best people. That is, even if you surpass your own excellent performance and do better this week than the previous week, I do not have time for you, because your less successful colleagues Mr. Johnson or Mrs. Anderson take all my attention as I constantly must help them to do their work appropriately. Great managers develop people by helping them find the right fit, in contrast to conventional management wisdom which recommends managers to help people learn and get promoted to the next rung on the ladder. Great managers strongly believe that matching employees with the right jobs are of paramount importance, instead of promoting them to their level of incompetence (i.e., the Peter Principle). Finding the right fit between people’s talents and jobs is needed to guarantee a high performance. Furthermore, it is also a critical condition for creating an organizational culture conducive to creativity and innovation (Amabile, 1998; Shavinina, 2003). Based on these unique findings from the study of more than 80,000 best managers in the world, the Gallup researchers highly recommend organizations to create a friendly climate for great managers by resisting conventional management wisdom, keeping the focus on outcomes, and teaching the language of great managers. For example, organizations should avoid such expressions used by the conventional management as “You cannot pay people that way. You cannot promote her if she does not have more than five years of experience. You are not treating every employee in the same way; that is unfair. Here is our new performance management system; please, make sure that every employee is trained on every one of these competencies. You cannot give him that title because he does not have anyone reporting to him” (Buckingham & Coffman, 1990, p. 235). Keeping the focus on outcomes refers to applying the following steps. First, define, as much as possible, every role using outcome terms. Second, try to find a way to rate, rank, or count as many of those outcomes as possible (measurement improves performance). Third, hold managers accountable for their

844

employees’ responses to the 12 questions discussed above, which characterize a strong, great workplace. These questions are an important outcome measure. Fourth, managers should use the 12 questions as part of their overall performance scorecard. In order to teach the wisdom and especially the language of great managers, the Gallup researchers advise organizations to

L.V. Shavinina and M. Medvid

workplace that were found by the Gallup researchers will be quite helpful in such cases. Fernandez-Ar´aoz (2005) also emphasized that when hiring, managers often fall into a psychological trap of seeking information that confirms what they already think instead of searching for any contradictory evidence. Consequently, assessing candidates in depth requires enormous discipline in order to sift through both r Make sure that people know that all roles performed positive and negative data and arrive at individual’s true qualifications. Again, the key finding of the Gallup at excellence require talent r Change recruiting practices, job descriptions, and study of more than 80,000 great managers is more than appropriate here: organizations have to hire managers r´esum´e qualifications to reflect the crucial impor- for talent who see their main role as reaching inside tance of talent r Remove the remedial element from professional each employee and releasing his or her unique, potential talents into high performance. training, which means to stop sending less talented people to training classes and workshops to be “fixed” r Give every employee the benefit of feedback. Ev- Richard Branson as a Great Manager: A eryone should know that 360-degree surveys, per- Case Study sonality questionnaires aimed at creating personality profiles, and performance appraisal systems are useful as long as they are focused on helping The results of the Gallup study have a good potenthe individual understand himself or herself better tial to fuel research on managerial talent. For instance, and build upon his or her strengths (Buckingham & we decided to conduct a special case study in order to see whether Richard Branson—who is famous for Coffman, 1990) his unique management style—shares some insights of Therefore, the Gallup study demonstrates that great great managers. In other words, does Richard Branson managers are unique in every aspect of their manage- have something in common with great managers studrial practice: in selecting people, setting expectations ied by the Gallup? As mentioned in the chapter on entrepreneurial giftfor them, motivating and developing them, just to mention the four main managerial responsibilities. This is edness (Shavinina, this volume), Richard Branson is a really exceptional research that sheds light on the na- the founder and owner of the highly successful Virgin group of companies, which includes many comture of managerial talent. As noticed above, the rest of the existing publica- panies. Virgin Galactic—that will soon offer tourists a tions do not explain the essence of managerial talent. unique opportunity to travel to the space—is one of his For example, Fernandez-Ar´aoz (2005) states that no latest ventures. Is Richard Branson a successful manamount of effort will help the “wrong” manager to sur- ager? Does his managerial talent contribute to his overvive, but the proper preparatory and support work can all business success? If yes, then how? To address these definitely improve the chances of someone who is right questions, we studied the existing (auto) biographical for a position. The author’s main thesis is that when accounts on Richard Branson, and first of all his autoassessing candidates for a job, organizations need to biography (Branson, 2002). It was pointed out in the chapter on entrepreneurial predict two things: What skills and attributes are truly needed, and what will each person actually deliver? giftedness (Shavinina, this volume) that the use of the Making these two predictions is not easy, especially (auto) biographical accounts and the case study method in cases where job complexity is high. It is difficult can be to a certain degree a controversial matter. Howto evaluate candidates reliably in “soft” areas such as ever, scientific attempts to successfully understand the the ability to develop people, lead teams, collaborate phenomenon of managerial talent are impossible withwith others, and manage change efforts. From our point out reliance on such accounts. Autobiographies and the of view, the 12 questions describing the strong, great case study method in general are excellently suited for

41

Understanding Managerial Talent

capturing the unique cognitive, personality, and social characteristics of the gifted. Autobiographical accounts are necessary for the research on persons distinguished by their rarity as is the case with exceptionally successful managers. Such accounts allow investigators identify the unique features of the gifted, that is, the distinctive characteristics of managerial style of talented managers. It is important to underline that the use of autobiographical accounts for research on great personalities may be a little bit problematic due to the following reasons. First, autobiographers can definitely be subjective and even contradictory in their descriptions of their own thinking processes, psychological states, and the surrounding events, which lead up to and follow their achievements. Second, the timing of writing autobiographies is an essential issue. It means that normally outstanding individuals write their autobiographies after they have already become famous personalities. In such cases writers rely on vague memories of their thinking processes, which may have likely been weakened or altered over time. This is why researchers seriously discuss the validity and reliability of subjective reports as data (Brown, 1978, 1987; Ericsson & Simon, 1980). However, such concerns are not quite applicable in the case of Richard Branson. First of all, he wrote the autobiography himself at the age of 43 when details were still quite fresh in his mind. Second, because his parents, siblings, friends, and colleagues were alive at the time of writing his book, Richard could consult with them concerning the accuracy of events. Third, he always writes down everything what is happening in his life, and, as a result, his book is based on numerous notebooks, which he “fills in every day” (Branson, 2002, p. 511). Taken together, all of this makes Richard Branson’s (2002) autobiography a valid and reliable data source. The fundamental conclusion of our case study is that Richard Branson is indeed a great, talented manager. He possesses many of the characteristics of great managers found in the Gallup study, and even more (to be considered below). Below we are going to describe the insights that he shares with the best managers in the world in accordance with the Gallup research. First of all, as a manager, Richard Branson considers that employees are his number one priority. According to him, staff should come first, even if it means making less money. From his point of view, that is

845

the right decision to make. An impressive example of Richard Branson’s concern for the staff dates to early 1990s, when he offered jobs to all his employees at Virgin Atlantic after announcing the selling of Virgin Records. Richard Branson’s approach to employee selection focuses on finding the right fit between the job and the person based on their unique talents and not necessarily on their qualifications. That is, he hires for talent and does not pay attention to education, experience, and determination as the conventional management wisdom prescribes. A good example is when he invited his childhood friend to join the Student magazine instead of going to university. “Nik agreed to delay going to university and come to Student’s aid. With Nik arrival, Student was put back on the rail. . . .Nik used our Coutts accounts properly. . .He started writing checks and then checking the stubs off against the bank statements” (Branson, 2002, pp. 66–67). Nik had just graduated from the high school and did not have any education or experience in finance. However, Richard Branson was able to recognize the potential accounting talent in his friend. Likewise, Richard Branson was good in identifying talents of other colleagues, who, again, did not have any education or experience in those areas. Thus, when establishing Virgin Records, he noticed that Nik was perfect in accounting, Simon was excellent in choosing potential songs and in predicting what will be sold in the record business every season, and Ken knew how to deal with people and contract negotiations. “While Nik managed the costs of both the mailorder business and the Virgin Records shops, Simon began to define the mail order list as well as the Virgin Records shops themselves by choosing which records to stock” (Branson, 2002, pp. 106–107). “Virgin success, both in mail order and in record shops lay in Simon’s skill at buying records” (Branson, 2002, p. 108). Richard Branson was therefore able to perceive the unique inner talents of his staff and release them into high performance. Richard Branson sets expectations by defining the right outcomes and lets his employees figure out the required steps. He believes that Virgin staff are entrepreneurs in their own right. Granting autonomy at work empowers Virgin employees to reach high levels of performance. Examples are abandoning. For instance, in early years of Virgin Atlantic one of the stewardesses approached Richard Branson with an idea of

846

creating Virgin Brides. She was planning to get married and she noticed that there is not one place that could provide all the necessary services for brides including clothes, wedding ceremony, honey moon travel. Richard liked the stewardess’s idea and she was immediately appointed to the CEO position of Virgin Brides. This example also demonstrates that Richard Branson shares the wisdom of great managers related to developing his staff. He always tries to find the right fit between the employees’ interests or talents and the area of business activity. Also, with respect to setting up expectations, Richard Branson gives a complete freedom to his managers. As soon as a new Virgin company is created based on an original idea, he keeps 51% or 52% of its shares leaving the rest to the generator of the idea who very often becomes a senior manager (e.g., CEO or president) in charge of the company. Branson does not interfere with their management decisions at all. The overall performance of each company is the main evidence based on which he can evaluate the managerial success of his CEOs or presidents. Richard Branson’s managerial style therefore supports one of the interesting findings of the Gallup study, namely great managers manage by remote control. The best managers in the world understand that it is impossible to control people. Nobody wants to be controlled. Great managers realize well that in order to guarantee high performance they must trust their employees from the very beginning of any project. Great managers trust in the employees’ ability to do their best by demonstrating initiative, creativity, and innovation. Richard Branson’s strategy to motivate his employees involves creating a fun-working environment, where employees like to be every day and do their best. “Fun is at the core of the way I like to do business and it has been the key to everything I’ve done from the outset. More than any other element, fun is the secret of Virgin’s success” (Branson, 2002, p. 489). On numerous occasions, Richard Branson has organized parties for his staff to have fun and, moreover, he entertained them. “I have always enjoyed parties, and I love throwing the Virgin staff together. It’s an important part of life at Virgin” (p. 120). This unique managerial approach is spread through the organization, allowing employees to do the work that brings them most fun and enjoyment.

L.V. Shavinina and M. Medvid

Richard Branson also motivates his employees by showing sincere appreciation and offering—when it is possible—generous rewards for their efforts. In 1993, he split the compensation—£500,000—received from British Airways among the employees of Virgin Atlantic. “Back at Holland Park the party started. I decided to share the £500,000 damages which had been given to me among all the Virgin Atlantic staff, since they all had to suffer from the pressure that British Airways had put us under, in the form of reduced salaries and cuts in their bonuses” (Branson, 2002, p. 488). In addition to being a great manager in accordance with the Gallup study of more than 80,000 best managers in the world, Richard Branson is also a talented manager in light of the new theory of managerial talent presented below. The next section outlines this theory. Examples from the case study of Richard Branson are provided below as they nicely illustrate many of the main facets of the theory.

Theory of Managerial Talent The theory of managerial talent states that talented managers possess by a unique vision, well-developed intuition (i.e., the extracognitive abilities) and wisdom, exceptional creative and innovative abilities, entrepreneurial giftedness, excellence, and compensatory mechanisms (Shavinina, 2005). This theory is rooted in the theory of giftedness (see Shavinina’s chapter on the nature of giftedness, this volume), according to which an individual’s cognitive experience that expresses itself in a specific type of representations (i.e., how he or she sees, understands, and interprets everything what is going on around him or her) is the basis of giftedness. In other words, a specific type of representation is an individual’s intellectual picture of the world or his/her unique point of view or vision. The unique vision of talented managers displays itself in every facet of their professional activity. For example, Richard Branson’s unique vision was evident since his first business venture, the Student magazine, and was reflected in the Virgin brand, especially in his new model of business expansion via branded venture capital. The origins of this model—admired by the management scholars and practitioners alike and considered as the future of business—go back to the Student. “I began to think of ways to develop the

41

Understanding Managerial Talent

magazine, and the Student name, in other directions: a Student conference, a Student travel company, a Student accommodation agency. I didn’t just see Student as an end in itself, a noun. I saw it as the beginning of a whole range of services. . . In this way I was a little removed from the rest of my friends, who concentrated exclusively on the magazine” (Branson, 2002, p. 64). It is safe to say today that this remoteness or the availability of vision was something that distinguished Richard out of crowd and eventually brought Virgin to a success. Interestingly enough, he is convinced that managers always have to have a long-term vision. It does not matter what the current state of their business is, they have to see ahead. “However tight things are, you still need to have the big picture at the forefront of your mind” (Branson, 2002, p. 492). And he indeed has. For instance, he decided to buy 18 new planes during recession when nobody even thought about buying one plane. The unique vision of talented managers also expresses itself in how they select, motivate, and develop their employees, and set expectations for them. This was well described by the Gallup research and our case study of Richard Branson confirms it. Thus, talented managers realize that they must hire for talent, have to spend most time with their best employees, and understand very well that the only viable way of managing people is managing by remote control. For instance, real talents and interests of employees are the most important considerations for Richard Branson when he hires someone or appoint him or her to senior managerial position. It does not matter whether that person has a formal education or not; his or her actual talents are essential. For example, Richard has been entirely relying on Simon Draper’s musical talent in selecting new records for Virgin Records. Ken Berry started to work as a clerk in Virgin, but had an obvious managerial talent, and he eventually ended up negotiating contracts with star singers such as Janet Jackson and others. Richard Branson always gives an opportunity to his employees to manifest themselves to their full extent or re-invent themselves (e.g., to display their talents in new areas of business). Thus, Simon Burke, who used to work as a clerk in Virgin, applied for the CEO position of Virgin Shops, got Richard’s blessing, and was successful at this position. The CEO of Virgin Money decided to launch Virgin Vines and Branson completely supported him in his new venture.

847

Sensitivity of talented managers is behind their unique vision, because sensitive periods constitute a developmental foundation for the cognitive experience of the gifted (see Shavinina’s chapter on the nature of giftedness, this volume). Sensitivity of talented managers manifests itself in their sensitivity to employees’ inner worlds that allows them to be very good in managing people, as well as in their sensitivity to new ideas, promising solutions, as well as innovative products, services, and market trends. According to the theory of giftedness, there are three basic levels in the structural organization of giftedness (i.e., the neuropsychological, the developmental, and the cognitive foundations), as well as three levels of the manifestations of giftedness: intellectually creative abilities, metacognitive abilities, and extracognitive1 abilities (Shavinina, this volume). Up to this point, we have briefly considered a unique vision and sensitivity of talented managers that corresponds to the cognitive and developmental bases of giftedness. Let us now look at the manifestations of giftedness in the case of talented managers. Talented managers are characterized by highly developed creative abilities. In other words, their unique vision also displays itself in their exceptional creativity. They are always open to new ideas, constantly generate a flow of great ideas, and many of them have either unique philosophies of or approaches to creativity that cannot be found in the repertoire of traditional creativity training.2 Talented managers understand that great ideas may come from everyone and they are always ready to transform them into business opportunity. Thus, when Richard Branson had already founded Virgin Records, his aunt called him and told that one of her sheep has started singing. She asked him to send some sound engineers out there to make a recording. “The sheep probably won’t do it in a studio,” argued the aunt. And engineers should “better hurry since it could stop at any time,” concluded she (Branson, 2002, p. 27). As a highly creative person, Richard believes in unbelievable ideas and is open to new experience. Therefore, “that afternoon a bunch of sound engineers

1

For a definition of extracognitive abilities please refer to Shavinina’s chapter on the nature of giftedness (this volume). 2 Based on the analysis of the cases of exceptional creativity of talented managers, businessmen, and entrepreneurs, one of us designed new methods and techniques of creativity aimed at developing an individual’s creative abilities (Shavinina, 2005).

848

headed up to Norfolk with a 24-track mobile studio and recorded Aunt Clare’s singing sheep. They also amassed an entire choir of sheep, ducks and hens for the chorus, and we released the single ‘Baa Baa Black Sheep.’ It reached number four in the charts” (Branson, 2002, p. 28) and Virgin Records made profit. Examples of Richard’s creativity are abounding and we will not consider all of them here. Let us only mention that his philosophy of business is based on creativity: “I have never gone into any business purely to make money. . . A business has to. . . exercise your creative instincts” (Branson, 2002, p. 58). Extracognitive abilities of talented managers are nothing else but mainly their unique intuition (Klein, 2004). They themselves call it “gut instincts,” “feelings,” “senses,” and so on. It is unbelievable how many important decisions in the history of business were made based on managerial intuition. For instance, Richard Branson developed his intuition since childhood, primarily as compensatory mechanism to dyslexia. He learned how to use his strengths and compensate for weaknesses. “In the same way that I tend to make up my mind about people within thirty seconds of meeting them, I also make up my mind about whether a business proposal excites me within about thirty seconds of looking at it. I rely far more on gut instinct than researching huge amount of statistics. This might be because, due to my dyslexia, I distrust numbers, which I feel can be twisted to prove anything” (Branson, 2002, p. 216; italics added). Richard Branson used his intuition in many business deals. Look, for example, at how Virgin Money was born: “Instinctively, I felt that the world of financial services was shrouded in mystery and rip-offs and that there must be room for Virgin to offer a jargon free alternative with no hidden catches” (Branson, 2002, p. 598; italics added). On another occasion, with respect to a completely different area of management: “Air New Zeland made an offer to buy Virgin Blue for US$250 million shortly before 11 September. My instinct told me that the company was worth more than that, but it wasn’t an ungenerous offer” (Branson, 2002, pp. 537–538; italics added). Shortly after Virgin Blue became the second largest airline in Australia. The wisdom of talented managers is based on their high standards of ethical behaviour in professional life, as well as on the ability to take into account interests of all team members or all parties involved and act

L.V. Shavinina and M. Medvid

in the interests of everyone. According to the theory of giftedness, human values and high ethical standards also belong to the extracognitive abilities (see Shavinina’s chapter on the nature of giftedness; this volume). There are many examples of the wisdom of talented managers. In the case of Branson the most sound of them is when the customs and excise officials arrested the 20-year-old Richard because of the illegal profit, which Virgin had made from avoiding the purchase tax, and he spent one night in prison. “I had never really focused on what a good name truly meant before, but that night in prison made me understand. . . I vowed to myself that I would never again do anything that would cause me to be imprisoned, or indeed do any kind of business deal by which I would ever have cause to be embarrassed. In the many different business worlds I have inhabited since that night in prison, there have been times when I could have succumbed to some form of bribe, or could have had my way by offering one. But ever since that night in Dover prison I have never been tempted to break my vow” (Branson, 2002, pp. 100–101). It is interesting to note that high standards of ethical behaviour—and wisdom as a result—originate from childhood. Thus, it was parents who set high standards of ethical behaviour for Richard Branson. “My parents had always drummed into me that all you have in life is your reputation: you may be very rich, but if you lose your good name you’ll never be happy. The thought will always lurk at the back of your mind that people don’t trust you” (Branson, 2002, p. 100). Similarly, a priority of putting other people’s interests first also came from his parents. “At home Mum. . . always generated work for us. . . Whenever we were within Mum’s orbit we had to be busy. If we tried to escape by saying that we had something else to do, we were firmly told we were selfish. As a result we grew up with a clear priority of putting other people first” (Branson, 2002, pp. 24–25). There was “a great sense of teamwork within our family” (Branson, 2002, p. 24). Specific intentions, beliefs, and values of talented managers—which also belong to extracognitive abilities—explain their exceptional perseverance. For example, if somebody says that something cannot be done, Richard Branson tries to prove the opposite. “Life insurance? Everyone snorted when they heard the idea. People hate life insurance. . .Exactly, I said. It’s got potential” (Branson, 2002, p. 497).

41

Understanding Managerial Talent

Extracognitive abilities also manifest themselves in excellence3 that is another distinguishing facet of talented managers. Specifically, their belief in exceptionally high standards of performance is behind their excellence. They always try to do their best. “Anything I do in life I want to do well and not half-heartedly. I feel I am doing my best in Student,” wrote 16-year-old Richard in a letter home (Branson, 2002, p. 46). Talented managers are characterized by highly developed compensatory mechanisms,4 which are the manifestation of their well-developed metacognitive abilities. That is, talented managers know what they know, what they do not know, and how to compensate for what they do not know. For the most part, compensatory mechanisms of talented managers manifest themselves in their ability to find and hire talented employees who could compensate for their lack of knowledge or experience in something. For instance, Simon Draper’s love of and taste for music compensated for Richard Branson’s lack of knowledge in this area and were behind the success of Virgin Records; childhood friend Nik Powell was good in finance and thus compensated for Richard’s lack of interest in this field, and so on. Based on a specific cognitive experience that manifests itself in a unique point of view of talented managers, the combination of their strongly developed creative, metacognitive, and extracognitive abilities predetermines their exceptional innovative capabilities. Innovation is essentially about the implementation of new ideas into practice in the form of new products, processes, and services. As it was explained in detail in the chapter on innovation education (Shavinina, this volume), some individuals possess by a rare capacity to both generate creative ideas and implement them into practice. Not everyone is able to do this. Truly innovative abilities are quite rare. This is why innovation does not happen often. Because of their extraordinary creativity, exceptional ability to implement things into practice—that is one of the facets of metacognitive abilities—and highly developed extracognitive abilities, talented managers are very good in making innovation happen. This allowed Shavinina (2007) to talk

3 For a definition of excellence and its types please refer to Shavinina’s chapter on giftedness and economy (this volume). 4 For a definition of the concept of compensatory mechanisms please refer to Shavinina’s chapter on giftedness and economy (this volume).

849

about the phenomenon of individual innovation. In the case of talented managers there is a coincidence of the two phenomena: individual innovation and managerial talent. In other words, talented managers are also innovators. There are a lot of examples. Let us mention some of them. Thus, one of Richard Branson’s great ideas is to build spacecrafts that would allow tourist travel to the space. He is currently working hard on implementing this idea into practice. For instance, he founded Virgin Galactic, made a partnership with interested parties, and the work on building a spacecraft has already began. Another example of Richard Branson’s innovation is offering massage on the planes of Virgin Atlantic. His company was the first that initiated this service. The idea was suggested by one of the Virgin Atlantic’s passengers in a conversation with Richard. Branson immediately liked the idea and asked his staff to provide massage service as soon as possible. Finally, our research demonstrates that managerial talent is closely related to entrepreneurial giftedness.5 That is, for the most part, talented managers are also gifted entrepreneurs. Those numerous companies that Richard Branson set up testify to this. However, managerial talent and entrepreneurial giftedness go together not only in private sector. Entrepreneurial giftedness is also required for managers in public sector if they wish to succeed. As Jean-Guy Fleury, the Chairman of the Immigration and Refuge Board of Canada, put it, “Successful career in the federal public service requires great entrepreneurship. During all my 40 years in public service I have always been approaching any project as if it was my new venture” (Fleury, 2005). To sum up, the theory of managerial talent presented in this section states that talented managers possess by a specific cognitive experience that expresses itself in their unique type of representations and based on their enhanced sensitivity to everyone and everything around them. In other words, talented managers see, understand, and interpret the world differently from the rest of their colleagues. That is, they have a unique point of view or a unique vision. The cognitive experience is a cognitive basis for three types of the main manifestations of managerial talent: intellectually creative, metacognitive, and extracognitive abili5 For a definition of entrepreneurial giftedness please see Shavinina’s (this volume) chapter on this subject.

850

ties. These abilities are well developed in the case of talented managers. This is why they possess exceptional intuition, wisdom, highly developed compensatory mechanisms, innovative abilities, extraordinary persistence, and entrepreneurial giftedness. Their internal, high standards of performance result in excellence in their endeavours.

Summary This chapter has thus analysed an interesting and much needed, yet almost unexplored phenomenon of managerial talent. In spite of its obvious importance, scholars have not studied managerial talent thoroughly. The only exception is the Gallup’s research of more than 80,000 great managers worldwide. This is the first successful attempt to understand the nature of this phenomenon. The study found that best managers in the world break all the rules of conventional management wisdom in every aspect of their professional activity. Thus, they hire for talent (not simply for intelligence, experience, and determination), because great managers are convinced that every role performed at excellence requires talent. When they set expectations for their employees, they define the right outcomes, not the right steps. When motivating their team members, best managers focus on human strengths, not on weaknesses, because they understand very well that the greatest room for improvement is in the area of human strengths, not weaknesses. When developing people, great managers try to find the right fit between the person’s talents and the job requirements, not just promote the employees. Great managers also realized that they can manage people only by remote control and that they have to spend more time with their high-performing subordinates—their best employees. Therefore, great managers break all the rules of conventional management wisdom. According to the best managers in the world, their main role is to reach inside of each employee and release his or her potential talents into high performance. Our case study of Richard Branson confirmed the Gallup’s findings and yielded some new characteristics of great managers such as their ability to create a fun-working environment. The chapter also presented a new theory of managerial talent. According to the theory, managers that are talented share some criti-

L.V. Shavinina and M. Medvid

cal elements including a unique vision as a manifestation of their specific cognitive experience that is based on unusual sensitivity, highly developed wisdom, wellfunctioning intuition, optimism, compensatory mechanisms, as well as creative, innovative, metacognitive, and extracognitive abilities. The case study of Richard Branson supports the proposed theory.

References Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review (September-October), pp. 76–87. Angel, P. O., & Fumas, V. S. (1997). The compensation of Spanish executives – A test of a managerial talent allocation model. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 15(4), 511–531. Arya, A., & Mittendorf, B. (2005). Offering stock options to gauge managerial talent. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 40(1–3), 189–210. Batten, F. (2002). Out of the blue and into the black. Harvard Business Review, 80(4), 112–121. Branson, R. (2002). Losing My Virginity: The Autobiography. London: Virgin Books. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, selfregulation, and other even more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 64–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1990). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently. New York: Simon & Schuster. Dell, M. (1999). Direct from Dell. New York: Harper Business. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251. Fernandez-Ar´aoz, C. (2005). Getting the right people at the top. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(4), 67–79. Finkelstein, S. (2006). Why smart executives fail: Four case histories of how people learn the wrong lessons from history. Business History, 48(2), 153–170. Fleury, J.-G. (2005). On creativity in public service. Personal communication. 13 April. Klein, G. (2004). The power of intuition: How to use your gut feelings to make better decisions at work. New York: Currency Doubleday. Martin, R. L., & Moldoveanu, M. C. (2003). Capital versus talent – The battle that’s reshaping business. Harvard Business Review, 81(7), 36–45. Moore, G. A. (2007). To succeed in the long term, focus on the middle term. Harvard Business Review, 85(7–8), 84–92. Morita, A. (1987). Made in Japan. London, UK: Collins. Narayandas, D. (2007). Trends in executive education in business marketing. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 14(1), 23–30.

41

Understanding Managerial Talent

Nonaka, I., Sasaki, K., & Ahmed, M. (2003). Continuous innovation in Japan: The power of tacit knowledge. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International Handbook of Innovation. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Shavinina, L. V. (Ed.). (2003). The International Handbook on Innovation. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Shavinina, L. V. (2005). On Managerial Talent: Skills Recognition and Development (a one-day workshop for managers working in the national capital region). Presented on 14 October in Gatineau, Qu´ebec, Canada. Shavinina, L. V. (2007). Comment l’innovation peut-elle accroitre la performance organisationnelle? In L. Chaput (Ed.), Mod`eles Contemporains en Gestion: Un Nouveau Paradigme, la Performance (pp. 167–197). Le Delta I, Qu´ebec, Canada : Presses de l’Universit´e du Qu´ebec.

851 Sinclair-Desgagne, B., & Cadot, O. (2000). Career concerns and the acquisition of firm-specific skills. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 14(3), 204–217. Sorensen, J. B. (1999). Executive migration and interorganizational competition. Social Science Research, 28(3), 289–315. Sridhar, S. S. (1994). Managerial reputation and internal reporting. Accounting Review, 69(2), 343–363. Takii, K. (2003). Prediction ability. Review of Economic Dynamics, 6(1), 80–98. Thornton, G. C., & Cleveland, J. N. (1990). Developing managerial talent through simulation. American Psychologist, 45(2), 190–199.

Chapter 42

Multiple Giftedness in Adults: The Case of Polymaths Robert Root-Bernstein

Abstract Creativity researchers often assert that specialization is a requirement for adult success, that skills and knowledge do not transfer across domains, and that the domain dependence of creativity makes general creativity impossible. The supposed absence of individuals who have made major contributions to multiple domains supposedly supports the specialization thesis. This chapter challenges all three legs of the specialization thesis. It describes individuals who have made major contributions to multiple domains; reviews prior literature demonstrating polymathy among creative adults; and presents data from an ongoing study of Nobel laureates in literature, science and economics that confirms this creativity–polymathy connection. Keywords Polymathy · Polymaths · Creativity · Specialization thesis · Domain dependence of creativity · General creativity · Multiple domains · Creative adults

Introduction Whether gifted adults are generally or particularly creative and what the relationship of polymathy to giftedness may be are contentious issues for cognitive psychologists (Amabile, 1996; Gardner, 1993; Baer, 1998; Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Singer, 2004; Kaufman & Baer, 2005). The main issue being debated in the field is whether people are generally creative or specifically creative. Many psychologists assert that individuals can contribute to only one specialized profession or domain (Carey & Spelke, 1994; Feist, 2005; GardR. Root-Bernstein (B) Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected]

ner, 1983; Gardner, 1999; Karmiloff-Smith, 1992). The reasons specialization is thought to be required are diverse. Some psychologists suggest that the detailed knowledge and skills that must be acquired to contribute creatively to a discipline are too great for any individual to master more than one set in a lifetime. Others propose that non-overlapping and cognitively different types of intelligence are required to excel in different fields of endeavor and the likelihood of inheriting or developing multiple types of intelligences to the level necessary to be creative is vanishingly small. And a few have argued that even if an individual had the inherent set of intelligences and could acquire the necessary training in several disciplines, there is no evidence that transfer of knowledge and skills occurs between them, and therefore no reason to believe that a person who is creative in one discipline will be any more likely to be creative in another discipline. In sum, many psychologists argue that gifted adults are specialists and that their creativity stems from intensive application to a single domain. From this creativity-stemsfrom-specialization perspective, polymathy is rare and unrelated to creative ability. A minority of psychologists disagree, arguing that creativity is not limited to single domains, but is a more general trait. In particular, Catherine Cox argued that among historical personages, the more creative an individual was, the more varied their intense interests (Cox, 1926, Table 41). R. K. White found similarly that “the typical genius surpasses the typical college graduate in range of interests and. . .he surpasses him in range of ability” (White, 1931, p. 482). Lewis Terman summarized his findings concerning gifted individuals by saying that “Except in music and the arts, which draw heavily on specialized abilities, there are few persons who achieved great eminence in one field without

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 42, 

853

854

displaying more than average ability in one or more other fields” (quoted from Seagoe, 1975, p. 221). Eliot Dole Hutchinson similarly concluded in his 1959 study of creative individuals that multiple talents were the norm: “It is not by accident that in the greatest minds professions disappear. . .. Such men are not scientists, artists, musicians, when they might have just as well have been something else. They are creators” (Hutchinson, 1959, pp. 150–152). Finally, Roberta Milgram has found that career success in any discipline is better correlated with one or more intellectually stimulating and intensive avocational interests than IQ, grades, standardized test scores, or any combination of these (Milgram & Hong, 1993). The observation that creativity is associated with polymathic ability has been validated by historians as well. Historian of science Paul Cranefield found that among the men who founded the discipline of biophysics during the mid-19th century (a group including Helmholtz, Mueller, and Du Bois-Reymond among its stellar cast), there was a direct correlation between the number and range of avocations each individual pursued, the number of major discoveries he made, and his subsequent status as a scientist (Cranefield, 1966). Historian Minor Myers, Jr., found a similar correlation between the range of developed abilities and the diversity and importance of an individual’s contributions for great figures from the Renaissance through the modern era. Myers proposed that creativity is governed by a combinatorial function such that the greater the diversity of knowledge and skill sets that an individual can integrate, the greater the number of novel and useful permutations that will result (Myers, 2003; 2006; Basbanes, 2006). The controversy between specialized creativity versus polymathic or general creativity spills over to who is gifted. For those psychologists who favor specialization as the key to creativity, giftedness is often defined by precocity and always by unusual accomplishment in a single domain. Amabile, Gardner, Csikszentmihalyi, and their colleagues argue that creativity always occurs within domains and that specialized knowledge, training, and practice are required to achieve creative potential (Amabile, 1996; Feldman, Csikszentmihalyi, & Gardner, 1994). From the creativity-is-domain-specific perspective, polymathy is not only unnecessary to creativity but actually inhibits its achievement by diverting an individual’s focus away from activities that bring professional success.

R. Root-Bernstein

Those who favor polymathy as a basis for creativity view giftedness quite differently and, in fact, are asking a different question than the creativityis-domain-specific crowd. Cranefield, Meyers, and others such as Poincare (1946), Koestler (1976), and Rothenberg (1979) who discuss integrating ideas from diverse fields as the basis of creative giftedness ask not “who is creative?” but “what is the basis of creative thinking?” From the polymathy perspective, giftedness is the ability to combine disparate (or even apparently contradictory) ideas, sets of problems, skills, talents, and knowledge in novel and useful ways. Polymathy is therefore the main source of any individual’s creative potential. The question of “who is creative” must then be re-examined in light of what is necessary for creative thinking. In light of this distinction, Santiago Ramon y Cajal, one of the first Nobel laureates in Medicine or Physiology, argued that it is not the precocious or monomaniacal student who is first in his class who we should expect to be creative, but the second tier of students who excel in breadth: “A good deal more worthy of preference by the clear-sighted teacher will be those students who are somewhat headstrong, contemptuous of first place, insensible to the inducements of vanity, and who being endowed with an abundance of restless imagination, spend their energy in the pursuit of literature, art, philosophy, and all the recreations of mind and body. To him who observes them from afar, it appears as though they are scattering and dissipating their energies, while in reality, they are channeling and strengthening them. . .” (Ramon y Cajal, 1951, pp. 170–171). So, monomaniacal precocity or profligate breadth? Intense focus or combinatorial permutations? Given the fundamentally contradictory nature of the two positions, identifying who is gifted will only be possible once the proper relationship between creativity and polymathy is understood. Understanding that relationship will, in turn, be necessary in order to foster the most creative people. One set of definitional issues must be addressed before proceeding. To whom something is novel and how it is useful are also problematic aspects in defining creativity. The operational manner in which creativity is defined translates necessarily into functional criteria for its recognition and testing, which in turn determine what an investigator finds. Psychologists such as Runco (2004) and Csikszentmihalyi (1996) argue that every person either is or is capable of being creative in

42

Multiple Giftedness in Adults

the sense of inventing for themselves a novel and useful insight. Others argue that the term creative can only be applied to domain-altering activities and is therefore limited to extraordinary and very rare individuals (“geniuses”) operating in unusual times and places. Between these two extremes exists a sort of stepladder approach to creativity: Everyone is capable of personal (little “c”) creativity (in the form of personal insights, artistic expressions, and re-inventions of things already known to a wider public); some people will master the sets of disciplinary skills and knowledge sufficiently to practice the full range of disciplinary activities; of these masters, an even smaller set will encounter and solve problems that require innovative tools, techniques, and practices that will push the boundaries of what can be done a bit further than before; and from the innovators, an even smaller set – the domain-altering or “Big C” creators – will invent or discover entirely new realms that require new sets of techniques and skills to address previously unforeseen problems and possibilities. The ladder approach to creativity bridges the “everyone-iscreative” and “only-geniuses-are-creative” approaches to creativity and is inherently developmental: It assumes that one cannot become a paradigm-altering creator without passing through the prior stages of personal creator, master, and innovator. The stepladder approach to creativity is employed here.

Einstein as a Polymathic Exemplar The importance of definitional issues becomes evident when attempting to determine who is polymathic, how many polymathic individuals there may be, and whether polymathy denotes adult giftedness. Some psychologists insist that to qualify as polymathic, an individual must attain significant professional stature and success in at least two different fields of endeavor. If we accept, in addition, as some psychologists do, that creativity must be domain altering, then the number of creative people in any discipline is extremely small to begin with, and the probability that any individual would make domain-altering contributions to two disciplines in a single lifetime is even smaller. Kaufman & Baer (2004, p. 5) have, for example, noted the “apparent lack of creators who have reached the highest levels of creativity in two or more domains.” Yet “Renaissance people” certainly have existed in the 20th century, and some are even alive today: So-

855

fya Kovalevskaya was one of Russia’s greatest poets and playwrights and also one of the 20th century’s preeminent mathematicians. George Washington Carver, the African-American inventor, also won numerous awards in national art exhibitions. Charlie Chaplin not only acted in and directed films, but was at one time or another a professional dancer, musician, composer and photographer and amateur artist as well. George Antheil revolutionized modern music with his Ballet Mecanique, wrote novels (under the pseudonym Stacy Bishop) and non-fiction columns about endocrinological mysteries, and in collaboration with actress Hedy Lamarr, invented “frequency hopping,” a technique for encrypting information that remains the basis for protecting all sensitive communications to this day. J. B. S. Haldane, with only an undergraduate degree in Classics, managed to become one of the most important physiologists, geneticists, and statisticians of the 20th century and a writer who published a science fiction novel, children’s stories, and poetry. Bertrand Russell, a world-class mathematician, also won a Nobel Prize in Literature for his philosophical writings. Linus Pauling won two Nobel Prizes, one in Chemistry and the other in Peace for his political efforts to ban atmospheric nuclear testing. Herb Simon not only won a Nobel Prize in Economics, but was also a founder of the field of computer artificial intelligence. John Kenneth Galbraith, another internationally recognized economist, also published several best-selling novels (e.g., Triumph and A Tenured Professor). C. P. Snow became one of the leading physicists and science administrators in Britain and also a world-renowned novelist. Hannes Alfven published (under the pseudonym Olaf Johannesson) a worldwide best-selling science fiction novel called The Great Computer – the prototype of the Matrix movies – more than a decade before he won a Nobel Prize in Physics. Carl Sagan, the astronomer, also wrote the novel Contact (upon which the movie of the same name is based). A. L. Copley, an expert in the physiology and biophysics of blood flow, painted under the pseudonym Alcopley and became one of the founders of gestural art. Desmond Morris, an Oxford don whose book The Naked Ape revolutionized anthropology and sold millions of copies, is also an award-winning filmmaker, novelist (Inrock), and surrealist painter who has exhibited with other great artists such as Joan Miro. Loren Eisely and Jacob Bronowski wrote poetry and essays that were at least as important as their scientific contributions. Gordon Parks managed professional careers as an internationally acclaimed

856

photographer, movie director, composer, poet, and musician; Tan Dun is internationally acclaimed as a composer, sculptor, and artist. Miroslav Holub is considered by many people to be the foremost non-English language poet of this age and is also an immunologist of international reputation. These people must certainly qualify as gifted, in the sense of achieving international recognition, and they are certainly gifted in more than one discipline. Additional examples of multiply gifted creators will be described below. These people must prove, even to the most recalcitrant creativity-derivesfrom-specialization advocate, that polymathy can be associated with the highest levels of creativity in more than one field. Such multiply successful individuals are often contrasted with those who, in greater numbers, have become world famous in one field of endeavor and have demonstrable competence (and even excellence) in one or more avocations that they have not developed to professional levels. Since this essay will describe dozens of such people, I will only consider here the example of Albert Einstein. Einstein attained the highest possible stature in physics but was only a good amateur musician. Thus, while there is no doubt of Einstein’s “Big C” creative contributions to physics, there is equally little doubt of his lack of “Big C” creative contributions to music. For many psychologists, Einstein would not, therefore, qualify as polymathic. In fact, Gardner has used Einstein as a prototypical exemplar of a “logico-mathematical mind” who contributed to a single domain – science (Gardner, 1993). But Einstein is polymathic from the stepladder perspective on creativity. He is polymathic on two counts. First, he pursued music as an avocation along with his science throughout his life. Second, he integrated his music into his scientific thinking to produce surprising and effective innovations. Vocation and avocation intersected fruitfully. “If I were not a physicist,” Einstein said in an interview with George Viereck, “I would probably be a musician. I often think in music. I live my daydreams in music. I see my life in terms of music.. . . I get most joy in life out of music” (Viereck, 1929). He told Alexander Moszkowski, one of his earliest biographers, that some unexplainable connection existed between his music and his physics (Moszkowski, 1973). Moreover, he was able to use this connection. His son reported that “Whenever he [Einstein] felt that he had

R. Root-Bernstein

come to the end of the road or into a difficult situation in his work, he would take refuge in music, and that would usually resolve all his difficulties” (Hans Einstein, quoted in Clark, 1971, p. 106). His daughter confirmed that after playing, he would often get up from his piano saying, “There, now I’ve got it” (Maja Einstein, quoted in Sayen, 1985, p. 26). Einstein even told Shinichi Suzuki, the famous inventor of the Suzuki method for teaching music, that “The theory of relativity occurred to me by intuition, and music is the driving force behind this intuition. My parents had me study the violin from the time I was six. My new discovery is the result of musical perception” (Suzuki, 1969, p. 90). Moreover, when Niels Bohr unveiled his planetary model of electrons orbiting the atomic nucleus, Einstein described it as being, “the highest form of musicality in the sphere of thought” (Schilpp, 1969, vol 1, p. 116). Such statements (of which there are many more) lend credence to Moszkowski’s conjecture that for Einstein, as was certainly the case for his mentor Ernst Mach, “Music and the aural experience were the organ for describing space” (quoted from Muller, 1969, p. 170). Robert Mueller, himself a musician and scientist, has expanded on how such aural experience might have shaped Einstein’s image of space. Mueller begins by noting that Einstein was particularly attracted to the structure of music, or its architecture. “It is also conceivable to me. . .that this disposition to the architectonic logics of abstraction was formulated by Einstein’s early musical experiences, and even enlarged by a constant struggle for musical experiences which helped him build a rich mental perceptual fabric of space and time in which to perform his scientific theorizing” (Mueller, 1967, p. 171). In sum, there is good evidence to argue that Einstein was not the “logico-mathematical” thinker that Gardner (1993) has portrayed and who one might expect if creativity were domain limited, but rather was an individual who used mental skills developed outside of his field to inform his work, as one would expect from a creativity-is-combinatorial approach to creativity (Root-Bernstein, 1989; Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 1999). Einstein, in short, is a good example of a person whose talents were “correlative,” meaning that the individual finds useful connections between content, skills, methods, structures, or materials that link their diverse activities (Root-Bernstein, 1989;

42

Multiple Giftedness in Adults

Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 1999). John Dewey called these “integrated activity sets” (Dewey, 1934) and Howard Gruber “networks of enterprise” (Gruber, 1984; 1988a, 1988b). Both men have linked such integrated gifts to unusual creative ability. The key point for all of us is that polymaths are not dilettantes. Polymaths put a significant amount of time and effort into their avocations and find ways to use their multiple interests to inform their vocations, whereas the dilettantes merely acquire skills and knowledge for their own sake without regard to understanding the broader applications or implications and without integrating it.

Does Polymathy Denote General Creativity? Many psychologists have supposed that polymathy, whether of the correlative or dilettante variety, signifies general creativity. In the case of correlative talents, this is not at all the case. Einstein (and many other examples to be described below) demonstrates that they are not. His music informed his physics, but there is no evidence that he used his physical thinking to create a novel form of music. Thus, the issue being addressed here is not whether people are generally creative or specifically creative but rather how they are creative in whatever way their creativity is manifested. It must be emphasized, therefore, from the very outset, that the interactions between skill sets and activities can be, and probably most often are, asymmetrical. Avocations may influence vocations without vocations influencing avocations, or vice versa. Thus, the issue is not whether Einstein could have been a great musician or composer had he chosen to direct his efforts toward a musical career. The important issue is how polymathy is a source of a person’s specific creativity and whether that creativity could have been manifested without its polymathic source. If Einstein did, in fact, think “musically” rather than logico-mathematically, and if he invented his general theory of relativity through his musical intuition as he claims, then we must accept the fact that domain-defined thinking was not the key to his creativity. The cognitive issue is therefore whether it would have been possible for him to have invented his scientific theory without his musical training or to have understood the nature of

857

space–time in physics without a deep appreciation for the space–time architecture of music. On the issue of how non-scientific thinking influenced and directed his thinking, Einstein is again instructive. “The greatest scientists are artists as well,” he said (Calaprice, 2000, p. 245). Since such a great scientist mixes up artistic thinking with scientific thinking, it gives him a choice of modes of expression. “If what is seen and experienced is portrayed in the language of logic, then it is science. If it is communicated through forms whose constructions are not accessible to the conscious mind but are recognized intuitively, then it is art” (Calaprice, 2000, p. 271). By these criteria, Einstein himself was both a scientist (since he expressed his results mathematically) and an artist, since he did his thinking intuitively. In fact, he told both Jacques Hadamard and Max Wertheimer that he never thought in logical symbols or mathematical equations, but in images, feelings, and musical architectures that have no domain-specific identities (Wertheimer, 1959, pp. 213–228; Hadamard, 1945). Words or other symbols (presumably mathematical) were only employed in an explicitly secondary translation step after he was able to solve his problems through the formal manipulation of these images, feelings, and architectures: “I very rarely think in words at all. A thought comes, and I may try to express it in words afterwards” (Wertheimer, 1959, p. 213). Notably, Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein (1999) have demonstrated that such non-symbolic, privately subjective forms of thinking followed by translation into public forms of communication are not only a common phenomenon but may be typical of much creative thinking. Thus, while Gardner has described dancer Martha Graham as a primarily bodily-kinesthetic thinker, a good case can be made from her own writings and interviews that much of her actual creative thinking and dance composition was verbal and visual and only bodily-kinesthetic in a secondary, translation step (Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 2003). Similarly, Gardner identifies poet T. S. Eliot as primarily a verbal thinker, but Eliot himself was a trained musician who wrote a great deal about the musicality of sound and said that he never thought in words, but rather in bodily feelings and visual images. Like Einstein, Eliot claimed that words were used merely as a translation of these feelings and images into a form fit for public discourse about things that in reality could never really be expressed in words

858

at all (Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 1999). Thus, the mental tools an individual uses in order to reach a creative idea may have little or nothing to do with the mode in which the idea is finally expressed, and to conflate creative thinking with the form in which it is communicated is a fundamental error that can only blind psychologists to the mental processes by which creativity is actually manifested. My thesis is that creative thinking, as opposed to the expression and communication of a creative idea or product, is inherently multimodal, trans-disciplinary, and independent of domains. Creativity, by definition, is effective novelty that requires the integration of ideas, concepts, practices, problems, skills, methods, or materials that have not previously been integrated. Thus, creativity, by definition, requires polymathic breadth accompanied by correlative talents and linked by integrated activity sets or networks of enterprise. Only by understanding how creative ideation occurs can we eventually learn to identify who has the cognitive abilities required to be creative.

The Ubiquity of Polymathy Among Gifted Scientists So what is the relationship between polymathy and adult giftedness? Giftedness among adults is a difficult characteristic to identify since adults, unlike children, are not usually subject to generalized and widespread testing. For the purposes of this essay, I have therefore adopted a simple definition of adult giftedness that is perhaps overly stringent and only applicable in retrospect, but which is easily implemented and reasonably objective: An adult is creatively gifted if they produce work that is recognized by their peers, or by history, as being extraordinarily important. For present purposes, “extraordinarily important” is functionally defined as national or international recognition as manifested by major disciplinary awards, inclusion in “Who’s Who” compilations or encyclopedias, textbook accounts of primary contributors to a field, and so forth. It will immediately be noted that Einstein’s example is once again informative. Einstein was a slow developer who displayed, as far as is known, no unusual precocity or outstanding intellectual gifts prior to his extraordinary outpouring of revolutionary papers in 1904. Einstein therefore demonstrates what can be taken to be a

R. Root-Bernstein

relatively general proposition: There may be no necessary correlation between childhood giftedness and adult giftedness. Gifted children (particularly precocious ones) often do not become gifted adults and gifted adults are not necessarily precocious nor may they even be identified as gifted when young. Following up on the example of Einstein, polymathy is certainly very common among eminent scientists and highly correlated with professional success. The earliest study suggesting such a correlation was performed by J. H. van’t Hoff (who became the first Nobel laureate in Chemistry in 1901) in 1878. He noted that virtually all of the scientists from Kepler and Galileo through Newton, Davy, and Priestley excelled at arts such as poetry, painting, and music and were often deeply engaged in non-conformist spiritual or religious activities as well (van’t Hoff, 1878). Early studies of other pools of eminent scientists and mathematicians by Ostwald (1907–1909, 1909), Moebius (1900), Fehr (1912), and Hadamard (1945) confirmed van’t Hoff’s observation, but all of these studies were based on small, uncontrolled, investigator-selected samples. Root-Bernstein and his collaborators performed the first studies to compare the avocational interests of eminent scientists with those of average achievement. The initial investigation involved 40 young scientists recruited in 1955 by Bernice Eiduson for the first (and perhaps only) longitudinal psychological study of scientists over the course of their careers. Each scientist was interviewed and given a variety of psychological tests every 5 years through 1980. The 40 scientists diverged widely in their achievements. Four won Nobel Prizes by 1985 and they and seven additional colleagues had been elected to the US National Academy of Sciences. These 11 scientists would clearly qualify for the label “gifted” under the criteria being employed here. At the other extreme, several scientists had failed to obtain tenure and had obtained non-academic positions, while another dozen or so had quite average academic careers. Various other measures of success such as number of publications, number of citations, and impact factors all correlated well with various assessments of success (RootBernstein, Bernstein, & Garnier, 1993). A survey of the scientists in 1988 determined the number and types of their adult avocations and these were then correlated with the scientists’ publication, citation, and impact factor data and evaluated in light of their previous interviews.

42

Multiple Giftedness in Adults

Significant correlations were found between the number of adult avocations each scientist participated in and their success, as well as between specific avocations and success. Scientists who painted and drew were very significantly more likely to be among the Nobelists and National Academy members than were those who did not. Those who wrote poetry, did photography, or participated in various technical crafts, and those who had the widest range of hobbies were also more likely than the average scientist to be recognized as influential by their peers (RootBernstein, Bernstein, & Garnier, 1995). Unexpectedly, musical avocations had no predictive value for success as a scientist in this group, perhaps because they were equally common among gifted and average scientists. Notably, a very significant correlation also existed between the kinds of mental “tools” that the scientists used (such as visual thinking and kinesthetic thinking) and the type of avocations they pursued (painters tend to be visual thinkers, poets verbal thinkers, etc.). A further set of significant correlations were then found between the types of mental tools used by each scientist and their likelihood of success. Various forms of visual thinking (3D, 2D, graphic, etc.), kinesthetic feelings, and verbal/auditory patterns were each independently correlated with success, as was employing a greater-than-average range of modes of thinking. Thus, avocations may reflect or even build a range of mental skills that complement or enhance logico-mathematical thinking among scientists (Root-Bernstein et al., 1995). Interviews with the scientists (all of which were done many years prior to and independently of the survey of avocations, and therefore could not have been influenced by the survey) revealed that many were, like Einstein, conscious of the role that their avocations played in promoting their scientific creativity. One unusually adept experimentalist and Nobel Prize winner said that “I have a big tendency to use my hands and I also have a tendency to use my intellect. Well, the sciences are a great way of combining these operations and there aren’t too many professions that do that. . .. My concept of the ideal ’scientist,’ is that you do one thing real well, and its a very specialized thing, and then you do a lot of other things, but not too many, maybe 5 or 6 or 10 different other things, which you do well enough to give yourself and possibly others pleasure. This should be distributed quite widely among sports and artistic things and carpentry, and things that

859

involve using your hands and a little music, perhaps and things of that sort” (quoted from Root-Bernstein et al., 1995, p. 136). Another Nobel laureate said, “Every scientist realizes in his science only a small portion of his total ability. I suppose that’s true in general – that you don’t do everything you’re capable of by a big factor. I don’t” (quoted from Root-Bernstein et al., 1995, p. 136). Avocations were a way of employing some of his only partially used abilities. And a member of the National Academy rationalized his own interest in music by saying, “[Suppose] someone is getting interested in musical problems. He may then apply what he finds there back to his scientific research. That’s something which may affect very much the result. I think it’s good. I think for a scientist who is working very hard, anything is good which brings from time to time another angle about general ideas into the picture” (quoted from Root-Bernstein et al., 1995, p. 136). Yet other gifted scientists recounted how building things, electronics hobbies, photography, and other avocations developed skills and knowledge that they employed in their scientific work. Thus, like Einstein, the polymathic individuals in the Eiduson study wove their vocational and avocational interests into integrated networks of mutually reinforcing enterprise. On the other hand, the least successful scientists in the study not only had fewer avocations than the successful ones, but almost universally considered these avocations as distractions that competed with their work. The results of the Eiduson study have been validated by investigation of a larger pool of scientists. In 1936, Sigma Xi, the National Research Organization, a US-based society for scientists, surveyed its membership about their avocations. This survey provides baseline data for average-to-above-average scientists during the first half of the 20th century. These data were compared with avocations mentioned in biographical and autobiographical writings of Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry from 1901 through 2000. Data on avocations were found for approximately 70% of the laureates. The most conservative treatment of the data show that Nobel laureates are twice as likely to play a musical instrument as the Sigma Xi members; 5 times as likely to engage in crafts; 8 times more likely to engage in a visual art; 10 times more likely to write poetry or fiction; and more than 20 times more likely to engage in a performing art such as acting or dancing as an adult (Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 2004). All of these differences were very highly statistically significant.

860

Once again, these statistical data are supported by personal statements from a large number of the laureates concerning the variety of functional professional uses they find for their avocations. Van’t Hoff, the first Nobel laureate in Chemistry (1901), argued that avocations practice and expand the imagination (van’t Hoff, 1878). His colleague Wilhelm Ostwald (Nobel Prize, 1909) turned his painting hobby into a new profession by studying the chemical basis of color and by producing the first gray scale and scientific color theory (Ostwald, 1905; Ostwald, 1906). Donald Cram (Nobel Prize, 1987), a craftsman, artist, poet, and musician, wrote that “In my opinion, organic chemists are part artist and part scientists, and thus apply both lobes of their brains to their work. To the extent that they are artists, they develop a research style expressed in their choice of research problems, how they address these problems, the degree of craftsmanship they bring to their research results, the extent to which they document their results, the readership they address in their papers, and their style of writing papers” (Cram, 1990, p. 122). Indeed, Roald Hoffmann (Nobel Prize, 1981) has written several essays explaining explicitly how writing poetry is similar to creating a chemical theory (Hoffmann, 1988a, 1988b; Hoffmann, 2006). Peter Debye (Nobel Prize, 1936), for his part, argued that scientific thinking is much more akin to the visual and performing artist’s thinking than most scientists are willing to admit. He said that the key to his insights was to become an actor in the chemical process, “to use your feelings – what does the carbon atom want to do? You had to. . .get a picture of what is happening. I can only think in pictures” (Debye, 1966, p. 81). These are only some of the myriad connections that Nobel laureates have made between their avocations and vocations (others can be found in Root-Bernstein, 1987; 2000; 2001a; 2003; 2005a, 2005b; 2006a, 2006b, 2006c). These links demonstrate that domain- or discipline-bounded thinking is too limited for understanding the creative thought of gifted scientists.

The Ubiquity of Polymathy Among Gifted Artists Polymathy is also very common in the arts, but unlike the sciences, only one, incomplete statistical study has

R. Root-Bernstein

yet been made linking artistic success with avocational pursuits. Michele Root-Bernstein investigated the avocations of Nobel laureates in Literature from 1901 to 2002 using standard biographical and autobiographical sources. Avocational information was found for 58 of the 101 laureates. Of these 58, 25 (43%) had a visual arts or sculpture avocation; 14 (24%) had a musical avocation; 13 had a performing arts avocation (22%); and 21 (36%) had a science or engineering vocation or avocation. Many of the Literature laureates, like their scientific counterparts, had multiple avocations (RootBernstein & Root-Bernstein, 2004). Many of the Noble laureates in Literature have also written about the importance of their avocations for their vocational success, demonstrating that the same kinds of correlative talents that inform great scientific thinking also inform innovative literary creativity. Winston Churchill, for example, wrote a very popular book on Painting as a Pastime, in which he wrote that “One begins to see, for instance, that painting a picture is like fighting a battle. . .. It is, if anything, more exciting than fighting it successfully. But the principle is the same. It is the same kind of problem as unfolding a long, sustained, interlocked argument. It is a proposition which, whether of few or numberless parts, is commanded by a single unity of conception” (Churchill, 1950, p. 19). The connections between Derek Walcott’s painting and his poetry and plays are even more obvious. Walcott has not only written about painting but illustrated what he has written, finding that many of his skills transfer from one medium to the other: “I approach every canvas with a pompous piety,” he once wrote, “faithful to the lines of the drawing, a devotion transferred from a different servitude, to lines of poetry proceeding by a systematic scansion, brushstroke and word” (Walcott, 2005). Similarly, George Bernard Shaw (who turned down the Nobel Prize, but is nonetheless listed by that institution as a recipient) saw a similar unity in his own vocational and avocational activities. He once wrote to G. K. Chesterton that just as no one could understand Chesterton’s work in ignorance of his love for painting, no one could understand Shaw’s own work without appreciating his love of music (Dale, 1985, p. 83). Indeed, Shaw not only earned his early living by writing reviews of concerts, but was known to sing opera to himself throughout his life. Scientific training has also played an unexpectedly important role in the thinking of many Nobel laureates in Literature. Shaw maintained in a self-written

42

Multiple Giftedness in Adults

obituary that his greatest contribution to society was not his plays, but his essays on “metabiology,” the study of the impact of biological science on human society and psyche. Not only is the influence of his metabiology apparent in plays such as “Man and Superman, but, “he [Shaw] quite seriously and emphatically claimed to be a pioneer in science, though he had never worked in a laboratory” (Pearson, 1950, pp. 86–87). Vladimir Nabokov, on the other hand, did work in a laboratory, specifically the Harvard Natural History Museum, where he discovered several new species of butterflies and organized the taxonomy of several important groups (Johnson & Coates, 1999). Readers of Nabokov’s novels have recognized his penchant for including butterflies, and butterfly collectors, among his characters, but only in light of the recent rediscovery of his entomological work has the extent to which his science informed his art become apparent. Many readers of Johannes Jensen’s novels, on the other hand, will be aware of his explicit use of scientific knowledge. Jensen wrote in his Nobel autobiography that “The grounding in natural sciences which I obtained in the course of my medical studies, including preliminary examinations in botany, zoology, physics, and chemistry was to become decisive in determining the trend of my literary work” (Nobel, 2002). Similarly, John Steinbeck’s scientific interests permeate not only his novel To a God Unknown (Liukkonen, 1999; Pribic, 1990) but also his non-fiction collaborative work with ecologist Edward Ricketts on The Sea of Cortez (1941/71), which he prefaces by admonishing his readers to bear in mind that non-fiction is just as much an imaginative creation of the writer’s mind as is fiction. Recognizing the interlinked bases of fictional and non-fictional thinking seems to be a common thread among Nobel laureates in Literature. Although statistically robust studies for an arts–polymathy connection are still lacking, artists themselves, and those who study them, have often remarked on such a connection. “It is not unusual for great artists to practice in media other than those in which they excel,” writes art historian Andrew Wilton. “The violon d’Ingres is a common enough phenomenon” (Wilton, 1990, p. 7). Novelist Henry Miller has put it even more succinctly: “Every artist worth his salt has his ’violon d’Ingres”’ (Hjerter, 1986, frontispiece). The reference both Wilton and Miller make is, of course, to the fact that the great French painter Ingres was as well known for his ability and

861

proclivity to play the violin as he was for his painting. Miller himself has painted throughout his life even while turning out best-selling novels. A connection between writing and painting seems to be particularly strong, perhaps because a writer often needs to be able to visualize what she or he writes about. Two books, Kathleen Hjerter’s Doubly Gifted (1986) and Lola Szladits’ and Harvey Simmonds’ Pen & Brush (1969), portray the visual arts of a hundred of the most famous novelists, playwrights, and poets of the 19th and 20th centuries. These include George Sand, Harriet Beecher Stowe, William Makepeace Thackeray, Oscar Wilde, Thomas Hardy, Paul Verlaine, Robert Loius Stevenson, John Masefield, T. S. Eliot, E. E. Cummings, John Dos Passos, William Faulkner, Evelyn Waugh, T. H. White, Hermann Hesse, Lawrence Durrell, Henrik Ibsen, Dylan Thomas, Tennessee Williams, Allen Ginsberg, Gunter Grass, John Updike, and Anne Sexton. Whole books have been devoted to analyzing the relationship of the paintings, drawings, and photographs of various writers to their writings, including William Blake (Keynes, 1970), Lewis Carroll (Cohen, 1989), August Strindberg (Hedstrom et al., 2001), Wyndham Lewis (Handley-Read, 1951), G. K. Chesterton (Dale, 1985), Henry Miller (Miller, 1974), J. R. R. Tolkien (Hammond & Scull, 1995; Tolkien, 1992), E. E. Cummings (Cohen, 1987), and Derek Walcott (Walcott, 2000; King, 2000). Among these artistic authors, several succeeded at more than one vocation. George du Maurier, author of the famous novel Trilby, actually earned his living as a professional artist for the magazine Punch, turning out over a thousand published drawings (Kelly, 1996). Playwright August Strindberg’s originality as a painter is considered among Scandinavians to be on a par with the best modern artists so that Strindberg’s painting Underlandet (“Wonderland”) holds the Swedish record for the highest price paid for any painting at auction: 23 million kroner (approximately $3.5 million) (Hedstrom et al., 2001, pp. 9–10). Even those for whom visual arts were merely avocations often benefited vocationally in ways expressed by painter and poet J. M. W. Turner: “Painting and Poetry flowing from the same fount mutually by vision, constantly comparing Poetic allusions by natural forms in one and applying forms found in nature to the other, meandering into streams by application, which reciprocally improved reflect and heighten each

862

others’ beauties like. . .mirrors” (Wilton, 1996, p. 10). Poet E. E. Cummings wrote rhetorically in the introduction to a catalogue to a one-man show of his paintings and drawings, “Tell me, doesn’t your painting interfere with your writing? Quite the contrary: they love each other dearly” (Cummings, 1945). Indeed, he is famous in part for his translation of the cubist painting style to poetry to create a novel form that he called “poem/pictures,” in which the arrangement of the words on the page create a simultaneously literary, visual, and kinesthetic effect on the reader. J. R. R. Tolkien would often draw variations of scenes or places that he would then describe in words in his novels (Tolkien, 1992; Hammond & Scull, 1995), while G. K. Chesterton would literally storyboard his novels with hundreds of drawings, just as is done with movies today, so that he could literally “see” the action (Dale, 1985). While the influences are more subtle in Lewis Carroll’s work, most scholars agree that one cannot understand his Alice books without also understanding his vocational devotion to mathematics and his avocational devotion to photography (Cohen, 1989). What is surprising is not that such connections exist, or that they become transparently obvious when pointed out, but that so many scholars ignore the existence of avocations in their biographical and analytical studies of creative individuals.

Polymathy in New Synthetic Disciplines If polymathy is relatively common among groups of eminent scientists and writers who work in wellestablished disciplines (and indeed among eminent artists, composers, filmmakers, actors, and almost any other group one examines with care), then it should not be surprising that polymathy is virtually ubiquitous among the founders of new synthetic disciplines. Consider two examples: kinetic sculpture and electronic music. The history of kinetic sculpture is virtually synonymous with a coterie of artist-engineers. It begins with a pair of autodidacts, Giacomo Balla and Fortunato Depero, in Italy during the nineteen-teens who founded the Futurist movement. Both Balla and Depero were widely trained in music, painting, sculpture, and design, and they began to realize that a very important element of the modern world was being ignored by

R. Root-Bernstein

their contemporary artists: technology. Consequently, one element of their Futurist movement called for the “Fusion of art + science. Chemistry, physics, continuous and unexpected pyrotechnics all incorporated into a new creature, a creature that will speak, shout and dance automatically” (Depero, 1915). Balla, in particular, began teaching himself scientific techniques and applying them to the analysis and display of movement. Among his innovations were sculptures with moveable parts. Contemporaneously, Naum Gabo initiated the Constructivist movement in Russia. Gabo was trained as a physicist and engineer, acquiring a thorough grasp of non-Euclidean geometries and Einstein’s theory of relativity, as well as other contemporary advances in physics and mathematics. Gabo left science when he began to question what these advances meant for the social and emotional understanding of nature. He translated his scientific knowledge into the intuitive forms that Einstein also recognized as valid ways of understanding concepts. “I realized that the image I had been given by my teachers, the scientists,” wrote Gabo, “by their way of looking at Nature, was just another stage setting with all the magnificence and ingenuity that the genius of any artist produces in a work of art. I realized that in my scientific journey I had been under the power of a magic spell of a work of art whose reality was just as true as the verity of the image in an artist’s vision” (Gabo, 1962, p. 21). And so Gabo looked for the art in science. Mathematical equations took on 3D forms and human portraits and busts were constructed along the lines of 4D geometries (Nash & Merkert, 1985). In 1920, Gabo motorized at least one of his sculptures providing it with the same dynamic qualities that were to be found in the equations upon which it was based (Nash & Merkert, 1985, p. 60). Neither Balla, Depero nor Gabo took their kinetic sculptures beyond tentative trials. The exploration of a fuller range of possibilities was left to a second generation of young sculptors who would fully liberate sculpture to swing freely as mobiles or become fully autonomous mechanical devices in and of themselves. The most notable of these were Alexander Calder and George Rickey. Calder was the son of a sculptor, but his earliest leanings were toward mechanical things, and he had a series of engineering jobs as a young man that taught him many of the technical skills (such as ship building and repair) that he would use when he began making his stabiles and mobiles a

42

Multiple Giftedness in Adults

decade or two later (Marter, 1991, pp. 10–15). George Rickey also had a technical background, spending the years 1940–1945 as an Army Air Corps engineer before going to art school (Valdez, 2000; Anonymous (Eds), 1956). The impact of his training on the mobiles and mechanical sculptures he subsequently designed is unmistakable. Of the early kinetic sculpturists, only Jean Tinguely lacked a formal engineering background, which he made up for as a teenager by building numerous mechanical devices to harness wind and water to make sound and movement. Later he learned by apprenticeship and collaboration (Schwarz, 1969). The key point here is simply that in order to be able to meld sculptural form with mechanical or free movement required knowledge of both sculpture and engineering and only those individuals either trained in both or willing to train themselves (as Balla and Tinguely did) made fundamental contributions. The development of electronic music required a similar melding of previously disparate disciplinary knowledge and practice. There are three distinct aspects of this disciplinary melding. One is the use of computers to produce music; another is the use of computers to compose music; and the third is the invention of electronic instruments other than computers. The creative individuals who pioneered each field were polymaths. The first people to use computers as instruments were, not surprisingly, drawn from the musically trained engineers and mathematicians who first developed computer technologies. By chance, almost all of these were at Bell Labs in New Jersey, and they included J. R. Pierce, Claude Shannon, and Max Matthews. Pierce was an engineer and Vice President for Research at Bell Labs. He oversaw the group that invented the transistor (which won William Shockley a Nobel Prize) and had over 90 patents to his personal credit as well. His most important and long-lasting invention was the communication satellite, a device that his colleague Arthur C. Clarke suggested as a possibility in an article in 1954 and which Pierce turned into reality. Like Clarke, Pierce was also a respected science fiction writer, publishing most of his work under the pseudonym J. J. Coupling. He was also a musician who almost immediately saw the possibilities of using computers to analyze and synthesize sound and gathered a group of like-minded Bell Labs people to implement the idea (Sanford, 2005; Pierce, 1990; Bell Telephone, 1961).

863

Claude Shannon was one of Pierce’s collaborators in these early computer-generated music experiments. Shannon was a mathematician and computer designer who became the major architect of modern information theory. It was said that he could juggle ideas almost as adroitly as he juggled balls while riding his unicycle. While Shannon did not personally develop his initial exploration into computer-generated music, and remained devoted to his mathematical theorizing, his work on information theory nonetheless had a huge influence on music theory and methods of composition (Katterman, 1999). Pierce, on the other hand, maintained an active part in developing computer-generated music throughout his career, becoming a professor of music at Stanford University’s Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics upon his retirement from Bell Labs. Stanford’s CCRMA had been founded by avant-garde composer and computer enthusiast John Chowning. Chowning was also the inventor of frequency modulated sound synthesis, a technique that became the basis of the early Yamaha line of synthesizers (Levitin, 2006, pp. 47–50). Pierce found the CCRMA environment congenial and while there, explored three very different facets of music. One was the psychoacoustical properties of sound. Another was novel electronic means to generate novel sounds. And finally, he also invented a new acoustical bridge for stringed instruments that earned him yet another patent (Sanford, 2005). Max Matthews was the man who gave the experiments of Pierce and Shannon long-lasting impact. Matthews was another musically trained engineer. His greatest contribution was to develop the first digital tools that permitted computer programmers and composers alike to make use of the possibilities offered by computer-generated sound. He also programmed the first computer-generated voice, coaxing the Bell Labs computer to sing “Daisy.” This innovation inaugurated computer-generated speech research. For many years, he directed the Acoustical and Behavioral Research Center at Bell Labs. He also collaborated with composer Iannes Xenakis (on whom more below) as a scientific advisor to the Xenakis’s Institute de Recherche et Coordination Acoustique/Musique (IRCAM) in Paris. After 1987, Matthews also became a Professor of Music at Stanford University’s CCRMA (Max Matthews, Wikipedia).

864

The first person to program a computer to compose music – an innovation quite distinct from the contemporaneous innovation of using computers as musical instruments – was Lejaren A. Hiller, Jr. Hiller had dual training as a chemist and a composer. He majored in chemistry and also obtained his Ph.D. in that subject at Princeton University. During his Princeton years, he studied with a Who’s Who of American composers, including Milton Babbit and Roger Sessions. He went to work for the Dupont Chemical Company after graduate school, where he learned to use a computer to do the theoretical calculations necessary for his chemical research. He quickly realized that the composition of music by a computer would not be different from the calculation of a chemical reaction or chemical structure by a computer. In each case, one needed to know the set of rules governing the operation (an algorithm) and needed to provide the computer with a set of variables upon which to perform the operation. Hiller therefore set about trying to discover what properties defined a “good” piece of music and the process by which a composer identifies and elaborates a musical theme. He then began programming the Dupont computer to create music based on these rules. After several years, two publications, three patents, and half-a-dozen musical compositions, Hiller moved to the Chemistry Department of the University of Illinois, which had one of the first ILLIAC computers. At Illinois, while serving as an Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Hiller also earned an MA in Music. His computer compositions, particularly the “ILLIAC Suite,” soon created such a stir that the Dean of the Graduate Faculty transferred him to the Music Department as a faculty member. Several years later, Hiller moved to the University of New York at Buffalo, where he held the position of Frederick B. Slee Chair of Composition and was co-director of the Center for Performing Arts. It is clear from his history that only an individual with access to one of the rare and very expensive early computers (that is, a scientist or mathematician), skilled in programming, and also trained as a composer could have created the novel discipline Hiller inaugurated (Hiller website and archives; Hiller, 1986; Wamser & Wamser, 2006). I will simply mention in passing what should be obvious, which is that the inventors of new electronic instruments other than the computer have also all had formal training in both music and electronics or physics. These innovators include (among many others) Walther Nernst, a Nobel laureate in Chemistry

R. Root-Bernstein

and the inventor of the first electronically amplified piano (Hiebert, 1983); Thadeus Cahill, the inventor of the telharmonium; Lee De Forest, the inventor of the electronic Audion piano; Leon Theremin, the inventor of the theremin, the theremin cello, and, in collaboration with composer/inventor Henry Cowell, the rhythmicon; Friedrich Trautwein, inventor of the Trautonium; Laurens Hammond, the inventor of the electronic organ; Robert Moog, the inventor of the Moog synthesizer; and of course Chowning with his frequency modulated sound synthesizer (Anonymous, “120 years. . .”; Burns, “History of electronic. . ..”; Wikipedia, “Electronic musical. . .”). What is particularly important about these individuals is that by combining their diverse talents and skills, they expanded the means of generating sounds as well as the range of sounds possible to musicians and composers who lacked the inventors’ polymathic backgrounds. Thus, polymaths create bridges between disciplines that benefit specialists as well. The people who did the most to develop the new field of electronic music were also, not surprisingly, multitalented. Raymond Scott, one of the pioneers of electronic musical compositions, was a “composer, orchestra leader, pianist, engineer, recording studio maverick, and electronic music inventor” (“Raymond Scott,” Wikipedia). Iannes Xenakis, probably the most influential innovator in electronic music, was formally trained as, and worked as, an engineer and architect. Apprenticed to the great architect Le Corbusier, he carefully transformed the equations describing his building plans (e.g., the award-winning Philips Pavilion designed for the Brussel’s World’s Fair in 1958) into musical compositions (Metastaseis) and vice versa, using a wide range of mathematical and statistical concepts and techniques in his music (e.g., Matossian, 1986; Capanna, 2002). He is certainly proof that it is possible to excel in more than one discipline simultaneously and to transfer detailed knowledge and methods from one discipline to another across domains. The mere titles of his books are sufficient to illustrate some of his integrative themes: One was entitled Musique, Architecture (Xenakis, 1971a), another Formalized Music: Thought and Mathematics in Composition (Xenakis, 1971b), while the subject of his Sorbonne dissertation d’etat (a post-doctoral degree awarded in France only to the most extraordinary individuals) was Arts-Sciences Alloys (Xenakis, 1985).

42

Multiple Giftedness in Adults

Polymathy and Creative Giftedness Reconsidered The examples of polymaths and their polymathic innovations provided above permit a re-examination of the issue of how creative giftedness is related to polymathy. The most important point is simply that none of the innovations described above could have been created by anyone other than a polymath. This is not a matter of theory or debate. It is a fact imposed by the logical structure of the creative ideas that people like Xenakis, Hiller, Pierce, Gabo, and other multiply talented individuals integrated. The requirement of polymathic abilities to create novel, integrative forms of human endeavor sheds important light on the question of who is creative. Most psychologists have approached this problem from the perspective of personality traits. This focus leads to attempts to find behavioral and genetic traits (divergent thinking, need for novelty, etc.) that predispose to creative activities. The focus of the present study is very different. It asks how people are creative and what particular skills are required to express any specific form of creativity. Putting these questions first leads to a very different view of who is creative. Creativity becomes not a set of traits that can be ascertained by appropriate psychometric measures, but a set of skills, knowledge, talents, and experiences that can be acquired and applied to particular problems in particular situations. Creativity is therefore never general because creativity is not a personality trait that imbues all of an individual’s actions. Rather, creativity is a strategy for problem finding and problem solving. Like any strategy, its application is limited by personality, talent, skill acquisition, practice, experience, and opportunity. This functional rather than personality-based perspective on creativity explains why creative individuals can be polymathic without necessarily being generally creative. Polymathy provides the set of skills, knowledge, and experiences required to become creative, but talent, opportunity, persistence, environment, and other factors determine whether that polymathic ability becomes manifested creatively. Some individuals are able to find opportunities in multiple fields to apply their polymathic abilities professionally; others, due to circumstances or choice, apply their creative ability only in one field, using their remaining skill sets for personal or social enjoyment as avocations. In whatever

865

way polymathic abilities are manifested, however, it should be clear from all that has been argued above that such abilities are absolutely necessary to generate the novel and useful ideas that underlie all creativity. Creativity is, after all, the result of combining previously disparate elements in surprising and useful ways. Two specific examples may help to clarify the issues. Kaufman & Baer (2004, p. 5), two proponents of the specificity of creativity, have asked rhetorically in one of their essays whether the entertainer Madonna could have been a great mathematician. This is a silly question that confuses different types of intelligence with different types of creativity. No one has ever been shown to have an equal distribution of all possible “intelligences” or talents at the very highest levels of performance. It must surely be obvious to anyone that creativity can only be manifested, no matter how general it may be, in areas in which an individual has talent and interest. The real question is whether Madonna could turn her range of talents (which is surely extraordinary by any criteria: dancer, singer, songwriter, actress, and author of a dozen children’s stories) to become highly successful at something other than entertainment. Here the answer must almost surely be in the affirmative, since the singing, dancing, and acting star Shirley Temple was able to become Shirley Temple Black, diplomat and US Ambassador to the United Nations. Kaufman and Baer’s similar question, “Could Heisenberg have been a great poet?” (ibid.) is much more interesting. Kaufman and Baer immediately answer, “Probably not, but given the time required to prepare for creative productivity in a given domain (and the limits of the human life span), that’s an assertion difficult to prove.” I must disagree. Their assertion that Heisenberg could not have been a great poet – or at least great at some art – is not only wrong but it can be proven to be wrong. Had Kaufman and Baer bothered to learn anything about Heisenberg, they would have found out that he did, in fact, write poetry and paint as well as play the piano (Cassidy, 1992, pp. 14, 17, 23, 24, 82). What is particularly striking is that he seriously considered a professional career as a musician (Heisenberg, 1972, pp. 18–19). He rejected such a career on grounds very relevant to the issue of why polymathy is often expressed asymmetrically. Heisenberg argued that he had a greater probability of making a major contribution to physics than to music (ibid.). He nonetheless played at a semi-professional level for the rest of his

866

life (Cassidy, 1992, pp. 81, 85, 139, 219, 269, 272–3, 323) and his biographer, David Cassidy, remarks that his performances often opened social and political doors that were of considerable importance to the furtherance of his career. Moreover, he, like Einstein, argued that mathematics was only a translation of “intuitive pictures and distinct types of force,” but “not the content” of physics (Heisenberg, 1974, p. 83). He also believed that music and physics shared content and beauty (Heisenberg, 1974, pp. 166–183; Heisenberg, 1971, pp. 10–11; Cassidy, 1992, p. 545). Even more striking is the fact that Heisenberg is hardly unique. Boris Chain, who earned a Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology for developing the processes required to mass produce penicillin, also had the ability to have been a professional pianist, but like Heisenberg, chose to use his skill to advance his career socially (Clark, 1985). Max Planck, the Nobel laureate who invented quantum physics, was also a talented enough pianist to face a decision as to whether to become a professional physicist or a professional musician. He resolved his difficulty by realizing that “The creative scientist needs an artistic imagination” (Planck, 1949, p. 14). Again, like Heisenberg, he made a conscious choice that he described in his autobiography to devote his efforts to the field in which he could make the greatest impact. And like Heisenberg, he continued to play as an amateur for the rest of his life, creating a musical salon at which many other musically inclined giants of physics, such as Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner, would meet weekly to play. Thus, anyone asking whether any particular individual could have succeeded at more than one profession must also ask whether the individual made explicit or implicit decisions concerning the uses of their talents. The point is that historians (and those who use historical documents) know and can demonstrate that many creative people have the ability, but not always the desire or opportunity, to succeed professionally in more than one field. Documentation exists for many of these people concerning the decisions they made either to choose one field in which to focus their efforts while retaining an amateur status in the others (Heisenberg, Chain, Planck, Einstein, etc.), to balance more than one career simultaneously (Borodin, Kovalevskaia, Desmond Morris, Galbraith), or to have serial careers (Herb Simon, Lejaren Hiller, etc.). Polymathy may be expressed in many different ways.

R. Root-Bernstein

The diversity and multitude of polymathic individuals, combined with the paucity of psychological literature discussing polymathy, suggest that the analytical tools being developed and used by psychologists studying creativity in laboratory and testing situations are not capturing some essential elements of creative giftedness. Tools only reveal what they are designed to reveal. If the tools do not elicit information about polymathic abilities, avocational interests, choices among possible careers, or perceived connections among diverse skill sets, then such information will not, and cannot, become part of the discussion about giftedness, creativity, and polymathy. Psychometricians need to take some lessons in devising future metrics from historians and from those psychologists, such as Cox, White, Terman, and Hutchinson, who have used historical sources.

Conclusions The importance of the debate over polymathy and creativity cannot be overestimated. The main implication of the specialized-knowledge-is-required-for-creativity camp is that early specialization in a domain is the surest means to develop creative ability. Such early specialization clearly requires domain-specific testing methodologies of great predictive value. Precocity should be identified and developed. Training in multiple domains is not only useless, because there is no transfer between cognitive domains, but is actually counter-indicated because it diverts energy from the full development of domain-specific abilities. On the other hand, the polymathy-developscreativity camp would argue that early specialization is the surest means to stifle creativity. Precocity is only valuable when used as a springboard to the intensive development of the widest possible range of abilities and skills. Precocity is not necessary for the development of adult creativity and, without additional interests and training outside of the discipline in which the precocity is displayed, will be a dead end. What characterizes the most creative individuals is an ability to discover connections between apparently unrelated domains of activity – the artist in the scientist, the sculptor in the mathematician, the musician in the programmer. In such cases, transfer of knowledge, skills, and cognitive tools is not only possible but

42

Multiple Giftedness in Adults

necessary. In fact, the most creative individuals are not those who work within existing fields but who synthesize new fields (along with new modes of thinking and working) from combinations of existing ones – kinetic art, electronic music, sociobiology, and so forth. The polymathy-develops-creativity camp argues that giftedness will be a function of the range of intensively developed vocational and avocational talents, skills, knowledge, and experience combined with the degree to which an individual can correlate these to form integrated networks of enterprise. The polymathy–creativity connection therefore suggests a novel way to identify potential creative giftedness among young adults, which involves surveying two fundamental parameters of vocational and avocational practice. One parameter involves the range of avocations practiced by an individual and their attitudes toward those avocations with regard to vocational activities. Root-Bernstein et al. (1995) demonstrated that scientists with the widest range of avocations and who could explain how these avocations benefited their vocational activities were the most successful professionally. Root-Bernstein et al. (1993) also found a second parameter that correlated with professional success among scientists. While most scientists work on one problem at a time, highly successful and creative scientists simultaneously investigate multiple problems and employ explicit self-imposed constraints on how much time is to be devoted to each. Creative polymaths, in other words, diversify their efforts and are excellent managers of time and effort. Both sets of parameters are evident in the majority of those who become highly successful scientists by the age of 40 years. These findings, along with Milgram’s observation that intellectually intensive avocations among adolescents are an excellent predictor of career success in any field, suggest that it should be possible to identify young adults with high creative potential early in their careers. This issue is not merely of importance to those who study cognitive psychology. Cognitive psychology is influencing educational practice to an ever greater extent. Minor Myers, Jr., in his capacity as President of Illinois Wesleyan University, pointed out that secondary school and university curricula can foster or discourage the polymath (Myers, 2003; Anderson, 1999). If, as is argued here, polymathy is linked to creativity, then the ways in which our cognitive understanding is translated into curricular practice will have a major impact on the pool of

867

creative individuals in the future. Precocious students and those who excel in one subject are just as unlikely to be the creative standard-bearers in the future as they have been in the past. Time must be made in the curriculum and in leisure time for the development of correlative talents. Much as the diversification of talents may seem to be a waste of time and energy, there is good reason to believe that such diversity will enhance creative potential. Two studies, in fact, demonstrate that scientists in general are more likely to make their breakthroughs while working on unrelated problems and away from their workplace than they are while directly addressing a problem in their laboratory (Platt & Baker, 1931; Root-Bernstein et al., 1993). If these findings are generalizable to other disciplines, then intensive training and focus on single tasks for long periods of time may be seriously detrimental to creativity. In sum, polymathic creativity clearly exists among gifted adults among whom it is not only common but may be ubiquitous. Only by encouraging gifted polymaths can polymathic creativity itself ever be manifested. Given that many of the most important innovations in the past few centuries have resulted from integrating problems, skill sets, knowledge, and experience across established disciplinary and domain-defined boundaries, such polymathic creativity is something we cannot afford to ignore. As Myers has asked, “Are we going to be citizens of the world of knowledge or subjects in the petty principalities of disciplines?” (Anderson, 1999). If creativity is more than just a personality trait, then how we answer this question will also determine how creative our society will be in the future.

References Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder CO: Westview. Anderson, P. (1999). Dr. Minor Myers gives talk on multitalented personalities. Elm Student Newspaper of Washington College, vol 70 (n.p.). Accessed 28 July 2006 http://elm.washcoll.edu/past/070/22/70 22min.html Anonymous. 120 years of electronic music. Electronic musical instruments 1870–1990. http://www.obsolete.com/ 120 years. Accessed 9 Sep 2006. Anonymous, (Eds). 1956. Art and the artist. Berkeley: University of California Press. Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity in creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173–177.

868 Basbanes, N. A. (1997). In focus: Preserving the creative wisdom of the past. Nicholas A. Basbanes (web blog) 2(5). Accessed 28 July 2006 http://www.nicholasbasbanes.com/ Bell Telephone. 1961. Music from mathematics. Selections of music composed and played by mathematicians – both human and electronic. Princeton NJ: Bell Telephone. Burns, K. H. History of electronic and computer music, including automatic instruments and composition machines. http://eamusic.dartmouth.edu/∼wowem/electronmedia/music/ eamhistory.html Accessed 9 Sep 2006. Calaprice, A. (Ed.). (2000). The expanded quotable Einstein. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Capanna, A. 2002. Iannis Xenakis – Architect of light and sound. Nexus Network Journal, 3(2). Accessed 6 Sept 2006. http://www.nexusjournal.com/Capanna-en.html Carey, S., & Spelke E. (1994). Domain specific knowledge and conceptual change. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 169–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cassidy, D. (1992). Uncertainty. The life and science of Werner Heisenberg. New York: W. H. Freeman. Churchill, W. S. (1950). Painting as a pastime. New York: Whittlesey House, McGraw-Hill. Clark, R. W. (1985). The life of Ernst Chain. Penicillin and beyond. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Cohen, M. A. (1987). Poet and Painter: The aesthetics of E. E. Cummings’s early work. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Cohen, M. N. (Ed.). (1989). Lewis Carroll: Interviews and recollections. London: Macmillan. Cox, C. M. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Cranefield, P. (1966). The philosophical and cultural interests of the biophysics movement of 1847. Journal of the History of Medicine, 21, 1–7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins. Cummings, E. E. (1945). Paintings and drawings of E. E. Cummings. Rochester, NY: Memorial Art Gallery of the University of Rochester. Dale, A. S. (1985) . The art of G. K. Chesterton. Chicago: Loyola University Press. Debye, P. (1966). ‘Peter J. W. Debye’. In: the Way of the Scientist. Interviews from the World of Science and Technology. New York: Simon and Schuster, pp. 77–86. Depero, F. (1915). Manifesto of the Futurist Reconstruction of the Universe http://www.unknown.nu/futurism/ reconstruction.html. Accessed 4 September 2006. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Minton, Balch. Fehr, H. (1912). Enquete de l’enseignmement mathematique sur la methode de travail des mathematiciens. Paris: GauthierVillars. Feist, G. J. (2005). Domain-specific creativity in the physical sciences. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 123–138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Feldman, D. H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Gardner H. (1994). Changing the world: A framework for the study of creativity. Westport, CT: Praeger. Gabo, N. (1962). Of divers arts. Princeton, NJ: Bollingen Press.

R. Root-Bernstein Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham and Gandhi. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books. Gruber, H. E. (1984). Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gruber, H. E. (1988a) Networks of enterprise in creative scientific work. In B. Gholson, A. Houts, R. A. Neimayer, & W. Shadis (Eds.), Psychology of science and metascience. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Gruber, H. E. (1988b). The evolving systems approach to creative work. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 27–51. Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hammond, W. G., & Scull, C. (1995). J. R. R. Tolkien artist & illustrator. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Handley-Read, C. (1951). The art of Wyndham Lewis. London: Faber and Faber. Hedstrom, P., Feuk, D., Hook, E., Lalander, A., & Soderstrom, G. (2001). Strindberg painter and photographer. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Heisenberg, W. (1972). Physics and beyond. Encounters and conversations. New York: Harper Torchbooks. Heisenberg, W. (1974). Across the Frontiers. P. Heath, trans. New York: Harper and Row. Hiebert, E. N. (1983). Walther Nernst and the application of physics to chemistry. In R. Aris, H. T. Davis, & R. H. Stuewer (Eds.), Springs of scientific creativity (pp. 203–231). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hiller, L. A., Jr. Archives (University at Buffalo – SUNY): http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/music/spcoll/hiller Hiller, L. A. Jr., Exhibit Summary (University at Buffalo – SUNY): http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/music/ exhibits/hillerexhibitsummary.pdf Hiller, L. A., Jr. (1986). Lejaren Hiller: Computer music retrospective, 1957–1985. Mainz, W. Germany: Wergo Schallplatten. Hjerter, K. G. (1986). Doubly gifted: The author as visual artist. New York: Abrams. Hoffmann, R. (1988a, March). How I work as poet and scientist. The Scientist, 10. Hoffmann, R. (1988b). The metamict state. Orlando, FL: University of Florida Press. Hoffmann, R. (2006). The metaphor unchained. American Scientist, 94(5); 406–407. Johnson, K., & Coates, S. (1999). Nabokov’s blues: The scientific odyssey of a literary genius. Cambridge, MA: Zoland. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Katterman, L. (1999). Cluade E. Shannon. University of Michigan research. Accessed 1 August 2006. http://www. research.umich.edu/news/michgangreats/shannon.html. Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). Hawking’s haiku, Madonna’s math: Why it is hard to be creative in every room of the house. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L.Singer (Eds.),

42

Multiple Giftedness in Adults

Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 3–20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (Eds.). (2005). Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 313–320). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kelly, R. (1996). The art of George du Maurier. Aldershot, UK: Scolar Press. Keynes, G. (1970). Drawings of William Blake. New York: Dover. King, B. (2000). Derek Walcott: A Caribbean life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Koestler, A. (1976). The act of creation. London: Hutchinson. Levitin, D. J. (2006). This is your brain on music. New York: Dutton. Liukkonen, P. (1999). Biographies prepared by Pietri Liukkonen Pegasos. Retrieved November 30, 2002 from www. kirjasto.sci.fi Marter, J. (1991). Alexander Calder. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matthews, M. V. Wikipedia. Accessed 24 August 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max Matthews. Matossian, N. 1986. Xenakis. London: Kan & Averil; New York: Taplinger. Milgram, R., & Hong, E. (1993). Creative thinking and creative performance in adolescents as predictors of creative attainments in adults: A follow-up study after 18 years. In R. Subotnik & K. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Longitudinal studies in contemporary gifted education. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Miller, H. (1974). Insomnia or the devil at large. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Moebius, P. J. (1900). Ueber die anlage zur mathetmatik. Leipzig: Barth. Moszkowski, A. (1973). Conversations with Einstein. New York: Horizon. Mueller, R. E. (1967). The science of art. New York: John Day. Myers, M. (2003). Packing for college. National Consortium of Specialized Schools of Mathematics, Sciences & Technology Journal. Accessed 28 July 2006. http://www.iwu.edu/iwunews/Myers/paking.html Myers, M. (2006) Polymaths (unpublished book manuscript). Nash, S. A., & Merkert J. (1985). Naum Gabo. Sixty years of constructivism. New York: Neues Press. Ostwald, W. (1905). Kunst und wissenshcaft. Leipzig: Von Veit. Ostwald, W. (1906). Letters to a painter on the theory and practice of painting (H. W. Morse, Trans.). Boston: Ginn. Ostwald, W. (1907–1909). Psychographischen studien. Annalen der Naturphilosophie, 6–8, passim. Ostwald, W. (1909). Grosse maenner. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesselshaft. Pearson, H. (1950). G. B. S. A postscript. New York: Harper and Brothers. Pierce, J. R. (1990). Telstar, a history. SMEC Vintage Electrics. Accessed 1 August 2006. http://www.smecc.org/ john pierce1.htm. Planck, M. (1949). Scientific autobiography and other papers. Trans. Frank Gaynor. New York: Philosophical Library. Platt, W. & Baker, R. A. (1931). The relationship of the scientific ’hunch’ to research. Journal of Chemical Education, 8, 1969–2002.

869 Poincare, H. (1946). The Foundations of Science, trans. G. B. Halsted. Lancaster, PA: Science Press. Pribic, R. (Ed.). (1990). Nobel laureates in literature: A biographical dictionary. New York: Garland Publishing. Ramon y Cajal, S. (1951). Precepts and counsels on scientific investigation: Stimulants of the Spirit (J. M. Sanchez-Perez, Trans.). Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association. Root-Bernstein, M. M., & Root-Bernstein, R. S. (2003). Martha Graham and the Polymathic Imagination: A Case of Multiple Intelligences or Universal Tools for Thinking? Journal of Dance Education, 3, 16–27. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1987). Harmony and beauty in biomedical research. Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology, 19, 1–9. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1996). The sciences and arts share a common creative aesthetic. In A. I. Tauber (Ed.), The elusive synthesis: Aesthetics and science (pp. 49–82). Boston: Kluwer. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1989). Discovering: Inventing and solving problems at the frontiers of scientific knowledge. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (2000). Art advances science. Nature, 407, 134. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (2001a). Music, creativity, and scientific thinking. Leonardo, 34(1), 63–68. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (2001b). Van’t Hoff on imagination and genius. In W. J. Hornix & S. H. W. M. Mannaerts (Eds.), Van’t Hoff and the emergence of chemical thermodynamics: Centennial of the first Nobel prize for chemistry 1901–2001. Delft: Delft University Press. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (2002). Aesthetic cognition. Journal of the Philosophy of Science, 16(1), 61–77. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (2003). Sensual chemistry: Aesthetics as a motivation for research. Hyle: The Journal of the Philosophy of Chemistry, 9, 35–53. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (2005a). Roger Sperry: ambicerebral man. Leonardo, 38, 224–225. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (2005b). Desmond Morris’s two spheres. Leonardo, 38, 318–321. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (2006a). Frederick Banting, painter. Leonardo, 39, 154. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (2006b). Albert Michelson, painter of light. Leonardo, 39, 232. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (2006c). Wilhelm Ostwald and the science of art. Leonardo, 39, 417–419. Root-Bernstein, R. S., Bernstein, M., & Garnier, H. (1993). Identification of scientists making long-term high-impact contributions, with notes on their methods of working. Creativity Research Journal, 6, 329–343. Root-Bernstein, R. S., Bernstein, M., & Garnier, H. (1995). Correlations between avocations, scientific style, work habits, and professional impact of scientists. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 115–137. Root-Bernstein, R. S., & Root-Bernstein, M. M. (1999). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world’s most creative people. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Root-Bernstein, R. S., & Root-Bernstein, M. M. (2004). Artistic scientists and scientific artists: The link between polymathy and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko E. L., & Singer, J. L. (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realiza-

870 tion (pp. 127–152). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rothenberg, A. 1979. The emerging goddess: the creative process in art, science, and other fields. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Runco, M. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 21–30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Sanford, J. (2005). Memorial Resolution: John Robinson Pierce. Standford Report Accessed 1 August 2006. http://newsservice.stanford.edu/news/2005/april6/memlpierce040605.html. Schwarz, P. W. (1969). The hand and eye of the sculptor. New York: Praeger. Scott, Raymond. (2006). Wikipedia. Accessed 9 September 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond-Scott Seagoe, M. (1975). Terman and the gifted. Los Altos, CA: W. Kaufmann. Steinbeck J., & Ricketts, E. F. (1971). Sea of Cortez. Mamaroneck, NY: Paul P. Appel. (original work published 1941). Sternberg, R. J, Grigorenko, E., & Singer J. L. (Eds.). (2004). Creativity: From potential to realization. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Szladits, L. L., & Simmonds, H. (1969). Pen & brush: The author as artist. New York: The New York Public Library. Tolkien, C. (1992). Pictures by J. R. R. Tolkien. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Valdez, S. (2000). George Rickey at Maxwell Davidson. Art in America. Accessed 18 August 2006. http://www. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi m1248/is 4 88/ai 61755652

R. Root-Bernstein van’t Hoff, J. H. (1878). De verbeeldingskracht in de wetenschap. Rotterdam: P. M. Bazenkijk. German ed. (1912). Die Phantasie in der Wissenschaft (E. Cohen, Trans.). In Jacobus Henricus van’t Hoff, sein leben und wirken (pp. 150– 165). Leipzig: Akademsische Verlagsgesellschaft. English ed. (1967). Imagination in Science (G. F. Springer, Trans.). Molecular Biology, Biochemistry, and Biophysics, 1, 1–18. Viereck, G. E. (1929, October 26). What life means to Einstein: An interview by George Sylvester Viereck. The Saturday Evening Post, pp. 46–50. Walcott, D. (2000). Tiepelo’s hound. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux. Walcott, D. (2005). Another life: Paintings and watercolours (Exhibition catalogue) New York: NYU Press. Wamser, C. C., & Wamser, C. A. (2006, May). Lejaren A. Hiller, Jr.: Computer Composition. unpublished talk, American Chemical Society, Atlanta, GA, May 2006. Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. New York: Harper. White, R. K. (1931). The versatility of genius. Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 482. Wikipedia.. Electronic musical instrument. Accessed 9 Sep 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Electronic musical instrument Wilton, A. (1990). Painting and poetry. Turner’s verse book and his work of 1804–1812. London: Tate Gallery. Xenakis, I. 1971a. Musique, architecture. Tournai: Casterman. Xenakis, I. 1971b. Formalized music: Thought and mathematics in composition. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Xenakis, I. 1985. Arts-sciences alloys: The thesis defense of Iannis Xenakis. S. Kanach, transl. New York: Pendragon Press.

Part IX

Giftedness, Society, and Economy

Chapter 43

Families of Gifted Children Abraham Reichenberg and Erika Landau

Abstract Despite strong genetic influence on intellectual potential, evidence shows that children’s development is also largely effected by their family lifestyle, values, goals, and other environmental characteristics. We review current research findings on the role of the family in the development of gifted children, as well as gender differences, and long-term outcome in the gifted as they grow up. Finally we present outlines for future research regarding the family impact on gifted children.

and social development of children in general, and of gifted children in particular (O’Neill, 1978). Morrow and Wilson (1964) reported that healthy parent–child interactions are important for the positive adjustment of gifted youngsters. Sanborn (1979) stated, “It probably goes without saying that parents play powerful roles in the development of their children. For better or for worse, the capacities and proclivities of the child reflect the impact of the parents” (p. 396). The family context not only guides the children’s development but also largely defines the opportunities Keywords Family · Lifestyle · Values · Goals · Microin which all the family members can exercise their abilsocial environment · Internal factors · External factors · Parents · Siblings of gifted children · The family cul- ities. Whereas parents of a mentally retarded child for the most part have little choice about special programs ture for their child, parents of gifted children are often faced with the decision of whether or not to allow their child to participate in a special “gifted program”, a wide Introduction selection of such programs, and the unique needs of gifted children (Colangelo and Dettmann, 1983). Giftedness, especially in intellectual ability, is to The role of the parents involves the identification a large extent genetically determined (Plomin and of talent in their children, support of his or her cogniThompson, 1993; Winner, 1996). However, despite tive development, and the development of values and strong genetic influence on intellectual potential, goals. Surprisingly, only little systematic research has significant evidence shows that children’s develop- been done on these subjects (for an exception see: ment is considerably influenced by the lifestyle of the Bloom, 1985). This chapter will review and discuss families in which they grow up. Furthermore many current research findings, as well as further examine abilities may not share strong genetic contributions gender differences and long-term outcome in gifted (Plomin, 1995). children as they grow up. Finally, we will outline fuEducators in the field essentially agree on the im- ture research questions regarding the family impact on portance of parents and family in the positive education gifted children. E. Landau (B) The Young Persons’ Institute for the Promotion of Creativity and Excellence. Tel Aviv, Israel e-mail: [email protected]

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 43, 

873

874

Identification of Giftedness Colangelo and Zaffrann (1979) noted that perhaps the most difficult part in the education of the gifted is that of identification. Identification of giftedness was once simply a function of IQ scores, but the primary or exclusive reliance on intelligence tests is no longer the only accepted mode of identification. Today, the identification of gifted, talented, and creative children has broadened to include more categories of giftedness. There has been an increasing emphasis on subjective (non-test) measures and a growing awareness of the importance that parents play in the identification process. For example at our institute the identification includes personal interview with the gifted child, we well as with one of his/her parents to learn about the emotional maturity and social interactions. It appears that there is almost unanimous acceptance of the contribution that parents can make in the identification process (Colangelo and Dettmann, 1983). The school may simply be unaware of the child’s nonacademic abilities, and, thus, schools need any supporting evidence parents can offer (Kaufman, 1976). Also, children with creative abilities may be perceived as wild, playful, silly, “off the beaten track” having a tendency to think independently, and to be nonconforming (Sisk, 1977); information from parents can be useful to offset this image. Measurements of certain aspects of learning in the first 3 years of life provide reliable indicators of life-long attributes, such as advanced physical control, which can predict gymnastic talent (Lewis & Louis, 1991). The strongest early indicator, which can be traced from the age of 3 months, is verbal ability, but spatial and non-verbal signs are also valuable indications for future talents. Lewis and Louis found that the greatest overall intellectual stability was at the extremes of the IQ range – both high and low – and suggest that this intellectual development is qualitatively different from that of individuals with more average scores. Indeed, the parents of the exceptionally high-IQ children in the follow-up study by Freeman (1991), compared with those of more average IQ children, reported very early signs of exceptional concentration, memory, and verbal abilities. Clearly, early infancy is the time when family

A. Reichenberg and E. Landau

sensitivities and influences are the most vital means of developing potential giftedness. In other words, giftedness starts at home and develops at home – giftedness is the responsibility of parents (Landau, 2001).

The Cognitive Development of the Child Enriched Language Advanced language is probably the first thing to look for in assessing a potentially high intellectual level, and the advantage usually lasts. Infants are able to manipulate language correctly, both in its comprehension and in its production, earlier than had previously been thought. In intellectually gifted children, this is followed by the ability to reflect upon and control language using meta-linguistic abilities – a reflective attitude to the comprehension and production of oral and written language – which is different from ordinary verbal communication (Gombert, 1992). Bilingual children might have a special advantage due to the prerequisite for more creative construction of meaning and relations (e.g. in two languages) of knowledge Kogan, 2001. Fowler (1990) showed how enriched language enabled children to shoot ahead of others with equal measured ability. Early fluency in using language involving stimulation and practice from adults, such as being read to and talked with from the time of birth, enables children to deal more effectively with later complexities (Freeman, 2000). The parent is not teaching but enabling not imposing but his/her personal history (Landau & David, 2005). Radford (1990) followed up 14 children with enriched early language. He showed them to have become “outstanding students in school”, in all subject areas including the sciences and mathematics. Using a retrospective study design, looking at the early lives of recognised gifted adults, he found that they had enjoyed an enormous amount of verbal stimulation, both spoken and written. He has also reported that exceptional early achievers frequently came from homes that were all lively, stimulating, and usually highly verbal (Radford, 1990). This was true even if homes were of low socio-economic status.

43

Families of Gifted Children

Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst, and Guerin (1994) found that “Ongoing reading to the child in the early years is consistently associated with gifted intelligence (130 IQ) at 8 years” (p.161). Tizard (1985) found that as children were learning to read, those who read out loud to their parents at home had markedly higher reading attainments than those who did not. This could not be explained by any factor other than their reading aloud.

Learning Experience A common concern among parents is how they can encourage and enrich the education of their gifted child. This is the rational for working with the parents in parallel to their children who attend a gifted program (Landau, 1990). Parental encouragement and the availability of a range of play materials and learning experiences are most important. Things that parents do together with their children have a far-reaching effect on the child’s understanding: games, chatter, stories, even arguments can be a stimulating means of fostering the child’s intellectual growth (Landau, 1990; Freeman, 2000). Lehwald (1990) concluded that the major base of future problem-solving behaviour at a gifted level is an infant’s curiosity coupled with confidence to explore the environment, which each one acquires as the result of favourable social processes. There is evidence that 4-year-olds who have high self-concepts are not only more intelligent and socially responsible but better able to plan ahead, which is a vital part of creative thinking (Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989). However, these studies have some mythological limitations, for example, in accounting for the effects of influences such as gender, education, and socio-economic status (Freeman, 2000). Empowering children by giving them a feeling of competence and a goal to aim for (even examinations) generally increases both their motivation to study and their accompanying rise in level of work (Landau, 1990; Freeman’s, 1992). On the other hand, too much adult control implies constant dependence on someone else’s decisions, removing their “locus of control” – the place from which power comes (Rotter, 1966). If children see control of their learning as located outside themselves, resting with the teacher

875

or some other authority figure, then they will tend to be less involved and motivated to work. The urge to learn may also be improved when poorly motivated youngsters are empowered to help others, as when unsuccessful adolescents take on the role of tutors to younger children (Freeman, 2000). Close friends of children, who spend more time with them than other children do, are also part of the cognitive mediators of problem-solving behaviour, in that they help each other to understand the world. This is the main rational for developing specialised programs for gifted children. These programs enable them to spend time (often once or twice a week) with children with the same abilities and similar interests (Landau, 1990). A unique study in California began with 130 1-yearolds of unknown potential, the only criterion being that they were healthy (Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst, & Guerin, 1994). Various measures of intellectual, physical, and social development were made regularly until they were 9 years old. Those with an IQ of 130 or more on the Wechsler Intelligence Test were designated gifted and compared with the others. The researchers concluded that giftedness is a developmental phenomenon, which can rise – and fall – over time: late bloomers’ do exist and can be missed in a single testing. In a detailed examination of the family environments, they found a rich continuous educational environment to be essential in developing intrinsic motivation for curiosity and love of learning (Freeman, 2000). Children from higher SES families tended to have higher IQs. According to the researchers, this was neither due to the parents’ occupations or intelligence nor to the amount of parent–child contact, but rather to the parents’ educational accomplishments. “The families of gifted children provided more stimulating activities than did the families of non-gifted children. Moreover, the parents were more involved and apparently more invested in providing their children with a cognitively advantageous home environment” (p. 156). These differences, which were clear at 3 years old and remained throughout the early elementary years, were notably of an academic and cultural nature, such as use of library or musical instruments. The gifted IQ children also influenced their environments, demanding more learning activities compared with the non-gifted children (Freeman, 2000).

876

The Family Culture Early studies point out the over-representation of majority culture populations among the gifted. Later research on eminent innovators and leaders shows that children of minorities and immigrants are not necessarily disadvantaged, but rather enjoy different challenges for their intelligence, their emotional maturity, and creativity (Landau & David, 2005). Cultural and family attitudes have a considerable effect on high-level achievement. Perkins (1981) in a series of studies reported that creative people were able to produce great works, not solely as a result of their talent, but also as a function of their values and beliefs, which were demonstrated individually in terms of originality, knowing, and independence. Indeed, Holahan and Sears (1995) reported that in late adulthood successful individuals were neither distinguishable by IQ nor by earlier school achievement but by family background, notably the aim for success. Both Flynn (1991) and Stevenson (1998) have concluded that the culture of hard work is probably responsible for so many Asian youngsters’ greater school and work success than their higher IQ classmates. In fact, Hess and Azuma’s (1991) in-depth research showed that American children needed much more help and praise than Japanese children in their motivation to learn. Cultural values may inhibit the achievements of bright children (Freeman, 2000). These too can be subtle, such as the effect of expectations: if children do not fit the cultural stereotypes they are less likely to be recognised as potentially highly able. Currently, the common Western stereotype of a gifted child is of a weedy lad: he (for he is usually male) is bespectacled, lonely, and much given to solitary reading. He is, in fact, a juvenile “egg-head”, at times referred to by his schoolmates and maybe his teachers as “the little professor” (Freeman, 2000). Parents who have been brought up in culturally impoverished circumstances may lack familiarity with easy verbal communication, which affects their children’s intellectual growth (Freeman, 2000). Cultural disadvantage usually brings psychological handicaps in the areas of perception and attention, verbal and intellectual abilities, and motivation. Those parents who, for example, give orders more frequently than explanations are less likely to discuss daily events with their children. Where the children’s questions are ignored or

A. Reichenberg and E. Landau

rejected, and play material and psychological “permission” to play is scarce, their development will be accordingly narrowed, and bright children may have to develop complex strategies to get any verbal interaction from their parents. The intellectual poverty of children from unstimulating homes is noticeable by the age of 5 years. Perceptual deficiency in children who are not talked with is shown when they recognise fewer objects and situations, and their interests are limited by their inability to describe them. In a unique study, Weissler and Landau (1993) carried a detailed study of the family environment of gifted children. In this theory-based investigation of potential mediators and moderators the authors examined socio-economic variables, the family environment and atmosphere, parental characteristics such as academic achievement, interests, and stress level, as well as parental personality traits. The cognitive and affective interaction between the parents and their children was also examined. The results of the study showed differences between parents of gifted children and parents of children with average intellectual abilities in available environmental stimuli, parental academic achievement, and the cognitive interaction between parents and their children. Parents of gifted children tended to be more assertive, confident, and liberal. These results suggest that a combination of family characteristics may uniquely contribute to the development of gifted children.

Gender Differences Many studies have shown that in most cultures, families encourage boys more than girls to be independent, self-reliant, and able to assume responsibility, and that this alters their approach to both school and work. In Germany, Rost and Hanses (1994) found “dramatic gender effects” in the toys gifted children were given. Freeman (2000) Observed that there is a stable ratio of two boys to every girl when parents identify their children as gifted. This was the proportion in an American study by Johnson and Lewman (1990) of parent’s selection of 4- to 6-year-olds as gifted. In China, in a 15-year follow-up study, in which parents made the first judgement of giftedness, which was then confirmed by the teachers, 69.5% were boys and 30.5%

43

Families of Gifted Children

were girls (Zha, 1995). Given the supposed differences in the Chinese attitudes, in which girls are seen as inferior, remarkably similar proportions appeared in Freeman’s UK study (1991) where parents made the first recommendation – 64.3% boys and 35.7% girls. The reason appeared to be that the boys had more behaviour problems as well as being more demanding in general. This also fitted better with the stereotyped image parents often had of the gifted child. The effects of being a boy or girl maybe different for the gifted than for those of more average ability (Freeman, 1996). Studies have shown gender to be the strongest single influence on high-level achievement. Intellectually gifted girls appear to be cognitively more like gifted boys than girls of average ability (Stapf, 1990). Emotionally, though, in America they have been found to be more depressed than equally able boys, often underestimating their abilities because of conflicts between of success and of “femininity” (Luthar, Zigler, & Goldstein, 1992). Golombok and Fivush (1994) wrote that: “Careful statistical analyses across hundreds of studies have demonstrated that gender differences in ability in math and language are so small as to be virtually non-existent for all practical purposes” (p. 177). They concluded that the measurable sex differences in aptitude are due to “a complex interaction between small biological differences and larger gender differences in socialisation experiences” (p. 176). However, schoolgirls in Britain are currently achieving higher national examination grades than boys in all subjects at 16 and in everything except physics at 18 (Arnot, Gray, Rudduck, & with Duveen, 1998). Similar findings have been reported in the United States. Several other countries are moving in this direction, notably Australia. Investigating mathematically precocious American youth, Benbow and Lubinski (1993) although recognising the effects of cultural influences concluded that there is a genetic mathematical bias in favour of boys. Taking a long-term look at giftedness in mathematics in the United States, Jacobs and Weisz (1994) found that parents held somewhat fixed and conventional gender expectations. This influenced the girls’ selfesteem more than their actual performances, and inhibited their ambitions. Power, Whitty, Edwards, and Wigfall (1998) in Britain investigated young men who had been identified at school as “academically able”, and found that their perceptions of a masculine

877

identity could either foster or jeopardise their academic achievement. A recent review of research on gender differences in the highly able in mathematics and natural sciences failed to find any reliable evidence that girls are inherently less able than boys in these subjects (Heller & Zeigler, 1996/1997). So, because they have similar abilities, girls and boys can act as experimental controls for each other to gauge the power of social effects, probably best seen in career outcomes (Freeman, 2000). Heller pointed out, for example, that even on present tests of spatial abilities at which boys do better, we could expect only twice as many male engineering graduates as females, whereas there are 30 times as many. This effect was found to be more pronounced among the gifted. Clearly, girls are being more influenced by social pressures than boys, e.g. by the “unfemininity” of subjects such as physics, as well as much less practice and fewer role models (Freeman, 2000). Most importantly, the often-noted “learned helplessness” of girls (a feeling that events and outcomes are beyond their control) was considered to be the result of “wrong” attributions, so that girls often think their success is due to luck rather than their own ability. Thus, Heller states, believing that they are not good at maths, simply lucky to have done well that time, girls adjust their behaviour to fit their belief (attribution), and “confirm” it by doing less well as time goes by. For example: when failing at an exam the boys would say that the exam was not fair, while the girls said they had not study enough (Subotnik, Kassan, Summers, & Wasser, 1993). There are also motivational factors, internal and external, which play a significant part in explaining gender variations (Feldusen, van Tassel – Baska, & Seeley, 1989). Since external factors that influence intellectual motivation are potentially subject to intervention, whereas psychological differences presumably are not, the first group of factors is especially worthy of investigation. What are these motivational factors? The external factors include ways in which parents, teachers, and society at large treat girls differently than boys. Parents have not only different but also lower expectations from girls than they do from boys and are typically more protective of girls. Boys are encouraged to do and think independently, to discover their surroundings, to be adventurous. As girls are brought up in a more sheltered way, difficulties

878

are taken out of their way (Silverman, 1998). This phenomenon seems to be evident already at the age of crawling, which involves the exploration of space and the world – a basis for spatial intelligence (Landau, 1990). Fox (1980) suggests that gifted girls need parents and teachers who would encourage independent thinking, tolerance for change, and exploration of alternatives, but these traits are more commonly encouraged in boys. Numerous studies have observed sexism in the classroom, where teachers discriminate, often unconsciously, against girls. Clark (1988) cites the following teachers behaviours revealed in a study of more than 100 elementary school classrooms: If a boy calls out in class, he gets the teacher’s attention, whereas a girl calling out is told to raise her hand. Teachers praise boys more than girls and also give them more academic help. Boys dominate the classroom communication by a ratio of 3:1 and their comments are accepted more than those of girls. Teachers give boys dynamic, precise, and effective responses; girls receive bland, diffused reactions. Others report that boys get more attention from teachers and receive feedback to encourage thinking and self-direction. Girls, on the other hand, are more likely to receive ready-made solutions and answers, with no encouragement to become self-directing. Boys tend to highly value success in school and expect it to lead to continuous high achievements, whereas many girls tend to fear success because it may hurt their standing with peers. Cszikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, and Whalen (1993) observed that boys gifted in science scored very high in self-assurance and trust in their abilities, while girls gifted in science scored low. Subotnik (1993a) observed that dominance in gifted boys was seen by their peers as leadership ability, while in gifted girls, dominance was seen as ambition and lust after power. Gifted boys were more liked than other boys while gifted girls were less accepted than ordinary girls. Gifted boys were characterised as amusing, clever, and creative, while gifted girls were described as moody, presumptuous, egocentric, and tyrannical. In general, these observations suggest that giftedness is more naturally accepted, and less opposed, in boys than in girls. Scientific achievements are grasped by women as the result of devotion, perseverance, and value system. Men associated them mostly with intelligence. Successful women scientists associated the

A. Reichenberg and E. Landau

choice of their profession with curiosity and thirst for knowledge, idealism, and parental influence. Successful male scientists associated their choices with flexible career options, independence, and good income (Subotnik, 1993b). Subotnik describes the scientific woman heroine as devoted, coping with difficulties, courageous, and creative. She is convinced that if science were taught in a more creative way, there would be many more women scientists. Inamorato (1998) observed that girls do not choose sciences in high school because of the non-creative way it is being taught, which gives no opportunity to actualise their creativity. Society at large contributes to the lower motivation of girls in a variety of ways. Many women are still denied high-status occupations, or receive lower pay for an equal work, and are passed over in promotions. Girls often lack models of successful, effective women upon whom to pattern their own educational and career paths. Mass media, in both programming and advertising, tends to reinforce stereotypes of dependent, low-achieving women. The internal factors that affect intellectual motivation are personal characteristics. Feldhusen, van Tassel – Baska, and Seeley, (1989) summarise the psychological problems of gifted girls as follows: – Rigid-stereotyped reactions, overemphasis on tradition and conformity – Fear of failure and the unknown – Avoidance of frustration – Low self-evaluation – Failure to see their own strength Data from an enrichment program for gifted students of lower socio-economic background carried in our institute was used to examine how girls who participated in the program benefited in comparison to boys. The results showed that after participating for three semesters in the enrichment program, girls’ performance on intelligence tests was in fact higher than boys’ performance. While girls started out, on average, with lower scores, they ended up, on an average, with higher scores than boys. Although both boys and girls increased their scores between the pre- and the posttests, girls’ average increase was significantly greater than that of boys (Landau, Weissler, & Golod, 2001). The enhanced performance of girls can be explained in terms of the program’s impact on both internal and external motivation. Girls who received

43

Families of Gifted Children

added encouragement within the program (i.e. external motivation) experienced greater internal motivation to learn and achieve more. The observation that girls who started the program with lower scores increased the most is intriguing. It suggests that something dramatic had happened to these girls. External factors such as greater support from their instructors seem to have positively affected their self-image and internal motivation, which led, in turn, to enhanced outcomes. In terms of practicing gender-enhancing policies, our program is carried in an atmosphere of freedom and security that equalises the expectations from boys and girls. Staff is instructed to be responsive to student reactions in accordance with individual ability levels, regardless of gender. Our courses also encourage girls to re-channel their innate curiosity towards scientific and intellectual investigation, and reinforce them to ask creative questions. Greater familiarity with scientific concepts and modes of thinking, gained in the enrichment program, is expected to gradually close the gap usually observed between boys and girls in this aspect of intelligence. Finally, no grades are given and problem solving in groups is emphasised, thus eliminating a major component of competitiveness. It has been argued that girls function better in such cooperative settings than they do in typically competitive academic surroundings. All these features taken together help explain why girls who took part in the enrichment courses improved their test scores more than boys. It has been argued that adolescence is particularly tough on gifted girls. They might enjoy their special gifts as children, but come to doubt themselves as teens. Their need for love and a sense of belonging often overweighs their desire to excel, and many end up lowering their career or denying their talents. Whether puberty is indeed a point of transition for gifted girls remains to be studied.

879

identified. Research has sometimes indicated that labelling a child gifted can have negative effects on siblings, including impairments in self-concept and adjustment problems (Colangelo & Brower, 1987a; Cornell & Grossberg, 1986; Grenier, 1985). Other studies have shown no negative effects of growing with a gifted sibling. Although gifted children tend to have better academic achievements, they do not necessarily differ from their non-gifted siblings on general selfesteem (Colangelo and Brower, 1987b). A number of studies (see Neihart, 1999) have indicated that there are no differences between gifted and non-gifted students on measures of self-concept. Chamrad, Robinson, and Janos (1995) reported that both giftedness and having a gifted sibling were generally associated with more favourable responses by children and mothers. Thus, the effects of growing up with a gifted brother or sister are to a large degree underexplored, and the available literature is inconsistent and based on small samples.

Gifted Children as They Grow Up

Detailed studies of gifted children as they grow up at home are rare (for review see: Freeman, 2000). In America, Feldman and Goldsmith (1986) spent 10 years following up just six young boys, described as prodigies; they used a term from biology, “trace elements”, to describe unrecognised events which are vital for gifted development. A historical case study of Gruber (1981) on outstanding individuals such as Darwin and Piaget, found a similar mixture of events, and referred to such creative achievers as people in “networks of enterprise”, i.e. they have many things going on at the same time. In a 4-year research project, Benjamin Bloom and his team (1985) looked back at the lives of 120 young men and women who had reached world-class levels of accomplishment. The subjects told them that no matter what their initial The Siblings of Gifted Children talents were, those high levels of achievement were due to a long and intensive process of encouragement A rather common heuristic is that younger siblings of a and teaching, usually combined with long hours of gifted child are often also gifted. There may, however, practice under parents who drove them hard. be considerable differences within families. Siblings Although several crucial factors which appeared may significantly differ in measured ability (Jensen to help the potentially gifted to achieve highly have et al., 1989). emerged from such studies, it is not known what the The identification of one child in a family as gifted effect of similar parenting behaviour would have been changes the dynamics with other siblings who are not on other children, as there were neither comparison

880

groups of families, nor any more intimate view of their lives – in fact, most of the Bloom interviews seem to have been done by telephone. Reports from a 15-year Chinese study of 115 children with extremely high IQ (Zha, 1995) showed the strong influence of family provision, both in achievement and emotional development. The children were first identified by parents (two boys to every girl) and then validated as gifted by a psychologist. Every year parents were given a questionnaire and interviewed several times. The parents-to-be had taken their future responsibilities very seriously by studying parenthood. As the toddlers were learning to speak, the parents often taught them to read, and some children even mastered writing at the same time. By the age of three many children could recognise 2000 Chinese characters, and at four many could not only read well but also wrote compositions and poems. However, these “hothoused” children were found to be lacking in easy social relationships, and the parents had to be given some more lessons in how to help their children to some social life (Freeman, 2000).

Emotional Development Although gifted children are possibly more sensitive than others to emotional nuances in the family, there is no evidence that they are emotionally less stable than other children – even though it is sometimes argued that they are. On the contrary, in a recent metaanalysis it has been shown that low intelligence and attention problems are being associated with delinquency (Maguin & Loeber, 1996). Furthermore, largescale longitudinal studies have demonstrated a strong association between low intellectual abilities in childhood and adult psychiatric disorders. High IQ was often viewed as protective (Jones et al., 1994; Reichenberg et al., 2002). Investigators who describe the gifted as having emotional problems have usually taken their data from clinical settings and case studies, where the population is self-selecting and no comparisons are made with other equally able children (e.g. Silverman, 1993; Gross, 1993). In fact, Freeman (2000) suggested that the gifted appear to be emotionally stronger than other children, with lower levels of anxiety, higher productivity, and higher motivation.

A. Reichenberg and E. Landau

Research, unique in its in-depth approach, was carried out in Britain over 14 years (Freeman, 1991). A target group of 70 children, identified (but untested) by their parents as gifted, was compared with a second group of 70 who were unlabelled – but of equal measured ability – and a third group of 70 randomly selected children. Eighty-two percent of the target group parents either reported emotional problems or were expecting them. Typically, the child showed overactivity, clumsiness, tantrums, excessive demands, poor sleep, and had few friends of any age. However, the comparison children in the study – of identical high ability – who did not exhibit problem behaviour, were much less likely to be seen as stereotypically gifted, simply outstanding at what they did. Freeman also found that about 10% of the children presented by parents as gifted were only of average ability on IQ tests and had achieved accordingly at school. This perceived “failure” was then sometimes blamed by parents on the school, or as teacher discrimination against the child. Ten years later, the parent-identified youngsters had often remained the least happy (as measured by rating scales), for which their gifts were sometimes blamed. Labelling appeared to have the effect of putting pressure on children to live up to it in high achievements, notably those who had been wrongly labelled and could not fulfil their parents’ ambitions. Whatever problems already exist in the family, these can be intensified when there is an unusual child present. Landau and her colleagues provide a unique environment for families of gifted children, including counselling sessions with parents. The most discussed problem is the discrepancy between the advanced intellectual and the low emotional development. This discrepancy in development might be the core of the behavioural problems of gifted children. Landau (1990) suggested several possible methods to cope with the intellectual–emotional discrepancy. One is to create opportunities for the child to identify with the personal example of the parents. In such situations the parents report on an event and how they dealt with it. According to Landau, this “family situation” is important for creating a frame of reference and a repertoire of responses for the child. Another method involves creating intimacy (seldom used in connection with education or psychotherapy) between the parent and the child. The parent is expected to encourage the child to bring up his thoughts or feelings, and describe

43

Families of Gifted Children

to him/her how to behave in unknown or unpleasant situations and how to cope with a failure. The goal of the process is to make the child feel accepted and trusted and enhance the emotional development and maturation of the child. In our admittance interview is a question “Where did you learn the things you know?” Thirty years ago most of them answered “in school”; 20 years ago more children answered “at home”; 10 years ago very few answered school but many answered with a warm and nice smile from my grandmother/grandfather”. Therefore, eight years ago we started workshops for grandparents. “Learn the language of your grandchild”. We learned many insights from them. The most important was that whatever they do is with love and patience. Parents love their children too, but they have to discipline them among other duties. After the experience of tens of workshops with grandparents and hundreds of workshops with parents Dr. Landau concluded that children learn unconditioned, pure love from their grandparents, and how to live they learn from their parents.

881

Summary and Conclusions This chapter reviewed research findings and theories regarding the role of the family in nurturing and developing gifted children to their potential. We also briefly discussed the impact the gifted child has on his/her parents and siblings. David Bohm (1996), a physicist and a philosopher believes that the whole creates its parts – it is not the parts that create the whole. Put differently, the family creates the individuals within. The individual does and create the family. It is clear from the above sections that the family plays a significant role at the development and maturation of the gifted child. Starting with the identification of unique talent, and followed by responding to the child’s intellectual as well as emotional needs, and providing the necessary stimuli and environment for development these all require the dedication and contribution of the family. Many of the topics we reviewed require further systematic research. Adult outcome of gifted children, and how parents who were gifted children support and promote their own gifted children are two pivotal topics.

Outlines for Future Studies of Long-Term References Outcome of Gifted Children As indicated in the previous sections of this chapter, there is very little systematic research on families of gifted children. Studies of gifted children as they grow up, on the offspring of gifted children, and on the nongifted siblings of gifted children are especially uncommon. The ongoing research at the Young Persons’ Institute for the Promotion of Creativity and Excellence focuses predominantly on these topics. A cohort of approximately 15,000 children who attended the educational program of the Institute has been identified, and is being followed up for adult outcome, including physical and mental health utilising the unique Israeli health system which offers the opportunity to study population-based registries which are being systematically collected. A sub-cohort of approximately 1,000 individuals who as children attended the program have been contacted and will undergo more comprehensive face-to-face and web-based interviews. Finally, parent– child pairs within the cohort are being identified for the study of values and attitudes of gifted parents.

Arnot, M., Gray, J., Rudduck, J., & with Duveen, G. (1998). Recent research on gender and educational performance. London: The Stationery Office. Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (1993) (44–59), Psychological profiles of the mathematically talented: Some sex differences and evidence supporting their biological basis. In G. R. Bock, & K. A. Ackrill, (Eds.) The origins and development of high ability (Ciba Foundation Symposium). Chichester; Wiley. Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine. Bohm, D. (1996). Wholeness and implicate order. Routledge, London Chamrad, D. L,, Robinson, N. M,, & Janos, P. M. (1995). Consequences of having a gifted sibling: Myths and realities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 135–145. Cornell, D. G., & Grossberg, I. W. (1986). Siblings of children in gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 9, 252–264. Clark, B. (1988). Growing up gifted. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company. Cszikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers. The roots of success and Failure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Colangelo, N., & Brower, P. (1987a). Labeling gifted youngsters: Long-term impact on families. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 75–78.

882 Colangelo N., & Brower P. (1987b). Gifted youngsters and their siblings: Long-term impact of labeling on Their academic and personal self-concepts. Roeper Review, 10, 101–103 Colangelo N., & Dettmann D. F. (1983). A review of research on parents and families of gifted children. The Council for Exceptional Children. 50: 20–27 Colangelo, N., & Zaffrann, R. T. (Eds.) New voices in counseling the gifted. Dubuque IA: Kendall/Hunt 1979. Feldman, D. H., & Goldsmith L. T. (1986) Nature‘s gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York: Basic Books. Flynn, J. R. (1991). Asian Americans: Achievement beyond IQ. London: Erlbaum. Feldusen, J. F., VAN Tassel – Baska, J., & Seeley, K. (1989). Excellence in education of gifted. Denver: Love Publish Company. Fowler, W. (1990), Talking from infancy: How to nurture and cultivate early language development. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Freeman, J. (1991). Gifted children growing up. London: Cassell. Freeman, J. (1992). Quality education: The development of competence. Geneva: UNESCO. Freeman, J. (1996). Highly able girls and boys. London: Department of Education and Employment. Freeman, J. (2000) Families, the essential context for gifts and talents. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik, International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 573–585). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Fox, L. H. (1980). Conclusion: What do we know and where should we go? In: L. H. Fox, I. Brody, and D. Tobin (Eds.). Women and the mathematical mystique (pp. 195–208). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Golombok, S., & Fivush, R. (1994). Gender development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gombert, J. E. (1992). Metalinguistic development. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., & Guerin, D. W. (1994). Gifted IQ: Early developmental aspects, New York: Plenum Grenier, M. E. (1985). Gifted children and other siblings. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 164–167. Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Nurturing the talents of exceptionally gifted individuals. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 473–490). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Gruber, H. E. (1981). Darwin on man: a Psychological study of scientific creativity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Heller, K. A., & Zeigler, A. (1996). Gender differences in mathematics and natural sciences; can attributional retraining improve the low performance of gifted females? Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(4), 200–219. Hess, R. D.. & Azuma, H. (1991), ‘Cultural support for schooling: Contrasts between Japan and the United States. Educational Researcher, 20, 2–9. Holahan, C. K.. & Sears, R. R. (1995). The gifted group in later maturity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Inamorato, G. (1998). Creativity in the development of scientific giftedness. Roeper Review, 21(1), 54–59.

A. Reichenberg and E. Landau Jacobs, J. E.. & Weisz, V. (1994). Gender stereotypes: Implications for gifted education. Roeper Review, 16(3) 152–55. Jensen, A. R, Cohn, S. J., & Cohn, C. M. (1989). Speed of information processing in academically gifted youths and their siblings. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 29–33 Johnson, L. J., & Lewman, B. S. (1990). Parents perceptions of the talents of young gifted boys and girls. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 176–188. Jones, P., Rodgers, B., Murray, R., & Marmot, M. (1994). Child developmental risk factors for adult schizophrenia in the British 1946 birth cohort. The Lancet, 334, 1398–1402. Kaufman, F. (1976). Your gifted child and you. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children. Kogan, E. (2001). Gifted bilingual students: A paradox?. New York: Peter Lang. Landau, E. (1990). The Courage to be gifted. Unionville NY: Trillium Press. Landau, E. (2001). Mut Zur Begabung (2 Aufl). Munchen: Ernst Reinhardt Verlag. Landau, E., Weissler, K., & Golod, G. (2001). Impact of an enrichment program of intelligence, by sex, among low SES population in Israel. Gifted Education International, 15, 207– 214. Landau, E., & David, H. (2005). Who will be the gifted of the future? Gifted Education International, 20(3), 343–347. Lehwald, G. (1990). Curiosity and exploratory behaviour in ability development. European Journal for High Ability, 1, 204– 210. Lewis, M., & Louis, B. (1991), Young gifted children. In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 365–381). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Luthar, S. S., Zigler, E., & Goldstein, D. (1992), Psychosocial adjustment among intellectually gifted adolescents: The role of cognitive-developmental and experiential factors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 361–373. Maguin, E., & Loeber, R. (1996). Academic performance and delinquency. In M. Tonry, & N. Morris (Eds.) Crime and justice. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. (1989). ‘Delay of gratification in children’, Science, 244, 933–938. Morrow, W. R., Wilson, R. C. (1964). Family relations of bright high-achieving and under-achieving high school boys. Child Development, 35, 1041–1049. Neihart, M. (1999). The importance of giftedness and psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22, 10–17. O’Neill, K. K. (1978). Parent involvement: A key to the education of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 235–242. Perkins, D. N. (1981). The mind‘s best work: A new psychology of creative thinking. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Plomin R. (1995). Genetics and children’s experiences in the family. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 33–68. Plomin R., & Thompson L A, (1993). Genetics and high cognitive ability. Ciba Foundation Symposiums, 178, 67–79. Power, S., Whitty, G., Edwards, T., & Wigfall, V. (1998). Schoolboys and schoolwork: Gender identification and academic achievement. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2, 135–153. Radford, J. (1990). Child prodigies and exceptional early achievers. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

43

Families of Gifted Children

Reichenberg, A., Weiser, M., Rabinowitz, J., Caspi, A., Schmeidler, J., Mark, M., et al. (2002). A population – based cohort study of premorbid intellectual, language, and behavioral functioning in patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and nonpsychotic bipolar disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 2027–2035. Rost, D. H. & Hanses, P. (1994). The possession and use of toys in elementary-school boys and girls: Does giftedness make a difference? Educational Physchology, 14, 181–194. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalised expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs (whole no. 609). Sanborn, M. P. (1979). Working with parents. In N. Colangelo, & R. T. Zaffrann (Eds.), New voices in counseling the gifted. Dubuque IA: Kendall/Hunt. Silverman, L. K. (1993), The gifted individual. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.) Counselling the gifted and talented (pp. 3–23). Denver: Love. Silverman, L. K. (1998). What we have learned about gifted children, 1979–1997. Denver, CO: Gifted Development Center. Sisk, D. A. (1977). What if your child is gifted? American Education, 13(8), 23–26. Stapf, A. (1990). Hochbegabte Madchen: Entwicklung, Identifikation und Beratung, insbesondere im Vorschualter [Highly able girls: development, identification and counselling, especially at pre-school age] (pp. 45–58). In Hochbegabte Madchen, W. Wieczerkowski & T. M. Prado (Eds.). Bad Honnef: K. H. Bock.

883 Stevenson, H. W. (1998). Cultural interpretations of giftedness: the case of East Asia’, in Friedman, R. & Rogers, K. B. (Eds.). Talent in Context: Historical and Social Prespectives on Giftedness. Washington: American Psychological Association, pp. 61–77. Subotnik, R. F. (1993a). Talent developed: Conversation with masters of the art and science. Journal of education of the gifted, 16(3), 311–322. Subotnik, R. F. (1993b). Adult manifestations of the adolescent talent in science, Roeper Review, 15(3), 164–169. Subotnik, R., Kassan, L., Summers, E., & Wasser, A. (1993). Genius revisited: High IQ children grown up. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tizard, B. (1985). ‘Social relationships between adults and young children, and their impact on intellectual functioning’, In R. A. Hinde, A.-N. Perret-Clermont, and J. StevensonHinde (Eds.), Social relationships and cognitive development: Oxford: Clarendon. Weissler, K., & Landau, E. (1993). Characteristics of families with no, one, or more than one gifted child. The Journal of Psychology, 127(2), 143–152. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children myths and realties. New York: Basic Books. Zha, Z. (1995). The influence of family education on gifted children. Paper presented at World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children, Hong Kong.

Chapter 44

Large-Scale Socioeconomic, Political, and Cultural Influences on Giftedness and Talent Don Ambrose

Abstract The development of talent and the realization of potential depend heavily on the contexts that surround individuals and groups. While much has been done to reveal the influence of immediate contexts such as classrooms, schools, and families, we need more investigation of large-scale, societal, and cultural contexts. Based on wide-ranging analyses of theory and research from a variety of disciplines, this chapter surveys some extant broad-scope contextual theories, models, and investigative trajectories. Contributing disciplines include political theory, sociology, ethical philosophy, history, and cultural anthropology, among others. The survey includes socioeconomic and political trends such as the tenuous growth of democracy in some regions and its pernicious erosion in others; increases in socioeconomic inequity within and between nations; and the effects of competing ideologies. Cultural phenomena under study include changing value systems worldwide, cultural responses to globalization, and various religious and secular conceptions of the ideal civil society. All of these phenomena influence the aspirations, talent development, selffulfillment, and ethical behavior of gifted individuals. Keywords Altruism · Aspiration · Dialectical thought · Globalization · Identity formation · Interdisciplinary · Neoliberal ideology · Values

Introduction How might the talents, cognitive abilities, motivations, and dispositions of technology entrepreneur Bill Gates, D. Ambrose (B) Rider University, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Burmese human rights activist Aung San Su Kyi, and former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein have developed had they grown up in different large-scale political, economic, and cultural environments? This chapter is an interdisciplinary exploration of some aspects of these environmental influences. Understanding giftedness and talent requires a very broad interdisciplinary approach to inquiry because the multiple dimensions of high ability derive from very diverse phenomena at multiple levels of analysis (Ambrose, 2005b). For example, investigation focusing on the individual child can reveal cognitive, motivational, affective, dispositional, and achievement dynamics. Research at the micro-levels where brain structure and molecular genetics come into view can reveal the structure and function of subsystems in the brain, or the operation of neural networks, or genetic influences on behavior. Moving up into larger-scale levels of analysis, investigation of the immediate contexts for learning and development (e.g., classrooms and families) can reveal the dynamics of parental influences, curriculum, instruction, and organizational constraints in schools and classrooms. Most investigation in the field of gifted education appropriately aims at understanding the cognitive, affective, and motivational dimensions of individuals, or the influences of immediate contexts such as classrooms and families. While research at these levels enriches understanding of high ability, the large-scale sociocontextual influences on giftedness, talent, and creativity receive insufficient attention. Research and theory from macro-level disciplines such as political theory, economics, sociology, cultural anthropology, and ethical philosophy can reveal strong, contextual influences on high ability. For example, sociology, economics, and political theory can reveal patterns of power, domination, subordination, and the various

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 44, 

885

886

shapes taken by creative enterprise in a society. Ethical philosophy can reveal the worthiness and harmfulness of individual and group actions within societal contexts. Cultural anthropology can reveal the nuances of beliefs and traditions of cultural and ethnic groups that exert powerful influences on the ways in which talent develops or giftedness comes to fruition in a society. A few investigators of giftedness and talent have made forays into these large-scale contextual fields. For example, some have sought to understand the impact of poverty on high ability (Ambrose, 2002, 2003a; Borland, Schnur, & Wright, 2000; Borland & Wright, 1994, 2000; H´ebert & Beardsley, 2001; VanTassel-Baska, 1992) or influences from racial, ethnic, or multicultural perspectives on giftedness (Ford, 1993, 1996; Ford & Harris, 1999; Frasier, 1993; Maker, 1996; Peterson, 1999; Scott, Deuel, JeanFrancois, & Urbano, 1996). This chapter represents an attempt to augment this work by extending outward beyond the literature on giftedness into research and theory from academic disciplines that investigate large-scale contexts. The exploration is an attempt to reveal some little-known influences on high-ability individuals. It includes massive shifts in the value systems of societies worldwide, analyses of religious perspectives on the ideal society, some influences from economic and cultural globalization, implications from the dominance of neoclassical economic theory and neoliberal ideology, some nettlesome issues arising from the underdefined nature of merit in today’s complex world, and some dangers inherent in ideological leadership trends. The following section provides a framework for interpretation of the various influences. The framework illustrates some interactive influences among aspiration growth, talent development, socioeconomic deprivation, moral development, and self-fulfillment.

Aspiration Development and Self-Fulfillment: Barriers from Large-Scale Contexts The development of human potential largely derives from the awakening of aspirations that support and energize talent development. The combination of strong aspirations and talents developed vigor-

D. Ambrose

ously over the long-term produces self-fulfillment, which characterizes the optimal development of the individual. These dynamics are illustrated through the workings of a recently developed conceptual model based on integration of research and theory from the fields of sociology, economics, and ethical philosophy (Ambrose, 2003a). The model illustrates the intensification or suppression of long-range aspiration growth and capacity (talent) development toward self-fulfillment depending on the pervasive influences of large-scale socioeconomic contexts (see Fig. 44.1). More specifically, socioeconomic privilege or deprivation encourages or suppresses the growth of aspirations, which are robust, long-term desires for accomplishment. Aspiration growth or suppression strongly supports or undermines capacity development because aspirations provide the long-term motivation necessary for the growth and fine-tuning of the general and domain-specific abilities that are necessary for attaining desired accomplishments. Overall, strong, persistent aspiration growth first spawns nascent and then burgeoning capacities, which energetically employed over time generate successful, gratifying life experiences. Such experiences foment self-fulfillment over the life span (Gewirth, 1998). According to Gewirth, self-fulfillment is the discovery of one’s deepest desires and worthiest capacities, and the subsequent development of those capacities. A rather nebulous but powerful marker of self-fulfillment is the ability to look back over one’s life span and declare emphatically that it has been a life well lived up to the present. The aspiration development model also illustrates a continuum from egoistic individualism, particularist morality, and limited self-fulfillment at one end to relational altruism, universalist morality, and optimal self-fulfillment at the other. This continuum, which was based on constructs from ethical philosophy (see Gewirth, 1998; Martin, 1997; Monroe, 1996), shows that individuals who develop altruistic dispositions tend to follow life trajectories leading toward universalist morality. A person with universalist inclinations develops strong, moral-altruistic connections with all of humanity, not just with his or her own particular identity group (e.g., family, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic class, nationality). The highest levels of self-fulfillment are available to those who become relational altruists and embrace universalist morality

44

Large-Scale Socioeconomic, Political, and Cultural Influences

887

Fig. 44.1 Model of aspiration growth, capacity development, and self-fulfillment. Adapted from “Barriers to aspiration development and self-fulfillment: Interdisciplinary insights for talent discovery,” by D. Ambrose, 2003, Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, pp. 282–294. Copyright 2003 by the National Association for Gifted Children. Adapted with permission

(Gewirth). Such impressive self-fulfillment is signified by the high end of the slanted ceiling in Fig. 44.1. In contrast, those who become ego-driven, atomistic, self-aggrandizing, insatiably materialistic individuals may develop limited, particularist forms of morality, if they manifest any form of moral sensitivity at all. Their best moral behavior in the world is limited to altruistic actions aimed at members of their own families or particular ethnic, religious, or national identity groups. They develop no significant connections with humanity as a whole. At best, those adhering to particularist morality and materialistic, egoistic individualism can achieve limited and somewhat hollow self-fulfillment over the long term, which is signified by the low end of the slanted ceiling in Fig. 44.1. An example of the hollow nature of this limited fulfillment becomes visible in frenetic attempts to accumulate ever more material wealth in futile attempts to assuage the fulfillment vacuum within. Another aspect of the model represents strong shaping influences on the individual’s development toward self-fulfillment. Socioeconomic barriers, signified by the sloping curve in the middle of Fig. 44.1, suppress or warp the inception of aspirations, the development of capacities, and the life trajectory one follows to-

ward self-fulfillment. The barriers are comprised of socioeconomic forces that generate deprivation, segregation, and stigmatization (see Arrow, Bowles, & Durlauf, 2000; Fischer et al., 1996; Ogbu, 1978, 1994). Deprivation comes from a lack of economic resources necessary for aspiration and talent development, resources such as a quality education; adequate nutrition; or freedom from pernicious, dangerous environmental influences. Segregation comes from separation of one’s ethnic, religious, or racial group from the opportunities provided to others in the society. Stigmatization comes from denial of esteem based on negative stereotypes of one’s identity group that emerge from blatant or subtle messages in the societal context. For example, young people feel the sting of stigmatization if people of their ethnicity, class, or race are frequently portrayed in reality television shows as pathetic, shirtless figures, running away from police in dirty back alleys. These barriers are negligible or nonexistent for the privileged so they have much opportunity to develop strong momentum in aspiration growth during childhood. This momentum catalyzes talent development and ultimately leads to self-fulfillment. In contrast, the barriers hovering over the underprivileged are heavy, oppressive, and very difficult to break through.

888

These developmental dynamics are portrayed by some examples of hypothetical life trajectories in Fig. 44.1. The trajectories are shown as dotted lines beginning at the numbered squares (birth) on the socioeconomic continuum and ending at the numbered circles (late adulthood). The starting points on the right side of the socioeconomic continuum represent life beginnings for privileged individuals. Those on the left end of the continuum represent starting points for the deprived. Middle-class starting points would appear in the middle of the socioeconomic continuum but are not included in the model because it was designed to illustrate developmental differences based on socioeconomic extremes. Trajectory 1 represents the admirable path of privileged relational altruism in which the individual who is affluent by birth achieves the highest levels of self-fulfillment by developing strong aspirations and impressive talents and universalist, moral dispositions while avoiding the superficial allure of egoistic individualism and frenetic materialism. People from affluent families who become genuine altruists and champions for the downtrodden follow this path. Former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and American actress and humanitarian Angelina Jolie are examples. Trajectory 2 represents aggressive shallow opulence in which the individual develops very strong aspirations and talents but uses them to reach the region of limited, hollow self-fulfillment where extreme egoistic individualism and frenetic materialism prevail. Corporate criminals and corrupt political lobbyists often fit this pattern. Trajectory 3 illustrates the highly impressive and very difficult path of deprived relational altruism where the deprived individual manages to break through daunting socioeconomic barriers and resists the magnetic pull of self-aggrandizing, egoistic individualism and feverish materialism, traveling instead into the region of universalist morality and optimal self-fulfillment. An example is Frederick Douglass, an escaped slave who became a prominent abolitionist in 18th-century America. Trajectory 4 is the path of deprived passive escapism where severe deprivation, segregation, and stigmatization preclude the development of significant aspirations, talents, and self-fulfillment. Directionless children in American inner-city regions or in shanty towns on the periphery of third-world cities often find themselves following this demoralizing trajectory. The following are some other hypothetical life trajectories that appeared on the original model:

D. Ambrose

1. Passive shallow opulence. Privileged individuals who complacently accept the comfortable advantages of wealth and status develop very limited aspirations and talents, which lead toward insubstantial levels of self-fulfillment. Examples are unavailing beneficiaries of nepotism and ambitionless recipients of large trust funds. 2. Deprived suppressive sacrifice. Deprivation forces individuals to sacrifice their own aspiration and talent development in hopes of enabling their progeny to find better lives in the future. Examples are immigrants who work several minimum-wage jobs and save every penny to send their children to college. There is a strong element of altruism in this trajectory but it does not reach optimal self-fulfillment because the altruism is limited to immediate family members and therefore is particularist in nature. 3. Deprived aggressive shallow materialism. These deprived individuals manage to develop strong aspirations and talents in spite of daunting socioeconomic barriers; however, while breaking through the barriers, they are trapped by egoistic individualism and materialism. Black-market entrepreneurs and creative, ruthless street gang leaders are examples. Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi dictator, is a specific example. In short, the oppressive barriers weigh heavily and hinder or warp aspiration development for the deprived. Children who grow up under the thick, heavy barriers on the left side of the model have little chance to develop productive aspirational momentum and their talent development often is diminished or stillborn. When daunting socioeconomic barriers to aspiration growth, aspiration development, and selffulfillment are present in a society, policy makers and educators of the gifted face a serious ethical dilemma. A society that tolerates such conditions supports the self-fulfillment of the privileged while stunting or crushing the aspirations and talent development of the deprived.

Large-Scale Contextual Influences on Aspiration Development and Self-Fulfillment A wide variety of contextual influences on high ability become visible from navigation through the literature

44

Large-Scale Socioeconomic, Political, and Cultural Influences

in multiple disciplines. For example, one wide-ranging investigative project recently borrowed 87 research findings and theories from 28 academic fields and then juxtaposed them with constructs from the literature in gifted education and creative studies (Ambrose, in press). Many of the creative associations drawn from these connections suggest new ways of thinking about high ability. The following analyses represent a similar but much less comprehensive set of connections.

Changing Global Value Systems Political scientist Ron Inglehart (1997, 2000) scrutinized findings from the world values surveys, which generated a massive body of empirical evidence about value systems in 60 societies representing 75% of the world’s population. Patterns in this evidence strongly suggest that a large-scale shift from modern-materialist to postmodern-postmaterialist values is underway. Categorizing nations as premodern, modern, and postmodern, Inglehart described the value shifts taking place in these differing societal contexts. People in underdeveloped nations with premodern societies are preoccupied with concerns about survival from day to day and week to week. They guide their decision making with the external authority of traditional, primarily religious values. When nations become more economically productive through industrialization and more politically efficient through bureaucratization, they move from premodern to modern value structures. At this stage of development, the values shift from premodern reliance on traditional, religious values to rational-legal values in which bureaucratic norms and legal frameworks become the guiding rules for thought and action. Materialist acquisition in pursuit of ever-more affluence also tends to dominate the values of the population. For decades, most developed nations fit the modernist pattern, but there have been some profound recent shifts in values. When the prosperity generated by modernization reaches a point where most people accept survival as a given, the values tend to shift from modernism to postmodernism. At this stage, the people tend to shift away from material gain to concerns about quality of life because additional material acquisition brings diminishing returns. Modernism taken too far carries a high cost. Its impressive economic, material

889

rewards are accompanied by lost communal ties, dehumanizing working conditions, and a diminished sense of the meaning in life. The transition to postmaterialist values represents a societal course correction, which tends to improve the subjective well-being of the population. In terms of life goals and primary activities, most people in postmodern, postmaterialist societies prefer aesthetic, humanist considerations over materialistic pursuits. They value diversity, self-expression, and individual autonomy over economic growth, bureaucratic rationality, and the guidance of external authority. The world’s nations are at various stages in these values transitions. For example, some sub-Saharan African nations are just beginning to modernize. China is modernizing at a rapid pace. Many WesternEuropean nations along with Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and a few other countries have moved far into the postmodernization process. There are a few aberrations. For example, the United States is very affluent but large swaths of the nation resist the transition to postmodern– postmaterialist values while tenaciously retaining traditional, religious value systems and frenetically pursuing unbridled materialistic acquisition. The most advanced postmaterialist transition is taking place in the Scandinavian nations and the Netherlands. These differing value systems represent very different contexts for the development and employment of high ability. The powerful cognitive abilities of gifted but homeless orphans in a desperately poor or wartorn, premodern, third-world nation likely would find expression in highly creative plans and actions that would help them survive from one day to the next. Most of their courageous, ingenious real-world problem solving would be hidden from the view of all but a few of their pauperish compatriots, obscured by the vicious, chaotic storm of events that ruthlessly tears at their resilient young psyches and suppresses their aspirations. In contrast, the abilities of gifted children in suburban Chicago, Toronto, Osaka, or Rotterdam could find expression in long-term development of domainspecific talents conducive to future eminence, fame, and fortune. Gifted children in a modern-materialist society are encouraged to express their abilities in pursuit of material gain so many of them eventually will find their way into corporate boardrooms and financial markets following egoistic-individualistic life trajectories on the aspiration-development model. Their

890

high-ability counterparts in a postmaterialist society are more inclined to apply their talents to creative, aesthetic pursuits and to social or environmental causes. Such inclinations are somewhat more compatible with relational-altruistic life trajectories. On a larger scale, changing value systems require gifted individuals to give up the security of traditional values and grapple with incompleteness, uncertainty, and the unpredictable emergence of novelty in self-expression (Ambrose, 2006).

Religious Perspectives on the Ideal Society Spirituality and the various religious frameworks employed to interpret it can exert strong influences on aspirations and talent development. The religious traditions considered here include Christian, Islamic, and Confucian belief systems along with an analysis of monotheistic religions overall. Other traditions could have been included (e.g., Buddhist, Jewish) and would have enriched the analysis but lack of space forced a smaller selection. Christian Shaping of Civil Society. While analyzing some patterns in diverse Christian perspectives on the ideal society, Banner (2002) employed Augustine’s notion of two allegorical cities: the city of God and the earthly city. Those influenced by the city of God are guided by the love of God, while those influenced by the earthly city are guided by love of self. Excessive influence by either city can be problematic. Overzealous allegiance to the city of God produces contempt for self while excessive influence from the earthly city generates excessive self-pride and contempt for God. In this latter case, extreme self-pride undermines the Christian ideal of equality by engendering libido dominandi: a lust for domination that brings with it unjust, costly, corrupt, and sometimes violent conflicts of individual wills. In essence, libido dominandi represents serious, counterproductive warping of aspirations, and a redirection of life trajectories into the egoistic, limited self-fulfillment section of the aspirationdevelopment model. The Christian tradition places high value on the social aspects of human life, which are best sustained by adherence to the principle of subsidiarity. According to this principle, responsibility should move from the large-scale levels of the state down to the lowest lev-

D. Ambrose

els of a society so individuals and local associations can make the most important decisions. This localized decision making must be guided by moral law so it is inconsistent with ideologies advocating a great deal of individual freedom. Too much individual autonomy generates a fragmented society in which each person becomes the enemy of all others. Accordingly, a Christian civil society in its ideal form would engender individual and small group decision making guided by piety while discouraging both the dominance of state authority and the self-glorification and greed of excessive individualism. Overall, Christian perspectives on civil society discourage egocentric aspiration development. Competing Islamic Views on Civil Society. Islamic culture embraces several different perspectives on the ideal society: the radical fundamentalist, the Western secularized, and the reformist (Hanafi, 2002). Radical fundamentalists tend to reject the notion of civil society altogether, viewing it as too congruent with the corruptions of Westernized, antireligious secularization. Strongly opposed to radical fundamentalism, adherents to a Westernized, secularized version of Islam see civil society as a universal ideal. According to Hanafi, a third path, the reformist perspective, provides the best of the three options by establishing a middle ground between the extremes of fundamentalism and Westernized secularism. Reformists rely on the notion of ijtihad, which is a creative reinterpretation of traditional Islamic ethics to reflect modern societal conditions. The following tenets make up much of the conceptual framework for the reformist position: 1. All people, Muslims and non-Muslims included, comprise a nation without borders: a single human family in which mutual obligations, respect, and the preservation of honor and dignity are emphasized. 2. Power is dispersed throughout society to limit the power of political authorities. Human rights and individual responsibilities must exist in a dynamic balance. 3. Murder, assassination, and capital punishment are unacceptable because life is an absolute value. In addition, all people have the obligation to save others from death if they have the means to do so. For example, it is immoral to allow some to starve in the midst of plenty. 4. Reasoning is highly valued in Islamic tradition and one’s thought, speech, and action must be well

44

Large-Scale Socioeconomic, Political, and Cultural Influences

aligned and integrated to reduce fear and hypocrisy. Such integration works to prevent ignorance, illiteracy, and propaganda. 5. It is wrong to divide people according to caste, social classes, and racial or ethnic background because all people are equal before God. Moreover, societies should intervene to assuage large inequalities of status and wealth that can emerge from differences in talents and aptitudes. For example, exaggerated profits in the marketplace are frowned upon, especially if they ensue from treachery, monopoly, or usury. Accordingly, crucial national resources, such as water or oil, should not be viewed as private property because the well-being of all depends on them. Hanafi recognized that these tenets have been eroding in some parts of the Islamic world, while warped versions of Islam have been advanced by conservative zealots who rail against the progressive forms of Islamic thought and action. Nevertheless, the reformist path is vibrant and works to reduce the thickness and oppressive weight of the barriers to aspiration growth, talent development, and self-fulfillment that hurt the deprived. Integrative Confucian Influences on Civil Society. Consistent with the more holistic emphases of many Asian belief systems, Confucian thought portrays the world as holistic, not atomistic. Accordingly, Confucians believe that cultures and the civil societies that sustain them take their optimal forms when they arise from the intricate interconnectedness among individuals and groups (Madsen, 2002). The individual must strive diligently for self-construction and moral cultivation within the strong, shaping, integrative networks of culture. Self-construction arises from the integration of heart and mind, or a synthesis of affect and cognition, which in turn arises from strengthening and testing one’s abilities and dispositions through active immersion in social, cultural, and political events and conflicts. In essence, the diligent self-construction, moral development, and emerging integration of heart and mind within the individual represent the starting point of a civil society, built simultaneously from the fluid interpenetration of inside out, individual to collective influences, and from outside in, contextual shaping of the individual. One possible connection between Confucian thought and high ability comes from creative studies.

891

Kwang (2001) demonstrated that Asian sociocultural contexts might suppress individual creativity more than Western societies. For example the Confucian emphasis on group influence encourages the preservation of well-organized, hierarchical, collectivistic, honor-bound contexts within which individuals strive for self-development. The strong emphasis on social order and harmony in such contexts can suppress individual expression to some extent. An example of such influence may be the tendency for Asian parents to encourage their children to become involved in interdependent groups with a strong emphasis on avoiding conflict. In contrast, the individualistic societies of the Western world promote conflicting opinions so children learn to navigate within a socially fragmented cultural context. Although Westerners may have a cultural advantage when it comes to individual creativity within disharmonious sociocultural conditions, Confucian thought may provide a different creative advantage. The ability to build conceptual syntheses when confronted with strongly opposing positions is an important aspect of creative dialectical thought (Ambrose, 2003b; Sternberg, 2001). The Confucian emphases on interdependence and conflict avoidance seem ideally suited to synthesis-building compromise that lies at the heart of dialectical resolutions. Such thinking may help groups turn conflicts between potential dogmatists into harmonious, collaborative searches for the shades-of-gray between polarized positions. In essence, the collectivist emphases of Confucian influences in a society should discourage egoistic, individualistic life trajectories on the aspiration-development model. Moreover, the stress on integrating one’s heart and mind by diligently testing oneself through active immersion in cultural and political conflicts should encourage development toward the relational-altruistic sector on the model. The Comforts and Dangers of Monotheistic Religion. Monotheistic religions promote belief in one true God instead of the several or many specialized gods of polytheistic religions. According to some prominent scholars of comparative religion, the development of monotheism represented a major turning point in cultural history, which entailed some strong advantages in identity formation along with disastrous, repressive violence. Moore (2000), for example, discovered historical patterns in religious persecution. The most vicious persecutions arise when members of a dominant

892

group see themselves as far superior to a minority group deemed culturally and spiritually impure. Moore concluded that monotheism provides a strong common identity for adherents and makes it easier for them to view outsiders as repulsively impure and inferior. Stark (2003a, 2003b) came to similar conclusions, arguing that the three great monotheisms of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have provided strong frameworks for common identity formation while simultaneously establishing highly visible reasons for intergroup conflict. The clashes that do ensue tend to evolve into forced conversions; vigorous, righteous violence; and even genocide. In spite of these disastrous tendencies, diverse monotheistic groups can coexist peacefully for sustained periods of time if the conditions are right:

Pluralism can be quite stable and even civil, so long as there are many religious organizations, none of them very powerful. However, if there exist only a few very powerful religious groups, intense conflicts must ensue as each attempts to suppress the other(s) (Stark, 2003b, p. 119).

Moreover, the strong, common identity promoted by monotheism can be beneficial, providing the sociocultural glue and personal resiliency necessary for persistence and survival in the face of great danger and disaster. For example, Stark reported remarkable unified resiliency in the long-term Jewish survival in the face of widespread attacks by overzealous Christian cultures in medieval and modern Europe. When gifted, charismatic cultural and religious leaders push monotheistic identity formation too far, they might misdirect the development of high ability. If their promotion of their belief system moves beyond the positive point of providing comfort and common identity to the extremes of setting up outsiders as impure targets for persecution, they have applied their considerable leadership talents to pernicious purposes. From the vantage point of the aspirationdevelopment model, monotheistic religions establish bases for the development of strong personal identities, which provide advantages for aspiration development and self-fulfillment in a confusing world. However, the strong, historical tendency for monotheisms to generate inter-group conflict encourages the development of narrow, particularist morality while working against the preferable development of universalist morality.

D. Ambrose

Democratic Advancement or Erosion Opportunities for gifted individuals to discover aspirations and develop talents are supported or constrained by the governments running the nations in which they live. A healthy liberal democracy is the best known large-scale political context for the aspiration growth and talent development of most young people in a nation. In contrast, a totalitarian regime limits manifestation of aspirations and talents to the children of a small, elite group while tending to warp cognitive and moral development (Ambrose, 2005a). The nature of democracy and the conditions for its emergence in nations are insufficiently understood. A common misconception is that a nation is either democratic or not. Actually, most nations fit into the shades of gray between the well-functioning liberal democratic ideal and the pernicious oppression of totalitarian regimes; the ideal democracy has yet to appear in any nation. All current democracies are far from perfect and some are advancing haltingly toward the ideal while others are eroding, sliding down a slippery slope toward totalitarianism (Hacker & Pierson, 2005; Meier, 2003). True democracy is not just majority rule. Instead, it derives from widespread, active dialogue and consensus building, which must be guided and stabilized by a system of laws. Gutmann (2003) delineated the concepts of equal freedom, equal opportunity, and civic equality as three essentials for democratic legitimacy. Equal freedom implies widespread freedom of expression, assembly, and association, as well as freedom from serious subordination (e.g., forced labor, indentured servitude). Equal opportunity implies that all have reasonable access to avenues through which decent lives can be pursued. Examples of basic opportunities include nondiscrimination in the distribution of educational and career opportunities. Civic equality implies fair, competitive decision-making processes in the political arena and due process and equal treatment under the law. Healthy liberal democracies strike a balance between the right-wing ideals of individualism, economic freedom (allowing individuals to invest and run businesses as they see fit), and limited government and the left-wing ideals of community, distributive justice (redistributing wealth to help the deprived), and government regulation of industry. Excessive dominance by either right-wing or left-wing ideologues in a nation

44

Large-Scale Socioeconomic, Political, and Cultural Influences

can foment democratic erosion toward totalitarianism (Bermeo, 2003; Hacker & Pierson, 2005). In view of these characteristics and dynamics of democracy, differing political contexts have the following influences on child development and manifestations of high ability (Ambrose, 2005a, 2005b): 1. Healthy liberal democracies. There is support for the widespread development of strong aspirations leading to vigorous talent development and enhanced opportunities for self-fulfillment. This development has an altruistic, universal (wishing good for all) flavor. 2. Democracies suffering erosion toward totalitarianism, or tenuous, emerging democracies. Privileged insiders enjoy strong support for aspiration and talent development toward self-fulfillment but their development tends to be self-centered, egoistic, and particularist (e.g., ethnocentric, classist). Most young people have some opportunity for modest aspiration and talent development toward limited self-fulfillment. The deprived suffer suppressed or crushed aspirations, which preclude their talent development and self-fulfillment. 3. Totalitarian regimes. Privileged insiders enjoy strong support for aspiration and talent development; however, their development tends to be insidiously warped toward grandiose but hollow, egoistic-individualistic self-fulfillment. Those in the vast majority have little chance of healthy aspiration growth and talent development because their aspirations are suppressed, crushed, or stillborn. In the past few decades, 81 nations have made impressive strides toward the establishment of healthy, democratic governance (United Nations, 2002), so it appears that the prospects for widespread support of high ability are brightening considerably around the globe. However, over this same time period, increasing concentrations of economic and political power in the hands of elites, and increasing manipulation of the media by these elites have caused significant erosion of democracy in America and other developed nations while inhibiting its flowering in the developing nations (Belsey, 1998; Gans, 2003; McChesney, 1999). Accordingly, the prospects for young people of high ability are unpredictable and tenuous. Without healthy democratic contexts for child development, much of the work educators do to nurture the gifted and support their talent development may be seriously undermined.

893

Globalization and Distant Proximities The rapidly evolving phenomenon of globalization is integrating the world in diverse ways while influencing the economic, cultural, political, and religious aspects of the human experience (Tsing, 2001, 2004). One dimension of globalization brings forth a dynamic tension between integrative forces that tie the world together and localizing forces that strive to maintain regional distinctiveness (Rosenau, 2003). The adversarial forces of global integration and regional separation can influence the aspirations and life chances of highability young people. Global integration emerges from the widespread, instantaneous, rapid-fire exchange of ideas, information, and products throughout the world. One byproduct of the globalization process is intense pressure for people to separate themselves from their local contexts and connect more with foreign groups and organizations (Biao, 2007; Rosenau). The separation is physical if people uproot and move to foreign regions. Even when they stay home, or near home, the separation can manifest as cultural and political distancing from the home group. On the opposing side of this dynamic tension, localization encourages people to embed themselves ever more firmly in their current local socioeconomic and cultural environments by resisting far-flung, outside influences from other regions of the world. According to Rosenau, large migrations of people from underdeveloped southern nations into developed northern nations are bringing forth a number of these local–global dynamic tensions. These migrations bring large numbers of people from very different cultures together and inevitable conflicts arise. The conflicts in turn are creating a proliferation of human rights organizations around the world to protect the rights of both the immigrants and the residents of the locales where they move. In addition to the emphasis on rights protection, the politics of identity are magnified because both immigrant and local populations strengthen their own cultural identities in response to the cultural threat from the foreign people with whom they must interact. These strengthened identities provide stronger senses of personal and group integrity and dignity while simultaneously encouraging more vigorous ethnic conflict. The result is a paradox of tighter global integration along with more volatile intercultural conflict. Identity formation is important to all young people including the gifted and talented. One’s cultural

894

identity and the value system it entails provide a necessary basis for aspiration development. Without a strong sense of cultural identity, an individual can suffer from anomie and an accompanying lack of purpose. But if cultural identity and the ideology that accompanies it become too strong, the bright individual can become nothing more than a clever dogmatist whose actions are likely to harm self and others. The tensive global– local paradox confronts bright young people with the benefit of stronger local identity and the challenging opportunity of navigating inevitable, intercultural conflicts. The strong pressure to internalize local cultural identity encourages individuals to develop particularist morality, which promotes exclusive favoritism of their own group while discouraging the development of universalist morality. The effects of globalization magnify the need for tolerance and ethics in the education of the gifted.

The Dominance of Neoclassical Economic Theory and Neoliberal Ideology A primary driving force of globalization comes from the ascendance of neoclassical economic theory and the neoliberal political ideology that accompanies and sustains it in our socioeconomic systems. The arguments of influential classical and neoclassical economists such as Hayek (1944) and Friedman (1962, 1975) generated and strengthened the momentum for the ascendance of the supply-side economics that has dominated much of the world for the last several decades (Breit & Ransom, 1998; Lal, 2006). According to neoclassical theorists and neoliberal ideologues, individuals should be as free as possible to pursue and maximize their self-interest in a laissez-faire socioeconomic system. The role of government should be limited to the establishment of law and order and national defense. A crucial function of government is the establishment and enforcement of legal rules for economic transactions and the preservation of individual property rights. The system is based on the idea that the power of rational self-interest will increase personal savings, investments, and economic productivity, thereby maximizing per capita income and well-being for everyone. Neoclassical theory is rooted in the work of the 18th-century Scottish economist-philosopher Adam

D. Ambrose

Smith (1776/1937) who postulated the presence and remarkable influence of a metaphorical invisible hand in the marketplace. According to Smith, the interactions of many self-interested, self-loving individuals in the marketplace generate efficient economic decisions and voluntary cooperation, thereby creating wealth. When maximally efficient, the system should benefit all, including those in the lowest ranks of society. In short, the manipulations of Smith’s metaphorical invisible hand represent the spontaneous and beneficial self-organization of the economy. Hayek and Friedman both resisted notions that there can be a middle way between centralized government control over the economy and their preferred laissezfaire economic system. Hayek, for example, argued that attempts to create a balance between excessive government regulation and runaway individual freedom inevitably would destroy the freedom. The system would slide down a regulatory slippery slope toward extreme government centralization and the stifling of individual initiative. Nevertheless, in spite of their vigorous favoritism of laissez-faire dynamics over regulation, both Hayek and Friedman recognized that complete economic freedom would generate some problems that would demand redress. Hayek advocated a strong legal framework to control the corruption, collusion, and monopolistic tendencies that insidiously make their way into freemarket systems. Friedman recommended a negative income tax for the poor as a safety net to replace all other social welfare programs. While neoclassical economic systems have produced wealth for many, their corrosive effects on government regulation tend to harm the life chances of many others by generating extreme socioeconomic stratification (Biao, 2007; Galbraith, 1996; McMurtry, 1999; O’Connor, 2001; Phillips, 2002; Webb & Webb, 1995; Woodward & Simms, 2006). Some analysts argue that neoclassical economics, neoliberal ideology, and socioeconomic globalization have reinforced one another so much that capitalism has evolved into ever-more extreme versions of itself. For example, Biao argued that globalization has prompted the rapid evolution of capitalism from the 1970s onward, which separated the market from familial, religious, and community relationships while making the market an autonomous and dominant social force. As such, the market largely controls our lives without concern for human needs. Orlie (2001) claimed that market dynam-

44

Large-Scale Socioeconomic, Political, and Cultural Influences

ics have come to dominate our personal aspirations, hypnotizing us through persistent media messages to favor materialistic commodity consumption over all other life goals. Consequently, we thoughtlessly pursue extravagant, shallow materialism at the expense of our own informed political participation as citizens. The result is the erosion of democracy. McMurtry took the criticism further, comparing globalized capitalism to a global cancer invasion with all the concomitant symptoms. Discerning several symptoms of cancer in the human body, he illustrated analogous symptoms in the global socioeconomic system. For example, cancer deceives the human immune system into inaction, making it seem like nothing is wrong so the system doesn’t respond to the cancer attack. On the global scale, McMurtry perceived the media as the immune system of society, recognizing and attacking corruption through the process of vigorous, objective, investigative journalism. Metaphorically speaking, a healthy media should protect the socioeconomic system from attacks by corrupt, monopolistic corporate entities that excessively exploit the free market for short-term profit. According to McMurtry, corporate interests have come to strongly influence and even control the media to the extent that its objective, investigative capacities are undercut. Hence, widespread corporate exploitation and corruption can continue with only a few, minimal, largely unheeded complaints from a compliant global immune system. Belsey (1998) fortified this criticism by showing how the media has been evolving from a vibrant, independent system characterized by objective, ethical, investigative journalism, into profit-seeking industrial journalism, which emphasizes entertaining approximations of news shows based on lightweight arguments between biased pundits who superficially surface skim over complex issues without much concern for probing investigation, accuracy, or ethics. Even Adam Smith himself, the revered icon of neoclassical economics and neoliberal ideology, warned about the dangers of giving the free market too much rein. Going deeper than the economists and ideologues who portray Smith as a free-market cheerleader, Fleischacker (2004) revealed that Smith was both an economist with enthusiasm for market dynamics and a philosopher who warned about the abuses of markets left too unfettered. Through indepth scrutiny of Smith’s two major works, Wealth of

895

Nations (1776/1937) and Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759/1976), Fleischacker concluded that economic theorists have engaged in over two centuries of serious misinterpretation of Smith’s work. He discerned that Smith recognized both the impressive entrepreneurial accomplishments and the costly, trifling consequences that can come from an individual’s vainglorious pursuit of wealth in a free market. Smith was much less utilitarian than many economists claim, and he valued empathy and altruism while lamenting the base, selfish disposition encouraged by the division of labor in a capitalist society. He held the most disdain for inheritance because it violates the principle that one should work for a living. He actually recommended abolishing inheritances or at least heavily taxing them because they ”primarily serve to keep large estates intact over many generations, as indolent father hands his wealth down to indolent son” (cited in Fleischacker, 2004, p. 198). While Fleischacker revealed some philosophical overgeneralizations of neoclassical and neoliberal belief systems, Chang (2002) a prominent political economist, revealed some very large-scale practical consequences of free-market ideology taken too far. He recognized that developed nations attached mandates to the aid they gave to third-world nations in the late 20th century, and these mandates required the receiving nations to adopt extreme versions of neoclassical economics and neoliberal ideology. For several decades, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have been vigorously enforcing these mandates. Chang set out to discover the extent of these mandates, the success of neoliberal policies in terms of economic development for the receiving third-world nations, and the congruence of these policies with the approaches to economic growth the developed nations used themselves when they were advancing toward prosperity. His analysis encompassed the study of development patterns from 14th-century England down through the growth of East Asian nations during the late 20th century. Chang discovered some troubling discrepancies between the bullish neoliberal claims and the realities of economic development. In short, the mandated policies haven’t delivered anything more than anemic economic growth for today’s underdeveloped nations, and the developed nations themselves didn’t follow approximations of today’s neoliberal policies when they were advancing toward prosperity. The Gross

896

Domestic Product (GDP) of nations in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and the former communist countries of Eastern Europe grew much more rapidly between 1960 and 1980 when government regulations were stronger than they did between 1980 and 2000 when laissez-faire, neoliberal policies were dominant. In essence, Chang concluded that developed nations climbed a ladder to prosperity using one set of rules, which differs markedly from the extreme neoclassical/neoliberal set of rules they are forcing poor nations to follow today. This amounts to kicking away the prosperity ladder just as poor nations are trying to climb out of the depths of despair. Kunkel (1997) revealed some reasons for these failures, illustrating how only a small part of the profit from free trade flows to the poor countries while most of it goes to banks and other corporate interests in the affluent nations. All of these influences from the global marketplace must have some strong influences on the manifestation of creativity, talent growth, and other aspects of high ability. Placing individual economic interests and selflove on a pedestal magnifies and justifies self-serving behavior and the frenetic quest for materialistic gain while encouraging individuals to ignore their altruistic impulses. Consequently, they are encouraged to follow egoistic-individualist life trajectories instead of moving toward relational-altruistic aspirations. Those with considerable intellectual gifts, adventurous spirits, entrepreneurial talents, and extremely selfcentered dispositions stand to benefit materially from an economic system that glorifies the self-enriching enterprises honored and sustained by neoclassical economics and neoliberal ideology. Gifted young people with these abilities and dispositions who also come from privilege and thereby have the wherewithal to invest and risk, without much risk, are lauded and advantaged even more. Gifted young people who come from deprivation are less able to afford the risk in a Darwinian socioeconomic climate that expands the oppressive aspiration-development barriers hovering over the underprivileged. Those with altruistic inclinations must swim upstream against strong neoliberal ideological currents that glorify egocentric, ruthless, competitive materialism. In addition, it may be difficult for gifted youth from privilege to develop empathy and follow relational-altruistic life trajectories because the cocoons of insular privilege that nurture their development insulate them from contact with their less-fortunate peers.

D. Ambrose

Mirage Meritocracies Neoclassical economic systems and neoliberal ideology both rely heavily on the notion that free markets for ideas and products are effective judges of individual merit. If a socioeconomic system encourages people to compete and to employ their talents for personal gain, assumptions are that competition takes place on a level playing field and the winners are determined by objective, merit-based measures. If merit is judged effectively by market systems, the truly gifted and talented should optimally develop their capacities and rise to positions of prominence, acclaim, and influence in the society. Unfortunately, the concept of merit is underdefined according to the leading economist Amartya Sen (2000) who drew a distinction between the face-value merit of persons and the merit of their actions. Face-value merit includes one’s pedigree and congruence with the values of the mainstream culture. A person from an affluent, well-connected family has much more face-value merit than a person from an inner-city slum or an obscure, impoverished rural area. In contrast, the merit of one’s actions comes from the value those actions add to the society, not from the individual’s pedigree or professed value system. The sociological notions of social and cultural capital fit into these considerations of merit. According to Bourdieu (1986) social capital includes the resources one receives from membership in groups and support networks. An individual whose family is tied into powerful economic and political networks has much more social capital than someone whose family is disconnected from any levers of power in the society. Cultural capital includes the knowledge, skills, and high expectations one receives from the sociocultural context. An individual who grows up with access to unlimited academic resource materials and the latest information technology, and whose family connections gain him or her access to elite private schools and colleges, has much more cultural capital than someone who has limited access to educational and cultural resources. Hypothetically speaking, young people of unremarkable intellect and limited motivation can appear highly meritorious, hence highly gifted and talented, simply because they benefited from the influence of high-quality resources and powerful, insider political and economic networks. Their accomplishments may

44

Large-Scale Socioeconomic, Political, and Cultural Influences

come largely from the support they received from their socioeconomic contexts and may derive from their own abilities only in limited ways. In contrast, highly intelligent young people born into rural or inner-city poverty can follow quite ordinary, undistinguished life paths because their socioeconomic contexts provided little help, or even suppressed their aspirations and talents. In short, those born into high status receive much more credit and reward, or undeserved merit, than low-status people at the outset of life’s journey, simply on the basis of birth into the networks of privilege. From the viewpoint of the aspiration-development model, Sen’s (2000) illustration of face-value merit and Bourdieu’s (1986) descriptions of social and cultural capital represent a considerable thickening of the oppressive barriers to aspiration development that limit the life chances of the deprived while providing some explanation for the lack of barriers over the privileged. Those who lack social and cultural capital must earn their merit against daunting, sociocontextual obstacles while their privileged competitors start the competition under the widespread assumption that they already are meritorious. Recent shifts of socioeconomic resources in America and some other affluent nations have exacerbated the problem of unearned merit. Free-market dynamics aided by political lobbying and legislation favorable to the privileged have magnified the value and importance of unearned income, such as investments and inherited trust funds, over the value of earned income such as salaries. Massive cuts to the estate tax, which benefit only the top 2% of Americans (Graetz & Shapiro, 2005), represent one conspicuous dimension of this shift. The favoritism for unearned income over earned income as a form of wealth accumulation is more glaring now, but it isn’t new, especially in the most unequal developed nations. Phillips (2002) provided an apt description of the ways in which unearned merit prevailed in the USA at the turn of the 21st century:

897

talent and use their considerable wealth advantages to fund their enterprises, which can reach enormous proportions, thereby magnifying the merits of their creators even further. Examples are Bill Gates and Donald Trump who came from affluence and were not selfmade men, but used their wealth to develop impressive enterprises nonetheless. But the question remains, how many young people of equal or greater intelligence and talent go unrecognized, dying on the obscure lower vines of life because they lacked the considerable initial boost of affluence to support the pursuit of their aspirations? When bright young people emerge into adulthood, their experiences with unearned merit are not over. Young (1990) explored the merit principle, which applies to work qualifications and promotions. According to Young, the merit principle requires that desirable employment opportunities go to those with the strongest qualifications. If this principle prevails in the marketplace, those privileged by birth, or by arbitrary characteristics such as race, gender, or ethnicity, are less likely to rise to prominent positions on the basis of their unearned merit. But it is quite difficult to understand and apply the merit principle in the real world. It works only when the qualifications for a job or role are defined in terms of specific technical competencies and not in terms of values, culture, connections, or other less tangible qualities. According to Young, these objective ”culturally neutral measures of individual performance do not exist for most jobs” (p. 202). They are easier to apply to low-level, repetitive work that is conducive to objective measurement. However, most work in the professions is very complex and multifaceted, and therefore inaccessible to precise, objective measurement. These evaluative problems seriously undermine assumptions that meritocracy prevails in the workplace. Consequently, there is far too much room for social capital, cultural capital, race, ethnicity, class, and gender to permeate decisions about who is meritorious, gifted, talented, and creative in most careers. Some 15,000–25,000 heirs constituted the mainstays of On the large scale, a society that confers merit on what was quietly becoming an American hereditary aristhose who inherit enormous advantages of social and tocracy. Had the United States had a British-type peerage, dozens in the fourth or fifth generation of descent would cultural capital while ignoring or suppressing those have been second earls or third viscounts. (p. 118) whose giftedness is obscured or crushed by deprivaSome of these privileged inheritors have limited intel- tion may be severely limiting its talent pool. We may lect and little motivation, so they deserve little of their never know how much latent human creativity and talunearned merit. Others truly do have intelligence and ent stagnates unrecognized in the run-down hallways

898

of inner-city and rural American schools, in the barrios of Caracas, or in the rural villages of northern Nigeria. If true merit is so nebulous, what can be done to find and nurture the best talent in a society without heavily biasing the search toward the already privileged? One imperfect but very impressive example of a largescale compensatory initiative comes from the work of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Muhammed Yunus of Bangladesh. Known as the ”banker to the poor,” Yunus (2003) saw a major flaw in traditional banking, which mostly lends to the affluent because they have significant collateral. Believing that the large numbers of impoverished people throughout the world also deserve economic opportunities, he initiated the practice of microcredit, which entails the loaning of very small sums to poor people who have entrepreneurial dreams but no credit or collateral. Most of the recipients are destitute women. Contrary to popular banking wisdom, very few of these impoverished, high-risk loan recipients default on their loans, and many of them are making their way out of poverty by starting up very small but successful enterprises. The microcredit approach has spread to many poor nations and over 100 million such loans were made in some 130 countries in 2005 (Yunus). Trust-based microcredit banking is an interesting example of a successful initiative that can find true merit in the creativity and initiative of poor masses as opposed to magnifying unearned merit in the pedigrees of the affluent as the collateral-based banking in the developed world tends to do. While most of the poor people helped by microcredit are not necessarily gifted or talented, the process can open doors of opportunity and thin the aspiration-development barriers for those who do have exceptional hidden abilities.

D. Ambrose

ideologies race toward the polar opposite extremes en masse, vacating the middle ground (Bermeo), or when one ideology aggressively and uncompromisingly prevails over the other (Hacker & Pierson, 2005). Dogmatism also can emerge in the religious and economic dimensions of societies. When an extremist ideology dominates a society, great harm can come to the population in spite of what may be the good intentions of the dogmatic leaders of the extremist political or cultural movement. Many leading minds have cautioned us about such dogmatism. Berlin (1999) warned about the radical, dangerous effects of Romanticism in Western thought. Romanticism has given rise to extreme forms of dogmatism and has been employed as justification for some forms of 20th-century totalitarianism. Chirot and McCauley (2006) and Weitz (2003) showed how ideologies and utopian goals held too firmly have led to genocidal acts throughout history. Johnson (2004) illustrated how entire nations can fall prey to irrational, dogmatic positive illusions that make them grossly overestimate their own virtues while underestimating or dismissing the virtues of outsiders. Such positive illusions can lead to large-scale exploitation and violence. Kateb (2006) even cautioned against excessive patriotism as a mistake of irrational dogmatism, which leads to immoral acts of injustice and brutality in the name of positive ideals. If we assume that gifted people often set the ideological tone of their societies and often come to control the levers of power in their sociopolitical systems, the widespread effects of harmful dogmatism throughout human history are even more disturbing. Giftedness can be used for good or evil purposes (Tannenbaum, 2000), and there has been extensive attention paid to the moral dimensions of giftedness and creativity (see Ambrose, 2000, 2005a; Csikszentmihalyi, 1993; Dabrowski, 1964; Dabrowski & Dogmatic Leaders and Followers Piechowski, 1977; Folsom, 1998; Gruber, 1989, 1993; Hague, 1998; Piechowski, 2003; Runco & NeSome of the aforementioned political, economic, and miro, 2003; Silverman, 1993; Tannenbaum). One cultural phenomena suggest the presence of dogma- ripe-for-investigation aspect of the moral dimensions tism in the thinking of highly talented sociopolitical of giftedness and creativity is the connection between or cultural leaders and their followers. For example, high ability and the dogmatism of gifted leaders and the strength and persistence of a liberal democracy de- their followers. Fortunately, psychologists have been paving the pends in part on the presence of a dynamic balance between competing right-wing and left-wing ideologies way for such work by developing theory and car(Bermeo, 2003; Gutmann & Thompson, 1996). Demo- rying out extensive research to discern the nature cratic erosion occurs when adherents to the competing of authoritarian leaders and followers. For example,

44

Large-Scale Socioeconomic, Political, and Cultural Influences

social dominance theory represents an attempt to understand the motivational and cognitive traits of citizens who have led, supported, or otherwise enabled insidious forms of domination to gain purchase in their societies, such as the improbable ascendance of Adolf Hitler in interwar Germany. Sidanius & Pratto (2001) employed social dominance theory to reveal some ways in which hierarchical sociopolitical systems generate and sustain racism, patriarchy, classism, and other forms of domination. Along similar lines, Altemeyer (1996, 1999, 2004; Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2005) has studied the ideological predispositions of thousands of subjects. His findings revealed some interesting nuances of some recent forms of dogmatism. For example, he developed two categories of predominant dogmatists in modern North-American society: the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) and the double high. The following is an outline of patterns in his findings. RWAs tend to manifest: 1. Loyal, unquestioning submission to established authorities if the basic belief systems of those authorities are consistent with their own. 2. Strong compliance with social conventions that are imposed or endorsed by established authority figures. 3. Extremely dogmatic intolerance of any criticism that is aimed at their leaders. 4. Aggression toward others when they perceive such behavior to be sanctioned by their leaders. Their aggression is fueled by fear and deep-seated selfrighteousness so they are able to view themselves as morally superior while shedding guilt for their aggressive acts. 5. Intolerance of those who do not fit the tenets of their ideology (e.g., feminists, homosexuals, people of other cultures), and eagerness to punish any transgressors, including injudicious children. 6. Inclinations to network exclusively with likeminded people. 7. Hypocrisy due to their disinclination to think critically when obeying the dictates of authority figures. Their lack of critical thought makes them unaware of their prejudices. There are many RWAs in a society and their dogmatism, intolerance, and willingness to follow leaders without question suggest that they likely do not include a high proportion of gifted minds. But the much

899

smaller numbers of double highs in a society likely do include a large proportion of gifted and talented people because they often rise to prominent positions from which they can exert leadership over the more complaint RWAs. Double highs tend to manifest the following characteristics: 1. Enjoyment of the exercise of power over others. 2. Aggressive, domineering, malicious, Machiavellian tendencies. 3. Inclinations to manipulate people with little moral restraint. Their manipulations often include elaborate, illegal, or immoral schemes. 4. Strong adherence to conservative political, economic, and religious fundamentalist perspectives. They use their religion to enhance their images and to strengthen social networks but they don’t use it as a moral compass. Although both RWAs and double highs tend to be staunch conservatives, they diverge sharply from mainstream conservatives along one important ideological dimension. Mainstream conservatives typically want to maintain the status quo in their societies, preserving established institutions, traditions, and values. But the willingness of double highs to lead their followers in radical, Machiavellian directions, and the willingness of RWAs to follow their leaders without question, can make for drastic challenges to the status quo and, if successful, sweeping changes in society. Consequently, double highs and RWAs can represent a dangerous combination of clever, creative, unscrupulous leaders and large numbers of guilt-shedding, compliant, potentially aggressive followers who have no compunction about tearing apart the fabric of democracy or undermining human rights. Further implications arise for high ability. For example, J. Cross & T. Cross (2005) connected social dominance theory with Lakoff’s (2002) analyses of the family metaphors that frame liberal and conservative ideology in America. The nurturant parent metaphor frames liberal thought and encourages mutual respect, democratic processes in child rearing, and the selfactualizion of self and peers. The strict father metaphor frames conservative thought, emphasizing obedience to authority and competitive, individualistic child rearing for adaptation to a harsh world. Arguing that ideology strongly affects education, Cross and Cross posited that school systems dominated by the conservative strict father metaphor would

900

operate in much more authoritarian ways than would schools dominated by the nurturant parent liberal metaphor. Bright children with aggressive, domineering, malicious, manipulative dispositions may need just a nudge to push them in a developmental direction encouraging them to become double-high leaders as adults. Strict-father schools may provide that nudge. Moreover, less gifted children who are inclined to be loyal, unquestioning, and uncritically submissive to leaders with belief systems aligned with their own may find strong reinforcement for their development toward lives as RWAs. If so, strict-father forms of education may reinforce the development of sociocultural and political dogmatism among both gifted and mainstream student populations while setting the stage for more virulent, ideological conflict in the future. Such conflict would be led by gifted and talented people who would apply their strong leadership abilities to Machiavelian purposes. These developments would discourage some gifted and talented individuals from following life trajectories toward relational-altruistic self-fulfillment. However, they may encourage some others to become relational altruists in reaction to the harm their dogmatic, manipulative peers do in the world.

Conclusion If there are powerful large-scale contextual influences on the behaviors and long-range aspirations of bright young people, those so influenced deserve to know much more about their socioeconomic, political, and cultural contexts. Educators of the gifted need strategies to make their students and prot´eg´es more aware of these influences. For maximum effectiveness, they should employ both bottom-up and top-down strategies. Fortunately, there are some effective bottom-up strategies currently in operation. For example, service learning can provide hands-on experiences for the gifted, enabling them to understand and do something first hand about problems of poverty or injustice (Terry, 2003; Terry & Bohnenberger, 2003). If they engage in community service and creative problem solving around real issues, they are more likely to appreciate contextual aspiration development barriers viscerally.

D. Ambrose

Top-down approaches would entail learning more about issues of changing values, dogmatism, or socioeconomic injustice from an academic viewpoint. The gifted tend to have strong capacities for appreciating moral issues (Silverman, 1993), so they can relate to issues such as the complex, nettlesome problems of extremist ideologues undermining democracy (Bermeo, 2003) or kicking away the prosperity ladder for developing nations (Chang, 2002). They are capable of exploring and appreciating the dualedged benefits and damages of monotheistic religions (Moore, 2000; Stark, 2003a, 2003b), or the dynamic tensions between local identities and the forces of global integration (Rosenau, 2003; Tsing, 2001, 2004). Most educators do not delve deeply into the multidisciplinary literature represented in this chapter so it is unlikely that many would lead their students on wide-ranging interdisciplinary explorations of sociocontextual issues. Nevertheless, they can use the issues presented here as starting points for inquiry by interested gifted and talented students. For example, many of the sources listed in the references for this chapter may prove to be excellent starting points for independent studies. The socioeconomic, political, and cultural issues explored in this chapter certainly are complex, multidimensional, and perplexing. They require intensive, long-term inquiry by the scholars within the relevant disciplines, and are excellent focal points for study by the brightest young minds currently wending their way through our education systems.

References Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Altemeyer, B. (1999). To thine own self be untrue: Selfawareness in authoritarians. North American Journal of Psychology, 1, 157–164. Altemeyer, B. (2004). Highly dominating, highly authoritarian personalities. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 421–447. Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (2005). Fundamentalism and authoritarianism. In R. F. Paloutzian, & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 378–393). New York: Guilford Press. Ambrose, D. (2000). World-view entrapment: Moral-ethical implications for gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 159–186. Ambrose, D. (2002). Socioeconomic stratification and its influences on talent development: Some interdisciplinary perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 170–180.

44

Large-Scale Socioeconomic, Political, and Cultural Influences

Ambrose, D. (2003a). Barriers to aspiration development and self-fulfillment: Interdisciplinary insights for talent discovery. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 282–294. Ambrose, D. (2003b). Theoretic scope, dynamic tensions, and dialectical processes: A model for discovery of creative intelligence. In D. Ambrose, L. M. Cohen, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Creative intelligence: Toward theoretic integration, (pp. 325–345). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Ambrose, D. (2005a). Aspiration growth, talent development, and self-fulfillment in a context of democratic erosion. Roeper Review, 28, 11–19. Ambrose, D. (2005b). Interdisciplinary expansion of conceptual foundations: Insights from beyond our field. Roeper Review, 27, 137–143. Ambrose, D. (2006). Large-scale contextual influences on creativity: Evolving academic disciplines and global value systems. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 75–85. Ambrose, D. (in press). Expanding visions of creative intelligence: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Arrow, K., Bowles, S., & Durlauf, S. (Eds.). (2000). Meritocracy and economic inequality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Banner, M. (2002). Christianity and civil society. In S. Chambers, & W. Kymlicka (Eds.), Alternative conceptions of civil society (pp. 114–130). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Belsey, A. (1998). Journalism and ethics: Can they co-exist? In M. Kieran (Ed.), Media ethics (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge. Berlin, I. (1999). The roots of romanticism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bermeo, N. (2003). Ordinary people in extraordinary times. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Biao, X. (2007). Global ”body shopping”: An Indian labor system in the information technology industry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Borland, J. H., Schnur, R., & Wright, L. (2000). Economically disadvantaged students in a school for the academically gifted: A postpositivist inquiry into individual and family adjustment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 13–32. Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 164–171. Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (2000). Identifying and educating poor and under-represented gifted students. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 587–594). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook for theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press. Breit, W., & Ransom, R. L. (1998). The academic scribblers (Vol. 3). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chang, H. J. (2002). Kicking away the ladder: Development strategy in historical perspective. London: Anthem Press. Chirot, D., & McCauley, C. (2006). Why not kill them all? The logic and prevention of mass political murder. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cross, J. R., & Cross, T. L. (2005). Social dominance, moral politics, and gifted education. Roeper Review, 28, 21–29.

901

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). The evolving self: A psychology for the third millenium. New York: HarperCollins. Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston: Little Brown. Dabrowski, K., & Piechowski, M. M. (1977). Theory of levels of emotional development (Vol. 1 & 2). Oceanside, NY: Dabor Science. Fischer, C. S., Hout, M., Jankowski, M. S., Lucas, S. R., Swidler, A., & Voss, K. (1996). Inequality by design: Cracking the bell curve myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Fleischacker, S. (2004). On Adam Smith’s wealth of nations: A philosophical companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Folsom, C. (1998). From a distance: Joining the mind and moral character. Roeper Review, 20, 265–270. Ford, D. Y. (1993). An investigation of the paradox of underachievement among gifted black students. Roeper Review, 16, 78–84. Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted black students: Promising practices and programs. New York: Teachers College Press. Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J. I. (1999). Multicultural gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press. Frasier, M. M. (1993). Issues, problems and programs in nurturing the disadvantaged and culturally different talented. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 685–692). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Friedman, M. (1975). An economist’s protest: Columns in political economy (2nd ed.). Glen Ridge, NJ: Thomas Horton and Daughters. Galbraith, J. K. (1996). The good society. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Gans, H. J. (2003). Democracy and the news: Restoring the ideals of a free press. New York: Oxford University Press. Gewirth, A. (1998). Self-fulfillment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Graetz, M. J., & Shapiro, I. (2005). Death by a thousand cuts: The fight over taxing inherited wealth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gruber, H. E. (1989). Creativity and human survival. In D. B. Wallace, & H. E. Gruber (Eds.), Creative people at work (pp. 278–287). New York: Oxford University Press. Gruber, H. E. (1993). Creativity in the moral domain: Ought implies can implies create. Creativity Research Journal, 6, 3– 15. Gutmann, A. (2003). Identity in democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2005). Off center: The Republican revolution and the erosion of American democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hague, W. J. (1998). Is there moral giftedness? Gifted Education International, 12, 170–174. Hanafi, H. (2002). Alternative conceptions of civil society: A reflective Islamic approach. In S. Chambers, & W. Kymlicka (Eds.), Alternative conceptions of civil society (pp. 171–189). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

902 Hayek, F. A. (1944). The road to serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hebert, T. P., & Beardsley, T. M. (2001). Jermaine: A critical case study of a gifted black child living in rural poverty. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 85–103. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Inglehart, R. (2000). Globalization and postmodern values. The Washington Quarterly, 23, 215–228. Johnson, D. D. P. (2004). Overconfidence and war: The havoc and glory of positive illusions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kateb, G. (2006). Patriotism and other mistakes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kunkel, J. C. (1997). The rich get richer and the poor starve: Is there an ethical alternative? In L. D. Kaplan, & L. F. Bove (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on power and domination (pp. 159–174). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kwang, N. A. (2001). Why Asians are less creative than Westerners. Singapore: Prentice Hall. Lal, D. (2006). Reviving the invisible hand: The case for classical liberalism in the twenty-first century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Madsen, R. (2002). Confucian conceptions of a civil society. In S. Chambers, & W. Kymlicka (Eds.), Alternative conceptions of civil society (pp. 190–204). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 41–50. Martin, G. T. (1997). Eschatological ethics and positive peace: Western contributions to the critique of the self-centered ego and its social manifestations. In L. Duhan-Kaplan & L. F. Bove (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on power and domination (pp. 79–92). Amsterdam: Rodopi. McChesney, R. W. (1999). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. McMurtry, J. (1999). The cancer stage of capitalism. London: Pluto Press. Meier, A. (2003). Black earth: A journey through Russia after the fall. New York: W. W. Norton. Monroe, K. R. (1996). The heart of altruism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Moore, B., Jr. (2000). Moral purity and persecution in history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. O’Connor, A. (2001). Poverty knowledge: Social science, social policy, and the poor in twentieth-century U.S. history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ogbu, J. U. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in cross-cultural perspective. New York: Academic Press. Ogbu, J. U. (1994). Minority status, cultural frame of reference, and schooling. In D. Keller-Cohen (Ed.), Literacy: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 61–83). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Orlie, M. A. (2001). Political capitalism and the consumption of democracy. In A. Botwinick, & W. E. Connolly (Eds.), Democracy and vision: Sheldon Wolin and the vicissitudes of

D. Ambrose the political (pp. 138–160). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Peterson, J. S. (1999). Gifted–through whose cultural lens? An application of the postpositivistic mode of inquiry. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 354–383. Phillips, K. (2002). Wealth and democracy: A political history of the American rich. New York: Broadway Books. Piechowski, M. M. (2003). From William James to Maslow and Dabrowski: Excitability of character and self actualization. In D. Ambrose, L. M. Cohen, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Creative intelligence: Toward theoretic integration (pp. 283– 322). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Rosenau, J. N. (2003). Distant proximities: Dynamics beyond globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Runco, M. A., & Nemiro, J. (2003). Creativity in the moral domain: Integration and implications. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 91–105. Scott, M. S., Deuel, L. S., Jean-Francois, B., & Urbano, R. C. (1996). Identifying cognitively gifted ethnic minority children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 147–153. Sen, A. (2000). Merit and justice. In K. Arrow, S. Bowles, & S. Durlauf (Eds.), Meritocracy and economic inequality (pp. 5–16). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press. Silverman, L. (1993). The moral sensitivity of gifted children and the evolution of society. Roeper Review, 17, 110–116. Smith, A. (1976). In D. D. Raphael, & A. L. Macfie, (Eds.), Theory of moral sentiments Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1759) Smith, A. (1937). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. New York: Modern Library. (Original work published 1776) Stark, R. (2003a). For the glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts, and the end of slavery. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Stark, R. (2003b). One true God. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What is the common thread of creativity? Its dialectical relation to intelligence and wisdom. American Psychologist, 56, 360–362. Tannenbaum, A. J. (2000). Giftedness: The ultimate instrument for good and evil. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 447–465). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Terry, A. W. (2003). Effects of service learning on young, gifted adolescents and their community. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 295–308. Terry, A. W., & Bohnenberger, J., E. (2003). Service learning: Fostering a cycle of caring in our gifted youth. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15, 23–32. Tsing, A. L. (2001). The global situation. In J. W. Scott, & D. Keates (Eds.), Schools of thought: Twenty-five years of interpretive social science (pp. 104–138). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Tsing, A. L. (2004). Friction: An enthography of global connection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. United Nations. (2002). Human development report 2002: Deepening democracy in a fragmented world. New York: Oxford University Press.

44

Large-Scale Socioeconomic, Political, and Cultural Influences

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1992). Falling through the educational loop: disadvantaged gifted students. In F. J. Monks, & W. A. M. Peters (Eds.), Talent for the future (pp. 270–278). Maastricht, Netherlands: Van Gorcum. Webb, S., & Webb, B. (1995). Inequality of income and inequality of personal freedom. In M. Desai (Ed.), LSE on equality: A centenary anthology (pp. 171–208). London: The London School of Economics and Political Science. Weitz, E. D. (2003). A century of genocide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

903

Woodward, D., & Simms, A. (2006). Growth isn’t working: The unbalanced distribution of benefits and costs from economic growth. London: New Economics Foundation. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Yunus, M. (2003). Banker to the poor: Micro-lending and the battle against world poverty. New York: Public Affairs.

Chapter 45

Gifts, Talents, and Their Societal Repercussions Dean Keith Simonton

Abstract There are a number of ways of justifying special programs for the gifted and talented, but certainly among the most practically important concerns the societal benefits of adulthood achievements. This justification is elaborated by considering the crosssectional distribution of impact in various domains of achievement. Because this distribution is highly skewed, with an extremely long upper tail, a large proportion of the contributions to any domain come from a small number of contributors. This means that any failure to promote the actualization of potential of this productive elite can have consequences out of proportion to the number of individuals involved.

democratic country design its educational system to make its citizens more intellectually homogeneous? Why not create a nation where everybody is truly equal? These are difficult questions. But I believe that it is possible to justify gifted and talented education programs even in countries that value equality. That justification arises from the assumption that a significant proportion of gifted and talented children will grow up to become high-achieving adults (Simonton, 2000). These exceptional achievers will then more than repay the resources invested in their educational development. To appreciate the magnitude of this societal reimbursement, I must devote some attention to indiKeywords Adulthood achievements · Societal bene- vidual variation in adult accomplishments. It turns out fits of adulthood achievements · Cross-sectional distri- that the cross-sectional distribution follows an unexbution of impact in various domains of achievement · pected form. Special programs for the gifted

Distribution Introduction What is the justification for the support of special programs for the gifted and talented? Given the low teacher salaries and high classroom sizes that plague most school systems, why should resources be expended on a select few? Such diversion of taxpayer money seems particularly objectionable in any society that adheres to egalitarian principles. Why not use the cash to help the less gifted and less talented reach higher standards of achievement? Why shouldn’t a D.K. Simonton (B) University of California, Davis, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Ever since Francis Galton (1869), psychologists have been fond of the bell-shaped curve. Indeed, this special affection is apparent in the fact that the curve is often referred to as “normal.” Human abilities are also presumed to be distributed in the population according to this normal or bell-shaped curve. The overwhelming majority of human beings fall in the middle of the distribution, close to the population mean. As we move away from this central region the probability of finding a person with a particular trait first rapidly declines and then levels off to approach the zero-probability level asymptotically, producing long “tails” on the lower (left) and upper (right) ends of the distribution. From the standpoint of talent and giftedness, of course, it is

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 45, 

905

906

the upper tail that assumes primary importance. In fact, Galton originally defined genius in terms of a person’s placement in the extreme right tail of the normal distribution, a practice later followed by Terman (1925) when he identified a child as a genius if he or she had an IQ of 140 or higher. In other words, Terman defined a genius as someone whose intelligence puts him or her in the top 1% of the population. According to the bellshaped curve, genius constitutes a very special elite. There is one fundamental problem with conceiving giftedness, talent, and even genius in this manner: It completely understates the magnitude of the elitism. That understatement ensues from the fact that adulthood achievements are not normally distributed in the population. On the contrary, the distribution is extremely skewed. The upper tail on the right is extremely long while the lower tail on the left, well – it does not really exist. Unlike the bell curve, where the mean, the mode, and the median tend to be located about the same place in the distribution, the distribution of adult achievement is such that the mode is at the extreme left, the median a little to the right of the mode, and the mean is much farther out still toward the right, pushed out by the extreme scores in the upper tail. The result is more like a backward-J curve rather than a bell curve. To comprehend how this skewed distribution renders adult accomplishments more elitist, it is best to turn our attention to more specific examples of how this elitism works in particular domains. Because bulk of the research concentrates on creative productivity, we will turn to that instance first. That will provide a foundation for examining other illustrations of the same phenomenon.

D.K. Simonton

of creative genius is prolific productivity. Indeed, genius can be defined in terms of an exceptional lifetime output (Albert, 1975). Creative geniuses begin their careers at unusually youthful ages, produce at a phenomenal annual rate, and, if life’s vicissitudes permit, continue creative production well into the final years of life (Simonton, 1997). As a consequence, the distribution of total lifetime output tends to be awfully skewed. In particular, a small portion of the work in a creative domain can be attributed to a very small minority of the creators active in that domain. Let us get down to some concrete statistics (Dennis, 1954a, 1954b, 1955). When one compiles a list of all contributions to a particular domain, keeping track of who contributed what, then on the average the most prolific 10% of the contributors are often responsible for about 50% of all the work. Moreover, the single most productive individual in a given domain can often be credited with about 9% of the total output. In contrast, the mode of the distribution is a single contribution, over 50% of the contributors falling into this one-product group. In fact, if you were to delete that half of the contributors who fall in the lower 50% of the distribution, the cost would only be about 15% of the total contributions in a given domain! And it is worth pointing out that the true distribution is even more extreme than these figures indicate. The above statistics only apply to individuals who made at least one contribution to a particular domain. Needless to say, a very large percentage of potential contributors never contribute anything. For instance, a large proportion of Ph.D.s do not even manage to publish their doctoral dissertations. In any case, this highly skewed distribution of total lifetime output has been expressed in the form of two mathematical laws: 1. According to the Lotka Law, if n is the number of contributions made, and f(n) is the number of contribCreative Productivity utors making that particular number of contributions, then f(n) is inversely proportional to n2 (Lotka, 1926). −2 Sometimes we have an inclination to think of creative In other words, f(n) = cn , where c is some congeniuses in terms of a single masterpiece on which they stant characteristic of a given creative domain. This stake their reputations. Newton has his Principia Math- law indicates that the modal lifetime output would be ematica, Tolstoy his War and Peace, Dante his Divine a single contribution and that the expected frequency Comedy, Beethoven his Fifth Symphony, Michelangelo will drop off very rapidly with increasing n, forming his Sistine Chapel, and so forth. This tendency may an extremely long tail. Interestingly, if both sides of lead to the impression that high achievement requires this equation are subjected to a logarithmic transforthe production of but a single masterwork – and from mation, one obtains the linear function log f (n) = then on creators can rest on their laurels. Yet this con- c − 2 log n. As a result, if f(n) is plotted as a funcclusion would be most false. One of the hallmarks tion of n on a double-log graph (i.e., both vertical and

45

Gifts, Talents, and Their Societal Repercussions

horizontal axes are log-transformed), then one gets a straight line. Actual data come pretty close to this expectation (Price, 1963). 2. According to the Price Law, if k is the number of contributors to a particular domain of creativity, then k1/2 (i.e., the square root of k) gives the number of that elite few who generated half of all the contributions (Price, 1963). To illustrate, about 250 composers are responsible for the compositions that makeup the classical repertoire (Moles, 1958/1968). The square root of 250 is 15.8, which rounds off to 16. Hence, the 16 most prolific composers should account for 50% of the repertoire, which is exactly the case (Moles, 1958/1968). One fascinating feature of the Price Law is that it implies that the distribution becomes more elitist as k increases. If there are only 100 creators in a domain, then about 10% will be responsible for 50% of the contributions, but if there are 10,000 creators then about 1% will be so credited (Simonton, 2004b). There is a more concrete way of representing the productive elitism (Simonton, 1988b). This is to translate the productivity distribution into the same language of IQ scores, that is, to translate the distribution into a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16. If we had 10,000 people we would anticipate that IQ scores would range about 120 points, yielding a minimum of around 40 and a maximum of around 160. In stark contrast, the productivity distribution would most likely range about 250 points, from a minimum of around 90 to a maximum of around 340. The latter is 180 points higher than the highest expected IQ! If height were distributed like productivity instead of like IQ, then the overwhelming majority of us would be shorter than average while the extremely small elite would be about 16 feet tall!

907

citizens having most of the wealth. In fact, according to the Pareto Law, about 80% of the wealth belongs to 20% of the people (Price, 1963). In fact, the number of persons with net assets equal to n is inversely proportional to n1.5 , yielding a figure only a bit less dramatic than that suggested by the Lotka Law. In addition, extremely skewed distributions are found in the sports and entertainment industries (Adler, 1985; Huber, 2000; Rosen, 1981). For instance, the number of touchdowns made by wide receivers in the National Football League shows the same cross-sectional distribution as the number of compositions by classical composers and the number of US patents by inventors (Huber, 2000). Various forms of leadership, such as the number of battles fought by generals or the number of laws introduced by legislators, follow the same skewed distribution (Simonton, 1984b). In fact, it is extremely uncommon to find any type of human achievement that exhibits a normal distribution (Walberg, Strykowski, Rovai, & Hung, 1984). It should be pointed out that the prolific elite cannot be dismissed as mere hacks whose contributions are worthless or trivial. The reason is that quality of output is strongly correlated with quantity of output (Simonton, 1997, 1999a). Perfectionists who emphasize quality over quantity are very uncommon, as are the mass producers who stress quantity over quality. The careers of most achievers, whether great or small, are replete with a mix of hits and misses, successes and failures. Consequently, the distribution of great accomplishments is just as skewed as the distribution of minor accomplishments. A small portion of the big achievements – whether creative masterpieces, triumphs of leadership, or exceptional performances – will be ascribed to a diminutive subset of the population.

Interpretation Other Accomplishments Although most of the research has concentrated on the skewed distribution of lifetime creative output, there is ample evidence that the same skewed distribution applies to almost every domain of human achievement (Murray, 2003;Walberg, Strykowski, Rovai, & Hung, 1984). One obvious example is income (Burt, 1943). The distribution of wealth is extremely skewed, with a small percentage of the

We have just established that exceptional achievers constitute a precious human resource. If the top achievers of any domain were to vanish, about half of the domain’s cumulative accomplishments would vanish with them. In contrast, if half of the achievers in the lower end of the distribution were to disappear, their absence would be barely noticeable, at least in terms of the heritage left behind. Although this fact is well established in empirical research, investigators have not

908

yet reached a consensus on an explanation. If so many individual-difference variables are normally distributed in the population, why should high-level accomplishments be restricted to a tiny elite? Several theoretical interpretations have been offered. For example, a combinatorial model of creativity can account for the skewed distribution of total output (Simonton, 1988b, 1999b, 2004b). If the number of ideas available for recombination is normally distributed in the population then the number of ideational combinations will display a highly skewed lognormal distribution. However, this explanation would not seem very useful for understanding the elitist distribution of achievement in domains where the ability to generate new ideas is not essential to exceptional performance. Another alternative is to attribute the elitist distribution to the operation of a cumulative advantage process where the “rich get richer and the poor get poorer” (Allison, Long, & Krauze, 1982; Allison & Stewart, 1974; Merton, 1968; Price, 1976). This interpretation is a favorite of sociologists for the simple reason that the observed differences among individuals are not rooted in the persons but rather are founded in the reward structures of a domain. Although this account helps us comprehend the most extreme instances of elitism, such as superstardom (Rosen, 1981), it cannot easily accommodate the empirical literature showing that individuals making up the elite do indeed have different cognitive and dispositional traits in comparison to their less illustrious colleagues (Simonton, 1994). The final interpretation gets around these limitations. It revokes the properties of a multiplicative process (Burt, 1943; Eysenck, 1995; Shockley, 1957). Suppose that extraordinary success in a particular domain requires a dozen cognitive and dispositional assets. These assets might include intelligence, creativity, determination, enthusiasm, high energy, etc. Assume as well that these necessary traits are normally distributed in the population. Finally, postulate that the effects of the various component traits are multiplied together rather than being added together. Then it turns out that the cross-sectional distribution of the product will be lognormal. This outcome contrasts with that for an additive process, which would yield a normally distributed sum (Simonton, 1999b). Of course, these traits may involve the impact of both nature and nurture. That is, some attributes may have significant heritability coefficients whereas others

D.K. Simonton

may be primarily amendable to environmental influences (Simonton, 1987, 1999b). The precise mix probably varies across achievement domains. But no matter what may be the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors, one feature of the multiplicative process deserves special attention (Simonton, 1999b). Under a wide range of circumstances, multiplicative models not only produce highly skewed distributions but also generate a large proportion of persons with virtually no gifts or talents. If height were produced by a multiplicative process then a huge percentage of the population would have zero height! This happens because the talent or gift is only as strong as its weakest link. Obviously, this aspect of the multiplicative interpretation renders the elite all the more elitist. That quality makes our indebtedness to these geniuses and talents all the more conspicuous. Besides dominating their respective domains, these individuals boast aptitudes and attainments that are truly rare. But there is one thing more.

Emulation Just a moment ago I raised the question of the relative contributions of nature and nurture to the emergence of extraordinary achievers. This issue dates back to Galton’s (1869) Hereditary Genius in which the case is made for the position that genius is born, not made. Using the family pedigree method, Galton showed that eminent creators, leaders, and athletes tend to come from lineages that gave birth to other high achievers. Naturally, this position was quickly challenged by those who believed that environmental factors play a major role. For instance, Candolle (1873), whose distinguished family was featured in Galton’s treatise, systematically documented some of the political, social, economic, educational, and religious conditions that give rise to notable scientists. This caused Galton’s to back off a little from his extreme biological determinism, as is evident in his 1874 English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture – the very book that first formally defined the nature–nurture controversy. Nevertheless, the criticisms probably went too far in the opposite direction. Many social scientists tried to argue not only that the genius is totally the product of the environment but that he or she was largely if not entirely an epiphenomenon with respect to those

45

Gifts, Talents, and Their Societal Repercussions

environmental factors. This was a particularly popular position of sociologists and cultural anthropologists who wanted to reduce individual behavior to social and cultural forces operating at the collective level. Instead of the “great man” or “great woman,” exceptional accomplishments were the repercussions of the larger sociocultural milieu. This milieu was often referred to as the “zeitgeist” or “spirit of the times” (e.g., Boring, 1963). Sociocultural determinism thus replaced biological determinism as the primary agent behind the emergence of genius or talent. Indeed, some advocates maintained that the personal qualities of luminaries are totally irrelevant (e.g., White, 1949). Rather than being the “right person” he or she just so happened to be at the “the right place and the right time.” What is the evidence for this contrary viewpoint? In general, sociocultural determinists tended to stress two significant facts. First, proponents were fond of citing the multiples phenomenon (Kroeber, 1917; Merton, 1961b). This is the striking circumstance where two or more scientists or inventors arrive at the same discovery or invention in total ignorance of each others’ work (Lamb & Easton, 1984). Classic examples include the calculus by Newton and Leibniz, the prediction of Neptune’s orbit by J. C. Adams and Leverrier, the law of the conservation of energy by J. R. von Mayer, Helmholtz, and Joule, the periodic law of elements by DeChancourtis, Newlands, L. Meyer, and Mendeleev, the theory of evolution by natural selection by C. Darwin and Wallace, the ophthalmoscope by C. Babbage, Helmholtz, and Anagnostakis, and the telephone by A. G. Bell and E. Gray. Friends of sociocultural determinism compiled lists of dozen, even hundreds of solid cases. The occurrence of such multiples seemed to suggest that great ideas were somehow “in the air” to be picked by anyone with the most minimal aptitudes. As one cultural anthropologist once put it with respect to the multiple invention of the steamboat, “Is great intelligence required to put one and one – a boat and an engine – together? An ape can do this” (White, 1949, p. 212). Speaking more generally, “A consideration of many significant inventions and discoveries does not lead to the conclusion that great ability, native or acquired, is always necessary. On the contrary, many seem to need only mediocre talents at best” (White, 1949, p. 163). Fittingly, each discovery and invention was deemed absolutely inevitable, the specific timing inexorably determined by the sociocultural system (e.g., (Kroe-

909

ber, 1917; Ogburn & Thomas, 1922). For instance, according to this view Mendelian genetics “was discovered in 1900 because it could have been discovered only then, and because it infallibly must have been discovered then” (Kroeber, 1917, p. 199). Second, sociocultural determinists pointed to another very curious phenomenon, namely, the clustering of geniuses across space and time (Kroeber, 1944; Schneider, 1937). Rather that being randomly distributed across nations and periods, great achievers in almost every domain tend to group together into “Golden Ages” separated by lesser eras, such as “Silver Ages” and even “Dark Ages.” Hence we easily speak of the Golden Age of Athens and the Dark Ages of medieval Europe. Cultural anthropologist Alfred Kroeber (1944), who called these events “configurations of culture growth,” quite explicitly argued that these fluctuations contradict Galton’s (1869) position. After all, the configurations tend to be far too brief to allow for the necessary changes in the gene pool if the clusters were genetically caused. Even the most rigorous eugenics program could not have produced the Italian Renaissance. Therefore, the comings and goings of genius and talent may merely reflect the ups and downs in the zeitgeist. Sometimes the spirit of the times is favorable to achievement in a particular domain, other times not. Taken together these two phenomena appear to make convincing arguments for sociocultural determinism. The zeitgeist takes precedence over the great man or woman. Yet both arguments are seriously flawed (Simonton, 1999a, 2004b). I cannot devote any time to discussion of the problems with the multiples argument because it would lead us too far astray from the purposes of this chapter. So may it suffice to say that the appearance of multiples does not negate the relevance of the personal attributes that are associated with genius, giftedness, and talent (Simonton, 2004b). It is no accent that the greatest scientists not only are involved in more multiples than are their lesser contemporaries but also are responsible for more “singletons” – discoveries or inventions for which they do not have to share any credit (Simonton, 1979; Merton, 1961a). The argument based on the clustering of genius has a different problem, and a problem intimately linked with the subject of this chapter. The sociocultural determinists assume that configurations of culture growth represent the operation of social, political, economic,

910

and cultural conditions (e.g., Gray, 1958, 1961, 1966). Some conditions provide favorable environments for the emergence of genius, and others do not. Supporting this assumption is empirical evidence that certain systemic conditions influence the degree of creative activity in any given generation (Simonton, 2003a). A case in point is the positive impact of political fragmentation, that is, the circumstance when a civilization area is divided into several independent states (Simonton, 2004a). Yet what the sociocultural determinists fail to consider is that some of these conditions may also involve the direct operation of psychological factors at the individual level (Simonton, 2003a). Ironically, one possible psychological factor was advanced by Kroeber (1944). Having collected abundant data demonstrating the configurations, he was at a loss with respect to the causes. The best he could do was to quote an obscure ancient Roman historian Velleius Paterculus, who, after noticing the clustering of geniuses in ancient Greece, speculated as follows:

D.K. Simonton

the potential of a given intellectual paradigm or aesthetic style becomes exhausted, obliging young talents to move on to domains where that hold more promise for innovation. This interpretation appears to be far more psychological than sociocultural. Highly talented individuals attempt to go to the “hot” domains in which they can fully realize their personal potential. When a domain enters a phase of decadence and stagnation, it attracts fewer of “the best and the brightest” in the next generation, precipitating a decline for that domain of achievement in a particular time and place. Actually, it is possible to reformulate this psychological process to render it more susceptible to empirical test (Simonton, 2003b). The formulation examines the phenomenon of role-model availability by use of generational time-series analysis. The method begins by dividing a given civilization area into consecutive 20-year periods called generations. The next step is to count the number of eminent achievers in each generThough I frequently search for the reasons why men of ation, where geniuses are assigned to the 20-year pesimilar talents occur exclusively in certain epochs and not riod in which they attained their 40th year of life (an only flock to one pursuit but also attain like success, I can never find any of whose truth I am certain, thought indication of the individual’s floruit or career acme). I do find some which perhaps seem likely, and particuThese tabulations may be either unweighted raw counts larly the following. Genius is fostered by emulation, and or weighted according to the differential distinction of it is now envy, now admiration, which enkindles imitathe individuals being counted (it doesn’t really matter tion, and, in the nature of things, that which is cultivated with the highest zeal advances to the highest perfection. for the outcome is pretty much the same). The final (Kroeber, 1944, p. 18) step is to examine whether the number of geniuses at generation g is a positive function of the number of geIn other words, genius and talent are inspired by niuses at generation g – 1. If so, then we can infer that the accomplishments of prior geniuses and talents. This some kind of role-modeling process is taking place. explanation is reminiscent of Newton’s famous remark Generational time-series analyses like this have been that “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the carried out for European, Chinese, and Japanese civishoulders of giants” (quoted in Who Said What When, lizations, and the results are always the same (Simon1991, p. 129) ton, 1975, 1988a, 1992a). Not only does a consistent Yet if this is the case, why does a civilization ever depositive association emerge but also the role-modeling cline in its output of high achievers, and descend into a effect constitutes the strongest single predictor. That Dark Age? According to Velleius Paterculus, it is diffiis, the main reason why genius clusters in particular cult to continue at the point of perfection, and naturally locales and periods is because each generation builds that which cannot advance must recede. And as in the beginning we are fired with the ambition to overtake those upon the achievements of the preceding generation. whom we regard as leaders, so when we have despaired Moreover, at the individual level of analysis it has been of being able either to surpass or even to equal them, our established that the availability of domain-specific role zeal wanes with our hope; it ceases to follow what it canmodels is directly related to the magnitude of eminot overtake, and abandoning the old field as though preempted, it seeks a new one. Passing over that in which we nence attained (Simonton, 1977, 1984a, 1992b 1992c). cannot be pre-eminent, we seek for some new object of In other words, the exceptional achievers of one genour effort. (Kroeber, 1944, p. 18) eration are largely responsible for the quantity and Kroeber referred to this process as “pattern exhaus- quality of achievers in the next generation. This crosstion.” After a succession of a few generations, all of generational linkage is based on the process of admi-

45

Gifts, Talents, and Their Societal Repercussions

ration in which young talents imitate or emulate their predecessors in a given achievement domain.

Implication We have learned that the societal repercussions of gifts and talents are twofold. First, exceptional achievers are disproportionately responsible for all of the world’s accomplishments. This elite dominates every domain of human achievement, whether creativity, leadership, sports, or the performing arts. Second, exceptional achievers of one generation have a positive impact on the appearance of exceptional achievers in the next generation. That is, geniuses and talents provide role models that inspire those with sufficient gifts to admire and emulate the work of their predecessors. As a result, human accomplishments can build up to produce a Golden Age of political, cultural, intellectual, or economic activity. Given these two social consequences, it becomes obvious that the gifted and talented of each generation represent a valuable human resource. In light of this fact, the need to invest in their development becomes all the more paramount. Even more strikingly, the second repercussion suggests a way in which to contribute to this investment. If the emergence of genius is facilitated by access to domain-specific role models, then one of the best methods for nurturing gifts and talents is do everything possible to encourage awareness of such models. By stimulating admiration for the achievements in the past, we can ensure that the next generation will produce new accomplishments most worthy of admiration. Standing on the shoulders of giants, they will see farther than the rest.

References Adler, M. (1985). Stardom and talent. American Economic Review, 75, 208–212. Albert, R. S. (1975). Toward a behavioral definition of genius. American Psychologist, 30, 140–151. Allison, P. D., Long, J. S., & Krauze, T. K. (1982). Cumulative advantage and inequality in science. American Sociological Review, 47, 615–625. Allison, P. D., & Stewart, J. A. (1974). Productivity differences among scientists: Evidence for accumulative advantage. American Sociological Review, 39, 596–606.

911 Boring, E. G. (1963). History, psychology, and science (R. I. Watson & D. T. Campbell, Eds.). New York: Wiley. Burt, C. (1943). Ability and income. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 83–98. Candolle, A. de (1873). Histoire des sciences et des savants depuis deux si`ecles. Geneve: Georg. Dennis, W. (1954a, September). Bibliographies of eminent scientists. Scientific Monthly, 79, 180–183. Dennis, W. (1954b). Productivity among American psychologists. American Psychologist, 9, 191–194. Dennis, W. (1955, April). Variations in productivity among creative workers. Scientific Monthly, 80, 277–278. Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: Macmillan. Gray, C. E. (1958). An analysis of Graeco-Roman development: The epicyclical evolution of Graeco-Roman civilization. American Anthropologist, 60, 13–31. Gray, C. E. (1961). An epicyclical model for Western civilization. American Anthropologist, 63, 1014–1037. Gray, C. E. (1966). A measurement of creativity in Western civilization. American Anthropologist, 68, 1384–1417. Huber, J. C. (2000). A statistical analysis of special cases of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 203–225. Kroeber, A. L. (1917). The superorganic. American Anthropologist, 19, 163–214. Kroeber, A. L. (1944). Configurations of culture growth. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lamb, D., & Easton, S. M. (1984). Multiple discovery. Avebury, England: Avebury. Merton, R. K. (1968, January 5). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56–63. Merton, R. K. (1961a). The role of genius in scientific advance. New Scientist, 12, 306–308. Merton, R. K. (1961b). Singletons and multiples in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 105, 470–486. Moles, A. (1968). Information theory and esthetic perception (J. E. Cohen, Trans.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. (Original work published 1958). Murray, C. (2003). Human accomplishment: The pursuit of excellence in the arts and sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950. New York: HarperCollins. Ogburn, W. K., & Thomas, D. (1922). Are inventions inevitable? A note on social evolution. Political Science Quarterly, 37, 83–93. Price, D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press. Price, D. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27, 292–306. Rosen, S. (1981). The economics of superstars. American Economic Review, 71, 845–858. Schneider, J. (1937). The cultural situation as a condition for the achievement of fame. American Sociological Review, 2, 480– 491. Shockley, W. (1957). On the statistics of individual variations of productivity in research laboratories. Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers, 45, 279–290.

912 Simonton, D. K. (1975). Sociocultural context of individual creativity: A transhistorical time-series analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1119–1133. Simonton, D. K. (1977). Eminence, creativity, and geographic marginality: A recursive structural equation model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 805–816. Simonton, D. K. (1979). Multiple discovery and invention: Zeitgeist, genius, or chance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1603–1616. Simonton, D. K. (1984a). Artistic creativity and interpersonal relationships across and within generations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1273–1286. Simonton, D. K. (1984b). Genius, creativity, and leadership: Historiometric inquiries. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Simonton, D. K. (1987). Developmental antecedents of achieved eminence. Annals of Child Development, 5, 131–169. Simonton, D. K. (1988a). Galtonian genius, Kroeberian configurations, and emulation: A generational time-series analysis of Chinese civilization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 230–238. Simonton, D. K. (1988b). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simonton, D. K. (1992a). Gender and genius in Japan: Feminine eminence in masculine culture. Sex Roles, 27, 101–119. Simonton, D. K. (1992b). Leaders of American psychology, 1879–1967: Career development, creative output, and professional achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 5–17. Simonton, D. K. (1992c). The social context of career success and course for 2,026 scientists and inventors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 452–463. Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York: Guilford Press. Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89.

D.K. Simonton Simonton, D. K. (1999a). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford University Press. Simonton, D. K. (1999b). Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic model. Psychological Review, 106, 435– 457. Simonton, D. K. (2000). Genius and giftedness: Same or different? In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 111–121). Terrytown, NY: Pergamon. Simonton, D. K. (2003a). Creative cultures, nations, and civilizations: Strategies and results. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 304–328). New York: Oxford University Press. Simonton, D. K. (2003b). Kroeber’s cultural configurations, Sorokin’s culture mentalities, and generational time-series analysis: A quantitative paradigm for the comparative study of civilizations. Comparative Civilizations Review, 49, 96– 108. Simonton, D. K. (2004a). Creative clusters, political fragmentation, and cultural heterogeneity: An investigative journey though civilizations East and West. In P. Bernholz & R. Vaubel (Eds.), Political competition, innovation and growth in the history of Asian civilizations (pp. 39–56). Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar. Simonton, D. K. (2004b). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Terman, L. M. (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Walberg, H. J., Strykowski, B. F., Rovai, E., & Hung, S. S. (1984). Exceptional performance. Review of Educational Research, 54, 87–112. White, L. (1949). The science of culture. New York: Farrar, Straus. Who said what when: A chronological dictionary of quotations. (1991). New York: Hippocrene Books.

Chapter 46

The Unwanted Gifted and Talented: A Sociobiological Perspective of the Societal Functions of Giftedness Roland S. Persson

Abstract How come certain highly gifted individuals are not allowed to flourish and develop although they exist in an environment that has both the means and the possibility to assist and stimulate such development? Furthermore, how come there is such an over-emphasis on a certain group of abilities in giftedness research, whereas the study of others is more or less ignored? Finally, are there gifted individuals in our midst that we actually do not want? These are questions raised and discussed in this chapter. To answer them, I propose a taxonomy of gifted societal functions based on a sociobiological framework. The phenomena of stigmatizing and marginalizing gifted individuals are discussed in this light. The chapter concludes by suggesting a number of testable hypotheses regarding the predictable outcome of gifted individuals and their function in certain social contexts.

doubt, the cleverest, most insightful, most friendly, most concerned, the wisest and most knowledgeable people I have yet encountered. Such intellectual, social and practical prowess, one might expect, would be greatly appreciated everywhere; a formidable asset to any employer or organization and they would seem to be dream students at any educational institution. But the fact is they share a common fate: they are appreciated nowhere—and so far not at anytime, except by single individuals in their social network.

James, the Canadian Potential Nobel Laureate

James is a former Canadian “wunderkind”, now in his early 40s. As a child he was already able to beat masKeywords Gifted function · Gifted and society · ter’s level chess players. Also a mathematics prodigy, Marginalization · Stigmatization · Taxonomy · an extraordinary mind when it comes to science and Sociobiology research, a talented footballer, martial artist and a visual artist. He always had a hunger for learning, but hated school and from what he has told me, he was quite cruelly treated in the Catholic school he attended as a child. The situation did not improve as he eventuIntroduction: Four Marginalized Gifted ally arrived in higher education! He entered university Individuals and quickly stood out because of his exceeding brilliance. However, in surpassing even the knowledge of First in this chapter, allow me to introduce four some of his professors, and being of different opinion exceedingly gifted individuals from three countries, than they were on certain scholarly issues, his decline whom I have met by chance over several years and in the academic world swiftly began. The fact that he learnt to know fairly well. They are so far, beyond was outstanding in achievement and scientific thinking did not count for much. He seems to have posed too much of a threat to a few very influential academics R.S. Persson (B) of that particular university. In the end, he was denied J¨onk¨oping University, J¨onk¨oping, Sweden the much-desired Ph.D. program “for political reason”. e-mail: [email protected] L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 46, 

913

914

He was even told that he was denied for political reasons. He lost his place in favor of another, and much less qualified and not nearly as gifted, candidate. This rejection should be compared to what one professor who indeed supported James in his efforts had written in recommending him for the program: “. . .the most likely student we have ever had to win a Nobel Prize”! Today, a father of two, he is unemployed. The societal institutions and workplaces, which could benefit enormously from his skills, generally discard him when applying to work for them. He is overqualified! Instead he devotes all of his time to convey his hunger for knowledge to the two sons; and teaches them in ways that would impress any highly qualified and skilled teacher.

Andrew, the Athlete and Formidable Problem-Solver Andrew from England, in his late 30s, is a computer engineer, an exceedingly talented martial artist as well as a visual artist working mainly with computer graphics. He is also a well-respected sports therapist. He went to a Catholic school, as did James, the staff of which seemed to have little tolerance for a gifted child with particular talents and more particularly with Andrew’s independence and having a will of his own. He did not attend school a great deal of time as a child and was more often to be found in the local Dojo improving his skills in martial arts. He grew more skilled than even his instructors and refused to go for a black belt in karate for which he was overly qualified. He saw no meaning in doing so since he was still much better than his black-belt instructors. He now works for a large European computer company and solves problems at a pace and efficiency matched by few others in the same workplace. However, he is often at odds with superiors because they find it hard to accept that he, and not they, has the exact solution to emerging problems. The employer rather tries to “streamline” him into fitting the generally organizational company culture; even with the help of organizational psychologists. This is a futile task, which Andrew finds ridiculous and demeaning. The company strategy tells more of its ignorance in handling gifted employees rather than Andrew’s argued shortcomings as a “typical” representative of the company. In his own words:

R.S. Persson A couple of months ago at work we were sent to a team developer because our department is “dysfunctional”. The questioning was painful and some of it was so basic it felt like an insult to my intelligence. But I decided to go along with it and was so blunt there was no room for misinterpretation. The result that came back from this was because I let things slide at work simply because my colleagues aren’t able to do stuff I can, they said. I see myself as a victim in the team and act that way. In a way, I agree but in other [things they said] I disagree. This is simply because when you cannot change things with idiots around you why beat your head against a wall to do it. There seems no logic in it. This I didn’t even bother to explain to the psychologist. Why get into a discussion of sociology, psychology and group function with an [individual] who is so fast to box people?

Peter, the Polymath with Street Smarts Beyond Comparison Peter is a Swedish young man in his mid-20s. He hated school enough to refuse to continue any further formal education following secondary school. He was so badly treated at school that he will not even touch a book unless he absolutely must. In spite of having reached his mid-20s he has no permanent job but survives on odd jobs and considerable “street smarts”. In fact, at the time of writing this he has also resigned from a part-time job, but still makes a decent living by simply knowing how systems work and people in them. In the eyes of “talent hunters” and meritocrats there is not much tangible to go on in Peter’s case. None of these would consider him gifted because he does not really fall into any traditional “giftedness category”. However, to have a conversation with him, to hear him speak his mind, how he reasons on practical as well as social issues, reveals a considerable depth of mind, knowledge and self-awareness. He knows how to find knowledge and information from other sources than written media very effectively. His memory is astounding. What strikes me the most about Peter is his immense self-awareness and integrity. He is exceedingly systematic, knows exactly what he can do and what he cannot do. It is also my impression that since society as such has offered him very little, even unfairly worked against him at times, he has little respect for formal authority. He sometimes therefore stipulates his own rules on how to act and exist, which, however, never excludes a social pathos. He is always concerned for other’s well-being. When speaking with him I often

46

The Unwanted Gifted and Talented

find myself corrected by him with an understanding smile, and he reminds me of things I have argued earlier and obviously forgotten. How can such a brilliant mind have escaped the attention and interest of the formal education system—not to mention employers?

Bjorn, the Caring Intellectual Persuader Bjorn, Swedish, now in his mid-30s, was also plagued by teachers and school and received no stimulation at all during his school years (a full case study has been done on Bjorn, see Persson, 2005). In fact, it went so far that he decided to “limit his own capacity to think and reason” by sniffing a harmful solvent, which he argued would damage his brain only “a little”. He simply wanted to fit in and “be like everyone else” and sniffing solvent, he hoped, would achieve this. Bjorn is academically gifted as well as gifted in sports. He too is an exceedingly skilled martial artist. He trains world champions even to the extent of becoming a “sensei” creating his own style of martial arts. He has single-handedly initiated and held together a world federation for organizing competitions worldwide in his sport. However, as bright as he is academically and talented in sports, his most outstanding feature is his social awareness and competence. He is well aware of the fact that he can probably persuade anyone to do almost anything, for the simple reason he immediately invokes confidence, leadership and competence—and he has plenty of all three! Speaking with him on this is a like having an imaginary talk with cartoon figure Clark Kent (“Superman”) on using “super powers” for the good of humanity only. Bjorn is very alert to the fact that abuse of this ability is possible, but makes quite clear he has no intentions whatsoever to do so. His ethical principles are very strong and well considered. Being a qualified teacher he currently works as a special educator and solves problems that child psychiatry and formal special educational methods have not yet managed to come to grips with. He once rang me and told me triumphantly that the entire Regional Child and Youth Psychiatry Unit had come for an unannounced visit to see with their own eyes what he was actually doing when working so successfully with autistic children. Rumors about this had spread wide and afar. Once the Chief Psychiatrist had literally applauded him in amazement, the rest of the

915

visiting delegation chimed in enthusiastically. Bjorn’s comment to this was “Ha! and I am not even a PhD!” However, the recognition did not lead anywhere; it accomplished nothing more than to satisfy the curiosity of the RCYP Unit. Bjorn has solutions and wellfunctioning practices as a teacher, derived from solid theoretical knowledge. He produced better results than most, yet he continues to be left to his own devices in spite of some recognition. Elsewhere other special educators continue to struggle with the problems that Bjorn in part has solved. Bjorn wants to pursue a Ph.D. and discussed this with high officials at a neighboring large and quite well-known university. The officials were stunned at his prowess and considerable knowledge. But when applying, he is still never found to be “what they want”. He simply does not “fit in”. He is too clever by half and seems much too independent in thinking and doing to arouse the curiosity of academics in his own field to take him on. These four individuals share certain astounding features. They are all, but perhaps in slightly different ways, as follows: 1) They are exceedingly and socially aware (or socially intelligent). 2) They are astoundingly self-aware. 3) Their skills are rarely recognized and appreciated, not even where they reasonably should be recognized. They are social “misfits” in spite of having a considerable social pathos. They are either outsiders by choice or made outsiders by others. 4) All four are polymaths—gifted in several ways multitalented (see Root-Bernstein, this volume). Finally, and this is possibly the most crucial aspect shared by them. 5) They seem to pose a threat to certain individuals, not necessarily all, as they try to rise upwards in social hierarchies (be it either in an institution of formal education, a manual labor workplace, in an organization or company or in a school). They have become accustomed to being treated as more or less unwanted; an inconvenience. Few, if any, in the societal establishment, could care less whether these individuals are correct in what they do or say. Thus, they are not only to some extent stigmatized because of what they know and how they employ in practice what they know, they have also become, in sociological terms, marginalized.

916

Involuntary Stigmatization and Voluntary Marginalization The social dimension of giftedness is nearly always missing when scholars and practitioners debate, discuss and publish on matters of giftedness and talent (Persson, 1999), and particularly questions on what function gifted individuals have or will have in society. This then is the objective of this chapter: to explore functions and the possible causes of stigmatization and marginalization of gifted individuals that appear to accompany certain types of giftedness. The following questions will be explored: How come certain very gifted individuals are rarely allowed to flourish and develop although they exist in an environment that has both the means and the possibility to assist and stimulate such development? Note that I am not referring to able underachievers (Montgomery, 2000) or the so-called gifted disadvantaged (Wallace & Adams, 1993). Furthermore, how come there is such an over-emphasis on a certain group of abilities in giftedness research, whereas others are more or less ignored? Finally, is it perhaps the case that society as a whole does not want certain kinds of gifted individuals in its midst?

History Provides Interesting Examples “Not very many ‘pure creatives’ go into conventional education,” Shaughnessy & Manz (1991) observe, “typically, artists, musicians, and writers find their life’s work outside bureaucratic institutions which may hamper their creativity and originality” (p. 98). It is not only the possibility of being hampered within a formal setting, however, that is sometimes a problem to these individuals. They are likely to encounter difficulties outside of formal education and formal organizations too. Any textbook on the history of the arts or music will provide ample illustrations of how both visual artists and Western classical composers introducing new ideas were ridiculed and shunned in their own time and by their own immediate social context; so often so it has almost become a legendary principle: shunned and harassed whilst alive but praised and exalted when passed away and gone. To this end, Machlis (1979) summarizes contemporary music

R.S. Persson

history in the following noteworthy way: “Audiences were persuaded that the art as they had known it was coming to an end, and responded accordingly. Perfectly respectable individuals in Paris, Vienna, and elsewhere hissed and hooted, banged chairs, and engaged in fistfights with strangers. Today, the works that caused these antics are enthroned as classics of the modern repertory. The men who wrote them are acknowledged masters” (p. 4). Similarly, most of the winners of the prestigious American MacArthur Award, from a variety of fields of endeavor, also met considerable resistance by their surrounding social context when deviating too much in thinking or doing. Shekerjian (1990), having interviewed 40 of these laureates, concludes that “an unfortunate aspect of creative work is that it requires an element of risk-taking. The risk, say, of exposing your own private persona. Of revealing something not quite ready for public scrutiny. Of having to go beyond the sure footing of experience and expertise. Of having to part paths with friends and mentors. Of jeopardizing resources and making mistakes. Of suffering unintended consequences and even ruin. Society shuns its heretics” (p. 16–17). Shekerjian also makes the observation that “the MacArthur Fellows are not quitters. Even in the face of insult. Or when confronted with defeat. Or when up against humiliation, despondency, hostility, boredom, or indifference. They find a way to make adjustments, to keep at it, to stay buoyant, to believe in themselves” (p. 198). As also Shekerjian (1990) concludes, the scientific world is by no means an exception from marginalizing and even stigmatizing members of the science community; members who distance themselves away from mainstream research and knowledge even criticize it because they suspect or have perhaps already found that alternative explanations are better than the established ones. The difficulty in attracting attention and acceptance for new, and often probably better, ideas and testable theories is infamously difficult (Segerstr˚ale, 2000). A breakthrough, if it occurs at all, has even been outlined as a “revolution” in nature (Kuhn, 1962). Furthermore, the resistance of scientists to change their minds from the old to the new, even in the face of convincing evidence contrary to their convictions, has been termed cognitive conservatism by Greenwald (1980) and is understood by him as a defense mechanism proper, though some are prone to resist change more than others (Johson et al. 1988).

46

The Unwanted Gifted and Talented

Thus, following new insights, new knowledge, new understandings or views and opinions prompted by these, stigmatization and marginalization often follow. Crocker and Quinee (2003) define stigmatization as “[having] a social identity, or membership in some social category, that raises doubts about one’s full humanity. One is devalued, spoiled, or flawed in the eyes of others . . . Stigmatized individuals are often the targets of negative stereotypes and elicit emotional reactions such as pity, anger, anxiety or disgust but the central feature of social stigma is devaluation and dehumanization by others” (p. 153). Marginalization, on the other hand, as defined by Hall, Stevens and Meleis (1994), is the peripheralization of individuals and groups from a dominant, central majority. Marginalization is understood as a sociopolitical process, producing both vulnerabilities (risks) and strengths (resilience). Why then, are some individuals stigmatized? It is very likely that this tendency has biological origins and is deeply rooted in the human species’ need to live and exist in effective groups (Neuberg, Smith, & Asher, 2003). It follows that a certain social equilibrium therefore is strived for. There is resistance to change, but not necessarily to all changes. It is safe to say that no one in a group, smaller or larger, will resist change if they can clearly understand there is tangible gain of some sort, not too distant in time, deemed desirable. However, the opposite is likely to be true also: where gain cannot be perceived, or if indeed loss of some kind is involved (loss of influence, power, welfare, perks, privileges, income, prestige, status and so on), few would be willing to accept a change lightly. Whoever purports a change involving loss, also runs the risk of being stigmatized because of it. More on this later. Why do gifted individuals, also being gifted among other gifted, sometimes choose marginalization? Storr (1972) favors discussing personality and argues that high creatives are schizoid and therefore shuns social contexts. They prefer to be alone for lack of social understanding and interest. However, I think an equally valid explanation would be, as Shaughnessy & Manz (1991) point out, that very creative people sometimes choose relative seclusion having realized by experience that stepping aside, leaving certain environments or at the very least avoiding much contact with others if remaining in a formal setting is best to retain their creativity, their free and independent mind. The four cases outlined at the beginning of this chapter all

917

showed considerable social skills and a social pathos at that, and yet they were marginalized. The social context surrounding such a person would perhaps understand seclusion as regressive behavior. However, from the point of view of the person choosing relative isolation, it is more likely to be a chosen coping mechanism. If we count on a percentage of the total population being in various ways gifted, there must on occasion arise situations where one single individual is right and everyone else is probably wrong. That single individual will most likely find life problematic, since the operational principle, at least in democracies, usually is that “the majority is always right”. How to deal with the fact that people are different and that people are individual is a recurring problem to democracy theorists (e.g., Benhabib, 1996). The single deviant, however, will often try to find ways of coping without losing sense of self-esteem, enthusiasm, the will to continue and so on. The literature on this “darker side” of giftedness is limited. Landau (1990) provides a few cases. One of these reports a young highly gifted girl to whom recognition appeared never to have been given, neither at home nor at school. As a result, the girl closed herself to further social contact and never again regained full motivation to hone her skills or confidence in establishing a social network. Kelly-Streznewski (1999) speaks of “the mixed blessings of extraordinary potential” in her study of 100 grownups aged 28–90. Fiedler (1999), who has reviewed this particular field of study, concludes that “along with the promise of potential come the problems of potential—problems that are often a direct effect of differing from the norm in ways that others are not necessarily prepared to deal with” (p. 434). In summary, society and social contexts react to gifted individuals in various ways. However, social environments also react to potentials: what a gifted individual might achieve if allowed to continue. Sometimes the gifted choose marginalization to be able to cope, and at times they become stigmatized when trying to bring about a change involving a loss for a group of people or to individuals in this group. Some suggestions of change, however, are rather praised and rewarded. That which dictates being commended, praised and rewarded or reproved, harassed and in different ways even punished seems to follow specific patterns, namely patterns of social function.

918

Giftedness and Sociobiology There are, I believe, often but of course not necessarily always, sociobiological reasons for social ascendancy, social acceptance or rejection, and that this at least to a degree may explain why some gifted individuals are noticed, favored and given due attention while others are ignored and even harassed in spite of their obvious talent and suitability for certain jobs, tasks, positions, skills, subjects of study and so on. While biological determinants for a variety of human behaviors may well be complex and not yet fully understood, it would be foolishness to underplay their reality (Wilson, 2000). Testosterone, for example, decides the cognitive architecture of the brain (Duchaine, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2001) and has even been suggested to be responsible for the development and structures of the entire human social reality (Kemper, 1990). Our general ignorance of how biology actually affect our daily lives has prompted Freund (1988) to even suggest that we need to bring “society into the body”, and align our understanding of societal processes with how the body works and functions. Failing to do so, he argues, would lead to “blind social constructivism” that exaggerates the processes of society and mentality without seeing some of the real processes governing the interplay between the society and the body. It is essential, therefore, also in studying various aspects of giftedness, “that we are aware of the more primitive action and reaction patterns that determine our behavior, and to not pretend as if they did not exist. It is especially in the area of social behavior that we are less free to act than we generally assume” (Eibl-Eibesfledt, 1989, p. 3). To put what we generally term giftedness into a sociobiological perspective, where evolutionary mechanisms play a considerable role, there is a need to understand the social functions of the phenomenon. Hence, a taxonomy of gifted behaviors as functions is needed.

Proposing a Taxonomy of Gifted Social Functions Whomever we recognize as “gifted” is usually identified on the basis of the fact that there is a social value— positive or negative—attributed to that label. A mathematician is no doubt gifted in his or her domain but

R.S. Persson

the same may well be true of someone who society has decided to label a felon (Walsh, 2003). To say that someone is a “criminal” is to a large extent a social construction. That which is illegal in one country is not necessarily illegal in another. Concern has been raised by some researchers that the young gifted, particularly when feeling alienated (such as by stigmatization) from their social context, take to “antisocial behavior”. This too is perhaps a dubious term considering that it is even more of a social construction (see Fiedler, 1999). In other words, we seek only to identify and hopefully stimulate those talents which society recognizes as particularly valuable in one way or another. Giftedness as a construct is invariably two issues combined: a cognitive hardware (of which talent and giftedness research has uncovered a great deal) and a social response to it (of which we are relatively ignorant). It follows that if there is social significance awarded to giftedness, then giftedness also has a sociobiological function. This, in turn, means that at least at some level an inter-species comparison can be made. Wilson (2004) suggests that “human behavior can be evaluated . . . first by comparison with the behavior of other species and then, with far greater difficulty and ambiguity, by studies of variation among and within human populations. The picture of genetic determinism emerges most sharply when we compare selected major categories of animals with the human species” (p. 20). A few examples of a believed beneficial social function for the gifted and talented in society are in order. The following statement by former Indonesian State Minister for Population: Haryono Suyono (1996), as part of his address to the Fourth Asia-Pacific Conference on giftedness is a good example of anticipated “gifted function”. He points out that within a few short years the 21st century will become a transparent era with numerous opportunities and limitations. In that era superior quality human resources will be required. They will have to fulfill stringent qualifications to be able to face the finite natural and capital resources . . . These resources do indeed belong to the next generations and we are obliged to preserve and even to increase these in quantity and quality . . . We all have to help these gifted children and to give them the required support and, in so doing, not alienate them from their respective families and the communities, as our national heritage is the family bond. We must enhance the family to have the ability to bring their gifted children to the surface and to nurture them for the progress and future of the nation (p. 71 & p. 77).

46

The Unwanted Gifted and Talented

Suyono’s address on future needs and the significance of skilful and highly able human resources came true in a dramatic way not long after the Minister’s address as the whole of Southeast Asia, and particularly Indonesia, plunged into the abyss of financial turmoil, and because of it also some social upheaval. A number of individuals in Indonesia and elsewhere then had the far from enviable task to solve problems associated with “finite natural and capital resources”. In 1985, another member of government: Dorothee Wilms (1986), then Minister of Education and Science in the former Federal Republic of Germany, addressed The Sixth World Conference of The World Council for Gifted and Talented Children in Hamburg in a way similar to that of her Indonesian colleague. She opened the conference by making the observation that The need for excellence in Science and research, in industry and technology is increasing worldwide. No country which wishes to secure the future of its citizens can, or even may, afford to leave undetected and unsupported a major part of the intellectual and creative abilities of its people. Every society which wants to prosper and meet the challenges of the future has to rely on a high level of achievement in all its citizens . . . When solving the present difficult economic, social and technological problems, but also answering intellectual and cultural questions, it is indispensable that people with outstanding abilities and the willingness for excellence co-operate . . .Giving special promotion to the gifted is considered by the Federal Government an additional [and] a supplementary investment in the future . . . (pp. 16–17).

919

much into its opposite. As we become more and more dependent on expertise and advanced technology— well beyond the average person’s comprehension and know-how—the nerd is slowly turning into a muchwanted man or woman. If recognizing giftedness as cause for special provision in education, it is mainly this gifted function that is wanted and approved by the society. Societal institutions and market alike need the nerds as future national problem solvers and facilitators of continued profit and welfare. Among them are scientists, engineers, health-care staff, product developers, industrial designers and so on. In a sociobiological perspective, they maintain societal structures by inventions, refinements and improvements in the domain of production in which they are active. Their effort gives a society the ability to attain or maintain welfare and perhaps also strengthen existing power hierarchies in a larger perspective.

Societal Entertainment

Entertainment should not be underestimated. Labeling this function “entertainment” is by no means intended to lessen or deny gifted individuals with this type of social function their value. They fill an important and much appreciated function to a great many people worldwide in various ways. We sometimes call these individuals “heroes” in evGifted individuals are often seen as “the hope of the future”. Giftedness is therefore not only a phenomenon eryday language. A hero is traditionally defined as a of interest to scientists and educators. Its research and person of exceptional qualities who wins admiration pursuit also create obligations towards society (Vor- by noble deeds. However, a hero may also be someone who has certain desirable attributes not necessarily beck,1992; Tee Tao & Ling Quah, 1999). related to anything noble, such as is probably the case with most successful and famous athletes, artists and musicians. They become involuntary leaders because Societal Maintenance they act as role models, willingly or unwillingly, for many who wish to become like them. A hero thereA first social function should therefore reasonably be fore is someone admired, someone we want to see, asa maintenance function. “Nerd” would undoubtedly be sociate with or be with because they strengthen our the vernacular term for this type of individual. It is my sense of identity (Klapp, 1962; 1969) or at times alobservation that the original notion of nerd as some- low for individuals with a relatively poor self-image to thing more or less undesirable and negative—“an indi- bask in their glory (Cialdini et al. 1976). Alternatively, vidual hopelessly out of fashion, uninterested in sports heroes may help individuals to achieve a cathartic exand trendy past times, but has an excessive interest in perience by means of, for example, a sport event or a books, science, arts and/or computers, usually pursued concert (see Russel, 1993, for an overview of catharsis at a level well beyond the advancement expected for a in sport). Nobel Prize Laureate Konrad Lorenz (1966) certain age” (cf. MIT Nerd Test, 1998)—has changed argued that “while some early forms of sport, like the

920

jousting of medieval knights, may have had an appreciable influence on sexual selection, the main function of sport today lies in cathartic discharge of aggressive urge . . .” (p. 242). If so, no wonder that gifted individuals who offer the best possible entertainment—which of course is a form of escape from the daily stress of life, evoking dreams of an alternative (and perhaps better) reality and/or offering excitement and thrill—are promoted, popular and amongst the highest paid individuals in modern societies: popular musicians, Hollywood actors, footballers and ice hockey players, popular writers, visual artists and so on. Their skills are highly regarded and usually highly rewarded. Observe, however, that the relationship between entertainment and existing power hierarchies and social settings tends to be an easy and trouble-free one. From a sociobiological perspective, they usually present no challenge to societal structures and existing power hierarchies. Quite the opposite, they help maintain stability in a society by simply diverting people’s attention from other and more critical matters concerned with, for example, employment, equal opportunities, social welfare, education, discrimination, individual rights and so on which, depending on the society in which the live, may effect their daily lives dramatically in everything but a positive way. Baumeister (1991) sees thrills and excitements as a means to escape a life “in the fast lane”. He argues that “events that carry threatening implications about the self make people want to escape. They want to forget about their identities if worries are associated with them” (p. 27). Amongst the heroes in this perspective are, apart from athletes, also many musicians, artists, writers, filmmakers, actors and so on. But, not all of these remain within the function of societal entertainment. Entertainment might become satirical or ironic and start serving another social function, in which case their relationship to societal power hierarchies may change dramatically. Some heroes become agents of societal change.

R.S. Persson

and perhaps even suppress others, particularly those who have the potential to achieve societal change and where these “agents” of such change are persuasive idealists who could easily gain people’s confidence. Stigmatization and marginalization become frequent phenomena in this context. Above all, when by their knowledge and insightfulness, these gifted individuals publicly expose flaws in social systems, they also potentially pose a threat to the dominance of a certain individual or group of individuals, especially so for individuals in power who have personal gains to make if systems remain unchanged. Through history these gifted individuals have often been termed martyrs. However, the notion of a martyr in this context has a wider meaning than merely, according to religious traditions, to be someone who sacrifices his or her life for a faith or achieves something on behalf of that faith. A martyr is of course also not necessarily a gifted individual. In recent years, martyrs, as reported in the media, have become horrifically associated with terrorism and suicide bombings (Hudson, 1999). I think it fair to argue, however, that over the centuries individuals remembered for being persecuted and often murdered in their efforts to either make the world a better place or having selflessly achieved something for someone else could presumably be regarded as in various ways gifted also by contemporary theoretical definitions. It has been suggested, for example, that highly creative individuals usually lack a fit to their social context and that they have a tendency to cause more or less permanent changes in history as applied to their field of interest (cf. Gardner, 1988; Simonton, 1988; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). This is certainly true of some of the agents of social change. I can think of several modern examples: Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King and Aung San Sun Ky, all of whom became Nobel Peace Prize Laureates (see the Nobel Prize Foundations excellent overview on the Internet, with motivations for all the prizes awarded and laureates’ biographies: http://nobelprize.org). Also individuals like Sakharov (1991), Havel (1985), Valladares (2001) and Wu and Vecsey (1996) and many more known, and presumably even more unknown, belong to this group of individuals. Societal Change It is important to observe that I am not limiting this discussion to totalitarian political systems, more often As discussed earlier, not all kinds of giftedness are tied to brutal persecution of dissidents. In a sociobioliked! We obviously love and adore some for specific logical perspective, democracies do much the same, but reasons as shown above, but we also discourage, ignore usually not as brutally! Democracy in this context is

46

The Unwanted Gifted and Talented

best understood as a system of control, which in a way is designed to save us from ourselves; that is, it is usually not possible for anyone in a leading position—or for anyone aspiring to leadership—to act without being condoned by a democratic process in which not everyone will necessarily agree to what is suggested. However, human nature as prompted by biology and evolution does not differ from one culture to another and remains the same irrespective of the political system. Hardly any position of dominance in a social structure will be abandoned lightly anywhere. And when threatened it will be defended. Only the means by which positions are defended will differ depending on available control systems. The allure of gaining power and influence is presumably and equally strong everywhere, in all groups, and at all levels of society. I do not understand the notion of martyrdom in this context of gifted social function as necessarily something you seal by giving up your life (or more often throughout history: have it taken). A martyr is mainly someone who is made to suffer in a group, large or small, in spite of altruistic intentions for the sole reason their ability permanently change the social system in which they exist, partly or fully, is recognized by others, who interpret this ability as a threat to their own dominance in that particular context. A martyr is therefore often stigmatized. Few would want to have such a gifted individual in their midst if they present a potential challenge for dominance in the in-group, but paradoxically the martyr’s effort may well be applauded and praised by other individuals not in that particular in-group. As the saying goes: “No one is a prophet in their own country”. The struggles and heroism of Nelson Mandela (1991), for example, were commended by the global community, but simultaneously abhorred by the Apartheid System and its proponents then alive and well in South Africa. They did their best to eliminate the impact of Mandela’s presence. Martyrs are no longer individuals who necessarily lose their lives untimely because of inopportune and altruistic religious deeds and convictions. They are rather gifted individuals with a profound understanding of social structures and the cause and effect within social systems. These are perhaps the ones, who in the words of British philosopher Russel (2000), are governed by three strong passions: “the longing for love, the search for knowledge and understanding and an unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind”. But

921

gifted individuals prompting social change are still under persecution—and differently so depending on the cultures and political systems in which they exist. They are often the unwanted gifted individuals; unwanted even under democratic rule.

Answering the Posed Questions How come certain very gifted individuals are never allowed to flourish and develop although they exist in an environment that has both the means and the possibility to assist and stimulate such development—just like the four cases previously presented? In a sociobiological framework outlining the likely functions of gifted individuals in a social context (see Table 46.1), this question is not difficult to answer. Some gifted individuals may simply pose a threat to others around them; a threat to the self-esteem of some who feel somehow inferior. But in a larger perspective, they may also threat positions of power and influence at all levels of society. History provides countless examples of dissidents persecuted in a multitude of ways. To potentially pose a threat is what makes a sociobiological framework suitable in understanding the answer to the question. Threats are handled by animals and humans alike in mainly four ways: (1) posturing, (2) submission, (3) escape or (4) attack and elimination (Barnard, 2004; Grossman, 1995). Our first choice is generally not to eliminate the threat posed by another individual. It is rather to scare him or her off by demonstrating superiority in a variety of ways (posturing). If this is successful and we are convinced of the opposing “greater strength” we may choose to escape; to simply leave in order to seek safety elsewhere (or in line with previous discussion: marginalize ourselves to be able to keep an acceptable sense of emotional and creative equilibrium). However, we may resort to forming liaisons instead. It is better to be friend and ally to perceived superiority rather than to be its enemy (submission). As a last resort, we attack and eliminate with Table 46.1 The sociobiological functions of giftedness and talent Social function

Popular label

Maintenance Entertainment Change

The nerd The hero The martyr

922

the ultimate purpose of once and for all ridding ourselves of the threat. Needless to say, this has been done in many ways in all cultures and societies through history. Some incarcerate “inconvenient individuals” for no legally tenable reason. Others make them disappear and/or have them killed. But the more common way, especially in a democracy, is probably to defame, undermine credibility, ignore and/or ostracize such an individual. How come there is such an over-emphasis on a certain group of abilities in giftedness research, whereas others are more or less ignored? What we research and study is to a large extent governed by demand. There may be an abundance of research funding available to study, for example, the corporate careers of very successful women or the nature of innovation and creativity. But there is hardly any funding available to study “street smarts” or, say, the skills of bus drivers or the expertise of a car mechanic. What we study is largely governed by cultural and political mores and goals. No less important is that we do what it takes to make a career as a scientist. If so, being controversial would not be an advantage! This means we study that which provides societal advantages, and whether something is advantage or disadvantage is decided by dominant power structures. In itself this is not necessarily a bad thing for society, but it certainly means it becomes hard to understand human behavior in its fullness since we generally make opportune selections of phenomena for study. I therefore think it to be paramount we embrace also the politically inopportune, and dare to focus on the yet little known that does not necessarily include the talents of “heroes” and “nerds”, but rather seek to understand “the martyrs” to achieve a more balanced understanding of human behavior and giftedness. My last posed question: do we actually want gifted individuals in our midst? This question is also easy to answer in a sociobiological perspective. We want certain kinds of gifted behaviors in our midst, namely the ones that either make us feel good in a variety of ways (entertainment) or the ones who by their skills support, maintain and develop current dominant power structures (maintenance). But as soon as a gifted individual poses a threat of some kind, an entire range of reactions is triggered in the surrounding social context. The agents of change risk becoming stigmatized. A teacher may not like to be criticized by a gifted pupil and therefore ignores him or her; a professor might not tolerate the fact that a doctoral candidate is much more bril-

R.S. Persson

liant than the professor and therefore holds back on information that might benefit the student; a manager might fire someone who is better suited to be manager than he or she is; a leading politician may backstab and speak derogatory of an opponent who seems to make better sense and have better solutions to a problem; and a regime might—as history demonstrates all too clearly—eliminate dissidents with too great a potential to topple current leaders or even the entire organization or political system.

Ten Hypotheses on Gifted Individuals in Different Social Contexts Suggesting that giftedness has societal function, as based on a sociobiological framework, makes it possible to also pose testable hypotheses regarding the fate of gifted individuals in certain contexts, for example, the following: 1. A gifted individual will be favored and promoted if their skills in some ways enhance the current power hierarchy of the group in which he or she exists. 2. The type of talent dictates social acceptance and interest or non-acceptance or negligence: a) social maintenance functions will always be accepted and tolerated; b) social entertainment functions will always be accepted and tolerated, unless c) social entertainment changes function into social change and becomes a perceived threat to leaderships. 3. A gifted individual who takes on a function of societal change is accepted and promoted by a group if what they propose or do is perceived as being or generating a tangible gain and is available not too distant into the future. 4. A gifted individual who takes on a function of societal change is rarely accepted by a group if what they propose or do is perceived as a loss or gain too far away in time. 5. A gifted individual who takes on a function of societal change is never accepted by authorities (leadership/s) if what they propose or do is perceived as a threat to his/her/their position in that hierarchy.

46

The Unwanted Gifted and Talented

6. A gifted individual who takes on a function of societal change and is not accepted by authorities (leadership/s) if what they propose or do is perceived as a threat to his/her/their position in that hierarchy, will nevertheless be praised and commended by outsiders, if the gifted individual is a proponent of ideals and values adhered to by the out-group. 7. Stigmatization is a tool used to neutralize a gifted individual in a context of societal change where the gifted is seen by authorities (leadership/s) as a threat to his/her/their position in that hierarchy. 8. Marginalization is a coping strategy employed by gifted individuals in situations where they become more or less stigmatized.

References Barnard, C. J. (2004). Animal behaviour: mechanism, development and evolution. London: Pearson/Prentice-Hall. Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Escaping the self. Alcoholism, spirituality, masochism, and other flights from the burden of Selfhood. New York: BasicBooks. Benhabib, S. (Ed.) (1996). Democracy and difference. Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366–375. Crocker, J., & Quinee, D. M. (2003). Social stigma and the Self: meanings, situations and Self-esteem. In F. H. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 153–181). New York: The Guildford Press. Duchaine, B., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2001). Evolutionary psychology and the brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11(2), 225–230. Eibl-Eibesfledt, I. (1989). Human ethology. New York: Aldine de Gruyer. Fiedler, E. D. (1999). Gifted children: the promise of potential/the problems of potential. In V. L. Schwean, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of psychosocial characteristics of exceptional children (pp. 401–442). New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers. Freund, P. E. S. (1988). Bringing society into the body, 17(6), 839–864. Gardner, H. (1988). Creative lives and creative works: a synthetic scientific approach. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). The nature of creativity. Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 298–321). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist, 7, 603– 618. Grossman, D. (1995). On killing. The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society. New York: Backbay Books.

923 Hall J. M., Stevens, P. A., & Meleis, A. I. (1994). Marginalization: A guiding concept for valuing diversity in nursing knowledge development. Advances in Nursing Sciences, 16(4), 23–41. Havel, V. (1985). Power of the powerless. The citizens against the state in Central Eastern Europe. New York: M. E. Sharpe. Hudson, R. A. (1999). Who becomes a terrorist and why? The 1999 government report on profiling terrorists. Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press. Johnson, J. A., Germer, C. K., Efran, J. S., & Overton, W. F. (1988). Personality as the basis for theoretical predilections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 55(5), 824–835. Kelly-Streznewski, M. (1999). Gifted grown-ups. The mixed blessings of extraordinary potential. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kemper, T. D. (1990). Social Structure and Testosterone. Explorations of the Socio-bio-social Chain. London: Rutgers University Press. Klapp, O. E. (1962). Heroes, villains and fools. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Klapp, O. E. (1969). Collective search for identity. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Landau, R. (1990). Mut zur Begabung [Courage to be gifted]. Munich, Germany: Ernst Reinhardt Verlag. Lorenz, K. (1966). On aggression. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Machlis, J. (1979). Introduction to contemporary music (2nd ed.). London: J. M. Dent & Sons. Mandela, N. (1991). The struggle is my life. London: Pathfinder. MIT Nerd Test (1998). The Official MIT Nerd Test. http://kurtz.tcimet.net/ humour/f/mit nerd.html Montgomery, D. (Ed.) (2000). Able underachievers. London: Whurr Publishers. Neuberg, S. L., Smith, D. M., & Asher, T. (2003). Why people stigmatize: toward a biocultural framework. In F. H. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 31–61). New York: The Guildford Press. Persson, R. S. (1999). High ability, society and its future: the broader curriculum. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 8(1), 5–14. Persson, R. S. (2005). Voices in the wilderness: Counselling gifted students in a Swedish egalitarian setting. International Journal of Applied Counselling. 27(2), 263–276. Russel, B. (2000). Autobiography. London: Routledge. Russel, G. W. (1993). The social psychology of sport. New York: Springer-Verlag. Sakharov, A. (1991). Andrei Sakharov: facets of life. New York: World Scientific Publishing. Segerstr˚ale, U. (2000). Defenders of the truth. The battle for science in the sociobiology debate and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press. Shaughnessy. M. F., & Manz, A. F. (1991). Personological research on creativity in the performing and fine arts. European Journal for High Ability, 2, 91–101. Shekerjian, D. (1990). Uncommon genius, How great ideas are born. New York: Viking. Simonton, D. K. (1988). Creativity, leadership, and chance. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). The nature of creativity. Contemporary

924 psychological perspectives (pp. 386–428). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, R. L. (1995).Defying the crowd. Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: The Free Press. Storr, A. (1972). The dynamics of creation. London: Penguin Books. Suyono, H. (1996). The gifted children: human resources development to meet the Twenty-First Century. In U. Munandar, & C. Semiawan (Eds.). Optimizing excellence in human resource development (Proceedings of the Fourth Asia-Pacific Conference on Giftedness, Jakarta, 4–8 August) (pp. 71–77). Jakarta, Indonesia: University of Indonesia Press. Tee Tao, C., & Ling Quah, M. (1999). The Knowledge, Volition, and Action Programme in Singapore: the effects of an experimental intervention programme on high ability achievement. High Ability Studies, 10(1), 23–36. Valladares, A. (2001). Against all hope. A memoire of life in Castro’s Gulag. New York: Encounter Books. Vorbeck, M. (1992). Competence and responsibility: education for a united Europe. In E. A. Hany, & K. A. Heller (eds.).

R.S. Persson Competence and responsibility. The Third European Conference of the European Council for High Ability. Volume 1: Abstracts (pp. 185–189). G¨ottingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. Wallace, B., & Adams, H. B. (Eds.) (1993). Worldwide perspective on the gifted disadvantaged. Bicester, UK: A B Academic Publishers. Walsh, A. (2003). Introduction to the biosocial perspective. In A. Walsh, & L. Ellis (Eds.),Biosocial criminology: challenging environmentalism’s supremacy (pp. 3–12). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Wilms, D. (1986). Patron’s opening address. In A. J. Cropley, K. K. Urban, H. Wagner, & W. Wieczerkowski (Eds.). Giftedness: a continuing worldwide challenge (pp. 16–20). New York: Trillium Press. Wilson, E. O. (2000). Sociobiology. The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, E. O. (2004). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wu, H., & Vecsey, G. (1996).Troublemaker: one man’s crusade against China’s cruelty. New York: Crown Publishers.

Chapter 47

On Giftedness and Economy: The Impact of Talented Individuals on the Global Economy Larisa V. Shavinina

Abstract This chapter introduces a new trend in giftedness research: the study of giftedness and economy. The progress of human civilization is based on scientific, technological, educational, moral, political, and commercial achievements of the mind of its most talented individuals. The gifted are thus mainly responsible for innovations worldwide. It means that the extent of societal interest in the gifted will be eventually reflected in the level of innovations in society, that is, in its economic prosperity. Innovation is hence strongly related to giftedness, and giftedness is closely related to economy and public policy and therefore should be among the top priorities on any government’s agenda. The case study of Silicon Valley as a region of excellence based on giftedness is presented as an illustration of the impact of talented individuals on economy. Giftedness and economy is an unexplored research topic and a promising scientific direction.

asset that any country possesses,” “individuals with extraordinary developed intelligence and creativity are the most valuable gift that humankind has,” and so on (Kholodnaya, 2007). The bottom line is that the gifted represent a unique resource in a global society. But what is behind this? In fact, all these statements are eventually linked to economy. That is, the growing-up gifted and talented will make great scientific discoveries or produce ideas with money-making potential leading to the creation of new ventures and thus increasing employment. Scientific talent and entrepreneurial giftedness are cases in point. Even achievements of those gifted and talented individuals which do not look like to be directly associated with economy are actually related to it. Scientific discoveries that save lives of many people significantly enhance the level of the well-being of any society even if they do not result in immediate or great financial outcomes. Similarly, amazing Keywords Silicon Valley · Excellence · Compen- musical symphonies enrich inner worlds of citizens satory mechanisms · Talent · Innovation · Regions and thus are also contributing to the well-being of of excellence · Success · Economic development · countries. Therefore, any type of giftedness in reality contributes to the economic prosperity of human Economic prosperity being. It is interesting to point out that some governments around the world indeed understand the economic arIntroduction to the Talent-Based guments in favor of highly able children and adolesEconomy cents and try to develop the appropriate policies as well as significantly invest in gifted education. For The literature on giftedness is full of statements like example, the government of Singapore understands it “the gifted and talented children are our best resource very well. A small country with a lack of natural reavailable,” “highly able kids are the most precious sources has been realizing that the gifted and talented citizens are its most important resource. As a manifestation of it is the fact that Singapore sent 70 delL.V. Shavinina (B) egates to attend the 2007 World Giftedness ConferUniversit´e du Qu´ebec en Outaouais, Gatineau, Qu´ebec, Canada ence in the UK. This is an amazingly high number in e-mail: [email protected]

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 47, 

925

926

the proportion to all 900 delegates registered for this conference. With a few exceptions (Clinkenbird 2007; Florida, 2002, 2005), there is no literature on the subject of giftedness and economy. (And to be more precise, Florida’s (2002, 2005) research is about the role of creative class in urban economic development.) As an expert on giftedness, Clinkenbird (2007) carefully analyzed economic arguments in favor of gifted education and found that future contributions of today’s gifted to science, technology, and business are the most sound ones and governments should generously invest in educational programs for highly able children. A regional economist, Florida (2005), has written a lot about the critical role of creative and talented classes in developing and transforming societies. Giftedness and economy is therefore a new, unexplored research topic and a promising scientific direction. In my opinion, the best-known, undeniable example of the impact of the gifted and talented on the global economy is Silicon Valley in California, USA. This is the topic from which my research on giftedness and economy originated. Economists, regional geographers, policy researchers, and many other scientists working in various disciplines have been trying for decades to explain the phenomenon of Silicon Valley. However, they are far from succeeding. Governments around the world have been attempting to reproduce this phenomenon in the form of Silicon Valley North, Silicon Alleys, Silicon Irelands, and so on. Nevertheless, they did not reach remarkable results. I think that gifted and talented individuals are behind the success of Silicon Valley. In the rest of this chapter I will explain why and how it happened. This is probably the first attempt to explain the Silicon Valley phenomenon via giftedness and high abilities in general. This shows how giftedness and economy come closely together and lead to amazing achievements. Before presenting my own findings, I will first of all consider traditional accounts of the Silicon Valley phenomenon. The Silicon phenomenon was, is, and will be an extremely important phenomenon in the accelerated technological, scientific, and economic development of countries. The ever-increasing role of clusters in an era of global competition (Porter, 1998a, 1998b) fuels researchers’ interest in further understanding the world’s best-known Silicon region, California’s Silicon Valley

L.V. Shavinina

(Kenney, 2000b; Lee, 2000). Its success1 —that made it one of the most innovative and wealthy areas on the globe—inspires governments all around the world to establish Silicon Valleys, Alleys, and Islands in their own countries in order to promote economic development and prosperity (Cohen & Fields, 1999; Mathews, 1997, 1999; Shavinina, 2004). Today people increasingly realize that the Silicon phenomenon is even more important than in the past. The New Economy is a knowledge-based economy. In this kind of context innovation conceptualized as a particular transformation of knowledge and information leading to new ideas—which are beginning to rule the global economy—products and services is the key process that characterizes the New Economy (Shavinina, 2003; Swan, Scarbrough, & Robertson, 2003). Successful, creative ideas, with money-making potential produced by companies in Silicon regions and which resulted in innovations, generate long-term, sustainable economic prosperity. Due to this, the Silicon phenomenon in general—and California’s Silicon Valley in particular—have been receiving considerable attention from policy makers, management and business scholars, innovation researchers, economists, urban planners, economic geographers, sociologists, and futurists. Taken together, they provided a wide range of explanations for the “secret” of Silicon Valley, such as complex social and technical networks rooted in an industrial community (Saxenian, 1994); close proximity to Stanford and other research universities; labor mobility (Angel, 2000); advanced technology, plenty of venture capital, and entrepreneurship; specific norms and culture which predetermine the willingness to create new companies (Weiss & Delbecq, 1990); a “social structure of innovation” (i.e., an interactive set of institutions dedicated to facilitating the commercialization of new technological innovations by new companies; Florida & Kenny, 1999); a network of organizations specialized in the creation of new firms (Kenny, 2001); the specific nature of the social capital on which Silicon Valley was built and through which it continues to construct itself (Cohen & Fields, 1999); an “ecosystem” consisting of various institutions and 1

Scholars agree that “it is difficult to imagine an example of regional economic development that is more successful, or more famous, than California’s Silicon Valley” (Cohen & Fields 1999, p. 108).

47

On Giftedness and Economy

skill sets embodied in individuals united by an entrepreneurial culture (Bahrami & Evans, 2000); a set of two separate economies: one consists of existing firms, another encompasses organizations dedicated to the development of start-ups (Kenny & von Burg, 2000); and others.2 Some of these explanations intersect with one another, which is not surprising in the case of such a multidimensional and multifaceted phenomenon as Silicon Valley. Altogether, they mainly describe the know-what part of the “secret” of Silicon Valley, little is known about its know-how part, which in my opinion is the most difficult part in understanding the phenomenon of Silicon Valley. Scholars from various disciplines therefore contributed to the understanding of this phenomenon. It appears that only psychologists have not yet provided their accounts of the phenomenon of Silicon Valley. However, the time is ripe for psychological explanations. Why? There are at least a few interrelated reasons for this. First, many of the above-mentioned perspectives on the “secret” of Silicon Valley concern human behavior—both the behavior of individual (e.g., entrepreneurs) and collective (e.g., firms, intermediary organizations) actors—that is the subject of psychological analysis. It is interesting to note that economists come very closely to psychological constructs when they try to explain the success of Silicon Valley. Thus, Porter includes motivation3 along with knowledge and relationships, which form a competitive advantage of clusters in a global economy (Porter, 1998a, 1998b). The above-mentioned account by Weiss & Delbecq (1990) comprises willingness to create new firms. Cohen & Fields (1999) describe Silicon Valley as “a world of independent—even isolated—newcomers”; one of its distinguishing characteristics is “the rampant individualism among its most talented workers”; or “me-first” individualism (Rogers & Larsen, 1984). Overall, the talent pool of professionals is one of the crucial components of Silicon Valley. Bahrami & Evans (2000) emphasize skill sets or expertise embodied in individuals as an

927

essential part of Silicon Valley. Discussing why it was difficult for social sciences (economics, sociology) to explain entrepreneurship in the case of Silicon Valley, Kenney (2001a) noted, “It appears so idiosyncratic and individualistic.” Finally, many scholars pointed out that networks and networking—important constructs of social psychology—are essential characteristics of the magic of Silicon Valley (Rogers & Larsen, 1984; Saxenian, 1994).4 This brief listing demonstrates that psychological constructs are indeed included in the existing accounts of the phenomenon of Silicon Valley. The list also shows that the region’s “secret” cannot be explained only in terms of economics and related concepts. The second reason is related to the innovativeness of Silicon Valley. The region attracts worldwide attention essentially as a result of its phenomenal capacity to produce a constant flow of high-tech innovations. Entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley recognized a long time ago that the best way to be at the cutting edge of business is through innovation. Global competition is increasingly harsh and companies must continuously bring innovative products and services to the worldwide market. As any innovation originates from within the individual, that is, from his or her new idea(s), companies therefore need innovative people whose novel ideas are a necessity for the companies’ success. Employees of exceptionally innovative ability thus remain as extremely important source of innovation. Since the foundation of innovation is ideas, and it is people who “develop, carry, react to, and modify ideas” (Van de Ven, 1986), psychology in general and psychology of high abilities5 in particular has an important role to play in explaining the phenomenon of such an innovative region as Silicon Valley. Taken together, the two reasons indicate the need for psychological perspectives on Silicon Valley’s “secret,” which would complement and extend the existing economic and related approaches. Based on a synthesis of the literature, this chapter presents one psychological perspective, which fills an apparent niche in understanding Silicon Valley, especially in understanding the

2

It should be emphasized that the goal of this chapter is not to present and analyze all the existing explanations of the Silicon Valley phenomenon. Rather, its objective consists of presenting a new perspective on the success of Silicon Valley, which complements and extends the available scholarly explanations. 3 Italics in this paragraph, as well as in all the quotes in this chapter, are added by myself.

4

For an explanation of the differences between “networks” and “networking” see Swan et al. (2003). 5 The construct of high abilities refers to giftedness, talent, creativity, excellence, innovation, wisdom, exceptional intelligence, extraordinary leadership, expertise, competence, and related concepts.

928

know-how part of its “secret” and opens a new direction in research on giftedness and economy. In light of this perspective, Silicon Valley is a region of excellence, where actual actors are gifted and talented individuals who try to do their very best, sometimes surpassing themselves, or they compensate for a lack of excellence in something. The presented account in no way rejects the above-mentioned explanations of the phenomenon of Silicon Valley. Rather, it enhances and deepens the existing explanations. Such a complex phenomenon as Silicon Valley requires multidisciplinary efforts in the successful understanding of its nature.

The “Secret” of California’s Silicon Valley: Hidden Mechanisms of the Talent-Based Economy In fact, if we ask ourselves, what is so exceptional about Silicon Valley that stimulates many countries to follow it as a prototypical model, the ultimate answer is more or less known: This is the Silicon Valley’s exceptional capacity to generate and nurture technological innovations leading to the birth of dozens of the world’s most successful high-technology companies, such as Hewlett-Packard, Apple Computers, Sun Microsystems, Intel, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), Silicon Graphics, Cisco, Yahoo, 3Com, and many others. In light of the conventional wisdom of economists its general success formula is also more or less known: entrepreneurship, relatively easily accessible venture capital, institutions of higher education, which supply talented employees and conduct research, intermediary organizations, and social and technical networks (Kenney, 2000b; Rogers & Larsen, 1984; Saxenian, 1994). According to Rogers and Larsen (1984, p. 234), “The most important single factor in the rise of a “Silicon Valley” is entrepreneurial fever.” However, this is not the whole story. This chapter proposes a new perspective on the phenomenon of Silicon Valley. Specifically, the account discusses those less evident ingredients of the region’s triumph, which might be referred to as hidden mechanisms. The word “hidden” does not mean that the aspects described below were not mentioned in the literature; they were. But they were not considered as essential factors when compared to venture capital, entrepreneurship, universities, social and technical networks, and so on. Instead, I will argue that these hid-

L.V. Shavinina

den mechanisms were equally important in building the success story of Silicon Valley. And this is the real novelty of the proposed explanation.

Definitions The first and the foremost of such mechanisms, which is responsible for the Silicon Valley’s “secret,” is excellence of its gifted entrepreneurs, broadly defined. The term excellence refers to perfection, “achievement far above average” (Trost, 2000, p. 317). This is the common denominator of all possible definitions of excellence (Hunt, 1983; National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; Feldhusen, 1984; Tannenbaum, 1986). It seems reasonable to differentiate between excellence or potential excellence and excellence in execution. Any individual is excellent in something. For instance, one may have creative ideas for increasing company profits, but until implemented, we cannot give merit to excellence in execution. For example, two renowned publishing companies simultaneously receive a proposal for publishing a potentially important book. The vice-president of the first company declines, stating “lack of market appeal.” However, the second company decides to publish the book, only to become a bestseller. Both companies are excellent, due to their status in the realm of publishing business. Yet, the second company exercised excellence in execution: its editors made the right decision in detecting the merits of the book, resulting in increased company profits. Does it mean, however, that the second company is always excellent? Certainly not. Differentiating between temporal or situational excellence and more or less permanent excellence is appropriate here. When the book became a bestseller, its author tried to bring new ways to advertise it to the attention of the marketing manager, for instance, suggesting that the company is currently publishing more journals than a couple of years ago, when the initial ads were placed. New journals would be good avenues for promoting the book, yet the marketing manager did not tap this opportunity. As well, further differentiation between individual excellence and corporate excellence is warranted. The marketing manager in the above example certainly did not perform excellently. Nevertheless, he could have perfect reasons to not follow the author’s ideas. “The book is already a bestseller,” is one of them. Simi-

47

On Giftedness and Economy

larly, the vice-president of the first company had sufficient reason not to publish the book. Such nuances in understanding the term excellence demonstrate that it does not equate to success. The term success refers to “the favorable result, attainment of what is desired or intended; the issue or result of an undertaking” (The Concise English Dictionary, 1992). One may be perfectly excellent in something (e.g., knowledge of Spanish grammar), but unless it is sensibly done well (e.g., speak Spanish fluently), one is not successful. Excellence per se does not constitute success. Excellence in execution of the Silicon Valley’s gifted entrepreneurs is therefore a key term and the focal point in the explanation of the Valley’s phenomenon.

929

Virtually every generation6 of the Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurs, as well as their start-ups, have been constantly demonstrating excellence in many aspects of their business activity. As many of them did not have managerial backgrounds, their understanding of excellence was often based on a simple, uncompromising edict: do your best. They really attempted perfection in all aspects of their business activities, sometimes surpassing themselves. It looks like they were internally motivated to make every effort to achieve excellence. Rogers and Larsen (1984) found that, “It isn’t enough just to be hard-working and dedicated. Meritocracy reigns supreme in Silicon Valley and that means knowing what you are doing. . . It’s what you know; intelligence is mandatory. . .” (p. 139). If intelligence of gifted entrepreneurs is responsible for the what part of the success, then their excellence is responsible for its how part. Peters (1988) asserts, “There are no excellent companies” (p. 3). This is probably true in the case of large, mature corporations. However, this is not entirely correct in the case of recently created firms. Start-ups, being by definition at the early, critical stage of their development (the so-called “sensitive periods” in organi-

zational development), try to attempt perfection in all aspects of their business activities. The reality is that there are always people in any company who really want to excel. There are certainly many multifaceted, sometimes overlapping manifestations of the excellence of key players in Silicon Valley. The overlapping occurs because companies were excellent in many—if not in all—aspects of their business activities. As Robert Noyce, one of the founders of Intel and its vicechairman, put it, “I believe that Intel has been a very successful company, that we have innovated in terms of how things are done, in terms of management styles, and in terms of culture as well as product. . .” (italics added; Salerno, 1980, p. 129). The following distinct and at the same time interrelated manifestations of excellence have turned the region into a versatile system of excellence: 1. All key players, and especially entrepreneurs, in Silicon Valley highly value excellence as a worthy goal per se. As one semiconductor executive who has worked in Silicon Valley for three decades told, “Here in Silicon Valley there is far greater loyalty to one’s craft than to one’s company. A company is just a vehicle, which allows you to work. If you are a circuit designer it is important for you to do excellent work. If you cannot in one firm, you will move on to another one” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 36).7 This is why they frequently changed jobs, and high job mobility was the norm, not the exception. As an example, Intel was known for recruiting high achievers to work in the company and for its encouragement of excellence through competitive achievement (Salerno, 1980, p. 124). Silicon Valley companies relied, to a significant extent, on external suppliers, which acquired a great deal of expertise in developing certain products or processes. Relying on best experts and top talents in the field means nothing else than relying on excellence of the gifted. Thus, Frederick Terman, an electrical engineering professor at Stanford University, who is considered the godfather of Silicon Valley, realized this many years ago when he proposed a special strategy for “steeples of excellence.” According to Terman,

6

7

Manifestations of the Silicon Valley Excellence

“Virtually all generations” refers to early semiconductor companies like Hewlett-Packard, semiconductor companies of the 1960s–1970s, semiconductor equipment companies of the 1980s, and the 1980s-generation computer firms.

In my opinion, Saxenian’s book and Rogers and Larsen’s book are the most comprehensive accounts available on Silicon Valley. I will therefore rely to a great extent on the “lived” experiences of the actual actors presented in these books.

930

“Academic prestige depends upon high but narrow steeples of academic excellence, rather than upon coverage of more modest height extending solidly over a broad discipline” (quoted in Rogers & Larsen, 1984, p. 36). In a similar way one engineer described the talent of employees in his small R&D company: “. . .I work with extremely bright and capable people who move quickly, both intellectually and conceptually. I have to use every wily trick I can think of just to survive” (Rogers & Larsen, 1984, p. 139). Saxenian (1994) concluded that shared commitment to technological excellence unified Silicon Valley’s community even under persistent competitive pressure. 2. Entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley created an exceptionally democratic atmosphere or humanistic culture in their start-up companies, rejecting the idea of a social hierarchy and any social distinctions. This is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the gifted. Specifically, entrepreneurs did their best in eliminating the usual boundaries between employers and employees and between corporate functions within the company. They refused such things as executive offices, special parking lots, executive dining rooms, and other privileges for top management. As Robert Noyce pointed out, “If Intel were divided into workers and bosses, with the implication that each side had to squeeze its money out of the hides of the other, the enterprise would be finished. Motivation would no longer be internal; it would be objectified in the deadly form of work rules and grievance procedures” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 56). This specific culture made Intel Intel (Salerno, 1980, p. 123). Intrinsic motivation is another key characteristic of the gifted. It is important to emphasize that talented entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley not simply initiated the democratic atmosphere in their companies; they were excellent in supporting this atmosphere in all possible manifestations. Thus, they treated people fairly, trusting them and in their ability to produce innovative ideas, and granting them an exceptionally high extent of professional freedom to execute on these ideas, all the while rewarding their work generously. According to Rogers and Larsen (1984, p. 146), “Being nice to one’s employees with financial rewards, exercise facilities, and calling them by their first names seems to be good business sense in Silicon Valley.” It does not contradict the fact that Silicon Valley’s people were internally motivated to make every effort to achieve excellence. Rather, all the high-powered

L.V. Shavinina

financial incentives that were part of the standard package, the lavish benefits, and the like constitute the external motivation that significantly increased the individual’s internal motivation. In fact, talented entrepreneurs intuitively applied a common sense wisdom known for centuries: treat all as you want to be treated. Specifically, they did their best in promoting a sense of teamwork, open and informal communication, initiative, and a participative style well before experts on project team management figured out that these are the optimal conditions for successfully realizing projects and crucial factors for high-performance teams (Bennis & Biederman, 1997; Hershock, Cowman, & Peters, 1994; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). As one of the Silicon Valley’s executives pointed out, “The most important communications that occur in our company are informal, the ad hoc meetings that occur when we walk around the plant. Structured meetings held between 2:30 and 3:30 P.M. on specific topics really are atypical” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 54). In other words, not only did Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurs successfully manage technological innovations in their companies, but they also did their best in managing people, the human—and critically important—side of any business (Katz, 1997). The obvious consequence of the democratic and creative atmosphere was not just a group of people working together in the same company, but a community with the common objectives and team spirit, and passionate employees with a commitment to company goals. Only in such an informal environment employees could do their best: be excellent in their respective roles and outperform themselves by constantly producing great ideas and working long hours to implement them into practice in the form of new products, processes, and services. It was a chain reaction: the excellence in one direction initiated by top management led to excellence in many other directions, vital for the company’s prosperity. The rule was simple: if top management did its best (from the viewpoint of common sense), employees did their best, too. Another consequence of the democratic atmosphere or the humanistic culture in Silicon Valley’s companies was enhanced motivation or enthusiasm in employees. As one engineer pointed out, “. . . We were all treated well, and there was a sense that everyone knew what was going on and everyone could get a piece of the wealth through stock options. Our attitude was ‘we are

47

On Giftedness and Economy

all in this together, so let us work hard and let us play hard’ (Saxenian, 1994, p. 55). In this light it is not surprising at all that many observers felt companies in Silicon Valley demonstrated a unique management style (Rogers & Larsen, 1984, p. 146). This is because senior managers in those companies were gifted individuals. 3. Talented entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley were also excellent in creating decentralized organizations, which were particularly suitable for rewarding individual initiative and creativity and keeping the focus and responsiveness of start-up companies. For example, Cypress Semiconductor demonstrated an exceptionally innovative approach in this regard. When it reached $100 million in sales, the company adopted a venture capital model. Its CEO, T. J. Rodgers, saw his goal to “become a $1 billion company made up of ten loosely linked $100 million subsidiaries. The four subsidiaries. . . receive cash, management advice, and contacts (as in traditional venture capital arrangement), as well as access to one another’s sales and distribution channels and fabrication facilities” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 196). Such excellence in decentralization of their companies allowed them to develop and introduce innovative products faster than their more integrated, large competitors. For instance, Cirrus Logic and Chips and Technologies shortened their development times to 9 months in comparison to more than 2 years, the normal new-product lead-time in the industry of the day (Saxenian, 1994). Similarly, when Sun became a $3.5 billion company in 1990, the company broke itself into five companies. The idea behind such decentralization was to bring the market “inside the company.” The management of each company or “planet” was granted full responsibility for profit and loss and its own independent sales force. Interestingly, these five companies were stimulated to look for business opportunities even if their actions might harm another Sun planet. Saxenian provided examples of how Sun companies worked in this direction (Saxenian, 1994). In doing so, Sun successfully followed common sense wisdom, namely, customers would better identify than managers as to where Sun was competitive and really added value, and where it was not and should therefore rely on external partners to continue to be a radically innovative company. Rogers and Larsen concluded that the goal of rapidly growing large companies in Silicon Valley is to retain the entrepreneurial spirit of the small company. They found that a favored way to do this is

931

by decentralization, delegating greater responsibility to managers. Thus, “when a division reaches 1,500 employees at Hewlett-Packard, it becomes a separate administrative unit, and employees are encouraged to identify with the division rather than with the H-P worldwide monolith” (Rogers & Larsen, 1984, pp. 145–146). These examples show a real impact of decentralized organizational structures on the ability of highly able individuals to produce technological breakthroughs. This is why one CEO in Silicon Valley advised, “Avoid vertical integration like the plague. Vertical integration forces a company to build in a high fixed cost, which assures loss of profitability when volume drops. . .” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 125). However, an interesting question might emerge. How is excellence related to decentralization when Silicon Valley companies continuously re-organize and try to strike a dynamic balance between centralization and decentralization? Excellence is also about a constant search for new ways to be excellent. As pointed out above, it is not feasible to mention every sub-manifestation of Silicon Valley’s key players’ excellence in this chapter. If company X is excellent in decentralization, which contributes to its success, then that is fine. If company Y needs a dynamic balance between centralization and decentralization in order to succeed, then the company should be excellent in this dialectical balance. No aspect of one’s excellence is important per se (e.g., decentralization, rapid prototyping, constant flow of innovation, and so on), but constant excellence in any of the aspects which an individual or company is using. The “know-what” part plays a relatively secondary role in comparison to the functional “know-how” role. 4. All key players in the Silicon Valley were excellent in developing intensive informal communication networks, which supported collaboration and stimulated experimentation (e.g., creativity), transcending company boundaries. For instance, they openly communicated with competitors. Openness to everything new is a distinguishing characteristic of the gifted. They are not afraid of anything (Shavinina, 1995). As one experienced CEO said, “This is a culture in which people talk to their competitors. If I had a problem in a certain area, I felt no hesitation to call another CEO and ask about the problem—even if I did not know him. . .” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 33). Another executive added, “. . .I have senior engineers who are

932

constantly on the phone and sharing information with our competitors. I know what my competitors say in their speeches and they know what I say in private conversations” (Saxenian, 1994, pp. 36–37). Frequent face-to-face communication is needed to sustain successful collaboration. Foreigners were very impressed by such extreme openness and informal communication networks. As one German engineer recalled, “I was sent by my company to visit our representative in Sunnyvale, in order to get help with a particular technical problem. . . Our guy had part of the answer, and he knew where to find the rest of the information. After work, he took me to a bar in Silicon Valley. Then he called over engineers from adjoining tables, who were acquaintances of his. They really enjoyed telling us what to do. By 9 pm, I had the solution to our company’s problem. The next morning I flew back to Stuttgart. I was really amazed at how freely people cooperate in California” (Rogers & Larsen, 1984, p. 84). 5. Open informal communication—a distinguishing characteristic of giftedness—led to high-trust business relationships, which, in turn, resulted into accelerated speed of information exchange. As one manager at Apple noted, “We have found you do not always need a formal contract. . . If you develop trust with your suppliers, you do not need armies of attorneys” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 149). Fast tempo of information exchange explains in part Silicon Valley’s competitive advantage in generating high-tech innovations. Nolan Bushnell—a gifted entrepreneur in all respects— exemplified this point in a following way, “There’s a tremendous amount of networking here in Silicon Valley, unmatched anywhere else. I recently visited a group of engineers in London who were working on a new product in competition with a group here in Silicon Valley. Both started at the same time, but the Silicon Valley team got the jump by six months. Our group included an engineer that had a friend working at Intel. He smuggled out a couple of prototypes of a new chip that was just what they needed. The chip was soon to be on the market, but it wasn’t yet in the catalog. Intel was very happy because there were some immediate buyers. Just that six months shows that we have tremendous advantage here. That’s why Silicon Valley is always ahead” (Rogers & Larsen, 1984, p. 80). Key players in the Silicon Valley were excellent in making quick decisions based on their intuition. As it is discussed in my other chapters in this volume, intu-

L.V. Shavinina

ition is an important part of the extracognitive abilities of the gifted in general, and of gifted entrepreneurs and talented managers in particular. One observer emphasized “intuitive, quick-fire approach” in Silicon Valley, pointing out that “tactical decisions that take six weeks in Boston can take anywhere from six days to six nanoseconds in Cupertino. . .” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 68). As one venture capitalist noted, “Somehow, companies in California get things done faster, deals go down faster. . . they seem to run with technology faster; each year we are spending money faster there” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 105; italics added). It is interesting to note that a quick and accurate decision-making process or speed of human information processing is considered as one of the distinguishing characteristics of highly intellectual individuals (Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). One can therefore see the chain reaction again: The timely new information received from reliable personal networks was definitely more important in fast-changing industry than conventional, but less timely professional journals and meetings at conferences. As one Silicon Valley executive observed, “There is an absolute desire to be highly informal on the West Coast. Individuals find it easy to communicate quickly. This informality allows us to share consensus and move rapidly” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 54; italics added). This quick decision-making process and informality—another distinguishing characteristic of the gifted—led to the general fast pace of business activity in Silicon Valley that, in its turn, had many manifestations (e.g., the quick tempo with which new companies were spun off from Fairchild Semiconductor and other large corporations). 6. Talented entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley were excellent in cooperation, in developing habits of informal cooperation and a wide range of cooperative practices. It was their way of life: their way to successful continuous innovations in an environment of high technological volatility. As Silicon Graphics CEO told, “Our engineers jointly design products with other companies. We do not worry if they go and sell them to our competitors. Our whole style is not to compete defensively, but to take the offensive. The world is changing too fast to just try to defend your position. In order to keep up with change, you have to be on the offensive all the time. . . The key is to have products that are good” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 150). Silicon Graphics was not an exception. As one AMD executive

47

On Giftedness and Economy

pointed out, “AMD has the reputation of being close to our customers, by helping them design their systems around our chips. . .” (Rogers & Larsen, 1984, p. 49). They did not want to collaborate for the sake of it; they wished to gain the best from cooperation. And this strive for excellence strategy rewarded all players involved in collaboration. Individuals and companies in Silicon Valley participated in joint problem solving and were mutually interested in one another’s success. 7. They were extremely excellent in creating an open business environment, both inside and outside their companies, that accelerated the exchange of know-what and know-how. It manifested itself, for example, in open communication that guaranteed open knowledge sharing and fast exchange of information and in openness to risk-taking, both at the levels of individuals, companies, and technological community as a whole. Thus, at Intel, when the company was smaller, Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore had lunch every Thursday with a random group of employees. Employees were encouraged to say whatever they think. For example, a new engineer was supposed to challenge Noyce or other engineers with differing ideas. Later, when Intel became large, it began to break down. However, the tradition was set up and lunch discussions continued to be held at smaller group levels (Salerno, 1980, p. 125). Another executive compared the specific business environment in Silicon Valley with that of other regions in the following way: “The communication patterns are clearly different in Silicon Valley. There is far more openness and much less worrying about whether someone goes around you. There is not only a tendency not to follow channels, there is a deliberate attempt to stimulate a wide variety of ideas. Innovations bubble up in unexpected places. Champions receive support from unexpected sponsors. . .” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 54). 8. These intensive informal communication networks, democratic atmosphere or humanistic culture, and open business environment provided a strong foundation for excellent flourishing of creativity. As one gifted executive noted, “. . .a management style that permits geniuses to contribute is important. If you were to look at why GE and RCA have failed [in semiconductors], it is because their organization was too disciplined and unable to respond quickly to true innovation” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 82). True creativity, which leads to innovations, cannot prosper

933

in highly disciplined environment (Amabile, 1998; Kiely, 1993; Leavitt & Lipman-Blumen, 1995; Lehr 1979; Mumford, 2000). Creative giftedness flourishes when a great degree of freedom, openness, and supervisory encouragement are provided and reasonable deadlines are set up (Amabile, 1998). Saxenian (1994) pointed out that a decentralized and fluid social climate accelerated the diffusion of new technological knowledge with amazing speed within the Silicon Valley industrial community. What was not explicitly emphasized is the fact that the diffused knowledge was re-combined, modified, and elaborated by its receivers in multiple ways into new ideas; and this is the essence of creativity or new knowledge creation. It is not therefore surprising that Silicon Valley experienced multiple trajectories of the development of technological innovations simultaneously that resulted into a wide range of cutting-edge new products, which were often rapidly introduced to the marketplace. This is one of the reasons why entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley were very good in sensing new market opportunities, new technological trends, and new product developments. Another reason is the highly developed extracognitive abilities of gifted entrepreneurs (see Shavinina’s chapter on the nature of giftedness; this volume). As a result, Silicon Valley as a whole was able to continuously create new markets and industrial sectors. The gifted are primary responsible for generating innovation and this is why giftedness is closely related to economy. The end of the 1980s particularly demonstrated that competition was increasingly based on exceptional creativity, that is, on companies’ ability to add value (i.e., to see new applications and improvements in performance, quality, and service) rather than simply on lowering costs. The ease of new firm formation (e.g., easy access to venture capitalists, which were mainly former talented entrepreneurs themselves) also contributed to pursuing multiple paths of technological development. In discussing creativity at both the individual and regional levels the most important factor was therefore that Silicon Valley entrepreneurs were mostly highly creative people, whose internal or intrinsic motivation to create—new products, new companies, and so on— was behind their success. This motivation to create was a driving force for them; and this is one key to their excellence. Thus, many of the special marketing strategies used by AMD came from the creative mind of its CEO, Jerry Sanders. As his former colleagues said, “It

934

was Jerry that thought of producing all of our semiconductors to Mil Spec 883 [military specifications for semiconductor quality, set by the U.S. Department of Defense] so that our customers knew we were up to a high quality standard, even though we sold very little to Defense” (Rogers & Larsen, 1984, p. 51). Sanders was also credited with creating a variety of price incentives for customers. For example, AMD was the first company to offer price breaks on the purchase of a mixture of 100 semiconductor chips. As with all creatively gifted people, engineers in Silicon Valley often experienced frustration, disappointment, and similar feelings when they were unable to develop and implement their ideas in the current workplace. I want to make it clear that in spite of all the highly positive characteristics of the unique business environment in Silicon Valley discussed above, some organizations were not still conducive to gifted entrepreneurs. One Silicon Valley venture capitalist very well illustrated this point emphasizing that “The presumption is that employees of the big companies leave and go to venture companies to found start-ups to make more money. That is not the way. Andy Grove, Bob Noyce and others left Fairchild to found Intel, not to make more money. They left to make a product that Fairchild was either unable or unwilling to make or, for whatever reason, did not get around to making. That is why ventures are started: from lack of responsiveness in big companies. . . The only reason good people leave is because they become frustrated. They want to do something they cannot do in their present environment”(Saxenian, 1994, pp. 112–113). Careers of T. J. Rodgers of Cypress Semiconductors and Gordon Campbell of Chips and Technologies also support this observation. They both left jobs at large semiconductor companies being frustrated by their employers’ growing isolation from customers and unwillingness to assimilate new ideas and inability to sense new market opportunities. Rogers and Larsen (1984, p. 66) found that a very high level of energy, motivated in part by dissatisfaction with their present position, was one of the distinguishing characteristics of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Abound energy is an important personality trait of gifted and talented individuals (Shavinina, 1995). It should be highlighted that every manifestation of the Silicon Valley key players’ excellence has many sub-manifestations, all of which I will not be able to consider in this chapter. It is also true that many various

L.V. Shavinina

factors contributed to the appearance of every manifestation of their excellence. In this respect Ray’s course on creativity offered by the Stanford University School of Business played a certain role in developing the creative abilities of entrepreneurs and engineers in Silicon Valley (Ray & Myers, 1989). At a minimum, the course contributed to increasing awareness of creativity in those students who attended it. Creativity experts can definitely debate its content and the overall impact on the performance of Silicon Valley. There is no reason, however, to assert that its impact was negligible. Evaluation studies on creativity training demonstrate that it is difficult to evaluate all the multifaceted impacts of such programs on emerging creative ideas in students’ minds, especially if the ideas appear in the shorter versus longer timeframes. 9. Entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley did their best in tolerating failures. Not all Silicon Valley start-ups became successful ventures, some of them failed. Understanding that failure is an integral part of risk-taking, failures were socially acceptable in Silicon Valley. As one expert noted, “In Silicon Valley, failure is an accepted way of life, unlike the East where failure is viewed as a death sentence. . .” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 68). In fact, the Silicon Valley businessmen intuitively followed dialectical nature of risk-taking, namely: if you are open to and highly encourage risk-taking, you have to be equally open to its consequences, one of which is failure. The positive side of failure is definitely its contribution to learning and developing professional experience and eventually to the appearance of innovation. One executive pointed out, “Everybody knows that some of the best presidents in the Valley are people that have stumbled” (Saxenian, 1994, pp. 111–112). John Sculley, the Apple Computer CEO emphasized, “In Silicon Valley, if someone fails, we know they are in all likelihood going to reappear in some other company in a matter of months” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 111). They were excellent in understanding how failure is important for personal, organizational, and regional successes. Success by learning from failure was the norm for Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. As one executive noted, “Unless failure is possible, no learning is possible. . . in the realm of ideas, unless falsification is possible, learning is not possible. As a matter of fact, in information theory, no information is transmitted unless negation is possible, and so the tolerance of failure is absolutely critical to the success

47

On Giftedness and Economy

of Silicon Valley. If you do not tolerate failure, you cannot permit success. The successful people have a lot more failures than the failures do” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 112). Such excellence in failure tolerance was the norm in Silicon Valley well before management scholars, business consultants, and practitioners highlighted it as a desirable leadership style (i.e., the failure-tolerant leadership) and a reliable way to innovation (Deschamps, 2003; Farson & Keyes, 2002; Lehr, 1979). 10. In a highly competitive business environment characterized by shorter product cycles and accelerating technological change, entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley were excellent in applying common sense and intuition. Wisdom and intuition are critical elements of giftedness (see Shavinina’s chapter on the nature of giftedness, this volume). Examples of intuition and wisdom are abundant in Silicon Valley. Thus, when Sun Microsystems was working on its first product, the founders, all in their twenties, decided to adopt the Unix operating system developed by AT&T because they felt that the market would never accept a workstation custom designed by four graduate students. Sun also used standard, readily available components by relying on outside suppliers. A consequence was that the Sun products were cheaper to produce and lower priced than that of competitors. Sun was therefore a pioneer in recognizing customers’ preferences for standard operating systems (Saxenian, 1994). Another manifestation of Sun’s ability to excel in applying common sense wisdom was already mentioned above when Sun broke itself into five quasiindependent companies allowing them, for instance, to sell their products even to competitors. The common sense in this case was to mainly let customers—not Sun’s managers—to identify where Sun was or was not innovative and competitive. Usually, Silicon Valley start-ups were founded by a group of engineers—friends and/or former colleagues—who developed a certain deal of expertise working in other companies and who had an innovative idea, which they could not realize in their current workplace. They deliberately avoided hiring professional managers. Thus, Intel preferred to recruit recent graduates of schools of engineering rather than experienced managers. Interestingly, many of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs did not have any managerial background. They just did their best in applying common sense to managing their companies; they

935

relied on intuition. As one executive noted, “. . .In semiconductors, it turned out that it was better to have a new industry filled with young people who did not know much about how you were supposed to do business” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 81). Youth is associated with creative imagination, risk-taking, openness to everything new and other characteristics of highly able individuals. It was definitely good from the viewpoint of excellence to hire young people: minds of young Silicon Valley engineers/entrepreneurs were not restricted by certain norms imposed by traditional theories of management and business schools. As a result, they were able to actively experiment with organizational alternatives in addition to multiple technological innovations. In other words, their open minds were sensitive to any creative ideas. Later business scholars studied managerial styles of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs as exemplary ones. For example, the Harvard Business School prepared a special case about Hewlett-Packard way of management. They were simply excellent in using common sense and intuition. Excellence is not equal to knowledge of how to do business or to university degrees. It is something above that, as well as above any other attributes of conventional wisdom associated with successful business development. It is worth noting that a highly intuitive decision-making process is one of the essential characteristics of creative people (Shavinina, 2003; Shavinina & Ferrari, 2004). Interestingly, when some executives compared Silicon Valley business culture with that of the large East Coast companies, they noted the formality of the communication process, emphasizing that “there is so much staff work done before top managers see anything, so much report generation that you are not really involved intuitively in key decisions. . .” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 54). Silicon Valley entrepreneurs’ “intuitive, quick-fire approach” to decision making was already mentioned above. Similarly, they intuitively realize the importance of positive emotions—of having fun—for high performance on truly innovative technological projects. For instance, while the traditional American corporations of the East Coast enforced a dress code, Sun Microsystems’s employees showed up in gorilla suits on Halloween. Everything was natural in Silicon Valley companies in this respect. They followed their common sense well before management scholars found that fun is one of the distinguishing characteristics of effective teams (Smith, Harris, Myersclough, & Wood, 2000).

936

11. Engineers and entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley were excellent not only in anticipating new market opportunities and promising technological advances; they were equally excellent in developing new products, many of which turned out to be breakthrough innovations. To paraphrase Ted Hoff, the inventor of the microprocessor, they “looked forward to inventing technologies that would soon have a huge impact on consumers” (Rogers & Larsen, 1984, p. 111). It looks like they did not simply want new products, they wanted excellent, the best possible products, products at the cutting edge of that day’s technology. As Robert Noyce noted, “Intel is working on the edge of disaster. We are absolutely trying to do those things which nobody else could do from a technical point of view” (Salerno, 1980, p. 129). Another case in point is Sun Microsystems. Thus, rather than manufacturing the new chip itself for its workstations, or subcontracting it to a single maker, the company set up collaboration with five semiconductor manufacturers. Each manufacturer used its own technological process to develop the required microprocessor. The final chips were common in design, but had different speed and price. It looks like the Sun Microsystems strategy was to choose the best from the best. Interestingly enough that after receiving the chips, Sun Microsystems encouraged these manufacturers to sell the chips to its competitors. This allowed Sun Microsystems to expand acceptance of its architecture that led to increasing market share. As Saxenian (1994) noted, Silicon Valley companies competed by rapidly introducing differentiated and high-value-added products. 12. Likewise, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs were excellent in reducing time-to-market process, in rapid introduction of new designs of best products. According to an Intel sales manager, “If you stop for a week in this industry, I swear you would lose your technological state of the art knowledge. There is nothing about a two-year-old product that I couldn’t divulge to my competitors. A one-year-old product, you might not be able to tell everything, but a two-year-old is old” (Rogers & Larsen, 1984, p. 50). As Robert Noyce emphasized, “We’re in an intensely competitive industry where change is very rapid, and there is no resting on your laurels because you’ll get wiped out next year if you just sit back” (Salerno, 1980, p. 128). Another manager pointed out, “There is a real urgency here. . . For us, the timing is tremendous. Beating a competitor to market by 60 days may be the difference between

L.V. Shavinina

surviving and going under. Whoever gets to the marketplace first makes a splash” (Rogers & Larsen, 1984, pp. 137–138). In a similar way, an executive at 3Com stated, “One of the things that Silicon Valley lets you do is minimize the costs associated with getting from idea to product. Vendors here can handle everything. If you specify something. . . you can get hardware back so fast that your time-to-market is incredibly short” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 114). The presence of a wide range of sophisticated local customers was important in this respect and this eventually led to success of many startups. As one executive at a semiconductor company told, “When we come out with the specs for a new product, we take them to a series of companies that we have relations with. . . and they will give us feedback on the features they like and do not like. It is an iterative process: we define a product, we get feedback and improve it, we refine it and develop associated products. The process feeds on itself. And the fact that these customers are nearby means that the iterations are faster; rapid communication is absolutely critical to ensuring fast time-to-market” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 114). An interesting question might emerge. If the term “excellence” refers to “perfection,” then how can the offered perspective explain reliance on experimentation and rapid prototyping by many successful companies in Silicon Valley? The proposed explanation emphasizes excellence in any aspect of an individual’s business activity. In other words, any person and any company can be excellent in fast experimentation and rapid prototyping, too. Also, fast experimentation and rapid prototyping are necessary steps in the innovation process. 13. Taking into account the outstanding role played by Stanford University in developing Silicon Valley, it should be stressed that its professors did their best in encouraging students to start up new companies and commercialize their ideas by developing new products. The case in point is definitely exemplified in Frederick Terman, an electrical engineering professor, who encouraged his graduate students Bill Hewlett and David Packard to commercialize an audio-oscillator that Bill Hewlett had designed while working on his master’s thesis. Terman lent Bill and David “$538 to start producing the machine, he helped them find work to finance their initial experiments, and he arranged a loan from a Palo Alto bank, which allowed them to begin commercial production” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 20). Obviously, Terman’s exceptional support of his students

47

On Giftedness and Economy

significantly exceeded the usual limits of traditional professorial encouragement. Later, when Terman was Dean of Engineering at Stanford University, he extended the scope of his support to start-ups and entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley by establishing and promoting the Stanford Research Institute, the Honors Cooperative Program, and the Stanford Industrial Park. It is safe to assert that professors at Stanford University were excellent in stimulating the development of entrepreneurial giftedness and innovation talent in their students. It is interesting to note that Frederick Terman was a son of Lewis Terman, a well-known psychologist who initiated the famous longitudinal study of gifted children in California. 14. Silicon Valley venture capitalists (usually former entrepreneurs and engineers themselves) were excellent in moving very rapidly on promising opportunities, in believing in new entrepreneurs, and in making fast decisions. Saxenian (1994) provided many examples demonstrating that for many entrepreneurs, it took only a few days or even minutes to finance their start-ups. Thus, the founder of a successful computer company recalled, “When I started Convergent, I got commitments for $2.5 million in 20 minutes from three people over lunch who saw me write the business plan on the back of a napkin. They believed in me. . .” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 65). Intermediary organizations also demonstrated excellence in their business activities. For example, Regis McKenna, Inc., a public relations company, was quite successful in inventing new marketing strategies, which suited a world of fast-changing innovative markets and complex, advanced high-tech products. Specifically, the company developed a new approach to marketing, “an approach that takes into account the dynamic changes in industries and markets. It is an approach that stresses the building of relationships rather than the promotion of products, the communication of concepts rather than the dispersal of information, and the creation of new markets rather than the sharing of old ones” (McKenna, 1986, p. 4). 15. Understanding that cutting-edge innovations require intense concentration, talented engineers, and gifted entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley were excellent in working incredibly long hours over extended periods of time. As Rogers and Larsen pointed out, “a distinctive life-style and work-style is found in Silicon Valley. Engineers put in fifteen-hour days and seven-day weeks. . .” (Rogers & Larsen, 1984, p. 29).

937

For instance, Robert Noyce characterized the working environment at Intel as “confident, but not relaxed” (Salerno, 1980, p. 122). The essential aspect of the Intel culture is that “we expect people to work hard” (Salerno, 1980, p. 123). “When people come in from other companies. . . they just don’t believe the intensity of Intel” (Salerno, 1980, p. 128). This is the “price,” which Intel—as well as other innovative companies in Silicon Valley—paid in order to be the front-runner in a fast-moving high-tech industry. High-ability researchers found a long time ago that gifted and talented individuals are hard working, exceptionally focused on their task at hand (Renzulli, 1986; Roe, 1952; Shavinina, 1995). These 15 multifaceted, sometimes overlapping, facets testify to an excellence in many aspects of business activities demonstrated by the key players in Silicon Valley.8 As was emphasized above, excellence is associated with giftedness and many of the identified facets of excellence are in fact distinguishing characteristics of the gifted. Therefore, one can suggest that entrepreneurs and engineers in Silicon Valley were gifted and talented individuals. The 15 identified manifestations of excellence can be grouped into four clusters. Trust, informality, humanistic culture, and democratic approaches form the first cluster, which could be called the “democracy” or “democratic” cluster. Fast-to-market, quick decision making, and accelerated speed of information exchange constitute the second, “time” cluster. Open business environment and cooperation form the third, “openness” cluster. Finally, flourishing of creativity, developing new products, tolerating failures, professors’ encouragement, and using wisdom and intuition outline the fourth, “creativity” cluster. Also, the 15 manifestations of excellence can be differentiated into qualities of excellence at the “individual” level (be it the person, the venture, or the corporation) and those that operate at the “ecosystem” level. In this light, trust, informality, and democratic approaches belong to the manifestations of excellence at the “ecosystem” level.

8 It should be emphasized that my goal was not to identify distinguishing features of Silicon Valley per se but to identify manifestations of excellence in its key players. Although distinguishing features of Silicon Valley and the manifestations of its excellence overlap to a great extent, indeed, they are not entirely the same.

938

Compensatory Mechanisms The second mechanism in building the success story of Silicon Valley is the conscious or unconscious use of compensatory mechanisms by its talented key players. It testifies to their highly developed metacognitive abilities. The essence of compensatory mechanisms is straightforward: if you are not exceedingly excellent in some aspects of your business activity, then compensate for that. To put it even more briefly: be excellent in compensating for your lack of excellence in something. The case in point is Sun Microsystems. Whether its young gifted founders realized it or not, but they did their best in using compensatory mechanisms. The above-mentioned examples demonstrate that Sun Microsystems continually evaluated its “points of excellence” (i.e., those products and processes in which it could add value) and tried to develop them. Alternatively, Sun Microsystems subcontracted [to other specialized companies] those components [of their workstations] in which it did not have a great expertise. Sun Microsystems therefore understood and successfully applied the simple rule of compensatory mechanisms: if you are not competitive—that is, if you are not excellent—rely on partners and/or suppliers who are. The compensatory mechanisms can therefore manifest themselves in conscious relying on strengths and avoiding weaknesses. For example, an integral element of Intel’s long-range strategic planning is the analysis of its strengths and weaknesses, as well as the avoidance of certain areas of business. As Robert Noyce emphasized, “We build on strength and try to stay out of competition where we’re weak” (Salerno 1980, p. 129). Sun Microsystems and Intel were not the exceptions in Silicon Valley. The computer producers MIPS, Pyramid, Tandem, and Silicon Graphics all relied to a great extent on networks of external suppliers. Thus, Silicon Graphics CEO pointed out that his company largely relied on “interdisciplinary teams that focus on bringing new products to market fast” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 143). By extending the definition of an interdisciplinary team (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993), I would say that this is a group of people with complementary knowledge bases and skills that allows its members to compensate for a lack of certain kinds of expertise at the team level. Moreover, it looks like the entire way of doing business in Silicon Valley consciously or unconsciously

L.V. Shavinina

applied compensatory mechanisms. For example, the typical Silicon Valley start-up usually included talented people from a range of companies and industries, which therefore represented a combination of technical and corporate competencies. Managerial and engineering teams were consequently ready to compensate for a lack of excellence in something just from the beginning. Thus, Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven (1990) research showed that the heterogeneity of past professional experiences among founders of semiconductor start-ups was correlated with higher growth. In order to be highly profitable and compete with large companies which produced memory and other commodity devices, the new semiconductor companies of the 1980s successfully compensated for usual weaknesses of start-ups. Specifically, they created a new market of high-value-added chips by relying heavily on the proximity of customers, engineering talent, specialized suppliers, and fast information exchange via social networks. As Weitek founder and CEO pointed out, “Contrast commodity products which have no engineering content and are priced at cost with Weitek chips which have high engineering content, small output, and high-value-added. This is a talent-leveraged business, which is highly competitive but not capital intensive. The key to winning is [not cost or price, but] getting close to the customer” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 121; italics added). This compensatory strategy turned out to be successful: the new companies were highly profitable and fast growing. While large companies—National Semiconductor or AMD—struggled to stay in business, many of the 1980s start-ups experienced growth rates of 45–50% a year (Saxenian, 1994). These are amazing numbers and a clear indication that the talent-based economy is more successful than any other type of economy. Moreover, many founders of Silicon Valley start-ups were smart enough to know what they did not know and how to compensate (e.g., where to find good management advice or marketing expertise). It was the manifestation of their excellence in metacognition.9 Thus, 9

Metacognition refers to (1) one’s own knowledge about his or her cognitive set-up and intellectual activity in general, (2) the ability to evaluate the ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ aspects of his or her mental functioning and to compensate for one’s own weaknesses and to rely on strengths, as well as (3) planning, guiding, monitoring, and coordinating one’s own cognitive processes (Kholodnaya 1993).

47

On Giftedness and Economy

Les Hogan, former president of Fairchild, said about Lee Boysel, founder of Four-Phase Systems, “He was smart enough to know what he didn’t know” (Rogers & Larsen, 1984, p. 45). Similarly, Adam Osborne in a speech at the Innovation 2 Conference on 2 November 1982 in Palo Alto said, “Steve Jobs was not just a lucky kid. He knew what he didn’t know, and sought people who did. That was a very mature strategy” ((Rogers & Larsen, 1984, p. 278). To be more precise, that was a very mature compensatory strategy. Everything considered so far does not necessarily mean that Silicon Valley entrepreneurs were always excellent, as well as they were not excellent in absolutely all aspects of business activity. They made mistakes, too. But this only confirms the general rule of excellence: as soon as they stopped to be excellent, to do their best—at some point in their development—they began to fail. Thus, they missed a series of key markets and technological opportunities, such as “the return to semi-custom and application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), the complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) process, and chip sets. . . It took a new generation of start-ups in the 1980s to commercialize these technologies” (Saxenian, 1994, p. 93). Apple Computer’s failure to open up the proprietary architecture for its Macintosh personal computers is another example. Protecting itself in such a way, Apple turned out to be in isolation from the computer industry, and, as a result, lost market share. The similar case is when some leading Silicon Valley companies— National Semiconductor, Intel, and AMD—sacrificed their organizational flexibility in order to become the “big three” of the semiconductor industry. They built bureaucratic companies that centralized authority and limited the autonomy of formerly independent business divisions. At the level of the region as a whole, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs failed to acknowledge the significance of the social networks of informal communication and collaboration they had created in their own success. Saxenian (1994) concluded that entrepreneurs’ individualistic view of themselves and their successes as independent of the Silicon Valley and a variety of its relationships have limited their ability to respond collectively to challenges. The examples of such failures in excellence can be continued. However, the general imperative is clear: if you want to succeed, you have to be excellent in as many facets of your professional activity as possible

939

or compensate for a lack of excellence. Otherwise, you will fail. It should be noted that some scholars came close to the notion of compensatory mechanisms when they wrote about “complementary alliances” and “complementary innovation” (Saxenian, 2000) in Silicon Valley. That is, “the Silicon Valley ecosystem achieves flexibility through “diverse specialization,” with each firm focusing on what it does best and taking advantage of the capabilities of other entities for complementary activities” (Bahrami & Evans, 2000, p. 178). In other words, complementary alliances lead to complementary innovation. However, the idea of complementarity is not equal to the concept of compensatory mechanisms. Complementarity in general and complementary alliances in particular are possible manifestations of compensatory mechanisms. The construct of compensatory mechanisms is broader than the notion of complementarity.

Why Silicon Valley Cannot Be Easily Replicated Around the World This chapter proposed a perspective on the Silicon Valley “secret”—the talent-based economy—which deepens the available explanations. Specifically, it sets the stage for understanding Silicon Valley as a region of excellence inhabited by gifted and talented players of entrepreneurial activities. That is, the gifted—with their excellence—are first and foremost behind the phenomenal success of Silicon Valley in almost all aspects of business activities, and/or, an ability to compensate for a lack of excellence in something. Readers might ask: how does the offered explanation account for the low probability of success and the high “death” rates associated with new entrepreneurial ventures? In light of the proposed perspective, the answer is straightforward: the high “death” rates meant that key players in those ventures were not gifted and did not attempt perfection in almost all facets of their business activities or did not sufficiently compensate for a lack of excellence in certain areas of business. Definitely, the presented interpretation of the phenomenon of Silicon Valley does not account for all possible facets of its excellence, and sometimes it is both vague and speculative in its formulations. However, it provides a useful attempt to further understand

940

how the gifted human side contributes to the prosperity of the region. At the first glance, it looks very obvious: do your exceptionally best, surpass yourself, and know when, where, and how to compensate for those things in which you are not excellent. But this rule might not be so easily implemented in other regions, because human understanding of excellence and its fulfillment, as well as the use of compensatory mechanisms, will be different. Due to numerous individual differences (see also the principle of individual differences in innovation discussed in my chapter on innovation education in this volume), people vary significantly. For instance, Steven Jobs was successful in convincing intermediary firms (i.e., a public relations company) to provide their services to Apple on a pay-later basis (Rogers & Larsen, 1984, p. 10). Does it mean that other entrepreneurs will be able to do it in the same way, say, in Scotland’s Silicon Glen? Even if we imagine that cultural differences are reduced to a minimum, the answer is definitely “No.” People are different. What Jobs could successfully do in California’s Silicon Valley could not be easily repeated in other Silicon regions. Similarly, what professor Frederick Terman could do in inspiring his students to start up new companies in California’s Silicon Valley does not mean that, for example, I would be able to do that as a professor in a Silicon Valley North (Shavinina, 2004). Probably, this is one of the explanations as to why Terman was not entirely successful in giving advice to government officials and policy makers on how to build “Silicon Valleys” in other regions. The role of individual differences in human excellence was omitted. Individual differences in giftedness play a vital role in eventual accomplishments. Other regions have other people. Human side matters, because this is the most important carrier or provider of excellence, as well as the most difficult part of an innovation process. The perspective offered in this chapter thus explains the deep roots of the uniqueness of Silicon Valley and therefore contributes to a current argument about its uniqueness. The proposed perspective complements and extends existing explanations of the Silicon Valley phenomenon in a number of ways. For example, from the standpoint of this perspective, it is not enough to have “networks of innovation” at the foundation of the Silicon Valley (Cohen & Fields, 1999) or “a network of organizations specialized in the creation of new firms” (Kenny, 2001). These networks must

L.V. Shavinina

be excellent: their key players must demonstrate constant excellence in order for innovation to happen. One cannot exaggerate the role of a collaborative process in innovation, which “generates and refines what is essentially the intangible raw material of technological change—ideas” (Cohen & Fields, 1999), p. 127). The social psychology of creativity certainly exists and it really matters (Amabile, 1983, 1996); however, we cannot neglect the fact that innovative ideas usually appear in the minds of gifted and talented individuals. The collaborative process may fuel human creativity, but the final representation of any idea or problem—and the entire pathway to innovation— frequently comes to an individual mind (Shavinina & Sheeratan, 2003). Human excellence is behind the collaborative process or networks of innovation, and it is at the heart of the region’s innovative ability. Rogers and Larsen (1984) believe that in Silicon Valley “one can create value out of thin air, from virtually nothing: Information and innovation combine to produce economic value” (p. 276). However, this is not entirely correct. Such value creation is the profound process of transformation of information into creative ideas and the subsequent transformation of these ideas into innovations (Shavinina, 2003). This process depends on human excellence. Beyond “thin air or virtually nothing” there is excellence. A logical question then arises: Can excellence be taught or learned in formal classes? I think that “yes;” this is possible to a certain degree. Courses on excellence can actually provide both declarative and procedural knowledge about excellence thus extending students’ knowledge base. But there is no guarantee that students will indeed apply that knowledge in real business settings. This kind of knowledge application depends significantly on individual differences among people. However, this is not a reason to abandon the existing programs on excellence or not to develop the new ones. The case in point is the interdisciplinary, international masters program “Studies of Excellence” offered by the University of Munich in Germany. Munich is the German biotechnology cluster. The program is taught in English, and it covers a wide range of personal, social, and organizational issues related to excellence, for example, in the corporate world. It offers such courses as Conceptions of Excellence, Cognitive and Motivational Aspects of Excellence, Promoting Excellence in Business and Industry, and so on, as well as includes

47

On Giftedness and Economy

two internships. The internships aim to provide a series of vocational experiences (e.g., in some area of industry that has a particular commitment to excellence), which complement the academic training provided in the Excellence Program. As such, the internships are considered to be a vital part of the overall program. They represent an attempt to bridge the gap between the academic environment and the world of practical application.

Policy-Related Implications for the Advancement of the Talent-Based Economy The proposed perspective rooted in the deep understanding of the role of the gifted in economy sheds additional light on a very important issue of why the phenomenon of Silicon Valley cannot be easily replicated around the world. Academics and policy decision makers actively discuss how the Silicon Valley model could be reproduced in other regions and countries. Some researchers point out that this is possible to a certain extent, others assert that this is impossible (Menon, 2001), arguing, for instance, that Silicon Valley requires “a technological innovation [like semiconductors] whose time has come. So just plain luck was also involved in the rise of Silicon Valley” (Rogers & Larsen, 1984, p. 39). In the first case the result will be of limited success. In the second case it will be imitation, at best. For example, analyses of science parks show their low success rates (Phillimore & Joseph 2003), in spite of the availability of all the traditional components needed for successful technological growth, such as entrepreneurship, venture capital, research universities, and highly qualified labor markets. However, many of them (e.g., Cambridge, UK) cannot be named “the second Silicon Valley.” A reasonable question therefore is, Why? Saxenian (1994) would say that a variety of social and technical networks were not developed at that regional level. I would add that this is because those regions are not regions of excellence full of gifted and talented entrepreneurs and engineers. Nobody can motivate people (for example, in startups in those regions) to really do their best, to surpass themselves. It is mainly because only individuals themselves know what they can and cannot do, that is, their existing abilities. Moreover, often people them-

941

selves do not know the limits of their excellence, that is, their hidden or potential abilities. How can we measure unborn creative ideas, which could lead to innovative technologies and highly profitable start-ups? Nobody can encourage people to create their own companies if they are frustrated in the current workplace by inability to realize their innovative ideas; they may find another employer. Equally, nobody can inspire professors in local universities to encourage students in such a way as Frederick Terman did. Policymakers cannot do everything. It is therefore time to realize the limits of all parties involved in building Silicon regions. The main lesson in this regard is that some common ingredients of the phenomenon of Silicon Valley can be shared by other Silicon areas (e.g., plenty of venture capital and easy access to it, the availability of a sophisticated supporting service infrastructure such as law firms, executive search firms, public relations firms, etc.). This is the know-what part of the lesson. Other ingredients—particularly related to human excellence and giftedness—cannot be easily copied. For example, the essence of entrepreneurial giftedness (Shavinina, this volume) is not about how to get venture capital. This is the know-how part of the lesson, which is the most difficult part of the equation in understanding the phenomenon of Silicon Valley and the degree to which it can be replicated. The proposed perspective is therefore a bit pessimistic about policies aimed at replicating Silicon Valley around the world. At the same time, this perspective is quite optimistic. Thus, many scholars and practitioners in the late 1980s and the early 1990s thought that the Silicon Valley’s magic had finally ended (Kenny, 2000a). They were certainly wrong, as the new companies focused on Internet innovations demonstrated in 1995–1998. The fact that nobody could predict the appearance of the great wave of such start-ups shows that excellence of the gifted is unpredictable. One reason for this is that human creativity—a foundation for any innovation—is an endless source for new ideas; and the gifted generate more ideas than other people. For example, nobody knows what ideas are in the minds of Stanford University students today. Even if we know, it is impossible to say what degree of excellence the students would invest in transforming those ideas into commercial innovations, if any. Such unpredictability of human excellence excludes in principle any attempt to predict the end of Silicon Valley or the future development of other Silicon regions.

942

A few other crucial points exist, which should be addressed here. When we argue, for example, that people cooperate more in Silicon Valley than elsewhere, then the question begs: why? After all, most people working in Silicon Valley came from somewhere else—were they less cooperative in their old locales? To successfully answer such questions, special attention must be paid to the first wave of comers to Silicon Valley. The first comers—its founders—were primarily students in their previous locations. They were in the process of acquiring academic knowledge and professional expertise, and consequently did not have the opportunity to cooperate as working specialists. Their professional life started later, in Silicon Valley. The best example of the first comers is arguably the eight young, talented engineers invited by Nobel laureate William Shomsky to work in Silicon Valley in his research and development company. Thomas Perkins, Eugene Kleiner, Robert Noyce, and Andy Grove were among them. Each became prominent figure in the Valley. When they and other young newcomers arrived at Silicon Valley, they brought the spirit (e.g., extreme openness, boundless energy) and ideals (e.g., honesty) of youth and built working relationships in a friendly environment in accordance with these values, beliefs, and standards. However, they not only brought a wide range of attributes associated with youth, they also brought a broad array of attributes associated with exceptional talent: Honesty, openness, intrinsic achievement motivation with a strong drive toward excellence, enthusiasm, boundless energy, striving toward success, selfconfidence, ability to work hard, perseverance, nonconformity, individualism, curiosity, and other distinguishing characteristics of highly gifted people. It is easy to notice that many of these characteristics overlap with the attributes of youth. Such an overlap significantly strengthened and crystallized some of these attributes (e.g., openness, striving toward success, and so on), and thus increased the likelihood to predetermine the unique climate of Silicon Valley. With time, the overlapped attributes became the distinguishing features of the overall unique Silicon Valley environment, many of which were discussed in this chapter. The law of talent and youth built the foundation of an unrepeatable Silicon Valley milieu. In order to succeed, the second and subsequent waves of comers to Silicon Valley had to adapt to the already established environment. As a result, the dis-

L.V. Shavinina

tinguishing features of this environment were further refined. This explains why subsequent newcomers could be less cooperative in their old locales (e.g., along Route 128). But they demonstrated an entirely different pattern of professional behavior in Silicon Valley. Saxenian (1994) provided examples of such people. Adapting to the existing context and accepting its “rules of game” was the only way to succeed for these people. Silicon Valley is not simply a learning region; this is a region of excellence. Some researchers assert that learning regions will succeed in knowledge economy (Florida, 1995). From my point of view, this is relatively a simplistic way of thinking about entrepreneurial, industrial, or innovation clusters full of gifted people. Learning is not equal to innovation. Regions of excellence based on giftedness will thrive in the future, and this is exactly what the talent-based economy is all about. Managing in the global business economy means managing in an economy of excellence and talent.

Conclusions Gifted and talented individuals play a great role in the economic prosperity of any country and the whole world. However, the topic of giftedness and economy is terra incognita from a research point of view. In spite of its evident importance and an enormous potential for solving many societal and global problems, this is nearly unchartered territory by scholars. This chapter presented one of the possible ways to address the subject of giftedness and economy, namely, it analyzed the impact of the gifted and talented on the economic development of Silicon Valley and thus introduced the concept of talent-based economy. Specifically, it explained the Silicon Valley phenomenon via giftedness and excellence. That is, the gifted with their fully actualized and realized abilities (e.g., entrepreneurial giftedness, leadership talent, and so on) are behind the unbelievable economic success of this region. Further research is obviously needed to firmly establish and advance this new and exciting scientific direction in the field of giftedness.

47

On Giftedness and Economy

References Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer Verlag. Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, September-October, 76–87. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Angel, D. P. (2000). High-technology agglomeration and the labor market: The case of Silicon Valley. In M. Kenney (Ed.), Understanding Silicon Valley: The anatomy of an entrepreneurial regio (pp.124–140).Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Bahrami, H., & Evans, S. (2000). Flexible recycling and high technology entrepreneurship. In M. Kenney (Ed.), Understanding Silicon Valley: The anatomy of an entrepreneurial region (pp. 165–189). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, Bennis, W., & Biederman, P. (1997). Organizing genius: The secrets of creative collaboration. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Clinkenbird, P. (2007). Economic arguments for gifted education. Paper presented at the World Conference on Giftedness (6 August, 2007, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK). Cohen, S. S., & Fields, G. (1999). Social capital and capital gains in Silicon Valley. California Management Review, 41(2) (Winter 1999), 108–129. Deschamps, J. P. (2003). Innovation and leadership. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 815–831). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). Organizational growth: Linking founding team strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1978–1988. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 35(3), 504–529. Farson, R., & Keyes, R. (2002). The failure-tolerant leader. Harvard Business Review (August), 80(8), 45–61. Feldhusen, J. F. (1984). The pursuit of excellence in gifted education. In J. F Feldhusen (Ed.), Towards excellence in gifted education (pp. 1–16). Denver, CO: Love. Florida, R. (1995). Toward the learning region. Futures, 27(5), 527–536. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books. Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the creative class. London: Routledge. Florida, R., & Kenny, M. (1999). Venture capital and high technology entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(4), 301–319. Hershock, R. J., Cowman, C. D., & Peters, D. (1994). From experience: Actions teams that work. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 95–104. Hunt, J. (1983). Action for excellence. In Education commission of the states, Task force on education for economic growth. Denver, CO. Katz, R., (Ed.) (1997). The Human Side of Managing Technological Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization.Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press.

943 Kenney, M. (Ed.) (2000a). Introduction. In Understanding Silicon Valley: the anatomy of an entrepreneurial region (pp.1– 12). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Kenney, M., (Ed.) (2000b). Understanding Silicon Valley: The anatomy of an entrepreneurial region. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Kenny, M. (2001). Regional clusters, venture capital and entrepreneurship: What can the social sciences tell us about Silicon Valley? In OECD (Ed.), Social sciences and innovation (pp. 57–75). Paris, France: OECD. Kenny, M., & von Burg, U. (2000). Institutions and economies: Creating Silicon Valley. In M. Kenney (Ed.), Understanding Silicon Valley: The anatomy of an entrepreneurial region (pp.218–240). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Kholodnaya, M. A. (2007). The psychology of intelligence (2nd ed.) Moscow: IPRAN Press. Kiely, T. (1993, January). The idea makers. Technology Review, (pp. 33–40). Reprinted In R. Katz (Ed.), The Human Side of Managing Technological Innovation (pp. 60–67). New York: Oxford University Press. Leavitt, H. J., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (1995, July). Hot groups. Harvard Business Review, 73, 109–116. Lee, C. -M. (2000). The Silicon Valley edge. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Lehr, L. W. (1979). Stimulating technological innovation – The role of top management. Research Management, November, 23–25. Mathews, J. A. (1997, Summer). A Silicon Valley of the east: Creating Taiwan’s semiconductor industry. California Management Review, 39(4), 26–54. Mathews, J.A. (1999, Winter). A Silicon Island of the east: Creating a semiconductor industry in Singapore. California Management Review, 41(2), 55–78. McKenna, R. (1986). The Regis touch. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Menon, M. G. K. (2001). The characteristics and promotion of innovation. In OECD (Ed.), Social sciences and innovation (pp. 77–87). Paris, France: OECD. Mumford, M. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resource Management Review, 10(3), 313–351. National Commission on Excellence in Education, (1983). A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform (a report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Peters, T. (1988). Thriving on chaos. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. Phillimore, J., & Joseph, R. (2003). Science parks: A triumph of hype over experience? In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 750–757). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Porter, M. (1998a, November–December). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 77–90. Porter, M. (1998b). On competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. Ray, M., & Myers, R. (1989). Creativity in business based on the famed Stanford University course that has revolutionized the art of success. New York: Doubleday. Renzulli J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: a developmental model for creative productivity. In

944 R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roe, A. (1952). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd & Meed. Rogers, E., & Larsen, J. (1984). Silicon Valley fever: Growth of high-technology culture. New York: Basic Books. Salerno, L. (1980, May–June). Creativity by the numbers: An interview with Robert N. Noyce. Harvard Business Review, 58(3), 122–132. Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Saxenian, A. (2000). The origins and dynamics of production networks in Silicon Valley, In M. Kenney, (Ed.), Understanding Silicon Valley: The anatomy of an entrepreneurial region (pp.141–162). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Shavinina, L. V. (1995). The personality trait approach in the psychology of giftedness. European Journal for High Ability, 6(1), 27–37. Shavinina, L. V. (2003). The international handbook on innovation. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Shavinina, L. V. (Ed.) (2004). Silicon Valley north: A high tech cluster of innovation and entrepreneurship. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Shavinina, L. V., & Ferrari, M. (Eds.) (2004). Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of developing high ability. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers. Shavinina, L. V., & Kholodnaya, M. A. (1996). The cognitive experience as a psychological basis of intellectual giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(1), 3–35.

L.V. Shavinina Shavinina, L. V., Sheeratan, K. (2003). On the nature of individual innovation. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 31–43). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Smith, D. C., Harris, M., Myersclough, P., & Wood, A. (2000). Building highly effective information systems project teams: An exploratory study. Proceedings of PMI (Project Management Institute) Research Conference 2000 (pp. 419–429). Paris, France: 21–24 June. Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., & Robertson, M. (2003). Linking knowledge, networking and innovation processes. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 680–694). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Giftedness: a psychosocial approach. In R. J Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 21–52). New York: Cambridge University Press. The Concise English Dictionary, (1992). Cassell Ltd., London, UK. Trost, G. (2000). Prediction of excellence in school, higher education, and work. In K. A Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 317–327). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Van de Ven, A. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32, 590–607. Weiss, J., & Delbecq, A. (1990). A regional culture perspective of high technology management. In M. Lawless, & L. Gomez-Meija (Eds.), Strategic management in high technology firms (pp. 83–94). Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press.

Part X

Assessment and Identification of Giftedness

Chapter 48

The Measurement of Giftedness Linda Kreger Silverman

Abstract Instruments with the richest loadings on general intelligence (g) are the most useful for locating gifted children. Spearman’s g represents giftedness. Raven’s Progressive Matrices, Stanford-Binet scales, and Wechsler scales are the most widely used IQ tests in selecting gifted children worldwide. All were founded on the conception of intelligence as abstract reasoning (g), but each may locate a different group of gifted children. If index scores vary significantly, Full Scale IQ scores should not be derived. The new General Ability Index (GAI) of the WISC-IV, based on only six subtests, is recommended by the NAGC Task Force for selection of students for gifted programs. The Verbal Comprehension Index and Perceptual Reasoning Index can also be used independently, as can the Verbal and Nonverbal IQ scores of the SB5. Ratio IQ methods and supplementary testing are recommended for locating exceptionally gifted children and for determining degree of acceleration needed.

earliest topics of scientific interest. Yet, the exploration of individual differences began less than 140 years ago, in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The study of giftedness is imbedded historically and philosophically within the study of individual differences in intelligence. Sir Frances Galton (1869, 1883), “father” of the testing movement (Shouksmith, 1970), inaugurated this field of study. Considered a genius himself (Terman, 1917), Galton (1869) may have been among the first to use the term “gifted” to refer to individuals of higher intelligence. He was the first inquirer to furnish a comprehensive description of the traits of gifted children (Hildreth, 1966), as well as information about the origins and development of genius. Until this time, it was commonly believed that everyone (except perhaps freaks of nature) had the same native endowment. Galton (1869) provided the first quantitative analysis of human intelligence in his book, Heredity Genius. He devised the use of percentiles for ranking individuals and demonstrated that there was Keywords IQ tests · General intelligence · Wechsler enormous variability in the population. Employing the scales · Stanford-Binet scales · Raven’s Progressive normal curve as a model, he showed that individuals at the extremes differ from each other to a greater exMatrices tent than individuals near the average. In Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development, Galton (1883) explored the feasibility of measuring mental capaciOrigins of the Measurement ties with discrimination tasks, such as discerning the sequence of a set of weights. This was followed by of Intelligence his creation of the first mental tests, which involved measures of sensory capacity. He set up the first menThe infinite variability of human beings is so remarktal testing center in 1884 at the International Health able that one would assume it had been one of the Exhibition in London and charged visitors a fee for measuring the acuity of their senses (DuBois, 1970). L.K. Silverman (B) In this manner, he assessed nearly 10,000 individuInstitute for Advanced Development, Denver, CO, USA als, ranging in age from 5 to 80 years. While Galton’s e-mail: [email protected] L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 48, 

947

948

experiments in testing failed, his influence was immense (Carroll, 1993) and a new field was born. Galton’s successors were Karl Pearson and James McKeen Cattell. Pearson refined Galton’s concept of co-relation, creating the mathematical procedure for statistical correlation, essential in factor analysis and in determining test validity and reliability (DuBois, 1970). The Pearson product–moment formula for linear correlation is now in universal use, as well as his many other statistical procedures, including multiple correlation and the chi square test for goodness of fit. James McKeen Cattell, Galton’s assistant in his Anthropometric Laboratory, was the first researcher in America to promote mental testing; he coined the term “mental test” (J. M. Cattell, 1890). Cattell set up the first testing laboratory in America. Building on Galton’s methodology, he developed 50 tests of sensory capacity, discrimination and reaction time and attempted to use his measures to select superior individuals for responsible positions. As these simple measures failed to differentiate cognitive abilities, his endeavors, like his mentor’s, did not prove fruitful (Cronbach, 1970). Galton was obsessed with the role of heredity in intelligence, but Cattell parted company with him on that issue; he maintained that environmental opportunity plays a vital role in the development of abilities (J. M. Cattell, 1915).

Spearman’s Unsinkable g and Raven’s Progressive Matrices Theories of intelligence appeared at the turn of the century. Charles Spearman is often credited with having produced the first one in 1904. Like Galton, Spearman believed that every individual is endowed with a certain amount of mental energy and that it was possible to rank individuals according to intellectual power. He defined intelligence as the integrative capacity of the mind to understand one’s own experience and extract relationships (Spearman, 1927). For Spearman, intelligence was not an elusive set of mysterious processes; it was a real entity. He set about the task of isolating intelligence from the contamination of other influences, such as learning, emotion, and temperament. He used the newly developed method of correlation in his attempt to ensnare this creature. Since measures of different abilities show high correlations, Spearman pos-

L.K. Silverman

tulated that there must be a general function common to all abilities. He named his quarry the “general ability factor” or g factor, and the world heralded it as “the Spearman g.” Spearman believed that g manifested itself in varying degrees in a hierarchy of mental activities, with complicated mental activities containing the greatest amount. Tests of intelligence would have to contain large amounts of g. The two kinds of abilities Spearman (1923) most associated with g were the discovery of relationships between ideas (“eduction of relations”) (p. 63) and the ability to see implications or new relations based on these relationships (“eduction of correlates”) (p. 91). He considered tests of analytical reasoning ability ideal to capture the pure element of intelligence.

Raven’s Progressive Matrices Inspired by his work, two of Spearman’s fellow Englishmen produced such a test in 1938. John C. Raven, a psychologist, and Lionel S. Penrose, a geneticist, invented the Progressive Matrices Test as an assessment of pure g. Little is written about J. C. Raven. In a letter to David Watt, Raven’s son remarked regarding the Progressive Matrices, “The items have all the hallmarks of my father’s personality. One sees the same attention to detail, the same concern with design, the same concern with aesthetics, and the same progression in thinking that one sees in his gardening” (Watt, 1998, p. 144). Spearman considered the Progressive Matrices to be the best measure of g. “In keeping with Spearman’s theoretical analysis of g, this test requires chiefly the eduction of relations among abstract items” (Anastasi, 1988, p. 302). R. L. Thorndike (1986) also saw Raven’s Progressive Matrices as exemplifying a method of measuring g as purely as possible, uncontaminated by any other influences. And this instrument has withstood the test of time. In his detailed analysis of factor analytic studies of intelligence, John Carroll (1993) wrote “Our evidence suggests that the Progressive Matrix test is a good measure of g. . .” (p. 696). It also appears to measure cognition of figural relations, spatial ability, accuracy of discrimination, reasoning by analogy, logical relations, and inference. The test is constructed of figural analogies of

48

The Measurement of Giftedness

949

Fig. 48.1 Simulated item similar to those in the Raven’s Progressive Matrices – Standard Progressive Matrices (Copyright 1998 by NCS Pearson, Inc. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved)

1

2

3

4

5

6

varying degrees of complexity. Each matrix has a missing element in the lower right corner. The examinee must select the part that will complete the matrix from among six or eight alternative segments or symbols (Fig. 48.1). The three forms of the Progressive Matrices have differing levels of difficulty: the 36-item Coloured Progressive Matrices (J. C. Raven, 1965) for children from 5 to 11 years; the 60-item Standard Progressive Matrices (J. C. Raven, 1958) for ages 6–17; and a 48-item Advanced Progressive Matrices (J. Raven, J. C. Raven, & Court, 1998) for older adolescents, adults, and the gifted. The Standard Progressive Matrices was standardized in Great Britain with 3,250 children aged 6 through 16 and is considered representative of all seven regions (J. Raven, 1981). Norms for American children were established in 1986 (J. Raven & Summers, 1986). Data have also been collected in other countries. Correlations tend to be higher with nonverbal than verbal tests (Anastasi, 1988). It is possible to solve the items through visual apprehension or analytically. The test can be self-administered by older students and a concrete version with moveable pieces on form boards is

available for very young children and the disabled (J.C. Raven, 1965). A tactile form of the Progressive Matrices has shown promise for blind children between the ages of 9 and 15 (Rich & Anderson, 1965). The instructions can be pantomimed for the deaf and it has been adapted for orthopedically handicapped children, as it can be responded to with only a head nod (Anastasi, 1988). Therefore, the test is excellent for locating gifted children with severe disabilities, with the exception of those with visual processing disorders or dyslexia. Today, Raven’s Progressive Matrices is one of the most popular tools worldwide for assessing gifted children of diverse cultural backgrounds as it (1) is a nonverbal test, (2) is culturally reduced, (3) is simple to administer, (4) can be administered by teachers individually or in groups, (5) is inexpensive, (6) is untimed, and (7) is quick to administer (between 15 and 45 minutes). Its main drawback is its low ceiling. While item difficulty is excellent on the Advanced Progressive Matrices, scores range only as high as the 99th percentile (135 IQ) on all forms, so it cannot be used for discriminating at the highly gifted levels

950

and above. The “intellectually superior” range is set at the 95th percentile. It has found renewed popularity through the international efforts of J. C. Raven’s son, J. Raven. With remarkable foresight, J. C. Raven recommended that his Progressive Matrices be given in conjunction with a vocabulary test, such as the Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale, (J. Raven, 1983a) and recent standardizations have been conducted with both scales (J. Raven, 1981). In his Introduction to The Coloured Progressive Matrices, J. C. Raven wrote “By itself, it is not a test of ‘general intelligence’, and it is always a mistake to describe it as such. For this purpose it should be used in conjunction with a vocabulary test” (p. 3). The combination of the Progressive Matrices and a vocabulary test has been used successfully to select culturally diverse gifted children in the United States and abroad. Vocabulary is a robust measure of ability and vocabulary subtests have high g loadings on most intelligence tests (Anastasi, 1988; Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004; Kaufman, 1994). Nonverbal or spatial abilities are becoming increasingly recognized as an important part of intelligence. International research has shown that these abilities have improved over the last few generations (Flynn, 1984, 1999). “The Flynn effect was originally derived from research with tests that are good measures of general intellectual ability (Spearman’s g factor), such as Raven’s Progressive Matrices” (Wasserman, 2007a, p. 2). (More information about the Flynn effect can be found toward the end of the chapter.)

Multifactor Theories As important as g was, it could not, however, account for all mental abilities. It was necessary to add another construct. Spearman (1927) solved the problem by devising a two-factor theory, which states that every intellectual activity consists of a general (g) factor, which is shared with all other intellectual activities, and a specific (s) factor, which is unique. The (s) factor represents that portion of each ability not correlated with other variables. In his pursuit of g, Spearman laid the groundwork for the factor analytic method, which has lived a long and healthy life in the field of psychological testing. It

L.K. Silverman

provided the basis for the work of Thurstone (1938), Burt (1949), Vernon (1951), Guilford (1956), R. B. Cattell (1963), Horn (1988), and a host of other theorists and researchers (see Carroll, 1993). Sir Cyril Burt (1949) and Philip E. Vernon (1951) extended Spearman’s two-factor model into more complex hierarchical models of intelligence. They accepted the basic principle of an overarching general factor, but focused their attention on categorizing the specific factors into groups. These models were the forerunners of the modern theories of intelligence that undergird current intelligence tests. For the first few decades of the 20th century, Spearman’s concept of a general ability factor dominated psychometric theory and practice (R. L. Thorndike 1986); then a backlash against g ensued in the 1930s. Some of Spearman’s successors used his factor analytic techniques to demonstrate that intelligence could not be regarded as unitary. They espoused a multidimensional perspective of the nature of intelligence. The most vocal opponent of g was Louis Thurstone (1938), who constructed a theory of primary mental abilities with nine parallel factors. He was followed by a series of researchers and theorists who sought to extinguish g. The most ambitious undertaking was by Guilford (1956), who proposed a model of 120 intelligences; it mushroomed to 180 before he died (Guilford, 1988). In a similar vein, not employing factor analysis, Howard Gardner (1983) postulated seven intelligences, which continue to expand. But g is a tenacious animal; it refuses to become extinct. For decades, American psychologists have vigorously sought to replace the concept with specific factors, but no matter how hard they try, they have been unsuccessful in eradicating g. The larger the number of items assessed, the more likely the items are to correlate with each other, giving evidence of an underlying construct that supports all mental abilities (R. L. Thorndike, 1986). Thorndike reported that among the 60 tests in Louis and Thelma Thurstone’s battery of primary mental abilities, 97% of the correlations were positive—further demonstration of g. “Still, the general ability factor, g, refuses to die. Like a phoenix, it keeps rising from its ashes and will no doubt continue to be an enduring part of our psychometric theory and psychometric pratice” (R. L. Thorndike, 1986, p. 6). Carroll’s (1993) popular three-stratum theory was an expansion of Spearman’s, among others. He concluded,

48

The Measurement of Giftedness

“There is abundant evidence for a factor of general intelligence, G. . .” (p. 624). The unsinkable g, along with myriad specific factors, continues to be the foundation of psychometric assessment. The unitary model of intelligence was preserved in the work of Binet and his successors. Spearman discovered through factor analytic techniques that independent test items, which might be somewhat “untrustworthy” by themselves, yielded highly valid results when they were pooled together (DuBois, 1970). The concept was empirically discovered by Binet as well— without the aid of factor analysis—and it became the basis of the first intelligence scale. It remains central to test construction.

The Binet–Simon Scales While Spearman was developing his theory in England, Alfred Binet was experimenting with various mental tests in France, and the results of their labors appeared within a year of each other. Spearman supplied a unitary model of intelligence, and Binet produced the first workable method by which it could be assessed. The Binet–Simon scale, released in 1905, was a major advancement in the assessment of intelligence because it was the first time items of a scale had been combined to yield a composite measure of a complex function (DuBois, 1970). Spearman’s g was now quantifiable. In 1908, Binet and Simon presented a major revision of their scale, utilizing a new invention: mental age. They defined mental age as the age at which a given number of test items were passed by an average child. These instruments were the first age-based scales. Binet continued to improve the scale, changing the arrangement of some of the items, and provided one further revision in 1911, shortly before his untimely death at the age of 54. Mental age served as an excellent basis for scoring, but there was no way to distinguish between normal and abnormal development on the basis of mental age alone. German psychologist, William Stern, found the solution. Stern (1910/1911) recommended that the mental age be divided by the chronological age in order to obtain a “mental quotient,” which would be more constant than mental age alone. Lewis Terman (1916b) incorporated this concept into his adaptation of the Binet scale, renaming it the “intelligence quotient,” and the IQ became a permanent part of testing vocabulary.

951

Although his ideas varied from time to time, essentially Binet (1909) viewed intelligence as judgment or reasoning ability, a perspective which was to be carried forward by Terman. Binet’s name has become linked with the identification of children with limited mental abilities, but his work was particularly important for detecting giftedness in children. Like Galton, Binet had an intense interest in prodigies. He studied children with extraordinary talent in calculation, mathematics, chess, writing, and other areas (Hildreth, 1966). Galton, Spearman, Binet, and Terman all shared the belief that there was a single unifying factor of intelligence, but for Binet, that factor could not be isolated from the rest of experience. He viewed intelligence as a rich, complex, multi-faceted gestalt—a myriad of dynamically interrelated abilities. Emotion and personality also played critical roles in his conception of intellectual ability. He believed that intelligence was highly influenced by the environment and that it could be improved through appropriate instruction. He viewed intelligence as a continuously evolving process, not as a static amount of raw material that stayed the same throughout life (Seagoe, 1975). Yet, intelligence testing is viewed today as a method of rigidly determining the limits of one’s abilities—quite different from Binet’s intent. In adopting the numerical criterion that his test provided, we lost sight of Binet’s essential philosophy, which was his greater legacy.

The Stanford-Binet Scales Binet gave Lewis Terman his blessing to create an American version of his scale, selling him the rights “for a token of one dollar” (Wasserman, 2003, p. 425). Alfred Binet was Terman’s role model. He dedicated his book, The Measurement of Intelligence (1916a), to Binet. In 1910, Terman began the process of revising the Binet–Simon scale. Although there were other revisions and translations (e.g., Goddard, 1910), after six painstaking years, Terman was able to build a better mousetrap. “The revision introduced so many changes and additions as to represent virtually a new test. Over one-third of the items were new, and a number of old items were revised, reallocated to different age levels, or discarded” (Anastasi, 1988, p. 239). The scale was standardized on 1,000 children and 400 adults. Seagoe (1975) claimed that it was not

952

mere modesty that prevented Terman from naming his revision the “Terman-Binet,” but rather a profound appreciation for all of the students who had assisted him in gathering the data and a desire to share the credit. The first edition received a more enthusiastic welcome than Terman dared to dream. He had not expected interest in intelligence testing to catch on so quickly. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Terman, 1916b) became the major mental test of the next two decades. Within 15 years, it was translated into 20 languages, and between 15 and 20 million tests were given annually. The success of the test appears to have been due to Terman’s skills in selecting and placing items that reflected the appropriate order of development of the abilities tested and to the internal consistency and cohesiveness of the test as a whole (Seagoe, 1975). The 1937 revision (Terman & Merrill, 1937) was greatly expanded and consisted of two equivalent forms to assess reliability: Form L (for Lewis Terman) and Form M (for Maud Merrill). At that time, two alternate forms were necessary, as no other wellconstructed IQ test was available (Anastasi, 1988). It was standardized on over 3,000 children, at least 100 at each age level, and efforts were made to improve the geographical and socioeconomic stratification of the sample. “The 1937 edition of the Stanford-Binet had remarkable breadth, developmentally appropriate procedures, and a highly varied administration pace so that examinees performed many different kinds of activities. It may have constituted an early high point for intelligence testing” (Wasserman, 2003, p. 425). In 1960, 4 years after Terman’s death, the StanfordBinet (Form L-M) appeared, merging the best test items of the two 1937 forms based on the performance of approximately 4,500 individuals. The scale was not restandardized, but the new samples served to determine changes in item difficulty (Anastasi, 1988). The ratio method of computing IQ (dividing the mental age by the chronological age and multiplying by 100) was replaced by the inclusion of a series of norm tables provided by Samuel R. Pinneau. Three new levels were added to the test—Superior Adult I, II, and III—and the age for IQ calculation was extended to 18. New research had shown that mental age continues to increase beyond the age of 16, the point at which Terman had originally thought intelligence reached its peak.

L.K. Silverman

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Form L-M) In 1972, a unique approach to standardization was used by R. L. Thorndike. He selected 2,100 participants from the 20,000 in the standardization sample of his group IQ test, the Cognitive Abilities Test (R. L. Thorndike & Hagen, 1971). His goal was to represent all ability levels. While no attempt was made to stratify the sample by socioeconomic status, geographic region, and ethnic group, “the sample ultimately was more inclusive and diverse than that used with any previous Stanford-Binet edition” (Wasserman, 2003, p. 425). African American, Mexican American, and Puerto Rican children were included (Anastasi, 1988). Scoring was based on deviation IQs, and the maximum possible score was reduced to 163 (or lower for some age levels). Only a couple minor changes were made to the content. Although the Stanford-Binet received a good share of criticism over the years, it provided the most stable means of predicting school success and assessing giftedness. It dominated intelligence testing in the United States until the 1960s (Lubin, Wallis, & Paine, 1971). In an article describing the endurance of the StanfordBinet, R. L. Thorndike (1975) wrote (It) has been for most of the past 60 years the workhorse of psychometric appraisal of cognitive development, the standard against which other tests of cognitive abilities have been evaluated, and more recently a prime target for the social critics of ability testing. (pp. 3–4)

The Stanford-Binet scale maintained international popularity, as it had been translated into many languages and adapted for use in England and Australia. While the United States continued to develop new IQ tests and new editions of tests, clinicians in other countries were not quick to retool each time a new IQ test hit the market. First, there was the question of cost. Psychologists in private practice had limited funds to spend on new instruments. Second, there was the lack of adaptations of these new instruments to the monetary system and culture of their countries. Third, each new assessment tool required a substantial learning curve before the examiner felt comfortable both administering the test and interpreting the results. Fourth, the Stanford-Binet had a wide age range, making it useful for the majority of individuals tested, whereas the pur-

48

The Measurement of Giftedness

chase and mastery of three different Wechsler scales would have been required to replace it. Researchers and psychologists who specialize in the exceptionally gifted still use the Stanford-Binet (Form L-M) as a supplementary test for many reasons: (1) it is the only IQ test that can discriminate children in the exceptionally and profoundly gifted range of intelligence; (2) the ratio-based scoring used to derive formula IQ scores beyond the norms in the manual allows a greater spread of scores; (3) its high ceiling makes it ideal for out-of-level testing (Stanley, 1990); (4) it is an excellent measure of abstract reasoning; (5) the complex verbal absurdities, proverbs and analogies are exciting for gifted children; (6) it tests the limits of children’s knowledge, as they receive credit for all correct answers beyond the discontinue criterion; (7) it is not necessary to be advanced in every area; it is possible to proceed to the highest levels on the basis of strengths in verbal, spatial, or mathematical reasoning; (8) it has a strong research base, high predictive validity, and a long history of successful use with gifted populations; (9) as the test is virtually untimed, it provides a fairer assessment of children with visual-motor or processing speed issues; (10) its adaptive-testing format: examinees are given a range of tasks best suited to their ability level, which leads to better rapport (R. L. Thorndike et al., 1986); (11) examinees, particularly preschoolers, find the test more engaging because the items are short and more varied (Canter, 1990; Vernon, 1987); (12) the tests can be administered out of order in accordance with the engagement of the child; (13) the wide range of items (Bayley, 1970); (14) the rapid movement from one type of item to another prevents a gifted child from succeeding on an item due to practice effects; (15) the extensive age range (R. L. Thorndike et al., 1986); (16) its emphasis on abstract verbal abilities enhances identification of African American children (Kearney & LeBlanc, 1993); and (17) it is an excellent clinical tool in the hands of a skillful examiner as it respects clinical judgment.

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition (SB-IV) In the 1986 revision, the Stanford-Binet scale took on an entirely new personality. Point scales were substituted for the developmental age scale format that characterized all of its predecessors. Instead of

953

the global score yielded previously, four broad areas of cognitive ability were assessed: Verbal Reasoning, Abstract/Visual Reasoning, Quantitative Reasoning, and Short-Term Memory. The overall IQ score was renamed the Standard Age Score. The Vocabulary test, which had informally been used as a routing test in prior editions, became codified as the method for determining the starting point for each test. Wasserman (2003) indicates that the fourth edition was innovative in many ways: the first to use item response theory (IRT) (Rasch, 1960) to determine starting and stopping points; the first to use “differential item functioning to minimize item bias” (p. 425); and “the first contemporary test to operationalize Horn and Cattell’s (1966) fluid and crystallized model of intelligence” (p. 426). It offered flexibility in selecting which subtests to administer. Much easier to administer and score than earlier versions, the scale employed an easel-based format. Composite scores correlated highly with Wechsler scales. The standardization sample consisted of over 5,000 individuals, from age 2 through 23, tested in nearly every state. The sample was stratified for geographic region, community size, ethnic group, gender, and socioeconomic status (R. L. Thorndike et al., 1986). Despite all of these improvements, the StanfordBinet Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition (SB-IV) was plagued with difficulties and not warmly received. The Technical Manual and test norms were delayed. The authors could not agree about the factor-scoring procedures, so several different methods were generated (Wasserman, 2003). The test had a higher floor and lower ceiling, making it less usable at both extremes (Wilson, 1992). Whereas Terman had designed his original scale with a very high ceiling in the hope of locating future geniuses (Terman, 1925), it was clear that the gifted were not a top priority in designing this revision. Originally, the scale was to end at 148—the 3rd standard deviation above the norm. Upon hearing that the new test had a ceiling of 148, the author made personal calls to all three test constructors and each one explained that there were not enough highly gifted children in the normative sample to warrant going beyond 148. The reason for this was given by Elizabeth Hagen: In constructing a cognitive abilities test you are always faced with constraints. You have to produce an instrument that will adequately appraise the full range of individual differences in a chronological age group from the very slowest level of development to the most rapid. At the

954 same time, you have to produce an instrument that can be administered fairly easily and within a reasonable amount of time. The compromise is to produce an instrument that is most effective in the range of 4 s.d.’s; therefore you can’t use tasks that are successfully completed by 99.99 percent of an age group or that are failed by 99.99 percent of an age group. In the construction of the Binet [Revision IV], I was working with some nonverbal items that could only be solved by children who were in classes for the gifted. You can’t put items like that in an intelligence test because they aren’t functional for a wide enough group. (Hagen, interviewed in Silverman, 1986, p. 171)

Higher scores could only be generated by means of extrapolation. Robert Thorndike agreed to extrapolate to the fourth standard deviation—164 (R. L. Thorndike, personal communication, October 1985), but it was a destination in theory only, as it was virtually unattainable. Two samples of children who had scored in the gifted range on other instruments were reported in the Technical Manual; their composite scores were, respectively, 121.8 and 116.3. The first group had attained a mean score on Form L-M of 135.3 and the second group had a mean WISC-R Full Scale IQ score of 117.7. Strangely, the gifted or very superior range was still set at 132 (R. L. Thorndike et al., 1986). Psychologists in the United States who were using the WISCR for placement decisions for gifted programs saw no advantage of switching to the SB-IV. Those who were using Form L-M to locate extremely advanced children could not find them on the SB-IV. Perhaps the most vocal critic of the SB-IV was Philip Vernon (1987), a contemporary of Lewis Terman, and a leading figure in psychological assessment. In “The Demise of the Stanford-Binet Scale,” Vernon wrote, “It is misleading to call the battery a StanfordBinet scale. Indeed it marks the end of Terman’s 70year era” (p. 257). He protested that “The L-M provides a richer sampling of verbal abilities. In the [Binet IV] there are no rhymes, analogies, sentence completions, ideational fluency, interpreting proverbs, comprehension of paragraphs, or verbal reasoning problems” (p. 255).

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Fifth Edition (SB5) The newest revision of the Stanford-Binet appeared in February 2003, and, once again, a whole new animal

L.K. Silverman

was created. The SB5 measures five factors: Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, VisualSpatial Processing, and Working Memory. Each factor has a verbal and nonverbal scale. It generates three IQ scores: Verbal, Nonverbal, and Full Scale. It is not necessary to calculate a Full Scale IQ; it is permissible to use either the Verbal IQ or the Nonverbal IQ independently. The SB5 assesses the widest age range of all the Stanford-Binet scales, from 2 to 85. To accommodate this range, there are six levels of the test. The battery employs Item Response Theory as pioneered by Rasch (1960) and incorporates items from all previous editions (Roid, 2003a). Each item is arranged by level of difficulty. Like the Wechsler scales, the mean IQ is 100, the standard deviation is 15 (on all prior editions, it was 16), and the scaled scores on the subtests range from 1 to 19. Rather than completing items that are all alike, as in the Wechsler scales, the examinee encounters a variety of different testlets measuring each of the five factors. The scale was normed on 4,800 individuals ranging in age from 2 through 99. An additional 3,000 individuals participated in a variety of special studies (Carson & Roid, 2004). Scores range from 40 to 160 in the standard range. Extended IQ scores range as low as 10 and as high as 225 (Roid, 2003b). The flexibility of being able to administer only the Nonverbal scale makes the SB5 useful in measuring the abilities of non-English speaking children. Its emphasis on mathematical and visual-spatial reasoning and its liberal time limits make it appealing for locating visual-spatial learners (Silverman, 2002). As 20% of the test measures mathematical reasoning, while only 10% measures abstract verbal reasoning (Wasserman, 2006), the battery is an enormous departure from earlier versions, which were criticized for emphasizing verbal abilities. Children who like mathematics and science tend to score fairly well on this instrument, but the scale appears to identify a different group as gifted. The driving force behind this instrument is Cattell– Horn–Carroll (CHC) theory. The field has increasingly put pressure on test constructors to have a theoretical basis for the scales of intelligence they create. The latest, greatest model was devised during the development of the third edition of the Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Battery (WJ-III) and the fifth edition of the Stanford-Binet (SB5). It was based on the monumental work of John B. Carroll (1993), who created what McGrew (2007) has called a periodic table of psy-

48

The Measurement of Giftedness

chological elements. After meticulously analyzing over 460 archival data sets, Carroll (1993) confirmed that the hierarchical theories of fluid and crystallized abilities espoused by R. B. Cattell (1971) and Horn (1988) were empirically sound. He expanded upon Cattell and Horn’s theories by creating a three-tiered model, with g at the apex, followed by eight broad ability factors and numerous second-order factors. The two models were complementary (with the main exception that John Horn refused to accept the existence of g). Test constructors have integrated the work of Cattell, Horn, and Carroll as the basis for several IQ tests (e.g., WJIII, SB5, Differential Abilities Scales [DAS and DAS2], Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children [KABC-2]). A series of meetings with Richard Woodcock, Kevin McGrew, John Horn, and John Carroll resulted in the Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) theory (McGrew, 1997), which has become the most popular theory today in test construction. Historically, attempts to break intelligence down into narrow, discrete abilities date back to Binet and Simon (1905), who concluded that individual “faculties” could not be purely and efficiently measured. Independent investigations in the United States (Sharp, 1899) also challenged support for the differentiation of mental faculties, and Binet decided to use complex tasks that might be influenced by several mental faculties at once. Even as Thurstone was introducing his nine distinct primary abilities, E. L. Thorndike (1941) was urging caution: Mental abilities are not an orderly retinue of a few easily defined and unitary faculties or powers, somewhat like the chemical elements, for each of which a mental meter or test can be found by sufficient labor and ingenuity. A mental ability is a probability that certain situations will evoke certain responses, that certain tasks can be achieved, that certain mental products can be produced by the possessor of the ability. It is defined by the situations, responses, products, and tasks, not by some inner essence. (p. 504)

Lewis Terman (1921) defined intelligence simply as abstract reasoning ability: “An individual is intelligent in proportion as he is able to carry on abstract thinking” (p. 128). Observing that those with strong abstract reasoning (g) were more successful in school and work, and those with weak abstract reasoning were less successful, he created a scale that measured as much abstract reasoning as practicable. The original scale had excellent predictive validity (R. L. Thorndike, 1975). According to a survey by

955

Snyderman and Rothman (1988), “abstract thinking or reasoning” ranked first place as a component of intelligence by 661 “scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing” (p. 250); there was 99.3% agreement as to its importance. The authors comment, “In many ways, Terman’s 1921 definition of intelligence as abstract thinking remains at the heart of current thought about intelligence” (p. 57). These two diverse viewpoints create a quandary in the assessment of gifted children. Is giftedness essentially the amount of general intelligence (g) an individual possesses or is it an aggregate of specific abilities? Perhaps it is both, depending on one’s perspective. Gifted children have high abstract reasoning (Silverman, 1993a). Traditionally, the intelligence tests used to select gifted children have been designed as good measures of abstract reasoning. IQ tests based on multifactored models define different children as gifted and those with high abstract reasoning ability may be missed. If we are comfortable that the children defined as gifted throughout the last century are the ones we want to continue to be able to identify, then tests based on g are the most useful. The main value of CHC theory for assessing the gifted may be its demonstration of an overarching g factor. The test constructors of the SB5 created a careful balance of items in accordance with CHC theory, but is the battery effective in assessing gifted children? The answer depends on many variables: if the program is seeking children with strong visual-spatial and mathematical abilities rather than children with strong verbal reasoning abilities; if the cut-off score for admission is set at 120; and if Rasch scoring methods are used. When the Full Scale IQ is derived from the norm tables, scores are considerably lower for gifted children than on other instruments or on prior versions of the Stanford-Binet. Using the traditional cut-off score of 130, traditionally used for admission to many gifted programs in the United States, approximately one third of the students who qualified on other instruments would not qualify on the SB5 (Lovecky, Kearney, Falk, & Gilman, 2005). The mean IQ score of 202 children in the gifted validation sample of the SB5 was 124 (Roid, 2003a). The mean IQ score of a group of 25 profoundly gifted children, whose IQ scores ranged from 170 to 235+ on the SBL-M, was 130 on the SB5 (K. Kearney, personal communication, August 1, 2003). The highest score recorded

956

in the standardization of the SB5 was 148 (Roid, 2003a). To remedy this situation, it is recommended that the threshold for admission to gifted programs be lowered to 120 (Ruf, 2003). In addition, researchers have been experimenting with several other methods of scoring. Carroll (1993) found that tasks involving induction, reasoning, visualization, and language comprehension were most likely to be correlated with g, and that measures of speed of information processing and capacity of working memory were also likely to be correlated, “though at a low level” (p. 624). Therefore, it seemed reasonable to remove Working Memory from the Gifted Composite score; two alternate methods have been provided (Roid, 2003b; Roid & Carson, 2003). There is also a Nonverbal Gifted Composite Score, in which Working Memory is eliminated. Another method involves generating Rasch-Ratio scores, which are closer to the scores of the SBL-M, albeit somewhat higher in some cases (Carson & Roid, 2004; Gilman & Kearney, 2004; Lovecky et al., 2005). Some of the scoring modifications for the gifted originated with examiners of gifted children, Kathi Kearney, Deborah Ruf, and Deirdre Lovecky, who were involved in validation studies of the SB5 (Lovecky et al., 2005). Scoring modifications for the gifted can be found in several documents (see Carson & Roid, 2004; Roid & Barram, 2004; Roid & Carson, 2003; Ruf, 2003). A table of Extended IQ scores is available in the Interpretive Manual for those who score beyond 150 on the Full Scale IQ score (Roid, 2003b). Based on Rasch scoring, the examinee is credited with all raw score points beyond the requirement to obtain the ceiling score of 19. To date, few have qualified for the Extended IQ score, but when Rasch-Ratio scores are derived for students who score 120 and above on the SB5, it holds great promise for identifying highly, exceptionally and profoundly gifted students. At the time of this writing, apparently it is permissible to use the SBL-M as a supplemental test, as long as examiners acknowledge that the scores are on a different metric and, therefore, not comparable to deviation IQs (Carson & Roid, 2004). The publisher prefers that the SBL-M be co-administered with the SB5 so that three types of composite scores might be contrasted: standard scores, Rasch-Ratio scores, and SBL-M scores. As these scores are often radically discrepant, it may be difficult for professionals to determine which of these scores to use in selecting

L.K. Silverman

students for services. One option is to select students for gifted programs who attain a score of 120 or above on the SB5 and to qualify students for services for the highly and exceptionally gifted or determine the degree of acceleration needed on the basis of Rasch-Ratio scores. Then only one instrument is needed, with different scoring methods for different purposes.

The Wechsler Intelligence Scales Just as the success and longevity of the Stanford-Binet scales are attributable to Lewis Terman, the phenomenal success of the Wechsler tests is due to the sagacity of their creator, David Wechsler. A gifted clinician and test constructor (Wasserman, 2003), Wechsler was skillful in determining which tasks would be most effective in probing the depths of human intelligence. For the last half century, the name Wechsler has become synonymous with intelligence testing. The Wechsler scales won over the American market in the 1960s (Lubin et al., 1971), and today, translated into 25 languages, they are the most widely used individual IQ test for identifying gifted children internationally. Wechsler’s introduction to testing was at Columbia University, where he was instructed by James McKeen Cattell and Edward L. Thorndike, among others. His passion was kindled during World War I. In his tribute to Wechsler, Matarazzo (1981) described the critical events during the war that shaped the man’s future. While awaiting induction to the army, Wechsler worked with E. G. Boring at an army camp in Long Island, administering and scoring thousands of Army Alpha intelligence tests, a group-administered offshoot of the Stanford-Binet. He was later assigned to a post in Ft. Logan, Texas, where his major responsibility was individually assessing recruits who could not pass the written Army Alpha and Army Beta tests. The US government was concerned that too many immigrants and men of different ethnic backgrounds failed to qualify for the armed forces. Wechsler noted that despite the very low scores these men had received on the written tests, most of them functioned adequately in their civilian lives. He used the Stanford-Binet and nonverbal tests to gain a better indication of their abilities and found that the nonverbal tests reflected their adaptive capabilities much more accurately than the verbal tests.

48

The Measurement of Giftedness

Later, he sought clinical training with many notables, such as Henri Pieron and Louis Lapicque in Paris, and Anna Freud in Vienna. Wechsler’s conceptions became crystallized through his associations with both Spearman and Pearson when he was assigned to the University of London for 3 months as an army student. He had profound respect for Spearman’s contributions. Later in life, when he saw that Spearman’s unitary conception of intelligence had been largely abandoned by psychologists, he wrote, “Spearman’s demonstration of the existence of at least one pervasive factor in all performances requiring intellectual ability remains one of the great discoveries of psychology” (Wechsler, 1958, p. 9). His exposure to the innovative correlational methods of Pearson provided the background he was to need for his own test construction (Matarazzo, 1981). These experiences gave Wechsler valuable insights into the nature and assessment of intelligence. As much as he appreciated Spearman, Wechsler found Spearman’s concept of general intelligence inadequate to encompass the non-intellective factors of intelligence, such as emotion and motivation. Wechsler had a grander vision: he was determined to formulate a more comprehensive picture of intelligence. In addition to the ability to reason, deal with symbols, and conceptualize abstractly, Wechsler believed that intelligence also involved individuals’ abilities to deal effectively with their environment, which was related to motivation and emotional commitment. For Wechsler, like Binet, intelligence was inseparable from personality factors. He carefully differentiated between testing and assessment; he felt that testing could never completely capture the full range of a person’s intellectual capacity because it overlooked the personality factors, whereas clinical assessment took these factors into account. Wechsler’s definition of intelligence serves as the foundation of his scales:

957

tatively different elements functioning as an integrated whole. He went on to say that all that can be asked of an intelligence scale is that it measure sufficient portions of intelligence to offer a “fairly reliable index of the individual’s global capacity” (Wechsler, 1958, p. 15). Here, Wechsler reveals his affinity with g, in the tradition of Spearman, Binet, and Terman. In 1939, while chief psychologist at Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital, Wechsler created the WechslerBellevue Intelligence Scale. The scale consisted of 11 subtests that were modified from currently available tests. It covered a broader spectrum of capabilities than had been tapped by the Stanford-Binet. Wechsler felt that the Binet scale was overburdened with verbal items, so he added a “Performance” dimension, which included a number of nonverbal items. His interest in measuring intelligence in adults required a new approach, since the content of tests for children were of little interest to adults. Further, developmental increments useful for assessing children would not apply to adults. Mental age was replaced by a comparison of each person’s mental abilities with the norm for his or her age, thereby initiating the deviation IQ into intelligence testing. He also worked with a clinical population and sought to develop an instrument that could be used to assist in the diagnosis of mental disorders. His clinical interpretations of test scores to suggest different types of mental illness have not withstood the test of time. Ten years later, in 1949, a downward extension of the original Wechsler-Bellevue (Anastasi, 1988) resulted in the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC). In 1955, the Wechsler-Bellevue was revised and renamed the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). Wechsler published the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) in 1967. In 1974, he introduced a revision of the children’s scale, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R). The revision of the adult scale, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) was Intelligence is the aggregate or global capacity of the published in 1981, the year of Wechsler’s death. individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to Each of Wechsler’s tests was extremely popular. All deal effectively with his environment. It is global because followed a similar format, giving near-equal emphasis it characterizes the individual’s behavior as a whole; it is an aggregate because it is composed of elements or abilto verbal and nonverbal components. Each test yielded ities which, though not entirely independent, are qualitathree IQ scores: Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale. tively differentiable. (Wechsler, 1939, p. 3) Unlike the Binet scales, the WISC could be broken The definition seems to bypass the issue of whether down into subtests to obtain a profile of specific abiliintelligence is a single factor or a group of factors; it ties. The Verbal subtests included Information, Comappears to be both. He called it an aggregate of quali- prehension, Arithmetic, Digit Span, Similarities and

958

Vocabulary. The Performance subtests included Picture Arrangement, Picture Completion, Block Design, Digit Symbol (Coding), and Object Assembly. Some of these items were borrowed from the Stanford-Binet scales. These subtests formed clusters or factors that could be analyzed to diagnose relative strengths and weaknesses (e.g., Bannatyne, 1974). In addition, the Wechsler scales were easier to administer and score than the Stanford-Binet. The learning curve was dramatically shortened. Whereas it took months of practice to become fluid at administering the Stanford-Binet, the WISC could be learned very quickly. Nearly all clinical judgment was removed. The Wechsler scales exacted uniformity in administration and scoring to assure that the results of all tests, regardless of examiner, were comparable. The directions and scoring criteria were so clear and detailed that there was little margin of error. Ironically, Wechsler never gave his own tests the same way twice! He felt that the standardization was “imposed on him by the test publisher” (Wasserman, 2003, p. 430). Another major difference between the WISC-R and the Stanford-Binet was the standardization sample. Rigorous standardization has always been a hallmark of the Wechsler scales (Wasserman, 2003). The 1937 Stanford-Binet had been standardized entirely on a white middle-class population and the 1960 version had not been restandardized. The WISC-R was standardized on a group of 2,200 children, including African Americans, Puerto Ricans, Mexican Americans, American Indians, and Asians, in approximately their proportions in the American population. This made the test more applicable to diverse cultures. The standardizations of the WISC-III and WISC-IV were even more scrupulous. Clinicians appreciated the measures of nonverbal reasoning and became enamored with the Verbal and Performance discrepancies, a value not shared by their originator. To Wechsler, Verbal and Performance did not represent two dimensions of intelligence—they were just different ways of measuring g. “The subtests are different measures of intelligence, not measures of different kinds of intelligence, and the dichotomy into Verbal and Performance areas is only one of several ways in which the tests could be grouped” (Wechsler, 1958, p. 64). In addition, Wechsler placed little value on the multifactor interpretation of his instruments. He was certain that general intelligence (g) accounted for much

L.K. Silverman

more of the variance than verbal, spatial, memory, speed, and other factors. Wechsler also rejected the separation of abilities because he saw intelligence as resulting from the collective integration and connectivity of separate neural functions. He believed that intelligence would never be localized in the brain and observed, “While intellectual abilities can be shown to contain several independent factors, intelligence cannot be so broken up”. . . (Wasserman, 2003, pp. 428– 429) The Wechsler scales are the most widely used intelligence tests for identification of intellectually gifted . . . its principal value is still based upon its measurement of the general factor g. (p. 430)

Unfortunately, after his death, the publisher veered from Wechsler’s basic philosophy, and the Wechsler scales moved inexorably toward multifactor models (Wasserman, 2003). In the latest version of the WISC, even the familiar Verbal and Performance sections have been dispensed with in favor of four factors, but the degree to which they measure general intelligence (g) varies. And an IQ test or a portion of such a test is only useful for the assessment of giftedness to the extent that it measures g.

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition (WISC-III) It was necessary to describe in some detail the last three versions of the Stanford-Binet scales, because they are all based on different theoretical models, measure dissimilar components, and are all in current use in various parts of the world. While earlier editions of the Wechsler scales for children are still in use throughout the globe, differences between the WISC, the WISCR, and the WISC-III are relatively minor. Structurally, they are very much alike; however, the WISC-IV has been substantially altered. The WISC-III is still in use in many countries where it has been translated. Therefore, the next two sections will focus on these two editions. The third edition of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III) was released in 1991. It consists of six Verbal subtests and seven Performance subtests. In school settings, only the 10 required subtests are usually administered, but in clinical settings, all 13 of the subtests have been found valuable. The WISC-III introduced the concept of

48

The Measurement of Giftedness

indices, paving the road for their acceptance in lieu of Verbal and Performance scores in the WISC-IV. The Verbal Comprehension Index consists of Information, Similarities, Vocabulary, and Comprehension. The Perceptual Organization Index is composed of Picture Completion, Picture Arrangement, Block Design, and Object Assembly. The Freedom from Distractibility Index includes Arithmetic and Digit Span, an optional test. The Processing Speed Index is made up of Coding and Symbol Search, an optional test. One optional subtest, Mazes, does not appear in any of the indices, foretelling of its demise in the WISC-IV. The latter two indices can only be calculated when two of the optional subtests are given. The Full Scale IQ score—a combination of the Verbal and Performance IQ—is weighted toward the higher of the two. The WISC-III was designed for children between the ages of 6 and 16 years. Children as young as 3 take the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) and youth 16 or older take the adult version, the WAIS. Even though, technically, 16-yearolds can be tested on the WISC-III, their scores are likely to be severely depressed due to the fact that they are hitting the ceiling of the test and because of the excessive bonus points for speed at the higher age levels (Kaufman, 1993). Like most other instruments, the mean is 100, and the standard deviation is 15. Scores range from 40 to 160, although it is quite unusual to obtain an IQ score above 150 on this scale. The Verbal subtests are administered orally and are untimed, with the exception of part of the Arithmetic subtest. The Performance subtests are heavily timed—a major limitation of this edition. The examiner alternates between administering a Performance subtest and a Verbal subtest. Clinicians usually administer Digit Span, as it is an important diagnostic tool for assessing working memory. Symbol Search, introduced in the WISC-III, is an assessment of visual discrimination, tracking and processing speed, with minimal reliance on motor skills. All the child needs to do is make a slash mark. It is diagnostically useful for separating mental processing speed from visual-motor processing speed; it is often associated with reading ability. Both Digit Span and Symbol Search became required subtests on the WISCIV. Mazes is the weakest test psychometrically, but it yields useful information about visual-motor planning and impulsivity. It is also an enjoyable way to end the

959

test with gifted children, particularly those with high visual-spatial abilities. The scaled scores range from 1 to 19 on each subtest, with a mean of 10, and a standard deviation of 3 points. Scores from 8 to 11 are in the average range; 12 and 13 are high average; 14 and 15 superior; 16, 17 and 18, gifted; and 19, highly gifted. Scores of 6 and 7 are low average; 4 and 5 borderline; and 1, 2, and 3 disabling. The following chart compares IQ scores, scaled scores, percentiles and ranges (Table 48.1). The average range is quite broad, as low as the 9th percentile. This makes it difficult to identify children who are twice exceptional (both gifted and learning disabled). To be highly gifted, one must attain scores at the ceiling of the test, in the top one percentile, corresponding to the designation of disabled, which is the bottom one percentile. While there are exceptionally gifted children (160 -174 IQ) and profoundly gifted children (175+), there are no scores on the WISC-III to reflect these higher ranges. Gifted children attain high scores on the subtests most richly loaded on general intelligence (g). The chart on p. 960 places the subtests of the WISC-III in order of g-loadings (Kaufman, 1994). The first five subtests listed are the best measures of giftedness (Table 48.2). The g-loadings reveal why the Verbal Comprehension Index score, composed of three of the “good” measures (Vocabulary, Information, and Similarities), Table 48.1 Relation of IQ scores and scaled scores to percentile ranks and ranges (Wechsler, 1974, p. 25, adapted) IQ score Scaled score Percentile rank Range 145 140 135 130 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55

19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

99.9 99.6 99 98 95 91 84 75 63 50 37 25 16 9 5 2 1 0.4 0.1

Highly gifted (ceiling) Gifted Gifted Gifted Superior Superior High average High average Average Average Average Average Low average Low average Borderline Borderline Disabling Disabling Disabling

960

L.K. Silverman

Table 48.2 g-loadings on WISC-III (Kaufman, 1994, p. 43) Good measures of g Vocabulary Information Similarities Arithmetic Block Design

(0.80) (0.78) (0.76) (0.76) (0.71)

Fair measures of g Comprehension Object Assembly Picture Completion Symbol Search Picture Arrangement

(0.68) (0.61) (0.60) (0.56) (0.53)

Poor measures of g Digit Span Coding Mazes

(0.47) (0.41) (0.30)

and one that is close, Comprehension, would be the best predictor of success in a gifted program. The combination of high scores in Arithmetic and Block Design usually indicates mathematical talent (Silverman, 2001). High Block Design and Object Assembly scores, combined with low Arithmetic and Digit Span, often signifies a visual-spatial learning style with auditory-sequential weaknesses (like the brilliant physicist who cannot calculate) (Silverman, 2002). The greatest weakness of the WISC-III is its increased emphasis on bonus points for speed (Kaufman, 1992, 1993). Alan Kaufman, who assisted Wechsler in the renorming of the WISC-R, criticized both the WPPSI-R and the WISC-III for this reason. The biggest negatives for gifted assessment are the new emphasis on problem-solving speed on the WPPSI-R; the substantially increased stress on performance time in the WISC-III compared to the WISC-R; and the low stability coefficients for a majority of WPPSI-R and WISC-III subtests. (Kaufman, 1992, p. 158) The impact of problem-solving speed on a person’s WISC-III IQ is substantial. . . . Children with reflective cognitive styles will be penalized on highly speeded items, as will children with coordination difficulties. Gifted children may score well below the cutoff needed to qualify for an enrichment program when the WISC-III is administered if they tend to be reflective or have even a mild coordination problem. Similarly, learning-disabled children may fail to score in the average range, even if they have normal intelligence, because of the speed factor. (Kaufman, 1993, p. 350)

points for speed, it is only possible to obtain a score of 14 on Picture Arrangement (PA), 14 on Object Assembly (OA), and 16 on Block Design (BD). At the age of 12, the highest possible scores without bonus points are 8 on PA, 9 on OA, and 9 on BD—all below the 50th percentile. At the age of 16, the highest possible scores are 6 on PA, 7 on OA, and 7 on BD (Kaufman, 1993). A study conducted at the Gifted Development Center compared IQ scores of 20 children on the WISC-III and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Form L-M). The children were in the highest IQ ranges, obtaining scores from 151 to 191 on the SBL-M, with a mean of 173. On the WISC-III, they scored between 116 and 150, with the following means: Verbal IQ 141, Performance IQ 120, and Full Scale IQ 134. Only three of the children scored in the highly gifted range on the WISC-III, attaining Full Scale IQ scores of 146, 148, and 150—lower than the lowest score on the SBL-M. Discrepancies between the two IQ tests ranged from 14 to 60 points (mean difference 37 IQ points) (Silverman, 1995). The mean Verbal IQ was well within the gifted range. The excessively timed mean Performance IQ was 21 points lower and depressed the mean Full Scale IQ. When using the WISC-III for the identification of English speaking gifted children, it is recommended that the Verbal IQ or the Verbal Comprehension Index be used as the criterion, rather than the Full Scale IQ. If the child’s Performance IQ is higher than the Verbal IQ, which often occurs with students for whom English is not their primary language, the Performance IQ should be used for identification, as the Verbal IQ is strongly culturally loaded.

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV)

The fourth edition of the Wechsler scales was released in August 2003. It is quite a departure from the WISCIII and all prior editions. The traditional Verbal and Performance scores have vanished. Four indices now take center stage: Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed. The Verbal Comprehension Index and the Perceptual The problems created by bonus points for speed in- Reasoning Index can be thought of as rough equivcrease with the age of the child. If an 8-year-old gets alents to Verbal and Performance IQ scores (Wechevery single item correct, but fails to earn any bonus sler, 2003). The Perceptual Reasoning Index is supe-

48

The Measurement of Giftedness

961

rior to the Performance IQ as a measure of abstract visual reasoning and, therefore, likely to be a better predictor of success in a gifted program—particularly for children from diverse cultures, bilingual children, twice exceptional children, and visual-spatial learners. Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning are emerging as the most important factors to weigh in the selection to gifted programs. The greatest changes have occurred in the nonverbal section of the test. The former Perceptual Organization Index, composed of Picture Completion, Picture Arrangement, Block Design, and Object Assembly, has been completely overhauled. Of the four subtests, only Block Design remains as a core subtest. Picture Completion is now an optional test, not administered very often, due to time constraints. Picture Arrangement and Object Assembly, along with Mazes— good measures of visual processing deficits—have all disappeared. They have been replaced by new subtests: Picture Concepts, a visual version of the Similarities subtest, and Matrix Reasoning, which measures spatial perception. The triad of Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, and Picture Concepts enables the WISC-IV to provide a better assessment of visual-spatial abilities than the WISC-III, particularly since the WISC-IV has generous time limits. More weight should be given to performance on Block Design and Matrix Reasoning, as they have much higher g-loadings than Picture Concepts. Visual-spatial learners may respond to Picture Concepts in terms of visual associations (e.g., “I saw the plant on the table” or “they’re yellow”), rather than with the expected categorical reasoning. The WISC-IV offers greater flexibility than the WISC-III, as it allows the substitution of two optional tests in calculating the Full Scale IQ. There are 10 core subtests and five optional tests. Most examiners administer 10 subtests, since it takes too long to give the entire battery. As 30% of the test measures verbal abilities, the scale remains a strong test of abstract verbal reasoning. It is now a stronger measure of nonverbal reasoning, as well. There are higher ceilings on some subtest items. And it is an excellent diagnostic Table 48.3 Performance of two gifted samples on WISC-IV indices compared to the control group (WISC-IV Technical Manual, p. 77)

tool for assessing strengths and weaknesses in twice exceptional children. Its major flaw is the increased weight of processing speed and short-term memory in the IQ score, accounting for 40% of the Full Scale IQ; this is double their weight on the WISC-III. However, there is an easy solution to the problem: the General Ability Index (GAI). The GAI is an alternative to the Full Scale IQ for children whose Processing Speed and Working Memory indices are considerably lower than their Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning indices. Composed of just the Verbal Comprehension Index and the Perceptual Reasoning Index, the Processing Speed and Working Memory indices are not used in calculating the score. It is becoming standard practice to derive the General Ability Index, especially when there are large disparities among the index scores (Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004; Weiss, Saklofske, Prifitera, & Holdnack, 2006). Dawn Flanagan and Alan Kaufman (2004), in Essentials of WISC-IV Assessment, emphasize that the Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) should not be reported if the variance from the highest to lowest composite score is 23 points (1.5 s.d.) or greater. Differences of this magnitude render the Full Scale IQ uninterpretable, as it is not a unitary construct. The gifted group in the WISC-IV Technical Manual showed a 14-point discrepancy. Their mean Full Scale IQ score was 123.5 (Wechsler, 2003). Working Memory and Processing Speed were substantially lower than Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning. Gifted Development Center’s (GDC) research with 103 children (Falk, Silverman, & Moran, 2004) yielded much larger disparities (Table 48.3). Of the four indices, the Verbal Comprehension Index is clearly the best indicator of giftedness in both groups and the Perceptual Reasoning Index is the second best indicator for American children. Working Memory was elevated in the GDC sample by the substitution of Arithmetic for Letter–Number Sequencing. The mean Full Scale IQ scores of both gifted samples was definitely depressed below the gifted range,

Verbal Comprehension Index Perceptual Reasoning Index Working Memory Index Processing Speed Index Full Scale

GDC

Gifted Norm Group

Control Group

131.7 126.4 117.7 104.3 127.2

124.7 120.4 112.5 110.6 123.5

106.6 105.6 103.0 102.8 106.7

962

even though the mean Verbal Comprehension Index in GDC’s sample was high enough to qualify these students for gifted services. There is little variation in the indices of the control group: less than four IQ points between highest and lowest subtest scores. By comparison, the mean discrepancy between highest and lowest subtest scores in GDC’s gifted sample was 27.4 points. Nearly 60% of the sample had disparities between the Verbal Comprehension Index and the Processing Speed Index of 23 points and some ranged as high as 69 points—over four standard deviations. Only four children scored above 130 on Processing Speed (Rimm, Gilman, & Silverman, 2008). It is also revealing that while the gifted group demonstrated a 25-point advantage over the control group in verbal abstract reasoning, differences in Processing Speed were negligible: less than 2 points. Other samples of gifted children reveal similar patterns. Sylvia Rimm found that while the mean Verbal Comprehension Index of her clients was in the gifted range, the mean Processing Speed Index was in the high average range (Rimm, Gilman, & Silverman, 2008). Wasserman (2006) reports “our data suggests that over 70% of the students applying for gifted placement have Processing Speed Index scores in the average range or below” (p. 2). This confirms findings of earlier studies of Wechsler scales (Reams, Chamrad, & N. Robinson, 1990). Gifted students do not perform faster on processing speed tasks than average students and scores on Processing Speed depress their Full Scale IQ scores. Therefore, on the WISC-IV, it is not appropriate to require a Full Scale IQ score in the gifted range for selection to gifted programs. When a Full Scale IQ score is derived, Arithmetic could be considered as a substitute for Letter–Number Sequencing or Digit Span in measuring Working Memory for students seeking placement in gifted programs (Rimm, Gilman, & Silverman, 2008; Silverman, Gilman, & Falk, 2004). Children in the gifted norm sample did better on Arithmetic than on any other subtest except Vocabulary (Wechsler, 2003). Arithmetic also ranked fourth as a good measure of general intelligence (g) (Table 48.4): Letter–Number Sequencing has a higher g loading than Digit Span, but Digit Span has a venerable history in the measurement of auditory short-term memory for nonmeaningful material, and is easier for the clinician to interpret. Therefore, at the Gifted Development Center, Arithmetic has been substituted for

L.K. Silverman Table 48.4 g-loadings on the WISC-IV (Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004, p. 309) Good measures of g Vocabulary (Information) Similarities (Arithmetic) (Word reasoning) Comprehension

(0.82) (0.79) (0.79) (0.74) (0.70) (0.70)

Fair measures of g Matrix Reasoning Block Design (Picture Completion) Letter–Number Sequencing Symbol Search Picture Concepts Digit Span

(0.68) (0.67) (0.63) (0.60) (0.58) (0.57) (0.51)

Poor measures of g Coding (Cancellation)

(0.48) (0.25)

Letter–Number Sequencing in most assessments. However, there are cases when it would be best not to substitute Arithmetic: (1) if the child is mathephobic (Gilman & Falk, 2005); (2) if the examiner is attempting to diagnose weaknesses in working memory to document the need for accommodations; (3) if the district or agency requires a 23-point discrepancy among indices before a General Ability Index (GAI) score can be generated; or (4) if the child has AD/HD, Nonverbal Learning Disorder, or memory problems. Unfortunately, the Coding subtest, which has never been a good predictor of giftedness in previous versions of the WISC (Kaufman, 1992), continues to be a required subtest on the WISC-IV. As can be seen from the factor loadings, Coding is a poor measure of g and serves to diminish scores of gifted students, whose speed of performance on clerical paper and pencil tasks is rarely as well developed as their conceptual abilities. This asynchrony or dyssynchrony in development has been found in various studies of the gifted internationally (Silverman, 1993b; Terrassier, 1985) and is another reason why processing speed should not play a role in the assessment of giftedness. The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) in the United States established a Task Force in 2006 to create policies regarding the assessment of gifted students. The goals of the Task Force are to provide guidelines for the interpretation of the major individual IQ tests, as well as guidelines for differentiating among exceptionally gifted students.

48

The Measurement of Giftedness

As a basis for these policies, the Task Force has been conducting studies of gifted children’s performance on different instruments and with various scoring methods (see Rimm, Gilman, & Silverman, 2008). The NAGC Task Force concurs that the General Ability Index should be accepted as a basis for placement in gifted programs. The GAI norm tables are available on Harcourt Assessment’s website: [http://harcourtassessment.com/hai/Images/pdf/wisciv/ WISCIVTechReport4.pdf]. In addition, there are children for whom the Verbal Comprehension Index or Perceptual Reasoning Index provides the best estimate of ability; these indices are independently appropriate for selection to programs. Children with deficits in Working Memory or Processing Speed can succeed in programs for advanced students, provided that instructional modifications are made to fit their needs (National Association for Gifted Children, 2008). Funds for assessing gifted students are usually limited. For this reason, many districts employ short forms of individual intelligence scales, such as the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) (Wechsler, 1999). A reasonable alternative would be to administer only the six core subtests from which the General Ability Index can be derived: Vocabulary, Similarities, Comprehension, Block Design, Matrix Reasoning and Picture Concepts (Silverman et al., 2004). As most of these subtests are richly loaded in general intelligence (g), they are likely to locate the students who would be most successful in a gifted program. Another recommendation is to lower the cut-off score for gifted programs to 120, as the mean score for the gifted group in the Technical Manual was 123.5 (Wechsler, 2003).

963 from 1st to 99th percentile. Moreover, those we might call the “supergifted,” (those with IQs 4 or more standard deviations above the mean) tend to be as unlike the “gardenvariety gifted” (with IQs 2 or 3 standard deviations above the mean) as the “garden-variety gifted” are unlike children with scores clustered within 1 standard deviation of the mean of the population. (p. 71)

Camilla Benbow tested a boy who scored 199 on the SBL-M at the age of 7 years and 203 on a second administration. Julian Stanley (1990) reported that as a 14-year-old eleventh grader, the same young man earned perfect scores on the Verbal and Mathematical portions of the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) and was 320 points above the 99th percentile of college-bound seniors on his National Merit Scholarship type index. “Truly, an IQ of 200 can be far more powerful than any of 150!” (p. 167). Hal Robinson (1981) observed that children in the very highest ranges of intelligence “may not fare as well in many respects as those with more moderate gifts” (p. 75). Bobbie Gilman (2008) concurs, “As a group, our most gifted students are not our highest achievers” (p. 5). “Exceptionally gifted children are our highest risk gifted population—not our most successful” (Rimm, Gilman, & Silverman, 2008, p. 184). While there is a limit to how delayed a person can be, the degree of giftedness is limited only by our measurement tools. Julian Stanley (1990) pointed out that we have been content to measure six-foot individuals with five-foot rulers. The highest IQ found to date in the GDC population is 262+ on the SBL-M. Different methods need to be employed to locate children who are this advanced. And common nomenclature would be helpful. The manuals for assessment instruments do not use the word “gifted.” Since the earliest days of testing, IQ tests have yielded scores in the “superior” and “very Assessing Higher Ranges of Giftedness superior” ranges. The term, “superior,” is even more problematic than “gifted.” Superior usually refers to Within the gifted population, there is a vast range of examinees who score anywhere between the 91st and ability, corresponding to some degree to the range at the 97th percentile, or in the 120–129 range on tests the opposite end of the intellectual spectrum. The fields with a 15-point standard deviation. Very Superior is of psychology and education recognize that there are equivalent to gifted and applies to the 98th percentile mildly, moderately, severely, and profoundly delayed and above. In January 1999, John Wasserman, recogchildren. They have not been as quick to recognize that nizing that there was inconsistent terminology to dethe variability in the gifted range is as great or greater. scribe the various levels of giftedness, requested that an Hal Robinson (1981) wrote: international group of experts on children in the highest IQ ranges determine new nomenclature. The following Within the top 1% of the IQ distribution, then, there is at least as much spread of talent as there is in the entire range designations were agreed upon (Table 48.5):

964

L.K. Silverman

Table 48.5 Levels of giftedness (Wasserman, 2003, p. 435) Level

IQ range

Standard deviations

Profoundly gifted Exceptionally gifted Highly gifted Gifted

above 175 160–174 145–159 130–144

+5 SD +4 SD +3 SD +2 SD

These levels were based on a standard deviation of 15 points. Use of the term “exceptionally gifted” for children in the 160–174 range came from work of Miraca Gross (e.g., Gross, 2004). There was no agreement on the nomenclature for gifted children below 130 or significantly above 175. Alternatives offered for the Superior range included “advanced” or “mildly gifted.” Many programs use an IQ score of 120 as a cut-off for admission, which is appropriate, given the scores of gifted children on the new IQ tests. Also, creatively gifted, twice exceptional children, bilingual children, and gifted children from diverse cultural heritages are more likely to score on American scales in the 120 range than the 130 range. No name was designated for children in the 190 and above range as they are nearly impossible to locate on modern tests. However, the experimental scoring methods being developed may result in a need to re-examine this issue. Robinson (1981) considered it entirely possible “that there are many more truly exceptional young children in the population than would be predicted on the basis of the normal curve alone” (p. 73). Terman observed this phenomenon with his original test as early as 1925, finding many more children above 170 IQ in his longitudinal study than predicted. In largescale studies in several countries, J. C. Raven (1959) and J. Raven (1983b) found distributions with the Progressive Matrices Intelligence Test which sharply depart from the Gaussian curve. Even Wechsler (1939) noted “the wide-spread but mistaken belief that mental measures distribute themselves according to the normal curve” (p. 128). If the scores at the high end of the curve do not follow the normal curve, then deviation IQ scores become questionable and ratio IQs may be a reasonable alternative. One approach employed by examiners of exceptionally gifted children since 1989 is similar to the method used in the Talent Searches. Julian Stanley had the ingenious idea of offering the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) as an above-level test to middle-school students in order to differentiate among the most advanced students (Benbow & Lubinski, 2006). Now, each year,

more than 300,000 gifted youth throughout the world participate in Talent Searches (Webb, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2007). In these programs, seventh and eighth grade students who achieve at the 95th (or 97th) percentile in grade-level reading or mathematics achievement tests are allowed to take US college board examinations (e.g., SAT-1 or ACT). College board exams were designed to differentiate among capable high school seniors for college placement purposes. When such a difficult examination is given to 12 and 13year-olds, those who appear on achievement tests to be similar in abilities are discovered to have vastly different levels of ability. For example, two students with 97th percentile scores in math achievement may obtain scores on the SAT-Math anywhere between 200 (lowest score possible) and 800 (highest score possible). Talent Searches enable highly gifted youth the opportunity to demonstrate their full capabilities, perhaps for the first time, and it becomes apparent that they are ready for considerably advanced work. Just as the Talent Searches employ a two-step process to differentiate the most able students, younger children who are exceptionally or profoundly gifted can be found by using a combination of two different measures: one comparing them with others their own age and one with a higher ceiling, like the SAT, that compares their abilities to those of older children. Because it is organized by age levels, with increasing levels of difficulty, all the way to Superior Adult III, the “Binet-type age scale might be considered the original examination suitable for extensive out-of-level testing” (Stanley, 1990, p. 167). Talent Searches provide out-of-level testing to children at the 95th or 97th percentile in reading and mathematics; examiners who assess the exceptionally gifted offer out-of-level testing to children who achieve on a standard IQ test (e.g., the WISC-IV, WPPSI-III, SB5, DAS-2, KABC-2, etc.) at or above the 99th percentile on at least two subtests (particularly those subtests that are good measures of g). In the case of the Raven’s Progressive Matrices, a score at the 97th percentile would probably warrant an out-of-level supplementary test. A policy put forth in 1989 and adopted by examiners of the exceptionally gifted, the SBL-M is given purely as a supplemental measure to test the limits of children’s abilities when they achieve ceiling-level scores on tests with lower ceilings (Silverman & Kearney, 1989; see also, Silverman & Kearney, 1992; Wasserman, 2007b). When the child exceeds the scores in the norm table

48

The Measurement of Giftedness

of the SBL-M, a formula IQ is derived according to the instructions on page 339 in the manual (Terman & Merrill, 1973). The formula IQ is a ratio metric. To document that the child’s abilities exceed the measuring tool, examiners such as Betty Meckstroth track the number of raw score points earned beyond the minimum score required to attain a 19 (the highest possible subtest score on a Wechsler scale). Children have been found who scored 13 or more raw score points beyond the ceiling on Vocabulary (19 + 13) and 8 extra points on Similarities (19 + 8) (Rimm, Gilman, & Silverman, 2008). It is obvious that the abilities of such children are not fully tapped on the WISC-IV. However, Pearson Assessment has created extended norms for the WISC-IV with maximum IQ and index scores in the 180–210 range for children under 10, depending on age and composite score. The extended norms were posted February 7, 2008, on the Pearson website in WISC-IV Technical Report #7: http://harcourtassessment.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/enus/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-8979-044&Mode=resource. Riverside Publishing provides guidelines for the current use of the SBL-M as a supplemental test (Carson & Roid, 2004). Wasserman (2007b) considers this practice warranted:

965

flate scores. Flynn (2006) recommends that IQ scores be corrected for the Flynn effect, which has been done by some psychologists, such as Brian Start in Australia and Sylvia Rimm in the United States (Rimm, Gilman, & Silverman, 2008). However, there is counter evidence to Flynn’s findings. In his recent update on the Flynn effect, John Wasserman (2007a) states: [Flynn] advocates that the Flynn effect, which was derived from large group studies, be used to generate corrected scores for individual test findings, in spite of the likelihood that such corrections are likely to contain much more error than accurate prediction. My January, 2007 examination of psychological research databases suggests that the Flynn effect has not yet been adequately demonstrated for all levels of ability . . . there is no substantive evidence for its validity with high ability individuals (particularly those who are intellectually gifted) . . . I have yet to see any sound empirical studies of the Flynn effect in gifted samples. (p. 1)

Newer studies suggest that the Flynn effect may have tapered off at the beginning of the 1990s (Teasdale & Owen, 2005). A concern sometimes expressed is that scores beyond the norm table will give parents excessive expectations of the child’s abilities, and the parents may make unreasonable demands of the child’s school. Educators may be uncomfortable with extraordinarily The SBL-M remains unmatched in its breadth of procedures and is probably truer to the changing nature of high scores if they do not see evidence of these cognitive-intellectual abilities over development than any abilities in the classroom. Classrooms have ceiling test subsequently published. Its unique age-scale format effects. Exceptionally gifted children often know more and liberal discontinue rules enable testing to continue than the teacher is teaching or the classroom tests far beyond one’s chronological age, thereby providing examinees with an opportunity to demonstrate considerably are testing, but they have no chance to display their advanced competencies. advanced knowledge. The antidote to ceiling effects in assessment and in the classroom is to provide these I consider this test appropriate only after an examinee has approached the ceiling of a more recently normed test children with opportunities to demonstrate advanced (such as the WISC-IV or SB5. . .), as a method of reproblem-solving abilities. At the very least, it is solving just how far above the ceiling the examinee’s true essential to be aware that these children do exist. abilities may lie. When reported in an appropriately conAnother means of differentiating children in the servative manner (because of its limitations), the ratio IQ approach provides the only available means of estimating highest IQ ranges is by using ratio IQ scores, such intelligence in exceptionally and profoundly gifted ranges as the Rasch-Ratio scores on the SB5. These are that has any prior foundations in research (e.g., the work already in use in deriving the Extended IQ score. of Terman and Hollingworth). (Wasserman, 2007b, p. 51) Sylvia Rimm (2006) has been experimenting with a Whenever the continued use of the SBL-M is dis- ratio method of scoring the WISC-IV, utilizing testcussed, the inevitable question arises, “But what about age equivalents for subtests provided in the manual the Flynn effect?” James Flynn (1984) discovered that (p. 253), converted into months, to determine a child’s IQ scores for the last three generations have increased mental age. Age-equivalent scores reflect all correct 3 IQ points per year across the globe. This information items for each subtest. Similar to the original ratio IQ made a giant wave in the testing industry and has led scores derived by Terman (1916b), the child’s mental to grave concerns about using old norms that might in- age is divided by the chronological age and multiplied

966

by 100 to create a Rimm Ratio. Rimm Ratios are helpful for identifying young children in the highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted ranges; they appear to approximate SBL-M scores (Rimm, 2006). One drawback of Rimm Ratios is the necessity of hand scoring the test-age equivalents of each subtest and then averaging them to obtain a mental age. Also, since the ceiling of the Test-Age Equivalents is low, the older the child, the harder it is to obtain an accurate Rimm Ratio without extrapolating beyond the ceiling of the chart. After discussions with Sylvia Rimm, Pearson Assessment developed an extended norm table for the WISC-IV. The table does not generate scores as high as Rimm Ratios, but it is the first time that Wechsler scales have exceeded 160. While there is controversy about the use of ratio IQ scores, interest in alternative scores like the ratio IQ and other indices is growing in popularity, even in nonverbal tests (Wasserman, 2005). It is gratifying that test constructors are now aware of the existence of exceptionally and profoundly gifted children and that the major test publishers are attempting to create new scoring methods in order to locate our brightest children.

Assessing Gifted Children with Learning Disabilities Twice exceptional children are more complicated to assess than gifted children without learning disabilities. Their strengths mask their weaknesses and their weaknesses pull down their IQ scores so that they often do not qualify for gifted programs. The interaction of giftedness with various learning disabilities is covered elsewhere (Silverman, 2003), but it is necessary to mention a series of guidelines to consider when assessing the growing number of twice exceptional children worldwide. Misdiagnosis of gifted children with learning disabilities frequently occurs because:

r r r r

their scores are averaged, masking both their strengths and their weaknesses; they are compared to the norms for average children instead of to their own strengths; their lower scores may not be significantly below the norm; their ability to compensate often inflates their lower scores; and

L.K. Silverman

r

the magnitude of the disparities between their strengths and their weaknesses is not fully taken into account. (Silverman, 2000, p. 158)

Diagnosticians are trained to look at test scores from a normative perspective. A child’s scores are compared to the norms in the manual for children that age. The diagnostic question usually raised is “How does this child’s performance compare to the norm?” If the child scores within the average range, no disability is detected. To understand gifted children with learning disabilities, it is necessary to ask an entirely different question: “To what extent does the discrepancy between this child’s strengths and weaknesses cause frustration and interfere with the full development of the child’s abilities?” This is an intrapersonal rather than normative view of test interpretation (Silverman, 1998), and it is critical in working effectively with this population. A subtest scatter of 9 points or greater (3 s.d.) usually signals a potential disability. However, gifted children with even more dramatic discrepancies may be overlooked if their lowest scores fall within the broad range of “average.” For example, if an average child had a high subtest of 13 and a low subtest of 4 on a WISC (3 s.d.), the lower score would be at the 2nd %, in the borderline range, which would gain attention. But a highly gifted child with 19s (99.9th %) on Similarities, Vocabulary, or Block Design, who attains a 6 on Coding (> 4 s.d. disparity), would not be identified as learning disabled, because 6 (9th %) is at the low end of the average range (Silverman, 2001). This normative interpretation of test data prevents twice exceptional children from gaining services for either exceptionality. Two key diagnostic indicators of giftedness combined with learning disorders are significant (2 s.d.) disparities between strengths and weaknesses, with some subtest scores in at least the superior range, and succeeding on the harder items, while missing the easier items. When both are present, it is likely that the child is twice exceptional. Gifted children with learning disabilities have much more erratic scores over time than other children. Some twice exceptional children achieve higher scores as they get older, some have lower scores, and some have scores that vary dramatically in unpredictable directions on different tests. Many factors affect their performance. They tend to do poorer on timed tests and

48

The Measurement of Giftedness

on tasks that require handwriting. And their ability to demonstrate the true level of their strengths will be considerably different on days when their compensation mechanisms work well and on days when they do not (Silverman, 2000). Therefore, the highest score attained at any age on any test may well be the best estimate of a twice exceptional child’s abilities (Rimm, Gilman, & Silverman, 2008; Silverman, 2003).

Conclusion

967

although gifted visual-spatial learners will often have high scores on the Perceptual Reasoning Index of the WISC-IV, as well. It is permissible to use portions of either instrument to locate gifted children with different strengths or from diverse cultures. The Verbal Comprehension Index and the Perceptual Reasoning Index can be used independently. The same is true for the Verbal and Nonverbal IQ scores on the SB5. Given the fact that the two major IQ tests yielded mean Full Scale IQ scores of 123.5 and 124 on their gifted samples, IQ cut-off scores for gifted programs should probably be set at 120 (Falk, Silverman, & Moran, 2004). The highest index or factor score is usually the best predictor of success in the gifted program, if the program is responsive to the learning strengths of the students. When a child tops out on a test with a low ceiling, achieving two or more subtests at the 99th percentile, or a Raven’s score at the 97th percentile, it is recommended that a test with a higher ceiling, such as the SBL-M, be administered as a supplemental test, or a ratio-based scoring method be used, to determine the full strength of the child’s abilities. Ratio IQ scores may vary considerably from deviation IQ scores, as they are based on a different metric. The higher the child’s IQ, the greater the discrepancy is likely to be. For placement in gifted programs, GAI scores on the WISC-IV or a Gifted Composite score on the SB5 may be sufficient. However, when making decisions about the degree of acceleration needed or to qualify a child for programs for the exceptionally gifted, supplemental testing or ratio-based scoring is recommended. Given the low ceilings on most tests, the highest score a gifted child achieves on any measure is probably the best estimate of his or her abilities. In modern times, we have gained in efficiency and ease of test administration and scoring, in representation of diverse cultures, and in the assessment of multiple factors of intelligence. We have improved our measurement of visual-spatial abilities. However, in the bargain, we seem to have lost the capacity to assess the full range of gifted children’s abilities. Ratio-based scoring methods hold promise in locating our most advanced children.

To select gifted children for special services or programs, it is essential to use the right tools. Those instruments or portions of instruments that have the richest loadings on general intelligence (g) are the most useful for locating gifted children. Raven’s Progressive Matrices, the Stanford-Binet scales, and the Wechsler scales were all founded on the conception of intelligence as abstract reasoning (g). Abstract reasoning and general intelligence (g) are synonymous. Giftedness is high abstract reasoning (Silverman, 1993a). Therefore, g could as easily stand for giftedness as for general intelligence. The best measure of g, according to Spearman, is the Raven’s Progressive Matrices. The Progressive Matrices are also an excellent way to find gifted visual-spatial learners. They should be administered in conjunction with a vocabulary test. Individual IQ tests are more valid and reliable than group tests. The newest editions of the major individual tests are the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV), and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Fifth Edition (SB5). Older versions of these scales still have utility. The new scales offer flexibility in administration and scoring. It is not necessary to use Full Scale IQ scores for the purpose of program selection, and, when factor scores differ widely, it is inappropriate to derive Full Scale scores. The General Ability Index (GAI) of the WISC-IV is suitable for identifying gifted children. It requires the administration of only six subtests. The WISC-IV is a better instrument for locating students with high abstract verbal reasoning, and it is less timed than the WISC-III. The SB5 is a bet- Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Kathi Kearter instrument for locating students with mathemat- ney and John Wasserman for their assistance in the preparation ical and scientific talent and visual-spatial abilities, of this manuscript.

968

References Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan. Bannatyne, A. (1974). Diagnosis: A note on recategorization of the WISC scaled scores. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 272–273. Bayley, N. (1970). Development of mental abilities. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1). New York: John Wiley. Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (2006). Julian C. Stanley, Jr. (1918–2005). American Psychologist, 61, 251–252. Binet, A. (1909). Les idees modernes sur les enfants. Paris: Flammarion. Binet, A. (1911). Nouvelles recherches sur la mesure du niveau intellectual chez les enfants d’ecole. L’Annee Psychologique, 17, 145–201. Binet, A., & Simon, Th. (1905). Application des methods nouvelle au diagnostic du niveau intellectual chez des enfants normaux et anormaux d’hospice et d’ecole primaire. L’Annee Psychologique, 11, 191–244. Binet, A., & Simon, Th. (1908). Le developpement de l’intelligence chez les enfants. L’Annee Psychologique, 14, 1–94. Burt, C. (1949). The structure of the mind: A review of the results of factor analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 19, 100–111; 176–199. Canter, A. (1990). A new Binet, an old premise: A mismatch between technology and evolving practice. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 443–450. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carson, D. & Roid, G. (2004). Acceptable use of the StanfordBinet Form L-M: Guidelines for the professional use of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Third Edition (Form L-M). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Cattell, J. M. (1890). Mental tests and measurements. Mind, 15, 373–381. Cattell, J. M. (1915). Families of American men of science. Popular Science Monthly, 86, 504–515. Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 1–22. Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. DuBois, P. H. (1970). A history of psychological testing. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Falk, R. F., Silverman, L K., & Moran, D. (2004, November). Using two WISC-IV indices to identify the gifted. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Convention of the National Association for Gifted Children, Salt Lake City, UT. Flanagan, D. P., & Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Essentials of WISC-IV assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 29–51. Flynn, J. R. (1999). Searching for justice: The discovery of IQ gains over time. American Psychologist, 54, 5–20.

L.K. Silverman Flynn, J. R. (2006). Tethering the elephant: Capital cases, IQ, and the Flynn effect. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 170–189. Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its causes and consequences. London: Macmillan. Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development. London: J. M. Dent & Sons. Gardner, H. G. (1983). Frames of mind: A theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gilman, B. (2008). Challenging highly gifted learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Gilman, B. J., & Falk, R. F. (2005, August). Research-based guidelines for use of the WISC-IV in gifted assessment. Paper presented at the 16th Biennial Conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, New Orlean, LA. Gilman, B. J., & Kearney, K. (2004, November). From conceptual to practical: Making gifted testing relevant. Paper presented at the 51st annual convention of the National Association for Gifted Children, Salt Lake City, UT. Goddard, H. H. (1910). A measuring scale of intelligence. Training School, 6, 146–154. Gross, U. M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children. (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer. Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267–293. Guilford, J. P. (1988). Some changes in the structure-of intellect model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1–4. Hildreth, G. H. (1966). Introduction to the gifted. New York: McGraw-Hill. Horn, J. L. (1988). Thinking about human abilities. In J. R. Nesselroade & R. B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 645–685). New York: Plenum. Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253–276. Kaufman, A. S. (1992). Evaluation of the WISC-III and WPPSIR for gifted children. Roeper Review, 14, 154–158. Kaufman, A. S. (1993). King WISC the third assumes the throne. Journal of School Psychology, 31, 345–354. Kaufman, A. S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISC-III. New York: John Wiley. Kearney, K., & LeBlanc, J. (1993). Forgotten pioneers in the study of gifted African-Americans. Roeper Review, 15, 192– 199. Lovecky, D. V., Kearney, K., Falk, R. F., & Gilman, B. J. (2005, August). A comparison of the Stanford-Binet 5 and the Stanford-Binet Form L-M in the assessment of gifted children. Paper presented at the 16th Biennial Conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, New Orleans, LA. Lubin, B., Wallis, R. R., & Paine, C. (1971). Patterns of psychological test usage in the United States: 1935 – 1969. Professional Psychology, 2, 70–74. Matarazzo, J. D. (1981). David Wechsler (1896–1981). American Psychologist, 36, 1542–1543. McGrew, K. S. (1997). Analysis of the major intelligence batteries according to a proposed comprehensive Gf-Gc framework. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 151–179). New York: Guilford.

48

The Measurement of Giftedness

McGrew, K. S. (2007). Cattell-Horn-Carroll CHC (Gf-Gc) theory: Past, present & future. 6.1 A. Conclusions and caveats. Institute for Applied Psychometrics. (Retrieved from http://www.iapsych.com/CHCPP/A.ConclusionsandCaveats. html on January 25, 2007) National Association for Gifted Children (Jan. 2008). Use of the WISC-IV for gifted identification. Retrieved January 23, 2008, from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=375 Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research. Raven, J. C. (1938). Progressive Matrices. London: H. K. Lewis. Raven, J. C. (1958). Standard Progressive Matrices (Revised): Sets A, B, C, D, & E. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press. Raven, J. C. (1959). A note on Burt’s “The distribution of intelligence.” British Journal of Psychology, 47, 95–100. Raven, J. C. (1965). Guide to using The Coloured Progressive Matrices: Sets A, Ab, B. London: H. K. Lewis. Raven, J. (1981). The 1979 British standardization of the Standard Progressive Matrices and Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale. Research Supplement No. 1 to the manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and vocabulary scales. London: H. K. Lewis. Raven, J. (1983a). The Progressive Matrices and Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale in Western societies. In S. H. Irvine & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Human assessment and cultural factors (pp. 107–114). New York: Plenum. Raven, J. (1983b). Raven Coloured Progressive Matrices Intelligence Test in Thailand and in Denmark: A response. School Psychology International, 4, 173–176. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (1998 edition). Oxford, England: Oxford Psychologists Press. Raven, J., & Summers, B. (1986). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales—Research supplement no. 3. London: H. K. Lewis. Reams, R., Chamrad, D., & Robinson, N. M. (1990). The race is not necessarily to the swift: Validity of the WISC-R bonus points for speed. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 108–110. Rich, C. C., & Anderson, R. P. (1965). A tactual form of the Progressive Matrices for use with blind children. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 43, 912–929. Rimm, S. (2006, November). Breaking the ceiling scores for profoundly gifted children using the WISC-IV. Paper presented at the 53rd annual convention of the National Association of Gifted Children, Charlotte, NC. Rimm, S., Gilman, B. J., & Silverman, L. K. (2008). Non-traditional applications of traditional testing. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students (pp. 175–202). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Robinson, H. B. (1981). The uncommonly bright child. In M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The uncommon child (pp. 57–81). New York: Plenum Press. Roid, G. H. (2003a). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition, Technical Manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Roid, G. H. (2003b). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales interpretive manual: Expanded guide to the interpretation of SB5 test results. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Roid, G. H., & Barram, R. A. (2004). Essentials of StanfordBinet (SB5) assessment. New York: Wiley.

969 Roid, G. H., & Carson, A. (2003). Special composite scores for the SB5. Assessment Service Bulletin No. 4. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Ruf, D. L. (2003). Use of the SB5 in the assessment of high abilities. Assessment Service Bulletin No. 3. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Seagoe, M. V. (1975). Terman and the gifted. Los Altos, CA: William Kaufman. Sharp, S. E. (1899). Individual psychology: A study in psychological method, American Journal of Psychology, 10, 329– 391. Shouksmith, G. (1970). Intelligence, creativity and cognitive style. New York: Wiley. Silverman, L. K. (1986). An interview with Elizabeth Hagen: Giftedness, intelligence and the new Stanford-Binet. Roeper Review, 8, 168–171. Silverman, L. K. (1993a). A developmental model for counseling the gifted. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted & talented (pp. 51–78). Denver: Love. Silverman, L. K. (1993b). The gifted individual. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted & talented (pp. 3–28). Denver: Love. Silverman, L. K. (1995). Highly gifted children. In J. Genshaft, M. Bireley, & C. L. Hollinger (Eds.), Serving gifted and talented students: A resource for school personnel (pp. 217– 240). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Silverman, L. K. (1998). Through the lens of giftedness. Roeper Review, 20, 204–210. Silverman, L. K. (2000). The two-edged sword of compensation: How the gifted cope with learning disabilities. In K. Kay (Ed.). Uniquely gifted: Identifying and meeting the needs of twice exceptional learners (pp. 153–159). Gilsum, NH: Avocus. Silverman, L. K. (2001). Diagnosing and treating visual perceptual issues in gifted children. Journal of Optometric Vision Development, 32(3), 153–176. Silverman, L. K. (2002). Upside-down brilliance: The visualspatial learner. Denver: DeLeon. Silverman, L. K. (2003). Gifted children with learning disabilities. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 553 – 543). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Silverman, L. K., Gilman, B. J., & Falk, R. F. (2004, November). Who are the gifted using the new WISC-IV? Paper presented at the 51st annual convention of the National Association for Gifted Children, Salt Lake City, UT. Silverman, L. K. & Kearney, K. (1992). Don’t throw away the old Binet, Understanding Our Gifted, 4(4), 1, 8–10. Silverman, L. K., & Kearney, K. (1989). Parents of the extraordinarily gifted. Advanced Development, 1, 41–56. Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1988). The IQ controversy, the media and public policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Spearman, C. E. (1904). “General intelligence”: Objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–292. Spearman, C. E. (1923). The nature of intelligence and the principles of cognition. London: Macmillan. Spearman, C. E. (1927). The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan. Stanley, J. C. (1990). Leta Hollingworth’s contributions to above-level testing of the gifted. Roeper Review, 12(3), 166– 171.

970 Stern, W. (1910). Das ubernormal kind. Der Saemann, 67– 72. [Translated and reprinted in 1911 as The supernormal child. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2, 143–148, 181–190.] Teasdale, T. W., & Owen. D. R. (2005). A long-term rise and recent decline in intelligence test performance: The Flynn Effect in reverse. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 837 – 843. Terman, L. M. (1916a). The measurement of intelligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Terman, L. M., (1916b). The Stanford revision of the Binet-Simon tests. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Terman, L. M. (1917). The intelligence quotient of Francis Galton in childhood. American Journal of Psychology, 28, 209–215. Terman, L. M. (1921). In E. L. Thorndike, et al. Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 127–133. Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius, Vol. 1: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1937). Measuring intelligence: A guide to the administration of the new revised StanfordBinet tests of intelligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1960). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Manual for the third revision. Form L-M. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1973). The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: 1973 norms edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Terrassier, J-C. (1985). Dyssynchrony-uneven development. In J. Freeman (Ed.). The psychology of gifted children (pp. 265– 274). New York: John Wiley. Thorndike, E. L. (1941). Mental abilities. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Symposium on Recent Advances in Psychology, 84, 503–513. Thorndike, R. L. (1975). Mr. Binet’s test 70 years later. Educational Researcher, 4, 3–4. Thorndike, R. L. (1986). Historical and theoretical perspectives. In R. L. Thorndike, E. P. Hagen, & J. M. Sattler (1986). The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth edition. Technical manual (pp. 1–7). Itasca, IL: Riverside. Thorndike, R. L., & Hagen, E. P. (1971). Cognitive Abilities Test. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M. (1986). The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth edition. Technical manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Psychometric Monographs, No. 1. Vernon, P. E. (1951). The structure of human abilities. New York: John Wiley. Vernon, P. E. (1987). The demise of the Stanford-Binet scale. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 28(3), 251–258. Wasserman, J. D. (2003). Assessment of intellectual functioning. In J. R. Graham & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Volume 10: Assessment psychology (pp. 417– 442). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

L.K. Silverman Wasserman, J. D. (2005, November). Utility of nonverbal measures with the gifted. Paper presented at the 16th Biennial Conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, New Orleans, LA. Wasserman, J. D. (2006). Tips for parents: Intellectual assessment of exceptionally and profoundly gifted children. Unpublished manuscript available online at http://www.gtcybersource.org/Record.aspx?NavID=2 0&rid=14107 Wasserman, J. D. (2007a). The Flynn effect in gifted samples: Status as of 2007. Unpublished manuscript available online at http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/Whats New/flynn.htm Wasserman, J. D. (2007b). Intellectual assessment of exceptionally and profoundly gifted children. In K. Kay, D. Robson, & J. F. Brenneman (Eds.), High IQ kids: Collected insights, information and personal stories from the experts (pp. 48–65). Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Press. Watt, D. C. (1998, January). Lionel Penrose, F. R. S. (1898– 1972) and eugenics: Part One. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 52(1), 137–151. Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Spatial ability: A neglected dimension in talent searches for intellectually precocious youth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 397–420. Wechsler, D. (1939). The measurement of adult intelligence. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Wechsler, D. (1949). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1955). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1958). The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence (4th ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Wechsler, D. (1967). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—revised. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1981). WAIS-R manual: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Revised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1989). Manual for the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–Revised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1991). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (2003). The WISC-IV technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Weiss, L. G., Saklofske, D. H., Prifitera, A., & Holdnack, J. A. (2006). WISC-IV Advanced clinical interpretation. Burlington, MA: Academic Press. Wilson, W. M. (1992). The Stanford-Binet Fourth Edition and Form L-M in assessment of young children with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 30(2), 81–84.

Chapter 49

Identifying Academically Talented Students: Some General Principles, Two Specific Procedures David F. Lohman

Abstract Talent signifies potential for the attainment of excellence in some domain. Procedures for identifying academic talent that were developed at the turn of the twentieth century emphasized the measurement of a cognitive potential that was thought to forecast successful learning in any domain or learning context. While not rejecting the utility of the measures of cognitive ability devised to estimate this learning potential, most psychologists now see talent as a more variegated concept and the development of expertise as dependent on much more than superior cognitive ability. The concept of aptitude offers a useful way to integrate these disparate strands into a coherent theory. In this chapter, I discuss the identification of academically talented children from the perspective of aptitude theory. Aptitude refers to the degree of readiness to learn and to perform well in a particular situation or domain. The primary aptitudes for academic success are (1) prior knowledge and skill in a domain, (2) the ability to reason in the symbol systems used to communicate new knowledge in that domain, (3) interest in the domain, and (4) persistence in the type of learning environments offered for the attainment of expertise in the domain. Although the principles discussed here are useful for all students, they are particularly important for the identification of academically promising minority students. The chapter concludes with examples of two procedures for combining ability test scores, achievement test scores, and teacher ratings in a principled way to assist in the identification of a talent pool.

D.F. Lohman (B) The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords Talent · Aptitude · Expertise · Ability · Group ability tests · Achievement tests · Regression to the mean · Teacher ratings

Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to justify and then illustrate a way to conceptualize the identification of talent that acknowledges, but goes well beyond the concepts of giftedness first advanced in the waning years of the nineteenth century. Although talent can be in any area, the focus here is on academic talent. The approach is grounded in over 80 years of research on the conceptualization and measurement of aptitude (see Corno, Cronbach et al., 2002). The chapter is based on several other papers that I have recently published on this topic, most notably a monograph issued by the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (Lohman, 2005a). Most of these papers use data from Form 6 of the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT; Lohman & Hagen, 2001), which I now coauthor with Elizabeth Hagen.1 Those who desire elaboration of points made here are encouraged to look at the original documents for less abbreviated discussions of the issues. Those familiar with this work may want to skip directly to the final section. There I describe two procedures for developing talent identification systems 1 I include this information to disclose at the outset any conflict of interest. It also explains why I have used CogAT and ITBS data to illustrate points that I make. However, on more than one occasion I found it necessary to explain how CogAT differs from other group ability tests. Although some will interpret this as self-promotion, my real concern was to correct the widespread misconception that all such tests are more or less exchangeable.

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 49, 

971

972

that try to incorporate some of the principles that I advocate. The identification of academically gifted children depends not only on a clear definition of giftedness but also on the kind of educational programs that will be made available to children who are selected to participate in them. Programs range from highly selective, special schools for profoundly gifted children to enrichment activities that are made available to all children in a school who show interest in a particular activity and some talent for it. Clearly, the specific procedures that one would use to identify those children who might succeed in a highly selective school for the gifted would not be appropriate for a program that follows a School-Wide Enrichment Model (Renzulli, 2005). Nevertheless, the same principles govern each. It is these principles that are the focus of this chapter. Modern conceptions of ability—while not disavowing the practical import of ability tests—interpret the psychological constructs that they measure quite differently than their developers did. In particular, abilities are seen as forms of emerging expertise that are developed through participation in and internalization of activities valued by the culture(s) in which the child lives (see, e.g., Horn & Blankson, 2005). Talent is envisioned as a readiness or propensity to acquire particular kinds of expertise. Talents of greatest interest will be those needed to develop those forms of expertise valued by a society through the formal training systems available to the individual in that society. Academic talent is thus critical for all of those forms of expertise for which formal education is required or for which it serves as the gatekeeper. An increasingly important problem for all talent identification systems is to find better ways to identify academically talented poor and minority students. Attempts to increase the representation of these students, however, have been made difficult by recurring misconceptions about the nature of academic giftedness, the interpretation of measures of ability and achievement commonly used to identify gifted students, and the kinds of the educational programs that have been developed to serve gifted students. Many of the procedures that are widely used to measure academic talent are not effective when children have had markedly different opportunities to develop those talents. Attempts to remediate this problem without first understanding the psychological foundations of talent are at best only partially effective and, more commonly, actually miss

D.F. Lohman

the most academically talented minority students. Assuming that nonverbal ability tests such as the Nonverbal Battery of CogAT will do the trick is the most glaring example of this failure (Lohman, 2005b). Therefore, I first discuss misconceptions about giftedness that have thwarted efforts to identify academically talented minority students. Chief among these is the fallacy that intelligence tests can be constructed that measure innate ability. I then present an alternative model for identifying academically talented students that is grounded in modern theories of aptitude. In brief, my argument is that (a) academic talent is best understood as aptitude for the kinds of expertise that can be developed through schooling; that (b) the primary aptitudes for academic learning are current knowledge and skill in a domain, the ability to reason in the symbol systems used to communicate new knowledge in the domain, interest in the domain, and persistence in the pursuit of excellence; and that (c) inferences about academic talent are most defensible when made by comparing a student’s behavior to the behavior of other students who have had similar opportunities to acquire the knowledge and skills measured by the aptitude tests; however, (d) educational programming and placement should be based primarily on evidence of current accomplishments compared to all other students. Historically, the identification of giftedness focused exclusively on cognitive competence as estimated by an IQ test. This is still an important theme in some quarters—especially among those whose primary concern is the identification of profoundly gifted students. However, even here it is not apparent that the effort spent in deciding whether a child’s IQ is 158 instead of 145 is as useful as a more careful documentation of the child’s academic development (and interests) in different domains of study. At the end of the day, the real problem is how best to intervene to assist children in developing their abilities and talents. Although it does not dismiss the notion of general ability (except perhaps in the work of Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, 2005), modern research on the development of competence starts not with general ability but rather with the kind of expertise that one hopes to forecast. Deciding which students are most likely to develop that type of expertise requires an understanding of what constitutes expertise in the domain and how it might be developed. Typically, different combinations of personal characteristics are needed for

49

Identifying Academically Talented Students

success at different stages in the development of expertise. For example, success in the early reading or mathematics requires somewhat different abilities than success in later literacy or advanced mathematics. Indeed, precocious reading does not forecast general academic excellence (Jackson, 1988). Next one looks at the demands and opportunities of the different educational paths offered for those who wish to develop this kind of expertise. Students must always develop their talents within the educational programs that are available to them. Even the best of these programs will better serve some children than others. What must students know and be able to do to succeed in alternative routes to the attainment of expertise? The student who might have difficulty learning alone (e.g., computer-assisted construction) might succeed more readily when learning with others (e.g., a symposia or discussion group). Always one should strive for “congruence between the criteria used in the identification process and the goals and types of services that constitute the day-to-day activities that students will pursue” (Renzulli, 2005, p. 11).

973

one to develop one set of abilities and not another? And if selection will be based on g, how does one account for the fact that different measures of g select different students who have quite different likelihoods of displaying or developing particular kinds of academic expertise? Even a cursory consideration of these questions reveals that we are not interested in ability for ability’s sake, but rather in ability for something. Most commonly the goal is to identify those children who either currently display or are likely to develop excellence in those skills valued by society and that are therefore taught in its schools. Identifying such students is a more manageable problem than trying to measure the hundreds of ways in which people differ and then creating programs that are uniquely tailored to each kind of exceptionality. Put differently, those who take an ability-centered approach to the identification of giftedness have no basis other than parsimony for designating one ability as more important than any other ability. For example, it is only when we add the criterion of utility that general crystallized abilities become much more important than general spatial or general memory abilities in the identification of academic giftedness. Crystallized abilities better predict school Defining Giftedness achievement for all children even though general crystallized, fluid, spatial, and memory abilities have equal How best to identify gifted children is one of the most stature in the modern theories of human abilities. persistent and controversial topics in the field of gifted education (VanTassel-Baska, 2000). Much of the controversy stems from different beliefs about the mean- Giftedness as Relative to the Norm Group ing of the term gifted. Should giftedness be restricted to academic domains, or should it include artistic, ath- Judgments of exceptionality depend on the norm letic, leadership, and other types of competence valued group. Scores that are unusual in one cohort often by society? In the academic domain, should it be based are not unusual in another. There are many examples on evidence of superior academic accomplishments or of studies that demonstrate how differences in norms can confound efforts to identify gifted students. on a measure of academic potential, such as IQ? Although most espouse broadening the definition For example, Shaunessy, Karnes, and Cobb (2004) beyond traditional notions of IQ, disagreement re- administered the Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT; mains on which domains should be included. For Cattell & Cattell, 1965), the Standard Progressive example, should programs be devised to develop all of Matrices (Raven; Raven et al., 1983), and the Naglieri Gardner’s (1983, 2003) intelligences? And if not, what Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT; Naglieri, 1997) to 196 is the principle that ranks one higher than another? predominantly Black students in a poor rural school Should selection be based only on general ability (g), district. Their goal was to see which test identified or should it include the eight broad-group factors at the most gifted students. To do this, they compared the second level of the Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) the number of students who fell in 5-point percentile theory (McGrew, 2005)? If the definition includes bands on each test beginning at the 80th percentile. The NNAT, which has the most recent norms, idengroup factors, are all eight factors equally important? If not, then why not? What are the principles that lead tified only three students as falling above the 80th age

974

percentile rank (PR); the Progressive Matrices Test, which has some normative data collected in the 1980s, identified 18 students; and the CFIT, which has the oldest and least defensible norms, identified 36 students.2 A more recent study that compared the performance of Hispanic English language learners (ELL) in kindergarten through grade 6 with the performance of non-ELL students also showed the inadequacy of the outdated norms for the Raven. In all, approximately 1200 students were administered the Standard Progressive Matrices, the NNAT, and Form 6 of the Cognitive Abilities Test in a counterbalanced order. Across all grades, the mean SAS score on CogAT Nonverbal battery and the mean NAI score on NNAT were the same for non-ELL students (100.7) and similar for ELL students (92.4 on CogAT and 90.7 on NNAT). However, when converted to a similar IQ-like metric, the corresponding mean scores for Raven were 111 and 103. Because the Raven norms were too easy, the test vastly over-identified the number of “gifted” children, especially in the early grades. Surprisingly, the NNAT also substantially over-identified the number of highscoring children because of errors in norming the test.3 Even if tests are normed on the same population, the common practice of accepting the highest score across several different tests that measure the same ability is fundamentally misguided. It assumes that the highest score in a set of different test scores best estimates a student’s ability. This is not true. The best estimate is usually given by the average of these scores. The highest score among a set of ostensibly parallel assessments is actually one of the most error-laden scores, and thus most likely to regress to the mean.

D.F. Lohman

Flynn Effect National norms for both ability and achievement tests have been changing for as long as we have been norming tests. Scores on ability tests have been rising at the rate of about three IQ points per decade since the 1920s. This increase is sometimes called the Flynn effect after the researcher who first systematically documented it in many countries (see, e.g., Flynn, 1987). Growth has been even larger on nonverbal tests such as the Progressive Matrices and was unabated in the most recent studies (see Raven, 2000). This is one reason that major ability and achievement tests are re-normed every 5–10 years. Even when two tests are normed in the same year, however, samples of examinees differ, and so norms for the two tests are not necessarily the same. Therefore, a selection rule that defines admission in terms of IQ or national percentile rank will not admit the same number of students in different years or when different tests are used, especially if the norms are not of equal recency and quality.

Demographic Changes in the Population

Norms also change to reflect demographic shifts in the population. For example, norms for verbal tests change as the number of the bilingual children and adults increases. Historically, these changes have been relatively small. However, recent increases in the number of bilingual children and adults will result in a relative “softening” of the norms on these tests. This will lead to a relative increase in the number of high-scoring non-ELL children. Norms on achievement tests, on the other hand, are 2 Although the CFIT norms are still in use, they are not recbased entirely on the fraction of the population attendommended. They were based on convenience samples of U.S. ing school. Because low-achieving students are more and British students collected in the 1960s and were indefensible when new (see Tannenbaum, 1965). National norms for the likely to drop out before completing high school, a Raven have never been collected, so users are advised to collect given percentile rank (say 95) means better perfortheir own norms. mance compared to all children in the population for 3 Although overall mean scores across grades did not differ for the 12th-grade student than for the 3rd-grade student. CogAT and NNAT, the variability of scores was much greater on NNAT than on CogAT or Raven. Other analyses of the NNAT standardization data show the same elevated SD in the Nonverbal Ability Index (NAI), with the population of SD exceeding 21 at level A. Failure to set the SD of NAI scores to 15 results in approximately three times as many children receiving scores greater than 130 at the primary level than would be observed had the SD been properly set to 15 (see Lohman, Korb, & Lakin, 2008)

The Importance of Local Norms The Flynn effect demonstrates that judgments about exceptionality depend on the national norms that are

49

Identifying Academically Talented Students

used to interpret scores. More students will obtain high scores when older norms are used than when more recent norms are used. However, differences between schools in the same state are many times greater than differences between cohorts of students in different decades. This is important because the need for special services depends not so much on a student’s standing relative to age- or grade mates nationally, but on the student’s standing relative to the other students in the class. Talent searches and district-wide programs that recruit students from different schools need the common standard of national norms. National norms also provide important information on a student’s relative standing on the different abilities measured by the test. Individual schools, however, rarely replicate the nation in their distribution of ability or achievement. In about 5% of the schools in the nation, the average student scores at the 95th percentile on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS; Hoover, Dunbar, & Frisbie, 2001). Surely the students in these classes are quite capable. But it is unlikely that a student who scores at the 98th national percentile in such a class will be as mismatched with the common curriculum as the student who scores at the 98th national percentile in a class in which the typical student scores at the 50th percentile on the ITBS. In short, although both national and local norms have important uses, decisions about identification and acceleration are often best made using local norms. Many publishers offer local norms when the school or district tests all children in a particular grade.4

975

One of the primary differences between ability and achievement tests is that ability tests report scores relative to age mates.5 Ability is an inference about rate of learning given equal opportunity to learn. We use age as a yardstick in measuring ability because it is a useful surrogate for “total amount of experience in the culture.” If the abilities are those that can be developed in the course of everyday interactions with the culture, then comparisons to one’s age cohort provide important information. If the abilities can be developed through school experiences, then comparisons with those who have had similar amounts of education (i.e., grade norms) are also helpful. However, even small differences in the choice of age cohort (e.g., 6 years 0 months versus 6 years 10 months) can make a large difference in whether a particular score is considered exceptional. If the child was ill for several months or lived in the culture for only half of her life, would norms based on her age cohort be most appropriate for inferences about her ability to learn?

Subgroup Norms

For those whose experiences differ markedly from the norm, aptitudes need to be judged relative to a different cohort. Always, the preferred comparison group would be those who have had roughly similar opportunities to acquire the abilities sampled by the test. Concretely, one should look at the performance of the ELL child relative to other ELL children who have had Age Norms roughly similar amounts of exposure to English. The “fair” procedure of comparing all to the same age or Judgments about academic potential often assume a grade group regardless of their experience is equivadifferent cohort than either a national or a local grade lent to the “fair” procedure of comparing all children cohort. Suppose that we discover that the student to a common score distribution, regardless of age. Furwhose achievement is exceptional is actually a year thermore, as shown elsewhere (Lohman, 2005a) one older than the other students in the class. Although need not develop rigorous norms tables or compare the instruction should be geared to the child’s achieve- child only to the handful of others who have had similar ment, would one still consider the child “gifted”? experiences. Rough classifications (such as ELL verConversely, suppose a child is considerably younger sus native speakers) go a long way to correcting the than her classmates or has attended school irregularly. problem. Should her scores be compared with others in the same grade when estimating her ability to learn? 4

Procedures described in the final section of this chapter show how to approximate these norms.

5 For individually administered ability tests, this is the only norm group. Group-administered tests such as CogAT report both age and grade norms.

976

D.F. Lohman

Assessments in Other Languages

Scaling Effects

Should a test also be administered in the child’s other language(s)? If the goal is to assess the full extent of a child’s cognitive competence, then the test(s) needs to be aligned not only to the language(s) but also to the culture(s) of the child. This is more commonly a problem when making judgments about cognitive impairments than about readiness to profit from advanced or more rapidly paced instruction. In either case, oral language can introduce construct-irrelevant variance into the testing situation. One can reduce this impact and still make some inference about verbal abilities by presenting problems that require verbal processing, but that use only pictures. This allows the child to use any language when attempting items. However, such tests do not measure verbal reasoning very well. Many concepts—especially those that require nuanced judgments about meaning—cannot be displayed in pictures. Therefore, such tests substantially underrepresent those aspects of reasoning most clearly captured by reasoning tests that use words. Furthermore, instruction is always conducted in one or more languages. Knowing the child’s competence in another language is at best a helpful predictor of the level of competence the child might someday attain in the language of instruction. Concretely, if a child has excellent oral language abilities in Spanish, we would predict the attainment of at least above-average skills in English. Spanish listening, speaking, reading, and writing abilities will function as direct aptitudes for classroom learning, however, only if the instructional program allows or requires the child to use them. In those situations in which English is either one of the languages of instruction (or the only language of instruction), students’ performance relative to others who have had roughly similar opportunities and experiences in acquiring English should be estimated. To exclude such abilities from the assessment to avoid the inconvenience of interpreting scores for ELL students differently than non-ELL students will significantly underrepresent the set of aptitudes needed for learning. Assessments in the language of instruction provide an important frame of reference for making judgments about the likelihood that, if given proper assistance, the child will someday attain academic excellence in an English-speaking educational system. An aptitude perspective thus helps clarify those situations in which assessments in a second language would be helpful or even necessary.

Raw scores (i.e., number correct) on most standardized tests are first converted to scale scores. IQ scores are simply age percentile ranks (PRs) of the distributions of these scale scores. An IQ of 100 always translates to an age PR of 50. The PR equivalent of other IQ scores depends on the standard deviation that is imposed on the scores. Different procedures for constructing score scales will produce different raw score to scale score conversions, and thus will result in different IQ scores. For example, changes in the scaling of the Stanford-Binet between Form L-M and the fourth and fifth editions dramatically reduced the number of extremely high IQ scores that were reported (Ruf, 2003).

Summary Judgments about exceptionality depend importantly on the norm group that is used. Whether a particular score is considered exceptional also depends on how the norms were derived, how the test scores were mapped onto a score scale, and how the scores will be interpreted. The child who is considered gifted when compared to others in his class may not be considered gifted when compared to others in the nation, to others who are the same age, to those who were tested a few months earlier, to examinees of the same age who were tested a decade or two later, or to those who have had more experience in the culture of the assessment. Those who do not understand the relativity of norms—especially on ability tests—miss the easiest and most effective way to identify those minority students who are most likely to develop academic excellence. It is important to measure the right abilities, but it is equally important to compare students’ scores to the right norm groups.

Is Giftedness Developed? The common conception of giftedness emphasizes the importance of innate ability. Genetic factors are clearly important in accounting for individual differences in ability and achievement. The statistic that estimates the proportion of genetic variation in a trait for a particular group of individuals in a particular range of

49

Identifying Academically Talented Students

environments is called a heritability coefficient. For example, in the USA, heritability for height is about .85. This means that about 85% of the variation in children’s heights can be predicted by knowing their parent’s heights. In countries where there is a much greater variation in nutrition, the heritability drops to about .60. The proportion of genetic variance is smaller primarily because the environmental variation is greater. Traits that are not affected by generic factors would have a heritability of zero. Three facts are commonly overlooked in discussions of the extent to which genetic factors explain or account for individual differences in intelligence. First, the contribution of heredity is typically as high for measures of achievement as it is for measures of ability. The distinction between ability and achievement tests cannot to be made on the basis of the contribution of heredity to individual differences in the scores (Cronbach, 1976). Second, estimates of heritability vary substantially across cohorts of people who share a common genetic heritage. For example, Turkheimer, Haley, Waldron, D’Onofrio, and Gottesman (2003) investigated how the heritability for IQ scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) at age seven varied as a function of socioeconomic status (SES) for 319 twins. The best estimate of heritability for the lowest SES children was less than .20. This means that individual differences in the WISC IQ scores of these twins were almost entirely due to variations in their pre- and post-natal environments. For the highest SES children, on the other hand, the estimated heritability was at least 80% of the variance. Therefore, the contribution of the environment— both that portion shared by both children and that portion unique to each child—was vastly more important for low-SES children. Third, even a high heritability does not imply immutability. Individuals can show marked changes in the trait over time and their ranks within the group change substantially while the heritability remains the same. Indeed, this is the case for those abilities that we measure with intelligence tests.

Giftedness as a Category Label

977

characteristic that varies continuously. We speak of learning disabled or gifted students as if these labels represented discrete categories rather than arbitrary portions of continuously varying score distributions. If two well-respected tests give different ability scores for the same child, one saying that the child is gifted and the other reporting a lower score, many would dismiss one outcome—usually the lower score. But such disagreement between tests is the rule, not the exception. Suppose we define gifted as scoring in the top 3% of the distribution of intelligence. We administer two of the best intelligence tests—the Stanford-Binet V and the WISC-IV—to each student. Full-scale IQ scores on these tests correlate r = .84 (Roid, 2003). This means, however, that only about half of the students who score in the top 3% on one test will also score in the top 3% on the second test (Lohman & Korb, 2006). If the interval between test administrations is longer than a few weeks, then even fewer would merit the label gifted on both tests. This is not what most test users expect, in part, because when we think about gifted children, we tend to envision those children who most clearly exemplify the category. These will generally be those children with the most extreme scores. And although the scores for these children also differ across tests, both scores are likely to fall above the cut score. For other students, we have an unfailing tendency to focus on those scores that are consistent across occasions because they confirm our expectations of consistency. For example, children whose performance is exceptional at age 6 but not at age 10 will often be dismissed as “not really gifted,” even though their performance at age 6 truly was exceptional. Confirmation bias is widespread in human reasoning (Nickerson, 1998). However, no matter where we set the cut score on the upper tail of the score distribution, many more students will be near that cut score than far above it. When the scores of these students regress toward the mean on retest, many will fall below the cut and the scores of an equally large group of students who previously failed to make the cut will now rise above it. Regression to the mean is inevitable whenever the two sets of scores are not perfectly correlated.6 Indeed, it is another way of

The act of naming something enables communication 6 Technically, this holds only if the variability of scores is the with others. But it can also reinforce the perverse same for the two sets of scores. This will always be the case human tendency to misrepresent as categorical a when using IQ scores, percentile ranks, and other status scores.

978

saying that two variables are not perfectly correlated. The lower the correlation or the more extreme the initial score, the greater the regression. Keeping track of everyone—not just the cases that stand out clearly in our minds—helps us combat the confirmation and typological biases in our thinking. Even those who understand that the boundaries between “gifted” and “not gifted” are arbitrary often assume that category membership would remain constant if we had perfectly reliable measures. This is not true. Longitudinal studies of ability and achievement show that the majority of students who would be classified as gifted one year would not be so classified a few years later, even if we somehow obtained error-free scores on the ability test (Humphreys & Davey, 1988). This is because (a) cognitive abilities develop at different rates in different children and (b) the sources of individual differences in test scores change as one moves up the developmental scale. The critical mistake here is to assume that ability is fixed, not constantly developing. It ignores the fact that to maintain a particular rank (e.g., IQ), a child must not only get better each year but must improve at the same rate as others who had the same initial score. Using status scores such as percentile ranks (or derivatives such as IQs) masks this year-to-year growth. If the same dimension were labeled “language development” rather than “giftedness,” then we would expect to find some children whose development was unusual at one point in time but not unusual at a later point in time. Reading is unusual for a 3-year-old. It is not unusual for a 6-year-old. However, as is the case with many gifted behaviors in young children, precocious readers often have IQ’s in the moderately above-average range. Indeed, “the literature provides little support for the assumption that giftedness in childhood is an enduring and unchanging property of the individual. Rather, different forms of giftedness emerge at different ages in different children” (Jackson, 2003, p. 470). Those who identify gifted students can thus inadvertently become gatekeepers for the precocious rather than advocates of developmentally appropriate instruction for all students. Selection policies make concrete different assumptions about what tests measure. Indeed, part of the controversy about identification practices stems from misunderstandings about the limitations of tests and other scales. Many identification procedures erroneously treat test scores as if (a) they were error free,

D.F. Lohman

(b) all tests measured the intended construct with equal fidelity, (c) all tests measured the same thing throughout the score scale, and (d) the norms of the different tests were equally good. Ignoring these limitations of tests can seriously compromise the identification process.

An Aptitude Theory of Academic Talent An aptitude approach to understanding academic talent is very much concerned with abilities, but in a different way than in most theories of giftedness. The focus is on all of the aptitudes that must be brought to bear to accomplish something. In particular, the goals are to identify either those children who currently display academic excellence and are likely to continue to display it or those children who show less exceptional levels of accomplishment but are likely to develop it if given special assistance. The first point, then, is that academic giftedness is best understood in terms of aptitude to acquire the knowledge and skills taught in schools that lead to forms of expertise that are valued by society. We are interested in ability tests only because they help identify those who may someday become excellent engineers, scientists, writers, etc. In other words, we are interested in abilities because they are indicants of aptitude. They are not the only indicants but one important class of indicants.

A Definition of Aptitude The word aptitude is often used interchangeably with words such as ability, talent, and potential. However, aptitude is a more general term than ability: It includes those competencies called achievements as well. Aptitude is also a more inclusive term than talent. Academic talent commonly refers only or primarily to the cognitive aspects of aptitude, thereby excluding the broader range of motivational, temperamental, and other characteristics required for the development of expertise. Aptitude is easier to define and measure than potential. Potential is often taken to mean something like the level of competence that individuals might achieve if reared in environments that were perfectly

49

Identifying Academically Talented Students

attuned to their needs. When interpreted in this way, there is no way to measure the construct. So, what exactly do we mean by aptitude? Although often rooted in biological predispositions, it is not something that is fixed at birth. School achievements commonly function as aptitudes—for example, reading skills are important aptitudes for school learning. Indeed, aptitude encompasses much more than cognitive constructs such as ability or achievement. Persistence is an important aptitude in the attainment of expertise. Often, particular ability, interest, and motivational characteristics work together and thus are best understood as an aptitude complex (Ackerman, 2003; Lubinski & Benbow, 2000). For example, the effects of general ability are moderated by anxiety: Although high-ability students generally learn best in less structured environments, those who are highly anxious typically do better in more structured environments. Finally, and most importantly, the term aptitude is not a descriptor of a person that is somehow independent of context or circumstance. Indeed, defining the situation or context is part of defining the aptitude. Changing the context changes in small or large measure the personal characteristics that influence success in that context. Aptitude is inextricably linked to context. Students approach new tasks with a repertoire of knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, motivations, and other propensities developed and tuned through life experiences to date. Formal schooling may be conceptualized as an organized series of situations that sometimes demand, sometimes evoke, or sometimes merely afford the use of these characteristics. Of the many characteristics that influence a person’s behavior, only a small set aids goal attainment in a particular situation. These are called aptitudes. Formally, then, aptitude refers to the degree of readiness to learn and to perform well in a particular situation or domain (Corno et al., 2002). Those characteristics that impede performance function as inaptitudes. Examples of characteristics that commonly function as academic aptitudes include the ability to comprehend instructions, to manage one’s time, to use previously acquired knowledge appropriately, to make good inferences and generalizations, and to manage one’s emotions. Examples of characteristics that function as inaptitudes include impulsivity, high levels of anxiety, or prior learning that interferes with the acquisition of new concepts and skills.

979

Effects of Context Understanding which characteristics of individuals are likely to function as aptitudes begins with an understanding of the demands and affordances of target tasks and the contexts in which they must be performed. This is what we mean when we say that defining the situation is part of defining the aptitude (Snow & Lohman, 1984). The affordances of an environment are what it offers, makes likely, or makes useful. Discovery learning often affords the use of reasoning abilities; direct instruction often reduces the need for these abilities. Unless we define the context clearly, we are left with distal measures that capture only some of the aptitudes needed for success. This is why g-like measures of ability correlate imperfectly with success in any particular school task, especially when students are allowed a choice over what they study and how they might go about it. On the other hand, averaging across learning situations and outcome measures obscures the impact of the particular abilities and magnifies the relative importance of g. Physical skills are similar. General physical fitness is the best (albeit typically weak) predictor of success across a wide range of athletic skills. However, more specific physical abilities and skills become more important aptitudes as the range of athletic events narrows. Finally, when it is available, current skill in a sport is generally the best predictor of performance in the immediate future.

Inferring Aptitudes Aptitude is commonly inferred in two ways. In the first way, aptitude is estimated from the speed with which the individual learns the task itself. Aptitude for a task is inferred retrospectively when a student learns something from a few exposures that other students learn only after much practice. When available, this is the most unambiguous evidence of aptitude for learning something. Indeed, the concept of aptitude was initially introduced to help explain the enormous variation in learning rates exhibited by individuals who seemed similar in other respects (Bingham, 1937). For example, one of the clearest indicators of mathematical talent is success in learning mathematics.

980

In the second way of inferring aptitude, we attempt to identify other tasks that require similar cognitive or affective processes and measure the individual’s facility on those tasks (Carroll, 1974). Because these measures only predict success on the task, they will more often error in identifying those students who will excel in learning the task itself. Even if by some miracle one could carefully specify all of the cognitive aptitudes for learning, one would also need to specify the needed affective and conative aptitudes as well. One of the reasons why measures of current accomplishment in a domain are important measures of aptitude for future learning is that they already incorporate this information.

Scholastic Aptitudes The two most important aptitudes for academic learning are reasoning abilities and knowledge and skill in the domain of instruction. The relative importance of prior achievement and reasoning abilities will depend on the demands and affordances of the instructional environment and on the age and experience of the learner. In general, prior achievement is more important when new learning is like the learning sampled on the achievement test. This is commonly the case when the interval between old and new learning is short. With longer time intervals between tests or when content changes abruptly (as from arithmetic to algebra), then reasoning abilities become more important (Lohman & Korb, 2006). Novices typically rely more on knowledge-lean reasoning abilities than do domain experts. Because children are universal novices, their reasoning abilities are more important in the identification of academic talent, whereas evidence of domain-specific accomplishments is relatively more important for adolescents (Hagen, 1980). Therefore, if the goal is to identify those students who are most likely to show high levels of future achievement, both current achievement and domain-specific reasoning abilities need to be measured. Analyses of the CogAT-ITBS data (Lohman & Korb, 2006) suggest that the two should be weighted approximately equally.

D.F. Lohman

Measures of Domain Knowledge and Skills A critical requirement of most academic tasks is domain knowledge and skill (Glaser, 1992). When they are available, measures of prior knowledge and skill are therefore usually the best predictors of success in academic environments, especially when new learning depends heavily on old learning. Measures of current knowledge and skill include on-grade-level and above-grade-level achievement tests and wellvalidated performance assessments such as rankings in debate contests, art exhibitions, and science fairs. The sorts of group-administered achievement tests that are commonly used in schools provide useful information about students’ general reading achievement and mathematics skills. However, by design such tests present only the most general concepts in science, social studies, and other particular domains of study. To better understand students’ development in these domains, schools might investigate end of course examinations in particular subjects—those exams used either in local schools or available from major test publishers. Inventories of conceptual and factual knowledge in a domain can also provide critical information on this aspect of academic development. These are frequently overlooked, often because there is no easy way to rank all children on the same dimension. Most achievement tests—especially those designed for elementary school children—contain relatively little content knowledge. However, studies of the development of expertise show that to develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must construct rich networks of well-organized factual and conceptual knowledge (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). This knowledge can be quite localized, especially when learning is self-directed. Bright children assemble vast amounts of knowledge about specific topics that are at best represented only superficially on achievement tests. An achievement test that is designed to be fair to all children can hardly be expected to reveal much about the specialized knowledge a student has acquired. In this respect, the dilemma that confronts those who would assess gifted children is the same dilemma that has stymied those who investigate adult intelligence. Hunt (2000) suggests that we might do a better job if the metaphor that guided the construction of the assessment were to conduct an inventory rather than a survey.

49

Identifying Academically Talented Students

Short-term educational decisions should therefore rely primarily on evidence of current accomplishment in a domain. Other aptitudes enter the picture, though, with each step one takes into the future. For example, given the same type of instruction, continued improvement in a domain requires interest or at least dogged persistence. More commonly, continued success requires a new mix of abilities: Algebra requires some skills not needed in arithmetic; critical reading requires skills not needed in beginning reading. Teachers, teaching methods, and classroom dynamics also change over time, each requiring, eliciting, or affording the use of somewhat different personal characteristics. Indeed, in most disciplines, the development of expertise requires mastery of new and, in some cases, qualitatively different skills at different stages. Sometimes the critical factor is not only what is required for success but also what is allowed or elicited by the new context that might create a stumbling block for the student. For example, in moving from a structured to a less structured environment, a student may flounder because he is anxious or is unable to schedule his time. Indeed, the attainment of expertise often has as much to do with inaptitudes as aptitudes.

981

labile estimate of a child’s abilities. Individually administered ability tests are generally considered the gold standard. As with most stereotypes, this is not always the case. The generalization is most likely to hold when the group-administered test is relatively short or samples only a portion of the cognitive domain. For example, nonverbal ability tests typically fit in this category, especially when they are relatively short. However, a group-administered test will sometimes give the better estimate of the student’s academic aptitude. This will happen if the group test samples more comprehensively from the target ability domain than the individually administered test. For example, the CogAT contains nine different fluid reasoning subtests: three verbal, three quantitative, and three figural/nonverbal. Because they try to measure a much broader sample of abilities, individually administered ability tests developed in recent years actually have far fewer reasoning subtests (Frazier & Youngstrom, 2007). In this case, the CogAT scores are generally more reliable (see Table 49.1), a better measure of g (Lohman, 2003a, 2003b), and an equally good or better measure success in school – even when method effects are controlled (e.g., CogAT predicting scores on a group-administered achievement test and the individually administered ability test predicting scores on an individually-administered achievement test).7 Measures of Fluid Reasoning Abilities Errors of measurement in test scores. Of the many things that one might want to know about the scores on The second most important set of personal character- a test, surely one of the most important is the dependistics for academic learning are the ability to go be- ability of those scores. Measurement experts have long yond the information given; to make inferences and advocated that test users rely on the standard error of deductions; and to see patterns, rules, and instances measurement (SEM) rather than the reliability coeffiof the familiar in the unfamiliar. The ability to rea- cient when making inferences about the dependability son well in the symbol system(s) used to communicate new knowledge is critical for success in learn- 7 Another common complaint about individually administered ing. Academic learning relies heavily on reasoning (a) tests is that one has no way of knowing if the child did not unwith words and about the concepts that they signify derstand the directions, or broke a pencil point, or responded inand (b) with quantitative symbols and the concepts consistently to different items on different subtests (e.g., Sattler & Hoge, 2006). This is true for every group test but Form 6 of that they signify. Thus, the critical reasoning abilities CogAT. On this test, the pattern of each child’s responses is comfor all students (minority and majority) are verbal and pared to the expected pattern of responses given the total number quantitative. This is not a new idea. It has been known of items at the child answered correctly. If the observed pattern since aptitude tests were first devised to predict success of item or subtest scores is inconsistent with the expected pattern of item or subtest scores, the confidence interval around the abilin school and college. Figural reasoning abilities are ity estimate for that child will be unusually wide. This indicates less important and show lower correlations with school that there is considerable uncertainty about the score and that it should not be used to make high-stakes decisions about the child. achievement (Lohman, 2005b). Individual versus group ability tests. Group ability If the amount of deviation from the expected pattern is extreme, a warning will be printed as well. In fact, these procedures were tests are commonly viewed as rough screening mea- developed in response to the query of a parent about the failure sures that will at best give a global and somewhat of her son who took CogAT 5 to qualify for the G&T program.

982

D.F. Lohman Table 49.1 Standard errors of measurement for a 10-year old child scoring near the mean on several ability tests WISC-IVa

SB-V

OLSAT-8

Inviewc

Ravend SPM

NNAT

CogAT 6

Verbal 3.9 3.6 5.7 5.3 3.4 4.5b 3.0 6.1 3.7 Nonverbal/perceptual 4.2 3.9 5.8b Quantitative 4.5 5.3 3.3 Composite/full scale 2.8 2.8 5.7 3.5 2.2 Note: All SEM’s on a scale with mean = 100, SD = 16 a Working Memory Composite used to estimate Quantitative for WISC IV. b On OLSAT and Inview, the quantitative subtests are included in the nonverbal score. The proper comparison with CogAT is therefore with the CogAT QN partial composite. The SEM for the QN Composite is 2.7. c Inview only reports SEMs for the individual subtests, not the three composite scores that are reported. SEM’s for composite scores  were estimated by ( e2 /k2 ).5 (Feldt & Brennan, 1989). These were then converted to CSI scores (M 100, SD 16) using the norms tables. d Estimated from Table RS3 147 and RS3 148 in Raven et al. (2000). Table RS3 147 shows approximate 67% confidence intervals for PR scores by age. These were then converted to a scale with M 100, SD 16 using Table RS3 148.

of test scores. The SEM makes it much easier to estimate the magnitude of score changes one is likely to see upon retest. To illustrate, Table 49.1 shows how errors of measurement vary across several commonly used ability tests for children in grade 3. For ease of comparison, all scores are reported on a scale with mean 100 and standard deviation 16. SEMs vary widely, both within a test (e.g., 3.6 for the Verbal Fluid Reasoning and 5.3 for the Quantitative factor index on the Stanford-Binet V) and between tests. In general, reliability increases with the number of items. For example, each level of the NNAT has 38 items. Students are allowed 30 min to attempt as many as they can. It has the largest SEM of any test in Table 49.1. On the Raven, however, students are given as long as they need (typically an hour or more) to attempt 60 items. Its SEM is less than half as large. But do the differences in SEM shown in the table matter? The 90% confidence interval for a student who receives a score of 100 on the NNAT is 88–112—a range of 24 points. For the CogAT Composite score it is 95.6–104.4—a range of 8.8 points. This situation is actually substantially worse for scores at the extremes of the distribution, especially when scores approach the maximum possible score. This can happen on a group test when students answer most (or even all) of the items correctly. In such cases, errors of measurement will be smallest near the mean scale score and increase substantially at the extremes of the distribution. Commonly the SEM is from two to four times larger for very high scores than for scores near the mean. This can have disastrous consequences for efforts to identify gifted students—especially when scores are reported on an IQ-like scale rather than on

the percentile-rank scale.8 One way to reduce these errors of measurement is to test out of level. Put differently, one administers a level of the test that better matches the abilities of the student. This makes it less likely that the student will be unfairly penalized (or credited) for missing (or solving) a single item. Indeed the higher level of the test includes more difficult items which allows the student better opportunity to demonstrate his or her abilities. On CogAT, for example, users who need dependable scores for students in grades 3 and above who score above the 95th PR are advised to move up two test levels (Lohman & Hagen, 2002). This is easy to do because all tests at these grades have the same directions and time limits.9

8

This is because percentile ranks are compressed at the tails of the distribution whereas scale scores spread out. For example, for tests such as CogAT and OLSAT that have a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 16, every SAS score above 134 receives the same percentile rank of 99. 9 Out-of-level testing on tests such as CogAT and other tests that have vertically equated score scales has other benefits. For example, instead of administering the SAT or ACT to students with extremely high scores, one can more easily arrange to administer a higher level of the test. For example, level H on CogAT has a good ceiling even for able 12th graders. The universal scale score (USS) obtained by the student on the higher level of the test can easily be compared with multiple norm groups (e.g., for grades 6, 8, 10, and 12). This has the added advantage of keeping the student’s scores on the same scale that was used for all of the other children who were administered the ability test. It is relatively easy to compute how many standard deviations such as score might be above the mean USS score for the student’s age group. This would be a much better strategy then reverting to ratio IQs or making other highly questionable assumptions about the equivalence of the scale when scores are projected well beyond the range of data in the sample.

49

Identifying Academically Talented Students

Individually administered tests are not immune, however. True scores (i.e., the score that would be obtained if the students could be tested many times without any memory of the previous test) are on average always closer to the mean than observed scores. The higher the score, the more likely it is to regress. Therefore, confidence intervals for extreme scores are always skewed toward the mean. The higher the score, the more substantial the skew (Stanley, 1971).

983

Common Pitfalls

Implementing a system for identifying academically talented children is fraught not only with conceptual problems but also with statistical and psychometric traps. In this section, I discuss a few of the more common mistakes. Even seasoned professionals fall prey to some of these errors. Mostly this is because texts that are commonly used to teach correlational methods are written for psychologists and other researchers who hope to build theories about unobservable constructs. Errors of measurement and aspects of the assessment procedure that obfuscate relations among variables are removed at the outset. Those who use tests to select Measures of Motivation, Interest, children cannot do this. When using test scores, one and Creativity gets all that they measure—the construct of interest, a large dose of whatever is specific to the particular Learning requires more than prior knowledge and good collection of tasks that are administered, and errors of reasoning abilities. This is because learning is never measurement that inflate or depress the score that is a purely rational activity. Whether a child persists in obtained on a particular occasion under particular testthinking about something depends on affective and ing conditions. Furthermore, problems that have only motivational factors. Sometimes affective engagement small effects near the mean can substantially impact can be elicited by parents, teachers, and coaches. But affect extreme scores. And giftedness is all about exmore commonly high levels of engagement are bet- treme scores. ter understood as a resonance or attunement between the child and the activity or domain. This fascination can be short lived or enduring. Either way, interest is a critical and easily measured aptitude for learning or The Non-exchangeability of Measures performing well. Interest inventories can be helpful, especially for adolescents (see Lubinski, Benbow, & Some programs admit students if they obtain a suffiRyan, 1995; Schmidt, Lubinski, & Benbow, 1998). For ciently high score on any one of several measures of younger children, less formal methods may be used. ability or achievement. For example, a student may be For example, because children know more about top- admitted if he obtains a sufficiently high score on eiics that interest them, inventories of factual knowledge ther the WISC-IV or the Stanford-Binet V. Some take in particular domains can provide useful information a high score on virtually any ability test. As previously discussed, the first problem is that different tests may about children’s interests. Many of the more important characteristics of be normed on different populations, so using national students that function as aptitudes for learning are norms (e.g., IQ scores) favors the test with the oldest best obtained through ratings of trained observers. and “easiest” norms. Suppose we eliminate this probFor example, motivation, creativity, and expressive lem by administering both of these tests to everyone in communication skills can be estimated by well-trained the local population and, instead of using IQ scores or teachers on rating scales such as the Scales for Rating national percentile ranks, admitted those students who the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students scored in the top 5% of the local distribution on either (Renzulli et al., 2002). Combining such information test. We accept a high score on either test because we with information on interests, abilities, and achieve- know that the two tests are highly correlated. We asments is still more art than science. Should teacher sume that if tests are highly correlated, we would idenratings be given greater weight than students’ inter- tify more or less the same individuals on either meaests? And how should these measures be combined sure. However, this assumption is false. There is much confusion about this in the educational literature, abetwith estimates of ability and achievement?

984

D.F. Lohman

ted in large measure by a misunderstanding of how to interpret correlations. Suppose we administered two tests, plotted the scores for all students, and calculated the proportion that scored above a particular cut score (such as the top 5%). Next, we repeated the experiment using tests that showed different degrees of correlation. If we then plotted the proportion of students who were above various cut scores on both tests, we would get the curves shown in Fig. 49.1. The correlation between two tests is shown on the abscissa (x axis) of the figure. The correlation varies from r = .5 to r = .975. Plots for seven different cut scores are shown. These range from the selecting the top 1% (bottom curve) to the top 20% (top curve). For example, the bottom curve shows the proportion of students scoring in the top 1% of the distribution on one test who could also be in the top 1% of the distribution for the second test. The proportion ranges from only 13% when r = .50 to 76% when r = .975. Figure 49.1 shows clearly that there will be considerable disagreement in classification among different tests unless the correlation is very high and the cut score is very low. Neither of these conditions typically applies. For example, the correlations among total scores (i.e., full-scale IQ scores) on individually administered ability tests range from r = .68 to r = .85. A common criterion is scoring in the top 3% of the

distribution. Figure 49.1 shows that this means only about one-third to one-half of the students would be expected to score in the top 3% on both tests. Scores for shorter tests (e.g., verbal IQs) show lower correlations and would agree even less well. Achievement test scores show similar effects. For example, selecting students on the basis of their composite score on the ITBS misses approximately 40% of the students with the highest Reading Total scores. This is not what most people would expect for two variables that correlate r = .91. Does this mean that any student who obtains a high score on a test should be considered gifted in the assessed domain? Not at all. A substantial part of the difference between the scores individuals obtain on two tests is due to the many influences we collectively call errors of measurement. If we were to administer a parallel form of the first test on a different occasion, then many students would not obtain high scores on both tests. The reliability coefficients of parallel forms rarely exceed r = .90. Even with this degree of reliability, Fig. 49.1 shows that only 60% of the students who are tested would score in the top 3% on both tests. One implication, then, is that one should never base decisions about admission on a single score. Rather, one should average scores on parallel forms of a wellchosen test administered at different times. How much difference will an average score make?

100%

90%

Percent also meeting cut on test 2

80%

70%

Top 20% Top 15%

60%

Top 10% 50%

Top 7% Top 5%

40%

Top 3% 30% Top 1% 20%

10%

0% 0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

Correlation between tests

Fig. 49.1 Proportion of cases exceeding the same cut score on two tests, by the correlation between the tests

49

Identifying Academically Talented Students

985

“And,” “Or,” or “Average”? Small words can have large consequences. The shift between a rule that admits a student on the basis of a high score either on test 1 or on test 2 admits many more students than a rule that admits a student on the basis of a high score on both test 1 and test 2. The intermediate position—take the average of test 1 and test 2—admits yet a different group. Figure 49.2 graphs the results of these three rules. Each panel shows a scatter plot of students’ scores on the two tests. The left panel shows the students identified by the “and” rule, the center panel those identified by the “or” rule, and the right panel those identified by the “average” rule. Requiring students to score above a particular cut score on both tests 1 and 2 restricts the number of students who are identified. This is the effect of a two-stage screening process in which students must achieve a high score on the first test (e.g., a normreferenced achievement test) and then a high score on a second test (e.g., an individually administered ability test). It is an unforgiving rule. A very high score on the first test will not offset a score on the second test that is only slightly below the cut score. Consider the case in which the cut score is set at the top 5% on both tests and the correlation between them is r = .80. Only about 50% of the students in the population who meet this criterion on one test will also meet it on the second test (see Fig. 49.1). This means that 50% of the 5% who met the criterion on test 1, or 2.5% of the total student population, will be admitted. The “or” rule has quite different effects. Again, the percentage of students admitted is easily estimated. Test 1 admits 5% of the population. Test 2 also admits 5%, but half of these students were already admitted by the first test. Therefore, in all, 7.5% of the student population would be admitted. In this case, changing the

Fig. 49.2 Plots of the effects of three selection rules: (a) high scores on test 1 and test 2; (b) high scores on test 1 or test 2; and (c) high scores on the average of test 1 and test 2

rule from “and” to “or” triples the number of students admitted from 2.5 to 7.5% of the population. The disjunctive “or” rule is most defensible if the two tests measure different constructs such as language arts and mathematics. One should seek to identify students who excel in either domain, not just those who excel in both domains. If both tests measure the same construct, however, the statistically optimal rule is neither “or” nor “and” but rather “average.” As Fig. 49.2 shows, the “average” rule will admit more students than the restrictive “and” rule and fewer than the liberal “or” rule. Essentially, students are admitted on the basis of where they fall on the 45◦ diagonal rather than on either the x axis or the y axis. Furthermore, using two scores to estimate ability (as in either the “and” or the “average” rule) substantially reduces regression effects. The only disadvantage of the “average” rule is that it requires averaging the scores! This is not as convenient as determining which students exceed a given percentile rank on each of the two measures. Sometimes only a portion of the population is administered a screening test. In such cases, it is important to test a much broader segment of that population than just those students who score highly on an achievement test or who are nominated by their teachers. Testing only those who meet the desired criterion on an achievement test (e.g., 97th PR) will eliminate the majority students who score higher on the ability test than on the achievement test. Furthermore, testing only those students nominated by teachers does not reduce the amount of regression to the mean that will be observed when students are tested the second time (Lohman & Korb, 2006). Testing more children is much easier to do when using a group-administered test rather than an individually administered test. A reasonable rule is to test every child who scores above average on one or more

"And"

"Or"

"Average"

Test 1 and Test 2

Test 1 or Test 2

Average of Test 1 and Test 2

986

of the major batteries of the achievement test (typically Reading Total and Math Total for elementary students). If this is done, it is often more administratively convenient to administer the ability test to all children. Classroom teachers are most likely to go along with this procedure if the ability test does more than identify the most able students but also provides information that they can use to help all students learn.10

D.F. Lohman

ing the mean and standard deviation for each set of scaled scores. These z-scores have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. The standard deviation is one measure of the spread or dispersion of scores. By making the standard deviations the same, we insure that one variable does not overwhelm the other when they are combined. For example, to combine ITBS Reading Total Standard Score (SS) and CogAT Verbal Battery Universal Scale Score (USS), first get the mean and standard deviation for each set of scores. Then compute z(reading) and z(Verbal Combining Scores from Different Tests Battery) using a function such as “standardize” in Microsoft Excel. Finally, add the two z-scores toCombining scores from different tests is thus almost gether to get a composite score that weights each of always a better policy than using a single score. But the component scores equally. how should scores be combined? Here are a few guide- 4. Generally avoid combining percentile ranks (PRs). lines. Specific procedures are provided later in this Use scale scores instead. PR scores make only crude chapter. distinctions at the top of the score scale. For example, when the mean is 100 and SD 16, every score 1. If scores come from the same test (e.g., ITBS Readabove 134 is at the 99th percentile. Furthermore, the ing Total scores for grades 3 and 4), average the average of two PR’s is generally not the same as the scaled scores for the two administrations of the test. PR of the average of the two scale scores. For example, on the ITBS these are called Standard 5. If possible, base the weights assigned to different Scores. For CogAT they are called Universal Scale tests on research. Although equal weights work Scores. On CogAT and other ability tests, one can well when combining ability and achievement test also average the Standard Age Scores (SAS). scores, one would not want to give equal weight to 2. Expect that averaged scores will regress to the scores that either are less reliable or have weaker mean. Unless norms for partial composites are relationships with outcome measures. For example, provided, one cannot use norms tables to look up even though interest and persistence are critical, the percentile ranks of the averaged scaled scores in measures of these constructs are much less relithe same way that one looks up the percentile ranks able and show at best moderate correlations with of individual test scores. Similarly, averaged SAS outcomes. It would not be appropriate to weight scores will not have the same PR associated with them the same as measures of achievement or each score as individual SAS scores. Therefore, ability. base decisions on rank within the local group of all students’ average scale scores, not on whether How could one estimate what these weights might these average scores exceed a fixed percentile rank be? The easiest way to do this is to measure all of the that applies only to individual scores. variables for an entire cohort of children and then fol3. If scores come from tests that use different score scales, first put them on a score scale that has the low them for some time. Many school systems actually same mean and standard deviation. Use the Normal collect this sort of data, but few ever use it. A regresCurve Equivalent (NCE) scores that are provided sion analysis in which one predicts later academic acfor some tests. If NCE’s are not available, then one complishments from the admission variables will show can convert scaled scores to z-scores by comput- the relative importance of each variable in predicting the dependent variable. Within-ethnic-group analyses will show whether some variables are more or less im10 CogAT (Form 6) provides this sort of information. Score reportant than others for different groups of children (see ports contain a profile index that summarizes the level and patTables 4 and 5 in Lohman, 2005b, for one example). tern of scores across the three batteries for every student. This profile is linked to specific suggestions on how to adapt instruc- Longitudinal studies of this sort are one of the critical tion (see www.cogat.com). needs in the field of gifted education.

49

Identifying Academically Talented Students

Identifying Academically Talented Minority Students Prediction of Achievement for Minority Students The conceptual and methodological guidelines discussed thus far generally apply to the identification of all academically talented students. But are modifications of these guidelines needed when identifying academically talented minority students? Do the same characteristics function as aptitudes? Concretely, are the predictors of academic achievement the same for majority and minority students? And even if they are the same, should they be weighted the same? For example, are nonverbal reasoning abilities more predictive of achievement for minority students than for majority students? Is the ability to reason with English words less predictive of achievement for Hispanic or Asian-American students than for White students? Several researches have investigated this issue. All have found that the abilities that best predict achievement in reading, mathematics, social studies, and science are the same for White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian-American students (Keith, 1999; Lohman, 2005b). For example, verbal reasoning abilities are the strongest predictor of reading comprehension for all ethnic groups. Nonverbal reasoning contributes least to the prediction. Indeed, nonverbal reasoning abilities sometimes have a significant negative regression weight in the prediction of achievement once verbal and quantitative reasoning abilities are in the equation (Case, 1977; Lohman, 2005b). This means that some students with high nonverbal reasoning scores are actually less likely to achieve in school than are other students with similar levels of verbal and quantitative abilities. This makes sense from the perspective of aptitude theory. Schooling places heavy demands on students’ abilities to use language to express their thoughts and to understand other student’s attempts to express their thoughts. Because of this, those students most likely to succeed in formal schooling in any culture will be those who are best able to reason verbally. Indeed, our data show that, if anything, verbal reasoning abilities are even more important for bilingual students than for monolingual students. This is because the stu-

987

dent who does not have great familiarity with the English language frequently must infer the meanings of unfamiliar English words from contextual and other cues. Predictions about future performance assume that a student’s rank within the comparison group on the aptitude test will remain relatively constant over time. This does not mean one assumes that scores are fixed. Scores that report rank within age or grade group easily mask the fact that all abilities are developed; all respond to practice and instruction. Rather, the assumption is that a student’s rate of growth on the skills measured by the test will be the same as other students in the norm group who obtained the same initial score. This is unlikely either if the student’s experiences to date differ from those of the norm group or if her subsequent experiences depart from the norm. For example, lack of experience in a domain will lead to a lower initial rank than will be achieved later as the student has the necessary learning experiences. This is especially true for well-defined skill sets that are quickly learned (e.g., learning the letters of the alphabet) rather than for open-ended skill sets that require extensive practice (e.g., verbal comprehension). A student can also fall behind over time by improving, but at a slower rate than her peers. This is one reason why some aptitude tests over-predict the future academic performance of some minority students (Willingham, Lewis, Morgan, & Ramsit, 1990). Therefore, programs that aim to assist minority students in developing their academic talents might best understand their task as one of falsifying a prediction about growth rate. This is not easily done. Contrary to popular myth, complex skills and deep conceptual knowledge do not suddenly emerge when the conditions that prevented or limited their growth are removed (cf. Humphreys, 1973). The attainment of academic excellence comes only after much practice and training. It requires the same level of commitment on the part of students, their families, and their schools as does the development of high levels of competence in athletics, music, or other domains of nontrivial complexity. Furthermore, because the relationship between aptitude and outcome is probabilistic, one cannot expect that every student who is identified as likely to succeed will do so. The critical issue for programs that aim to assist these children, however, is to maximize the proportion of identified students that do succeed.

988

Judging Test Bias by Mean Differences Rather Than by Predictive Validity

D.F. Lohman

ally overlooked. Some of the more obvious effects are that it

1. Reinforces the tendency to interpret intelligence and other ability tests as measuring innate abilities. If scores on ability tests (including nonverbal tests) depend on background and education, then one must take these factors into account when interpreting them. The alternative—to interpret test scores as measures of innate abilities largely unaffected by such factors—avoids these complications. Thus, the decision to use a common cut score on aptitude tests inadvertently encourages the na¨ıve but false belief that ability tests measure innate rather than developed abilities. 2. Encourages the use of less reliable tests. Other things being equal, group differences will be smaller on less reliable tests than on more reliable tests. For example, performance tests are generally less reliable than objective tests and will generally show smaller group differences than objective tests that measure the same abilities. In the extreme, a completely unreliable test will show no differences between groups even when true differences are large. Therefore, evaluating tests by the extent to which they achieve the goal of proportional representation will tend to favor shorter and otherwise less reliable tests over longer and more reliable tests. 3. Encourages the use of old tests with outdated norms. More students (minority and majority) will attain high scores on a test with outdated norms than on a test with recent norms. This was demonstrated above for the out-of-date U.S. norms commonly used for interpreting scores on the Progressive Matrices Test. 4. Encourages the lowering of standards. If the scores for two groups differ in their means and show equal variability, then lowering the admission standard will increase the proportion of students from the lower-scoring group. For example, assume one changes the cut from, say, the top 5% to the top 10% of cases. There will be a greater proportion of students from the lower-scoring group when the 11 Differences are especially large when nonverbal and verbal cut is set at the top 10% rather than at the top 5%. reasoning scores of ELL students are compared. Differences Note, however, that the total number of students are much smaller between quantitative and nonverbal reasoning admitted has now doubled. tests, especially for Asian-American students. As a group, Black students often perform better on verbal and quantitative tests than 5. Encourages the use of less valid tests. The hope that on nonverbal reasoning tests (see, e.g., Jencks & Phillips, 1998). one can use a common cut score for all applicants

A selection policy that uses either ability or achievement tests alone or that combines, say, mathematics achievement and quantitative reasoning ability would select proportionately fewer Black and Hispanic students than White and Asian-American students. How, then, can one attend to the relevant aptitude variables and increase the representation of minority students served? All recognize that many students—especially those whose first language is not English—have not had the same opportunities to develop skills in the English language. Therefore, many schools screen students with nonverbal tests, teacher questionnaires, and performance assessments because differences between ELL and native speakers of English are sometimes smaller on such tests.11 The need for a test that minimizes group differences is a consequence of the assumption that one must always compare every student to every other student in an age or grade cohort. But this is no more necessary (or desirable) than comparing all primary children with each other rather than with others in the same grade. There are many reasons for the assumption that all students must be compared to the same norm group. In part, it stems from the laudable desire to be fair. All children are compared to the same standards, or so it seems. In part, it stems from the failure to appreciate the extent to which the norm group to which a child’s score is compared often changes monthly on ability tests and weekly on achievement tests to accommodate differences in children’s experiences in the culture or in school. And in part, it stems from the administrative convenience of using norms provided by the publisher rather than having to develop local or local subgroup norms. Other things being equal, we surely would prefer the assessment procedure that showed the smallest difference between ethnic groups. However, other things are rarely equal. The consequences of assuming that test bias can be judged by differences in group means are gener-

49

Identifying Academically Talented Students

leads one to opt for selection tests on which group differences are smaller. In general, though, when differences in achievement are large, differences will also be large on measures that predict achievement. Tests that are less predictive of achievement are more likely to show somewhat smaller group differences. Using less valid tests and a common cut score, one may identify more minority students, but fewer who have the aptitude to succeed. This should be of concern to all, and especially to the minority communities who hope that the students who receive extra assistance will develop into the next generation of minority scholars and professionals.

The Need for Within-Group Comparisons A better policy, then, is to make decisions about aptitude for academic excellence using the most valid and reliable measures for all students, but to compare each student’s scores to the scores of other students who share roughly similar learning opportunities or background characteristics. In other words, inferences about aptitude should be made within such groups. This does not mean that every child needs to be compared only to the handful of other children in the population who share her unique circumstances. Simply comparing an ELL student to all other ELL students in a grade will help enormously. If the sample is sufficiently large, then one can further subdivide into groups with little, intermediate, and extensive exposure to the English language (Ortiz & Ochoa, 2005). One of the most important advantages of group-administered ability tests is that they allow these sorts of comparisons when a common test is administered to all of the students in a school or district. Furthermore, one need not derive formal norms to make such within-group comparisons. A simple rank order of scores will often serve the purpose (see http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman/doc/ Sample data set3.xls for examples). Students of the same age who are inferred to have talent in a particular area often have markedly different instructional needs. All students need instruction that is geared to their current levels of accomplishment and rate of learning. When students have had different opportunities to learn, however, instruction that is appropriate for one will often be inappropriate for the other.

989

An undifferentiated label such as “gifted” does not usefully guide educational programming for a group that contains a mix of students with uneven discrepancies between accomplishment and aptitude for learning in different domains. One child may need instruction several years in advance of her classmates; another may need more rapid coverage of the material being learned by her classmates; a third may need instruction at some level between these extremes or other kinds of support and encouragement. In addition to intensive instruction in the domain, minority students often need assistance in acquiring a vision of themselves as developing scholars. This can be particularly difficult when there is little social support for—and even disparagement of— academic excellence, especially from peers. Historically, programs for the talented and gifted (TAG) were designed to serve students who were much more homogeneous in levels of achievement. Only those students who exceeded a common standard on tests of academic ability and/or achievement were targeted for special assistance. However, such policies are increasingly being challenged by educational professionals. Programs that endeavor to serve both academically advanced students and those academically talented students who display less stellar achievement thus face difficult choices. On the one hand, continuing with present policies preserves the ability of programs to serve the small and relatively homogeneous population of advanced students. This especially is the case for programs with classes specifically dedicated to serving the gifted. Simply adding minority students to these classes who are not prepared for the level of instruction that they will encounter serves no one well. However, continuing present practices may result in the increasing marginalization of such programs within the educational system. If this occurs, the already meager funding for TAG programs in many school districts is likely to be even further curtailed. On the other hand, rethinking the goals of TAG programs and the range of students and services that they provide could move programs in the opposite direction. Programs that target academically talented students for special assistance could be viewed as central to the school’s mission if they broaden the range of services they offer to assist not only those who already exhibit high achievement but also those who need more assistance in converting their superior academic talents into academic excellence.

990

Two Identification Procedures I have argued that the best way to identify students who are likely to excel in particular domains is to measure the specific aptitudes that are most needed for successful learning in those domains under the instructional systems that are available or can be developed. I have also argued for greater diversity in the programming options than historically have characterized programs for the gifted. In this section, I show how identification systems of this sort can be developed. See Lohman and Renzulli (2007) for an approximation to these procedures that first converts percentile ranks or IQlike scores to single digit numbers and then combines them. How to combine different kinds of information is a critical issue when identifying gifted children. Arraying this information in a matrix makes it simultaneously available, but does not offer a principled way to combine it. Some programs prefer to follow traditional identification practices in which children are identified primarily (or solely) on the basis of ability and/or achievement test scores that are unusually high, using either national or local norm groups. Others have argued that programs should also serve children whose test scores are somewhat lower (e.g., the top 20% in the local group) but whom teachers believe exhibit unusual creativity, commitment to learn, or accomplishments in particular domains (Renzulli, 2005). The identification procedures described below allow both of these perspectives. The first procedure shows how to determine a child’s standing on any score (or combination of scores) in three norm groups: the nation, the local population, and opportunity-to-learn subgroups within that population. The procedure works best when all students in a particular grade in the local population (i.e., school or district) are administered the screening test. It also requires that one know the basics of using a spreadsheet application (such as Microsoft Excel). The second procedure shows how to combine ability, achievement, and teacher ratings in a principled way. The first step is to combine scores on ability and achievement tests into two composite scores: a verbal-reading composite and a quantitative-figuralmathematics composite. Then these composite scores are compared with teacher ratings to inform decisions about acceleration or enrichment for those who have high scores on one or both composites.

D.F. Lohman

These procedures are illustrated using the CogAT— Form 6 (Lohman & Hagen, 2001), the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS; Hoover, Dunbar, & Frisbie, 2001) and the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS; Renzulli et al., 2002). Other combinations of tests and rating scales may be used. Although helpful for other purposes, there is no need for the ability and achievement tests to be co-normed. For rating scales and other observational techniques, it is critical that raters be trained. Ratings provided by untrained raters commonly suffer from halo effects (i.e., giving consistently high or low ratings to a student across different items or dimensions). One indication of this is given by the correlations among ratings for dimensions such as learning ability, creativity, and motivation. For example, correlations between creativity and academic ability or achievement are modest when actual behaviors are observed. If ratings of students on these dimensions show high correlations, then one should suspect halo effects. Halo effects should also be suspected if measures of internal consistency (e.g., coefficient alpha) for individual scales are extremely high (i.e., greater than .80). For example, it is well known that creativity in art, music, and academics shows only weak correlations. If the creativity scale asks for ratings of students in these different domains, then a high alpha indicates that raters gave particular students similar ratings across all domains. This invalidates the ratings. Decisions about educational programming— especially whole grade acceleration—would require information in addition to the achievement test scores, ability test scores, and teacher ratings discussed here. These would typically include some measure of the student’s interests, social skills, anxiety, and other characteristics that would be expected to influence the probability of successful learning in the different educational placement options under consideration (Assouline, Colangelo, Lupkowski-Shoplik, Lipscomb, & Forstadt, 2003).

Procedure 1. Multiple Norm Groups, Multiple Perspectives The basic idea here is that it is useful to examine the performance of a child from multiple perspec-

49

Identifying Academically Talented Students

tives. Here I emphasize issues that are salient when attempting to identify the most talented poor and minority students. However, the scores of any child can be compared to those of many different groups (e.g., current grade and a prospective higher grade). Detailed directions for using this method are provided in Lohman (2006) and in the sample data set that accompanies that monograph. Here are the steps for using only one test score. Examples in the sample data set that is available on the website show how to combine scores on two test scores (such as mathematics achievement and quantitative reasoning abilities). This is important because identification procedures that average ability and achievement scores for particular domains better identify not only those who currently excel but also those who are most likely to continue to excel (see Lohman & Korb, 2006). Step 1—Preparing the data. Get the required data into a spreadsheet. For each student, this would include the student’s name or ID, an opportunity to learn index (such as ELL status), national percentile ranks (PRs), or other norm-referenced test scores. If different test scores will be averaged, then scale scores should be recorded as well. For ability tests such as CogAT, these Standard Age Scores (SAS) for one or more of the test batteries could be used instead of scale scores. Step 2—Getting local ranks. Sort the data by percentile ranks (or SAS scores). This will provide local ranks.12 Local score distributions generally provide a better way to determine which students are most likely to be mismatched with the instruction they are receiving than will national norms. They also make it much easier to identify a relatively consistent number of students across years. Step 3—Looking within groups defined by opportunity to learn. Sort the data again by opportunity to learn (as the first sorting variable in Excel) and then PR or SAS (as the second sorting variable in Excel). For example, if two opportunity-to-learn groups are used (e.g., ELL versus native speakers), then the most talented ELL students will be those with the highest ranks within the first group and the most talented native-

12

Note that ranks are not the same as the percentile ranks provided in norm tables. However, for most purposes, a simple rank order of the scores is all that is needed. Other scores (e.g. Standard Age Scores) provide additional information on the size of the score gaps between students with different ranks.

991

speaking students will be those with the highest ranks in the second group. What kind of enrichment or acceleration to suggest for each depends on the students’ levels of achievement and on other factors (such as interest, motivation, and the availability of different educational programs).

Procedure 2. Using Ability Test Scores and Teacher Ratings This example uses all three CogAT batteries, reading and mathematics achievement test scores, and the three main scales from the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS; Renzulli et al., 2002). The three scales from the SRBCSS are Learning Ability, Motivation, and Creativity. How best to combine scores from the three CogAT batteries with measures of current achievement when predicting future academic success is well documented. Competence in a broad range of verbal domains (e.g., literary arts, history) is best predicted by the CogAT Verbal SAS score and the ITBS Reading Total scale score. As noted above, either use NCE scores or convert scale scores to z-scores by computing the mean and standard deviation for each set of scaled scores. These z-scores have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. By making the standard deviations the same, we insure that one variable does not overwhelm the other when they are combined. Then simply average these two scores. On the other hand, success in mathematics and domains of study that demand quantitative thinking is best predicted by a combination of the CogAT Quantitative and Nonverbal Reasoning Batteries and the ITBS Mathematics Total scale score. The CogAT Quantitative-Nonverbal (QN) Composite captures the ability dimension. As before, use NCE scores or convert the QN Composite SAS score to a z-score and then average it and the z-score for the ITBS Mathematics Total scale score. This gives two broad ability-achievement composites: verbal-reading and quantitative-figural-mathematics. Students should be identified if they have high scores on either dimension. Research with the SRBCSS shows that each of its three main scales provides unique information.

992

D.F. Lohman

Fig. 49.3 Scheme for combining ability, achievement, and teacher ratings to create a talent pool

Teacher Rating of Learning ability, Motivation, or

>97th PR

Composite

Quant-Nonverbal-Math

or

Verbal-Reading Composite

Creativity

Therefore, teacher ratings should be considered high if any one of the three ratings is high.13 The identification scheme is shown in Fig. 49.3. The vertical dimension distinguishes children who exhibit superior abilities from those who exhibit aboveaverage abilities. I have arbitrarily set the cut scores as scoring at or above the 97th local percentile rank or at or above the 80th local percentile rank on either the verbal-reading or the quantitative-nonverbalmathematics composite. The first criteria is commonly used in gifted programs; the second is recommended when casting a talent broader net (Renzulli, 2005). The horizontal dimension distinguishes between children who, when compared to other children nominated for the program, obtain above-average teacher ratings on any one of the three SRBCSS scales and students who obtain average or below-average teacher ratings.14 Note that, for ratings, the average is computed only on the subset of the student population who are nominated for inclusion in the program. Combining these two criteria gives four categories of assessment results. 13

Because ratings are strongly correlated, accepting all students with an “above average” rating on any one of the three rating scales will identify considerably more than half of the students. This is undesirable only if schools cannot find ways to provide enrichment or other instruction for these students. Furthermore, if possible, ratings on every student should be obtained from more than one teacher and then averaged. 14 Because one is using an “or” rule, considerably more than half of the students will be in categories I or III than in II or IV. If the correlations among the scales are known, one could estimate this proportion from Fig. 49.1. If a smaller fraction of the population is desired, then the selection rule could be changed to, say, top quartile versus all others on any one of the three rating scales.

>80th PR

Below Average

Above Average

II

I

Admit but watch

Admit

IV

III

Test next year

Enrichment

Children in category I exhibit superior reasoning and achievement and are rated as highly capable, motivated, or creative by their teachers. Children in category II also exhibit superior reasoning and achievement but, when compared to other children who were nominated, are not rated as highly by their teachers on any one of the three major scales of the SRBCSS. Programs that follow a traditional identification scheme (e.g., self-contained classrooms or schools) would accept children in category I. Most would also accept children in category II, especially if it is difficult to defend rejection on the basis of low teacher ratings. However, if this is done, then the progress of children in category II should be monitored more closely. Children in category III exhibit somewhat lower but strong reasoning abilities (80th–96th PR) on one of the abilityachievement composites and are rated as highly capable, motivated, or creative by their teachers. These children would be included in school-wide enrichment programs that aim to serve a broader range of children. Schools with highly diverse student populations would find that many of their best poor and low-achieving students would fall in this category. Combining test scores and ratings in this way would enable these schools to identify the students most likely to benefit from curriculum compacting or enrichment programs, including instruction at a higher level than that received by most other students in the school. Finally, children in category IV exhibit good but not exceptional abilities (between 80th and 96th PR) and are not rated as unusually capable, motivated, or creative by their teachers. Although good students, these children would not be provided with special programming on the basis

49

Identifying Academically Talented Students

of either their ability-achievement scores or teacher ratings.15

Suggestions for Policy

993

are ignored or are only considered after the student has been identified. But giftedness means superior aptitude or talent for something, not for everything. Programs would do a better job of identifying talented children if they started with a clear understanding of the types of expertise that they are able to develop and the demands of the educational programs that they can offer to develop talent in these domains. Together, these will more clearly define the personal characteristics that will function as aptitudes for success in those programs. Paradoxically, this approach is even more important for identifying high-aptitude minority students than for identifying students who already display exceptional academic accomplishment. For example, fear of rejection by peers is pervasive among many under-achieving minority students. If the student does not value academic achievement then success in any program is unlikely until that critical aspect of readiness has been developed or the program has been modified to accommodate its absence. Therefore, programs that aim to assist talented students who do not share the worldview of middle-class America must look beyond the measurement of cognitive competence. However, it is impossible to adapt a program better to meet the needs of particular group of students until one knows clearly the source of the mismatch between those students and the demands of the program. Therefore, the aptitude approach described in this chapter applies not only to the identification of those students most likely to succeed in a given program. It also is a critical step in making effective modifications of programs better to serve the needs of these students. How can educators implement a policy consistent with the principles outlined here? Here are some final suggestions:

Aptitude for any complex endeavor has many components. Estimating academic aptitude requires considering cognitive abilities as well as current academic accomplishments, motivation, interest, willingness to work with others, and other factors that moderate success in the particular types of instructional programs that are (or can be) offered. Identification is always an ill-structured problem for which there is no one best solution. Therefore, it is generally helpful to have more rather than less information at hand. However, it is also important to know how to integrate this information to make good decisions. Checklists or matrices can provide useful ways to organize the variables, but they cannot tell how best to combine them. Some factors deserve much weight; others deserve less weight or can even be ignored at times. The empirical evidence clearly supports giving primary weight to evidence of current accomplishments and reasoning abilities in those symbol systems needed to create new understandings in the domain. Although affective factors are important, the weight given to particular measures depends on the kind of instructional program that the student will face. For example, some children will thrive if paired with a mentor with whom they identify. For these children, the social dimension of learning is critical. Other children enjoy learning about the domain itself and will learn much even if they have access only to texts or a computer. Therefore, one must consider many factors when making decisions about which children to admit to a program or, alternatively, which kind of instructional 1. Define the purpose(s) of the TAG program. Is the emphasis on T (talent) or G (gifted)? Is the goal arrangement might best fit the needs of a particular to identify and serve those students who demonstudent. strate unusually high levels of academic ability and Although adapting instruction to the needs of accomplishment? If so, then traditional procedures students is a critical aspect of any successful program, for identifying and serving academically gifted stuI have not emphasized it here. Too often, children dents can be used. Poor and minority students will are labeled “gifted” on the basis of an IQ test; other be included in this group, although not at a level affective and cognitive aptitudes required for success that approaches their representation in the population. Attempts to achieve greater minority represen15 One could combine this procedure with the multiple norm tation by using nonverbal tests and other measures group procedure, especially for identifying ELL students who that are not good measures of scholastic aptitude show promise in the verbal-reading domain.

994

D.F. Lohman

will indeed include more ELL students in the proare served and who subsequently develop academic gram. Unfortunately, these will often not be the excellence. most academically promising students. On the other 3. Obtain the most reliable and valid measures hand, if the goal is to identify the most academof achievement, reasoning abilities, and other ically talented students in underrepresented popuaptitude variables for all students. Whenever lations regardless of current levels of academic atpossible, measure the behavior of interest rather tainment, then procedures like those outlined in this than something that merely predicts that behavior. chapter will be more successful. However, options If interested in children’s weight, then weigh for educational placement and programming will them. Do not measure their heights and try to need to be much more diverse than is currently predict weight from height. Similarly, if the goal the case. Perhaps in this way, TAG programs could is to identify students who have unusual talent infuse procedures for identifying academic talent for particular academic domains, obtain measures and then providing developmentally appropriate inof domain-specific achievement, the student’s struction into mainstream educational practices. It ability to reason in the symbol systems required is not only academically gifted students who are for new learning in that field of study, interest not well served by a rigidly age-tracked educational in the domain, and persistence under similar system. instructional conditions. For example, to identify 2. Enumerate the educational treatment options that students who excel in mathematics, first measure are available or could be developed. Understandmathematics achievement using a well-constructed, ing the programs that are or can be offered by norm-referenced achievement test that emphasizes the school is the first step in identifying which problem solving and concepts. To identify students personal characteristics will function as aptitudes who are most likely to show the strongest future (or inaptitudes) for those programs. In what condevelopment, combine scores on the mathematics tent areas can advanced instruction be offered? achievement test with scores on measures of quanWill students receive accelerated instruction with titative and figural reasoning abilities. Combine the age-mates? Or will they attend class with older scores in a way that weighs mathematics achievechildren whose achievement is at approximately ment and reasoning abilities equally. To assess the same level? Will instruction require much ininterests, inquire specifically about the students’ dependent learning, or must the student work with interests in mathematics or in occupations that other students? Will instruction build on students’ require mathematical thinking. Interest inventories interests, or is the curriculum decided in advance? can be helpful, especially for adolescents (see Are mentors available who can encourage and work Lubinski et al., 1995). Finally, estimate persistence, with those students who need extra assistance? anxiety, and other important affective aptitudes These different instructional arrangements will from ratings obtained from teachers and others who require somewhat different cognitive, affective, have worked with the child in situations similar to and conative aptitudes. At the very least, different those in the planned acceleration program. Keep in instructional paths should be available for those mind that aptitude can only be estimated when a who already exhibit high accomplishment and student’s performance on a task is compared with for those who display talent but somewhat lower the performance of other students who have had accomplishment. For all students, acceleration of roughly similar learning opportunities. Common one sort or another is often the least expensive way cut scores on less valid and reliable tests may to provide developmentally appropriate instruction identify significant numbers of minority students, (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004). If schools but many of them are not the students who have the cannot provide this sort of differential placement, greatest academic talent. then it is unlikely that they will be able to satisfy 4. When identifying students, make better use of the twin goals of providing developmentally local norms on both ability and achievement appropriate instruction for academically advanced tests, especially when identifying students whose students while simultaneously increasing the accomplishments in particular academic domains number of underrepresented minority students who are well above those of their classmates. On

49

Identifying Academically Talented Students

norm-referenced tests, examine local percentile ranks for particular domains such as mathematics or science in addition to national percentile ranks for these scores. In general, do not make decisions on the basis of composite scores. When making instructional placements, use local norms to determine the appropriateness of the match. For example, if a student will be placed with seventh graders for mathematics, compare her performance on a test with seventh grade mathematics content to the performance of students in the prospective seventh-grade class. 5. Emphasize that true academic giftedness is evidenced by accomplishment, not by scores on the tests that predict accomplishment. Predictions that one might someday exhibit excellence in a domain are flattering but unhelpful if they do not translate into purposeful striving toward the goal of academic excellence. Indeed, the attainment of academic excellence requires the same level of commitment on the part of students, their families, and their schools as does the development of high levels of competence in any other domain. Students may find it helpful to consider selection for special academic programming as analogous to being identified as a “high-potential” athlete, and then discuss the duration and intensity of training that high-caliber athletes endure to rise to the top of their sport. This also means that students must be identified with an eye on the kind of intensive instruction that can be offered. If advanced instruction will be in writing short stories, then measures of quantitative or figural reasoning abilities will not identify many of those who are most likely to succeed. Furthermore, if possible, the instruction that is offered should be adapted better to meet the needs of minority students. On the affective side, eliciting interest and persistence are critical. On the cognitive side, the development of students’ oral language skills in the dialect of the language they are expected to read and write is probably the most neglected, but among the most important ways to improve academic aptitude. Many suggestions can be derived from case studies of successful minority scholars or from evaluations of schools that routinely produce them (e.g., Presseley, Raphael, Gallagher, & DiBella, 2004). 6. Remind policy makers that professional judgment is required. There is no foolproof way to identify

995

those children who will develop the highest levels of academic excellence in adolescence or the highest levels of professional expertise as adults. Simple schemes that establish an arbitrary cut score on an IQ or achievement test are administratively convenient but identify only a fraction of those who will later attain excellence. Furthermore, such schemes necessarily disadvantage children who have had fewer opportunities to develop the abilities measured by the tests at the time selections are made. Until identification policies better match our understanding of how academic talent is expressed and developed, the field will struggle to get beyond present practices, many of which can identify only that small fraction of the population that currently excel on all dimensions that are assessed.

References Ackerman, P. L. (2003). Aptitude complexes and trait complexes. Educational Psychologist, 38, 85–94. Assouline, S., Colangelo, N., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Lipscomb, & Forstadt, L. (2003). Iowa Acceleration Scale (2nd edition). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Bingham, W. V. (1937). Aptitudes and aptitude testing. New York: Harper & Brother. Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Carroll, J. B. (1974). The aptitude-achievement distinction: The case of foreign language aptitude and proficiency. In D. R. Green (Ed.), The aptitude-achievement distinction (pp. 286– 303). Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill. Case, M. E. (1977). A validation study of the Nonverbal Battery of the Cognitive Abilities Test at grades 3, 4, and 6. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Cattell, R. B., & Cattell, K. S. (1965). Manual for the CultureFair Intelligence Test, Scale 2. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1 & 2). Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Black International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Corno, L., Cronbach, L. J., Kupermintz, H., Lohman, D. F., Mandinach, E. B., Porteus, A. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2002). Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extending the legacy of Richard E. Snow. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cronbach, L. J. (1976). Measured mental abilities: Lingering questions and loose ends. In B. D. Davis & P. Flaherty (Eds.), Human diversity: Its causes and social significance (pp. 207– 222). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

996 Ericsson, K. A., Nandagopal, K., & Roring, R. W. (2005). Giftedness viewed from the expert performance perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 287–311. Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 171–191. Frazier, T. W. & Youngstrom, E. A. (2007). Historical increase in the number of factors measured by commercial tests of cognitive ability: Are we overfactoring? Intelligence, 35, 169–182. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Book, 35, 169–182. Gardner, H. (2003, April). Multiple intelligences after twenty years. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Retrieved August 11, 2005, from Harvard University, Project Zero Website: http://www.pz.harvard.edu/PIs/HG.htm Glaser, R. (1992). Expert knowledge and processes of thinking. In D. F. Halpern (Ed.), Enhancing thinking skills in the sciences and mathematics (pp. 63–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hagen, E. P. (1980). Identification of the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press. Hoover, H. D., Dunbar, S. B., & Frisbie, D. A. (2001). Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Form A. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Horn, J. L., & Blankson, N. (2005). Foundations for better understanding cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment (2nd ed., pp. 41–68). New York: Guilford Press. Humphreys, L. G. (1973). Implications of group differences for test interpretation. In Proceedings of the 1972 Invitational conference on testing problems: Assessment in a pluralistic society (pp. 56–71). Princeton, NJ: ETS. Humphreys, L. G., & Davey, T. C. (1988). Continuity in intellectual growth from 12 months to 9 years. Intelligence, 12, 183–197. Hunt, E. (2000). Let’s hear it for crystallized intelligence. Learning and Individual Differences, 12, 123–130. Jackson, N. E. (1988). Precocious reading ability: What Does It Mean? Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 200–204. Jackson, N. E. (2003). Young gifted children. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 470–482). Boston: Pearson Education Inc. Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (1998). The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Keith, T. Z. (1999). Effects of general and specific abilities on student achievement: Similarities and differences across ethnic groups. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 239–262. Lohman, D. F. (2003a). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children III and the Cognitive Abilities Test (Form 6): Are the general factors the same? http://faculty.education. uiowa.edu/dlohman/pdf/CogAT-WISC final 2col2r.pdf Lohman, D. F. (2003b). The Woodcock-Johnson III and the Cognitive Abilities Test (Form 6): A concurrent validity study. http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman/pdf/ CogAT WJIII final 2col%202r.pdf Lohman, D. F. (2005a). Identifying academically talented minority students. (RM05216). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Lohman, D. F. (2005b). The role of nonverbal ability tests in the identification of academically gifted students: An aptitude perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 111–138.

D.F. Lohman Lohman, D. F. (2006b). Beliefs about differences between ability and accomplishment: From folk theories to cognitive science. Roeper Review, 29, 32–40. Lohman, D. F., & Hagen, E. P. (2001). Cognitive Abilities Test (Form 6). Itasca, IL: Riverside. Lohman, D. F., & Hagen, E. P. (2002). Cognitive Abilities Test (Form 6): Research Handbook. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Lohman, D. F., & Korb, K. A. (2006). Gifted today but not tomorrow? Longitudinal changes in ITBS and CogAT scores during elementary school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 451–484. Lohman, D. F., Korb, K., & Lakin, J. (2008). Identifying academically gifted English language learners using nonverbal tests: A comparison of the Raven, NNAT, and CogAT. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 275–206. Lohman, D. F., & Renzulli, J. S. (2007). A simple procedure for combining ability test scores, achievement test scores, and teacher ratings to identify academically talented children. http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman/pdf/Draft% 20Lohman-Renzulli%20ID%20system%20for% Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2000). States of excellence. American Psychologist, 55, 137–150. Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Ryan, J. (1995). The stability of vocational interests among the intellectually gifted from adolescence to adulthood: A 15-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 196–200. McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present, and future. In D. P. Flanagan & P. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment (2nd ed., pp. 136–181). New York: Guilford Press. Naglieri, J. A. (1997). Naglieri nonverbal ability test: Multilevel technical manual. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: Ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 410–433. Ortiz, S. O., & Ochoa, S. H. (2005). Advances in cognitive assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse individuals. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.) Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues (2nd ed., pp. 234–250). New York: Guilford Press. Presseley, M., Raphael, L., Gallagher, J. D., & DiBella, J. (2004). Providence-St. Mel School: How a school that works for African American students works. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 216–235. Raven, J. C. (2000). The Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 1–48. Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1983). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales, section 4: Advanced progressive matrices, sets I and II. London: H. K. Lewis. Raven et al. (2000). Manual for Raven Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales: Research Supplement No. 3. San Antonio: Harcourt Assessment. Renzulli, J. S. (2005). Equity, excellence, and economy in a system for identifying students in gifted education: A guidebook (RM05208). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., Hartman, R. K., & Westberg, K. L. (2002). Scales for rating

49

Identifying Academically Talented Students

the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Roid, G. (2003). Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales, technical manual (5th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside. Ruf, D. L. (2003). Use of the SB5 in the assessment of high abilities (Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition, Assessment Service Bulletin No. 3). Itasca, IL: Riverside. Sattler, J .M., & Hoge, R. D. (2006). Assessment of children: Behavioral, social, & clinical foundations (5th ed.). La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler. Schmidt, D. B., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1998). Validity of assessing educational-vocational preference dimensions among intellectually talented 13-year-olds. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 436–453. Shaunessy, E., Karnes, F. A., & Cobb, Y. (2004). Assessing potentially gifted students from lower socioeconomic status with nonverbal measures of intelligence. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98, 1129–1138. Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1984). Toward a theory of aptitude for learning from instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 347–376.

997 Stanley, J. (1971). Reliability. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1965). [Review of the IPAT Culture Fair Intelligence Test.] In O. K. Buros (Ed.), The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook (721–723), Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press. Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., D’Onofrio, B., & Gottesman, I. (2003). Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. Psychological Science, 14, 623–628. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2000). The on-going dilemma of effective identification practices in gifted education. The Communicator, 31, 39–41. Willingham, W. W., Lewis, C., Morgan, R., & Ramsit, L. (1990). Predicting college grades: An analysis of institutional trends over two decades. New York: The College Board.

Chapter 50

The Johns Hopkins Talent Search Model for Identifying and Developing Exceptional Mathematical and Verbal Abilities Linda E. Brody

Abstract The Johns Hopkins Talent Search model, which was pioneered in the early 1970s by Professor Julian Stanley, has now spread to countries around the world. Also known as the MVT:D4 model of talent development, the power and efficacy of this approach for identifying and serving students with above-gradelevel mathematical and/or verbal reasoning abilities have been well validated. Researchers at Johns Hopkins, as well as at other universities who use this model, have contributed greatly to our knowledge and understanding of the needs of gifted students. They have also developed and evaluated numerous strategies for meeting the educational needs of students with advanced abilities. This chapter summarizes the history of the Talent Search, its principles and practices, and the research that has been done on Talent Search students.

Stanley’s concepts were simple: Use above-gradelevel tests to assess ability in students who hit the ceiling on in-grade tests, adjust the level and pace of instruction to provide an optimal level of challenge, provide supplemental educational opportunities to augment school programs, and find ways for advanced students to interact with intellectual peers. In retrospect, Stanley referred to his efforts as “a quiet revolution” (Stanley, 2005, p. 5). But he had no idea how widely his ideas would be adopted when he first began working with precocious youths. He had no idea that there were so many other students like Joe who needed help.

The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth

Keywords Above-level tests · Acceleration · SAT · Center for Talent Development (CTD) · Center for Talented Youth (CTY) · Cogito.org

It was in 1968 that Julian Stanley was told about Joe, a 12-year-old who was enrolled in a summer computer science course at the Johns Hopkins UniWhen Julian Stanley passed away in August 2005, the versity (Stanley, 1974). Stanley’s work until then had gifted education community mourned his loss. Col- focused primarily on experimental and quantitative leagues he had worked with, graduate students he had psychology (he was co-author of the famous Campbell mentored, educators he had influenced, and talented & Stanley 1966 volume Experimental and Quasistudents whose lives he had changed described the experimental Designs for Research). However, he had tremendous impact that he had had on them person- had a long interest in testing and measurement and ally and on the field. While he continues to be missed, had been a high school teacher in his younger days, Stanley’s legacy lives on in the Johns Hopkins Talent so his interest was piqued when he heard about the Search model that he pioneered, a model that contin- eighth grader who was doing college-level work in the ues to expand worldwide, and in the many programs summer course. his ideas and work inspired. Stanley had also been intrigued by Leta Hollingworth’s (1942) use of above-level tests to measure intelligence in gifted children. Inspired by her efforts, L.E. Brody (B) Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA Stanley administered SAT reasoning and subject e-mail: [email protected] tests to Joe, measures designed to assess aptitude L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 50, 

999

1000

and achievement among college-bound high school seniors. When Joe, as an eighth grader, scored higher than the average Johns Hopkins University freshman on several of these tests, it was clear that a typical ninth grade curriculum would not meet his needs. Joe’s local high school, however, was unwilling to provide him with advanced instructional opportunities, so Stanley arranged to have him enroll as a full-time undergraduate at Johns Hopkins University. Joe excelled in the stimulating college environment, obtained both bachelor’s and master’s degrees by age 17 years, and went on to earn a Ph.D. in Computer Science and to pursue a challenging career in this field (Stanley, 2005). It was not long after Joe had enrolled at Hopkins before another parent heard about his progress and approached Stanley for help with her son. Under Stanley’s guidance, this young man also took the abovelevel SAT, scored well, entered Hopkins at a young age, and excelled as a young college student. As a result of the successes of these two young men, Stanley began to think that the SAT-M could be an effective tool for identifying other young students with advanced mathematical reasoning abilities, other students who might also be languishing in middle schools with unchallenging age-in-grade curricula. Stanley established the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) at Johns Hopkins in 1971 to find and serve students who exhibit advanced mathematical reasoning abilities at a young age (Stanley, Keating, & Fox, 1974). Aware of the efforts of Lewis Terman (1925) who identified his subjects within a larger pool of nominated students, Stanley decided to invite students to participate in a Talent Search where they would take the above-level SAT. The SMPY staff expected the number of students who would excel on the difficult aptitude test to be small, but testing larger numbers of students would allow the researchers to find the students with the most advanced mathematical reasoning abilities within the group and for whom they would provide services. The first Talent Search was held in March 1972 on the Johns Hopkins University campus with 450 seventh, eighth, and accelerated ninth graders participating. The results surprised the SMPY staff when 13% of the participants scored above 600 on SAT-M (Keating, 1974), excellent scores for high school seniors. This documented the need to establish systematic talent identification programs to find underserved students with advanced academic abilities. SMPY held subse-

L.E. Brody

quent Talent Searches on the Johns Hopkins campus in 1973, 1974, 1976, 1978, and 1979. Each time, greater numbers of students from broader and broader geographic areas participated. While radical acceleration into college had been a successful intervention for SMPY’s first prodigies, it was important to identify other ways to meet the academic needs of the students identified through the Talent Searches. Numerous programs and ways to accelerate in content areas were piloted. In particular, SMPY evaluated different ways to speed up the learning of math, biology, chemistry, and physics. Varying in length and intensity, the pilot programs included summer and year-round courses. Some were school based, while others were held at Johns Hopkins. The results clearly demonstrated that students with advanced mathematical reasoning abilities could master a great deal of content in a short period of time (Bartkovich & Mezynski, 1981; Benbow, Perkins & Stanley, 1983; Fox, 1974; George & Denham, 1976; Stanley, 1973, 1976). Stanley later referred to this period from 1971 to 1979 as one of “intense and extensive experimentation to determine how best to find excellent mathematical reasoners and help them educationally” (Stanley, 2005, p. 10). In addition to offering classes, SMPY advised highscoring students about accelerating their school-based programs and also encouraged them to participate in challenging supplemental opportunities outside of school. While a few students from each cohort still chose to enter college early, SMPY identified and created numerous alternatives for the majority of students who were not eager or ready to leave their high school environments before graduating. Students were encouraged to consider a “smorgasbord” of accelerative options, especially subject acceleration in their area(s) of strength, from which they could choose those most appropriate for their own educational needs and goals (Benbow, 1979; Benbow & Stanley, 1996; Lupkowski-Shoplik, Benbow, Assouline, & Brody, 2003; Southern, Jones, & Stanley, 1993). Ultimately, many schools were influenced to respond to the growing number of students who had earned high Talent Search test scores and found ways to accelerate their educational programs (Stanley, 2005). Participation in rigorous enrichment options such as math and science competitions was also encouraged (Muratori et al., 2006; Stanley, 1987).

50

The Johns Hopkins Talent Search Model

SMPY’s emphasis on acceleration was influenced somewhat by the work of Harvey Lehman (1953) who observed that the most outstanding accomplishments of mathematicians and scientists tended to be made during the early part of their careers. Stanley reasoned that accelerating students to enter these fields with more advanced content knowledge at younger ages might increase their overall output of creative achievements as adults. He hoped to add to the pool of highly productive mathematicians and scientists successfully solving society’s greatest problems. Another influence on SMPY and on the evolution of the Talent Search model was Harriet Zuckerman’s (1977) finding that cumulative educational advantage had been important to the talent development of Nobel Prize winners. She showed how, for many of the individuals she studied, one important educational opportunity had led to the next one and that the cumulative effect of all of them was very powerful. Stanley wanted to provide such opportunities to students with the potential for exceptional achievement as adults. Follow-up studies of the early SMPYers now being conducted suggest that Stanley was quite successful in meeting this goal (e.g., Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2005).

1001

(Benbow, 1986; Benbow, Lubinski & Suchy, 1996; Stanley, 1980). Finally, with the Talent Search programs now serving verbally talented students as well as mathematically talented ones, adding a V for verbal talent seems appropriate. Thus, MVT:D4 is an acronym that stands for building on Mathematical and/or Verbal Talent through Discovery, Description, Development, and Dissemination (Brody & Stanley, 2005).

Discovery

The first step is to find students with exceptional reasoning abilities so that their academic needs can be addressed. While parents, teachers, and in-grade tests may identify students who do well at grade level, they often fail to recognize students whose reasoning abilities are advanced compared to age peers. A student who excels at grade-level work but is not cognitively functioning above grade level has very different educational needs than one whose reasoning abilities are more like those of older students and thus is ready to master above-grade-level content. By taking a test with enough “ceiling” to allow them to exhibit the true extent of their abilities, students can gain a better understanding of their cognitive abilities and educational needs. Since it can be difficult to The MVT:D4 Model predict which students will perform well on the abovelevel test, systematic assessments are needed that The Johns Hopkins Talent Search model (Brody invite large numbers of students to participate. This is et al., 2001) has also been referred to as the Talent the premise behind regular, annual Talent Searches. Search model (Lupkowski-Shoplik et al., 2003) and Based on the level of academic precocity they exhibit the Center for Talented Youth model (Touron, 2005). on the above-level Talent Search tests, students can Another descriptor is the MVT:D4 model (Brody & be provided with academic services that are approStanley, 2005), which is useful for depicting the priately challenging. See Olszewski-Kubilius (2005) and VanTassel-Baska (1996) for programmatic reccomponents of this approach to talent development. MVT:D4 stems from the first book-length report of ommendations as they relate to Talent Search score SMPY’s work, which was entitled Mathematical Tal- performance. ent: Discovery, Description, and Development (Stanley, 1974). The three “D” words indicate the steps recommended by SMPY to find and serve talented youths. As a way to emphasize these steps, as well as the Description mathematical reasoning ability that the early Talent Searches assessed, the book’s title and subsequent de- Description of students’ cognitive and affective charscriptions of the model were referred to as MT:D3 . acteristics is the second step in the MVT:D4 model. A fourth D, for Dissemination of its principles, prac- The Talent Search assessment serves to identify tices, and procedures, was later added to emphasize students who have the ability to master advanced the role dissemination had always played in this work content in mathematical and/or verbal areas, but it

1002

is also important to assess their content knowledge in a subject before determining a course of study. It is useful, as well, to consider other attributes such as personality characteristics, motivation, and learning styles. In the early Talent Searches, SMPY brought high-scoring students back to the Hopkins campus to evaluate their affective characteristics and content knowledge (Stanley, 1974). Whether assessment of these characteristics is done formally or informally, it is an important component in planning an educational program that will optimize talent development. In this model, description also refers to research that sheds light on the characteristics and needs of gifted students and to program evaluation that identifies effective intervention strategies. The research efforts of SMPY, CTY, and other Talent Search centers have informed programmatic decisions and contributed greatly to our understanding of the needs of gifted students (see summary of research later in this chapter).

Development It was always SMPY’s goal not just to identify talent but also to develop it. With few programs available when SMPY was established, much work was needed to develop the strategies that might serve gifted students who exhibit a variety of academic and social needs. Ultimately, a wide variety of options, especially accelerative strategies, curricular flexibility, and participation in supplemental opportunities, were shown to be effective, and they continue to be recommended for students with advanced academic abilities. Effective articulation with schools is essential so that students receive credit for out-of-school experiences, and consolidation at the next stage so that students continue to build on what they had learned is also crucial (Stanley & Brody, 2001). In addition to advocating for appropriate academic support in- and out-of-school, the Talent Search centers have developed a variety of programs to serve students they identify. Through commuter and residential summer programs, distance education courses, seminars, and conferences, direct support for talent development is provided by these centers.

L.E. Brody

Dissemination While the fourth D in the MVT:D4 model, dissemination, was not listed on the first SMPY book (Stanley, 1974), this book and the many publications that followed in rapid succession are evidence of the importance that Stanley gave to disseminating information about the principles, practices, and research results of SMPY’s efforts in order to influence others to adopt these practices. The Talent Search centers continue to recognize the importance of disseminating its work through the publication of books and professional articles, presentations at conferences, and consultations with schools (see Touron, 2005). As a result of these efforts, the Johns Hopkins Talent Search model has become widely known, highly respected, and adapted by others around the world.

The Center for Talented Youth (CTY) By 1979, Stanley was growing less interested in the administrative responsibilities associated with the rapidly expanding Talent Search programs and was eager to focus, once again, on counseling the brightest students and on his research and writing. Consequently, the Center for Talented Youth (CTY), initially called the Office of Talent Identification and Development (OTID), was established at Johns Hopkins to administer the Talent Search and to find new opportunities to serve the students identified through this process. Still, no one could have foreseen the extent of the growth that lay ahead for this evolving model for identifying and developing academic talent. With students coming from an increasingly large geographic area for Talent Search testing and to participate in academic programs on the Johns Hopkins campus, the CTY staff recognized that there was a clear need to find a way to serve students who could not commute to Baltimore. Arrangements were made for students to take the SAT at local high schools and to have their scores sent to CTY program administrators. A residential academic summer program was also established, which allowed students, regardless of where they lived, to participate in summer courses while boarding on campus. The residential setting also allowed students to have greater interaction with intel-

50

The Johns Hopkins Talent Search Model

lectual peers, a need Stanley had identified early in his work. CTY’s first residential program was held on just one college campus in the summer of 1980. The growth since then has been phenomenal so that today approximately 10,000 students attend CTY summer programs on campuses throughout the United States and abroad. The annual CTY Talent Search, meanwhile, has grown to include over 70,000 students in grades 2–8 who take above-level assessments. Students are eligible to participate in CTY’s Talent Search if they have scored at or above the 95th percentile on an in-grade standardized test. These students, who have all scored well on the in-grade assessment, then take an above-level aptitude test through CTY. Students in grades 2–6 take the SCAT (School and College Abilities Test) and students in grades 7 or 8 take either the SAT or the ACT. It has been found that, in the Talent Search testing, students who have excelled and “hit the ceiling” on an in-grade test may score at any level on the more difficult above-level tests. A new full distribution of scores results from the above-level Talent Search assessment. This is the purpose of Talent Search: to identify those students who exhibit exceptional mathematical or verbal reasoning abilities and are ready for advanced, accelerated coursework. Recognition ceremonies call attention to the achievements of these students, encouraging parents and schools to respond with challenging educational opportunities (Barnett, Albert, & Brody, 2005). Students who score well on the Talent Search assessment are invited to participate in programs offered by CTY. Summer residential programs provide students with the opportunity to take a rigorous math, science, or humanities course and to live on a college campus with other bright and motivated students. Participants attest to the value of their experience, both academically and socially, and some even consider it to be life changing. They value the challenging coursework and also the opportunity to meet and interact with students who share their interests and abilities (Barnett et al., 2005). Distance education courses supplement the summer courses with opportunities for year-round learning (Wallace, 2005). Students can take advantage of CTY course offerings to accelerate their educational programs or to access courses not offered in their schools. Talent Search students are also invited to participate in a variety of family academic programs. These in-

1003

clude one-day topical conferences, as well as weekend or weeklong educational excursions. Groups of students and their families have gone with CTY to such places as Scotland, Tanzania, and the Galapagos Islands (Barnett et al., 2005; Ybarra 2005). CTY also houses a research department that continues to study gifted students and to evaluate programs, a Diagnostic and Counseling Center, the Julian C. Study of Exceptional Talent, and a number of special projects funded by grants. CTY works hard to develop outreach programs and to solicit funding so that students from underserved backgrounds can take full advantage of all of its programs and services. As a result of these efforts, large numbers of students are receiving scholarships to attend CTY programs, and CTY’s campuses are representative of a much more diverse population than in the past (Brody, 2007a; Ybarra, 2005).

Expansion of the Model Nationally Soon after CTY was established, sister programs that utilize the Johns Hopkins model were established at other universities in the United States. The first of these was the Talent Identification Program (TIP), which was founded at Duke University in 1980 (Putallaz, Baldwin, & Selph, 2005). Today, TIP continues to conduct annual Talent Searches and to offer a variety of academic opportunities to the students it serves. In 1982, the Center for Talent Development (CTD) at Northwestern University (Olszewski-Kubilius, 2005) and the Rocky Mountain Talent Search (RMTS) at the University of Denver (Rigby, 2005) were established. Like CTY and TIP, CTD and RMTS also serve students in large regions of the United States who participate in their annual Talent Searches and avail themselves of programs and services. In addition to maintaining their commitment to the model of utilizing above-level testing and offering summer residential programs, these talent centers have also developed their own unique program opportunities for their students. For example, Duke offers numerous international programs, and Northwestern provides enrichment classes for preschoolers. Researchers associated with these programs have also contributed to the research base to further our understanding of the characteristics and needs of students with advanced

1004

academic abilities (e.g., Olszewski-Kubilius, 1998; Putallaz et al., 2005). Other programs in the United States that utilize some or all aspects of the Johns Hopkins model include the Academic Talent Search at California State University Sacramento; the Belin-Blank Center at the University of Iowa; C-MITES at Carnegie-Mellon University; the Halbert and Nancy Robinson Center for Young Scholars at the University of Washington; OPPTAG at Iowa State University; SMPY at Vanderbilt University; and the Wisconsin Center for Academically Talented Youth (WCATY). The combined reach of all of these programs, along with the larger Talent Search programs, contributes greatly to the opportunities and services available for academically talented students in the United States.

Expansion of the Model Internationally The influence of the Johns Hopkins model has also been felt worldwide, as educators around the world have proven to be eager to implement aspects of it. After learning about the Johns Hopkins program components, many of them have sought help in adapting this approach to serve gifted students in their countries (Ybarra, 2005). An early test of the transferability of this model to another culture took place in the 1980s when Julian Stanley evaluated the feasibility of using it in China. After having the SAT-M translated into Chinese (for language only, with no consideration for cultural differences), the test was administered to students who attended some of the more selective Chinese middle schools. The result was that a large number of examinees scored extremely well, suggesting the test could be quite an effective tool to identify precocious mathematical ability in China, just as it had been in the United States (Stanley, Feng, & Zhu, 1989). Stanley hoped that several “SMPY in China” offices might emerge from the effort, but, instead, many of the top scorers kept in touch with Stanley and sought his help in applying to attend college in the United States. These students excelled in American undergraduate and graduate programs, helping to confirm the predictive validity of the SAT test taken while in middle school for this population.

L.E. Brody

The first full replication of the Johns Hopkins model in another country occurred in Ireland. Working in collaboration with CTY at Johns Hopkins, the Irish Centre for Talented Youth (CTYI) was established at Dublin City University in 1992 as an independent program. This center uses the PSAT, an adaptation of the SAT, as a tool to identify advanced mathematical and verbal reasoning abilities. Since the Irish students speak English, no translation of this test was necessary, but the fact that cultural differences did not impact on test scores was still a bit surprising when this program was first established. Once again, the strength of the above-level aptitude test to identify above-level reasoning abilities was confirmed. CTYI conducts annual Talent Searches based on the Hopkins model. It also sponsors a residential summer program, as well as numerous year-round educational offerings, and conducts ongoing research and evaluation of its efforts (Gilheany, 2001, 2005). Educators in England looked to CTY for assistance when the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth (NAGTY) was founded. As a result, residential summer programs based on the Johns Hopkins model were incorporated into NAGTY’s efforts to serve gifted students. No longer in operation, evaluations of NAGTY were nonetheless extremely positive (Frost, 2005). In Bermuda, an ongoing relationship exists between CTY Bermuda and CTY at Johns Hopkins. With the support and counsel of CTY at Hopkins, CTY Bermuda offers above-level testing and provides opportunities for accelerated and enriched coursework to gifted students in Bermuda who are not adequately challenged by their regular school programs. In spite of Stanley’s success in China, the need to find or translate an appropriate assessment tool has posed a challenge for applying the Hopkins model in non-English speaking countries that was not a problem in Ireland, England, and Bermuda. Javier Touron, a Professor at the University of Navarra in Pamplona, Spain, took on this challenge and successfully translated the School and College Abilities Test (SCAT) into Spanish. The SCAT has three levels of difficulty (elementary, intermediate, and advanced), and thus can be used as an above-grade-level test with a broad spectrum of age groups. Touron’s research led to the development of local norms for the translated version. Subsequently, he established CTY Espana in consultation with CTY at Johns Hopkins. This program of-

50

The Johns Hopkins Talent Search Model

fers Talent Search assessment using the Spanish SCAT and provides services to students including a residential summer program and distance education courses (Touron, 2001; Touron, Touron, & Silvero, 2005). The successful translation of the SCAT into Spanish inspired the possibility that it might also work in Thailand when educators in that country expressed a desire to collaborate with Johns Hopkins and establish CTY Thailand. This translated test is now successfully identifying students to attend challenging academic programs there. CTY Thailand has established residential programs based on the Johns Hopkins model, as well as numerous other initiatives, to serve a diverse constituency of gifted students in Thailand. Clearly, these many applications are evidence that the Hopkins approach to talent identification and development has proven incredibly robust in being able to be transferred across national borders and cultures. To facilitate the work with partners around the world, CTY International was formed, an organization in which its members agree to adhere to the core principles of the Johns Hopkins model (Ybarra, 2005). International students are also well represented in all of the programs offered by CTY at Johns Hopkins. Students from at least 80 countries have enrolled in CTY summer programs in the United States and in distance education courses. CTY also operates summer program sites in Mexico and China. Working with other prominent organizations that serve gifted students, CTY has taken the lead in developing Cogito.org, a free website for top math and science students around the world. Cogito.org seeks to link these students to each other, to scientific content and programs, and to practicing scientists and mathematicians. All of these efforts will help ensure that the kinds of opportunities provided by CTY and its partner organizations will be increasingly available to students wherever they live.

1005

with the potential to be great mathematicians and scientists, the purpose of this initiative was to find, counsel, and study students who “reason extremely well mathematically.” In 1991, the work on behalf of the “700 Group” moved to CTY as the Study of Exceptional Talent (SET) under the direction of Linda Brody, and broadened its scope to include high-verbal scorers. In Stanley’s later years, he joined SET as a Senior Scholar, continuing to counsel families, conduct research, and write. Months before his death, SET was named in Stanley’s honor as the Julian C. Stanley Study of Exceptional Talent as a permanent legacy to the principles and practices he inspired. SET serves students who score 700–800 on either the Mathematical or the Verbal (now Critical Reading) part of the SAT before age 13. Students who test after their 13th birthday are also eligible if they earn an additional 10 points above the minimum for each additional month of age. Almost 4,000 students have qualified for and joined SET since its inception. They now range in age from 11- to 12-year-old recent qualifiers to students in their late 30s who qualified in 1980 when the group was first established. Identification for SET is ongoing and new students qualify every year. Research on SET student’s shows that the majority are achieving at exceptionally high levels (Brody, 2005; Brody & Blackburn, 1996; Lubinski, Webb, Morelock, & Benbow, 2001; Muratori et al., 2006). SET’s efforts on behalf of these students are a direct outgrowth of the individualized approach Stanley used with the early Talent Search prodigies. Counselors work with students and their parents, both individually and in small group settings, to help them identify the educational opportunities that will meet their needs. SET’s publications (Precollege Newsletter and Imagine magazine) and Internet resources (Cogito.org and SET listserv) also serve to inform SET students about the many challenging supplemental opportunities they might consider. With many articles in Imagine and on Cogito written by or about past or present students, these resources also expose the readers to role models Julian C. Stanley Study of Exceptional and mentors. Talent (SET) In general, SET students are encouraged to use accelerative strategies combined with supplemental After establishing CTY to run the Talent Search pro- opportunities to develop a challenging program grams, Stanley launched a national search in 1980 un- that meets their unique educational needs. They der SMPY’s direction for “students who score 700–800 are also encouraged to find ways to interact with on SAT-M before age 13.” Returning to his strong in- intellectual peers to enhance their social development terest in fostering the talent development of students (Brody, 2005, 2007b). It is clear that, even among

1006

this group of students who all possess exceptional reasoning abilities, there are important differences in their individual cognitive profiles and in their interests, goals, values, and motivation. Opportunities also vary in their respective homes and communities (Brody, 2005; Brody & Blackburn, 1996). These differences support the importance of offering an individualized counseling program that addresses each student’s unique needs. The question may arise as to why SET’s services are offered to only a segment of the Talent Search population. The rationale is twofold: (1) These students are so advanced in their reasoning abilities that their needs are less likely to be met with school programs than Talent Search students who score at lower levels, and (2) it is important for the future of society to cultivate the abilities of those who are likely to be able to solve the problems we will face in the future. However, SET’s individualized approach to serving gifted students and its emphasis on out-of-school supplemental opportunities can be a model for any parent or educator seeking to challenge students with exceptional academic abilities. Dissemination of information about SET’s activities is intended to encourage others to utilize this approach (Brody, 2007b), and both Imagine magazine and the Cogito.org website are intended to serve students beyond the SET population.

L.E. Brody

The cumulative body of research results is highly supportive of the importance of identifying and developing the talents of students with advanced academic abilities and of the principles and practices behind the Johns Hopkins Talent Search model (Brody & Mills, 2005). Following is a summary of some of the findings.

Predictive Validity of Talent Search Scores

Above-level testing is the critical component that sets the Talent Search model apart from most other intervention programs for gifted students. By differentiating among students who all excel at in-grade work to find those who are truly functioning above their age peers, appropriately challenging educational experiences can be provided to all of the students. In particular, accelerative coursework can be provided to those high-scoring students who are most likely to excel in an advanced curriculum. In 1977, Julian Stanley published The Predictive Value of the SAT for Brilliant 7th and 8th graders where he documented the range of scores obtained on the SAT during the first four Talent Searches at Johns Hopkins (Stanley, 1977–78). In all of the years since then, with the expansion of Talent Search to other regions of the United States and to other countries, the pattern has held up. Students who achieve nearly perfect scores on an in-grade test spread out on the aboveResearch on the Talent Search Model level Talent Search assessment into a new distribution of scores (Barnett et al., 2005). The process discrimiOne of the strengths of the Johns Hopkins Talent nates well within the group tested so that students with Search model is its strong empirical base. From exceptionally advanced reasoning abilities can be identhe beginning, SMPY’s efforts were research based. tified and their educational programs adjusted to inStudents in the first Talent Searches were assessed, clude more advanced content. studied, and described in an effort to learn more Stanley (1977–78) also documented how perforabout the characteristics and needs of academically mance on the SAT at a young age predicted students’ precocious students, and programs were evaluated performance in fast-paced classes and as young colsystematically (e.g., see Keating, 1976; Stanley, 1974). lege entrants. Since then, a whole body of literature has A longitudinal study was launched that continues been produced that supports the use of Talent Search today at Vanderbilt University (e.g., see Lubinski, scores to predict a student’s ability to learn more adBenbow, Shea, Efekhari-Sanjani, & Halforson, 2001), vanced content at a faster pace than lower scorers or avand CTY and other university-based Talent Search erage classmates (e.g., Bartkovich & Mezynski, 1981; programs have also recognized the importance of Gustin & Corazza, 1994; Olszewski-Kubilius, Kulieke, validating their programs through careful evaluative Willis, & Krasney, 1989). Studies that specifically fostudies and research on the characteristics and needs cus on top Talent Search scorers are also supportive of of the students these programs serve. the finding that they achieve at high levels in acceler-

50

The Johns Hopkins Talent Search Model

ated programs (Brody & Blackburn, 1996; Kolitch & Brody, 1992). Other research has linked high performance in the Talent Searches to a pattern of taking more advanced courses in high school, to more honors and awards in high school, and to higher educational aspirations (Barnett & Durden, 1993; Brody, 1998; Burton, 1988; Lupkowski-Shoplik et al., 2003; Mills & Ablard 1993; Olszewski-Kubilius, 1998; Wilder & Casserly, 1988). Talent Search scores have also been found to be predictive of achievement years after Talent Search, with top Talent Search scorers outperforming low talent search scorers on numerous important variables (Benbow, 1992; Lubinski, Webb et al., 2001; Wai et al., 2005). The predictive validity of the Talent Search assessment, therefore, has been heavily researched and well established. An above-level aptitude test is useful for identifying students who are ready to master advanced content and who are likely to continue to achieve at high levels if their academic needs are met. Researchers also report that students who participate in Talent Search find taking the test to be a positive experience regardless of their scores (Jarosewich & Stocking, 2003).

Acceleration as a Strategy for Serving Gifted Students When SMPY was established, there was much fear of acceleration. “Early ripe, early rot” was a common misperception, suggesting that advanced students would burn out if they were overly challenged. There was also a great deal of concern about the social and emotional adjustment of accelerated students, particularly those accelerated in grade placement. A review of the literature by Daurio (1979) that was commissioned by Stanley, however, concluded that resistance to acceleration was based largely on preconceived ideas rather than any evidence that it is harmful. Still, it was important for SMPY researchers to explore this issue further, since the purpose of the Talent Search is to identify those students who are ready for more advanced, accelerated coursework and to recommend appropriate accelerative measures. The result has been a large body of research in support of acceleration that has helped to

1007

dispel the myth that acceleration is harmful (see Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004). Since the early prodigies accelerated by entering college at radically young ages, early college entrance has been an important area of investigation. Stanley tracked six students who had entered college at particularly young ages and demonstrated how highly successful they were, helping to refute the “early ripe, early rot” myth (Stanley, 1985). Numerous studies were also conducted on early entrants to Johns Hopkins University, as well as on Talent Search students who entered other universities at young ages. The overall conclusion of these studies of groups of early entrants was that they fared extremely well academically without the acceleration contributing to any social or emotional problems (Brody, Lupkowski & Stanley, 1988; Brody & Stanley 1991; Olszewski-Kubilius, 1995; Stanley & McGill 1986; Pollins, 1983). Inevitably, however, there were individuals within these groups of young college entrants who fared less well, so studies were designed to shed light on the predictive factors that come into play. For example, Brody, Assouline, and Stanley, (1990) investigated levels of success among early entrants to Johns Hopkins and found that experience with Advanced Placement courses prior to enrolling in college was the best predictor of success in college. Similarly, Brody et al. (1988), in a study of early entrants who attended a variety of colleges, identified exposure to advanced content, whether through AP or part-time college courses, as helpful in preparing them for the rigor of college-level work. As a result of these findings and others, the following recommendations have been suggested for any student who is contemplating enrolling in college at an unusually young age: (1) Take advanced college-level courses before enrolling in college full-time, (2) find opportunities to interact with older students before leaving high school, (3) take full advantage of any challenging opportunities your high school does offer before leaving, and (4) choose a college where you are most likely to be successful based on your developed abilities, interests, and readiness to live away from home (Brody & Stanley, 1991; Brody, Muratori & Stanley, 2004; Muratori, 2007). Research studies were also conducted on the value and effectiveness of accelerating students in

1008

one or more subjects, and the findings have been extremely positive. In particular, SMPY’s experimental fast-paced mathematics classes clearly showed that students with advanced mathematical reasoning abilities can master a great deal of mathematics content in a shorter period of time and at a faster pace than is typically taught in school (Benbow & Stanley, 1983; Fox, 1974; George & Denham, 1976; Stanley, 1976). Follow-up studies of students who accelerated in math showed that they were well prepared for subsequent academic work in mathematics (Kolitch & Brody, 1992; Swiatek & Benbow, 1991a). The efficacy of acceleration in science was also investigated, with researchers proving that high-ability students can effectively master a full year’s worth of science in a 3-week summer course. In these studies, not only was the pace altered but the students typically took the course several years earlier than they traditionally would have been exposed to the content (Lynch, 1992; Stanley & Stanley, 1986). Studies have also shown that students who participate in a variety of fast-paced summer courses go on to excel in subsequent coursework and to take more advanced courses, thus refuting a common belief that accelerated classes must produce gaps in knowledge (Barnett & Durden, 1993; Kolitch & Brody, 1992; Lynch, 1990; Mills, Ablard, & Lynch, 1992; Schiel & Stocking, 2001). Since Talent Search counselors advocate that students consider a variety of ways, in- and out-of-school, to accelerate their educational progress, researchers have also sought to evaluate the broader question of the effectiveness of utilizing accelerative strategies in a variety of settings. As a result of this work, there is much evidence that Talent Search students who moved ahead in subject and/or grade placement have benefited from acceleration without exhibiting concomitant social and emotional difficulties (Brody & Benbow, 1987; Kolitch & Brody, 1992; Lubinski, Webb et al. 2001; Richardson & Benbow, 1990; Swiatek & Benbow, 1991b). It is noteworthy that a follow-up study of top-scoring Talent Search students showed that 95% reported having accelerated their educational program in some way, a huge proportion of the group (Lubinski, Webb et al., 2001). The exceptional achievements of these students are a testimonial to the value of acceleration for meeting their educational needs.

L.E. Brody

Characteristics of Gifted Students In order to make more appropriate decisions about how best to meet the needs of the gifted students they serve, Talent Search researchers have investigated their cognitive and affective characteristics. With well over 250,000 students participating annually in Talent Searches around the world, these students represent a broad spectrum of students with exceptional academic abilities who have been extensively studied. Cognitive abilities. Although many school-based programs treat gifted students as a homogeneous group, the results of many years of Talent Search assessment and research attest to the fact that highachieving students can differ dramatically from each other in important ways. For example, students who might nonetheless be considered gifted may score high on the mathematical SAT but low on critical reading in the Talent Search, or they may score high on critical reading but low on mathematical reasoning. Others may score high on both parts or low on both parts. Students with such differing levels of mathematical and/or verbal reasoning abilities have quite different cognitive profiles and thus very different educational needs. Benbow and Minor (1990) explored this phenomenon further and found verbally precocious students, as a group, to also score higher on general knowledge tests than mathematically talented students. The mathematically talented students, on the other hand, scored higher on speeded and non-verbal measures. One of these non-verbal areas is spatial ability, and its role in predicting high achievement in mathematics and science has also been an area of investigation by Talent Search researchers. In the early SMPY Talent Searches, students who obtained high scores on the SAT were administered a battery of other assessments, including a test of spatial aptitude (Stanley, 1976). Under the direction of CTY, research on spatial ability in talented students led to the development of the Spatial Test Battery (STB), which is offered as an optional assessment in CTY’s Talent Search. Stumpf (1993) found that spatial aptitude is not a uni-dimensional trait, but rather there are different spatial skills that should be assessed, and the STB reflects this by including a number of subtests. Validation studies have found the STB to be effective, as a complement to measures of mathematical and verbal reasoning ability, in predicting the achievement of Talent Search students in accelerated math and science classes (Stumpf, 1993).

50

The Johns Hopkins Talent Search Model

Follow-up studies of Talent Search students have also demonstrated the value of assessing spatial ability to predict achievement over time. For example, Shea, Lubinski, & Benbow (2001) found that the assessment of spatial ability at age 13 added incremental value to SAT-M and SAT-V assessments for predicting educational and vocational achievement 20 years later. This finding supports the value of assessing a variety of cognitive traits at a young age, but most especially mathematical, verbal, and spatial aptitude, to guide educational decision making. Gender differences. Gender differences in ability and/or achievement in mathematics and science have been a focus of inquiry by Talent Search researchers since differences favoring males in performance on the mathematical portion of the SAT were observed in the first Talent Searches. Publicity about this phenomenon and speculation about its causes stirred much controversy and debate, particularly when a large gender difference among the top-scoring Talent Search boys and girls was reported (Benbow & Stanley, 1980). Gender differences in mathematics favoring males were also found on tests with younger populations of gifted students (Mills, Ablard, & Stumpf, 1993; Robinson, Abbott, Berninger, & Busse, 1996). Additional studies of performance on a variety of widely used aptitude and achievement tests, including the Advanced Placement tests, SAT subject tests, and graduate admissions tests, found that gender differences extended to numerous subject areas in addition to mathematics (Stanley, Benbow, Brody, Dauber, & Lupkowski, 1992; Stumpf & Stanley 1996, 1997). In some studies, gender differences in achievement in particular disciplines have been linked to interests, personality traits, and parental influences, as well as ability (Lubinski & Benbow, 2000; Mills, 1992, 1997; Olszewski-Kubilius & Yasumoto, 1995). The good news is that gender differences on the highest levels of performance on the mathematical part of the SAT have diminished. While earlier studies reported a ratio of 13 males scoring 700 or above for every female (Benbow & Stanley, 1980), the ratio of males to females scoring at this level in the annual Johns Hopkins Talent Search is now about 4:1 or 5:1. Also, research has shown that recognition of mathematical and scientific talent and intervention programs aimed at females have contributed to increasing participation and achievement by females in these fields (e.g., Brody & Fox, 1980; Fox, Brody, & Tobin, 1980;

1009

Fox, Tobin, & Brody, 1979; Olszewski-Kubilius & Grant, 1996; Stocking & Goldstein, 1992). Social and emotional adjustment. Studies of Talent Search students confirm that, as a group, these students are socially well adjusted, report having friends, and have positive self-concepts (e.g., Ablard, 1997, 2004; Brody & Benbow, 1986; Parker, 1994). In fact, studies have found Talent Search students to be more psychosocially mature than age peers (Luthar, Zigler, & Goldstein, 1992; Weiss, Haier, & Keating, 1974), a finding that supports the appropriateness of utilizing accelerative strategies to meet their educational needs. There are indications, however, that within the Talent Search population, extremely gifted students may experience more difficulties than moderately gifted students and also that verbally gifted students may have more social and/or emotional problems than those who are mathematically talented (Ablard, 1997; Brody & Benbow, 1986; Dauber & Benbow, 1990). More highverbal students than high-math students perceive themselves as being unpopular and report having difficulty fitting in with peers (Brody & Benbow, 1986; Dauber & Benbow, 1990). For students who do have difficulty finding or interacting with peers who share their interests, the positive social benefits of the interaction that occurs at Talent Search residential summer programs have been demonstrated (e.g., OlszewskiKubilius, 1989). With regard to other problems gifted students can face, perfectionism and multi-potentiality are two that are sometimes cited. However, research on the prevalence of perfectionism among Talent Search participants found that there is no tendency for them to be more perfectionistic than a national sample comparison group (Parker & Mills, 1996). Similarly, multipotentiality was not been found to be an issue for these students. In fact, one study found Talent Search students to be quite goal oriented by age 13 (Achter, Lubinski, & Benbow, 1996). Personalities, interests, values, and learning styles. The roles personality, interests, values, and learning styles play in talent development and student achievement have been studied extensively by Talent Search researchers, and the results have important implications. For example, Independence and Flexibility (as measured by the California Psychological Inventory) were identified as traits that characterize a group of high-achieving mathematically gifted males in an early Talent Search (Weiss et al. 1974). These are excellent

1010

traits for students, who may need to pursue educational programs that differ from the norm, to possess. Fox and Denham (1974) investigated interests and values in another study of early Talent Search participants. They found a high proportion of the students to be interested in investigative careers, though more so for the males. Among the females, investigative preferences were more common among the high scorers than among less talented girls. Similarly, they also reported a high Theoretical orientation for the group, based on the Allport–Vernon–Lindzey Study of Values. Again, this was more so for the males, but the small group of females assessed in this study scored higher on Theoretical than the general population. Subsequent studies continue to report a high Theoretical orientation among Talent Search students, with females also valuing Aesthetic and Social values, and males more likely to also value Political or Economic interests (Blackburn & Brody, 1996; Olszewski-Kubilius & Kulieke, 1989). Distinctive patterns have also emerged from studies of Talent Search students using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. When compared to normative groups of adolescents, Talent Search students tend to be more open to new experiences and learning. They also express a preference for utilizing a Thinking mode of evaluating information, and they are more likely to be Introverts. By preferring Thinking over Feeling, Talent Search females look more like young men than females in general do (Mills, 1993). Within the Talent Search group, studies found that students who score high on measures of both verbal and mathematical aptitudes have the strongest preferences for Introversion and Intuition, while high math but low verbal scorers prefer Thinking and Sensing. Investigative interests were also found to predominate among the students with high-math abilities (Mills, 1993). Similar patterns in regard to personality and learning style, as well as gender differences, were found in a group of gifted Irish adolescents (Mills & Parker, 1998). There are indications that these personality traits may influence the early career interests of Talent Search students. For example, Blackburn (1997) found that students’ interests in pursuing careers in mathematics and the physical sciences were positively related to Introversion, interest in careers in law and sports were related to Extroversion, and careers in arts and humanities were related to Intuitiveness and Feeling.

L.E. Brody

Longitudinal follow-up studies of Talent Search students have affirmed the relevance of personality traits, interests, and values to predicting career choice and achievement among high-ability students over time (Achter, Lubinski, Benbow, & EftekhariSanjani, 1999; Lubinski & Benbow, 2000; Lubinski, Webb et al., 2001). Differences in these traits may also explain some gender differences in career choice, especially with regard to mathematical and scientific fields (Achter et al., 1999; Mills, 1997; Schmidt, Lubinski, & Benbow, 1998). Thus, while identification of exceptional aptitude in an area such as mathematics in a Talent Search is predictive of a student’s ability to achieve at a high level, personality traits and interests clearly influence the choices he or she makes, and assessment of these other factors enhances the predictability of the Talent Search score with regard to ultimate achievement in related career fields. Twice-exceptional students. Researchers at Johns Hopkins began investigating high-ability students with concomitant learning disabilities in the early 1980s when there was still considerable skepticism that advanced cognitive abilities and serious academic difficulties resulting from learning disabilities could co-exist in the same individual. This work clearly demonstrated that highly gifted students could also have learning disabilities and led to recommendations for serving them (Fox, Brody, & Tobin, 1983). Today, twice-exceptional students who meet eligibility requirements fully participate in Talent Search programs, sometimes with minor accommodations. This population continues to be of interest to researchers who have focused on gaining a better understanding of the unique needs of twice-exceptional students. In general, the importance of recognizing and addressing the students’ need for challenge in their areas of strength has been emphasized rather than focusing primarily on remediation of the weakness (Brody & Mills 1997, 2004). Gifted students from low-income or underrepresented populations. The Talent Searches have also made special efforts to identify and include students from traditionally under-represented and low-income families in their programs and services (Olszewski-Kubilius, 2005; Ybarra, 2005). Studies of the performance of low-income students who qualify for and attend CTY programs have shown them to be highly successful in the classes they select. These students have also been found to have academic

50

The Johns Hopkins Talent Search Model

aspirations and self-concepts similar to other program participants. As a group, they place a high importance on getting good grades and attending a good college, and they value learning (Center for Talented Youth, 2003). When students from disadvantaged backgrounds have been found to have deficits or gaps in skills or knowledge, targeted accelerated instruction has been shown to successfully address these deficits. Students made significant gains in mathematics achievement and aptitude in programs that specifically identified content that had not been mastered and allowed students to progress rapidly through it in a challenging program (Barnett, Gustin, & DuSel, 1996; Lynch & Mills, 1993; Mills, Stork, & Krug, 1992). While summer programs and other interventions can clearly make a difference in the lives of disadvantaged learners, the importance of ongoing support for their academic needs has also been shown to be important (Brody, 2007a; VanTassel-Baska, 1989a). Recognition of this has led the Talent Searches to establish several year-round counseling initiatives to serve low-income gifted students. These include the Jack Kent Cooke Young Scholars Program, which is supported by the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation, and the Next Generation Venture Fund, which has numerous philanthropic sponsors. Preliminary evidence suggests that both have been highly successful in nurturing talent. For the Jack Kent Cooke program, in particular, the first cohorts of Jack Kent Cooke Young Scholar are now in college. Many of these students garnered prestigious awards and recognition before leaving high school, and they are attending prestigious colleges and universities (Brody, 2007a). Family backgrounds. Numerous studies show that the majority of Talent Search participants come from fairly advantaged homes, with well-educated parents (e.g., Ablard, Mills, & Hoffhines, 1996; Blackburn & Brody, 1994; VanTassel-Baska, 1989b). In one study, for example, all but about 10% of Talent Search parents had some college experience, and more than half the fathers had graduate degrees (Center for Talented Youth, 2002). In a study of students who qualified for the Study of Exceptional Talent, the highest scorers among Talent Search participants, 75% of fathers and 49% of mothers reported having graduate degrees (Blackburn & Brody, 1994). Talent Search students are also more likely than is typical to come from families with both parents in the home

1011

(Blackburn & Brody, 1994; VanTassel-Baska, 1989b), though this is less true for Talent Search students from low-income families where divorce is more prevalent (VanTassel-Baska, 1989a). Research has shown that most Talent Search students have positive feelings about their families and feel supported in their goals (Ablard, 2004). They report that their parents value and support educational opportunities, but they do not feel pressured to achieve at exceptionally high levels (Ablard & Parker, 1997; Center for Talented Youth, 2002). Nonetheless, parents have been shown to influence students’ educational decisions through their expectations (Olszewski-Kubilius & Yasumoto, 1995).

Performance of Talent Search Students over Time Numerous studies attest to the high achievements of Talent Search students over time, thus validating the predictability and usefulness of the talent identification process. The results also suggest that the educational choices that were made following the Talent Search identification, including decisions to accelerate, were appropriate for talent development. For example, subjects who had participated in Talent Search while in middle school were surveyed at age 33. As a group, they achieved high levels of career success, as well as satisfaction in their careers. Gender differences were observed in that males were more represented in the inorganic sciences and engineering, while females were more represented in fields related to the medical, biological, or social sciences or the arts or humanities, but the level of satisfaction was high in both gender groups (Benbow, Lubinski, Shea, & EftekhariSanjani, 2000; Webb, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2002). While Talent Search participants overall have been found to achieve at high levels over time, within group differences have also been found, thus attesting even more precisely to the predictability of Talent Search scores. Wai et al. (2005), for example, compared students who had scored in the top quartile as Talent Search participants with those who had scored in the bottom quartile in an evaluation that took place 20 years later. They found the higher Talent Search test scores to be predictive of higher levels of achievement later in life.

1012

The level of achievement has been found to be particularly high among the students in the very top range of Talent Search scorers, those who represent at least the top 1 in 10,000 in mathematical or verbal reasoning ability. SET serves these students and has observed high achievement in college acceptances, graduate school admissions, and career attainment (Brody & Blackburn, 1996; Muratori et al., 2006). In a study of 320 individuals in this group, Lubinski, Webb et al. (2001) found the subjects to have pursued doctoral degrees at rates 50 times higher than the general population, with a number having created noteworthy literary, scientific, or technical products by their early 20s. Most reported that they had accelerated their educational progress in some way.

L.E. Brody

programs, competitions, and other extracurricular activities can serve to provide rigorous learning opportunities, as well as opportunities to interact with intellectual peers. The Talent Searches offer programs directly to the students they serve, and they also advocate an approach to educating gifted students that has implications for serving them both in- and out-of-school. For schools, recognition of individual differences in abilities and willingness to use curricular flexibility are crucial for meeting students’ needs. The principles and practices that Julian Stanley experimented with at Johns Hopkins when SMPY was established no longer seem experimental and have been well validated. With the early Talent Search participants embarked into their careers, some at illustrious levels, and follow-up studies attesting to the success of the intervention strategies they utilized, confidence in the Talent Search approach to serving gifted learnConclusion ers is assured. This confidence is reflected in worldwide interest among educators who want to adapt this 4 The Johns Hopkins Talent Search (or MVT:D ) model approach in order to meet the educational needs of has effectively transcended the boundaries of time, gifted students in their countries. With so much growth place, and culture to become one of the most widely and expansion of the use of the Johns Hopkins Talent utilized and highly respected vehicles for identifying Search model likely to occur in the future, one can only and serving students with advanced academic abilities. wonder about the impact it will have on the next genNow being adapted by educators in countries around eration of highly precocious youth, the next generation the world, the Talent Searches have provided services of the world’s potential problem solvers. to well over a million students, and this approach to talent identification and development is arguably the most extensively researched and validated one in References existence. The model builds on the psychology of individual Ablard, K. E. (1997). Self-perceptions and needs as a function of type of academic ability and gender. Roeper Review, 20, differences, i.e., recognition that individuals can differ 110–115. a great deal in their cognitive and affective traits Ablard, K. E. (2004). The developmental study of talented youth and that these differences can influence behavior and (DSTY): Six-year trends. Technical Report No. 31. Baltiachievement (see Lubinski, 2000). Assessment of more: Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth. these traits is critical in order to identify a student’s Ablard, K. E., Mills, C. J., & Hoffhines, V. L. (1996). The developmental study of talented youth (DSTY): The participants. unique needs, and systematic Talent Searches, using Technical Report No. 13. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center above-grade-level tests, have proven to be effective for Talented Youth. vehicles for identifying students with advanced Ablard, K. E., & Parker, W. D. (1997). Parents’ achievement goals and perfectionism in their academically talented chilreasoning abilities. dren. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 651–667. Once students are identified through the Talent Achter, J. A., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1996). MultipoSearches, their unique characteristics and individual tentiality among the intellectually gifted: “It was never there needs determine appropriate strategies for serving and already it’s vanishing.” Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(1), 65–76. them. The need to challenge students whose reasoning abilities are above-grade level is clear, however, and Achter, J. A., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Eftekhari-Sanjani (1999). Assessing the vocational preferences among gifted accelerative strategies have proven to be effective for adolescents adds incremental validity to abilities: A discrimmeeting the needs of many of these advanced learners. inant analysis of educational outcomes over a 10-year interval. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 777–786. In addition, supplemental options such as summer

50

The Johns Hopkins Talent Search Model

Barnett, L. B., Albert, M. E., & Brody, L. E. (2005). The Center for Talented Youth talent search and academic programs. High Ability Studies, 16(1), 27–40. Barnett, L. B., & Durden, W. G. (1993). Education patterns of academically talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 161–168. Barnett, L. B., Gustin, W. C., & DuSel, J. C. (1996). Community challenge: Enhancing the academic achievement of children and youth. Roeper Review, 19(2), 111–114. Bartkovich, K. G., & Mezynski, K. (1981). Fast-paced precalculus mathematics for talented junior-high students: Two recent SMPY programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(2), 73–80. Benbow, C. P. (1979). The components of SMPY’s smorgasbord of accelerative options. Intellectually Talented Youth Bulletin, 5(10), 21–23. Benbow, C. P. (1986). SMPY’s model for teaching mathematically precocious students. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 2–25). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press. Benbow, C. P. (1992). Academic achievement in mathematics and science between ages 13 and 23: Are there differences among students in the top one percent of mathematical ability? Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 430–441. Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (2000). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning: Their status 20 years later. Psychological Science, 11, 474–480. Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., & Suchy B. (1996). The impact of SMPY’s educational programs from the perspective of the participant. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 266–300). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Benbow, C. P., & Minor, L. L. (1990). Cognitive profiles of verbally and mathematically precocious students: Implications for identification of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(1), 21–26. Benbow, C. P., Perkins, S., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). Mathematics taught at a fast pace: A longitudinal evaluation of SMPY’s first class. In C. P. Benbow & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development (pp. 113–138). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact? Science, 210, 1262–1264. Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (Eds.) (1983). Academic precocity: Aspects of its development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How equity can lead to inequity for high-potential students. Psychology, Public Policy, & the Law, 2(2), 249–292. Blackburn, C. C. (1997) The developmental study of talented youth: Early career interests. Technical report No. 20. Baltimore; Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth. Blackburn, C. C., & Brody, L. E. (1994). Family background characteristics of students who reason extremely well mathematically and/or verbally. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development (Vol. II., pp. 439–444). Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press. Blackburn, C. C., & Brody, L. E. (1996). The Study of Exceptional Talent: A longitudinal study. Technical Report No. 24. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth.

1013 Brody, L. E. (1998). The talent searches: A catalyst for change in higher education. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9(3), 124–133. Brody, L. E. (2005). The Study of Exceptional Talent. High Ability Studies, 16(1), 87–96. Brody, L. E. (2007a). Center for Talented Youth (CTY). In J. VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overloooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 77–81). Washington DC: National Association for Gifted Children. Brody, L. E. (2007b). Counseling highly gifted students to utilize supplemental educational opportunities: Using the SET program as a model. In J. L. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Serving gifted learners beyond the traditional classroom (pp. 123– 143). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Brody, L. E., Assouline, S. G., & Stanley, J. C. (1990). Five years of early entrants: Predicting successful achievement in college. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(4), 138–142. Brody, L. E., & Benbow, C. P. (1986). Social and emotional adjustment of adolescents extremely talented in verbal or mathematical reasoning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15(1), 1–18. Brody, L. E., & Benbow, C. P. (1987). Accelerative strategies: How effective are they for the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 105–110. Brody, L. E., & Blackburn, C. (1996). Nurturing exceptional talent: SET as a legacy of SMPY. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 246–265). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Brody, L. E., & Fox, L. H. (1980). An accelerative intervention program for mathematically gifted girls. In L. Brody, L. H. Fox, & D. Tobin (Eds.), Women and the mathematical mystique (pp. 164–178). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Brody, L. E., Lupkowski, A. E., & Stanley, J. C. (1988). Early entrance to college: A study of the academic and social adjustment during the freshman year. College and University, 63(4), 347–359. Brody, L. E., & Mills, C. J. (1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 282–296. Brody, L. E., & Mills, C. J. (2004). Linking assessment and diagnosis to intervention for gifted students with learning disabilities. In T. M. Newman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Students with both gifts and learning disabilities: Identification, assessment, & outcomes (pp. 73–94). New York: Kluwer Academic. Brody, L. E., & Mills, C. J. (2005). Talent search research: What have we learned? High Ability Studies, 16(1), 97–111. Brody, L. E., Muratori, M. C., & Stanley, J. C. (2004). Early entrance to college: Academic, social, and emotional considerations. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest kids (Vol. II, pp. 97–107). Iowa City: University of Iowa. Brody, L. E., & Stanley, J. C. (1991). Young college students: Assessing factors that contribute to success. In W. T. Southern & E. D. Jones (Eds.), The academic acceleration of gifted children (pp. 103–131). New York: Teachers College Press. Brody, L. E., & Stanley, J. C. (2005). Youths who reason exceptionally well mathematically and/or verbally: Using the

1014 MVT:D4 model to develop their talents. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 20–37). New York: Cambridge University Press. Brody, L. E., Stanley, J. C., Barnett, L. B., Juhasz, S. E., Gilheany, S., & Touron, J. (2001). Expanding the Johns Hopkins talent search internationally. Gifted and Talented International, 16(2), 94–107. Burton, N. W. (1988). Survey II: Test taking history for 1980–81 young SAT-takers. New York: College Board. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Center for Talented Youth (2002). Parents’ values and children’s perceived pressure. Topical Research Series 4. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth. Center for Talented Youth (2003). CTY-Goldman Sachs young scholars program annual report. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa. Dauber, S. L., & Benbow, C. P. (1990). Aspects of personality and peer relations of extremely talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(1), 10–15. Daurio, S. P. (1979). Educational enrichment versus acceleration: A review of the literature. In W. C. George, S. J. Cohn, & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment (pp. 13–63). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Fox, L. H. (1974). A mathematics program for fostering precocious achievement. In J. C. Stanley, D. P. Keating, & L. H. Fox (Eds.), Mathematical talent: Discovery, description, and development (pp. 101–125). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Fox, L. H., Brody, L., & Tobin, D. (Eds.). (1980). Women and the mathematical mystique. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Fox, L. H., Brody, L., & Tobin, D. (Eds.). (1983). Learningdisabled/gifted children: Identification and programming. Austin, TX: Pro-ed. Fox, L. H., & Denham, S. A. (1974). Values and career interests of mathematically and scientifically precocious youth. In J. C. Stanley, D. P. Keating, & L. H. Fox (Eds.), Mathematical talent: Discovery, description, and development (pp. 140– 175). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Fox, L. H., Tobin, D., & Brody, L. (1979). The impact of early intervention programs upon course-taking and attitudes in high school. In S. F. Chipman, L. R. Brush, & D. M. Wilson (Eds.), Women and mathematics: Balancing the equation (pp. 249– 274). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Frost, P. (2005). The CTY summer school model: Evolvement, adaptation, and extrapolation at the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth (England). High Ability Studies, 16(1), 137–153. George, W. C., & Denham, S. A. (1976). Curriculum experimentation for the mathematically talented. In D. P. Keating (Ed.), Intellectual talent: Research and development (pp. 103–131). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Gilheany, S. (2001). The Irish Centre for Talented Youth: An adaptation of the Johns Hopkins talent search model. Gifted and Talented International, 16(2), 102–104.

L.E. Brody Gilheany, S. (2005). The Irish Centre for Talented Youth. High Ability Studies, 16 (1), 113–120. Gustin, W. C., & Corazza, L. (1994). Mathematical and verbal reasoning as predictors of science achievement. Roeper Review, 6, 160–162. Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above IQ 180 Stanford Binet. Yonkers, NY: World Book Co. Jarosewich, T., & Stocking, V. B. (2003). Talent search: Student and parent perceptions of out-of-level-testing. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 137–150. Keating, D. P. (1974). The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth. In J. C. Stanley, D. P. Keating, & L. H. Fox (Eds.), Mathematical talent: Discovery, description, and development (pp. 23–46). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Keating, D. P. (1976). Intellectual talent: Research and development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kolitch, E. R., & Brody, L. E. (1992). Mathematics acceleration of highly talented students: An evaluation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 78–86. Lehman, H. C. (1953). Age and achievement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lubinski, D. (2000). Scientific and social significance of assessing individual differences: “Sinking shafts at a few critical points.” Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 405–444. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2000). States of excellence. American Psychologist, 55(1), 137–150. Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., Shea, D. L., Eftekhari-Sanjani, H., & Halforson, M. B. J. (2001). Men and women at promise for scientific excellence: Similarity not dissimilarity. Psychological Science, 12(4), 309–317. Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M. J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 718–729. Lupkowski-Shoplik, S., Benbow, C. P., Assouline, S. G., & Brody, L. E. (2003). Talent searches: Meeting the needs of academically talented youth. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 204–218). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Luthar, S. S., Zigler, E., & Goldstein, D. (1992). Psychosocial adjustment among intellectually gifted adolescents: The role of cognitive-developmental and experiential factors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33(2) 361–373. Lynch, S. J. (1990). Credit and placement issues for the academically talented following summer studies in science and mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 270–30. Lynch, S. J. (1992). Fast-paced high school science for the academically talented: A six-year perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(3), 147–154. Lynch, S. J., & Mills, C. J. (1993). Identifying and preparing disadvantaged minority youth for high level academic achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 66–76. Mills, C. J. (1992). Gender, personality, and academic ability. Paper presented at the 15th annual conference of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Hilton Head, SC. Mills, C. J. (1993). Personality, learning style, and cognitive style profiles of mathematically talented students. European Journal for High Ability, 4, 70–85. Mills, C. J. (1997). Gender differences in math/science achievement: The role of personality variables. Paper presented at

50

The Johns Hopkins Talent Search Model

the 20th annual Conference of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Hilton Head, SC. Mills, C. J., & Ablard, K. E. (1993). Credit and placement for academically talented students following special summer courses in math and science. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 4–25. Mills, C. J., Ablard, K. E., & Lynch, S. J. (1992). Academically talented students’ preparation for advanced-level coursework after an individually-paced precalculus class. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 3–17. Mills, C. J., Ablard, K. E., & Stumpf, H. (1993). Gender differences in academically talented young students across age and subskills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 340–346. Mills, C. J., & Parker, W. D. (1998). Cognitive-psychological profiles of gifted adolescents from Ireland and the U.S.: Cross-societal comparisons. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(6), 1–16. Mills, C. J., Stork, E. J., & Krug, D. (1992). Recognition and development of academic talent in educationally disadvantaged students. Exceptionality, 3, 165–180. Muratori, M. C. (2007). Early entrance to college: A guide to success. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Muratori, M., Stanley, J. C., Gross, M. U. M., Ng, L., Tao, T., & Ng, J. (2006). Insights from SMPY’s former child prodigies: Drs. Terrence (Terry) Tao and Lenhard (Lenny) Ng reflect on their talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(4), 307– 324. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1989). Development of academic talent: The role of summer programs. In J. L. VanTassel-Baska & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of influence on gifted learners (pp. 214–230). New York: Teachers College Press. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1995). A summary of research regarding early entrance to college. Roeper Review, 18, 121–126. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1998). Research evidence regarding the validity and effects of talent search educational programs. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9(3), 134–138. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2005). The Center for Talent Development at Northwestern University: An example of replication and reformation. High Ability Studies, 16(1), 55–69. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Grant, B. (1996). Academically talented females and mathematics: The role of special programs and support from others in acceleration, achievement, and aspirations. In K. Arnold, K. Noble, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 281–294). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Kulieke, M. J. (1989). Personality development of gifted adolescents. In J. VanTassel-Baska & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of influence on talent development: The home, the self and the school (pp. 125–145). New York: Teachers College Press. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Kulieke, M. J., Willis, G. B., & Krasney, N. (1989). An analysis of the validity of SAT entrance scores for accelerated classes. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(1), 37–54. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Yasumoto, J. (1995). Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18(3), 298–318. Parker, W. D. (1994). Psychological adjustment in mathematically gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 154–157. Parker, W. D., & Mills, C. J. (1996). The incidence of perfectionism in gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(4), 194– 199.

1015 Pollins, L. D. (1983). The effects of acceleration on the social and emotional development of gifted students. In C. P. Benbow & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development (pp. 160–178). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Putallaz, M., Baldwin, J., & Selph, H. (2005). The Duke University Talent Identification Program. High Ability Studies, 16(1), 41–54. Richardson, T. M., & Benbow, C. P. (1990). Long-term effects of acceleration on the social-emotional adjustment of mathematically precocious youths. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 464–470. Rigby, K. (2005). Rocky Mountain Talent Search at the University of Denver. High Ability Studies, 16(1), 71–75. Robinson, N. M., Abbott, R. D., Berninger, V. W., & Busse, J. (1996). The structure of abilities in math-precocious young children: Gender similarities and differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 341–352. Schiel, J. L., & Stocking, V. B. (2001). Benefits of TIP summer residential program participation, as reflected by subsequent academic performance in high school. In N. Colangelo & S. G. Assouline (Eds.), Talent development IV: Proceedings from the 1998 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 435–438). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Schmidt, D. B., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1998). Validity of assessing educational-vocational preference dimensions among intellectually talented 13-year-olds. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(4), 436–453. Shea, D. L., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: A 20-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 604614. Stanley, J. C. (1973). Accelerating the educational progress of intellectually gifted youths. Educational Psychologist, 10(3), 133–146. Stanley, J. C. (1974). Intellectual precocity. In J. C. Stanley, D. P. Keating, & L. H. Fox (Eds.), Mathematical talent: Discovery, description and development (pp. 1–22). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Stanley, J. C. (1976). Special fast-mathematics classes taught by college professors to fourth through twelfth graders. In D. P. Keating (Ed.), Intellectual talent: Research and development (pp. 132–159). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Stanley, J. C. (1977–78). The predictive value of the SAT for brilliant seventh and eighth graders. College Board Review, No. 106, 31–37. Stanley, J. C. (1980). Manipulate important educational variables. Educational Psychologist, 15(3), 164–171. Stanley, J. C. (1985). How did six highly accelerated gifted students fare in graduate school? Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(4), 180. Reprinted S. M. Reis (Series Ed.) and L. E. Brody (Vol. Ed.), Essential Readings in Gifted Education: Vol. 3 Grouping and acceleration practices in gifted education (pp. 1–2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Stanley, J. C. (1987). Making the IMO team: The power of early identification and encouragement. G/C/T, 10(2), 22–23. Stanley, J. C. (2005). A quiet revolution: Finding boys and girls who reason extremely well mathematically and/or verbally and helping them get the supplemental educational opportunities they need. High Ability Studies, 16(1), 5–14.

1016 Stanley, J. C., Benbow, C. P., Brody, l. E., Dauber, S., & Lupkowski, A. E. (1992). Gender differences on eighty-six nationally standardized aptitude and achievement tests. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 42–65). Uniondale, NY: Trillium Press, 1992. Stanley, J. C., & Brody, L. E. (2001). History and philosophy of the talent search model. Gifted and Talented International, 16(2), 94–96. Stanley, J. C., Feng, C. D., & Zhu, X. (1989). Chinese youths who reason extremely well mathematically: Threat or bonanza? Network News and Views, 8, 33–39. Stanley, J. C., Keating, D., & Fox, L. H. (Eds.) (1974). Mathematical talent: Discovery, description, and development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Stanley, J. C., & McGill, A. M. (1986). More about “Young entrants to college: How did they fare?” Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 70–73. Stanley, J. C., & Stanley, B. S. K. (1986). High-school biology, chemistry, or physics learned well in three weeks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(3) 237–250. Stocking, V. B., & Goldstein, V. B. (1992). Course selection and performance of very high ability students: is there a gender gap? Roeper Review, 15(1), 48–51. Stumpf, H. (1993). Components of spatial ability and their relationship to success in accelerated mathematics and science courses. In E. A. Hany & K. A. Heller (Eds.), Competence and responsibility: The third European conference of the European Council for High Ability (pp. 286–297). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber. Stumpf, H., & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Gender-related differences on the College Board’s Advanced Placement and achievement tests, 1982–1992. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 353–364. Stumpf, H., & Stanley, J. C. (1997). The gender gap in Advanced Placement computer science: Participation and performance, 1984–1996. College Board Review, 181, 22–27. Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D., & Stanley, J. C. (1993). Acceleration and enrichment: The content and development of programs. In E. A. Heller, F. K. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 387–409). New York: Pergamon. Swiatek, M. A., & Benbow, C. P. (1991a). A ten-year follow-up of participants in a fast-paced mathematics course. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(2), 138–150. Swiatek, M. A., & Benbow, C. P. (1991b). A ten-year longitudinal follow-up of ability-matched accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 528–538.

L.E. Brody Terman, L. M. (Ed.) (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Genetic studies of genius Vol. I. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Touron, J. (2001). School and College Ability Test (SCAT) validation in Spain: Overview of the process and some results. Gifted and Talented International, 16(2), 104–107. Touron, J. (Ed.) (2005). The Center for Talented Youth model. Special issue of High Ability Studies, 16(1). Touron, J., Touron, M., & Silvero, M. (2005). The Center for Talented Youth Spain: An initiative to serve highly able students. High Ability Studies, 16(1), 121–135. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1989a). The role of the family in the success of disadvantaged gifted learners. In J. L. VanTasselBaska & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of influence on gifted learners (pp. 60–80). New York: Teachers College Press. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1989b). Profiles of precocity: A three-year study of talented adolescents. In J. L. VanTassel-Baska & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of influence on gifted learners (pp. 29–39). New York: Teachers College Press. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1996). Contributions of the talent search concept to gifted education. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 236–245). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youths: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 484–492. Wallace, P. (2005). Distance education for gifted students: Leveraging technology to expand academic options. High Ability Studies, 16(1), 77–86. Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2002). Mathematically facile adolescents with math-science aspirations: New perspectives on their educational and vocational development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 785–794. Weiss, D. S., Haier, R. J., & Keating, D. P. (1974). Personality characteristics of mathematically precocious youth. In J. C. Stanley, D. P. Keating, & L. H. Fox (Eds.), Mathematical talent: Discovery, description, and development (pp. 126–139). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Wilder, G., & Casserly, P. L. (1988). Survey I: young SAT-takers and their parents. New York: College Board. Ybarra, L. (2005). Beyond national borders: the Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth reaching out to gifted children throughout the world. High Ability Studies, 16(1), 15–26. Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.

Chapter 51

A New Approach to the Identification of Intellectually Gifted Individuals Larisa V. Shavinina

Abstract This chapter presents a new approach to the psychological assessment of intellectual abilities of the gifted based on the new cognitive-developmental theory of giftedness (Shavinina, this volume). The main shortcomings of conventional intelligence tests are briefly discussed. The nine methodological and procedural principles, which form this approach, are considered along with the examples of new intelligence tests. According to these principles, new intelligence tests should first of all examine the psychological mental context generated by the gifted themselves. They should have an “open character,” evaluate the basis of giftedness (not its numerous manifestations), and allow both retrospective and prospective assessments. New tests should not evaluate psychological functions (e.g., memory or attention) and mental speed, and they should not be very long or time consuming. Cognitive styles, metacognitive, and extracognitive abilities should also be assessed. The information about a child’s sensitive periods and his or her strong interests should be gathered from parents and other caregivers.

Keywords Psychological mental context · retrospective and prospective assessments · methodological and procedural principles · assessment of intellectual abilities

L.V. Shavinina (B) Universit´e du Qu´ebec en Outaouais, Gatineau, Qu´ebec, Canada e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction: Intelligence Testing as Psychology’s Important Technological Innovation Linda Silverman (this volume) convincingly demonstrated that intelligence tests were, are, and will be the major instrument used to assess an individual’s intellectual abilities and thus will remain the main tool to identify the gifted. However, intelligence tests are important for psychology in general, not only for the field of high ability. For instance, a literature search in the PsycINFO database of the American Psychological Association (APA) found 1246 references on intelligence tests published between 1997 and 1999. This total is quite impressive for a 3-year period. It should be noted that the PsycINFO database of the APA does not include all psychological journals published around the globe. If the CARL database and ERIC database had also been searched, the total would have increased dramatically. The Web of Science database searched in 2007 found 1429 references on intelligence tests. This amazing number of scholarly articles on intelligence testing clearly demonstrates that the assessment of intellectual abilities is a popular scientific topic among psychologists, because a great deal of research is published. At the same time, as it has been often pointed out in the literature (Daniel, 1997; Flanagan & Alfonso, 1995; Esters, Ittenbach, & Han, 1997; Shobris, 1996; Sternberg & Kaufman, 1997; Sternberg, Wagner, Williams, & Horvath, 1995), intelligence testing is not developing rapidly. The reasons for this have been thoroughly identified elsewhere (Sternberg & Kaufman, 1997). It should be added that the lack of a satisfactory theory of human intelligence, upon

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 51, 

1017

1018

which any development of new assessment methods is based, is also among many possible reasons. To understand the nature of human intelligence is to understand what intelligence tests should measure, and how. Intelligence tests have been one of psychology’s important technological innovations since the last century (Silverman, this volume). Although modern information technology leads to the appearance of new technological innovations in psychology—for example, technologies related to cyberpsychology (Shavinina, 1998a, 2000a, 2000b)—intelligence tests continue to be its most traditional and widespread technology. Like any contemporary technology, intelligence testing advances by being influenced by current scientific data in general and by recent research findings that shed light on the nature of an individual’s intellectual abilities in particular. This chapter presents one such attempt. Specifically, this is the attempt to move the field of giftedness forward in the direction of the comprehensive assessment of high abilities, and particularly the measurement of potential gifts and talents of everyone. It is a disturbing reality that we do not have reliable and exact assessment methods that would allow us to identify (not lose!) the hidden abilities of children and adolescents. Many examples are available, which demonstrate that giftedness of many geniuses and other highly accomplished individuals were overlooked in their early years. Albert Einstein is probably the best known of them. This is an alarming thought that even today, more than a hundred years after Einstein’s childhood, many individual gifts and talents are going to be lost because of a lack of appropriate assessment. If one thinks for a while about the impact of the gifted on society in general (see, for instance, my chapter on giftedness and economy, this volume) and their unique innovative abilities in particular (see my chapter on innovation education, this volume), then it is clear that the measurement of high ability is an extremely important scientific topic and the task of developing comprehensive and ideal identification methods is a great job for giftedness researchers of the future. The ultimate objective of this chapter is thus to outline a new approach to the identification of gifted individuals that is based on a new cognitive-developmental theory of giftedness presented in another chapter in this volume. This chapter has three parts. The first part briefly addresses theoretical foundations underlying this approach. The second part describes some

L.V. Shavinina

of the main shortcomings of conventional intelligence tests. These shortcomings have inspired my search for an alternative measurement of intellectual abilities. Finally, the third part discusses a new approach to the assessment of intellectual abilities that is based on nine relatively independent and at the same time interrelated principles. These methodological and procedural principles are presented along with examples of new intelligence tests or, to be more precise, subtests.

Theoretical Foundations: Cognitive-Developmental Theory of Giftedness My dissatisfaction with the existing psychological theories of human intelligence and giftedness was the first reason that led me to recognize an increasing need for an innovative approach to intelligence testing (Shavinina, 2001). Nevertheless, it is not the purpose of this chapter to examine the advantages and shortcomings of the available theories of intelligence and intellectual giftedness. This has already been done in the literature (see, for example, Detterman, 1994; Kholodnaya, 1997; Neisser et al., 1996; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996; Sternberg, 1985, 1990). Rather, the aim of the current section is to consider the main facets of a new cognitive-developmental theory of giftedness, which provides the theoretical background for a new approach to the psychological assessment of intellectual abilities. The theory of the individual intelligence was proposed by Kholodnaya (1990) and developed by Kholodnaya (1993) and Shavinina & Kholodnaya (1996) into the theory of intellectual giftedness. It has been demonstrated that the major difficulty in understanding the nature of intelligence and intellectual giftedness is that various traits, characteristics, properties, and qualities of intelligence and giftedness (i.e., their external manifestations in any real activity) have been the subject of psychological research, but the psychological basis (or psychological carrier) of these manifestations has not been investigated (Kholodnaya, 1997; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996; Shavinina, this volume). Attempts to understand the nature of any psychological phenomenon solely on the basis of listening and describing its own characteristics, traits, features, qualities, and

51

A New Approach to the Identification of Intellectually Gifted Individuals

properties are unsatisfactory. Contradictions and crises in psychology testify to this (Vekker, 1981). The external manifestations of any psychological phenomenon can be studied endlessly; however, the real, deep understanding of the phenomenon will not be attained. In this light the only promising solution is to consider intellectual giftedness as the sum of its two important aspects: the external manifestations of intellectual giftedness (i.e., its features, traits, characteristics, properties, and qualities) and the psychological basis of intellectual giftedness (i.e., the psychological carrier of these manifestations; Kholodnaya, 1993). A need for a new research direction was therefore emphasized, specifically it was argued that there is an urgent need to re-examine scholars’ approach to the nature of intellectual giftedness as psychological phenomenon. It means that psychologists should not answer the question: “What is intellectual giftedness?” by listing its characteristics and traits (i.e., its external manifestations). Rather, they should answer the following question: “What is the carrier (a basis) of the characteristics and traits associated with intellectual giftedness?” (Kholodnaya, 1990; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996; Shavinina, this volume). It was argued that from this radically changed point of view, scientists should study an individual’s mental or cognitive experience and, more precisely, the specificity of its structural organization. This experience is the psychological basis of intellectual giftedness. In other words, the individual cognitive experience serves as the psychological carrier of numerous manifestations of giftedness (Kholodnaya, 1993). Following Kholodnaya (1997), I define human intelligence as a specific form of the organization of the individual mental or cognitive experience that is responsible for the effective perception and understanding of the surrounding reality. In turn, mental or cognitive experience is defined as a system of the available psychological mechanisms, which forms a basis for the human cognitive attitude to the world around and predetermines the specificity of his or her intellectual activity (Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). As described in my chapter on the nature of giftedness (Shavinina, this volume), the structural organization of intellectual giftedness can be presented on six levels: three basic levels (i.e., neuropsychological, developmental, and cognitive foundations of giftedness) and three levels of its manifestations (i.e., its numerous traits and

1019

characteristics). Each of the levels in the structural organization of giftedness and its components were discussed in detail in that chapter. Let me remind here that according to the cognitive-developmental theory of giftedness, cognitive experience expresses itself in a specific type of the objective representations of reality (i.e., how an individual sees, understands, and interprets what is going on in the world around him or her).

A Type of Representation as a Proto-phenomenon of Cognitive Experience Kholodnaya’s (1990) investigations of the nature of human intelligence have shown that one of the basic phenomenon (i.e., proto-phenomenon) of an individua’s intellectual life and his or her experience as a whole is one’s representations. Kholodnaya (1990) found that the main function of intelligence consists in the construction of the adequate representations of reality. Indeed, many scientists have considered representations to be important in understanding the nature of human intelligence. Thus, Oatley (1978) argued that an individual’s representations are, probably, the closest to the scientific understanding of intelligence. Klix (1988) pointed out that adequate representations are the foundation of all transformations, combinations, and reductions of information. Piaget (1969) asserted that logical reasoning is dependent on the structure of a child’s representation of reality. Krutetskii’s (1968) studies of mathematically able children have shown that their problem representations extend beyond the given information and existing facts and they more readily determine the nature of missing and irrelevant data. Bamberger (1986) found that musically gifted children have an unusual capacity for representing musical relations to themselves in multiple ways and these multiple representations are conceived not as distinct but rather as intertwined and intersecting. Contemporary cognitive psychology in the expert–novice paradigm also gives evidence of the importance of the phenomenon of representations in the understanding of the nature of giftedness (Chi & Ceci, 1987; Chi et al., 1981; Ericsson et al., this volume; Kanevsky, 1990; Schneider, 1993; Shore

1020

& Kanevsky, 1993; Sternberg & Powell, 1983). For example, Chi et al., (1981) demonstrated the main differences in problem representations between physics experts and novices. They found, for instance, that experts classified problems according to underlying principles and rules, whereas novices tended to use superficial meanings of words and diagrams for the aim of classification. Kanevsky’s (1990) data also support the general notion in the expert–novice paradigm that experts represent problems differently from novices. “The high ability children more often commented on the commonalties in the rules, apparatus, and strategy. It was suggested that this was due to differences in their understanding or internal representation of the problem that made these commonalties more apparent to them” (Shore & Kanevsky, 1993, p. 138). Therefore, cognitive experience manifests itself in the specific types of representations. This means that intelligent persons in general—and particularly the gifted—see, understand, and interpret everything differently from other people. Specifically, they construct an individual intellectual picture of the world (of event, action, idea, problem, and any aspect of the surrounding reality) in a very objective manner, that is, exactly as the situation requires (Kholodnaya, 1993, 1997; Shavinina, 1996). Objectivization of cognition is thus a critical element of the gifted type of representation of the gifted. This is why their individual intellectual picture of the world or their point of view is a unique one. Therefore, a new approach to the psychological assessment of intellectual abilities, which will be presented below, is based on the theory of giftedness briefly described above, as well as in my another chapter in this volume. This theory brings a new perspective on the psychological understanding of the nature of giftedness and, therefore, calls for new methods for the adequate measurement of an individual’s intellectual potential. This is not surprising at all: leading theorists in the field of psychological assessment (see, for instance, Hambleton & Slater, 1997; Hambleton & Wedman, 1997) emphasized that “emerging psychological theories such as those concerning intelligence, aptitudes... require the assessment of new or modified constructs” (Hambleton & Wedman, 1997, p. 1). It thus seems reasonable to assert that one of the promising directions in the development of intelligence testing is to base the development of new tests on the above-considered theory of giftedness.

L.V. Shavinina

Shortcomings of Conventional Intelligence Tests My dissatisfaction with the existing intelligence tests was the second reason leading to the development of a new approach to the psychological assessment of intellectual abilities. The goal of this section is to briefly consider some important shortcomings of the conventional intelligence tests. In general, within the traditional psychometric approach human intelligence has been regarded synonymous with high IQ. As it is well known, conventional intelligence tests focus mainly on IQ scores, which show how the intelligence of one individual is different from the intelligence of others. Nonetheless, IQ scores are not criteria for the real essence of an individual’s intelligence (Feldman, 1982; Kholodnaya, 1997; Olson, 1986; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996; Sternberg, 1985; Sternberg, Wagner, Williams, & Horvath, 1995; Wallach, 1992). A great body of literature has shown that, from the middle to the upper end of their range, scores on conventional tests of intellectual ability do not accurately reflect the nature of intelligence (Wallach, 1992). There are many reasons for this, which are certainly caused by the shortcomings of IQ tests. Consider two of them. First, for the most part, psychometric intelligence tests measure factual or declarative knowledge, but not intelligence. The “Information” and “Vocabulary” subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scales are examples of such subtests. Since the main goal of traditional education consists in knowledge transfer from one generation to another, it is not surprising that IQ tests focus on those manifestations of intellectual activity that are very close to academic success. The ability to solve various tasks and/or problems is a good example. Nevertheless, giftedness is not equal to problem solving. The cognitive-developmental theory of giftedness considered above excludes the understanding of giftedness as the ability to solve problems. Moreover, in spite of the importance of various kinds of knowledge in the contemporary understanding of human intelligence and giftedness (Chi & Ceci 1987; Kholodnaya, 1997; Schneider, 1993; Shavinina & Kholodnaya’s 1996; Sternberg, 1985), neither intelligence nor giftedness can be reduced to pure knowledge. From this point of view it is not

51

A New Approach to the Identification of Intellectually Gifted Individuals

surprising that a lot of tests, which were initially named as “intelligence tests” in the beginning of the 20th century, have later been re-named as “achievement tests” or “learning ability tests.” However, as Sternberg (1988) convincingly underlined, although traditional intelligence tests tell us something about an individual’s learning, they fail to measure his or her ability to learn. The concept of learning is not equal to the concept of the ability to learn. Furthermore, along with the academic type of giftedness, which is usually assessed by conventional intelligence tests, there are also creative, practical, emotional, and social types of giftedness (see chapters by Kaufman et al., Heng et al., Baron et al., this volume). IQ tests do not measure these types of giftedness, as well as a great variety of domain-specific types of giftedness (i.e., giftedness in music, sports, arts). Second, IQ tests reveal not so much the real intellectual abilities of an individual but rather the level of his or her socialization (Kholodnaya, 1997; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). It is quite clear that, for example, children from the middle and upper social classes have better access to the traditional and non-traditional institutions of elementary, secondary, and higher education. As a result of this, as well as because of the higher educational level of parents, families’ educational traditions, and other forms of parental investment in their children’s education (e.g., hiring private tutors for teaching special courses), kids from such families generally acquire a deeper knowledge. As conventional intelligence tests measure an individual’s factual or declarative knowledge and simple skills, these children’s IQ scores are usually higher than that of their peers from less privileged social classes. For instance, one 7-year-old boy, working on the “Vocabulary” subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, third edition (WISC-III), told me, “Certainly, I know the complete definition of this word. It is exactly what my dad explained to me yesterday. He is a researcher in the University and currently works in this area.” Definitely, the boy’s high scores on this subtest were determined to some degree by his father’s educational level and professional experience. Other shortcomings of IQ tests are also well known such as the extreme emphasis on the mental speed and/or speed responses or the assessment of the level of development of concrete psychological functions (e.g., attention, memory; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). Linda Silverman (this volume) very well described

1021

how to overcome some of these shortcomings in order to fully assess the intellectual potential of the gifted. It should be acknowledged that these shortcomings of standardized intelligence tests, as well as the shortcomings described below, have generated appeals to the alternative assessment methods (Neisser et al., 1996; Sternberg, 1985, 1988, 1990) and have led some psychologists to real contributions to the field that can be called “new intelligence testing.” The most known work in this area is that of Sternberg and his colleagues on the measurement of practical intelligence or common sense (Sternberg et al., 1995). It is quite evident that traditional psychometric testing (i.e., the assessment of intellectual abilities via IQ scores) does not allow one to examine intellectual abilities in accordance with the cognitivedevelopmental theory of giftedness (Shavinina, this volume), and especially the cognitive basis of giftedness (i.e., an individual’s cognitive experience). Taken together, these main reasons—both dissatisfaction with existing theories of intelligence and the available assessment methods—have led me to the development of a new approach to the psychological testing of intellectual abilities that is presented below.

Psychological Assessment of Intellectual Abilities: A New Perspective From my point of view the development of new tests for the psychological assessment of intellectual abilities should be based on the following principles: 1. Intelligence tests should examine the psychological mental context generated by an individual. 2. Intelligence tests should have an “open character.” 3. Intelligence tests should test the basis of giftedness (i.e., the psychological carrier of the numerous manifestations of giftedness). 4. Intelligence tests should not evaluate psychological functions (for example, short- and long-term memories, attention span); instead, they should measure intellectual abilities. Any psychological function, or even their combination, is not intellectual giftedness. 5. Intelligence tests should avoid the emphasis on speed or speed responses.

1022

6. Intelligence tests should also measure intellectual potential or hidden abilities, not only actual intellectual abilities. In other words, intelligence testing should not only be exclusively retrospective in its measurement of an individual’s intellectual resources but be prospective, too. 7. Intelligence tests should analyze personal cognitive styles. 8. Intelligence tests should estimate an individual’s metacognitive and extracognitive abilities. 9. Intelligence tests (or their subtests) should not be very long, and, as a consequence, time consuming. These principles concern various facets of intellectual giftedness, both methodological and procedural ones (i.e., what should be included in new testing and how it should be measured). Very roughly, the above-presented principles can thus be categorized as the methodological and procedural principles.

Psychological Mental Context The first and fundamental methodological principle of a new approach to the development of new intelligence tests is the requirement to examine the psychological mental context that is generated by an individual (Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). Oatley (1978) first mentioned this idea in his research on human representations. The need to examine the psychological mental context generated by people themselves implies that new intelligence tests do not contain tasks or problems already prepared by test developers. The ability to solve problems is one of the important manifestations of intellectual giftedness. Nevertheless, it is not a reason to include items on problem solving in intelligence tests. First, giftedness has a lot of its internal and external manifestations and it is not possible to assess all of them by any intelligence test. Second, and the most important, as it follows from the above-presented definition, giftedness is not problem solving. Therefore, the new generation of intelligence tests should not examine human ability to solve problems. Or, on the other hand, tests that estimate problem-solving abilities should be called appropriately: tests of problem-solving abilities, but not intelligence tests. Performing on new intelligence tests, examinees should not find any correct or quick solutions. Instead,

L.V. Shavinina

they are asked to generate something that has never existed before; that is, the individual mental context. Examinees are free in their choice of the direction of the generation of their mental contexts. They are also not limited in the content of their mental contexts. Because of that each mental context is really the individual mental context. Basing intelligence testing on the examination of people’s mental context allows psychologists to avoid many misunderstandings, which occur in standardized intelligence tests. For instance, criticizing the conventional intelligence tests, Olson (1986) reasonably noted that there is a difference between the meaning of a written word for test developer(s) and how it will be understood by examinee(s). Unfortunately, the absolute coincidence of the interpretations of test developer(s) and examinee(s) is not a case of traditional intelligence tests. This “dissonance of understandings” was also underlined by Sternberg (1985), when he concluded that very low scores on IQ tests “often result from an examinee not quite understanding what is required by the tasks at hand” (p. 300). Another example of misunderstanding in IQ tests is a situation when “in figural reasoning items, examinees sometimes find that none of the answer options appears to be correct; such an outcome often results from representing the geometric structure of the item in a way different from that intended by the item writer” (Sternberg, 1985, p. 300). It looks like the best way to overcome these problems of misunderstanding is to provide an opportunity for examinees to generate their individual mental contexts by themselves. The possible examples of new intelligence tests which are used to measure an examinee’s mental context are “Ideal Computer” and “Conceptual Synthesis.” They will be presented below as I used them in the experimental studies with intellectually gifted adolescents. The results of these investigations with a detail description of new assessment methods were presented in Shavinina & Kholodnaya (1996). The “Ideal Computer” test (Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996) is used to examine how the gifted see, understand, and interpret the world around as a whole, that is, to assess their individual representations in general. To measure this type of representations, examinees are instructed in the following way: “Just imagine that there is an ideal computer of the latest generation that knows absolutely everything about everything and can answer any of your questions. You

51

A New Approach to the Identification of Intellectually Gifted Individuals

1023

can communicate with it for ten minutes. Please, write is proposed five times (three new words are given every down any questions you would like answered.” Scores time). The scores are for: are based on the following parameters: (a) The complexity of established connections (i.e., total number of all connections in quantitative (a) General number of questions marks) (b) The number of objective questions, which are di(b) The number of connections, which are evaluated rected to the understanding of problems of the by maximum mark external world and which are connected to the actualization of certain elements of objective knowledge about the world (e.g., “Is there an end of the Universe?, “Will new inexhaustible sources of energy be discovered?,” How can military conflicts be prevented?, “Are there any inhabited worlds in the Universe?”) (c) The number of subjective questions, which are related to the actualization of personal problems and which focus on personally important situations (e.g., “When will I get married?, “What will my faith be?,” How many children will I have?, “How can I overcome the negative features of my character?”) (d) The number of categorical questions, which are characterized by the most general consideration of all aspects of the surrounding reality and the world around us (e.g., “What will happen to mankind in the future?, “What are the rules of people’s interactions?,” What are the natural laws of the structure of the Universe?, “Is there the most general principle in the organization of nature?”) (e) The number of concrete questions, which are related to a single concrete fact (e.g., “How many stars are there in the sky?, “When will I die?,” How much does the most modern stereo-system cost?, “What will I get on the physics exam?”) “Conceptual Synthesis” is used to examine the conceptual representations of intellectually gifted individuals. This test is Shavinina & Kholodnaya’s (1996) modification of Abracham’s test of cognitive synthesis (Arina, & Koloskova, 1989). The essence of the test is that examinees are given three words that are not connected to each other by meaning. They belong to three different, remote semantic categories (for example, “sandstorm–computer–safety pin, “lightning– ruler–wheel,” “chain–fire–watch”). According to the instruction, examinees should establish any possible kinds of connections between these words that would have meaning and write the connections down. The test

The estimation criteria (on the example of “chain–fire– watch”) are as follows: 0 mark—if only two words are connected to each other (for example, “A chain can be changed by fire”; “A wrist-watch can be on the chain”); 1 mark—if connection is established only on the basis of simple enumeration of objects and phenomena or their formal contradiction (for example, “A wristwatch can be changed in the fire, but a chain cannot”; “Fire can be blown out by chain and a wrist-watch can be broken by a chain”); 2 marks—all three words included in a certain concrete situation (for example, “I see such a picture: Prometheus stands near Olympus with a golden watch on the hand; he is shackled in the chains and his death from fire is coming soon”); 3 marks—all three words connected with the help of some general categorical concept or with the help of some reason–consequences connections (for example, “Fire is a chain of the subsequent processes of oxidation; a watch is a chain of the subsequent positions of pendulum; and a chain consists of a few connected subsequent links”). One can see that performing these tests examinees do really generate some individual mental context, instead of task or problem solving that constitutes the essence of conventional intelligence testing. Traditional intelligence tests are closed with respect to people’s possibility to generate subjective mental context.

“Open Character” The next principle is closely related to the first one. It states that new intelligence tests should have an “open character.” It means that their instructions should not indicate or predetermine the possible “space” or direction for the generation of individual mental context. Any such indications can lead to the limited “framework” within which an examinee will attempt to produce his or her mental context. Thus, according to the

1024

instruction of the “Ideal Computer” test, examinees can write down any questions they want. It is not to say, for example, that examinees should write questions concerning some concrete topic. Similarly, according to the instruction of the “Conceptual Synthesis” test, examinees can establish any possible kinds of connections between three words, as many as they want. Definitely, the more restrictions in the instruction, the less complete and rich the mental contexts produced by examinees. This principle fits well into the numerous observations of psychologists (Csikszentmihalyi, 1992; Dewey, 1919; 1938; Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976; Wertheimer, 1959) and outstanding genius scientists (Einstein & Infeld, 1938; Vernadsky, 1988) about the specificity of their exceptional intellectual functioning and the importance of certain kinds of mental activity for extraordinary intellectual achievements. Thus, they pointed out that an individual’s abilities to problem finding and posing the right questions are more important in prominent scientific discoveries than reaching the right solutions to the problems. For example, Albert Einstein (Einstein & Infeld, 1938) asserted that “the formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new problems, to regard old problems from a new angle, require creative imagination and mark real advances in science” (p. 92). Unfortunately, conventional intelligence tests are mainly directed to the solving of the already formulated—by others—problems and/or tasks. Traditional IQ tests do not have an open character: they do not provide a maximal “space” for examinees’ mental initiative that can express itself in problem finding, new ideas generation, raising new questions, and so on, beyond which is the individual mental context. Examinees should be free to produce their mental context without any restrictions. In this light it seems appropriate to give an example of another test, the “Formulation of Problems” test, which is used to measure conceptual representations or conceptual thinking of intellectually gifted adolescents (Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). According to the instruction of the “Formulation of Problems” test (Kholodnaya, 1983), the examinee is an investigator and the word, given by tester, is the subject of his or her research. The examinee formulates problems, which occur in his or her mind in connection with

L.V. Shavinina

a given subject. Two words, for example, “illness” and “soil,” can be the subjects. Examinees are instructed as follows: “Imagine, that you are a scientist. ‘Illness’ is the subject of your research. Please, write down the problems, which you would study in connection with this subject.” The parameters considered are (a) The complexity of all formulated problems in quantitative marks. (b) The number of problems, which are evaluated by the maximum mark. The scoring for word “illness” is: 0 mark—the problem is being formed on the basis of the examinee’s evaluation and subjective impression (e.g., “Where and how is it better to train doctors?,” “What is it the influence of part of the day on a sick man?”); 1 mark— the problem is being formed by grouping some particular characteristics or properties of the proposed object (i.e., of the term “illness.” For example, “What are the reasons for illness?,” “What are the methods of illness prevention?”); 2 marks—the problem is being formed through the conjunction of the term “illness” to another semantic field, which is quite remote from the considered term (for example, “What is the connection between “illness” and the way of life and profession?,” “What is going on with illness on different stages of the development of human being?”). Examinees are given as much time as they need to perform the “Conceptual Synthesis” and “Formulation of Problems” tests.

Basis of Giftedness The third principle states that new intelligence tests should first of all be directed to the versatile examination of the various aspects of the basis of giftedness, but not its numerous manifestations. As it is well known, giftedness has so many internal and external manifestations (Shavinina, 1995, 1997) that it is difficult to take all of them into account in any test. In such a case the above-proposed distinction between the “manifestations” of giftedness and its “basis” (i.e., the psychological carrier of these manifestations) is very useful. In accordance with the cognitive-developmental theory of giftedness (Shavinina, this volume) a need to examine the basis of giftedness means a need to examine an individual’s cognitive experience that expresses itself in unique representations.

51

A New Approach to the Identification of Intellectually Gifted Individuals

It seems that one of the main factors generating many shortcomings of IQ tests is related to the fact that characteristics, features, properties, and qualities of giftedness (i.e., its manifestations) have been the focal point of intelligence testing; but the psychological basis (or psychological carrier) of these manifestations has not been examined. Working on the development of new intelligence tests, psychologists should make assessment of the basis of giftedness—that is, a psychological carrier of its numerous manifestations—a priority. Thus, the above-described tests are addressed to the measurement of the fundamental components of an individual’s cognitive experience that forms the basis of giftedness. For instance, the “Ideal Computer” test is mainly directed to the evaluation of a global type of representations (i.e., how an individual sees, understands, and interprets the world around as a whole) and to the estimation of the degree of objectivization– subjectivization of cognition (see Shavinina’s chapter on scientific talent, this volume). The “Formulation of Problems” and “Conceptual Synthesis” tests examine conceptual representations that underlie conceptual thinking. The “Ecological Forecast of Future Development of the Earth” test (Shavinina, 1993) is used to study representations of future events. Polak’s (1973) research demonstrated the importance of the concrete and rich images of the future for the advanced development of human civilization. In turn, Torrance (1979, 1980) found that gifted adolescents are distinguished by an amazing ability to forecast future events (see also Crammond, this volume). The following instruction is given to examinees: “Imagine that you are a science fiction writer who is able to predict future events. Please describe your predictions about the ecology of the Earth 50 years from now.” Scores are for (a) The differentiation of forecast (i.e., the number of those concrete aspects of the future that have been predicted) (b) The optimistic, pessimistic, or neutral forecast (i.e., positive, negative, or neutral vision of the future)

Does Not Test Psychological Functions According to the fourth principle, new intelligence tests should not examine the development of psycho-

1025

logical functions (for example, attention or memory). Any psychological function or process or even their combination (i.e., all possible processes of human cognitive system) do not adequately reflect the essence of giftedness. It means that psychological processes or functions and the nature of giftedness are not the same. Therefore, they cannot be viewed as synonyms and, moreover, they cannot be substituted for one another. As one can see from the above examples of new intelligence tests, they do not measure an individual’s concentration of attention or short- and long-term memories, as many subtests of virtually all current IQ tests do. The “Digit Span” subtest of the WISC-III is the example of such a subtest devoted to assess children’s mnemonic functions. However, the results of child’s short- and long-term memory test tell us very little, if anything, about the essence of his or her intelligence or giftedness and certainly nothing about his or her hidden, intellectual potential. Conventional intelligence tests can be called “tests of psychological functions,” because they mainly examine the extent to which any given psychological function is developed. This is why it was emphasized above that traditional intelligence tests evaluate those manifestations of intelligence that are strongly related to academic success. This is also why IQ tests measure learning ability and academic achievement, but not intelligence. When conventional intelligence tests are viewed as “tests of psychological functions,” they have a certain value. For instance, sometimes it is necessary, for a number of purposes (e.g., school admission, clinical diagnosis), to know the achieved level of development of a child’s psychological functions. In this case standardized intelligence tests measure the important things (e.g., memory processes). Nevertheless, the word “intelligence” should be eliminated in the title of these tests. Adherents of psychometric intelligence testing must call things by their real names: they should acknowledge that they deal with “tests of psychological functions,” but not with intelligence tests.

No Emphasis on Mental Speed The fifth principle asserts that new intelligence tests should avoid the emphasis on speed or speed responses that characterizes many psychometric and even information-processing measurements of

1026

intelligence. Linda Silverman (this volume) emphasized this point very well in her chapter. Although good speed responses can have great value (e.g., for air traffic controllers), in reality any important intellectual achievement cannot be obtained during seconds, minutes, hours, or even days (Davidson, 1986; Kholodnaya, 1997; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996; Sternberg, 1985, 1988). Even our daily decisions need and take much more time than is allowed by many items on conventional intelligence tests. This fact should be taken into account by the developers of new intelligence tests. Sternberg (1985) pointed out that one of the critical shortcomings of psychometric intelligence tests is their reliance upon the incorrect view that the speed of mental functioning is a crucial aspect of intelligence. It is often claimed that “the strict timing of such tests merely mirrors the requirements of our highly pressured and productive society. But for most of us, these seem to be few significant problems encountered in work or professional life that permit no more than the 5 to 50 seconds allowed for a typical test problem on a standardized test” (Sternberg, 1985, p. 302). Moreover, “the assumption that more intelligent people are rapid information processors also underlies the overwhelming majority of tests used in identification of the gifted, including creativity as well as intelligence tests” (Sternberg, 1985, p. 301). Rabbitt’s (1996) studies have showed that speed is not a global performance characteristic of the cognitive system: in other words, intelligence is not just mental speed. Nevertheless, even much more early, the classic research on reflectivity–impulsivity cognitive style demonstrated that a reflective cognitive style is connected to greater intelligence in comparison with an impulsive cognitive style (Baron, 1982; Kagan, 1966; Kagan, Rosman, Day, Albert, & Phillips, 1964). Recent investigations on reflectivity–impulsivity cognitive style and its relationship to intelligence and intellectual giftedness support this finding (Kholodnaya, 1990; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). Any orientation of psychologists on speed parameters leads to the substitution of the real nature of giftedness by people’s rapid responses. The abovementioned theoretical foundations of my approach to the assessment of intellectual abilities have nothing in common with rapid responses. In new intelligence tests examinees have either (1) as much time as they need (e.g., “Formulation of Problems” and “Con-

L.V. Shavinina

ceptual Synthesis” tests), or (2) a certain time—for example, 10 minutes—to accomplish some tests (e.g., the “Ecological Forecast of Future Development of the Earth” and “Ideal Computer” tests). Nonetheless, time restrains are very flexible in the latter case; the tester may allow additional 1–3 minutes. After the frequent administration of these tests, I concluded that 10 minutes is enough, because about 97% of all examinees finish them during this time period. It should be noted that for the most part I do not say before the administration of these tests that examinees have 10 minutes. After 10 minutes I simply say that they should have already finished. Moreover, the experience demonstrates that there is nothing wrong in interrupting an examinee’s work on these tests after 10 minutes, because they have already generated a certain mental context and its basic characteristics are clear. In other words, an individual can present a real “picture” of his or her mental context, generating something essential even within a limited period of time. Silverman (this volume) excellently described how users of conventional intelligence tests can avoid an extreme emphasis on mental speed.

Both Retrospective and Prospective Assessments Conventional intelligence tests measure an individual’s actual intelligence. Test makers assert that these tests assess intellectual abilities, basic intellectual processes or functions, intellectual qualities and properties, and so on. These assertions are not important in the context of this section. The principal thesis here is that all IQ tests examine actual (i.e., existing at the time of measurement) intelligence of a person. In addition, new intelligence tests should also assess intellectual potential, not only actual intellectual abilities. Therefore, according to the sixth principle of a given approach, intelligence testing should not only be exclusively retrospective in its measurement of an individual’s intellectual resources but also be prospective. In other words, testers should try to predict the further development of an individual’s abilities, explaining the conditions under which this development will be possible. This principle, as well as the trajectory of the actualization and development of hidden abilities, is closely related to Lev Vygotsky’s notion of the “zone

51

A New Approach to the Identification of Intellectually Gifted Individuals

of potential (or proximal) development.” He defined it as “the distance between the actual developmental level and the level of potential development” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). He insisted that psychologists should be prospective as well as retrospective in the understanding and assessment of an individual’s abilities. “The zone of proximal development defines those functions that have not yet matured but are in the process of maturation, functions that will mature tomorrow but are currently in an embryonic state. These functions could be termed the ‘buds’ or ‘flowers’ of development rather than the ‘fruits’ of development. The actual developmental level characterizes mental development retrospectively, while the zone of proximal development characterizes mental development prospectively” (Vygotsky, 1978, pp. 86–87). Definitely, it is not easy to develop such tests that could assess the intellectual potential or hidden abilities. Brown and her colleagues have made a well-known attempt in this direction trying to measure the “zone of proximal development” (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983). This is one of the possible directions for the development of new intelligence tests. Other ways also exist. As it follows from the theoretical foundations that underline the considered approach to the assessment of intellectual abilities, one of its fundamental ideas is a need to examine an individual’s representations (i.e., both verbal and visual representations, representations of the future, representations of the world as a whole). A comprehensive “picture” of the individual pattern of representations—that is, his or her unique point of view—should be one of the results of the psychological measurement of giftedness. As the individual type of representations is a proto-phenomenon of the intellectual life of a person (Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996), this “picture” sheds light on his or her intellectual potential or hidden abilities. Therefore, one can predict the further development of an individual’s intelligence on the basis of the information about his or her potential intellectual abilities. For instance, research demonstrates that objective representations are highly associated with giftedness (Shavinina, 1996; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). Consequently, if an examinee’s pattern of individual representations is highly objective (for example, on the “Ideal Computer” test), then this is a powerful predictor of his or her developing giftedness. Certainly, in order to be more precise about

1027

the specificity of the subsequent intellectual growth of a person, psychologists should have as many of these powerful predictors as possible. A given approach to the assessment of intellectual abilities allows developers of new intelligence tests to develop a wide range of such predictors (Shavinina, 1996, 1997)

Cognitive Styles as an Important Part of Intelligence Testing Although cognitive styles belong to the manifestations of intellectual giftedness in accordance with the cognitive-developmental theory (Shavinina, this volume), it is expedient to include the measurement of cognitive styles in new intelligence tests. Cognitive styles refer to individual differences in human information processing. They thus provide valuable information about the fundamental cognitive mechanisms, which influence the specificity of an individual’s cognitive experience (Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). The seventh principle, therefore, states that new intelligence tests should examine people’s cognitive styles. For example, originally introduced by Kagan, Rosman, Day, Albert, & Phillips (1964), reflectivity– impulsivity cognitive style displays individual differences in the speed and accuracy with which people propose and formulate hypotheses and make decisions under conditions of uncertainty. Experimental studies showed that intellectually gifted individuals are distinguished by reflective cognitive style (Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). They make fewer errors in the situation of multiple choice according to Kagan’s Matching Familiar Figures (MFF) Test. From the viewpoint of basic cognitive mechanisms it means the gifted’s accurate analysis of visual space up to the moment of making decisions. Probably, the gifted are more careful in evaluating alternatives, hence making few errors; whereas average people presumably hurry their evaluation and thereby make numerous mistakes. The active character of visual scanning by the gifted indicates, in particular, a capacity to delay or inhibit a solution in MFF test performance containing response uncertainty, and also a capacity to differentiate unimportant and essential features of the external stimulus.

1028

Because of that Kagan’s MFF Test can be included in new intelligence tests. Other cognitive styles (e.g., cognitive complexity–simplicity) are also important for the understanding of an individual’s cognitive experience and, consequently, his or her intellectual abilities.

L.V. Shavinina

giftedness. Intellectual tests should thus measure various aspects of extracognitive abilities (Shavinina, 2004; Shavinina & Ferrari, 2004; Shavinina & Sheeratan, 2004)

Tests Should Not Be Very Long Metacognitive and Extracognitive Abilities as Integral Part of Intelligence Testing According to the ninth principle of a given approach to Although the cognitive-developmental theory of giftedness views metacognitive abilities among the manifestations of giftedness, according to many psychological accounts, these abilities form the basis of intelligence (Brown, 1978, 1987; Campione & Brown, 1978; Flavell, 1976; Shavinina et al., this volume; Sternberg, 1985, 1988). Metacognition really provides a lot of important information about an individual’s giftedness. Knowledge about one’s own intellectual creative abilities and the whole cognitive set-up, evaluating their efficiency, advantages and limitations, as well as planning, monitoring, and executive control are among important metacognitive abilities (Brown, 1978, 1987; Flavell, 1976; Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996; Shore et al., this volume; Shore & Dover, 1987; Shore & Kanevsky, 1993; Sternberg, 1985). Moreover, research showed that less intelligent persons are characterized by less metacognitive understanding of their own cognitive processes and of how the functioning of these processes depends on the environment. It is also found that less intelligent people use less complete and flexible executive processes for controlling their thinking. Furthermore, it is important to know not only what we know, but also what we do not know and how to compensate for what we do not know. New intelligence tests should, therefore, provide important information about an individual’s compensatory mechanisms. Because of this, the eighth principle asserts that the assessment of metacognitive abilities should be an integral part of intelligence testing. Kagan’s MFF Test can be used to measure some aspects of metacognitive abilities. As follows from the chapters on cognitivedevelopmental theory of giftedness and on scientific talent (Shavinina, this volume) extracognitive abilities (i.e., specific feelings, intentions, beliefs, and intuition) constitute the highest level of the manifestations of

the psychological assessment of intellectual abilities, new intelligence tests and their subtests should not be very long and time consuming. Long tests can be increasingly boring for examinees. The absence of the elementary interest in tests implies the emergence of such shortcomings as non-actualization of intellectual potential, incomplete display of available abilities, and various manifestations of psychological defenses. With respect to the above-mentioned new intelligence tests (or their subtests), the performance time for each of them should not exceed 10 or 20 minutes. Some tests do not require any time prescription at all, because they are performed extremely rapidly due to their essence. An example of such type of test is the “Grouping Dots” Test, Shavinina & Kholodnaya’s (1996) modification of Frumkina’s (1984) test. This test is used to measure visual representations. As human cognitive experience expresses itself not only in the verbal-oral register, visual representations should also be examined. We have found that intellectually gifted individuals see, understand, and interpret the surrounding reality and the world around uniquely in the different cognitive registers: in verbal-oral, visual-spatial, and sensitivesensory (Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). Therefore, it is not possible to understand the nature of an individual’s cognitive experience and, consequently, his or her giftedness without examining the visual type of representations. “Grouping Dots” Test is directed to assessing perceptual structuring under conditions of perceptual uncertainty. Examinees are given a piece of paper (15 × 10 cm) with some multitude of dots on it. The dots are arranged in the following way. Some dots are located close to each other forming gestalts; other dots are randomly placed throughout the piece of paper. According to the instruction, each examinee should group these dots by any convenient and natural way according to his or her point of view. The parameter considered is

51

A New Approach to the Identification of Intellectually Gifted Individuals

the complexity of the accomplished structural reorganizations (in quantitative marks). The scoring criteria are: 1 mark—global grouping (i.e., any attempts of structuring of a given multitude of dots absent); 2 marks—the unclear grouping of three basic gestalts; 3 marks—the clear structuring on the basis of grouping of three basic gestalts including the organization of other dots in certain structures (forms); 4 marks—the multidimensional structuring (i.e., the grouping of three gestalts, overlapping of multitudes of grouped dots, combining the same dots, which have already been attributed, to different groups).

Conclusions This chapter presented a new approach to the psychological assessment of intellectual abilities of the gifted that is based on the cognitive-developmental theory of giftedness. The approach consists of nine fundamental principles. These principles underlie the development of new intelligence tests and subtests, some of which were considered above. Certainly, a lot of work has to be done on the standardization, reliability, and validity of these tests. It should be noted that due to the fundamentally changed approach to the assessment of intellectual abilities (for example, in these tests examinees themselves should generate some psychological mental context), traditional procedures— IQ tests or reasoning tests—cannot serve as an external validity criterion. In my experimental studies of intellectually gifted adolescents their real intellectual achievements in mathematics and physics were used as external validity criteria. It was argued that new intelligence tests have discriminant validity because they allow us to differentiate between ordinary students and students who are the winners and participants in the international mathematical or physical Olympiads (Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996). Definitely, research on external and discriminant validity must be done. In accordance with the cognitive-developmental theory of giftedness three levels of the manifestations of giftedness should also be assessed (e.g., extracognitive abilities). The information about a child’s sensitive periods and his or her strong interests should be gathered from parents and other caregivers. These findings are important for understanding the developmental basis of each child’s giftedness.

1029

To conclude, this chapter proposes a new approach to the identification of gifted individuals via the measurement of their intellectual abilities. This approach opens a new direction in the development of intelligence testing. Definitely, the approach does not account for all possible facets of the measurement of giftedness, and sometimes it is both vague and speculative in some of its formulations. However, it provides a useful attempt to understand how the psychological assessment of intellectual abilities of the gifted can be developed in the future.

References Arina, G. A., & Koloskova, M. V. (1989). The cognitive synthesis test. Voprosu Psichologii, 3, 171–172. Bamberger, J. (1986). Cognitive issues in the development of musically gifted children. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 388–413). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baron, J. (1982). Personality and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (pp. 308–351). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, selfregulation, and other even more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 64–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell and E. M. Markham (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume III, Cognitive development (pp. 77–166). New York: Wiley. Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1978). Toward a theory of intelligence: Contributions from research with retarded children. Intelligence, 2, 279–304. Chi, M. T. H., & Ceci, S. J. (1987). Content knowledge: Its role, representation, and restructuring in memory development. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 91–142). Orlando: Academic Press. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152. Csikszentmihalyi, M. C. (1992). Motivation and creativity. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius & eminence (pp. 19–33). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Daniel, M. H. (1997). Intelligence testing: Status and trends. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1038–1045. Davidson, J. E. (1986). The role of insight in giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of

1030 giftedness (pp. 201–222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Detterman, D. K. (1994). (Ed.). Current topics in human intelligence. Vol. 4. Theories of intelligence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Dewey, J. (1919). How we think. Boston: Heath. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The structure of inquiry. New York: Putnam. Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1938). The evolution of physics. New York: Simon & Schuster. Esters, I. G., Ittenbach, R. F., & Han, K. (1997). Today’s IQ tests: Are they really better than their historical predecessors? School Psychology Review, 26(2), 211–223. Feldman, D. H. (1982). A developmental framework for research with gifted children. In D. H. Feldman (Ed.), Developmental approaches to giftedness and creativity (pp. 31–45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers. Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (1995). A critical review of the technical characteristics of new and recently revised intelligence tests for preschool children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13(1), 66–90. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum. Frumkina, R. M. (1984). Color, meaning, and similarity: Aspects of psycholinguistic analysis. Moscow: Nauka. Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem-finding in art. New York: Wiley. Hambleton, R. K., & Slater, S. C. (1997). Item response theory models and testing practices: Current international status and future directions. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13(1), 21–28. Hambleton, R. K., & Wedman, I. (1997). Introduction to the special issue: Advances in assessment practices. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13(1), 1. Kagan, J. (1966). Reflection-impulsivity of conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 17–24. Kagan, J., Rosman, B., Day, D., Albert, J., & Phillips, W. (1964). Information processing in the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs, 78, 1 (Whole No. 578). Kanevsky, L. S. (1990). Pursuing qualitative differences in the flexible use of a problem solving strategy by young children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 115–140. Kholodnaya, M. A. (1983). The integrated structures of conceptual thinking. Tomsk: Tomsk University Press. Kholodnaya, M. A. (1990). Is there intelligence as a psychical reality? Voprosu psichologii, 5, 121–128. Kholodnaya, M. A. (1993). Psychological mechanisms of intellectual giftedness. Voprosu psichologii, 1, 32–39. Kholodnaya, M. A. (1997). The psychology of intelligence. Moscow: IPRAN Press. Klix, F. (1988). Awakening thinking. Kiev, Ukraine: Vutscha schola. Krutetskii, V. A. (1968). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. Moscow: Prosvetschenije. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., et al. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77–101.

L.V. Shavinina Oatley, K. (1978). Perceptions and representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Olson, D. R. (1986). Intelligence and literacy: The relationships between intelligence and the technologies of representation and communication. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligence (pp. 338–360). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Piaget, J. (1969). Selected psychological papers. Moscow: Nauka. Polak, F. L. (1973). The image of the future. New York: Elsevier. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive Strategies: Good strategy users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 4, pp. 89–129). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Rabbitt, P. (1996). Intelligence is not just mental speed. Journal of Biosocial Science, 28(4), 425–449. Schneider, W. (1993). Domain-specific knowledge and memory performance in children. Educational Psychology Review, 5(3), 257–273. Shavinina, L. V. (1993). Cognitive experience of intellectually gifted individuals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Kiev; Ukraine, Institute of Psychology. Shavinina, L. V. (1995). The personality trait approach in the psychology of giftedness. European Journal for High Ability, 6(1), 27–37. Shavinina, L. V. (1996). The objectivization of cognition and intellectual giftedness. High Ability Studies, 7(1), 91–98. Shavinina, L. V. (1997). Extremely early high abilities, sensitive periods, and the development of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 8(2), 243–256. Shavinina, L. V. (1998a). Interdisciplinary innovation: Psychoeducational multimedia technologies. New Ideas in Psychology, 16, 189–204. Shavinina L. V. (2000a). High intellectual and creative educational multimedia technologies. CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 3(2), 191–198. Shavinina, L. V. (2000b). Innovation in cybereducation: High intellectual and creative educational multimedia technologies. In L. R. Vandervert & L. V. Shavinina (Eds.), Provocative and do-able futures for Cybereducation: Leadership for the cutting-edge. Larchmont, NY: Mary Ann Liebert Publishers. Shavinina, L. V. (2001). Beyond IQ: A new perspective on the psychological assessment of intellectual abilities. New Ideas in Psychology, 19, 27–47. Shavinina, L. V. (2004) Explaining high abilities of Nobel laureates. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 243–254. Shavinina, L. V., & Ferrari, M. (Eds.) (2004). Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of developing high ability. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum Publishers. Shavinina, L. V., & Kholodnaya, M. A. (1996). The cognitive experience as a psychological basis of intellectual giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(1), 3–35. Shavinina, L. V., & Sheeratan, K. (2004). Extracognitive phenomena in the intellectual functioning of creative and talented individuals. In L. V. Shavinina & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of developing high ability. Mahwah, New Jersey, USA: Erlbaum Publishers. Shobris, J. G. (1996). The anatomy of intelligence. Genetic, Social, & General Psychology Monographs, 122(2), 135–158.

51

A New Approach to the Identification of Intellectually Gifted Individuals

Shore, B. M., & Dover, A. C. (1987). Metacognition, intelligence and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 37–39. Shore, B. M., & Kanevsky, L. S. (1993). Thinking processes: Being and becoming gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 133–147). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking. Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (1997). Innovation and intelligence testing. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 175–182. Sternberg, R. J., & Powell, J. (1983). The development of intelligence. In J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markham (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Cognitive development (Vol. 3, pp. 341–419). New York: Wiley.

1031

Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). Testing common sense. American Psychologist, 50(11), 912–927. Torrance, E. P. (1979). Gifted students want to be on the latest frontiers. The Gifted Child Quarterly, May/June, 10–11. Torrance, E. P. (1980). Creativity and futurism in education: Retooling. Education, 100, 298–311. Vekker, L. M. (1981). Psychical processes (Vol. 3). Leningrad: Leningrad University Press. Vernadsky, V. I. (1988). Diaries and letters. Moscow: Molodaya Gwardiya. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wallach, M. A. (1992). What do tests tell us about talents? In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius & eminence (pp. 113–123). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Part XI

Recent Advances in Gifted Education

Chapter 52

New Developments in Gifted Education Gary A. Davis

Abstract This chapter discusses advances in gifted education that took place in recent years and thus serves as an introduction to other chapters presented in this part of the Handbook. Specifically, it compares today’s topics in gifted education with those of about 25 years ago. The chapter found that, with one exception, the central topics and categories of gifted education are about the same today as a quarter century ago. The one exception deals with identifying and teaching gifted minority children and youth that is by far the single most common topic. The chapter reviews such important topics as definition of giftedness, identification of the gifted, and guidelines for teaching highly able students.

scarcity of older articles concerning gifted minority children.1 Today, identifying and teaching gifted minority children and youth is by far the single most common topic. Recent articles and books deal with these recurrent and broad topics:

(a) Gifted minority students (perhaps emphasizing the topics of underachievement, cultural differences, and disadvantages) (b) Programs and schools for the gifted (c) Identification and testing issues and procedures (d) Motivation and social–emotional problems (e) Gifted student characteristics and behaviors (including the topic of intelligence) (f) Descriptions of effective teacher characteristics, Keywords Gifted education · New developments · competencies, and teaching strategies Gifted minority children and youth · Definition of giftedness · Identification of the gifted · Guidelines for (g) Characteristics of families of gifted students (h) Definitions of giftedness (often focusing on intelteaching gifted students ligence and giftedness in art and music) (i) Acceleration, enrichment, and individualization strategies2 Introduction (j) Creativity and problem solving (k) Underachievement in gifted students I was invited to comment on recent developments in (l) Adjustment problems and counseling the gifted educating gifted and talented students. I did not wish (m) National, state, and local programs for gifted stuto guess, so I began by comparing today’s high-interest dents 3 G/T topics with those of about 25 years ago. A quick comparison of journal article titles ex- 1 As examples, two older articles on gifted minority children are plained why major changes and differences did not by LeRose (1978) and Renzulli (1975). quickly occur to me. With one exception, the central 2 Partial Acceleration is working with older, more advanced stuG/T topics and categories are about the same today dents, perhaps only for art or math. Full acceleration normally as a quarter century ago, given a touch of naivet´e in means skipping a grade. Enrichment conveniently refers to any some earlier articles. The one exception is an obvious other strategy for accommodating the abilities and talents of G.A. Davis (B) University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

gifted students. The terms are slightly ambiguous, since any form of acceleration is certain to be an enriching experience. 3 This chapter cannot sensibly address all of these topics, of course.

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 52, 

1035

1036

Over a quarter century ago gifted authority Dorothy Sisk (1980) perceptively predicted these trends, future directions, and issues in gifted education: More federal support (which comes and goes); greater state G/T awareness and more state programs; continuous and more broad (that is, multiple-talent) identification methods; greater attention to the gifted and talented in the arts; increased efforts to identify gifted students in minority groups; viewing gifted education as part of a total school program aimed at maximally serving every child; greater integration and cooperation among gifted and regular classroom teachers and programs; and a growth in district and state gifted planning teams. Sisk was absolutely correct. More recently, gifted education leader James J. Gallagher (2003) presented views on four of the above core topics. First, he described intelligence (items e and h) as rich networks of interconnected knowledge structures. Gifted students have richer and more complex knowledge structures, plus meta-thinking abilities to continue building those structures. In short, they are better informed and can learn faster. He considered creativity (item j) to be part of intelligence, pointing at Darwin, Mozart, and Shakespeare to emphasize the innovative aspect. Second, Gallagher addressed the delicate issue of possible cultural differences in giftedness (item a). Black, Native American, and Hispanic children are identified as gifted about half as often as their numbers would predict. Asian Americans are selected at twice their expected rate. He suggested test bias and environmental disadvantages and advantages as explanations. Gallagher recommended a curriculum that develops basic skills and student strengths, a multicultural classroom environment, and involving parents, mentors, role models, and the community Gallagher (1998). Third, to reverse underachievement (item k) the apparently best strategies include special classrooms with smaller student–teacher ratios; less conventional teaching and learning activities; and allowing students more choice and freedom. Such recommendations seem to agree with McCoach and Siegle’s (2003) conclusion that underachievement by gifted students stems from poor attitudes toward teachers and school and the consequent poor school motivation. To explain low-achieving gifted girls, Gallagher noted that some scholars believe there may be “constitutional differences,” particularly in math ability. But most

G.A. Davis

blame a non-encouraging social environment and “learned helplessness” (e.g., Ziegler, Finsterwald, & Grassinger, 2005), perhaps worsened by low adolescent self-esteem. Gallagher recommended engaging girls in more risk-taking activities, including challenging physical activities and more difficult coursework. Regarding underachieving gifted students with a disability (dubbed twice exceptional), such students tend to be more disruptive – due in part to frustration – more creative, more planful in problem solving, and they blame shyness for their underachievement. Gallagher recommended counseling and teaching them coping strategies. Fourth, the core educational modification for gifted students, said Gallagher, should be grade acceleration (item i). He naturally cited Stanley’s (1979) Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (described below) as the classic glowing example, plus Miraca Gross’s (1992; Gross, 2003) marvelous acceleration program in Australia.4

Related New Developments Returning to the requested topic – new developments – most, of course, relate to the above traditional topics.5

Definitions of Giftedness To start properly we must regress. The topic of definitions of giftedness begins with Terman’s “termites.”6 In 1922 Terman selected and studied – over their entire lifetimes – the physical, psychological, social, and professional developments of 1,528 children who scored above IQ 135 on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. He defined giftedness as high IQ. In 1972 Terman’s IQ definition was upstaged by the six-part U.S. Office of Education definition of 4 Also, home-schooling – if you have the time and dedication – is an excellent solution to slow-moving classrooms in schools that refuse to accelerate fast learners. See the excellent short book by Davidson & Davidson (2004). 5 The International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent, 2nd ed. (Heller, M¨onks, Sternberg, & Subotnik, 2000) is a fine 934-page starting place. 6 Note that definitions of giftedness often are considered theories.

52

New Developments in Gifted Education

giftedness, which includes superiority in (1) general intellectual ability, (2) specific academic aptitude, (3) creative or productive thinking, (4) leadership ability, (5) visual and performing arts, or (6) psychomotor ability. The U.S. Office revised the definition in 1978 and 1988, but the revisions amounted to minor rewording and dropping (6) psychomotor as a category of giftedness. Probably all athletes would disagree with the latter change, especially trapeze artists. Turning to more contemporary definitions of giftedness, we find a creative assortment of suggestions. Most assume that above average to high intelligence is required, even though many excellent artists do not have a stellar IQ; a few are retarded. Briefly, in his Enrichment Triad model, G/T leader Joseph Renzulli (Renzulli & Reis, 2003) proposed three overlapping circles arranged in an upside-down triangle. The top two circles are above average ability and task commitment, the bottom circle is creativity. Giftedness is the central spot where the three circles overlap. Franc¸oys Gagn´e (2000) decided gifts are untrained natural abilities, while talents are learned capabilities. He also called them natural aptitudes versus specific skills, respectively. Robert Sternberg’s (1995) five-part “implicit” theory of giftedness – how we normally conceive of giftedness – includes excellence, rarity, productivity, demonstrability, and value. Sternberg (1997) also proposed three varieties of intelligence: analytic (academic talent), synthetic (creative talent), and practical (applying synthetic talent). One more. Sternberg (2000) viewed scores on ability tests as measuring a form of developing expertise, which includes the five elements of metacognitive skills (understanding and control of one’s cognition, e.g., in writing papers), learning skills (e.g., distinguishing relevant from irrelevant information), thinking skills (e.g., critical, creative, practical), knowledge, and motivation. Britain’s John Carroll (1993) proposed a threesectioned pyramid with basic intelligence at the top, related general abilities in the middle, and lots of specific abilities at the bottom. Abraham Tannenbaum (2003) proposed five factors that contribute to demonstrated giftedness: (1) superior intellect, (2) special aptitudes, (3) a supportive personality, (4) a challenging and positive environment, and (5) chance.

1037

Howard Gardner (1999) argued for no less than eight types of intelligence: (1) linguistic, (2) logicalmathematical, (3) spatial, (4) musical, (5) bodily kinesthetic, (6) interpersonal, (7) intrapersonal (selfunderstanding of strengths and weaknesses), and (8) naturalist (ability to know and classify plants and animals). Other chapters in this book will submit further definitions of giftedness.

Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth For the benefit of newcomers to gifted education, Julian Stanley’s famous Talent Search, begun in 1972, must be described briefly (see, e.g., Benbow & Lubinski, 1997; Stanley, 1979). While borderline ancient, Talent Search remains – today – at the forefront of educational accommodations for gifted students. Stanley was a mathematician and initially focused on mathematically talented students. An unambiguous bias. He labeled his project Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY). Stanley used the Scholastic Aptitude Test-Mathemathics (SAT-M, which he helped create) to identify seventh- and some eighth-grade students who scored above the 51st percentile of high school seniors who plan to attend college. These rare seventh-grade students scored in the 135–200 ozoneIQ range and, not surprisingly, were better at mathematical reasoning than all of their age mates. Under Stanley’s plan they took summer math classes, usually taught by a college math professor, and worked 5 or 6 h per day. In 3 weeks they mastered 1 or 2 years of high school geometry and algebra, and by eighth grade they were ready for calculus. SMPY students also could (1) attend college part time or earn college credit by examination, (2) skip a grade, (3) receive individual highly accelerated tutoring, and/or (4) enter college early, perhaps skipping high school graduation. SMPY has been adopted by other universities (e.g., Duke), is extended to areas other than math (e.g., language and composition, Latin, economics, and mythology), and is extended to Elementary Student Talent Search (ESTS; e.g., in grades 3–6).7

7

For a mildly extended summary of SMPY, see Davis & Rimm (2004).

1038

Swiatek and Lupkowski-Shoplik (2005; see also Assouline & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2003; Swiatek & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2003) described a program entitled Carnegie Mellon Institute for Talented Elementary Students (C-MITES) Elementary Student Talent Search (ESTS). The C-MITES ESTS program involved 93 schools and 597 families with students in grades three to six. Unfortunately, the participating schools would not allow above-level testing – clearly needed for this top 1%, or fraction of 1% – so the researchers settled for reports from parents, students, and the schools. Results were positive. For example, many schools accelerated their obviously bright students in at least one subject, and/or involved them in relevant extracurricular activities. Parents reported that the program supplied them with useful information about their children, and they increased family activities in their child’s areas of high interest or strength. A drawback was program fee.

Minority Identification and Participation A common observation and conclusion is that many gifted minority students suffer socioeconomic and educational disadvantages and therefore are underrepresented in programs for gifted students (e.g., Scott & Delgado, 2005).8 Based on 1992 data, Borland (2004) reported that Latinos were underrepresented in gifted programs by 42%, American Indians by 50%, and African Americans by 41%. He reasoned that (a) students benefit from gifted programs, (b) such programs are filled with White middle- and upper-class students, and therefore (c) gifted programs widen the gap between have’s and have-not’s. He also noted Fordham’s (1991) popular observation that minority students who work hard in school are perceived as “acting White,” which creates family stress. Naglieri and Ford (2003) administered the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) to gifted male and female Black, Hispanic, and White students in grades K to 12, all of whom were similar to the U.S. population on “region, urbanicity, and SES status.” Group differences were small, leading the authors to conclude that 8 Scott and Delgado noted that the need to identify gifted minority children led to the creation of A Better Chance, a national academic talent search agency (Griffin, 1992).

G.A. Davis

a nonverbal test – such as the NNAT – is a useful and appropriate way to “measure general ability and level the playing field.” In contrast, tests that evaluate verbal and quantitative achievement, rather than innate ability, discriminate against minority students. A problem with the method was that these minority students were selected from middle-class school districts. In fact, noted Lohman (2005), they were more likely to be from high-SES families than were the White students in the study. Nonetheless, the NNAT does appear useful and effective for identifying gifted minority students. Joseph and Ford (2006) noted that the linguistic demands of standardized tests contribute to the underrepresentation of diverse students in gifted education and, further, their overrepresentation in special education programs. They recommended selecting the “least biased instruments,” avoiding preconceived stereotypes about culturally diverse students, and ensuring that policies and procedures are nondiscriminatory. Other recommendations included evaluating language proficiency, evaluating past opportunities for learning (and whether limited or inappropriate instruction occurred), evaluating educationally relevant cultural and linguistic background factors, reducing bias in testing practices, linking assessment data to selecting or designing instruction, and others. Moore, Ford, and Milner (2005) agreed that African American and other students of color have difficulty in programs for gifted students. Common problems include racial/ethnic prejudice, peer pressure not to excel, little parental involvement, and low expectations by teachers and counselors. The authors concluded that persistence – related to retention – in G/T programs is influenced by both internal factors (especially a good self-concept, realistic self-appraisal, positive racial identity, strong motivation, and having long-term goals) and external factors (especially positive teacher and counselor expectations; support from teachers, counselors, peers, and parents; academic support such as tutoring; leadership experience; and community involvement or service). G/T leader and minority person Mary Frasier commented on the underrepresentation of gifted minority students (Grantham, 2002; Swanson, 2006). Said Frasier, “There is such a cause–effect relationship in gifted programs that create barriers ... I call them my list of prerequisites to being gifted. You must have two parents; they must be college educated. You must be

52

New Developments in Gifted Education

White. You must be in the suburbs. I know this sounds a little bit facetious, but if you look at the enrollment in gifted programs, it’s not facetious” (p. 11). One effort to improve the identification and teaching of gifted minority students – despite cultural, linguistic, economic, and disability (e.g., hearing) problems – is Maker’s (1996, 2005; Sarouphim, 1999) DISCOVER procedure, which includes her DISCOVER curriculum model.9 DISCOVER evaluates spatial artistic, spatial analytical, linguistic, and logical-mathematical intelligence. Five activities resemble parts of the WISC-R and Raven’s progressive matrices, but include tangrams, bags of toys, and multicultural slides. The procedure requires two and a half hours per group of four or five students. In one study DISCOVER identified as gifted a full 23% of 257 Navajo and Mexican American children. G´andara (2004) listed barriers to Latino achievement in American schools: poverty, inadequate prekindergarten and K to 12 school opportunities (e.g., few or no college preparatory courses in high school), racial and ethnic stereotyping, inferior teacher preparation, low teacher expectations, limited English, low peer support for academic success, low achievement motivation, low parental education, and high family mobility. However, emphasized G´andara, many Latino students do succeed in school. Despite the negatives and the odds, successful Latino children maintain high intellectual and social strengths that reduce the effects of psychological stressors. Importantly, they virtually always receive support from at least one adult. Miller (2004) reviewed the persistent underrepresentation (“fewness”) of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans as high achievers at all educational levels. To reduce fewness, Miller recommended (1) reviewing the effectiveness of school strategies for stimulating high achievement; (2) identifying strategies that raise the performance of “above average” students to “well above average” (e.g., from the 80th to the 90th percentile); (3) developing pre-kindergarten strategies that close the readiness gap between Black, Hispanic, and Native American students versus middle- and high-SES White students; (4) synthesizing information from academically 9 DISCOVER: discovering strengths and capabilities while observing varied ethnic responses. Various forms and subtests are used from grades K through 12 (see Maker, 2005).

1039

successful racial/ethnic groups about how parents and communities support the educational development of their children – and make recommendations regarding effective strategies for early childhood education, parent education, and school reform; (5) examining high school strategies that successfully raise minority students’ advanced placement scores; and (6) disseminating information about successful strategies for producing high achievement in minority students. Studying children in preschool and again in first grade, Scott and colleagues (e.g., Scott, Tu, & Fletcher, 2003) developed a screening battery (e.g., asking students to describe or define airplane or banana) that could identify first-grade minority children with mild learning disabilities. Scott and Delgado (2005) used six tasks from the same battery, presenting instructions and the task in both English and Spanish, to help select cognitively gifted children. Of interest, only tasks that asked the first graders to generate answers (e.g., “What do you know about cats?”), not select a multiple-choice answer, would identify the high-ability children. The seven highest scorers – two of whom were White, four Black, and one Hispanic – possessed superior cognitive abilities and could be classified gifted. In contrast, most of the 26 students selected by the school as gifted were White. At the end of first grade, and without Scott and Delgado’s input, three of their bright minority children were selected for the school’s gifted program. As a reminder, it is a given that a supportive family environment aids the success and development of gifted students. Chan (2005) confirmed that parental expectations, including encouraging independent thinking, independent work, and high achievement, led to superior academic skills, creativity, and leadership. In his Hong Kong study, expectations were higher for boys.

Teachers and Teaching As noted earlier, the traditional aids for educating gifted students include acceleration, enrichment, and, of course, a supportive environment. Keep these in mind as you read the following thoughts and accommodations. Does the particular strategy or recommendation relate to acceleration? Enrichment? Environment? Mostly one? Mostly another? A combination?

1040

Hong, Greene, and Higgins (2006) listed “basic competencies” of teachers of the gifted. Specifically, such teachers should be able to promote thinking skills, develop creative problem solving, facilitate independent research, understand students’ affective needs, and generally understand the nature of gifted students. Hennessey (2004) summarized her main conclusions in the title of her article: “Developing creativity in gifted children: The central importance of motivation and classroom climate.” Gifted students tend to be self-motivated. They prefer to select their own classroom tasks – which may conflict with teacherselected tasks, thus reducing student motivation. Hennessey sensibly agreed that high intelligence does not necessarily predict creative thinking. Rather, high intrinsic interest – that is, motivation – leads to creative thinking. She described the influence of classroom environment on both motivation and creativity as “staggering,” and that preschool-to-college classrooms “are fraught with killers of intrinsic interest and creativity” (p. xv). As two key recommendations, first, teachers must create an interpersonal atmosphere that permits students to feel in control of their learning process. Second, teachers and administrators must review their current incentive systems. Pfeiffer (2003) asked 64 authorities in gifted education what they believe are (1) the three main identification, assessment, and definition issues in gifted education, (2) the three main curricula, instruction, and program issues, (3) the three most pressing unanswered questions in gifted education, (4) the most important research findings in the last 5 years, and (5) the three most significant developments or innovations in the past 5 years. Most answers related to teachers and teaching. If you suspect that the concepts of giftedness and gifted education are ambiguous and confusing in spots, consider these experts’ replies. The main answers to question 1 (identification and definition issues) included, for example, no agreedupon a definition of gifted and talented; confusion regarding potential versus actual productivity; disagreement whether creativity is part of giftedness; high numbers of gifted students who do not meet cut-off scores and are excluded from programs; ignoring gifted children with poor test-taking skills or talents in art, dance, or music; unreliable or invalid selection tests; discrimination against culturally diverse and low-SES students

G.A. Davis

and students with poor English; and identification procedures that are unrelated to programming. Answers to question 2 (curricula, instruction, and program issues) included, for example, lack of curricula breadth, depth, and specificity; insufficient acceleration and differentiation of subject matter; a “one-sizefits-all” mentality; few mentor programs; instruction that is not adequately challenging; too few preschool and summer programs; lack of continuity between programs; limited options for the most academically precocious students; and insufficient public policy. With question 3 (most pressing unanswered questions), replies included, for example, How can educators better address gifted students’ needs? How can technology support gifted education? Can mentoring be successfully implemented in public schools? How can curriculum be made more challenging? What factors support or interfere with gifted education? What is the role of motivation? How can we reverse underachievement? How can we increase the numbers of economically disadvantaged, female, linguistically different, handicapped, and rural students and students of color? Question 4 (most important research findings) included findings related to the benefits of differentiation in the regular classroom; benefits of homogeneous grouping; a positive relationship between enrichment and acceleration; negative effects of cooperative learning; greater stability of math precocity compared to verbal-linguistic precocity; using out-of-level testing to identify giftedness; and the presence of high stimulation in the homes of gifted children. Finally, question 5 (most significant developments/innovations) elicited strategies for curricular differentiation; problem-based learning (PBL); increased academic rigor; wider range of supplemental programs (e.g., Saturday, summer); increased interest in the arts; and Gardner’s (1999) eight-part theory of multiple intelligences (described earlier).

Strategic Thinking Steiner (2006) investigated thinking strategies of 50 second-grade children identified as gifted in accord with the Georgia state policy, which includes either psychometric testing or a flexible multiple-criteria strategy. The challenge was a computer game enti-

52

New Developments in Gifted Education

tled Space Race (Hettinger, Darden, Rockwood, & Abelkop, 2001). Oversimplified here, the task was to select which one of 18 space ships had enough speed to reach Earth. Each student raced pairs of space ships to gain information and eventually select what they believe is the correct space ship. Steiner categorized students’ selection strategies into one of four progressively more complex groups. A level one strategy essentially was no strategy at all – for example, picking a space ship on a trial-and-error basis or because of its pretty color. At level two students chose a space ship based on preexisting experience – for example, selecting a space ship because it resembles something the child remembers as fast. At level three students examined one or two attributes (e.g., color, shape) of just one space ship – but did not use the other space ship in the race for comparison. At level four students logically would hold one attribute constant while varying the other; for example, the importance of the color of the fastest ship would be evaluated by racing with identical space ships of a different color. While we are not particularly captivated by space ship games, the range of complexity of the strategies among gifted second-grade children is itself fascinating, and raises perhaps obvious questions: Why exactly do children identified as gifted by the same selection process differ so dramatically in their logical, strategic thinking? Are such thinking differences to be expected? Do some or all gifted children need training in sound strategies for logical deduction?

Identification Brown, Renzulli, Gubbings, Siegle, Zhang, and Chen (2005) reviewed various popular definitions of giftedness (some mentioned above), each of which makes assumptions about (a) the nature of giftedness and (b) how gifted persons are identified. They deduced these common themes: There are many facets of intelligence; there are many manifestations of giftedness; assessment should take place over time; links between identification and instruction are strong; and identification procedures improve our understanding of giftedness. For your mental exercise and amusement, think about how each of the definitions of giftedness presented earlier – from Terman to Gardner, some of

1041

which include several subtypes of giftedness – implicitly suggests different strategies for identification. Identification strategies include intelligence tests, achievement tests, creativity tests, teacher nominations, parent nominations, peer nominations, self-nominations, product evaluations, and the use of rating scales (e.g., Davis, 2006; Davis & Rimm, 2004). As an example of rating scales, Baldwin’s (1985) Baldwin Identification Matrix includes scores (e.g., IQ, reading) and rating scale data (e.g., on motivation, creativity) on over a dozen characteristics.

Instructional Models VanTassel-Baska (2000, 2003) elaborated on a halfdozen guidelines. (1) Gifted students should receive curriculum opportunities that permit optimum levels of learning. (2) Because their learning needs differ from those of typical learners, curriculum must be adapted (or designed) to accommodate these special needs. (3) Their curriculum experiences should include cognitive, affective, social, and aesthetic areas. (4) They need both accelerated and enriched learning experiences. (5) For maximum effect, curriculum experiences should be carefully planned and implemented. (6) Curriculum planning is a continuous process, with evaluation a central tool for future planning and curriculum revision. She noted that Stanley’s Talent Search model (Swiatek & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2005), Renzulli’s (e.g., Renzulli & Reis, 2003) Schoolwide Enrichment model, Betts’s (1985) Autonomous Learner model, and other models for teaching gifted students meet all six criteria. Her Integrated Curriculum model (VanTasselBaska, 2000, 2003) includes three dimensions, pictured as a row of three overlapping rings. The left ring represents Advanced Content; the center ring is Process-Product, emphasizing higher-order thinking; and the right ring is Issues and Themes, stressing a focus on major topics and ideas. Betts’ (1985, 1991) five-part Autonomous Learner model describes content for an elementary or high school G/T course. Briefly, orientation includes understanding giftedness, self-understanding, as well as group-building activities. Individual development includes learning skills, interpersonal skills, and career involvement. Enrichment activities include explorations, investigations, cultural activities, and

1042

even adventure trips. Seminars deal with futuristic, problematic, and controversial issues, along with advanced knowledge. Finally, in-depth study includes mentorships, individual and group projects, presentations about the projects, and discussions about how each activity might be evaluated.

Gifted Education and the Law Perhaps the newest and most captivating topic in gifted education is that of legal issues – with one person at the center: Perry A. Zirkel (2003, 2003). After noting at the outset that the Constitution “does not provide a right to an education, much less a right to a gifted education,” Zirkel (2003) listed state-by-state statutes and regulations pertaining to gifted education. One disturbing conclusion: If a gifted student wants and needs special programming, the matter is simplest if he or she has a handicap. He elaborated on these and other recurrent legal issues in gifted education: 1. Student eligibility and identification procedures 2. Racial imbalance in gifted programs 3. Providing programs or suitable instruction to gifted students free of charge 4. District policies on early admission to kindergarten or first grade 5. Private schools and/or private tutors for gifted students 6. Individualizing instruction for gifted students with a disability 7. Eligibility of home-schooled children to participate in public school gifted programs 8. Legal status of teacher certification in gifted education 9. Tort liability (e.g., for injury or death during field trips or summer programs) 10. Misrepresentation and fraud by private schools that claim to offer special services for gifted students10

10

See Zirkel (2003, 2004) for sobering details.

G.A. Davis

Summary This chapter presents a far-too-brief overview of some important topics and recent developments in gifted education. The skimmed topics include Sisk’s 1980 accurate predictions of the direction of gifted education and Gallagher’s comments on intelligence, cultural differences, underachievement (including by students with disabilities), and acceleration. The topic of definitions of giftedness included Terman’s IQ definition; Renzulli’s Enrichment Triad conception; Gagn´e’s distinction between gifts and talents; Sternberg’s five-part implicit theory and three kinds of intelligence; Carroll’s pyramid model; Tannenbaum’s five factors; and Gardner’s eight types of intelligence. Stanley’s SMPY is not new, but it is alive, well, and extended to an Elementary Talent Search. Much of this chapter addressed a core and pressing problem (or two problems): The identification and teaching of identified gifted African American, Spanish-speaking, and Native American students. Experts in gifted education addressed issues relating to (1) definition and identification, (2) curriculum and instruction problems, (3) perceptions of core unanswered questions, (4) most important research findings, and (5) most significant developments and innovations. Hennessey suggested ways to promote creativity with gifted children, including supporting high intrinsic interest and motivation, which allow students to feel in control of their learning. Steiner used the Space Race game to evaluate thinking strategies of second-grade children. Four levels of ability to identify the fastest space ship ranged from no strategy (guessing) to effective logical deduction. Definitions of giftedness will influence methods for identifying gifted students. Popular identification methods include IQ and achievement tests; sometimes creativity tests; teacher-, parent-, peer-, and self-nominations; and the use of rating scales, such as the Baldwin Identification Matrix. VanTassel-Baska’s guidelines for teaching students were (1) permitting optimum levels of learning, (2) adapting or designing special curriculum, (3) including cognitive, affective, social, and aesthetic areas, (4) including acceleration and enrichment, (5) carefully planning and implementing curriculum experiences, and (6) continuous planning based on evaluation. VanTassel-Baska’s Integrated Curriculum model includes the three dimensions of advanced content,

52

New Developments in Gifted Education

1043

International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., higher-order thinking, and focusing on major topics pp. 67–79). New York: Elsevier. and issues. Gallagher, J. J. (1998). Accountability for gifted students. Phi Betts’ Autonomous Learner model describes five Delta Kappan, 79, 739–742. types of content for an elementary or high school Gallagher, J. J. (2003). Issues and challenges in the education of gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), G/T course: orientation, individual development, Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 11–23). Boston: enrichment activities, seminars, and in-depth study. Allyn & Bacon. Finally, Zirkel presented legal issues related to G´andara, P. (2004). Latino achievement: Identifying models that gifted education, for example, policies on early foster success. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. admission, identification procedures.

References Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2003). Developing mathematical talent: A guide for challenging and educating gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Baldwin, A. Y. (1985). Baldwin identification matrix 2. New York: Trillium. Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (1997). Intellectually talented children: How can we best meet their needs? In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 155–169). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Betts, G. (1985). Autonomous learner model for the gifted and talented. Greeley, CO: Autonomous Learning Publications and Specialists. Betts, G. (1991). The autonomous learner model for the gifted and talented. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 142–153). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Brown, S. W., Renzulli, J. S., Gubbings, E. J., Siegle, D., Zhang, W., & Chen, C-H (2005). Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 68–79. Borland, J. H. (2004). Issues and practices in the identification and education of gifted students from under-represented groups. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chan, D. W. (2005). Family environment and talent development of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 211–221. Davis, G. A. (2006). Gifted children and gifted education. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (fifth edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Davidson, J., & Davidson, B. (2004). Genius denied: How to stop wasting our young minds. New York: Simon & Schuster. Fordham, S. (1991). Peer proofing academic competition among Black adolescents: “Acting White: Black American style.” In C. E. Sleeter (Ed.), Empowerment through multicultural education (pp. 69–93). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Gagn´e, F. (2000). Understanding the complex choreography of talent development through DMGT-based analysis. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.),

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Grantham, T. S., (2002). Underrepresentation in gifted education: How did we get here and what needs to change? Roeper Review, 24, 50–51. Griffin, J. B. (1992). Catching the dream for gifted children of color. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 126–130. Gross, M. (1992). The use of radical acceleration in cases of extreme intellectual precocity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 91– 99. Gross, M. (2003). Ability grouping, self-esteem, and the gifted: A study of optical illusions and optimal environments. In N. Colangelo & S. G. Assouline (Eds.), Talent Development IV: Proceedings from the 1998 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 59–88). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Heller, K. A., M¨onks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.). (2000). International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.). New York: Elsevier. Hennessey, B. A. (2004). Developing creativity gifted children: The central importance of motivation and classroom climate. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Hettinger, H. R., Darden, D., Rockwood, B., & Abelkop, S. (2001). Space Race. Unpublished computer program. Hong, E., Greene, M. T., & Higgins, K. (2006). Instructional practices of teachers in general education classrooms and gifted resource rooms: Development and validation of the Instructional Practice Questionnaire. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 91–103. Joseph, L. M., & Ford, D. Y. (2006). Nondiscriminatory assessment: Considerations for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 42–51. LeRose, B. (1978). A quota system or gifted minority children: A viable solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1978, 22(3), 394– 403. Lohman, D. L. (2005). Review of Naglieri and Ford (2003): Does the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test identify equal proportions of high scoring White, Black, and Hispanic students? Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 19–28. Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 41–50. Maker, C. J. (2005). The DISCOVER project: Improving assessment and curriculum for diverse gifted learners. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 144–154.

1044 Miller, L. S. (2004). Promoting sustained growth in the representation of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans among top students in the United States at all levels of the education system. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Moore, J. L., Ford, D. Y., & Milner, H. R. (2005). Recruitment is not enough: Retaining African American students in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 51–67. Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 155– 160. Pfeiffer, S. I. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for students who are gifted: What the experts say. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 161–169. Renzulli, J. S. (1975). Talent potential in minority group students. In W. B. Barbe & J. S. Renzulli (Eds.), Psychology and education of the gifted (pp. 411–423). New York: Irvington. Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The Enrichment Triad Model: A guide for development defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2003). The schoolwide enrichment model. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd. ed., pp. 184–203). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Sarouphim, K. M. (1999). DISCOVER: A promising alternative assessment for the identification of gifted minorities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 244–251. Scott, M. S., & Delgado, C. F. (2005). Identifying cognitively gifted minority students in preschool. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 199–210. Scott, M. S., Tu, S., & Fletcher, K. S. (2003). Cross validating a new preschool screening test. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 5, 129–151. Sisk, D. (1980). Issues and future directions in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(1), 29–36. Stanley, J. C. (1979). The study and facilitation of talent for mathematics. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and the talented (pp. 169–185). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. Steiner, H. H. (2006). A microgenetic analysis of strategic variability in gifted and average-ability children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 62–74.

G.A. Davis Sternberg, R. J. (1995). What do we mean by giftedness? A pentagonal implicit theory. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 88–94. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York: Plume. Sternberg, R. G., (2000). Giftedness as development expertise. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., 55–66). New York: Elsevier. Swanson, J. D. (2006). Breaking through assumptions about lowincome, minority gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 11–25. Swiatek, M. A., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2003). Elementary and middle school student participation in gifted programs: Are gifted students underserved? Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 118–130. Swiatek, M. A., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2005). An evaluation of the elementary student talent search by families and schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 247–259. Tannenbaum, A. J. (2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.; pp. 45–59). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2000). Theory and research on curriculum development for the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., 345–365). New York: Elsevier. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). What matters in curriculum for gifted learners: Reflections on theory, research, and practice. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Ziegler, A., Finsterwald, M., & Grassinger, R. (2005). Predictors of learned helplessness among average and mildly gifted girls and boys attending initial high school physics instruction in Germany. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 7–18. Zirkel, P. A. (2003). The law on gifted education. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Zirkel, P. A. (2004). The case law on gifted education: A new look. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 309–314.

Chapter 53

The English Model of Gifted Education Deborah Eyre

Abstract This chapter focuses on the English Model of gifted education conceptualised by the author. The English Model is a relatively new model for educating the gifted that builds on traditional models of gifted education to create a new paradigm. The English Model has been in use in England for 10 years and now forms the basis of the comprehensive national programme offered to pupils of all ages and in all government-funded schools in England. This chapter considers the case for the English Model, describes its educational characteristics and discusses the various elements of the model. A key strength of the English Model is that it uses elements from existing models of gifted education to create an approach that positions gifted education deeply within overall education policy and within wider social policy objectives. This gives not only the benefit of better educational provision for individual gifted children but also better sustainability for this field of work within education policy. Keywords Public policy · Education policy · Social justice · The English Model · Classroom provision · Out-of-hours · Identification

Introduction The English Model (Fig. 53.1) is an entirely new approach to gifted and talented education which seeks to tackle the traditional problems associated with gifted and talented education, particularly sustainability and acceptability. At the same time it reflects changes in D. Eyre (B) University of Warwick, Coventry, UK e-mail: [email protected]

wider education and social policy which themselves make traditional models less attractive. It seeks to build upon effective experiences to date and apply them in a new and more integrated model. In essence the English Model is one which sees the approach to gifted and talented as a part of an overall, mainstream offer which includes both in-school and out-of-school provision. It is a system-wide endeavour that judges its success by the impact on the performance of individuals rather than measuring the availability of activities. The model is multi-faceted with concerns around such issues as equality and social justice and the economic imperative to optimise human capital as well as the traditional areas of pupil self-image, school curriculum and the professional development of teachers. Education is changing. The purposes of education, the possibilities created by education and the demands upon education are quite different in the first decade of the 21st century than 50 or even 20 years ago. Many diverse factors have contributed to this need for change, from the development of IT to the need for economic competitiveness. However, it is obvious that if education changes then this must impact on gifted education, if the field of gifted education is to be a vibrant and successful aspect of education. Education in developed countries is no longer confined to the traditional territory of ensuring that every child gains enough education to equip him/her for some kind of effective adult life. The aspirations for education are now far greater. Every family now expects that their child should be given the bespoke opportunities that will enable them to achieve at the highest levels. They will accept nothing less. Governments, meanwhile, look to use education as a mechanism for ensuring that their country develops the kinds of intellectual capital that will enable it to compete in a new,

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 53, 

1045

1046

D. Eyre

Fig. 53.1 The English Model

Leadership, co-ordination and management The opportunity pyramid

Pupil voice and pupil engagement

The Pupil A key role for out-of-hours provision Every teacher a teacher of the gifted

more global, world. Employability has become a key outcome for most education systems. Individual pupils themselves recognise the role of education in delivering wealth and happiness in adult life. Education matters, as Alison Woolf (2002) so eloquently puts it, and it matters more than it has ever done. Indeed, she suggests that ‘The lesson of the last century must be that, for individuals, it matters more than ever before in history. And not just any education: the right qualifications, in the right subjects, from the right institutions, is of ever-growing importance.’ In this climate of educational change two factors emerge as being of significance for those interested in gifted education. First, it is important to recognise that education has ceased to be an isolated discipline. It has become an aspect of the wider ‘public policy’ agenda in which the needs of society are addressed through the provision of public services that drive forward economic and cultural growth. The educational well-being of the child is no longer seen as separated from their physical well-being or their cultural well-being. This is in recognition of the overwhelming evidence that links educational opportunity, housing and health and sees them as being intertwined in determining a child’s development. In England the statistics show that the gap in educational performance between children from rich and poor backgrounds starts to be evidenced very

A high quality basic education

early and continues to grow (Schwartz, 2004). Hence it is no longer possible in education to separate ideas around the nature of giftedness from the conditions which allow it to flourish. Crudely stated, education is not a meritocracy. Gifted children from poor backgrounds who succeed are likely to be the exception rather than the rule unless the overall approach to education changes. New changes may have the potential to alter this dynamic and ensure that far more gifted and talented pupils from poor backgrounds achieve highly. Second, in this newly emerging view of education the needs of the individual are more strongly foregrounded. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (Ruano-Borbalan, 2006) describes public services generally as becoming more customised and more responsive to individual choice. In just the same way as we expect to choose between different types of goods and services in order to obtain an optimal fit between our needs and the product, the same applies in education. In most countries the range of possibilities is being expanded so as to enable a better response to the learning needs of individuals. In this climate the debate is less about a single approach for specific cohorts of pupils such as the gifted and more about individuals. This is not to deny the generic needs of the cohort but rather also to recognise the diversity of needs within it. Gifted pupils are no more

53

The English Model of Gifted Education

a homogeneous group than are those with learning difficulties or those from specific ethnic backgrounds. Set within this wider interest in customisation in education the possibilities in respect of the education of gifted and talented pupils become potentially more imaginative and more comprehensive. So education is a political matter and gifted education is a subset of overall education policy. New Labour is committed to meritocracy. We believe that people should be able to rise by their talents, not by their birth or advantages of privilege. We understand that people are not all born into equal circumstances, so one role of state education is to open up opportunities for all, regardless of their background. This means we need to provide high standards of basics for all, but also recognise the different abilities of different children, and tailor education to meet their needs and develop their potential. (Blair, 1996)

In education policy where the emphasis is on pupils all achieving in accordance with their intellectual merit the agenda for gifted education becomes focused on how best to create the structures that allow giftedness and talent to emerge and on how best to nurture that outstanding ability or talent once it has emerged.

Gifted Education and the Mainstream Education System The field of study around the education of gifted and talented pupils originally emerged largely in response to poor provision in general education systems. As far back as 1932 a leading English educational writer, Susan Isaacs, described the challenge in relation to gifted and talented education thus: ‘There is a steady drag back on the brighter children towards the level of the mediocre.’ Whilst terminology may have changed in the 21st century the spirit of the problem remains the same. How to challenge the most able learners. This problem was cited as a rationale in the earliest gifted education programmes (Tempest, 1974) and remains a key rationale in even the most modern ones (O’Reilly, 2006). Ruano-Borbalan (2006) describes western education systems generally as being characterised by the four ‘ones,’ one teacher, one class, one lesson and one subject. Within this overall model possibilities for meeting the needs of particular cohorts are limited. Traditionally, policy makers have used crude

1047

responses, usually, either roughly sub-dividing pupils according to their abilities and then adopting the same ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach but for this narrower, streamed, ability band or alternatively adjusting classroom teaching approaches to give greater flexibility within individual lessons – differentiation. Neither approach has proved to be effective in meeting the diverse needs of gifted and talented pupils. In England education structures have changed many times during the 20th century but lack of challenge for the gifted and talented in ordinary schools has remained a common theme. Indeed in 1999 an enquiry into the education of highly able children (House of Commons) judged provision to be unsatisfactory in the majority of schools. In analysing the reason for this on-going situation one possible conclusion that could be drawn might be that mainstream education has given inadequate consideration to the education of the gifted and talented. If this were to be addressed then these problems would disappear. An alternative conclusion might be that the mainstream system cannot provide for the gifted and talented and so separate schools or separate programmes should be created. The House of Commons Report itself however suggests a third reason, not located in the nature of the provision itself, but rather in public and professional opinions. It sets the problem in the wider public arena and sees attitude rather than emphasis as being the chief barrier to success. It found that under-achievement of gifted and talented pupils was perceived by both education professionals and general public alike as being of low significance. It was seen as unimportant. In this climate gifted education is unlikely to ever move beyond being an enthusiast’s agenda: The development that would make the most difference to the education of the highly able is a change in attitude among teachers and LEAs (Local Education Authorities), but perhaps most importantly among the public and society at large.

Tackling this perception could therefore be said to be a pre-condition to achieving effective provision. It must be tackled before any model can be properly implemented. The English Model recognises that for gifted education to be a sustainable part of overall education policy then both society and the education profession must first recognise the importance of this agenda and the consequences of inaction. Underachievement among gifted and talented pupils must

1048

come to be seen as unacceptable for the child, for the family, for the school and most importantly for society. Politically it must be recognised that a 21st century country cannot afford to let talent go to waste. It must systematically nurture outstanding ability within all its young people in order to remain successful in a world where intellectual capital is a highly valued commodity. Forces outside of education such as business and commerce can be some of the most vociferous advocates for this agenda and can play a key role in ensuring its continued priority in the education policy arena. Once this recognition is secured then gifted and talented education moves from being peripheral to being a key tenet of overall education policy and the emphasis can shift from securing commitment to designing and implementing the model.

The English Model: Rationale and Values Traditionally gifted education has been seen as divorced from the general education system, yet if a country’s education system seeks to provide appropriate education for all its children, then the education of the most able (gifted) should be seen as just one part of a larger whole. This in itself should provide a compelling case for a nationally coherent and integrated approach to the education of the gifted. However there are reasons that transcend education policy that suggest that a country would be well-advised to give gifted education a more central location. Today’s gifted pupils are tomorrow’s social intellectual economic and cultural leaders and their development cannot be left to chance. Where it is left to chance, evidence indicates that educational progress is not so much a question of intellectual merit but rather a question of affluence, with the most affluent receiving the best education and therefore achieving most highly. (Eyre, 2004)

Deconstructed, this statement resolves itself into a three-part rationale: an educational policy about the mainstream system catering for the needs of all pupils; an economic argument about realising potential to drive up performance in the knowledge economy; and a commitment to equity, with an ambition to counter those social and economic factors shown to have had a restrictive influence on educational achievement. It challenges the idea that giftedness is unequally distributed among social groupings, stressing the need to identify giftedness in hitherto unrepresented groups. However, the challenge implicit in this agenda is substantial since the social bias in high educational achieve-

D. Eyre

ment reflects a particularly longstanding English disease, as large-scale longitudinal studies in England have demonstrated (Douglas, 1964; Halsey, Heath & Ridge, 1980). The rationale for the English Model is deliberately designed to appeal to a political audience as well as an educational one. At a policy level gifted education has something of a chequered history. In some countries the concept does not exist at all. In others gifted and talented programmes are established and then disappear through lack of funding or through reprioritisation within the education system. The English Model seeks to avoid such turbulence by embedding gifted education within not only education policy but also wider public policy and economic policy. The main benefit here is that this approach creates advocates for gifted education in the business and cultural worlds. These advocates can often be more influential in the allocation of overall resource than educationalists. This raises the status of gifted education and helps to secure it. Of course, gifted education is about nurturing talent for the future and therefore it is right and proper that noneducationalists have a keen interest in such an endeavour.

Reflections on Existing Approaches to Gifted and Talented Education In securing the design of the English Model consideration was given to both exploiting the overall general education context and the traditional methodologies for securing effective provision for the gifted and talented. The model sought to locate gifted and talented education deeply within general education whilst at the same time ensuring that, what might be described as, the gifted and talented element of education policy was optimally designed. The classic dichotomy in meeting the needs of the gifted and talented is between identification and provision. Whether to identify a cohort and then provide for them or whether to provide general education in school which itself meets the needs of the gifted and talented. At the extremes those favouring ‘provision’ would advocate differentiation within a mixed ability classroom and nothing more; those advocating ‘identification’ would select the brightest and educate them separately.

53

The English Model of Gifted Education

The conceptual leap behind the English Model was to recognise that the optimum approach combines elements of both so that identification and provision complement each other. The key question is not whether to identify and then provide or alternatively to focus on provision in the hope that those with significant abilities will emerge. Instead it is to focus on where along the identification/provision continuum to draw the ‘policy line.’ In short to develop a third tradition that builds on the strengths of the first two and seeks to mitigate the known limitations of each. This we have called the English Model. The most traditional approach to gifted and talented education is to select those deemed to be within the cohort and provide for them additional educational opportunities outside and separate from mainstream schooling. Through this identification-led approach, gifted programmes are created and provide a qualitatively different experience from general education. The learning benefits of this approach relate to the advantages of having a largely homogeneous intellectual cohort. It is possible to set a swift pace of learning within the programme, to tackle complex and advanced learning and to create a style of working that would be impossible within the normal school classroom. Personal and social advantages also accrue for pupils in this environment in that it enables them to perform highly without risk of ridicule from peers. This effect is particularly important in cultures where it is not generally considered ‘cool to be bright.’ This ‘gifted programmes’ tradition has provided excellent opportunities for many, many gifted students over an extended period of time and in many countries. There is surprisingly little firm research evidence regarding the long-term impact on individuals (Freeman, 1998), but the evaluation of individual programmes would suggest at least a short-term impact. Long running schemes like those at the Centre for Talented Youth, Johns’ Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA, also have anecdotal evidence from significant numbers of students suggesting perceived long-term impact. There are two major limitations to the ‘gifted programmes’ approach. The first is that it sits outside of mainstream schooling and frequently has little connection to it. In exceptional circumstances, for example, where a student gains formal credit through a ‘gifted programme’ they may then be exempted from studying that particular course in normal school. But

1049

in the majority of programmes gains from the ‘gifted programme’ are not traditionally factored into more general schooling. Gifted programmes rely on motivating the student so that they are more ‘switched on to learning’; teaching more advanced knowledge and skills; and empowering students to make best use of their newly acquired skills when they return to school. Gifted programmes are an adjunct to mainstream schooling rather than a part of it. Indeed schools have sometimes indicated that participation in gifted programmes has led pupils to become dissatisfied with regular school provision and de-motivated in school. The second limitation relates to the burden placed on identification. Gifted programmes were originally located in a psycho-medical paradigm in which some people were considered to possess higher innate intelligence than others and it was assumed that this intelligence could be accurately tested to create a robust cohort. More modern conceptions of giftedness stress its complexity with the influence of environmental and personality factors alongside any inherited predispositions (Gardner, 1999; Sternberg, 1986). This makes identification by a single test difficult and unreliable. This lack of reliability is most sharply evidenced in the socio-economic make-up of gifted programmes. Research into the composition of ‘gifted programmes’ shows a persistent skew in selection towards wealthy, first language students at the expense of their less affluent peers.1 In the absence of compelling data to suggest that giftedness is not found in poor families then we must assume that selection processes are biased against them. It is for this reason that some have criticised the whole concept of ‘gifted programmes’ describing it as giving further advantage to the already advantaged. By contrast the ‘provision’-focused approach is a relatively more recent one with its antecedence in the second half of the 20th century. The Plowden report (1967) contains the earliest suggestion by the UK Government that the needs of gifted and talented pupils should be met in the ordinary or regular classroom: 1

NAGTY data December 2006 show

Urban prosperity Comfortably off Moderate means Hard pressed

8.3% 28.2% 9.0% 7.5%

using 2004 ‘a classification of residential neighbourhoods’ (ACORN) postcode classifications.

1050

‘. . .the majority of us believe that the English system of primary education at its best is better adapted than any other we have seen to provide for the needs of the gifted individual, without segregating him’ (p. 307,para 868). In this tradition the focus is on the ordinary classroom in any school with challenge provided through differentiated classroom provision. It attributes a greater role to the ordinary classroom teacher and is located firmly within the general school system. This approach has an obvious appeal to educators since it stresses professional skill. At the heart of this approach is the design of the curriculum offer which enables students to experience high levels of challenge within the context of the normal school curriculum. This can be through particular curricular approaches such as problem solving (see Wallace and Maker, this volume) or through structural approaches such as curriculum compacting (e.g. Renzulli, 1983). In this model where the focus is on the opportunities on offer, identification is less prominent since it is assumed that through the provision of suitable opportunities giftedness will be revealed. This approach chimes more readily with multi-faceted views on giftedness and with a desire to develop the talents of many rather than addressing the needs of the few. Advocates for this approach see it as more inclusive and equitable since access to high-level learning opportunities is not contingent on being selected into the cohort. This type of provision is also seen as providing a response to traditional problems related to social isolation. The conferences of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children (WCGTC) show an increasing interest in the ‘provision’ approach in all its forms. An analysis of programmes shows that in 1995, 38% of sessions were ‘provision’ orientated. At the 2005 conference this had increased to 55% of sessions with a ‘provision’ focus. Critics of the ‘provision’ approach see it as Utopian. They describe it as reliant on a level of teacher skill not evidenced in the teaching profession in most countries – an enthusiast’s agenda for educationalists. They describe the inequality created by biased selection of individuals in the ‘gifted programme’ approach as being replaced under the ‘provision’ model by inequality created by discrepancies between good and bad provision in different schools. They point to the artificial learning ‘ceilings’ created when teachers lack professional confidence and competence and say that without ‘gifted programmes’ students in these classrooms will

D. Eyre

be permanently disadvantaged. They challenge the equity advantage claims by pointing to the overwhelming statistical evidence suggesting that ‘bad’ schools are more frequently to be found in areas of social deprivation, suggesting that pupils in schools in poorer areas will not receive that optimal provision advocated in this model because even base level education is not properly secured. Hence it too mitigates against gifted children from poorer families. The UK Government’s Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) reported that in the 44 most deprived local authority districts in England, secondary schools were more than five times as likely to fail their Ofsted (school quality) inspection (SEU, 1998). So in both models wealthy students are more likely to gain benefits from ‘gifted education’ than their poorer colleagues. This has serious consequences for not only the pupils themselves but also for the whole field of gifted education. The result of this bias has been that the whole concept of gifted education meets strong ideological opposition from some quarters and in many countries has failed to gain a serious foothold. A second key plank of the English Model is therefore to seek to foreground the ‘social justice agenda’ to highlight ways in which a sharp focus on gifted and talented education might provide a mechanism for ensuring that the brightest pupils from poorer backgrounds are given the opportunity to succeed. Gifted and talented initiatives then become a part of wider social policy contributing to wider social policy objectives.

The English Model: A New Paradigm In policy terms the ‘gifted programmes approach’ might be said to be focused primarily on the individual in that it recognises the need for supplementary opportunities to assist the individual. The ‘provision’ approach, by contrast, is focused primarily on the school. It sees the school as the provider of education for all including the gifted and talented and sees this provision as being part of its wider set of responsibilities. It does not formally recognise the role of out-of-hours, non-school programmes. The English Model makes the education system the main focus of attention establishing a structure of both in-school and

53

The English Model of Gifted Education

1051

out-of-hours provision that grows with the child and Beliefs Underpinning the Model allows for maximum flexibility and range. It focuses on an entitlement model in which all pupils are entitled r Giftedness and talent are terms used to describe to access to relevant opportunities provided by the children or adults who have the capacity to achieve system within and beyond the school. As part of this high levels of expertise or performance. Giftedness system-wide approach provision is also subject to and talent in childhood could be described as experstandard system accountability measures, so ensuring tise in its development phase. quality as well as quantity of provision. r The education of gifted and talented should thereThe benefits of focusing on a system-wide approach fore focus on the development of expertise within could be summarised thus: specific domains. r Giftedness is a dynamic interaction between potenr It ensures that gifted and talented education is tial, opportunities/support and personal motivation. That interaction begins at the moment of birth. nested within wider education policy making it r Giftedness is developmental and is developed higher profile and less vulnerable to cutbacks. r It ensures that gifted children have access to a conthrough individuals gaining access to appropriate opportunities and support. Performance levels are tinuous diet of higher quality learning opportunidirectly affected by availability of appropriate ties with appropriate learning progression throughopportunities and support. out their schooling. r It enables a fusion between the traditional ‘gifted r Direct intervention with individuals can reduce and sometimes reverse the effect of socio-economic disprogrammes’ approach and the ‘classroom proviadvantage or other lack of support. sion’ approach drawing on the strengths of both. r It can combine in-school with out-of-school programmes so enhancing rather than compensating for in-school provision. r It can address the ‘social justice’ agenda making Provision provision more equitable. r It can accommodate both those with general allr Provision for gifted and talented children and young round ability and those with specific strengths. people should focus primarily on provision made in r It allows children to be aware that they are gifted yet ordinary schools, in ordinary lessons, as part of the at the same time feel accepted within their school. day-to-day educational offer. r It can create a national community of like-minded r Core school-based provision should be supgifted pupils. plemented by access to enhanced, bespoke opportunities offered both within and beyond the The English Model then seeks to create a comschool. prehensive system-wide approach to the education of r Enhanced opportunities should seek to develop exthe gifted which transcends many of the traditional pertise and should become increasingly sophistitensions within the field of gifted education such as cated with age. those outlined by Yun Dai (see Yun Dai, this volume), r Schools should themselves be diverse and distincnamely potential versus achievement, domain specific tive in nature and so offer specific opportunities to versus domain general and addressing the needs of the develop certain aptitudes. r Parents should be seen as co-educators with a key few versus the developing talents for all. role in supporting learning. r Pupils should see themselves as active participants in the learning process, co-constructing their perThe English Model Summary sonal educational journey. r The learning progress and needs of individuals should be carefully tracked so that appropriate Potential + Opportunities and Support + Motivation personalised pathways can be created. = High Achievement

1052

The English Model: Key Elements The Opportunity Pyramid

D. Eyre

tem. The school is the core provider but is envisaged as working in conjunction with a range of other providers to ensure optimum match between needs and opportunities. In this model the main task of school-based activity is to secure relevant knowledge, skills and concepts whilst at the same time inducting the pupil into the ways of thinking, learning and behaviours valued within particular subject domains. This approach brings pupils into contact with various forms of ‘higher order’ thinking on a regular basis. The out-ofschool opportunities, by contrast, focus more strongly on this second element – development of expertise – with pupil groups being apprenticed to experts and experiencing advanced learning not for assessment or of the school curriculum but for the sheer joy of participation. Out-of-hours opportunities are therefore characterised by the use of experts as teachers and access to sophisticated ideas and techniques. A major benefit claimed for this approach is its potential for raising systemic performance. By focusing sharply on nurturing strengths as well as mitigating weaknesses, the achievements of all children may be raised, not just those identified as being in the cohort.

In the English Model the core of gifted and talented education is intended to be delivered through day-today classroom provision (Fig. 53.2). Gifted children and students should spend most of their time with the regular school group, especially in the 5–11 years age range. This means all teachers are routinely required to plan to meet the needs of both their most able as well as their least able through a differentiated classroom approach. All schools offer a range of supplementary opportunities aimed at creating a rich curriculum offer. Schools identify those with the potential to be considered as gifted and talented and offer flexibilities to accommodate the needs of that cohort. These should include the ability to progress more rapidly than others in the peer group, including taking external examinations early. Within the school it is expected that pupils will be placed in ability groups for some aspects of their work. The extent of pupil grouping arrangements are not defined within the English Model but rather left to the school to determine as part of their overall policy. As the child becomes older, and more advanced, then the mix between normal class, cross-school and The High-Quality Basic Education System out-of-school provision will change. By 14–19 years, the emphasis on personal pathways to meet personal Key to the English Model is a basic school offer. The needs is intended to pervade the whole education sysentire school system must be aiming for excellence

National opportunities

Regional opportunities

Local opportunities

Cross-school opportunities

Fig. 53.2 The opportunity pyramid

Classroom opportunities

53

The English Model of Gifted Education

for all. In the climate of more personalised public services the pursuit of excellence is a standard agenda in many countries. All families are looking to ensure that their child attains as highly as possible so they are well placed to secure places at college or university and eventually have the qualifications to secure a good job. The standard agenda has moved away from making firm judgements about who has the capability to do well and towards a focus on everyone striving to achieve (everyone may have the potential to be a winner). In this climate demanding learning opportunities are offered widely and pupils invited to strive to conquer them. Rewards are given for ‘trying’ and for taking intellectual risks as well as for getting the right answer. Small failures are an expected aspect of learning in this high-challenge model and pupils come to see them as a part of the overall learning process rather than a disaster. For this element of the English Model to be effective for the gifted and talented cohort the basic curriculum must be specifically designed to anticipate excellence. Rather than the school or class-teacher offering a core curriculum aimed at the middle ability point and then extending it for those pupils who exceed the base requirements, this model requires the school/teacher to design in expectation that some pupils will achieve the more demanding requirements without knowing precisely who will achieve them. The task for the teacher is to create the scaffolds that allow as many pupils as possible to achieve the high-challenge target. At the school management level this involves ensuring that higher level and higher tier opportunities are always on offer and that the numbers of pupils accessing them year on year increases. At the qualifications level it involves ensuring that qualifications are appropriately demanding and also intellectually interesting so as to motivate pupils to strive to achieve. This includes both academic and vocational qualifications. In this approach gifted and talented pupils begin to identify themselves through their response to the highchallenge curriculum. By demonstrating their capacity to achieve the high-challenge targets on a regular basis, either generally or in specific domains, they begin to define themselves as gifted or talented. It is a natural development of self-identity with individual pupils becoming aware of their areas of strength and weakness and their preferred styles of learning as well as their overall ability. This approach to identification through

1053

‘doing’ is similar in nature to the way we traditionally assess sporting prowess or musical ability. This approach need not replace traditional tests of ability but it is certainly a useful second strand to it.

Every Teacher a Teacher of the Gifted The English Model places the teacher at the heart of the curriculum delivery model in a similar way to that which is traditional in the ‘classroom provision’ approach to gifted education. In the ‘classroom provision’ tradition the focus is on the ordinary classroom in any school with the teacher creating challenge through a differentiated approach to classroom provision. It attributes a significant role to the ordinary classroom teacher and stresses professional skill. The benefits of this kind of approach are twofold. The first relates to the teacher. The ‘classroom provision’ approach builds on existing teacher skills and locates the teaching of gifted and talented pupils as being a part of the overall teaching lexicon rather than a separate and ‘mysterious’ activity. Teachers are encouraged to see gifted and talented pupils as their most effective learners rather than a specific, clearly defined, subset of the population with learning needs so unique that they cannot be accommodated through normal, recognised teaching approaches. The latter might be described as the ‘exotic child’ syndrome. The ‘classroom provision’ approach challenges teachers to push forward the boundaries of their professional skills to accommodate the needs of the gifted and talented. This is an exciting prospect for teachers and ultimately a rewarding one. It foregrounds professional experimentation and innovation and given the responsive nature of the cohort any appropriate teacher action is likely to be rewarded by high-quality outcomes from the pupils. Teachers actively working to improve their classroom provision for gifted and talented pupils is a virtuous circle of increased professional satisfaction and increased pupil satisfaction. Practitioner research activity such as structured tinkering (Eyre, 2006) demonstrates this approach in its most sophisticated form and affirms its virtues. Teachers also find the ‘classroom approach’ appealing because it chimes with their own experience of children and their learning needs. Most ‘classroom provision’ approaches recognise that

1054

r

D. Eyre

Gifted pupils are a diverse and disparate group and therefore optimum provision will vary from child to child. The best provision for gifted pupils is made by extending that which is available to all children rather than providing a completely different curriculum for gifted pupils. Schools and teachers vary in their capacity to deal effectively with gifted pupils.

what might reasonably be seen as the teacher’s responsibility. This model therefore makes classroom provision the core provision but not the only provision. It is r expected that pupils will also access cross-school opportunities and most crucially out-of-school opportunities and programmes. This serves to reduce the burden on classroom teachers and open up access to the r type of high-quality, targeted provision that has characterised the ‘gifted programmes’ approach to gifted education. As a child becomes older the balance of proviThis practical approach empowers teachers to be- sion changes in recognition of the need for increasingly advanced learning opportunities. come better teachers of the gifted. The ‘classroom provision’ approach also has considerable merit in policy terms. It is a high-coverage, low-cost approach which makes good use of existing A Key Role for Out-of-Hours Programmes resources. It offers the prospect of national coverage in every school and available to every pupil and overcomes some of the traditional problems associated with Traditional gifted programmes have offered some of gifted programmes such as sustainability. It addition it the most imaginative and demanding opportunities for negates the need to create a system that rejects large gifted and talented pupils. They have the advantage of numbers of pupils in order to create a small cohort – being free of the traditional school constraints such as the winners and losers approach – and may itself con- timetables, examination curriculum and formal assesstribute to increasing capacity and professional skill in ment processes. They offer an optimal environment for certain forms of learning. They are also expensive to the teaching profession. The criticisms levelled at this approach relate to offer and usually offered on a piecemeal, ad hoc basis. the capability of teachers to play this central role and Therefore, their advantages need to be maximised and whether it is unrealistic for policy makers to expect it of their use needs to be judicious. Hickey (1988) found that internationally educators them. If teachers are expected to play this role and then fail to do so the consequences for the gifted and tal- of G&T pupils converged in having three main goals ented are considerable. It will be falsely assumed that for gifted programmes: opportunities for gifted and talented are being made available whilst in reality they are not. The English Model recognised this potential flaw and counters it by an increased emphasis on professional development and by limiting the demand on teachers. The English Model recognises that in order for the classroom aspect of provision to be successful teachers need the knowledge, skills and confidence to play this role. There is a clear professional development requirement for this policy to be effective. Both pre-service and serving teachers need access to the training and guidance required to make this a reality. All teachers need a basic understanding of the issues surrounding the creation of effective provision and some teachers need advanced skills to lead work on this agenda in their schools. The English Model also differs from the traditional ‘classroom provision’ model in that it does not place all the responsibility on the teacher. This policy recognises that whilst teachers may be central there is a limit to

1. To provide a learning environment that will permit and encourage the capable student to develop his/her individual potential whilst interacting with intellectual peers 2. To establish a climate that values and enhances intellectual ability, talent, creativity and decision making 3. To encourage the development of and provide opportunities for the use of higher levels of thinking (analysis, synthesis and evaluation) These conditions can most easily be met within the context of out-of-school or cross-school programmes rather than through general classroom provision. The English Model factors out-of-school and crossschool ‘gifted programmes’ as being a recognised part of the overall offer. It gives these programmes legitimacy within the pyramid of opportunities and seeks to mobilise a market of out-of-hours providers who can

53

The English Model of Gifted Education

offer high-quality opportunities that meet the required design requirements. The English Model requires that out-of-hours learning serves to enhance rather than replace school-based learning. Therefore, it must conform to key principles. This enables the out-of-hours providers to operate with maximum flexibility whilst ensuring that school providers have a sense of the type of learning that their pupils will have experienced through out-of-hours provision and are therefore able to build on it. Pupils themselves are then able to view in-school and out-of-school learning as being two aspects of their learning rather than totally different activities. In England advice to out-of-hours learning providers stresses the following: (A) Gifted and talented pupils display most of the personality characteristics typical of children or young people of their age. Some may have high levels of concentration whilst others lose interest quickly. Some will be confident in their abilities and keen to put forward their opinions. Others will be shy, unsure and in need of encouragement and re-enforcement. Some will be good team players, sensitive to the needs of the group. Others may be arrogant and dismissive of the contributions of others. Some will like to work independently, others will not. (B) Gifted and talented pupils are embryonic experts. One purpose of courses is to induct pupils into the ways of thinking and the valued behaviours of individual subject domains. They do not need to be encouraged to engage with learning or entertained, although, as with all of us, they appreciate elements of fun. They particularly like working with experts and particularly dislike being patronised. (C) Course content should make best use of the teacher’s interests and expertise. Almost any content area is relevant provided the engagement is set at an appropriate level. Passion and enthusiasm for a subject is a great motivator and working on something the teacher finds fascinating will automatically convey that to others. (D) Choose a style that suits the subject. Aim for a collegiate style with students encouraged to participate, to put forward their own opinions without fear of ridicule, to respect the views of others and to challenge the tutor’s views if they wish.

1055

(E) Make use of peer teaching. One of the key benefits of out-of-hours provision is that pupils have the opportunity to work with others of like ability. Some pupils do not have this opportunity regularly at school. (F) Consider a final product or presentation. The end of course product is rewarding for pupils and is also useful in helping students to record their outof-hours learning back in school. A measure of the success of out-of-hours provision in the English Model is its ability to empower the learner. Gifted programmes should help the pupil to become a more confident and sophisticated learner. The success of gifted programmes in the English Model is judged by their ability to increase aspiration, motivation, self-esteem and attainment. Out-of-hours gifted programmes have considerable merit from the policy makers’ perspective. They provide the very highest levels of challenge so ensuring that individuals are not held back by school expectations. They can raise aspirations as pupils can come to see themselves as part of two different educational communities – their school and this other group of peers with shared characteristics, aspirations and interests. This is often the first place where gifted pupils are able to feel at ease with their ability and confident to achieve at the highest levels. Gifted programmes are key to improving the educational performance of some individuals. It can empower individual learners so that they are better able to exploit their normal schooling regardless of its overall quality. It is therefore a particularly significant strand for pupils with low aspirations in low-achieving schools.

Pupil Voice and Pupil Engagement The English Model places pupils at the centre of the learning process. It seeks to create a raft of suitable learning opportunities both within and beyond the school and to make them available to pupils in such a way as to personalise learning for the individual. This is a radical departure from models where the gifted and talented community are seen as being a homogeneous group with common needs and common issues. In the English Model every gifted and talented pupil is seen as an individual with individual learning needs.

1056

The overall requirements for the cohort which underpin the personalised approach are seen as follows:

r r r r r

Formal recognition for the cohort Planned learning opportunities offering high levels of challenge on a daily basis Progress in learning in a way that reflects the stage of learning rather than the age of the pupil Access to enhanced learning opportunities offered outside of normal classroom provision To be seen as a child with social and emotional as well as intellectual needs

Overlaying these general cohort needs are the needs of the individual. For the English Model to operate optimally pupils must come to know themselves and their strengths and weaknesses and, eventually, be able to determine their learning needs. Policy in this respect must recognise that such an approach is counter cultural to most schools and so systematic processes must be put in place if this outcome is to be achieved. This process must be a planned and managed one which starts in a limited form from the earliest schooling and involves both the pupil and their parents. In judging the success of provision for gifted and talented the English Model focuses primarily not only on the availability of suitable opportunities but on their impact on the performance of the individual.

Leadership, Coordination and Management A system-based approach such as the English Model is dependent upon effective use of key policy and decision makers, who can themselves utilise the levers at their disposal to embed the model. In the education system there are two key agents, namely national/regional policy makers and school head teachers (principals). For the English Model to operate effectively the needs of gifted and talented pupils must be factored into all aspects of education policy making. In a centralised education system such as the English education system this requires the gifted and talented cohort to be a recognised cohort within the system. Their needs are then considered by the policy makers responsible for curriculum, school resourcing, school quality, teacher training, etc. At a national level, policy makers will, from time to time, be held accountable for the effec-

D. Eyre

tiveness of their policy in relation to the gifted and talented cohort. In a more localised or regional model this recognition for the cohort would need to be secured in a similar way. At school level the key agent is the school leadership team comprising head teacher (principal) and other senior colleagues. They must recognise the importance of the agenda and implement the various structural aspects that will provide the scaffold for success. These include identification processes, school-wide coordination of provision, professional development for teachers, systems for classroom planning and delivery, assessment of pupils, pupil grouping arrangements and arrangements to accommodate individual needs. Most crucially at the school level there is a need for accountability structures that monitor the impact of provision on the cohort generally and on individuals within it.

The Role of Identification Within the English Model Within the English Model identification of the cohort sits at a central point. Unlike the ‘gifted programmes’ approach in which access to opportunities is contingent on identification, the English Model makes some opportunities available through general school provision. However, unlike the ‘classroom provision’ approach, the English Model also makes some opportunities contingent on identification. In this mixed economy the process of identification is both formal and informal. An initial cohort will be created by a school but it will be continually reviewed and expanded as giftedness or talent emerges through access to high levels of challenge in the classroom and through performance on standardised school and public tests. The numbers of pupils identified at the end of elementary school will be greater than at the start and similarly at high school. The English Model contends that identification of the cohort should be an on-going process throughout the period of formal schooling and should be a system issue rather than a school or individual issue. The English Model recognises that we cannot get identification right if we do not get provision right first. We will create a skewed cohort with over-dominance of some socio-economic and ethnic groups. Responding to challenging work in the classroom is frequently the

53

The English Model of Gifted Education

only way in which gifts and talents come to the surface. We know that a gifted child who happens to be middle class, native language speaking, with early exposure to literature and complex vocabulary can be easily recognised. But we also know that a child from an educationally disadvantaged background is likely to require personal support and intellectual challenge before they start to show their true potential. If we do not emphasise the importance of provision in identification we can expect to see a cohort that is skewed.

1057

lect at the expense of a focus on the social and emotional needs of children and young people. The English Model begins from a wider social policy concern in which the nation is looking to find talent and nurture it for the common good. In this climate the thrust must therefore be on creating not only intellectual capital but also social and emotional capital. Those with outstanding abilities and talents must also be equipped with the emotional skills that will enable them to play a leadership role in their chosen field. In England gifted and talented education has traditionr Richer children will be over-represented. ally recognised the need to align the complementary r Poorer children will be under-represented. r Children with highly educated parents will be over- concerns of intellectual development and social and emotional development. In some other countries (e.g. represented. r Children from single-parent families will be under- Brazil) identification brings with it formal responsibilities in respect of citizenship. This kind of approach has represented. r Chinese, Indian and middle-class white pupils will real merit in that it both builds the necessary leadership skills and also helps gifted and talented individuals to be over-represented (in England). r Black, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and working-class behave unselfishly. white pupils will be under-represented (in England). r Traveller pupils and pupils with special educational needs (SEN) or disabilities will be very Exemplars of the English Model under-represented (in England). r Looked-after children (those in children’s homes in Practice and orphanages) will hardly be represented at all. Abid is 8 years old and already achieving highly. He It is also important that teachers are trained to un- attends his local primary (elementary) school where derstand the nature of giftedness; otherwise, they will he encounters a stimulating and challenging curricumake conventional mistakes in their part of the identifi- lum offer. In some of his lessons he is encouraged cation process. All teachers must be aware that gifted- to make choices and to recognise the significance of ness is a dynamic interaction between potential, oppor- the choices he makes. Whether to do this task or that. tunities/support and personal motivation and that this Whether this task is easier or harder and why. This reinteraction begins at the moment of birth. Evidence flective behaviour is encouraged by appropriate teacher suggests that unless this knowledge is secured then questioning and task design. Lessons are tailored to teachers identify ‘school smart’ children rather than his needs. On a regular basis he has a discussion with gifted and talented ones. Therefore, amongst the ‘tools’ his teacher about his progress and he and his teacher/s made available to schools must be a clear framework are well aware of his strengths and weaknesses. He knows that he will have the opportunities that will enand guidance on identification. able him to achieve well but that he must make the effort. His parents are a part of this discussion and they are given information and practical strategies to help Developing Good Citizens support his learning. Outside of normal class Abid has access to additional, more bespoke, learning opportuGifted and talented education policy is not just about nities through extended day provision, online provision enabling the individual to have a satisfying educational and a rich array of out-of-school enrichment opportuexperience, it is also about ensuring that those within nities. All of Abid’s learning achievements, whether the cohort develop into well-rounded responsible in- occurring in the core offer or beyond it, are tracked dividuals. From time to time, gifted education models through an e-portfolio to which Abid and his parents have focused heavily on the development of the intel- can also contribute. This portfolio helps everyone in-

1058

volved in Abid’s education to unlock his needs and secure appropriate opportunities. Hannah is 14. She attends her local school. She is already a confident learner and has a monthly academic discussion with her form tutor regarding her progress and learning needs. Hannah already knows that she is a strong academic achiever and is in the top set for most of her lessons. The curriculum offered by her school in KS3 (11–14 years) was demanding and swiftly paced. She is already studying the GCSE (public exam) course in some subjects a year ahead of her peers. The school has a particular focus on engineering which has given her an interest in practical problem solving although on balance she thinks at the moment that she is likely to apply this in more traditional subjects as she develops. Hannah is studying Chinese in another local school in non-core time and attends a maths class at her local university. She is also accessing a range of online and face-to-face non-assessed learning opportunities in school, in local schools, regionally, nationally and internationally. Hannah plays in a local rock band with friends. Hannah’s learning is tracked through her e-portfolio and she takes control of this in conjunction with her form tutor. Hannah is a confident learner and well able to describe her strengths, lament over her weaknesses and describe her learning needs. At the moment she and her form tutor think that Hannah’s education should involve a strategy that enables her to experience a wide range of opportunities and keep her options open. They and Hannah’s parents agree that Hannah is capable of going to university. However, she is capable of moving forward in a variety of directions and is unsure about future university or career destinations. Hannah is becoming increasingly familiar with the options available to her post 16 years at her school, other local schools and colleges.

Conclusions At its heart the English Model seeks to locate gifted and talented education within the new educational agenda of more customised education. Through that channel gifted and talented education has the best chance of long-term sustainability. It will cease to be a project and become a permanent feature of the educational landscape. Individual gifted and talented pupils also have the greatest chance of success in

D. Eyre

this model because it is infinitely flexible and able to respond to their individual needs. This new model utilises both in-school and out-of-school learning reflecting the world in which we now all live. In the 21st century learning, like other commodities, is available on demand and pupils, their families and their teachers are free to make use of a truly extensive range of online and face-to-face learning opportunities – choosing those they want and need. This methodology mobilises the whole national community, not just those traditionally engaged in school education, in support of this agenda. Most importantly this model is one where all gifted and talented pupils have a real chance of converting their potential into high performance regardless of background or ethnicity. It is only when this is secured that gifted and talented education can be said to be fair and equitable.

References Blair, T. (1996). New Britain. Bury St Edmund: Fourth Estate. Douglas, J. W. B. (1964). The home and school. London: MacGibbon and Kee. Eyre, D. (2004). The English model of gifted and talented education. Paper presented at the European Conference of High Ability, Pamplona, September. Eyre, D. (2006). Structured tinkering: Improving provision for the gifted in ordinary schools. In Smith, C. (Ed.), Including the gifted and talented. London: Routledge. Freeman, J. (1998). Educating the very able: Current international research. Ofsted Reviews of Research. London: Stationery Office. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books. Halsey, A. H., Heath, A., & Ridge, J. (1980). Origins and destinations: Family class and education in modern Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hickey, G. (1988). Goals for gifted programmes: Perceptions of interested groups. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 231–233. House of Commons (1999). Highly able children (Education and Employment Committee, Third Report). London: HMSO. Isaacs, S. S. F. (1932). The children we teach: Seven to Eleven year. London: University of London Press. O’Reilly, C. (2006). Maximising potential. In Smith, C. M. M. (Ed.), Including the gifted and talented. Abingdon: Routledge. Plowden, B., Central advisory council for education (England) (1967). Children and their primary schools : A report of the central advisory council for education (England): Vol. 1. The Report. London: HMSO. Renzulli, J. S. (1983). Curriculum compacting: An essential strategy for working with gifted students. Gifted Education International, 1, 97–102.

53

The English Model of Gifted Education

Ruano-Borbalan, J. C. (2006). Policy-making to promote personalised learning. In Schooling for tomorrow: Personalising education. Paris: OECD (Chapter 5. pp. 75–97). Schwartz, S. (2004). Fair admissions to higher education: Recommendations for good practice report of the admissions to higher education steering group. London: HMSO. SEU (1998). Bringing Britain together: A national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. London: Social Exclusion Unit. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triarchic theory of intelligence. In Sternberg R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1059 Sternberg, R., & Grigorenko, E. (Eds.). (1997). Intelligence, heredity and environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tempest, N. R. (1974). Teaching clever children, 7–11. London: Routledge. Woolf, A. (2002). Does education matter?: Myths about education and economic growth. London: Penguin.

Chapter 54

Enhancing Creativity in Curriculum Joyce VanTassel-Baska and Bronwyn MacFarlane

Abstract This chapter provides insight on the role of effective instructional strategies in enhancing creativity among gifted students. Creative characteristics vary among people and across disciplines, and no one person possesses all of the characteristics nor displays them all the time. Definitions of creativity, creative characteristics, trait and process views, and developmental perspectives are provided as a foundation to understanding the construct and its evolution in research. Findings on highly creative and eminent individuals are discussed in relation to the impact of intrinsic motivation, insight, and adversity on creative outputs. The important role of teacher understanding of creativity and the related cognitive, emotional, and environmental components necessary for creative work are tied to the use of specific instructional models for enhancing creativity including creative problem solving, problembased learning, and higher level thinking processes; the role of mentors and work ethic are also explored. Options for school-based applications to enhance creativity in students are delineated as well as a discussion of issues in teaching and assessing creativity.

Introduction Einstein believed that imagination is a more valuable quality than knowledge. This view is generally held by gifted educators as well. We tend to devalue traditional academic achievers in favor of more original, nonconforming thinkers and producers, and finding creatively gifted individuals and nurturing them through specialized programs has been a major mission of the field since the early 1950s. Creative characteristics vary among people and across disciplines, and no one person possesses all of the characteristics nor displays them all the time. It is important to note that the research regarding creative characteristics are mostly derived from studies on creative adults and those traits are still developing in K-12 students.

Definitions

Various definitions of creativity and the creative characteristics of individuals exist. J. P. Guilford, a maKeywords Creativity · Teaching creativity · Creative jor contributor in the field of creativity research, deteaching · Innovation instructional techniques · Instrucscribed creativity as being grounded in the ability to tional · Innovation design · Curriculum · Critical thinkmanipulate ideas in fluent, flexible, elaborate, and origing · Giftedness inal ways. His view, embodied in the structure of intellect model and cited in his now famous American Psychological Association presidential address (Guilford, 1950), sees creativity as not related to specific domains but as more exogenous and transferable in its manifestations of mental manipulations. The work of J. VanTassel-Baska (B) College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA Paul Torrance is based strongly on this perspective as e-mail: [email protected] well (Torrance, 1967; Torrance and Myers, 1970). L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 54, 

1061

1062

Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1977), in a classic longitudinal study of art students, found creative productivity in later life to be highly related to problemfinding ability during student days. Thus, creativity has also come to be associated with problem-finding behavior (Runco and Nemiro, 1994). Sternberg’s view of creativity is strongly linked to insight, a quality that has been found in various studies to distinguish the creative products of subjects (Sternberg, 1985). Ochse (1990), after reviewing the lives and works of many creative producers, declared that the most important distinguishing characteristic they possessed was the desire and proven ability to work hard at their chosen profession. That link of work ethic and creative accomplishment had been noted earlier by Berry (1981). Ochse (1990) defined creative people as those who have been recognized by expert opinion as having contributed something of original value to the culture and deliberately excluded those who simply live unconventional lives or who are creative in classroom-type or test tasks. More recent approaches to decisions about who is creative have centered on the societal validation of experts in the field of the quality of creative products generated (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Jensen (1996) cited three criterion measures of interest in defining creativity: (1) overt production, meaning the sheer number of publications and patents of an individual, (2) professional recognition awards, and (3) peer judgment. He viewed the creative act as made up of several parts, including the individual’s processing ability and dispositional characteristics, how his or her ideas are translated, the social context for engaging in creative behaviors, and the social context for executing creative work. The combination of these parts, however, still results in creative undertakings that vary by degree as well as kind. By contrast, Bandura (1986) offered a more pragmatic view of societal validation, noting that the most acceptable innovations are those that meet the criterion of low cost/high benefit compatibility with existing socio-technical systems and those that have low complexity. It would seem that innovations meeting these criteria are at a lower level than those typically acclaimed as creatively productive. Treffinger (1996) has reviewed and presented more than 100 different definitions from the literature. Aleinikov, Kackmeister, & Koenig (2000) offered 101 contemporary definitions from children and adults. Treffinger, Young, Selby, & Shepardson (2002) noted

J. VanTassel-Baska and B. MacFarlane

that while different theorists, researchers, or educators use the term creativity, they may be referring to very different constructs, including cognitive abilities, personality traits, and past experiences.

Trait Views Trait-specific definitions of creativity have been an important part of the history of creativity in the field of gifted education, with a strong emphasis placed on the characteristics of the creative personality as the chief set of indicators that would predict creativity. The same characteristics, as well as others, have been found in the psychiatric literature describing developmentally advanced individuals in terms of their overexcitabilities (Dabrowski & Piechowski, 1977; Piechowski, 1984). A sample list (Barron, 1969; Runco, 1993b) of characteristics constituting the creative personality includes independent in attitude and social behavior, dominance, introversion, tolerance for ambiguity, and openness to stimuli. There has been much debate about whether creativity and giftedness are separate phenomena. In a landmark study, Getzels and Jackson (1968) found that highly creative people were a distinct group from highly intellectual people, at the IQ range of 120 and above. Most research supports the notion that not all gifted individuals are highly creative and not all creative individuals are highly gifted. However, it is widely recognized that significant overlap exists. Indeed, the interplay between cognitive and personality factors has been perceived as the new landscape of creativity research (Runco, 1993a).

Process Views Gardner’s view of creativity expressed in Creating Minds (1993) is based on three factors and their interrelationships: the relationship between the child and the master, the relationship between an individual and the work in which he or she is engaged, and the relationship between an individual and the other persons in his or her world. Two dominant themes emerged from Gardner’s analytic study of the lives of Freud, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and

54

Enhancing Creativity in Curriculum

Gandhi: (1) the role of intensive social and affective forces that surround creative breakthroughs and (2) the personal sacrifices made somewhat willingly by creative individuals in the pursuit of their work. Like Amabile and others, Gardner saw creativity as wedded to thorough, often precocious mastery of a field, but he also argued that an intuitive understanding of ideas obtained in childhood is important to creative discovery later. Sternberg and Lubart (1993) presented a model of creativity that considers six factors: intelligent processes, knowledge, thinking styles, personality, motivation, and environment. They suggested that educating the creatively gifted student should focus on the following elements: 1. Encouraging children to find, define, and redefine problems rather than solve presented problems 2. Teaching the flexible use of knowledge 3. Encouraging role making and global styles of thought rather than rule executing and local styles 4. Teaching children to tolerate ambiguity as they strive for creative solutions to problems, to persevere, and to take sensible risks in their work 5. Teaching children to focus on their tasks rather than the potential rewards 6. Changing classroom environments to encourage and reward students’ creative work Feldman’s view of creativity is grounded in his study of prodigies and what young, highly competent individuals in a field of study are like and capable of doing. He found that by the age of 10 years, prodigies have many times mastered the level of expertise in a field of study associated with adult performance, that prodigies are present in most fields even though they seldom are systematically sought out, and that prodigious development is dependent on early sustained interest of the child and support both in the family and from external resources (Feldman, 1988). Society, then, must be ready to recognize and support particular talent areas in order for the creative development of prodigies to be sustained. Piirto’s (2002) view of creativity is based on her firsthand knowledge and experience with creative artists of various types, but perhaps most of all with writers. To Piirto, creative performance in the arts involves a combinational pattern of personal, social, and educational variables. High-level intellectual promise is coupled with attendance at the right liberal

1063

arts college, the establishment of a coterie of other people equally committed to the enterprise, and the personal need to achieve based on life experiences. Piirto’s work on creative writers continues to inform on the importance of considering the domain-specific nature of work as the basis for understanding the context for creativity, the importance of multiple influences that work, and the interplay of internal and external variables. The search for how cognitive and personality variables interact appears to be of strong interest to other researchers as well. Jensen (1996) acknowledged the importance of ideational fluency, access to a wide relevance horizon, and suspension of critical judgment as key variables in creative work along with mental energy, defined as noncognitive cortical arousal. Rothenberg (1993), who studied the process of Janusian thinking as a way of understanding creativity, noted that creativity involves a process of two disparate elements occupying the same mental space and then being brought together in the act of articulation. Dudek (1993) viewed primitive drive coupled with a cognitive search for symbolic solutions as a defining feature of creative people. This interplay of affect and cognition appears to be a distinctive sign of creativity at work. Weisberg (1986) viewed creativity as multidimensional, heavily dependent on organizing past experience in novel ways, and linked to inclination and concentration to produce. In other theoretical work on creativity, Eysenck (1993) posited that psychoticism is a central trait of high creativity in individuals. Similarly, Simonton (1995) showed highly creative people to be higher than normal on a psychopathology scale but lower than psychotics. Barron (1969) added that psychoticism is held in check by ego strength in creative individuals who are functioning at high levels. Psychoticism has been correlated with aggressive, cold, egocentric, impersonal, impulsive, anti-social, unempathetic, creative, and tough-minded traits – traits that are also often cited in research on creativity. The cognitive aspect of Eysenck’s (1993) theory of creativity revolves around intelligence as a search process to bring together ideas from memory in novel ways to solve problems, with both speed of information processing and error rate being relevant to the success of the search. Eysenck also linked creativity to a cognitive style he called “over-inclusiveness,” noting that 50% of creative achievement can be explained by scores on a word association test. His theory further

1064

posits that creativity is more related to temperament than cognition, to personality traits rather than cognitive abilities. Eysenck’s view of the concept of creativity is also revolutionary in that he saw creativity as highly genetically based and irregularly distributed among the population, making it more difficult to consider as a variable of interest in school-based programs. Support for his perspective on creativity as unique achievement with an irregular pattern of distribution has come from studies of highly creative people in various fields which showed that a small percentage of individuals are responsible for the majority of work in the fields. Based on the work of the historiometrist Simonton (1984), we know that a few creative people account for the major creative products of a society at a given time. For example, 20% of musical compositions played today can be attributed to three composers – Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach. Only 16 composers are responsible for half the pieces heard in modern repertoire. Only one scientist out of 10,000 would produce 100 papers. Only 10% of scientists are responsible for 50% of the total works published. Jensen (1996), however, explained this J-curve phenomenon as resulting from the synergy of several constructs that are normally distributed making up creativity. From a societal point of view, Martindale (1993) has contended that creative achievement is maximized when egotism and individualism pervade a society – in other words, when social psychoticism is high. This view appears to have its roots in Arieti’s (1976) notion of a permissive society that is open to individual divergence.

J. VanTassel-Baska and B. MacFarlane

sition with creative achievement. That is, individuals associated with accelerated expertise acquisition are more likely to produce their best work at a younger age, to produce at higher rate across their career, to continue creative output during later years in life, and to attain a higher level of distinction (Simonton, 1991a, 1991b, 1992, 2006).

The Role of Play

The importance of the role of play in creativity has been noted in numerous studies. Theoretically, play fosters the development of cognitive and affective processes that are important in the creative act (Russ, 2003). Pretend play involves the use of fantasy and symbolism. Fein (1987) stated that pretend play is a symbolic behavior in which “one thing is playfully treated as if it were something else” (p. 282). The use of imagination is important in pretend play, as is affect (Singer and Singer, 1990; Russ, 1993). Russ (2003) identified divergent thinking as central to both play and creativity. Both cognitive and affective processes in play have been related to divergent thinking in children. In a longitudinal study, quality of fantasy and imagination in play predicted divergent thinking over time (Russ, 2003). Divergent thinking itself was relatively stable over time. In determining whether play can facilitate creativity, studies have found that play facilitates insight and divergent thinking. In a review of studies regarding the role of play on creativity, Russ (2003) found that children can be taught to improve their play skills. However, Russ also synthesized the literature gaps and suggested future research studies should (1) investigate specific Developmental Perspectives mechanisms that account for the relationship between play and creativity; (2) develop play intervention The developmental process of creativity has been techniques that improve play skills; and (3) carry out considered from many different directions. While longitudinal studies with large enough samples to creativity has been defined by various scholars, Lee enable the application of statistical procedures such as and Lee (2002) suggested creativity to be a factor path analysis. comprised of personal creative ability and creative In a Japanese study examining the relationship bepersonality. It could produce new and unique forms of tween playfulness and creativity in preschool children, personal ability and personality over developmental data indicated that no relationship existed. However, periods. Simonton (2006) discussed the variance in qualitative teacher data did describe such a relationship individuals for how and when creativity emerges and (Taylor and Rogers, 2001). In examining differences in determined that even more critical than the rate of Korean and European-American preschoolers’ pretend expertise acquisition is the association of rate of acqui- play behavior and intracultural variations and influ-

54

Enhancing Creativity in Curriculum

ences, Farver, Kim, & Lee-Shin (2000) found that creativity scores along with interactive style and positive social interaction with peers all significantly predicted pretend play. In analyzing the use of a teacher checklist in assessing eligible students for admittance to a gifted and talented program, Gittman and Koster (2000) developed a new rating scale to describe the extent of students’ learning, motivational, and creativity characteristics in response to teacher feedback requesting increased input in placement decisions. The skilled incorporation of play and educational interventions that foster creativity among students must be inter-woven for effectiveness of results. James (2004) found that in a case study in which the student participant moved from being resistant and fearful to being willing to take emotional and artistic risks to generate her own ideas, interactionist creativity theories informed the instruction used with the student. As individuals mature and the nature of play changes, creativity performance and self-reporting of creativity may be affected. Cheung, Rudowicz, Yue, & Kwan (2003) examined the creative development of 859 university students and found general monotonic decline in creativity with years of study. They also found general superiority of verbal creativity among students of the humanities and social sciences and high scores reported on self-assessed creative traits and products among business students. Han (2003) examined the relationships among children’s creative performances in three domains and the relationships between those children’s general creative thinking skills and their creative performances. In examining domain specificity of creativity, the results found considerable intra-individual variation in creative ability by domain.

Time for Creativity A common myth is the assumption that people are most creative when under a pressured time crunch. However, Amabile, Hadley, & Kramer (2002) found that the opposite is true. In reviewing 177 diary entries, the researchers found that creative thinking under extreme time pressure is unlikely when people feel on a treadmill or on autopilot. Instead creative thinking was found to be more likely when people feel they are on an “expedition or a mission.” This finding has im-

1065

portant implications for pedagogy fostering creativity among students. Time is necessary, and careful pacing is crucial. In multiple action research studies focused on self-directed professional development, Marshak (2001) examined the improvement of teaching in the high school block period. Marshak asserted that block periods of 75, 90, 100 minutes or longer require good teachers to continue to develop and improve their teaching skills while keeping the student engaged over a longer time period. The fewer class meetings in the semester or year and the rich potential for creativity and innovation provided by the longer period all combine to offer a challenge and an opportunity to high school teachers and indeed to students to go deeper into the subject area. Block period teaching requires attention to time issues such as the transition that students make from middle school with 50-minute short periods to high school with 100-minute block periods and other issues such as instructional planning of the block period and innovative and complex uses of time with the longer period. Coleman, King, Ruth, & Stary (2001) concluded that the development of higher order thinking skills including creative thinking cannot be accomplished in a short amount of time. It takes both time and experience for cognitive development and higher level thinking to develop.

Instruction for Teaching Creativity Recent research highlights instructional techniques to aid the development of creativity. The design and true implementation of educational programs built to authentically foster creativity are essential. In a study evaluating the implementation of a physical education program designed to promote creativity in preschool children, Zachopoulou, Trevlas, & Konstadinidou (2006) collected quantitative and qualitative data on 251 four- and five-year-old preschool children with a pre- and post-program creative thinking evaluation. Information was provided about children’s behavior during their participation in the proposed physical education program. The creative physical education program study was based on the following phases: (a) to design and formulate 20 physical education lessons in order to provide children with opportunities to develop their creative thinking through the use of movement elements, motor skills, and

1066

movement exploration; (b) to train early educators to be able to implement the proposed physical education program; (c) to undertake an initial evaluation of preschoolers; (d) to implement the program; and (e) to undertake a final evaluation of preschoolers. The results showed that with participation in the physical education program, the children improved their creative fluency and imagination. Furthermore, Wang (2003) conducted an investigation of the effects of a creativity movement program on the motor creativity of preschool children. Results indicated that the experimental group of children participating in the creative movement program did have significantly higher levels of motor creativity as measured through the Torrance Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement scale than did those children in the control groups, suggesting that the creative movement program was essential to the development of the total child. In teaching children creative dance, Chen (2001) determined appropriate constructive-oriented teaching strategies necessary to engage students’ critical thinking skills when learning creative dance. In using constructive-oriented teaching strategies to facilitate creativity, Chen determined the three salient themes were (a) relating students’ knowledge and ideas to lessons to spark dispositions, (b) encouraging and facilitating students’ inquiries and creative products, and (c) engaging students’ metacognition in refining the quality of dance movement. To encourage students to become creative and critical thinkers and movers, Chen’s study suggested constructivist teachers take on active roles of scaffolders, coaches, and mediators in the process of guiding students in creating divergent movement responses, self-regulating the quality of movement responses, and drawing their final movement conclusions. Chen & Cone (2003) also examined how elementary students’ use of critical thinking in their movement actions was inspired by an expert teacher’s task design, task presentation, and instructional strategies during creative dance lessons. Results indicated what Chen had suggested that teachers helped students generate critical thinking elements by providing instructional scaffolding and presenting sequential, open-ended tasks and learning cues. Additionally, Nilges (2004) determined that movement meaning during a creative dance unit was found to be a multifaceted construct that varied among students within and across five dimensions.

J. VanTassel-Baska and B. MacFarlane

Nilges suggested that in order to enhance meaningful learning, educators need to consider reflexively (a) their philosophical orientation relative to knowledge making and curriculum values, (b) instructional techniques that help students’ access meaning, and (c) the contribution of dance as a form of meaning. Based on these various theories and ways of seeing creativity, we can synthesize the current research for creativity by acknowledging its four major aspects: 1. Internal factors that include intelligence, personality, and psychoticism, 2. External factors that take into account domainspecific variables, educational variables, and social-cultural variables. 3. Facilitating processes that are relevant to creative production, such as ideational fluency, novelty, cognitive style, insight, use of imagery, and metacognitive strategies. 4. Personal catalysts which are both internal and external in orientation that work together to create drive, such as task motivation, disposition to achieve, crystallizing experiences, and significant paragons or mentors (VanTassel-Baska, 1998). These four aspects, then, must work in a synergistic way to result in high-level creative productivity and significant contribution to a field. Our current understanding of theories underpinning creativity provides little practical assistance in deliberate attempts to develop it, especially in young students whose knowledge base and experiences are more limited than those of older individuals.

The Demographics of Creativity Ochse (1990) discussed the issue of quantity and quality of production among the creative as well, noting that quality appears to result from quantity because of the incremental nature of creative work over time (Campbell, 1960). In other words, the more experience one has in an area, the more likely that relevant insights will occur about that area which might lead to creative products of high quality. Highly creative individuals tend to be only or firstborn children (Albert, 1980) and to come from professional homes where they are exposed to intellectual ideas and materials (Zuckerman, 1977). In a study

54

Enhancing Creativity in Curriculum

1067

by Walberg and Redding (1989), creative productivity was found to be nurtured by a home curriculum that stressed conversation, discussion of reading and television, and peer activities. Yet in the homes of highly creative children, Albert (1969) also found what he called a “wobble effect,” a decided lack of total cohesion, with pressure sometimes placed on the creative child to succeed.

have shown that deep immersion in a problem over time coupled with the serendipitous recognition of an analogy and one’s reasoning through it can lead to insight. Perkins’ work on creativity is useful for thinking about the construct in terms of school-based programs for the gifted. He noted the following principles:

Insight and Creativity

Adversity and Creativity: The Lives of Eminent People

1. Creativity involves traits that make a person creative; the act of creativity calls for traits and behaviors that are not intrinsically creative, such as planIntrinsic Motivation and Creativity ning and abstracting. 2. Creativity requires four fundamental acts: planning, abstracting, undoing, and making means into ends. Much work on motivation theory has direct relevance 3. The guiding force that creates a product is purpose for understanding creativity. Amabile (1983) saw inor intent. trinsic motivation as central to doing creative work. 4. Creating is a process of selecting among many posCsikszentmihalyi (1990) viewed intrinsic motivation as sible outcomes by using such approaches as notessential to experiencing optimal learning in any doing opportunities and flaws, directed remembering, main and in any culture. He described an intrinsic moreasoning, looking hard, setting work aside, using tivation pattern, which he called “flow,” as having the schemata, and problem finding. following characteristics: 5. Creativity involves a style, values, beliefs, and tactics that especially favor selecting for a creative 1. An individual is faced with tasks he or she can do product (Perkins, 1984). 2. An individual is able to concentrate on those tasks 3. The tasks have clear goals and immediate feedback Perkins’ work would suggest the need for gifted 4. The individual experiences deep involvement in the programs to develop depth of student learning in key task to the exclusion of everyday life issues areas of aptitude and interest coupled with an environ5. Concerns for the self disappear ment that encourages thoughtful planning and work6. The sense of time is altered ing through projects if continued creative efforts are Creative individuals appear to be those having suffi- to occur. One of the benefits of such instruction may cient intrinsic motivation to engage for prolonged peri- be building confidence for continued creative efforts ods of time in the act of creating where the task be- (Delcourt, 1993) since systems that support autonomy comes paramount over personal needs or time con- and self-esteem also increase innovative achievement (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). straints.

Early on, creative thought was considered somehow “magical,” many times because the connections between what was currently accepted and what was discerned by a creative person in a given field were not easily followed by an average person. Mental leaps, as Perkins (1981) called them, had to be taken. The fields of science, mathematics, and technology provide many examples of mental insights that occurred at a propitious but seemingly unusual time for the creator. Yet studies of insight (e.g., Perkins, 1981; Sternberg, 1985)

Many researchers interested in the study of eminent personalities have hypothesized a connection between creativity and adversity (Albert, 1980; Piirto, 1991; Therivel, 1993; VanTassel-Baska, 1989, 1996). This hypothesis views creative production as emanating from a set of drives brought about by traumatic experiences in youth, crystallizing experiences at critical periods, or preconditions of personality and/or disability that might affect a particular outlook on

1068

life. Goertzel and colleagues (Goertzel, Goertzel, Goertzel, & Hansen, 2004; Goertzel, Goertzel, & Goertzel, 1978) found that a high number of the 300 eminent personalities they studied had a much higher than normal rate of troubled backgrounds, including family breakups, deaths of siblings, and alcoholism. Some professions appeared particularly overrepresented by eminent people with such adversities. Generals, political leaders, and writers all had uncommonly high adversity profiles. Simonton (1994) noted the tendency of eminent individuals toward a higher psychopathic profile than less-productive gifted individuals. In a study of the writers Bronte and Woolf, VanTassel-Baska (1996) proposed that mental instability and a high-strung nature were added reasons for those women to turn to writing, as writing offered relief and an outlet for such symptoms. Jamison (1995) found intense creative states with many features of hypomania present in close to 90% of her sample of creative artists and writers. Such interpretations lend support to Freud’s view that the unconscious sublimation of energy generated by instinctual drives into creative work is responsible for the progress of civilization. Obviously, later psychologists such as Adler, Rank, and Maslow considered creativity much more closely linked to positive drives of mentally stable people to improve and move toward a more self-actualized state. Rogers, too, linked creativity to something positive, characterizing it as being open to experience (Ochse, 1990). The adversity view of creativity obviously contrasts sharply with the supportive family model that is usually perceived as a fundamental part of the talent development process (Bloom, 1985). However, even in cases of creative people with high adversity profiles, at least one family member has usually been found supportive of the individual, and family played an important part in the lives of such eminent people. Coleman et al. (2001) suggested that web-based projects provided students with unlimited access to information and activities using the higher order thinking skills of application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Post-intervention data indicated a slight increase in student use of higher order thinking skills. Researchers felt that if more cognitive experiences and opportunities were provided during primary years, students would have a better foundation for higher level skill use. Coleman, King, Ruth, and Stary also recommended that students need numerous opportu-

J. VanTassel-Baska and B. MacFarlane

nities to discover, explore, and problem solve through the use of the Internet. Siau (2000) presented the concept of knowledge discovery, that is, the process of searching for associations in large volumes of computer data, as an aid to creativity. Technology-based concept mapping techniques may have a positive impact on creativity and writing achievement among primary age students. Riley and Ahlberg (2004) found that students using a concept mapping intervention significantly improved their nonverbal reasoning age-standardized scores over a control group of students with a higher baseline whose scores remained constant. However, evidence linking the score improvements precisely to the technologybased concept mapping intervention was inconclusive. While correlation studies show that writing achievement and creativity are linked and that writing achievement and concept mapping connectivity are linked, there is no conclusive evidence for linking concept mapping connectivity with creativity. Findings suggest that technologically based concept mapping provides a reliable framework to structure writing and that it may enhance learning. Dewitte & Lens (2000) found that students who focused on the details of studying had enhanced performance and persistence. A delineation was made between academic procrastinators and nonprocrastinators. While non-procrastinators performed higher in both realms, procrastinators only enhanced their task persistence and performance on creative response indicators following focused study on detail, but decreased their performance on recall questions.

Teaching Creativity in the Arts In researching the incorporation of improvisation in primary music classrooms, Koutsoupidou (2005) found significant associations between instructor characteristics and the likelihood of those teachers using improvisation with students. Teachers who were more likely to incorporate improvisation were also more likely to be older and/or more experienced, have a teaching qualification, and had improvisation included in their higher education. Furthermore, Dogani (2004) found that in order to affect the quality of children’s learning positively, teachers needed to draw their teaching from a range of their previous experiences as creative individuals, musicians, and teachers and engage with the stu-

54

Enhancing Creativity in Curriculum

dents in the activity of creative music making. In examining the relationship between an educational intervention using creative drama activities on psycho-social behaviors, student survey results did not show any significant effects from the treatment upon the students’ self-concept, social skills, or problem behavior (Freeman, Sullivan, & Fulton, 2003). Furthermore, children participating in an arts infusion program at three grade levels scored higher than control group students in creativity, self-esteem, and arts appreciation, but data for academic achievement were mixed (Luftig, 2000).

1069

the method of systematic inventive problem solving within an academic course. This method, which aims at complementing divergent thinking in problem solving and design, is gaining increased attention in industrial and academic frameworks. The results showed that individuals can improve their problem-solving abilities by combining methods based on “ordered thinking” and “disordered thinking,” and that none of these approaches has preference over the other. Considerable additional work is required, however, to investigate how the proposed approach could be used to foster creative thinking in science and technology studies in schools.

Teacher Understanding of Creativity The discovery and support of a peer group, approximately the same age with congruent interests, is one of the most important things that can be done for incipient students in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Lederberg (2006) discussed the importance of the role of like-ability peers and providing quality content reading for students in developing their talent. Common interest clubs, labs, and special schools provide public forums for students to exercise their abilities in more scope with others than with just solitary thinking. Furthermore, Lederberg emphasized that school-age students’ time is better spent reading for content preparation than practicing in school labs. Seo, Lee, & Kim (2005) noted that with the passing of the Korean Gifted Education Act, creativity has come to the forefront in considering the future of Korea’s economic prosperity in the global economy. This study examined the understanding of creativity among Korean science teachers of gifted students and asked 60 teachers to complete an open-ended questionnaire about their understanding of creativity. The findings indicated that while teachers had a thorough understanding of the cognitive component and a strong association of creativity with intellectual ability, they overidentified with the cognitive component, showing less awareness of the personal and environmental components of creativity. In order to shift the teachers’ understanding of creativity to a more balanced view, Seo, Lee, and Kim encouraged that personality and environmental components should be emphasized in teacher professional development programs. Barak (2006) examined information about how science and technology teachers learn, internalize, and use

Models of Instruction for Enhancing Creativity Several models of creativity are useful to consider in creating a curriculum in this critical area for gifted learners. Following is a discussion of different models of instruction regarding the teaching of creativity and creative thinking skills. One of the most viable models at a theoretical level is Amabile’s (Table 54.1), which focuses on the relative importance of three areas – domain-specific knowledge and the ability to apply it to worthy problems, motivation and interest, and creativity-relevant skills that support contributions to a given domain of learning. Major emphases within her model include a focus on developing products judged to be exemplary by those in the domain and the importance of contexts for nurturing creative behavior (Amabile, 1983; 2001). Regardless of whether one identifies students as creatively gifted, it is generally accepted in the field of gifted education that all gifted students can benefit from the direct teaching of creativity-relevant skills. Indeed, recent research on the use of creative problem solving (CPS) and problem-based learning (PBL) lends support to the idea that all students can benefit from such instruction (Dods, 1997; Schack, 1993; VanTassel-Baska, Bass, Ries, & Poland, 1998). Borland (1988) demonstrated that ideational fluency, the ability to generate multiple ideas for a given problem or scenario, in particular is a skill that can be successfully taught to groups of gifted students and is highly correlated with intelligence.

1070

J. VanTassel-Baska and B. MacFarlane Table 54.1 Amabile’s view of creativity Domain-relevant skills

Creativity-relevant skills

Task motivation

Includes: • Knowledge about the domain • Special skills required • Special domainrelevant “talent”

Includes: • Appropriate cognitive style • Implicit or explicit knowledge of heuristics for generating novel ideas • Conducive work style

Includes: • Attitudes toward the task • Perceptions of own motivation for undertaking the task

Depends on: • Innate cognitive abilities • Innate perceptual and motor skills • Formal and informal education

Depends on: • Training • Experience in idea generation • Personality characteristics

Depends on: • Initial level of intrinsic motivation toward the task • Presence or absence of salient extrinsic constraints • Individual ability to cognitively minimize extrinsic constraints

Creative Problem Solving

making, and (f) acceptance finding – implementing the solution (Morrison & Dungan, 1992). In 2000, Treffinger, Isaksen, and Dorval introduced Creative problem solving (CPS) provides a strong extensive changes in the language of the CPS framefoundation for creativity training and is the basis for work and expanded its emphasis as a system. The CPS such programs as Future Problem Solving and Odyssey system now incorporates productive thinking tools of the Mind. In CPS, people work in groups and solve for generating and focusing options. The framework problems through the use of divergent and convergent enables individuals and groups to recognize and processes (Piirto, 2007). The Osborn–Parnes creative problem-solving process structures problems into five act on opportunities, respond to challenges, balance stages: fact finding, problem finding, idea finding, creative and critical thinking, build collaboration and solution finding, and acceptance finding. To progress teamwork, overcome concerns, and consequently through the five stages, appropriate idea generation manage change (Treffinger and Isaksen, 2005). Treand idea evaluation must be applied (Clapham, 2003). ffinger (2000) outlined the basic principles and ground In 1992, the Ohio Department of Education published rules for creative problem solving (see Table 54.2). details regarding the steps and processes involved in creative problem solving. The steps were delineated as (a) a problem exists, (b) data findings – clarifying Problem-Based Learning the problem with information collection, (c) problem finding – stating the problem, (d) idea finding – generating solutions, (e) select a solution – decision Problem-based learning (PBL) is an approach that incorporates many of the principles of differentiated curTable 54.2 Basic principles and ground rules for creative problem solving (Treffinger et al., 2000)) When generating options

When focusing options

1. Defer Judgment – separate generating from judging 2. Strive for quantity. 3. “Freewheel” and accept all options 4. Seek combination

1. Affirmative Judgment – use a balanced approach; consider positive as well as negative 2. Be deliberate and explicit 3. Consider both novelty and appropriateness 4. Stay on course

54

Enhancing Creativity in Curriculum

riculum with some of the newer constructivist ideas of learning and curriculum development. Students are placed in authentic problem situations where there is insufficient information to comprehend and solve a problem, and students must investigate the problem in depth to find solutions. In a PBL episode, students engage directly with a real-world problem in which they take charge of the learning pace, style, and organization. Autonomy in learning takes center stage in this model that also fosters collaboration and shared responsibility. Gallagher (1997) found that innovation is comprised of four elements: an ill-structured problem, substantive content, student apprenticeship, and selfdirected learning. Gallagher’s research suggested that PBL is better than traditional instruction on long-term information retention, conceptual understanding, and self-directed learning and was especially salient in instructing gifted learners.

1071

relevant material together with the problem and allow your mind to invent ways to connect them. The joining together of seemingly unrelated elements, synectics is similar to creative problem solving in that it addresses all stages of the creative problem-solving process yet emphasized differentiation between idea generation and idea evaluation. However, synectics relies heavily on metaphors to “make the strange familiar and the familiar strange” in order to look at objects differently and in a new way (Clapham, 2003). An example scenario using synectics follows. The group facilitator will first ask group members to brainstorm ideas that build onto one another’s. However, the facilitator intentionally injects metaphor in various forms. For the topic of “staying fit,” the synectics facilitator could inquire, “What are some ways to stay fit in your life?” Group members would then respond with examples such as daily walks, cardio aerobics, running, various sports, and the levels of exercise and food intake. Then, the facilitator may pick one of those and Synectics ask: “What are some mechanisms in exercise/intake balancing?” “Describe the mechanisms as a two word The key to understanding synectics can be found in book title?” “Now use a personal metaphor.” What its name, made up of the Greek roots syn (bring to- would it feel like if you were the running shoes? Or the gether) and ectics (diverse elements). Synectics oper- tennis racket? Or the extra pound being shed during the ates on the principle that by using the mind’s ability exercise? Think of a silly and outrageous idea. to connect irrelevant elements of tough, surprising new ideas may later develop into feasible solutions to problems (Weaver and Prince, 1990). The research development of the synectics process began in 1955 when Lateral and Vertical Thinking it was determined that when the group was disorderly, confused, and uncertain, it was the most effective in The two forms of lateral and vertical thinking characgenerating new lines of thought. If the leaders tried terize the thought processes in the de Bono program to impose more order and direction, the group became which is a packaged program used in many schools inless effective. Weaver and Prince concluded that there ternationally. By focusing on cognitive strategies to inis not a separate form of thinking that can be isolated crease the development of new ideas, de Bono stresses and called “creative.” Rather, they found that the pro- the necessitation of these two processes to simulate escess of inventing new ideas was indistinguishable from cape and provocation. De Bono emphasizes the importhe process of learning. Both rely on “connection mak- tance of positive emotions for lateral thinking (pattern ing.” Generative thinkers are both critical and creative switching in looking at the world) and thus uses stratein their thinking. In applying synectics to the class- gies like humor, fantasy, and play (Clapham, 2003). room, the technique of excursion is used. The purpose The concept of six thinking hats enables the individof an excursion is to see problems and solutions in new ual to focus on one specific type of outcome. The six hats represent six different ways of thinkand unusual ways. There are three simple steps in using excursion. First, put the problem temporarily out of ing. White is worn by the neutral and objective thinker mind to get distance from the problem. Second, delib- who is concerned with facts and figures. Red repreerately focus on apparent irrelevancy to generate sur- sents the emotional, intuitive view that acts on hunches prising or unusual connections. Third, force-fit the ir- and impressions, rather than on logical reasons. Black

1072

points out the negative aspects of a situation, the errors in logic, and possible consequences of a course of action. Yellow maintains optimistic, positive thinking and focuses on benefits and constructive ideas. Green represents creativity, deliberate innovation, and thinking about new approaches to problems. Blue stands for control and organization of thinking and of the other thinkers (De Bono, 1985). In using de Bono’s six thinking hats technique, students can be divided into groups and each given a hat made from construction paper in one of the six colors. When presented with a problem to solve or an issue to discuss, the students must stay in the role according to the hat they are wearing. This method helps them to be aware of some of the ways in which people think about issues and to focus on deliberate thinking (Cramond, 2005). Students can discuss multilayered topics with the thinking hats. For example, the topic of a uniform school dress code could be analyzed by students from multiple perspectives with the six thinking hats and expand student opinions on a topic on which they may have a one-sided view. A variation in using the technique is to pair students across hat colors – white and red, black and yellow, green and blue – to discuss an issue. Another variation is to have students discuss an issue for a certain amount of time in one hat and then switch hats and discuss it again in another hat. This allows students to “try-on” different modes of thinking that may be unnatural to them (Cramond, 2005).

J. VanTassel-Baska and B. MacFarlane

One technique for developing metaphors is to bebecause . gin with a stem: (Something) is like Then students can complete the phrase with an unlikely object and tell how they are alike. Another variation would be to ask students to choose nouns at random by drawing word cards from a hat or picking words from a dictionary. Then, they would have to find ways to connect the two nouns to illustrate how they are alike and become more involved in using new vocabulary throughout a unit of study (Cramond, 2005).

Talents Unlimited

The Talents Unlimited Model incorporates three major objectives in developing talent including (1) the training of teachers in their recognition and nurturing of students’ multiple abilities, (2) the development of materials to support the integration of the talent processes into the regular instructional program, and (3) the enhancement of student performance in multiple talent areas, including academic achievement; creative thinking; and self-concept. The Talents Unlimited Model emphasizes the role of academic talent in helping students acquire basic knowledge and skills. The thinking talents, including productive thinking, decision making, planning, forecasting, and communication, are taught to help students learn to process and use their knowledge base to think creatively and critically about concepts and issues in curricular areas and to solve problems which require the application of basic knowledge and skills in new contexts. The goal of the Talents Unlimited Model is Metaphor Development to enhance student abilities to manipulate basic knowledge to solve problems in all areas of the school curAn individual’s creation of a metaphor can be a riculum in ways that are consistent with successful result of the attempt to find meaning in life within problem solving in the world of work (Schlichter and a specific context (Provenzo, McCloskey, Kottkamp, Palmer, 1993, p. 5). The Talents Unlimited Model is & Cohn, 1989). When someone forms an interpreta- effective with groups of students representing diversity tion, they are constructing a personal understanding in interest, socioeconomic level, and intellectual ability and creatively transforming their comprehension and achievement (Treffinger, 1996). (Runco, 2005). Piaget (1976) said, “To understand is to invent,” and he emphasized that the individual must invent the understanding for themselves. This transThe Role of Mentors in Nurturing formation leads to originality as expressed through personal creativity (Runco, 2005). Samples (1976) Creativity provides ways to help people form metaphors. He also notes that almost all theorizing in science is Less direct approaches to facilitating creativity also appear to be successful. The role of mentors and sigmetaphoric.

54

Enhancing Creativity in Curriculum

nificant others has been cited often in the literature as highly relevant to helping individuals become creative producers (Feldhusen and Pleiss, 1994). Along these lines, Simonton (1994) made an interesting distinction between individuals who are creative in the arts and those who are creative in the sciences. For scientific creativity to develop, mentoring appears to be an important part of the process; for artistic creativity to flourish, the role of a nonpersonal paragon, an individual who can be emulated from afar, appears to be the more critical model. Further, Simonton showed that although mentors and paragons may be important to the attainment of creative potential, it is in the master–apprentice relationship that the growth appears to take shape rather than through any form of direct teaching. Mentors provide a strong emotional support base as well as being a model of high-level functioning in a field (Persson, 2000; Bennetts, 2001; Davalos & Haensly, 1997). It is this dual perspective of feeding both the affective and cognitive needs of students that makes the relationship so satisfactory and in many instances successful.

1073

r r r

from school in order to carry out aspects of learning not possible in a school setting. Mentors – Students need teachers and other adults in their environment who can counsel and guide their work to be at a high level and contributory to a given area of learning. Supportive environment – Students need a classroom that is conducive to creative production, one that is open, warm, accepting of experimentation and of taking risks that may bring failure. Use of creative skills – Students need to employ the specific skills of fluency, flexibility, and elaboration to work-related tasks.

School-Based Applications of Creativity Schools can do many things to enhance creativity in their students. Studies of talent development would suggest that getting out of the way would be a good one (Bloom, 1985), meaning that schools need to be more facilitative of learning and less directive. Gifted programs need to be especially sensitive to providing the following kinds of options for students.

The Role of Work Osche (1990) and other researchers who have studied creative individuals in a number of different fields (Simonton, 1999; Torrance, 1993) have all been struck by the sheer work and effort that creative individuals are willing to devote to their area of specialty. Such individuals are clearly in love with the work but also continue to persevere with it over time in the face of criticism, lack of support, and much time being spent alone. The single variable that these researchers focus on, however, is the capacity and actualization of work over time. Thus the ways to instill creativity in young people may not vary considerably from the fundamental values found basic to schooling. The major differences appear to lie with the following issues:

r r

Creative Expression Gifted students should be routinely exposed to different artistic media and ways to express themselves orally, in writing, and kinesthetically in creative modes. Journaling of thoughts and ideas should be routinely encouraged. Creating visual representations of ideas should be used with students as a curriculum staple regularly. The use of movement and dance in the classroom should also be employed as a creative outlet and mode of expression.

Aptitude and Interest Matches Work autonomy – Students need to feel that they are planning out their own work, making choices about what they do and how they do it. Time allocation – Students need work time that is in larger chunks in order to be productive with their projects, many times requiring whole days away

Gifted students can develop creative skills more readily if the area in which they are working reflects strength and an area in which they have a passionate interest. By allowing students to work in an area of investigation that they find challenging, their

1074

J. VanTassel-Baska and B. MacFarlane

knowledge base is deepened and it sets the stage for the habits of mind necessary to do creative work. Even though gifted students may have the propensity in many given areas, their passions, interests, and ability need to coalesce for the potential of creative production.

high school. It would entail both a focus on course taking and self-assessment of strengths and weaknesses. It also should emphasize future college and career opportunities that best match student values, interests, and aptitudes.

Links to the Professions

Multiple Options and Outlets for Creativity

Gifted students will become the next generation of professionals in a society and must therefore be appropriately prepared to contribute at ever higher levels in that profession. In order to gain insights into different professions, these students will require both mentorships and internships to acquaint them with the activities, beliefs, and culture of a variety of professions. Only then can they begin to envision themselves working as a professional in a given area.

Classroom assignments and projects should always provide alternative ways to demonstrate proficiency, thus allowing students flexibility in how they handle assigned work. As much as possible, such activities should also be open ended, allowing students greater freedom to create their own responses to stimuli in a form that they find pleasing.

Emphasis on Metacognition A major part of doing creative work involves selfknowledge as well as deep knowledge of a domain. Learning how to plan, monitor, and assess one’s work Another way to help students understand creativity is a critical part of becoming more creative. Reflectis to have them read biographies and autobiographies ing on ideas and constantly considering alternatives is of individuals who have demonstrated creative break- a crucial way to ensure that fresh ideas have an airthroughs in a variety of fields. Understanding their ing. Jonas Sallks’ notebooks demonstrated his daily development, their discovery of their own talent, as thoughts on his work. David Macaulay’s daily train well as the process by which they work toward mak- ride ruminations on architecture found their way into ing a contribution all provide students with deeper in- his books. sights into what it means to be creative in a domain. Many times gifted students underestimate the number of “failures” and the insurmountable effort and work manifest in persons of eminence. Understanding how creative production occurs provides students Open-Ended Activities and Approaches with not only cognitive awareness but also affective awareness. Teachers of the gifted can contribute greatly to enhancing creativity in their charges by employing openended questions and problem-based scenarios or simulations that put the learner into hypothetical situations. Academic Counseling Creative thought is stimulated by being asked to consider unusual connections such as in synectics where Schools also need to be aware of the importance of aca- students respond to queries such as how is a snake like demic counseling as a technique to help students find a doorknob, or helping students create analogies to bettheir strongest interests and abilities. Such counseling ter understand difficult concepts, such as the earth’s roneeds to begin by sixth grade and continue through tation around the sun.

Reading of Biographies

54

Enhancing Creativity in Curriculum

Emphasis on Targeted Extracurricular Options

1075

any domain in which they were not taught (Perkins & Salomon, 1989). Moreover, some limited recent evidence suggests that educational programs based on a creativity model may in fact facilitate ongoing aspects of the creativity process. Two nascent longitudinal studies have attempted to link creatively oriented gifted programs to later adult productivity. Delcourt (1994) studied 18 secondary students who were identified by Renzulli’s Three Ring Conception of Giftedness and were provided with Type III enrichment activities 3 years after completing a creatively oriented gifted program. All of the students were found to be satisfied with the nature and extent of the project work with which they were engaged. Moon & Feldhusen (1993) studied 23 students who participated for at least 3 years in an enrichment program using the Purdue Three-Stage Model of creative development. They found that all of the students planned to attend college and 78% planned to undertake graduate training. The study noted that aspiration levels for girls were tempered by interest in marriage and children. Other types of study designs have been used in attempts to correlate creative performance in adulthood with creativity test scores in childhood. Cramond (1994), for example, studied the lifetime productivity of individuals identified at elementary ages by the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking as having creative potential. Results demonstrated that lifetime creative achievement was moderately correlated with the test scores. Two other variables were found also to have important correlational value: an enduring future career image during childhood and a mentor at some time. Torrance (1993), in a related study, reported on two exceptional cases of “beyonders” who outperformed any prediction of their success in the adult world. He found that these individuals possessed such characteristics as love of work, perseverance with tasks, lack of concern with being in the minority, enjoyment of working alone, and immersion in work-related tasks. It is interesting to note that all of these characteristics are highly related to the ethics of intrinsic motivation, individualism, and work.

Walters and Gardner (1984) have identified crystallizing experiences – the occurrence of life events that serve as markers to how an individual may focus his or her life’s work and resultant productivity – as an important aspect contributing to creative achievement. Gruber (1981) noted that for Darwin that crystallizing experience was the year he spent at sea on the Beagle. In the teaching of creativity, there may be much to be said for the provision of high-powered experiences outside the classroom that are intensive enough to affect students in profound ways. Many internship and summer program experiences now provided to gifted students appear to have just this kind of impact. For many students who are gifted, extracurricular options are a prime area for use of their creative talents. Competitions in areas of strength also provide ways for students to demonstrate their creative skills. Future Problem Solving and Odyssey of the Mind are two examples of team competitions where creative skills are center stage. Competitions in all arts areas, including writing, also provide a testing ground for creative talent. In addition to competitions, opportunities to perform in debate, drama, and chess (Rifner and Feldhusen, 1997) all activate not just academic skills but creative ones as students learn to excel in a group as well as individually. When researchers and historians study the origins of the important innovations that change our world, they discover that they are never the isolated insight of a solitary individual; they always involve collaborative teams and complex organizations (Bassalla, 1988; Brown & Duguid, 2000; Hargadon, 2003; Sawyer, 2006a). Since world problems are large in scale and complex in nature, the collaborative creativity of teams and organizations may make a difference (Sawyer, 2006b). Yet the body of research on the teaching of creativity is hardly convincing. Tannenbaum (1983), in his comprehensive review of creativity programs, concluded that creativity training is successful in the short run for the specific skills it purports to develop. We The Teaching of Creativity Skills know little, however, about long-term impacts or transfer to other contexts. More current research suggests In order to enhance creative thinking in the classroom, that generic creative thinking skills do not transfer to it is useful to consider some direct teaching of rele-

1076

vant skills that can be applied to a student’s area of specific interest and that has transfer value to other areas as well. These skills are based on Guilford’s (1950) ideas about divergent thought and popularized by Torrance in a number of studies and publications. The specific skills to be addressed are those of fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality. The following describes each in turn and applies them to school-based learning situations. Learning to think creatively within domains is a critical skill for product development of all sorts. Fluency is the ability to think of or to recall many ideas or problems for a given concept or task. For example,

J. VanTassel-Baska and B. MacFarlane

are, the greater the base for evaluation and selecting viable ideas becomes. 4. Work with others in the combination of ideas. No one person’s ideas belong to that person; all ideas at this stage are thrown into the communal pot. Ideas that sprout from other ideas that have been suggested are fair game.

Brainstorming is an excellent method of helping students learn how to think creatively in groups. It can be thought of also as a problem-solving method, but the emphasis is on creating conditions and developing skills for the production of new, unique, or original ideas and solutions. During the exercise of fluent thinking, students 1. What are all the ways we might rewrite this equa- may also be taught to develop their capacities for tion and maintain the equality? flexible and original thinking. Originality implies 2. What are all the possible reasons you can think of that selective combination occurs. Davidson and for Hamlet’s strange behavior toward Ophelia? Sternberg described this as a process of synthesizing 3. What are all the ways that might be used to enhance or associating hitherto unconnected ideas into a this chemical reaction? new unique or original whole. Thus, the objectives 4. Think of all the reasons you can for the anarchist or directions for some school tasks might read as behavior of Sacco and Vanzetti. follows: 5. What are all the types of stitches that would best 1. Think of new and original ways of grafting plants. accommodate the design for this blouse? 2. Develop a whole new set of operational symbols to From these examples it should be clear that creative denote mathematic operations. Try to create signs thinking can be developed or taught in all school subthat look like their function. jects. There is one of the essences of insight behav- 3. Combine several forms of essay to create some new ior described by Davidson & Sternberg (1984) called genre of essays. “selective comparison.” In selective comparison, one is 4. What are some new ways to help people better unable to relate new information to information acquired derstand the complexities of different cultures? in the past. Flexibility is the capacity to produce new ideas that Slightly elaborated and usually carried out in groups is the process of brainstorming (Osborn, 1953). It com- deviate from normally expected ideas and to be able bines all of the basic divergent thinking skills described to produce new ideas that shift categorically during the above. Through long experience, a common set of rules process of idea production. As with originality, the esfor brainstorming has emerged. Treffinger and Feld- sential condition for idea production is a fluency-like task demand, and as with originality, the major effort husen (1980) proposed the following guidelines: to induce and train the cognition called “flexibility” 1. Do not criticize or evaluate any ideas produced. is through a metacognitive process of becoming aware Ideas should be free flowing and unhampered at this and striving to use the capacity. The following objecstage. tives or tasks are especially designed to evoke flexible 2. Crazy or humorous ideas are acceptable. Wild thinking: imaginative ideas may become practical when forced into problem situations from a different 1. What are all the ways you can devise for weighviewpoint. The emergence of an unusual or bizarre ing very light objects other than a balance or spring idea may spark yet another idea. scale? 3. Quantity of ideas is important. Quality of ideas is 2. Shakespeare’s MacBeth is a tragedy. What are ways not considered at this point. The more ideas there you could change it to become a comedy?

54

Enhancing Creativity in Curriculum

3. Write a short essay that has no active verbs in it. 4. Write alternative forms of a given equation in which there are square root operations on both sides of the equal signs.

1077

Issues in Teaching Creativity While the research-based ideas shared about teaching creativity seem quite appropriate for use in gifted programs, there are frequently concerns raised by parents and educators alike when the emphasis of any program of study veers from the traditional model of operation. Even though the PBL and the CPS model for creative problem solving have support behind them in respect to instructional effectiveness, many people will still need to be convinced of their efficacy in a standards-based learning environment that values short-term achievement over long-term learning. Thus the following issues may be considered by program coordinators in mounting the teaching of creativity as a gifted program staple.

All of these illustrations open the door to flexibility or alternate ways of viewing an otherwise familiar concept or process. Elaboration is a process of filling in details, developing ideas, or bringing an abstract concept to life. Fluent, original, and flexible thinking may yield many ideas. An intermediate process calls for evaluation or judgment concerning the worth of ideas produced. Judgment, of course, always implies criteria. Could this idea be developed and yield some practical payoff? If developed, would it alleviate hunger? Would people find it humorous? Once the 1. The professional development of teachers of the evaluation or judgment is made and an idea is selected gifted and all classroom teachers in the techniques for expansion or development, the elaboration process of creative thinking and how to apply the models to has begun. Like the fluency function, it involves specific subject areas is critical to the success of the filling in details, thinking of illustrations, deciding enterprise. on color, determining quantities, and selecting a 2. Orientation sessions for principals on what to look mode of communication. Here are some elaboration for in classrooms that are enhancing creativity and tasks: what behaviors to observe in faculty using such techniques is crucial to ensuring a systemic understanding of the value of such approaches. 1. Think of many ideas for a story emphasizing char3. Parent education sessions are also advisable to hold acterization. Select the best idea. Develop it as a across the course of a year. These sessions may foshort story. cus on the following areas for dialogue and discus2. Think of a number of possible experiments in gesion: netic mutations. Select the most original. Design a complete experiment. (a) How to locate mentors or friends for your child 3. Identify major problems facing the homeless in US (b) How to select effective summer programs and cities. Select the most serious one. Design a solution camps to that problem. (c) How to incorporate the arts into your child’s life (d) The role of museums in family life These same skills are central components of the (e) The art of dinner table conversation most popular models that focus on problem solving, (f) Modeling creative habits of mind namely creative problem solving (CPS) and problembased learning (PBL). Each of these models employs If parents take an active role in promoting crea strong emphasis on these four skills in order for stuative development in their children, the combined dents to be effective at addressing real-world problems. efforts of school and home can begin to demonstrate Yet each of the models also forges a connection to crita true accumulation of positive acts that can only ical thinking as well through specific stages of the profacilitate the future development of gifted students cess that require students to engage in analysis, syntoward greater creative productivity. thesis, and evaluation activities on the road to a solu- 4. Helping students understand their role and respontion that can be articulated in a real-world document or sibility for learning in a creativity-centered classvenue. room is also a central consideration. Students need

1078

to be provided coaching on appropriate behaviors in relating to their peers, relating to their work, and operating in a planful way about their own learning.

J. VanTassel-Baska and B. MacFarlane

tive. In Plucker’s (2000) re-analysis of the Torrance Longitudinal Data, he found that just under half of the variance in adult creative achievement could be explained by divergent thinking test scores, with the contribution of divergent thinking being more than three times that of intelligence quotients. Assessing and Measuring Creativity Rudowicz (2004) explored the applicability of the Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCTMeasurement plays an important role in evaluating DP) in the Hong Kong Chinese cultural context with instructional efforts related to creativity (Treffinger a sample of 2,368 Hong Kong Chinese students aged et al., 2002), and many resources have been developed 12 to 16 years. The study compared the psychometric over the past four decades to assess creativity and cre- properties of scores on the TCT-DP (internal consisative thinking across the life span. A growing interest tency, interrater, and test–retest reliability coefficients) in creativity has been accompanied in past decades by for the Hong Kong sample to findings for European a search for appropriate assessment tools, which has samples. Empirical evidence provided support for the led to the development of creativity tests, specifically reliability and structural and discriminant validity of those designed for measuring creative potential in the TCT-DP, and the psychometric properties of the test children (Mouchiroud & Lubart, 2001). Furthermore, were comparable to those obtained for earlier reported measurement commonly plays an important role in European samples. evaluating instructional or training efforts related to creativity (Treffinger et al., 2002), and while the use of tests in education are commonly criticized, often Alternative Assessments for Creativity justifiably, most problems are not caused by the tests themselves, but by their misuse. New findings on the use of the Torrance Tests of Newer approaches to identifying creativity among stuCreativity have recently emerged. There is disagree- dent populations have focused sharply on the following ment among researchers as to whether creativity is a considerations: unidimensional or multidimensional trait and much 1. Demonstration of competence in a particular doof the debate revolves around the most widely used main or performance area measure of creativity, the Torrance Tests of Creative 2. The use of portfolios, performance tryouts, and exThinking (TTCT) (Kim, Cramond, & Bandalos, 2006). hibits of work to make judgments The literature base strongly supports the TTCT 3. The use of panels of experts in the specific domain (Cropley, 2000). The TTCT has been translated into under consideration to make decisions about the relmore than 35 languages (Millar, 2002). It is highly ative quality of the products recommended in the educational field and is also Thus, there appears to be a clear shift away from used in the corporate world (Kim et al., 2006). It is the most widely used test of creativity (Colangelo & general assessments of creative potential and toward Davis, 1997) and has been used in more research than more specific approaches to identifying creative potenany other creativity test (Lissitz and Willhoft, 1985). tial in specific domains. The use of performance-based and portfolio apThe TTCT-Figural has had 25 years of extensive development and evaluation (Millar, 2002). In 2005, proaches for assessing creativity has also recently Cramond, Matthews-Morgan, Bandalos, and Zuo gained favor in school-based settings where use of updated information about the Torrance Tests of Cre- additional traditional assessment tools has limited ative Thinking (TTCT) by reporting on its predictive appeal. Performance-based assessment may be used to validity using structural equation modeling (SEM). identify and assess growth in creative thinking within They found that the TTCT can give more information domains. These non-traditional approaches assess not only about individuals’ strengths and weaknesses high-level performance authentically (i.e., in realistic from the scores of each of the five subscales but also contexts) and provide decision makers with credible about their types of creativity: innovative or adap- evidence of study growth.

54

Enhancing Creativity in Curriculum

In judging the quality of a product or performance, a rubric gives a more descriptive, holistic characterization of the quality of students’ work than a conventional rating scale does. Portfolio assessment of creativity provides a cumulative portrait of student growth in the use of creative skills in product development with and across domains. Performance assessment requires students to construct a response, create a product, or perform a demonstration. Performance-based assessments (PBA) are evaluated based on judgments guided by criteria (VanTasselBaska, 2003). Quality control is an important issue. When designing performance-based assessments, educators must make decisions about content and scope, processes to be employed, and overall effect in respect to coherence. Schulman (1996) noted several key questions which developers of performance-based assessment must ask themselves to ensure that they institute appropriate task demands:

r r r r r r

What important concepts does this assessment task address? How can responses to this task information instruct? How does the task allow for a variety of responses and modes of response? What references do students have for knowing what is expected of them in these tasks? What other sources of evidence exist to support inferences made from the assessment? How does this task fit with learning goals and procedures?

1079

found through other means (VanTassel-Baska, Feng, & Evans, in press). However, it does little good to use these resources to find students with such demographic profiles if the programs provided do not nurture the very characteristics they have displayed on a performance task.

Conclusions If we teach gifted students nothing more than that creative work requires hard work over time, we will have done them a great service. Too often creativity is seen as spontaneous, in the moment, and a state to be acquired rather than a process to work at. Such ideas are best put to rest in the service of helping gifted students acquire the tools necessary to be productive in the real world of work as well as in areas of passionate interest which their “day job” may not address. The teaching of creativity should be a requirement in school as a deliberate strategy to meet the required standards of learning, all of which ask students to think in creative ways in order to master them successfully. Consequently, the role of creativity in a curriculum for gifted learners cannot be left to chance. Yet we know little of its impact beyond the use of the deliberate models described in this chapter. For example, the use of open-ended activities and questions is a strategic way to ensure that creativity is incorporated in instruction. The direct teaching of creativity-relevant skills is another strategy to consider coupled with domainspecific approaches that honor the disciplines under study. Curriculum that is robust for gifted learners must surely meet the criteria of (1) offering creative opportunities for task demands and products, (2) using research-based model likes CPS and PBL to structure creative problem solving, and (3) teaching the underlying skills of creativity and applying them to each subject area domain. In the absence of any of these criteria, a curriculum for gifted learners will be diminished in its potential impact on authentic learning.

Based on current understanding of the problem of under-representation of low-income and minority students in gifted program and preliminary studies, the use of performance-based assessment as a non-traditional tool for showing growth in gifted programs appears to be a promising development (VanTassel-Baska, Johnson, & Avery, 2002). The use of performance-based tasks and tryout strategies for identifying these special populations appears to be a more promising way to approach the identification of creativity potential in schools. Such tasks emphasize the importance of working (1) at higher levels of thought, (2) working on open-ended tasks, and (3) engaging in real problem-solving Implications for Research behaviors (VanTassel-Baska, 2002). More students from low-income and minority backgrounds have Because the omnipresence of standards-based reform been identified using such techniques than have been has redirected teaching in many locales to a narrow

1080

set of basic skills that will prepare students for state assessment tests, the world of educational practice may be losing its experiential possibilities to enrich student lives through emphasizing the high-level skills of creative thinking and problem solving. New studies are clearly needed to explore the conditions for learning in today’s schools, the degree to which creative dimensions are a facet of teaching, the preferred approaches being employed, and the care taken to assess the results. More studies of direct interventions that use creative techniques would also be useful to bolster the evidential base for such models of learning. Intervention studies within subject domains of specific creativity models would also provide better insights into the impact of integrating the skills and processes of creative thinking with the rigors of content. While intervention research would be useful, also of importance would be the validation of measures to assess creative products within domains. While scales exist to judge generic products, very few provide the level of detail or relevance necessary to judge projects done by students in history, literature, mathematics, and science. Such tools would provide a better arsenal of measures to assess creativity within the parameters of school-based learning.

References Albert, R. (1969). Genius: Present-day status of the concept and its implications for the study of creativity and giftedness. American Psychologist, 24(8), 743–753. Albert, R. (1980). Family positions and the attachment of eminence: A study of special family positions and special family experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(2), 87–95. Aleinikov, A., Kackmeister, S., & Koenig, R. (Eds.). (2000). Creating creativity: 101 definitions. Midland, MI: Alden B. Dow Creativity Center, Northwoods University. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. Amabile, T.M. (2001). Beyond talent: John Irving and the passionate craft of creativity. American Psychologist, 56(4), 333–336. Amabile, T. M., Hadley, C. N., & Kramer, S. J. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from ERIC database. Arieti, S. (1976). Creativity: The magic synthesis. New York: Basic Books. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barak, M. (2006). Teaching methods for systematic inventive problem-solving: Evaluation of a course for teachers. Re-

J. VanTassel-Baska and B. MacFarlane search in Science and Technological Education, 24(2), 237– 254. Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York: Holt; Rinehart, & Winston. Bassalla, G. (1988). The evolution of technology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bennetts, C. (2001). Fanning the aesthetic flame: Learning for life. Gifted Education International, 15(3), 252–261. Berry, C. (1981). The Nobel scientists and the origins of scientific achievement. British Journal of Sociology, 32, 381–391. Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine. Borland, J. (1988). Cognitive controls, cognitive styles, and divergent production in gifted preadolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11(4), 57–82. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380–400. Chen, W. (2001). Description of an expert teacher’s constructivist-oriented teaching: Engaging students’ critical thinking in learning creative dance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(4), 366–375. Chen, W., & Cone, T. (2003). Links between children’s use of critical thinking and an expert teacher’s teaching in creative dance. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22(2), 169–185. Cheung, C., Rudowicz, E., Yue, X., & Kwan, A. S. F. (2003). Creativity of university students: What is the impact of field and year of study? Journal of Creative Behavior, 37(1), 42– 63. Clapham, M. (2003). The development of innovative ideas through creativity training. In L. Shavinina, The international handbook of innovation. Elsevier Science Ltd. Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (1997). Handbook of gifted education. Needham Heights, MA: Viacom. Coleman, C., King, J., Ruth, M. H., & Stary, E. (2001). Developing higher-order thinking skills through the use of technology. (Doctoral dissertation, Saint Xavier University and Skylight Professional Development Field-Based Master’s Program), 54. (EDRS Price MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.) Retrieved December 13, 2006, from ERIC database. Cramond, B. (1994). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: From design through establishment of predictive validity. In R. Subotnik & K. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 229– 254). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cramond, B. (2005). Developing creative thinking. In F. Karnes & S. Bean (Eds.), Methods and materials for teaching the gifted (2nd ed., p. 330). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Cramond, B., Matthews-Morgan, J., Bandalos, D., & Zuo, L. (2005). A report on the 40-year follow-up of the torrance tests of creative thinking: Alive and well in the new millennium. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(4), 283. Cropley, A. J. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity tests worth using? Roeper Review, 23(2), 72–79. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. New York: Harper Perennial.

54

Enhancing Creativity in Curriculum

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Dabrowski, K., & Piechowski, M. M. (1977). Theory of levels of emotional development (Vols. I & 2). Oceanside, NY: Dabor Science. Davalos, R. A., & Haensly, P. A. (1997). After the dust has settled: Youth reflect on their high school mentored research experience. Roeper Review, 19, 204–207. Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1984). The role of insight in intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(2), 58–64. De Bono, E. (1985). Six thinking hats. Boston: Little, Brown. Delcourt, M. A. B. (1993). Creative productivity among secondary school students: Combining energy, interest; and imagination. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 23–31. Delcourt, M. A. B. (1994). Characteristics of high-level creative productivity: A longitudinal study of students identified by Renzulli’s Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness. In R. Subotnik & K. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 401–436). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Dewitte, S., & Lens, W. (2000). Exploring volitional problems in academic procrastinators. International Journal of Educational Research, 33(7–8), 733–750. Dods, R. F. (1997). An action research study of the effectiveness of problem-based learning in promoting the acquisition and retention of knowledge. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(4), 423–437. Dogani, K. (2004). Teachers’ understanding of composing in the primary classroom. Music Education Research, 6(3), 263– 279. Dudek, S. Z. (1993). Creativity and psychoticism: An overinclusive model. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 19–192. Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological1nquiry, 4(3), 141–178. Farver, J. A. M., Kim, Y. K., & Lee-Shin, Y. (2000). Within cultural differences: Examining individual differences in korean american and european american preschoolers’ social pretend play. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(5), 583–602. Fein, G. (1987). Pretend play: creativity and consciousness. In P. Gorlitz & J. Wohlwill (Eds.), Curiosity, Imagination, and Play. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Feldhusen, J. F., & Pleiss, M. K. (1994). Leadership: A synthesis of social skills, creativity, and histrionic ability? Roeper Review, 16(4), 293–294. Feldman, D. H. (1988). Creativity: Dreams, insights, and transformations. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 271–297). New York: Cambridge University Press. Freeman, G. D., Sullivan, K., & Fulton, C. R. (2003). Effects of creative drama on self-concept, social skills, and problem behavior. Journal of Educational Research, 96(3), 131–138. Gallagher, S. A. (1997). Problem-based learning: Where did it come from, what does it do, and where is it going? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(4), 332–362. Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books. Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1977). The creative vision. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Getzels, J., & Jackson, P. (1968). Creativity and intelligence: Exploration with gifted students. New York: Wiley.

1081 Gittman, E., & Koster, J. (2000). Analysis of a teacher checklist used for assessment of students eligible for placement in a gifted and talented program. U.S.; New York: December 13, 2006, from ERIC database. Goertzel, V., Goertzel, M., Goertzel, T., & Hansen, A. (2004). Cradles of eminence: Childhoods of more than 700 famous men and women (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Goertzel, Y., Goertzel, M. G., & Goertzel, T. (1978). Three hundred personalities: A psychosocial analysis of the famous. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gruber, H. E. (1981). Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444– 454. Han, K. (2003). Domain-specificity of creativity in young children: How quantitative and qualitative data support it. Journal of Creative Behavior, 37(2), 117–142. Hargadon, A. B. (2003). How breakthrough happens: The surprising truth about how companies innovate. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. James, P. (2004). Beyond her own boundaries: A portrait of creative work. Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research in Art Education, 45(4), 359–373. Jamison, K. R. (1995). Touched with fire: Manic depressive illness and the artistic temperament. New York: Macmillan. Jensen, A. R. (1996). Giftedness and genius: Crucial differences. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kim, K. H., Cramond, B., & Bandalos, D. L. (2006). The latent structure and measurement invariance of scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Figural. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 459–477. Koutsoupidou, T. (2005). Improvisation in the English primary music classroom: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Music Education Research, 7(3), 363–381. Lederberg, J. (2006). Interviews with Joshua Lederberg – August 20 and September 2, 2006. Identifying and developing talent in STEM: A planning meeting. National Academy of the Sciences, September 25–26, 2006. Lee, S., & Lee, K. (2002). Integrative creativity test for preschoolers. Seoul: SIGT. Lissitz, R.W., & Willhoft, J. L. (1985).A methodological study of the Torrance Tests of Creativity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 1–11. Luftig, R. L. (2000). An investigation of an arts infusion program on creative thinking, academic achievement, affective functioning, and arts appreciation of children at three grade levels. Studies in Art Education, 41(3), 208–227. Marshak, D. (2001). Improving teaching in the high school block period. A scarecrow education book. U.S.; Maryland: Scarecrow Press. Martindale, H. (1993). Psychoticism, degeneration, and creativity. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 209–211. Millar, G. W. (2002). The Torrance kids at mid-life. Westport, CT: Ablex. Moon, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1993). Accomp1ishments and future plans of high school seniors who participated in

1082 an elementary enrichment program. Roeper Review, 15(3), 176–178. Morrison, M., & Dungan, R. (1992). Model for the identification of creative thinking abilty. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education. Mouchiroud, C., & Lubart, T. (2001). Children’s original thinking: An empirical examination of alternative measures derived from divergent thinking tasks. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162, 382–401. Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27–43. Nilges, L. M. (2004). Ice can look like glass: A phenomenological investigation of movement meaning in one fifth-grade class during a creative dance unit. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75(3), 298. Ochse, R. (1990). Before the gates of excellence: The determinants of creative genius. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Perkins, D. N. (1981). The mind’s best work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Perkins, D. N. (1984). Creativity by design. Educational Leadership, 42(1), 18–25. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18, 16–25. Persson, R. S. (2000). Survival of the fittest or the most talented? Deconstructing the myth of the musical maestro. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(1), 25–38. Piaget, J. (1976). To understand is to invent. New York: Penguin. Piechowski, M. (1984). Developmental potential of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(2), 80–88. Piirto, J. (1991). Encouraging creativity in adolescents. In J. Genshelf & M. Bireley (Eds.), Understanding gifted adolescents (pp. 104–122). New York: Teachers College Press. Piirto, J. (2002). My teeming brain. Understanding creative writers. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Piirto, J. (2007). Talented children and adults: Their development and education (3rd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Plucker, J. (2000). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalysis of Torrance’s (1958 to Present) longitudinal data. In P. Miller (Ed.), Testing: Let’s put it to the test. Mensa Research Journal, 45, 117–134. Provenzo, E. F.Jr., McCloskey, G. N., Kottkamp, R. B., & Cohn, M. M. (1989). Metaphor and meaning in the language of teachers. Teachers College Record, 90(4), 551–573. Rifner, P. J., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). Checkmate: Capturing gifted students’ logical thinking using chess. Gifted Child Today, 20(1), 36–39. Riley, N. R., & Ahlberg, M. (2004). Investigating the use of ICTbased concept mapping techniques on creativity in literacy tasks. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(4), 244– 256. Rothenberg, R. (1993). Creativity-comp1ex and healthy. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 217–221. Rudowicz, E. (2004). Applicability of the test of creative thinking-drawing production for assessing creative potential of Hong Kong adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 202.

J. VanTassel-Baska and B. MacFarlane Runco, M. A. (1993a). Creativity, casuality, and the separation of personality and cognition. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 221– 225. Runco, M. A. (1993b). Divergent thinking, creativity, and gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 16–22. Runco, M. A., & Nemiro, J. (1994). Problem finding, creativity, and giftedness. Roeper Review, 16(4), 235–241. Runco, M. (2005). Creative giftedness. In R. Sternberg and J. Davidson (Eds.), Conception of giftedness (2nd ed.) (pp. 295–312). New York: Cambridge University Press. Russ, S. W. (2003). Play and creativity: Developmental issues. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 291– 303. Russ, S.W. (1993). Affect and creativity: The role of affect and play in the creative process. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Samples, B. (1976). The metaphoric mind: A celebration of creative consciousness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Sawyer, R. K. (2006a). Explaining creativity: the science of human innovation. New York: Oxford. Sawyer, R. K. (2006b). Think piece. Identifying and developing talent in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: A planning meeting. National Academy of the Sciences Center for Education, September 25–26, 2006. Schack, G. (1993). Effects of a creative problem-solving curriculum on students of varying ability levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 32–38. Schack, G. D. (1993). Involving students in authentic research. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 29–31. Schlichter, C. & Palmer, W. (1993). Thinking smart: A primer of the talents unlimited model. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press. Schulman, L. (1996). New assessment practices in mathematics. Journal of Education, 178, 61–71. Seo, H., Lee, E. A., & Kim, K. H. (2005). Korean science teachers’ understanding of creativity in gifted education. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(2–3), 98–105. Siau, K. (2000). Knowledge discovery as an aid to organizational creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(4), 248–258. Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity, and leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Simonton, D. K. (1991a). Career landmarks in science: Individual differences and interdisciplinary contrasts. Developmental Psychology, 27, 119–130. Simonton, D. K. (1991b). Emergence and realization of genius: The lives and works of 120 classical composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 829–840. Simonton, D. K. (1992). Leaders of American psychology, 1879–1967: Career development, creative output, and professional achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 5–17. Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York: Guilford. Simonton, D. K. (1995, November). The Terman thesis: Giftedness and/or genius. Invited presentation at the National Association of Gifted Children Convention, Tampa, FL. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwin perspectives on creativity. New York: Oxford University Press. Simonton, D. K. (2006). Talent development in the sciences: Conceptual definitions, distinctions, and dimensions. Identifying and developing talent in STEM: A planning meeting.

54

Enhancing Creativity in Curriculum

Paper for the National Academy of the Sciences, September 25–26, 2006. Singer, D. & Singer, J.L. (1990). The house of make-believe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ. New York: Basic Books. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1993). Creative giftedness: A multivariate investment approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 7–15. Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted children. New York: Macmillan. Taylor, S. I., & Rogers, C. S. (2001). The relationship between playfulness and creativity of Japanese preschool children. International Journal of Early Childhood, 33(1), 43–49. Therivel, W (1993). The challenged personality as a precondition for sustained creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 6(4), 413–424. Torrance, E. P. (1967). Education and the creative potential. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Torrance, E. P. (1993). The beyonders in a thirty-year longitudinal study of creative achievement. Roeper Review, 15(3), 131–139. Torrance, E. P., & Myers, R. E: (1970). Creative learning and teaching. New York: Dodd, Mead. Treffinger, D. J. (1996). Creativity, creative thinking, and critical thinking: In search of definitions. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning. Treffinger, D. J. (2000). Assessing CPS performance: Practical resources for assessing and documenting creative problem solving outcomes. third edition. U.S.; Texas: Prufrock Press. Treffinger, D., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1980). Creative thinking and problem-solving. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Treffinger, D., Isaksen, S., & Dorval, B. (2000). Creative problem solving: An introduction (3rd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Treffinger, D. J., & Isaksen, S. G. (2005). Creative problem solving: The history, development, and implications for gifted education and talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(4), 342. Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C., & Shepardson, C. (2002). In Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. (Ed.), Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. research monograph series. U.S., Connecticut: Order Department.

1083 VanTassel-Baska, J. (1989). Factors that characterize the developmental path of eminent individuals. In J. VanTassel-Baska & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of influence: The home, the self, and the school (pp. 146–162). New York: Teachers College Press. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1996). The process of talent development. In J. VanTassel-Baska, D. T. Johnson, & L. N. Boyce (Eds.), Developing verbal talent (pp. 3–22). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd ed.). Denver, CO: Love. VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G., Ries, R., & Poland, D. (1998). A national pilot study of science curriculum effectiveness for high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 200–211. VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Avery, L. (2002). Using performance tasks in the identification of economically disadvantaged and minority gifted learners: Findings from Project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 110–123. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Curriculum planning and instructional design. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company. VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A. X., & Evans, B. L. (2007). Patterns of identification and performance among gifted students identified through performance tasks: A three year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 218–231. Walberg, H., & Redding, S. (1989). Strengthening family ties. Momentum, 20(3), 65–67. Walters, J., & Gardner, H. (1984). The crystallizing experience: Discovering an intellectual gift. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 306–331). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Wang, J. H. (2003). The effects of a creative movement program on motor creativity of children ages three to five. Taiwan: December 13, 2006, from ERIC database. Weaver, T. & Prince, G. (1990). Synectics: Its potential for education. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(5), 378–388. Weisberg, R. (1986). Creativity: Genius and other myths. New York: W H. Freeman. Zachopoulou, E., Trevlas, E., & Konstadinidou, E. (2006). The design and implementation of a physical education program to promote children’s creativity in the early years. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(3), 279–294. Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite. New York: Free Press.

Chapter 55

Acceleration: Meeting the Academic and Social Needs of Students Nicholas Colangelo and Susan Assouline

Abstract The highly acclaimed publication A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004a), is the foundation for this chapter on academic acceleration. Highlighted information from Nation Deceived is presented in three tables; the 20 most important points about acceleration, the 18 forms of acceleration; and a treatment of the myths that surround the general issue of acceleration. The chapter includes a comprehensive discussion of the research supporting the benefits of academic acceleration. Finally, a case study of the decision-making process, which remains difficult for parents and educators – despite the extensive research supporting the benefits of acceleration – is presented as an application of the information provided by the chapter.

rior students in formal education” (1965, p. 238). In order to do this, acceleration represents first, and foremost, appropriate educational planning, which means matching the level and complexity of the curriculum with the readiness and motivation of the student. The elegance and simplicity of this concept – matching student readiness with complexity of curriculum – is the core of gifted education. Regardless of the elegance of using academic acceleration in matching the curriculum to the learner’s readiness, and despite the fact that acceleration has a long and consistent history of research supporting its educational effectiveness, school officials routinely avoid it. Throughout the history of education there are multiple examples of disparities between the research evidence on an issue and popular belief; however, when the issue is academic acceleration, the degree of disKeywords Acceleration · Academic and social ef- parity between the research-based evidence for accelfects of acceleration · Types of acceleration · Iowa eration and the application of the intervention is unparalleled. Acceleration Scale. This disparity exists because of two major issues: one is academic and the other is social. The academic Introduction concern revolves around the educator’s anxiety regarding a student’s ability to learn the material and hanAcceleration is a simple and elegant academic inter- dle the complexity. The belief is that the student may vention. Its purpose is to move students through the “learn” the material but not adequately comprehend the traditional curriculum at rates faster than typical or at content. The reasoning continues that such a superfiages younger than usual (Pressey’s 1949 definition, as cial understanding will become a negative at a later cited in Colangelo et al., 2004a). This definition has time in the academic preparation and progress of the not changed over the decades and the various iterations student. The second issue, which seems to cause even greater mirror what Gold so neatly captured as the educational goal of acceleration: “Reduce the time spent by supe- resistance in utilizing acceleration as an intervention, is the concern about the student’s social development. This is based on the belief that removing students from N. Colangelo (B) the traditional trajectory of a specific grade for a speThe University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA cific age jeopardizes their social development. e-mail: [email protected] L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 55, 

1085

1086

The negative energy from inaccurate beliefs about acceleration has neutralized the positive energy from research evidence, accumulated over the last 50 years, which highlights the academic and social benefits of acceleration. Despite those benefits, schools routinely avoid academic acceleration or set up unnecessary barriers to its implementation. Acceleration has become the classic casualty of belief trumping evidence. In 2004, after more than a decade of working with academically accelerated students and helping educators make appropriate decisions about academic acceleration, we authored a national report, A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students. The goal of the report was to eliminate the victimization of acceleration as an educational practice. The report is a synthesis of more than half a century of research on acceleration and gifted students. In a bold and deliberate manner it presents what we know about acceleration rather than what we fear about acceleration. It was our purpose to start a new dialogue about the role of acceleration in the education of gifted students. Nation Deceived is a two-volume publication that synthesized the information from eminent experts in the field and made this information understandable and accessible to educators throughout the nation. Since the 2004 publication of Nation Deceived, significant changes have occurred in the dialogue about acceleration. One important indicator of change is the number of people aware of the information discussed in Nation Deceived. As a consequence, the report has exposed the disparity between the beliefs that were driving educational practice and the research that has been ignored. Upon its publication, TIME Magazine (September 27, 2004) featured academic acceleration in general, and Nation Deceived in particular. In one fell swoop, the issue of the appropriateness of acceleration was brought to the attention of millions of households and educators. The media has continued to play a vital role in informing the nation; a variety of newspapers and radio and TV stations across the United States have carried the message of Nation Deceived. In addition to the 55,000 print copies of the publication in circulation, a website was established at the Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education (B-BC) to make the report available at no charge. In the 4 years since the website was established, more than 2.7 million visits to the website have been logged; as well, over 100,000 copies have been downloaded from the

N. Colangelo and S. Assouline

website. That Nation Deceived has been available in its multiple formats at no charge is due to the generosity of the John Templeton Foundation. The report continues to be available, at no cost, through the website (www.nationdeceived.org). The purpose of this chapter is to present some of the most critical findings from Nation Deceived by highlighting the academic and social effects of acceleration as well as by presenting some special issues. Table 55.1 presents the 20 most important points about acceleration as reproduced from volume I of Nation Deceived (Colangelo et al., 2004a, p. 2).1

Academic Effects of Acceleration Types of Acceleration Although acceleration is typically associated with whole-grade skipping, there are at least 18 types of acceleration (see Table 55.2) as delineated by Southern and Jones (2004) in volume II of Nation Deceived. These types are either subject based or grade based, and the type of acceleration varies with respect to the impact on the student as well as on the system. Figure 55.1 offers a continuum representing a way to consider the types of acceleration and numbers of students affected by a type. Before presenting the evidence supporting the academic effects of acceleration, we depict in greater detail a variety of issues associated with acceleration. Contrary to popular opinion, acceleration is more than a “grade skip”; as well, there is more to acceleration as an academic intervention than placement into another class. Southern and Jones (2004) identified five dimensions of acceleration that are useful in distinguishing among the 18 types presented in Table 55.2. The five dimensions include pacing, salience, peers, access, and timing. All but one of the dimensions, salience, are fairly self-explanatory. Salience refers to the degree to which the accelerative option is noticeable by others. Consequently, grade skipping, a very visible decision for many, including peers, educators, and other parents, is very high in salience. Enrollment

1 A Nation Deceived, V. I, is now available in the following languages: Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Japanese, Russian, Spanish. Go to www.nationdeceived.org

55

Acceleration: Meeting the Academic and Social Needs of Students

1087

Table 55.1 The 20 most important points regarding academic acceleration 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Acceleration is the most effective curriculum intervention for gifted children. For bright students, acceleration has long-term beneficial effects, both academically and socially. Acceleration is a virtually cost-free intervention. Gifted children tend to be socially and emotionally more mature than their age-mates. For many bright students, acceleration provides a better personal maturity match with classmates. When bright students are presented with curriculum developed for age-peers, they can become bored and unhappy and get turned off from learning. Testing, especially above-level testing (using tests developed for older students), is highly effective in identifying students who would benefit from acceleration. The evidence and mechanisms are available to help schools make good decisions about acceleration so that it is a low-risk/highsuccess intervention for qualified students. The Iowa Acceleration Scale is a proven, effective instrument for helping schools make decisions about whole-grade acceleration. The 18 types of acceleration available to bright students fall into two broad categories: grade-based acceleration, which shortens the number of years a student spends in the K-12 system, and subject-based acceleration, which allows for advanced content earlier than customary. Entering school early is an excellent option for some gifted students, both academically and socially. High-ability young children who enroll early generally settle in smoothly with their older classmates. Gifted students entering college early experience both short-term and long-term academic success, leading to long-term occupational success and personal satisfaction. Many alternatives to full-time early college entrance are available for bright high school students who prefer to stay with age-peers. These include dual enrollment in high school and college, distance education, and summer programs. Advanced Placement (AP) is the best large-scale option for bright students who want to take college-level courses in high school. Very few early college entrants experience social or emotional difficulties. When these do occur they are usually short-term and part of the typical adjustment process. Radical acceleration (acceleration by two or more years) is effective academically and socially for highly gifted students. Many educators have been largely negative about the practice of acceleration, despite abundant research evidence for its success and viability. To encourage a major change in America’s perceptions of educational acceleration, we will need to use all the engines of change: legislation, the courts, administrative rules, and professional initiatives. Effective implementation of accelerative options for gifted students with disabilities is time and resource intensive. It is important for parents to be fully involved in the decision-making process about their child’s acceleration. The few problems that have been experienced with acceleration have stemmed primarily from incomplete or poor planning. Educational equity does not mean educational sameness. Equity respects individual differences in readiness to learn and recognizes the value of each student. The key question for educators is not whether to accelerate a gifted learner but rather how.

in correspondence courses is less perceptible to others and would be viewed as low in salience. Equally helpful in distinguishing among the forms of acceleration is Rogers’ (2004) categorization into subject-based acceleration and grade-based acceleration. According to Rogers, grade-based acceleration shortens the number of years that a student is in the K12 system and subject-based acceleration permits exposure to advanced content at an earlier age than usual. A summary of research from Kulik, Lubinski, and Rogers, which was delineated in volume II of Nation Deceived (2004), is helpful in understanding the impact of acceleration as an intervention. Both Kulik and Lubinski are renowned for their meta-analyses of and/or longitudinal research about the academic effects of acceleration. The evidence from their work is indisputable: Acceleration results in growth in academic achievement (Kulik; Rogers). In fact, no other arrange-

ment for gifted children works as well as acceleration (Kulik). Contrary to popular belief that accelerated students regret the decision to skip a grade, Lubinski discovered that intellectually precocious students who experience educational acceleration in middle school and high school do not regret their decision to accelerate and a small percentage indicated that they regret not accelerating more.

Growth in Academic Achievement Educational research is often descriptive in nature or, at best, quasi-experimental. However, the meta-analyses conducted by Kulik and Rogers depend on results obtained through an experimental design (i.e., a control group and a treatment group). According to Kulik, “Meta-analysts thus added precision and weight to re-

1088

N. Colangelo and S. Assouline

and ability group. The short statistical answer is that the “median effect size in the studies was 0.80 . . . An effect size of 0.80 implies that the scores of the accelerated students were approximately one grade-equivalent above the scores of the bright, nonaccelerated students. The overall message from these studies is unequivocal: acceleration contributes greatly Subject-based forms to the academic achievement of bright students” 1. Continuous progress 2. Self-paced instruction (Kulik, p.15). 3. Subject-matter acceleration/partial acceleration When an educator is equipped with an understand4. Combined classes ing of effect size as a concept that encapsulates in5. Curriculum compacting formation relating to the effectiveness of an interven6. Telescoping curriculum 7. Mentoring tion, that educator is able to make informed decisions, 8. Extracurricular programs rather than decisions that are based on past personal 9. Correspondence courses experience. Kulik (2004) reported a 2002 study by 10. Concurrent/dual enrollment TM Boreman, Hewes, Overman, and Brown that evaluated 11. Advanced Placement more than 200 studies investigating the achievement 12. Credit by examination 13. Acceleration in college effects of multiple school-reform models. The Boreman et al. study revealed that only three models had views of research on academic acceleration. They not some proven effectiveness. They were Direct Instruconly identified relevant studies, but they showed ex- tion, School Development Program, and Success for actly how strong the statistical effects were in each All; however, the effectiveness was negligible (e.g., study and precisely how strong the evidence was on 0.08 for the 25 studies of Success for All). An effect the major questions about acceleration” (2004, p. 13). size of 0.08 is in stark contrast to an effect size of Since the early 1980s, Kulik (1997) has emphasized the 0.80. The latter represents nearly one academic year of “value-added” nature of meta-analyses when interpret- growth; the former does not quite represent one month ing results. The “value added” is through robust and of growth. consistent findings as well as through the use of effect size as a statistic to illustrate the degree of impact of Long-Term Academic Effects study findings. Because meta-analyses use results from experimental studies, the effect-size statistic represents Lubinski’s chapter (see pp. 23–38) in volume II of Na“the standardized difference between treatment and tion Deceived offers a different perspective on the nocontrol means on an outcome measure” (Kulik, 2004, tion of effectiveness. Results from longitudinal studies p.14). Therefore, questions about the effectiveness of offer an analysis of acceleration from those individuals acceleration as an intervention for a group of students who have been through the process. It is the nature of as compared to a same-aged control group can be longitudinal studies to look back on an intervention and answered both descriptively and statistically. The short analyze a variety of attributes. The longitudinal studdescriptive answer is that the accelerated group has ies of the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth better performance than a non-accelerated, same-age, (SMPY), conducted by Lubinski and his colleagues, Table 55.2 Forms of acceleration

Grade-based forms 1. Early admission to kindergarten 2. Early admission to first grade 3. Grade skipping 4. Early entrance into middle school, high school, or college 5. Early graduation

Individual Students

Fig. 55.1 Continuum of accelerative options

Small Group

Large Group

Grade-skipping

Single-subject mentoring

AP classes

Early entrance

Combined classes

Post-secondary

Curriculum compacting

55

Acceleration: Meeting the Academic and Social Needs of Students

make a very important contribution to the discussion on academic effects, especially with respect to the areas of math and science. What happens if the intervention is to not accelerate students who are academically ready for acceleration? The students themselves tell us that a slow-paced curriculum leads to boredom and discontent. As for our society at large, the opportunity for accelerative experiences is critical to the development of world-class leaders, especially in the areas of math and science, areas that were specifically a part of Lubinski’s work.

The Decision-Making Process For certain forms of acceleration, e.g., enrollment in Advanced Placement classes as a high school junior or senior, there is little dispute about the decision. For other forms, especially whole-grade acceleration – commonly known as a grade skip – the intervention is so salient that many districts have actually developed anti-acceleration policies (Colangelo et al., 2004b). At least that was the case prior to Nation Deceived. As well, the Iowa Acceleration Scale (Assouline, Colangelo, Lupkowski-Shoplik, Lipscomb, & Forstadt, 2003) has proven effective for educators and parents who want to make an objective decision based on relevant factors about whole-grade acceleration. Assouline et al. (2004) report two validation studies for the Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS). The first study, conducted by Jonathan Lipscomb, evaluated the internal structure of the items on the IAS and concluded that the IAS functioned as it was designed. In other words, the scores earned for each of the four subscales of the IAS, (1) Academic Ability and Achievement; (2) School Information; (3) Interpersonal Skills; and (4) Attitude and Support of School Personnel, make a distinct contribution to the IAS Total Score, which is the summary score that is used to recommend whole-grade acceleration as an intervention. In a second validation study, the IAS was evaluated in terms of effectiveness for the decision-making process. In brief, the IAS process (i.e., a team meeting to review the responses to each of the 20 items on the scale) was found to be extremely helpful for the family, the child-study team, and the school system in general. As summarized by Assouline et al., “Users find that the IAS process is a positive one, and the decisions that are made are considered appropriate” (2004, p. 171).

1089

Social Effects of Acceleration When it comes to acceleration, our experience has been that the concerns about social effects are the primary reasons for a negative view of acceleration. Social effects refer to interpersonal relationships, emotional well-being, self-esteem, and attitudes about school, as well as hopes and aspirations for the future. In essence, teachers, administrators, and parents want to be “assured” that acceleration will not have negative social consequences. The overall research finding is that either acceleration leads to positive social adjustment (social adjustment actually improves) or there is no noticeable change. The research evidence has not supported negative consequences. However, it seems people “recall” hearing about highly publicized students who did not adjust well (e.g., case of William Sidis, as reported by Montour, 1977). When an educator or a parent is opposed to an idea, a representative sample is not necessary – one case suffices. There are two issues here. One is that the concern about social adjustment assumes that acceleration is early entrance to school, whole-grade acceleration, or early entrance to college. As reported in Table 55.2, many other forms of acceleration have minimal, if any, social consequences; this would include, for example, dual enrollment or Advanced Placement (AP) courses. The other issue is that measuring social adjustment is more subjective than measuring academic progress. For all their perceived limitations, standardized tests and classroom grades provide acceptable markers of academic progress. Social variables are more subjective and the markers of social development are not as clearly agreed upon as those for academic progress. Although understanding the effects on social development is important, the measurement of these effects is not as reliable. This makes the decision process more difficult.

General Social Effects In Kulik’s (2004) meta-analysis of acceleration, he reported that only a small number of the studies reviewed also investigated social effects. Investigations of social effects are complicated for many reasons, which often make it necessary to glean results from investigations of other variables such as scholarly achievement.

1090

For example, enrollment in college is a variable that is easily measured and at one time was also an indicator of two important affective characteristics: ambition and aspiration. However, college enrollment is no longer a variable that distinguishes gifted students from their same-aged peers, because college attendance is so common in today’s world. Nevertheless, as previously mentioned, ambition and aspiration – both of which are important affective characteristics – are considered to be distinguishing characteristics. Kulik reports that when accelerated students are compared to non-accelerated students, the accelerated students have elevated educational ambitions (e.g., desire to attain an advanced degree) as well as higher career aspirations. Accelerated students are willing to commit to longer periods of preparation, which is often needed to complete advanced degrees. In other words, acceleration is related to educational ambition. Kulik also observed that some differences between accelerated students and non-accelerated students were minimal in terms of educational aspirations and goals, but even in those cases, the minor differences favored accelerated students. Kulik concluded that when it comes to educational ambition, acceleration has a positive effect. Studies that measured student attitude toward school and particular academic subjects yielded contradictory results when comparing accelerated students with bright, but not accelerated, students. That is, Kulik’s (2004) comprehensive review indicated that the few studies that investigated student attitudes about school and subject matter were mixed. On the one hand, some studies indicated accelerated students liked both school in general and a particular subject if that subject was the area of acceleration (e.g., math, if math was the area of acceleration). On the other hand, in some cases, the findings indicated a slight downturn in accelerated students’ attitudes about school and a particular subject. The interpretation is that students needed to work harder in an accelerated situation; and in some cases, students realized that they might not be the “best,” as was often the case in less challenging situations. In the area of self-acceptance, the findings are minimal or insignificant, yet there are trends suggesting that accelerated students drop a bit in self-acceptance when compared to their older peer groups. Kulik (2004) contends that his findings are consistent with findings about bright students who go from a heterogenous situation to a more homogenous (select) situation, the so-called Big-Fish-Little-Pond effect (Gross, 1998;

N. Colangelo and S. Assouline

Marsh & Parker, 1984; Marsh, Chesser, Craven, & Roche, 1995). The interpretation of this effect is that time is required for an accelerated student to reorient to the possibility that the student is no longer at the top of the class. Kulik summarizes that while the academic effects of acceleration are strong and positive, the social effects are fragmentary. Acceleration appears to stimulate educational ambition for college and beyond. Also, accelerants participate in extracurricular activities as much as non-accelerants; therefore, acceleration does not diminish school involvement. The one area that appears to need attention is the sometimes slight readjustment of self-esteem. A more challenging environment with respect to coursework does seem to force students to reassess their ability. Most likely this is a reality check. We think this is potentially more useful in the long run because bright students with realistic self-esteem may be better suited for future challenges than bright students with inflated self-esteem. Nancy Robinson (2004) provides a comprehensive review of the effects of acceleration on the social status of gifted students. Like Kulik (2004), she acknowledges that accelerated students can have a slight (and usually) temporary dip in self-esteem when placed in a setting with older children. The key words are slight and temporary. There does not appear to be evidence of serious, long-term negative effects on self-esteem.

Social Effects of Early Entrance to School Assessing the effects of early school entry is another difficult-to-measure area because the children are young and the consequences are difficult to predict. In reporting on several reviews of the literature on early entrants to school, Robinson (2004) indicated students are well served academically and there are slight positive effects (not significant) for socialization and psychological affect. As reported by Colangelo, Assouline & Lupkowski-Shoplik, (2004b), Gagn´e & Gagnier (2004) found few adjustment differences between early entrants and regular-age students, but when these differences appeared they were in a positive direction for early entrants. Robinson’s recommendation is that early entrants be no more than three months away from the required birthday (except in very exceptional cases) and that a psychological evaluation should include academic readiness and

55

Acceleration: Meeting the Academic and Social Needs of Students

emotional regulation, social skills, and social maturity. In their review of literature on early entrance to school, Colangelo et al. (2004b) concluded that, in general, early entrants adjust well, both academically and socially.

Social Effects of Grade Skipping This form of acceleration represents an area that has had considerable research. Grade-skipped students had good perceptions of their social relationships and their emotional development, and they tended to have fewer serious school behavior problems than regular students. A study by Richardson and Benbow (1990) reported that high-ability students (both accelerants and non-accelerants) reported high self-esteem and an internal locus of control. Also, they found that acceleration did not relate to social and emotional difficulties. Robinson (2004) states, “We can, then, conclude that grade-skipping is a highly viable option for gifted students, although one that is not currently in vogue. There is no evidence that being younger than one’s classmates is associated with social or psychological difficulties” (p. 63). As previously discussed, the Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS) by Assouline et al. (2003) has proven to provide useful guidelines for recommending whole-grade acceleration. The IAS pays particular attention to social–emotional issues in successful whole-grade accelerations. These include paying attention to the interpersonal skills of the child, emotional maturity, motivation to accelerate, as well as attitude of the receiving teacher and attitude of the school. The IAS recognizes the non-academic (as well as academic) factors that need to be considered in whole-grade acceleration. Part of the rationale for developing the IAS is based on the fact that whole-grade acceleration is a public event and puts the accelerant into a new environment of peers and teachers. Effective social skills and social maturity are needed to complement those exceptional academic skills. This chapter concludes with a case study.

Social Effects and Early Entrance to College At the other end of the K-12 grade spectrum is early entrance to college. This is typically viewed as a

1091

decision that is easier to make than a decision about early entrance to kindergarten or first grade. Not only does the student have a strong say in the matter (motivation), but also considerable academic and social evidence can support a decision to accelerate. However, as Muratori (2007) and Brody, Muratori, and Stanley (2004) acknowledge, adjusting to college is a challenge for most first-year students, and many regular-aged college students fail to adjust to the college environment. Because adjusting to college is a challenge for most first-year students, naturally, there is considerable concern about a decision to enter college earlier. As Brody et al. aptly state, “Obviously, society expects more from early entrants than from regular-age college students. Early entrance programs have sought to minimize adjustment problems, and our recommendation is that early entrants attend universities as part of a structured program rather than as a single entrant” (2004, p. 104). Whereas the studies on early entrance have been positive, a few rare, yet public, cases of negative or mixed outcomes have received considerable attention. Brody et al. indicate that although the social–emotional adjustment of early entrants to college has been positive, the “literature has not painted the clear and compelling picture of success that educators and parents arguably need in order to feel comfortable with this curricular option” (p. 104). Robinson (2004) highlights studies that report the reactions of early entrants regarding their decision to leave high school at a much younger age than the typical graduate (i.e., ages 17, 18, or 19). A review of these surveys and interviews indicates that early entrants generally are satisfied that they left high school early and few regret their decision. This should not be surprising because these students made the choice, and they were probably very ready (and eager) to leave high school. Of course, it cannot be known how their adjustment to college would be any different (either easier or more difficult) if they had “waited.” The evidence we do have in the social–emotional adjustment area is not uniform, but certainly positive. In an excellent and comprehensive book titled Early Entrance to College, Muratori (2007) provides an indepth look at early entrants, their parents, and their college experiences. What this comprehensive text indicates is that early entrants are not only successful in college, but very satisfied with their decisions. There are numerous quotes from early entrants regarding both their academic and social experiences in college. Also, a point made is that attending college early through a

1092

structured early-entrance program, with reliable support and a peer group, has significant advantages over entering college early but not through a specialized program. Muratori (2007) does make the case that adjustment to college is a challenge for most students, and students who enter college earlier than their peers are not absolved from the typical stresses of such adjustment. However, the evidence indicates that, typically, these are just the normal stresses of a new and demanding environment and that early entrants adjust well to both the academic and social demands. This information is consistent with other information summarized on early-entrance programs (Brody et al., 2004; Muratori, Colangelo, & Assouline, 2003).

N. Colangelo and S. Assouline

life circumstances are positive, these would form some good indicators that the long-term social effects of acceleration are beneficial to the individual.

Special Issues A number of special issues surround the topic of acceleration. These include radical acceleration (i.e., three or more grades are skipped), the impact of a disability on the decision-making process, and consideration of diversity issues and acceleration. Each of these topics suggests the need to consider both academic and social–emotional ramifications of acceleration.

Radical Acceleration Long-Term Social Effects Educators, rightly so, seek answers not only to the short-term effects but also to the long-term effects of acceleration. Whenever there is an intervention, and acceleration is clearly a curriculum intervention, we do want to know its likely consequences well down the educational road. The most impressive works we currently have on long-term effects for highly capable students are the studies known as the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), investigated over the years by Julian Stanley, Camilla Benbow, and David Lubinski. Lubinski (2004) summarizes that the long-term effects of acceleration on large groups of students paint a pretty clear picture. Even in adulthood, students who were accelerated in middle and high school recall their precollege experience “much more positively than their intellectual peers who were deprived of such experiences” (Lubinski, p. 36). What we get from these retrospective studies is that when highly capable students are given opportunities to move at faster rates and with more complex material, they recall their school experiences more positively. Also, they put a premium on academic challenge over socialization. What is needed is more research on the long-term social effects of acceleration. It will be difficult to isolate the degree of impact of an accelerative intervention on later years. But if we can interview adults and their recollections about acceleration are positive and their

It has been our experience that educators and the public are more comfortable with a form of acceleration that is less salient; in other words, when the type of acceleration is of a “lesser degree,” or fairly close to what would have been “normal.” However, there are students whose intellectual potential and academic readiness is profoundly higher than even their “gifted” peers and, for those students, one of the less salient forms of acceleration (e.g., Advanced Placement classes as a high school junior or senior) is not sufficient. Gross (2004) writes about radical accelerants and in that publication she cites Stanley’s (1978) definition of “any combination of procedures that results in a student graduating from high school three or more years earlier than is customary” (p. 87). Gross makes a compelling argument that profoundly gifted students (those with an IQ of 180 or higher, which represents a highly significant deviation from the normal IQ of 100) do not have sufficient academic challenge if they stay with their agemates and regular curriculum, which is, by definition, far too slow for them. She believes that such circumstances will lead to underachievement and negative social interactions. Gross indicates that radical accelerants achieve high levels of success at college, even though they are substantially younger than the typical college student. Also, radical accelerants have been shown to socialize well with their older classmates. Gross advocates that well-planned programs of radical acceleration do not result in adjustment problems in the social or emotional realms.

55

Acceleration: Meeting the Academic and Social Needs of Students

1093

Twice-Exceptional Students

Summary

Twice-exceptional students are gifted students who also have a diagnosed disability in one or more areas including learning, emotional, behavioral, or physical. While there is a rapidly growing research interest in the concept of twice-exceptionality, there is little evidence in terms of how acceleration meets twice-exceptional academic and social needs. Assouline, Foley Nicpon, and Huber (2006) present several myths that interfere with effective gifted programming for twice-exceptional students. Primary among these myths is the belief that a student with learning problems cannot be gifted. By extension, some believe that a student with learning or social difficulties cannot be served by acceleration. However, through their case examples they demonstrate that, indeed, a student can have a learning disability in one area (e.g., written language) while having a need for acceleration in another area (e.g., math). Although as indicated by Assouline et al., a student’s academic needs cannot be determined without a comprehensive evaluation of the student’s academic ability, aptitude, and achievement, as well as an assessment of the student’s social–emotional development.

Acceleration is certainly not a new educational intervention. However, it maintains its place as the educational intervention that generates more controversy than other interventions. The major problem with acceleration has not been the lack of evidence on its effectiveness, but the disparity between this evidence and education practice and beliefs. This chapter has strongly advocated for a consideration of acceleration for gifted students. The evidence is compelling when it comes to positive academic effects. The evidence for beneficial social effects is also positive, but not as clear and compelling as the evidence regarding academic effects. A number of issues need to be researched, and many studies need to be replicated. Acceleration can be a powerful and easily implemented intervention for gifted students. We believe the more carefully educators look at the evidence, the clearer the need to use acceleration as an intervention will become. In addition to using evidence to support the use of acceleration, we have anticipated some of the 12 reasons why acceleration is not typically accepted in schools, and we have responded to each reason. These reasons, which appeared in A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students, V. I (pp. 6–9), are reproduced in Table 55.3.

Acceleration, Diverse Populations, and Gender Conclusion When it comes to acceleration, there is little that has been investigated regarding ethnicity or family background. One type of study that is needed is a prevalence study: how many minority students are accelerated? Also, are there any different considerations needed when making decisions about acceleration for students who come from diverse backgrounds? Gender is another variable that needs investigation. Apart from the evidence that girls may be more often ready for early entrance to school than boys, as reported by Robinson (2004), there is little empirical research that gender plays a role in the forms of acceleration. Some important questions include the following: are girls more likely to want to be grade skipped than boys; does gender matter when it comes to subject-matter acceleration or early entrance to college; and are there differences between boys and girls with respect to their perception of the salience of various forms of acceleration?

As a conclusion to this chapter, we would like to offer a specific application of the information presented. Several times a week we receive requests for advice similar to the one below. We are taking this opportunity to publicly respond to a parent’s request as a way to illustrate how the information in our chapter can be applied to a specific student. Request: “My son is a 4th grader in a small school in our rural town. We are very concerned that he is not being challenged in school. He is often bored and will even say that he doesn’t learn anything new. He does have gifted education for an hour twice weekly and does seem to enjoy the class. As a bit of background to his current situation: When he was in first grade, and upon the recommendation of his first grade teacher, we had him tested for giftedness. That same teacher also recommended that he should be playing a musical instrument. We did have him tested and his I.Q. is 130. His gifted education teacher said it was probably

1094

N. Colangelo and S. Assouline

Table 55.3 Responses to reasons why acceleration is not accepted [Adapted from Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students, V. I (pp. 6–9)] Reason #1: Teachers lack familiarity with acceleration. Educators in most schools are unfamiliar with the research evidence on acceleration’s benefits. Response: A primary goal of this report is to eliminate this barrier. This comprehensive two-volume report brings together extensive research on acceleration, and the report is available to all schools at no cost. Reason #2: Confidence about acceleration is not running high. K-12 educators may know about acceleration as an intervention, but they do not feel confident in using this option. Response: We respect that all educators make decisions that they believe are in the best interests of their students. The overwhelming evidence about the many academic and social advantages of acceleration should make educators confident enough to consider acceleration. Reason #3: Acceleration runs counter to personal beliefs. When personal beliefs conflict with research evidence, personal beliefs win out almost every time. Response: This report invites introspection and dialogue between educators and parents, asking them to reevaluate their beliefs concerning acceleration. Reason #4: Age trumps everything else. For many educators, age – not readiness – has become the primary determinant for grade placement. Response: The notion that age equates to grade is out of tune with what we know about individual differences. Research reveals that gifted students are more academically and emotionally advanced than their typical age-mates. Therefore, it makes more sense to think about readiness, rather than age, as the main determinant for grade placement. Reason #5: Safe is better than sorry. Most teachers see non-acceleration as the safer option – they feel that doing nothing is not harmful. Response: Doing nothing is not the same as “do no harm.” Choosing not to accelerate is itself an intervention. The evidence indicates that when children’s academic and social needs are not met, the result is boredom and disengagement from school. Reason #6: Acceleration is not taught in Colleges of Education. These organizations, which train teachers, do not prepare teachers and administrators to make decisions about acceleration. Response: Abundant research material is available, yet professors in Colleges of Education do not present it to future teachers. This report will help inform them. We know that faculty respect research and we hope that they will infuse this information into their course content. Reason #7: It is bad to push kids. Teachers and parents see acceleration as hurrying children through childhood. Response: Acceleration is allowing a student to move at an appropriate pace. By worrying about hurrying, a chance is missed to match the enthusiastic, passionate, bright child who has the ability to move ahead with the right curriculum. They ignore the bright student’s rage to learn. Reason #8: New friends are hard to make. Educators fear that children who are accelerated will not adjust well socially to the new class. Response: Social adjustment in a school setting is a complicated issue. Some accelerated children do not adjust easily or immediately. Children who have felt out of place with students of their own age may need time to develop social confidence. Although the evidence on social success in accelerated settings is not as clearcut as the evidence on academic success, it is still much more positive than negative. Acceleration broadens the friendship group. Many gifted children gravitate to older children, so making friends becomes easier. Reason #9: Individual kids are less important than equal opportunity for all. Individual differences have been sacrificed in the political battles and culture wars about schooling. Response: When educators confuse equity with sameness, they want all students to have the same curriculum at the same time. This is a violation of equal opportunity. When it comes to acceleration, the majority of children do not need it. In fact, it would be a disadvantage for them both academically and socially. But for the children who need it, acceleration is their best chance for an appropriate, challenging education. We know a lot about assessing ability and creating programming tailored to accommodate individual differences. The cornerstone of education is the flexibility to recognize the needs of the individual child. This flexibility is sometimes lost, however, when political and cultural pressures homogenize the learning needs of individuals and we pretend that there are no meaningful learning differences. Closing our eyes to children’s educational differences is neither democratic nor helpful. Every classroom teacher knows that children have distinct academic and social needs. Acceleration is a respectful recognition of individual differences as well as a means for addressing them. Reason #10: It will upset other kids. Teachers sometimes fear that accelerating a child will diminish the self-esteem of other students.

55

Acceleration: Meeting the Academic and Social Needs of Students

1095

Table 55.3 (continued) Response: This is an important issue. Whatever we do in schools should be based on a respect and concern for all students. In fact, this level of sensitivity is one of the things that make America special. However, kids are used to seeing age-peers progress at different rates in many settings such as sports and music. In school, the idea of accelerating one or two children is not likely to negatively affect the class. Reason #11: There will be gaps in the child’s knowledge. Teachers are concerned that accelerated students will have gaps in their understanding of concepts. Response: We accelerate students because they are well ahead of their age-peers in their academic development and knowledge. Gifted students are swift learners and any gaps quickly disappear. Reason #12: Disasters are memorable. Unsuccessful cases of acceleration exist, but the numbers have been exaggerated as have the reasons for lack of success. Response: Good news does not make the news. Bad news, on the other hand, sells papers and travels fast in communities. People will repeat stories or greatly exaggerate the situation about an unsuccessful acceleration, even without first-hand knowledge. Researchers acknowledge that acceleration is not perfect and some situations may be less than ideal, but such cases frequently stem from incomplete planning or negative attitudes. We need to respect that even an intervention that is very positive is not fail-safe. A few poor decisions do not negate the importance of considering acceleration as an option. Excellent planning can minimize failures.

higher, due to a dip in one area that he attributed to a lack of maturity. Our son also is musically gifted, according to his piano teacher, and has perfect pitch. My husband and I are also musically inclined and he enjoys “playing” our instruments, even though he is only formally instructed in piano. My question is where do we go from here? I am hesitant to accelerate my son even after reading A Nation Deceived, due to his lack of maturity. He is also sort of small for his age. Many of the students in the next grade up are old for their grade so I feel this may cause some issues as well. Should we press the school to accelerate him in certain subjects? At home, we are trying to keep him engaged by providing additional curriculum, going on field trips and conducting science experiments so that he remains engaged and interested in academics. There is a university in the town near ours that offers enrichment classes and he’s going to participate in those classes. There is part of me that would be interested in acceleration just to see how he liked it. We could always tell him he could go back to his regular grade if he didn’t like it. Do children of such varying ages really become close friends? He plays basketball with many of the kids in the next grade up so he does have that connection. Could you please advise us on this matter? We really want to see our son love school and enjoy the learning process. His gifted teacher says that our son could certainly handle the academics side of things if we chose acceleration; however, he too was worried about emotional maturity. Any help you could offer us would be most appreciated.”

Our pervasive reaction to most of the information provided is, why does the school not formalize the discussion with the parents by using an instrument like the Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS) (Assouline et al., 2003) to facilitate the decision-making process? One impetus for the development of the IAS is grounded in the fact that any form of acceleration – especially skipping a whole grade – is one of the most difficult decisions parents and teachers have to face when trying to accommodate a gifted student. That is one of the reasons why we strongly recommend documentation of the salient features of each case. The information that requires documentation and discussion is presented below.

Conduct a Comprehensive Psychological and Educational Evaluation

To begin with, the student’s general cognitive ability must be determined. Although the child had an IQ test three years ago, the parent does not indicate what the test was, nor whether the testing results yielded particular concerns, that may require special consideration (e.g., is the child’s verbal ability stronger than perceptual reasoning?). There is also little to no indication about the child’s achievement when compared to his grade-level peers. Equally important, it is difficult to Belin-Blank Center Response: discern if there has been any assessment that relates This mother’s request includes multiple questions, to a measurement of his aptitude to perform at a high which is not an unusual occurrence. She has also pro- level if he is accelerated into the next grade. A child vided some answers to the questions and seems inter- should only be accelerated if there is evidence that he ested in validation of her beliefs and/or concerns. has general cognitive ability, that is, at a minimum,

1096

N. Colangelo and S. Assouline

one standard deviation above the average; has mastered The second relates to the timing during the specific the current grade-level material; and has the aptitude to academic year. Because much review occurs during the continue to excel in a higher grade. first semester of a year, we recommend that the decision be made at the end of the final semester, so that the student can move to the next grade and benefit from any review that may be planned. High Achievement, Aptitude, and Ability The third concerns the timing as it relates to the genAre Not Enough eral structure of the school system. We recommend that the student NOT be accelerated during a transition time Other areas to consider include student attitude about (e.g., changing buildings). Although this is counterinacceleration and school support. By having an objec- tuitive to most thinking, we have learned that the trantive discussion about the issue, there is an opportunity sition year activities are critical to the adjustment to a to gauge the level of support for acceleration. It is im- new grade; so if the acceleration MUST take place at a portant for the school to have a plan to monitor the transition period, it is important to plan for the student acceleration – should it be whole grade or single sub- to benefit from personalized transition activities, which ject. A plan to systematically and routinely monitor his might be similar to those activities used when a student progress in the next grade assures that placement issues is new to a district. Finally, there is a timing issue that concerns a stuare properly addressed, rather than leaving it to a “see dent’s siblings. If the student would be accelerated into if he likes it” approach. a grade where a sibling is currently placed, then we do recommend an alternative to whole-grade acceleration.

Outside Activities Are an Indication of Maturity Although the mother suggested a concern about maturity level, there were no specifics as to why that concern exists. She did indicate that her son is involved in a sport (basketball) and plays an instrument (piano). These activities are all positive and suggest that if social skills are lacking (although she did indicate that this was the concern related to maturity) there are outlets to facilitate their continued development.

If Either Whole-Grade or Single-Subject Acceleration Is Recommended, It Is Important to Consider the Timing of the New Placement There are four aspects to timing. First, when in the student’s academic career is the acceleration being considered? If we could turn the clock back, we would have suggested that they proceed when the child was in first grade, because the earlier in the K-12 years, the easier it is to fully integrate into the new grade.

When It Comes to Acceleration, Size Is Not an Issue Although we understand the etiology of this concern (students of a certain age have similar physical characteristics), we are always surprised by the fact that simple observation is not enough to dispel the issue. Size is what it is. Unless there is a physical problem that has affected his growth, he will grow when his body is programmed to grow – just as will be the case with the other students in his grade, or in the grades above him. Size might need to be addressed, but it should not carry much weight with respect to a decision concerning acceleration.

What If There Is No Change in the Student’s Program In our opinion, there is one more issue that needs to be addressed. The issue concerns the general belief that “doing nothing” is the safe alternative to a form of acceleration. As detailed in Nation Deceived, when a student is ready for an accelerated curriculum, yet is not

55

Acceleration: Meeting the Academic and Social Needs of Students

1097

provided with appropriate opportunities, the result is Assouline, S. G., Foley Nicpon, M. & Huber, D. M. (2006). The impact of vulnerabilities and strengths on the academic often disengagement from the talent area and eventual experiences of twice-exceptional students: A message to underachievement. So “doing nothing,” which is an inschool counselors. Professional School Counseling, 10(1), tervention, is not the “safe” intervention for a child who 14–24. Brody, L. E., Muratori, M. C. & Stanley, J. C. (2004) Early is ready for advanced curriculum.

The Future: The Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration We want to end this chapter on a very vibrant note. As described in the case above, acceleration as a topic is dynamic. Therefore, in continuation of the work initiated by the report, A Nation Deceived, the Belin-Blank Center was awarded a grant from the John Templeton Foundation to establish the Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration (IRPA). This institute was established in 2006. The purposes of IRPA are: 1. To generate new research on acceleration 2. To act as a clearinghouse for research and information on acceleration 3. To develop instruments that will guide educators and parents to make effective decisions 4. To provide consultation on acceleration policy and practices based on research evidence 5. To provide research grants to stimulate worldwide research on acceleration. The Research Director for IRPA is the highly respected educational psychologist Dr. David Lohman. Dr. Lohman is a faculty member at The University of Iowa, as well as the senior author on the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT). For information on IRPA visit the website at: www.accelerationinstitute.org For information on A Nation Deceived visit the website at: www.nationdeceived.org

References Assouline S. G., Colangelo, N. Ihrig, D., Forstatd, L, & Lipscomb, J. (2004). Iowa Acceleration Scale Validation Studies. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline & M. U. M. Gross(Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. II), pp. 167–172. Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E., Lipscomb, J. & Forstadt, L. (2003). The Iowa Acceleration Scale – 2nd Edition. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

entrance to college: Academic, social, and emotional considerations. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. II, pp. 97–108). Iowa City, IA. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G. & Gross, M. U. M. (2004a). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vols. I and II). Iowa City, IA. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G. & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E., (2004b). Whole-grade acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. II, pp. 77–86). Iowa City, IA. Gold, M. J. (1965). Education of the intellectually gifted. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Gross, M. U. M. (1998). Fishing for the facts: A response to Marsh and Craven, 1997. Australian Journal of Gifted Education, 7(1), 10–23. Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Radical acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vols. I and II, pp. 87–96). Iowa City, IA. Kulik, J. A. (1997). Ability grouping. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd Ed. pp. 230–242). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Kulik, J. A. (2004). Meta-analytic studies of acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. II, pp. 13–22). Iowa City, IA. Lubinski, D. (2004). Long-term effects of educational acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. II, pp. 23–38). Iowa City, IA. Marsh, H. W., Chesser, D., Craven, R. & Roche, L. (1995). The effects of gifted and talented programs on academic selfconcept: The big fish strikes again. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 285–319. Marsh, H. S. & Parker, J. W. (1984). Determinants of student self-concept. Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don’t learn to swim as well? Personality and Social Psychology, 47(1), 213–231. Montour, K. M. (1977). William James Sidis, the broken twig. American Psychologist, 32(4), 2625–79. Muratori, M. C., Colangelo, N. & Assouline, S. G. (2003). Early entrance students: Impressions of their first semester of college. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 219–248. Muratori, M. C. (2007). Early entrance to college. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Richardson, T. M. & Benbow, C. P. (1990). Long-term effects of acceleration on the social-emotional adjustment of mathematically precocious youths. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 464–470. Robinson, N. M. (2004). Effects of academic acceleration on the social-emotional status of gifted students. In N. Colangelo,

1098 S. G. Assouline & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. II, pp. 59–68). Iowa City, IA. Rogers, K. B. (2004). The academic effects of acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. II, pp. 47–58). Iowa City, IA.

N. Colangelo and S. Assouline Southern, W. T. & Jones E. D. (2004). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. II, pp. 5–12). Iowa City, IA.

Chapter 56

Teaching for Wisdom in Public Schools to Promote Personal Giftedness Michel Ferrari

Abstract Schools must educate students not merely to become knowledgeable about disciplines that concern the external world (like history or geography) but also to pursue a responsible and happy life. This is a personal discipline or an art unto itself, and those that are gifted at it can be called wise. Generally, there are two approaches to developing wisdom. The first focuses on character education; wise students are those who have acquired or exercise good character. The second is an expertise, often tacit, in “the fundamental pragmatics of life.” However, the Socratic method—in particular, the Stoic wisdom curriculum—combines the strengths of these other two approaches. For Pasupathi and Staudinger 2000), old views of giftedness as a stable trait are at odds with a view of wisdom as expertise; but recent conceptions of giftedness as emerging from interactions between personality characteristics and sociocultural factors are more closely allied to wisdom that can be taught. Keywords Wisdom · Gifted education · Happiness · Responsibility · Moral education · Character education

“Do you think that wisdom is anything but that by which men are wise?” “No.” “It follows then that Wisdom is Knowledge?”“I think so.” “Then do you think that it is possible for a man to know all things?” “No of course not—nor even a fraction of them.” “So an all-wise man is an impossibility?” “Of course, of course.” “Consequently everyone is wise just in so far as he knows?” “I think so.” (Xenophon, Memories of Socrates, IV, vi. 7)

Promoting Personal Giftedness by Teaching for Wisdom In this chapter, I propose that schools must educate students not merely to become knowledgeable about particular skills (like reading and math) or specific disciplines that concern the external world (like history or geography), but also to pursue a responsible and happy life. This is a discipline or an art unto itself, and those that are gifted at it can be called wise. Can we teach for wisdom? Let us begin with a brief survey of scientific research on wisdom and its relations to giftedness.

Introduction “And what of wisdom? How shall we describe it? Tell me, does it seem to you that the wise are wise about what they know, or are some wise about what they do not know?” “About what they know, obviously; for how can a man be wise about the things he doesn’t know?” “The wise, then, are wise by knowledge?” “How else can a man be wise if not by knowledge?”

M. Ferrari (B) University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada e-mail: [email protected]

Conceptions of Wisdom: Historical and Scientific Wisdom (or concepts that overlap with what we would translate as wisdom) are found in all cultures, however, the emphasis and source of wisdom is disputed (for a variety of examples, see Ferrari & Potworowski, 2009). Wisdom has been considered in a variety of ways, including as a quality of persons, of actions, as an expertise about difficult life issues, and as a body of

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 56, 

1099

1100

knowledge transmitted historically (e.g., as contained in books like the Bible or the Analects) (Pasupathi & Staudinger, 2000). One traditional view of wisdom is that it is a gift from God (this would parallel a view that all forms of giftedness are a gift from God), an idea that, according to Assmann (1994), emerges in the Hellenistic period. That is not the view adopted here, since it supposes that neither wisdom nor giftedness can benefit from education. Contemporary views of wisdom propose three possible developmental trajectories which teaching might influence: (1) wisdom is something that children possess most fully and that is lost as one ages, a tradition that extols the “beginner mind” (Rosch, 2009); (2) wisdom is attained as the fruit of old age, distilled out of long life experience (Ardelt, 2005); finally, (3) wisdom is a sort of expertise that integrates intelligence and personality, one that can be fostered at all ages, but that may indeed take many years to acquire (Baltes & Staudinger, 2000; Pasupathi & Staudinger, 2000). Scientific research has studied implicit theories of wisdom (i.e., conceptions of wisdom and wise people) by asking people to give examples of wisdom or wise decision making, and then identifying factors their answers have in common. In general, studies of implicit theories show that different cultures, and even different professions, have their own theories of wisdom (Sternberg, 1985; Takahashi & Ide, 2003); surprisingly, we still know little about what school-age children understand about wisdom, or their implicit theories (Bluck & Gl¨uck, 2005; Sternberg, 2003a). Another approach has been to develop explicit theories of wisdom, by defining wisdom and then proceeding to measure whether or how much people have the attributes required by the theory (including processes to generate wisdom, either ontogenetically, or as wise responses in particular tasks or contexts). Most scientific theories propose some form of “wisdom as expertise.” For example, Baltes and Staudinger (1993) define wisdom as “expertise in the fundamental pragmatics of life,” in the so-called Berlin paradigm of wisdom studies. This paradigm was originally developed in the context of studies of optimal aging and intelligence and shows that wisdom is not age dependent, as commonly supposed, but a function of individual differences in personality and expertise. Some study has been made of the “seeds of wisdom”in adolescence, in terms of emerging “wisdom-related” abilities to plan, monitor,

M. Ferrari

and review one’s personal life and solve life problems and found that (unlike adult wisdom) adolescent intelligence is an important prerequisite to wisdom-related performance (Pasupathi, Staudinger, & Baltes, 2001; Staudinger & Pasupathi, 2003; Richardson & Pasupathi, 2005). Sternberg’s balance theory of wisdom resembles this approach in considering wisdom a form of expertise, although Sternberg emphasizes balance as the most fundamental attribute of wisdom. According to this theory, a wise person is someone whose successful intelligence leads them to seek a common good that balances intrapersonal, interpersonal, and extrapersonal interests (over both the short and the long term) and to adapt to, shape, and select environments through the infusion of values (Sternberg, 1998, 2003, 2001, 2001b). Wisdom can also refer to (perhaps implicit) knowledge that supports the self-government and equanimity needed to live a productive life that transcends suffering—or more colloquially, to a happy life. I claim that such wisdom is a gift, a “personal giftedness” at living a good life. This is essentially the contemplative approach that relies on Buddhist theory of wisdom and also has its own curriculum currently making inroads into public schools (Rosch, 2009). It is also the Socratic view, one that likewise proposes that wisdom is a sort of expertise, but one that goes beyond reasoning to implicate the deepest aspects of one’s lived experience. For the pre-Athenian Greeks, the word sophos (wisdom) was associated with particular skills like carpentry or music that could be codified in rules; sophos involved the elegant application of those rules to the task at hand (whether singing a song or building a boat) (Hadot, 1998). Later, this notion of practical wisdom extended to all domains of knowledge, and in particular, for the orator Isocrates (a Socratic contemporary of Plato), to the art of speaking well and living well. Isocrates’ definition of wisdom is helpful to keep in mind, and still seems very contemporary: Since it is not in the nature of human beings to possess knowledge [episteme] such that, if we possessed it, we would know what we must do and what we must say, I consider wise [sophoi], within the limits of what is possible, those who, thanks to their opinions, can most often hit upon what is best. And I consider philosophers [philosophoi] those who spend their time at those exercises from which they will most rapidly acquire such a capacity of judgment [phron´esis]. (Isocrates, Panegyric S.271; cited in Hadot, 2002, 50–51)

56

Teaching for Wisdom in Public Schools to Promote Personal Giftedness

1101

Relations Between Wisdom and Giftedness and learning are dialogical) or formal instruction Eysenck and Barrett (1993) have proposed that giftedness typically refers to some combination of three main abilities: exceptional general intelligence, exceptional creativity, or special artistic or scientific abilities; however, Renzulli’s (1982, p. 723) comment that there is no universally accepted definition of giftedness seems just as true today. The view of wisdom proposed here will accord with some ideas of giftedness and not others. (See M¨onks, Heller, & Passow, 2000, for a review of these and other ideas about giftedness). Pasupathi and Staudinger (2000) point out that old views of giftedness as a stable trait are at odds with a view of wisdom as expertise (fitting better the view of wisdom as a divine gift), but more recent conceptions of giftedness emphasizing the interactions between different personality characteristics and sociocultural factors are more closely allied to the view of wisdom presented here—the sort of wisdom that can be taught. Wisdom becomes a talent in the pragmatics of living a good life—or as Pasupathi and Staudinger (2000) propose, a meta-talent that coordinates other skills in the service of this aim. Like other forms of giftedness, considered as specialized skill, it represents an exceptional performance in this domain. We do not really know whether giftedness, or a label of giftedness in childhood or adolescence contributes to the development of wisdom in adulthood. If one is imbalanced in terms of intellectual vs. social skill, this may hinder the development of wisdom; on the other hand, great intelligence or creativity may allow one a deep insight into human nature that might lead one to more quickly acquire wisdom. In one study, a set of positive personality and intellectual attributes predicted superior moral reasoning and wisdom-related performance (Pasupathi & Staudinger, 2001). Even the vulnerabilities associated with being singled out and labeled gifted might contribute to existential crises some say are needed to develop wisdom (Pasupathi & Staudinger, 2000).

Teaching for Wisdom What sort of curriculum might promote wisdom in students in our schools? Teaching any subject involves either informal apprenticeship (in which teaching

(in which teachers are trained and hired by schools or other institutions designed to transmit formal disciplines, ideally, in a way sensitive to different learners) (Gardner, 1999; Olson, 2003, 2006). Some things are learned by observation, without being explicitly taught at all (for example, learning to walk) (Zimmerman, 2002). Formal curricula place the responsibility for learning on the institution and on teachers hired to transmit that disciplinary knowledge; apprenticeship and observation place responsibility for learning on the student (Olson, 2003). According to Zimmerman (2002), learning any skill relies on observation, and emulation and only later on self-control (internalized rules) and eventually self-regulation in which one potentially refines the rules themselves, based on performance. One of the main innovations of modern instruction was group instruction (Olson, 2003), which introduced its own problems of how to address individual differences and classroom management. What bout teaching for wisdom? Teaching for wisdom might seem an almost impossible goal, given everything else schools today are responsible for, and yet there are already several programs being implemented in public schools in the United States specifically designed to teach for wisdom. Generally, there are two approaches to developing wisdom that have been promoted US public education. The first, exemplified by Project Wisdom, focuses on character education; wise students are those who have acquired or exercise good character. The second is based on an expertise, often tacit, about “the fundamental pragmatics of life” a phrase coined by Baltes and Staudinger (1993), but applicable to Sternberg’s “balance theory” of wisdom, now being tested in public schools across Connecticut. On this view, wisdom is associated with intelligence and good character, but it is expressed through contextually appropriate virtuous use of one’s mind (Baltes & Staudinger 2000; Sternberg, 2003). However, following Elkind and Sweet (1977) and Lipman (1980), I suggest that the Socratic method—in particular, as developed into a wisdom curriculum by the Stoic Epictetus—combines the strengths of the two previous approaches and overcomes some of their weaknesses. The closest contemporary expression of this approach is the contemplative education now gaining advocates in many public schools.

1102

Wisdom as Gifted Moral Character Project Wisdom, founded by Lesli Matula in 1992, is probably the oldest and most widely used character education programs in the United States that specifically claims to teach for wisdom: Their motto is “Helping students make wiser choices.” The program is centered on short messages (“words of wisdom”) that are read over the school’s PA system, or in-house TV, allowing them to reach every student and faculty in the school. Three collections exist: over 600 messages, from a huge range of sources ranging from Henry Brooks Adams to Oprah Winfry, along with proverbs from around the world. A typical message, taken from their sample brochure, is as follows: Good morning, [School]. This is [your principal] with a few words of wisdom. Listen to these words from famous Lebanese poet Kahlil Gibran: You give but little when you give of your possessions. It is when you give of yourself that you truly give. Gibran isn’t telling us to stop donating our old clothes to charity, or canned goods to a food drive. These things are important. He’s saying that the highest form of giving is when we give our time, talent, and energy to those in need. And we are all capable of giving something. We can tutor a younger student, help an elderly neighbor, or do an extra chore at home. We can give time to someone who is lonely, or a smile to someone who is sad. According to Gibran, this is the highest form of giving. Today, be generous and share yourself with others. With something to think about, this is [your principal]. Make it a great day. . .or not. The choice is yours.

Each message has the same opening and close, and each collection has enough messages for every day of the school year. The program also includes an “Online Educator Resource Site” that provides staff with easy access to additional program material that includes weekly messages and lesson plans designed to integrate character education into every grade level and course in the curriculum. The program also provides classroom tools, like mini-posters, as well as parent resources. Students are encouraged to consider these maxims and proverbs, and to apply them to their own lives. They can also be given a weekly journal that centers on a different theme each week: for example, personal choice. On this theme, they would be asked to consider a question, like, “Who wins when I choose what’s

M. Ferrari

right?” As part of their journal, students are given inspirational thoughts about the power of choice, and specifically asked to write about a time they made the right choice and felt good about it. (Journals can be tailored to fit different courses [e.g., language arts] or themes [e.g., classroom management]). According to their website (http://www.projectwisdom.com), the Project Wisdom collection of daily words of wisdom is registered in all 50 states, in over 13,000 schools (read to over 4 million students each day). The entire school is also sometimes involved in related projects. For example, a school in Palm Springs created a wall of over 1,500 ceramic tiles (supplied by a local company), each with a message inspired by the words of wisdom messages from Project Wisdom. Some of them were taken directly from the Project Wisdom messages, such as the saying of Benjamin Franklin, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom.” Students clearly took the messages to heart and wanted to make a lasting statement. “Maybe it will help people correct the wrong they’re doing,” said 12-year-old student Tyler Thomas (quoted in Christine Mahr, 2005). Project Wisdom follows the basic contours of most character education programs, which Berkowitz (2002) seems right to say, have the following features: Most Character education initiatives center around a set of words or concepts that represent the ethical agenda of the school; i.e., “words of the month” (or week, or even day) that identify the character outcomes identified as central to the school’s mission by the school, community, or both. Those words are sometimes chosen by the school staff, sometimes by district staff or a community panel, and sometimes adopted from another source (such as Character Counts’s “six pillars of character”) (p. 46).

These programs are implemented in a variety of ways. Sometimes they are stand alone programs integrated into homeroom, at other times considered part of the curriculum in literature or social studies or anywhere else. Sometimes the program is connected to service opportunities, sometimes they focus on specific issues such as sex education, environmental studies, or conflict resolution that try to foster particular character traits—whether intellectual, (like sophisticated moral reasoning), or affective (like greater altruism). Sometimes, character education is manifest through an effort at school reform (as seen in Dewey’s New Schools, Kohlberg’s Just Community Schools, or Responsive Classrooms, to name a few). Not all of these programs are of equal quality. I agree with Berkowitz (2002)

56

Teaching for Wisdom in Public Schools to Promote Personal Giftedness

that “To create a true science of character education, we need to back up and explore what we mean by character, how it develops, and what we know about how schools can effectively foster its development (p. 47). What about Project Wisdom? It is to be commended for attempting an in-depth program evaluation in 2004, based on an online survey of 913 participating schools which found that the program positively affected “school climate.” Specifically, it “has a positive impact on teacher morale”, “stimulates student conversation about character issues,”and perhaps because of this “increases students’ self awareness, social awareness, self management, relationship, “decreases incidents of student teasing and/or bullying [and] decreases discipline referrals to the office” (Project Wisdom Program Evaluation, p. 1).1 Although less widespread and less well researched, other programs are being used in schools that are very similar. For example, Wise Skills (http://www.wiseskills.com) is another program to teach wisdom that promotes character education, with some very interesting curriculum materials. The Wise Skills program revolves around monthly “character themes” such as conflict resolution, media awareness, and “world of wisdom.” Less information is provided about how many schools have adopted the program, but it is organized around three key components: school, family, and community. The school component includes teacher resources to teach character throughout the year. For example, the middle school program is called “wise lives” revolves around the sayings and life stories and lifechoices of 42 great people. It includes many direct quotations, classroom activities, suggestions for interdisciplinary projects, and a parent newsletter, among other features. Teachers are given a classroom package that includes a curriculum notebook, a “wisdom poster,” character cards, “WiseStudent Certificates,” and character posters. Thefamily component encourages parents to reflect on their own personalities and behavior and includes many family activities. Finally, the community component suggests practical ways to connect the community to the classroom, for example, by inviting

1103

Career Speakers and engaging in Community Service Projects. Clearly, the power of both of these programs is that they can be used by the entire school, including both students and staff, in the pursuit of wisdom. Project Wisdom, at least, clearly seems to have a global effect on quality of life at the school. True, we really have little information about why these sorts of messages and activities constitute wisdom, or what theory of wisdom the program is based on. Yet these programs seem to be a modern version of perhaps the most ancient method of fostering wisdom. Wisdom books dating back to the ancient Egyptians and Sumerians have examples of wise actions or proverbs; while not a specific curriculum, they have been incorporated into philosophical and religious efforts to foster wisdom from antiquity (see Curnow, 2009). But someone can legitimately ask, in terms of these school efforts: why these particular proverbs, or sayings? What are the virtues students are already gifted in or have difficulty learning? The answers to these questions remain unarticulated within these programs. Ana Carvajal and I interviewed students in Toronto participating in a districtwide program called Character Matters! Results show that the same lists of virtues are received very differently by elementary and high school students, and even by their teachers (Carvajal-Chartier, 2007). In fact, all these programs for character education exemplify what has been called an “implicit theory” of wisdom, that is, one embodied in cultural practice and expectation, not developed from philosophical argument or scientific evidence. Gifted Character Education. Not many programs exist that are specifically designed to educate gifted children for character. However, Tannenbaum (2000) is right to say that gifts can be used as instruments for good or evil (whether the gifts be intellectual or artistic). In this sense, it is important to have exposure to programs like Project Wisdom, although little is known how these programs are received by gifted students. Most programs to teach character to the gifted are inspired by cognitive-developmental and constructivist approaches, in particular, the work of Kohlberg (1984)—an approach criticized by many in the new character education for not providing students with guidance about specific values. Still, this ap1 Survey available at http://www.projectwisdom.com/materials/ proach is of educational benefit, according to Rest and linktopdfs.htm. (Admittedly, this survey is not without its probThoma (1986), whose meta-analysis shows that “moral lems, but given the few efforts to evaluate character education education programs emphasizing dilemma discussions programs at all, it is to be applauded.)

1104

M. Ferrari

and those emphasizing personality development both produce modest but definite effects.” (p. 85) This dilemma-based approach to moral education seems to be exactly what is proposed by Sternberg (2001, 2009), considered next, with one important difference: sensitive to the overburdened workload of teachers and schools, Sternberg proposes an infused curriculum to teach for wisdom. This curriculum is based on an explicit theory of wisdom (the balanced theory) which aims to develop very specific sorts of practical expertise, exercised within an articulated system of values.

Teacher’s Manual for Unit 1, “Wisdom primarily involves the capacity to judge, along with the constraint that this judgment be right, sound, or just. It is measured both by the means involved in reaching the judgment and also by its end. Wisdom represents an avenue to creating a better, more harmonious world.” (p. 6). The wisdom component to Sternberg’s program begins by introducing wise thinking with a quote from the Stoic philosopher Cicero (106–43 B.C.), who wrote, “The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.” Wise thinking, students learn from a transparency, requires that decisions take into account not only the present but also the past and future, and that they should involve solutions that promote the common good, not just one’s own interests. In order to Sternberg’s Balanced Curriculum make wise decisions, we must also be able to think critfor Wisdom ically, using reasoning, logic, inquiry, and reflection to judge and analyze historical problems and situations; Sternberg’s Balanced Curriculum is based on his bal- but wise decisions also consider the moral and ethical anced theory of wisdom, according to which a wise dimensions of those historical problems. So how does Sternberg propose to teach for wisperson is someone whose successful intelligence leads them to seek a common good that balances intraper- dom? The Balanced Curriculum involves activities that sonal, interpersonal, and extrapersonal interests (over foster: both the short and the long-term) to adapt to, shape, 1. dialogical thinking, that is, an ability to consider a and select environments through the infusion of valsituation from the point of view of different people ues (Sternberg, 1998, 2003). Sternberg’s curriculum is within a dialogue (e.g., those on both sides of a concertainly the most theoretically articulated contempoflict); rary effort to teach for wisdom in schools based on an 2. dialectical thinking, that is, thinking that resolves explicit theory2 . Sternberg has developed an elaborate competing points of view from a more integrative empirical test of his balance theory through an infused perspective (the proverbial Hegelian synthesis of curriculum, in which thinking critically and wisely is opposites); incorporated into teaching eighth grade history (meet3. critical discussion of actions, as to whether they are ing Connecticut curriculum objectives). The program wise or foolish (both historically, and in student’s has two units (The Birth of the Nation and Slavery in own lives); and America) comprising nine topics that take about 10–12 4. role modeling of wise judgment and action on the weeks to complete. The aim is to have students behave part of students and teachers. like experts in the disciplines they study (in this case, Teachers are given curriculum materials that include like historians), for example, by having them consider original historical sources in an age-appropriate way. grouping suggestions for students, presentation mateThe teaching focus is “student-centered” in that stu- rials, student materials (such as worksheets), and both dents are encouraged to develop their own strategies content and wise-thinking objectives. Students are encouraged to work in groups and to work with primary and form their own interpretations of the materials. Not only do students study historical events, they sources (for those with reading difficulties, vocabulary are asked to think about them wisely. According to the lists, and simplified versions of the source material are provided)3 . 2

No curriculum has been designed to teach for wisdom according to the Berlin paradigm, although efforts have been made to identify the “seeds of wisdom” in adolescence (Pasupathi, Staudinger, & Baltes 2001; Richardson and Pasupathi, (2005).

3 The results of the Balanced Curriculum’s efforts to promote wisdom in Connecticut middle schools are currently being analyzed and should soon be published (personal communication).

56

Teaching for Wisdom in Public Schools to Promote Personal Giftedness

In any case, when combined with Sternberg’s other work in which he emphasizes that “ability is developing expertise” (Sternberg, 1998) we can understand that developing wisdom is simply a more comprehensive sort of ability (or constellation of abilities) at which students can be more or less expert and thus become more or less gifted at living a good life—a point echoed by Pasupathi and Staudinger (2000). An expertise that can benefit from instruction. In this sense, the Balanced Curriculum seems like a well-articulated example of the sort of approach advocated by Gardner in his 1999 book, A Disciplined Mind. Gardner takes the more recent historical example of the meeting at which the Nazis decided to implement the “final solution.” The use of more detailed specific historical cases, in which students can play out historical decisions, might be an important refinement to all these programs to teach for wisdom. By considering the complex and contextualized decision making involved in these cases, students may see that wisdom and folly are not foreordained nor do they involve individuals reasoning quietly alone, but are influenced all sorts of social pressures. Critiques of the Balanced Curriculum. In a special issue of Educational Psychologist devoted to Sternberg’s approach to teaching for wisdom, Keith Stanovich (2001) praised the effort to rise above a mere algorithmic approach to education, to embrace broad ends of education, such as wisdom. David Perkins (2001) and others also praised Sternberg’s curriculum for fostering clear reasoning and judgment about moral issues (what Perkins calls “conceptual tangles”). However, Perkins also worried that two other important aspects of wisdom are not addressed by Sternberg’s curriculum (nor for that matter by Project Wisdom or WiseSkills): “Blind spots” (where we just do not see ourselves) and “action slips,” where we do not do what we know is right. Similar concerns about an overemphasis on rational judgment in moral education were voiced almost a century ago by Dewey (1909/1959, Moral Principles in Education). Consider the Balanced Curriculum’s unit on slavery. Certainly, the fact of slavery in the history of the United States and an understanding of its causes is a very important topic for moral reasoning and for any deep understanding of the United States today. Dewey agrees such history is important for students to study, but only to the extent that it connects them to their community and highlights the

1105

importance of actions in determining the outcome of events. Sternberg’s curriculum certainly has the potential to do that, but here is a danger: moral reasoning may become no more than critical thinking about a particular situation that does not engage students emotionally. Although critical thinking is integral to problem solving—including problem solving about moral issues—Dewey believed that moral education is only successful to the extent that it evokes an emotional response in students that moves them to act. Sternberg’s curriculum does not get students to do anything. And since it requires no social action, it may be that such moral reasoning is like learning to swim out of water. (Dewey’s example, referring to a student who had told him about learning to swim on top of a table). The same criticism has been made against classical efforts to teach moral reasoning. Pagnin and his colleagues seem right to say that moral judgment is not merely a matter of moral reasoning but also of emotional response, including unarticulated or hidden responses, as well as moral conduct (Pagnin & Andreani, 2000)—a point also emphasized by Bandura (1997). In light of this, Pagnin and Zanetti (1997) developed a program of moral education for gifted children that involved not only discussion of dilemmas but also of social behavior strategies, expression of personal values, role playing, and dramatized simulation. They showed that a higher level of moral reasoning was achieved by this approach, according to classic methods of assessing stage of moral development (see Pagnin and Andreani, 2000, for details). Sternberg has not specifically assessed his program with gifted students, but there is every reason to believe that Pagnin and colleagues approach would add an important dimension to the Balanced Curriculum. Likewise, the moral exemplars who are held up as paragons of wisdom, like Martin Luther King (often mentioned by Sternberg) express a form of moral giftedness that includes leadership and creativity, as well as moral responsibility, as important aspects (Gruber, 1985). I was told a story, whose source I have forgotten— so if anyone knows, please contact me—of a teacher who finished her lesson on the history of slavery by telling her class that there are still slaves in India. The students were so moved by this fact that they raised money to send a delegate to India with enough money to free one slave. This, I believe, is what it means to

1106

think wisely about slavery: True wisdom moves us to action for things that are within our control, actions that define our character as a social actor living today within a global community. Unless students are merely following others’ example or are coerced by the teacher or by peer pressure, raising money to free a slave alive today deeply engages them personally and communally and empowers them to demonstrate the importance of freedom in ways that really matter to themselves and to slaves who are members of today’s global community. (Why such action is an expression of wisdom will become clear when we consider modern and ancient attempts to teach for personal wisdom according to the Socratic method.) Some students are gifted in this way, for example, In 1998, Ryan H.reljac (www. ryanswell.ca) than 6years old, learned from his teacher that people are dying because they lacked clean drinking water. Deeply moved, he launched a campaign to have wells dug in Africa that still continues today.

Fostering Personal Wisdom A different way to understand wisdom, captured in the previous critique, is through a curriculum designed to teach or at least foster what Staudinger, D¨orner, and Mickler (2005) call “personal wisdom”—a wisdom that promotes personal cognitive development (Ferrari, 2004; Ferrari & Mahalingam, 1998). Personal wisdom is tied to life narrative and to personal meaning making that often remains implicit. According to Staudinger and colleagues, personal wisdom becomes an expression of one’s personality and how one lives in a culture, a view inspired by the work of Erik Erikson. In Erikson’s theory, wisdom is the central task of the last stage of psychosocial development and is marked by integrity and generativity (Erikson 1959; Erikson, E. H., Erikson, J., & Kivnick 1986)—something not necessarily limited to the end of life (Pasupathi & Staudinger, 2000; Staudinger et al., 2005). We see this in a recent study from the Baltes group where they use a narrative method to study how people themselves experienced wisdom in their lives (Bluck & Gl¨uck, 2004). Clearly, people are more or less gifted in their insight into their own and others’ personal lives. Can one teach for personal wisdom? An important answer can be found in the Socratic methods used to teach wisdom— in particular, as developed in the Stoic curriculum of Epictetus’ school.

M. Ferrari

Socrates and the Socratic Method. For centuries, people have debated “the Socratic question ”of whether Aristophanes’ Clouds, Xenophon’s Memorabilia, or Plato’s Socratic dialogues give a more accurate portrayal of the historical Socrates; but, more recently, some have considered this the wrong question: What matters is that Socrates inspired an entire genre of literature (socratikoi logoi, or Socratic conversations), most of which have been lost to history. What has come down to us is better understood as representing the Socratic perspective through the lens of the purpose of the particular author’s purpose in writing it, so it is easier to describe the “Socratic movement” than the historical Socrates (Vander Vaeerdt, 1994). Likewise, many people speak about the “Socratic method” today, but they mean very different things by it. Some philosophers are not even convinced that Socrates had a method; others dispute as to what exactly the method is (Scott, 2002). Be that as it may, asking provocative questions aimed at provoking insight in students is often called “the Socratic method”. This method is used in schools and in therapy today, as well as in law school and other educational settings. Virtually, no one claims that the method teaches for wisdom, although its use to spark therapeutic insight is very much in this spirit. Consider the efforts of David Elkind to develop character (Elkind & Sweet, 1997). Elkind and Sweet’s approach seems very close to a version of the original Socratic method described by Xenophon (370 bce/1888) and later developed by the Stoics. Here is an example of a dialogue that occurred spontaneously with high-school students, and captured in Elkind and Sweet’s video The power of choice. “You are offered a $500 bike for $100. You know it’s hot. What do you do?” (A boy takes the bait.) “I’d buy it.” “What would you do if you got caught?” “I bought it. I would just refer them [the police] to the person who sold it to me.” “All right, you’re in court and say, ‘Well, it really wasn’t me. I didn’t know it was stolen.”’ “I didn’t.” “All right, but wouldn’t that be a lie? You’re on the witness stand right now.” “I’d have no choice but to say I knew it was stolen.” “What if you weren’t on the witness stand and you were just talking to the cops and they came over to your house and they said ‘Hey, what about this bike you’ve got here. Did you know that it was stolen?”’ “Spur of the moment, I may just say, ‘No, I didn’t know.”’

56

Teaching for Wisdom in Public Schools to Promote Personal Giftedness “What would make you say that?” “Initial fear of being locked up.” (Laughter from the group.) “What do you think of yourself now that you’ve said that you would lie to the cops out of fear, that you would probably be the kind of person who would say, ‘I’ll go for this $500 bike for $100. That’s not a bad deal at all. I need a bike.’ What vision would you have of yourself at this point?” “Well, nowadays from what I’ve been learning, I personally would feel low. In a yesterday sense, I wouldn’t have cared. I was younger. I was more immature. I didn’t care.” “Do you have a different image of yourself now?” “Yes. Prideful. I think more of myself today than I would have yesterday. Because I know that there’s better for me out there instead of just running around stealing. You know, that’s no good; that won’t get me to where I want to go. Okay. I’ve got big dreams, hopes. I feel like this I can make it.” (Another participant in the group, a girl, speaks out) “But you still bought the bike.” (Conversation documented in Elkind & Sweet, 56–57).

1107

to masquerade as a political or religious ideology” (p. xiv). And although Elkind and Sweet (1997, p. 56) call their method “a kinder, gentler [Socratic] dialogue,” I imagine the historical Socrates and the Stoic Epictetus would be pleased. The conversations they generate are reminiscent of the ones we read in the discourses of Epictetus—a rare record of actual conversations with his students and visitors, as noted by his student Arrian. But the Stoic curriculum advocated by Epictetus had a strong advantage over Elkind or Lipman’s approach because it taught natural science and logic alongside ethics. In fact, Stoics saw these topics as deeply intertwined. The Stoic School of Epictetus. Regular classes in Epictetus’s school involved reading and interpreting classical Stoical texts, as well as studies of: problems in formal logic (sometimes conducted by senior students), large-scale themes, or essays in the style of early Stoic authors. Although Epictetus oversaw studies of logic and problem solving—sometimes preparing detailed critiques of student interpretations (see Discourses, Book I.10) – there is no indication that he gave formal lectures. Many classes ended with informal discussions on topics of interest to students or visitors, and it is these that were captured in the Discourses. Epictetus also encouraged students to examine their own lives and actions to see if they were consistent with what they were discussing in class-often mocking them when they failed the real tests of life. Thus, teaching in Stoic schools was not merely in the form of philosophical dogma (principles to me memorized, along with demonstrations that showed they were true) or Socratic conversations, it also involved specific kinds of moral or “spiritual exercises.” One such exercise, the examination of conscience (i.e., examining the days events and one’s reactions to them each night before going to sleep), was a very ancient exercise attributed to Pythagorus, that was adopted by both Seneca and Epictetus (Foucault, 2004; Hadot, 1995, 2002). Epictetus’s innovation, if it was one, was to divide the Stoic curriculum into three areas of study, an arrangement found only in his discourses and in the meditations of Marcus Aurelius, who was inspired by him4 . These three areas of study are:

This dialogue strikes me as important, both because of the insight the boy is led to and because, as in the ancient Socratic dialogue, Meno, the girl seems to have missed the point and been left behind—she is still back at the original theft, as though there had been no dialogue, and does not realize the importance of the insight the boy has been led to. Such dialogues address deep truths about human nature based on what the speakers themselves admit. Elkind feels that his method lets children see what is right and choose it for themselves – rather than be told a set of rules or commandments to follow – and can be adapted to children of all ages. In fact, it is in the same spirit as Matthew Lipman’s Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (http://cehs.montclair.edu/academic/iapc/ index.shtml)—also modeled on Plato’s Socratic dialogues. The institute promotes a curriculum designed for and used by children aged 4–18. In his first attempt, Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery (Lipman, 1974), (the name Harry Stottlemeier is a play on Aristotle; later stories are named for characters involved in the stories, for example, Kio and Gus, Pixie, and Lisa). Although Lipman’s recent work makes little reference to Socratic method, for Lipman (1980), “Socrates demonstrates that each belief must be subjected to the tests of logic and experience. . .Intellectual inquiry is 4 Since the classical texts that Epictetus drew on have been lost, thus a discipline that has its own integrity, and is not it is impossible to know whether this was indeed an innovation to be dissolved into scientific inquiry, nor permitted of his school.

1108

1. Discipline of desire and aversion. Students were trained to use desires correctly to get what one wants to get and avoid what one wishes to avoid; in particular, students were trained to accept life events—an application of physics (natural science) captured in the maxim, “don’t go against nature.” Nature is here understood in the sense that someone who complains that it is hot in the desert might be told, “Naturally deserts are hot: Why are you surprised? And if you are not surprised, stop complaining.” 2. Discipline of choice and refusal to act, concerned with impulse and repulsion. Whether or not to act a certain way is directly tied to ethics; that is, to our appropriate duties toward others. For example, a person has obligations to their father or mother, or to their profession. And on the Stoic view, this is precisely how students can be led to consider Sternberg’s common good—not because they were told to, but because they must acknowledge that their choices should be based on reasons that transcend their personal interest and unite them to a community of other rational thinkers who would agree: very much like Rawl’s (1971) “veil of ignorance” (also important to Kohlberg) and 3. Discipline of assent, concerning our opinion about our own ideas and impressions. To be sure that student are desiring and acting rightly, they need to learn “critical thinking” –mastering reasoning and logic. This training allows them to avoid error and rash judgment and was considered appropriate only for those students already making progress in the other two areas. All three topics of study were considered mutually supportive aspects of an organic unity of lived experience. Markus Aurelius, inspired by Epictetus, sums these up and calls them to mind often in his Meditations. Consider this entry: We must discover the rule to be applied in the case of assent [to be given to representations and judgments], while in the matter of exercises relating to impulses for action, we must never relax our attention, in order that these impulses to action may be accompanied by a reserve clause, that their goal be to serve the community, and that they be proportionate to value, and, finally, we must abstain completely from desire, and pay no attention to the things that do not depend on us. (M.XI, 7).

Hadot (1998) points out that these meditations themselves are not a journal, diary, or autobiography,

M. Ferrari

but precisely an example of a spiritual exercise that brings Stoic principles constantly back to mind and records them as an aid to memory. Of course, this is not a formal curriculum, in the sense proposed by Project Wisdom or Sternberg’s Balanced Curriculum. Rather it is a set of ideas and exercises that need to be constantly remembered and practiced; but the claim is that those who understand and master them will live life more wisely: those who are gifted in this curriculum will inspire us. Many things might be said about this ancient school in light of modern cognitive science, but space does not allow them all to be explored. I will make only a few observations. As Stanovich (2004) points out, we have at least two systems of cognitive control. The most basic systems are implicit, associative, and closely tied to evolutionary history or acquired habits. The second system is analytic and can be swayed by rational appeal (especially in its reflective aspect, in which second-order desires can be used to regulate algorithmic first-order desires). Ancient schools often had exercises designed to shape the habits embodied in “system one”. For example, Platonists had an educational program that combined different kinds of spiritual and even dietary exercises and dialectic conversations that explored questions like, “Can virtue be taught?” The Stoic curriculum later included the study of wisdom texts—for example, maxims to be memorized and serve as the basis for a good life (Hadot, 1995). In this, the Stoic approach resembles that of Project Wisdom and the Balanced Curriculum, but with a more developed focus on coordinating critical thinking, natural science, and ethics to balance social justice and personal wisdom – not just by reasoning but by fostering the inner fortitude and peace of mind needed to see clearly and to act on what we know to be right. Some cognitive scientists have proposed that wisdom is a “post formal” stage of adult development that integrates reflection, affect and cognition (Ardelt, 2004, 2005; Fischer & Bidell, 2006). Indeed, Ardelt’s (2004) critique of the Berlin model and other models of expertise can be answered by considering acquisition of expertise developmentally; developing new mental structures can be transformative of understanding and provide possibilities for new actions (Foucault, 2004). Furthermore, recent research shows that the construction of new knowledge is not an all or nothing event. Rather, such knowledge

56

Teaching for Wisdom in Public Schools to Promote Personal Giftedness

is developed microgenetically, and our success and failure at using it (our “action slips”) will vary from context to context, and be helped by social support (Fischer & Bidell, 2006). This is true for knowledge of skills like wrestling, and for knowledge of how to live wisely, as we wrestle with life events (a favorite analogy of Epictetus). In familiar contexts, people perform better than in unfamiliar ones; they also perform better when helped by others who know more, or who are there to consult and interact with them (Staudinger & Baltes, 1996). Finally, alternative pathways to knowledge exist, that depend on our cultural experiences and personal training, as well as on individual differences in intelligence, personality, and thinking dispositions (Fischer & Bidell, 2006; Stanovich, 2004)—suggesting that there can be many different paths to developing wisdom, captured in different cultural beliefs and exercises. Wisdom, then, may be more or less possible outside of favored contexts, especially when students are still learning to become personally wise. Recent work on happiness also looks back to ancient theories and practices (Haidt, 2006, Wallace, 2005), and consider what all these ideas mean in an age in which we understand human nature in terms of a Darwinian theory of natural selection (Pinker, 2002). This work in some ways seems very far from school curricula, but even here we find a call to “educate for happiness ”(Noddings, 2003, 2006) and a growing movement advocating “contemplative education” (Rosch, 2008). While not historically related to the Socratics, certainly the sort of mindfulness meditation and compassion exercises that are at the heart of contemplative education are precisely the sort of spiritual exercises that the Stoics proposed as necessary to achieve personal happiness and advance social justice. The only thing one might add to such programs are the moral reasoning and personal epistemology components characteristic of Kohlberg’s dilemmas. In the end, perhaps, acquiring wisdom means acquiring a skillful approach to living life that must be learned through personal experience. The question is open about whether wisdom can be learned from books—even books that recount what wise men said and did. I could not agree more with Arrian, who ends his letter to Lucius Gellius explaining that he had not planned to publish his notes on

1109

Epictetus, now circulating among their friends, because: to Epictetus [it would be] of no concern at all if anyone shall despise his words, seeing that even when he uttered them he was clearly aiming at nothing else but to incite the minds of his hearers to the best things. If, now, these words of his should produce that same effect, they would have, I think, just that success which the words of philosophers ought to have; but if not, let those who read them be assured of this, that when Epictetus himself spoke them, the hearer could not help but feel exactly what Epictetus wanted him to feel. If, however, the words by themselves do not produce this effect, perhaps I am at fault, or else, perhaps, it cannot be otherwise. (Arrian Letter to Lucius Gellius, p. 7).

Project Wisdom and the Balanced Curriculum both have a formal curriculum that recounts the words of famous people. But for students participating in Project Wisdom, it is not clear that the words or wisdom they hear every day will lead them to wisdom, or even be understood as originally intended. Sternberg’s Balanced Curriculum relies on teacher emulation, as well as on what Hadot calls “spiritual exercises;” but perhaps the bar is too high to expect that all teachers will be extremely wise. Still, just as not all teachers need to master calculus to teach addition, even if addition is a foundation for calculus—so, too, in teaching the seeds of wisdom, not all teachers need to model the most advanced levels of wise thinking, but perhaps the love and compassion that are foundational to it. The most gifted students will eventually seek out the wisest teachers (or particular kinds of wisdom training), as they do for other kinds of expertise. As for the Stoic curriculum and contemplative education, they are essentially an apprenticeship in firstperson inquiry, in which students seek to examine their actions and whether those actions exemplify a life that they can be proud of. Socrates and Epictetus had no set curriculum but encouraged their companions to really examine their lives—to focus on developing virtue, not external wealth. In terms of Zimmerman’s (2002) model of developing self-regulation, students were encouraged to first observe and then emulate the Socratic pursuit of wisdom, before internalizing the method and eventually self-regulating their actions in ways that led them to live more wisely. But Plato’s dialogues show few instances when Socrates teaching is actually successful at transforming people (Scott, 2000), and maybe teachers too need to grant that only rarely will they succeed in teaching for wisdom—and only if the

1110

students engage these ideas and practices in the deepest and most personal way. There is also a growing recognition that in most areas of specialized skill, the highest expressions of that skill may be found outside of public schools, and the hope is that the most gifted students will be drawn to those other institutions. Teachers can acknowledge that it is hard to open some minds and reach the deep emotional level really needed to effect conceptual change in one’s core personal beliefs and ways of life. Certainly, Socrates lived a life that inspired others to live well. His example and love that seemed at least to spark the self-examination that put those he spoke with on the path to wisdom. But many will agree with Charron (1601/1697), when he maintains while we can transcend “vulgar wisdom” to attain an elevated humane wisdom exemplified by Buddha, Socrates and Epictetus—among the most gifted of those who have developed personal wisdom—some ultimate forms of wisdom belong to a mystery that surpasses human understanding.

References Ardelt, M. (2004). Wisdom as expert knowledge system: A critical review of a contemporary organization of an ancient concept. Human Development, 47, 257–285. Ardelt, M. (2005). How wise people cope with crises and obstacles in life. ReVision: A Journal of Consciousness and Transformation, 28(1), 7–19. Arrian (c.140). Letter to Lucius Gellius. In Epictetus. The Discourses as reported by Arrian, the manual, and fragments (with an English Translation by W. A. Oldfather) (pp. 5–7). 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Aristophanes (423, bce). Clouds. (Ian Johnston, transl. 2003) (http://www.mala.bc.ca/∼johnstoi/aristophanes/clouds.htm). Assmann, A. (1994). Wholesome knowledge: concepts of wisdom in a historical and cross-cultural perspective. In D. L. Featherman, R. M. Lerner & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Lifespan development and behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 187–224). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Aurelius, M. (c.167). The Meditations. (G. Long, transl.) (http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.html) Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (1993). The search for a psychology of wisdom. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 75–80. Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55, 12–36. Bandura, A. (l997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Berkowitz, M. W. (2002). The science of character education. In W. Damon (Ed.), Bringing in a new era in character educa-

M. Ferrari tion (pp. 43–63). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. Bluck S., & Gl¨uck, J. (2004). Making things better & Learning a lesson: “Wisdom of experience.” Narratives across the lifespan. Journal of Personality, 72, 543–573. Bluck S., & Gl¨uck, J. (2005). From the Inside out: People’s implicit theories of wisdom. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Jordan (Eds.), A handbook of wisdom: Psychological perspectives (pp. 84–109). New York: Cambridge University Press. Carvajal-Chartier, A. M. (2007). Teachers’, Students’, and Principals’ Perspectives on Character, their moral reasoning and wisdom: case study at two best practice character schools. Master of Arts, Ontario institute of studies in Education at the University of Toronto. Toronto, Canada. Charron, P. (1601). De la sagesse: livres trois (Bordeaux: Simon Millanges); translated as Of Wisdom, Three Books, Made English by George Stanhope, 2 vols (London, 1697) Curnow, T. (2009). Sophia’s children. In M. Ferrari & G. Potworowski (Eds.), Teaching for Wisdom. (pp. 1–17). New York, NY: Springer. Dewey, J. (1959). Moral principles in education. New York: Philosophical Library. (Originally published 1909). Elkind, D. H., & Sweet, F. (1977). The Socratic approach to character education. Educational Leadership, 54(8), 56–59. Epictetus (c.130). The Discourses as reported by Arrian, the manual, and fragments (with an English Translation by W. A. Oldfather). 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues, 1, 1–173. Erikson, E. H., Erikson, J. M., & Kivnick, H. Q. (1986). Vital involvement in old age: The experience of old age in our time. New York: W.W. Norton. Eysenck, H., & Barrett, P. T. (1993). Brain research related to giftedness. In K. A. Keller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 115–131). Oxford: Pergamon. Ferrari, M. (2004). Teaching wisdom through deep critical thinking and development of character. In K. Leithwood, P. McAdie, N. Bascia, & A. Rodrigue (Eds.), Teaching for deep understanding: Towards the Ontario curriculum that we need (pp. 75–82). Toronto: ETFO & OISE Publishers. Ferrari, M., & Mahalingam, R. (1998). Personal cognitive development and its implications for teaching and learning. Educational Psychologist, 33, 35–44. Ferrari, M., & Potworowski, G. (2009). Teaching for wisdom. Amsterdam, NL: Springer. Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (2006). Dynamic development of action, thought, and emotion. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.) & W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed.). New York: Wiley. Foucault, M. (2004). The hermeneutics of the subject: Lectures at the Coll`ege de France, 1981–82. (A. I. Davidson, English Series Editor; G. Burchell, transl.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gardner, H. (1999). A disciplined mind. New York: Penguin. Gruber, H. E. (1985). Giftedness and moral responsibility: Creative thinking and human survival. In F. D. Horowitz & M. OBrien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental per-

56

Teaching for Wisdom in Public Schools to Promote Personal Giftedness

spectives (pp. 301–330). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hadot, P. (1998). The inner Citadel (Michael Chase, transl.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hadot, P. (2002). What is ancient philosophy? (Michael Chase, transl.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Haidt, J. (2006). The happiness hypothesis: Finding modern truth through ancient wisdom. New York, NY: Basic Books. Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (http://cehs.montclair.edu/academic/iapc/index.shtml) Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. Lipman, M. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press (written with A. S. Sharpe & O. S. Oscanyan). Lipman, M. (1974). Harry Stottlemeiers Discovery. Upper Montclair, NJ: Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children. Noddings, N. (2003). Happiness and education. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press Noddings, N. (2006). Critical lessons: What our schools should teach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Olson, D. (2003). Psychological theory and educational reform: How school remakes mind and society. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Olson, D. (2006). Becoming responsible for who we are: The trouble with traits. In J. A. Schaler (Ed.), Howard Gardner under fire: The rbel psychologist faces his critics (pp. 39–44). Chicago, IL: Opencourt Mahr, C. (June 13, 2005). E pluribus mural. The Desert Sun. Palm Springs, CA. (Reproduced by permission at http://www.projectwisdom.com/news/DesertSun.htm). M¨onks, F. J., Heller, K. A.,& Passow, A. H. (2000). The study of giftedness: Reflections on where we are and where we are going. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 839–863). New York, NY: Elsevier. Pagnin, A., & Andreani, O. (2000). New Trends in research on moral development in the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.) (pp. 467–484). New York, NY: Elsevier. Pagnin, A., & Zanetti, M. A. (1997). Moral Development, An educational program in the PLUS project. ECHA International Conference, Wien. Pasupathi, M., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). A ‘talent’ for knowledge and judgment about life: The lifespan development of wisdom. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.) (pp. 253–267). New York, NY: Elsevier. Pasupathi, M., & Staudinger, U. M. (2001). The link between two educational ideal: Do advanced moral reasoners also show wisdom? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 401–415. Pasupathi, M., Staudinger, U. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2001). Seeds of wisdom: adolescents’ knowledge and judgment about difficult life problems. Developmental Psychology, 37, 351– 361. Perkins, D. (2001). Wisdom in the wild. Educational Psychologist, 36, 265–268.

1111

Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York, NY: Allen Lane. Project Wisdom (http://www.projectwisdom.com) Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press Rest, J., & Thoma, S. J. (1986). Educational programs and interventions. In J. R. Rest (Ed.), Advances in research and theory (pp. 59–88). New York, NY: Preager Renzulli, J. S. (1982). Gifted persons. In H. E. Mitzel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (5th ed., pp. 723–730). New York, NY: The Free Press. Richardson, M. J., & Pasupathi, M. (2005). Young and growing wiser: Wisdom during Adolescence and young adulthood. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Jordan (Eds.), A handbook of wisdom: Psychological perspectives (pp. 139–159). New York: Cambridge University Press. Rosch, E. (2009). Beginners Mind: Paths to the wisdom that are not learned. In M. Ferrari & G. Potworowski (Eds.). Teaching for wisdom. (pp. 135–162) New York, NY: Springer. Scott, G. A. (2000). Plato’s Socrates as educator. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Scott, G. A. (2002). Does Socrates have a method? Rethinking the elenchus in Plato’s dialogues and beyond. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Stanovich, K. E. (2001). The rationality of educating for wisdom. Educational Psychologist, 36, 247–251. Stanovich, K. (2004). The robot’s rebellion: Finding meaning in the age of Darwin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Staudinger, U. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1996). Interactive minds: A facilitative setting for wisdom-related performance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 746–762. Staudinger, U. M., D¨orner, J., & Mickler, C. (2005). Wisdom and personality. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Jordan (Eds.), A handbook of wisdom: Psychological perspectives (pp. 191–219). New York: Cambridge University Press. Staudinger, U. M., & Pasupathi, M. (2003). Correlates of wisdom-related performance in adolescence and adulthood: Age-graded differences in “paths” toward desirable development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 239–268. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, 2, 347–365. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Abilities Are Forms of Developing Expertise. Educational Researcher, 27(3), 11–20. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607–627. Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Why schools should teach for wisdom: The balance theory of wisdom in educational settings. Educational Psychologist, 36, 227–245. Sternberg, R. J. (2003a). Thinking wisely about history: Teacher’s manual. Yale University Pace Center: Unpublished Document. Sternberg, R. J. (2003b). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., Jarvin, L. & Reznitskaya, A. (2009). Teaching for Wisdom Through History: Infuing Wise Thinking Skills in the School Curriculum. In M. Ferrari & G. Potworowski (Eds.) Teaching for Wisdom: Croos-culturral Perspectives on Fostering Wisdom (pp. 37–57). Amsterdam, NL: Springer. Takahashi, M., & Ide, S. (2003). Implicit theories of spirituality across three generations: A cross-cultural comparison

1112 in the US and Japan. Journal of Religious Gerontology, 15, 15–38. Tannenbaum, A. J. (2000). Giftedness: The ultimate instrument for good and evil. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 447–465). New York, NY: Elsevier. Vander Vaeerdt, P. (1994) (Ed.). The Socratic movement. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.

M. Ferrari Wise Skills (http://www.wiseskills.com/) Wallace, B. A. (2005). Genuine happiness: Meditation as the path to fulfillment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Xenophon, (1888). The memorable thoughts of Socrates. (Edward Bysshe, translator). New York: Cassell. (Originally written c. 370 bce.) Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Achieving academic excellence: A Self-regulatory perspective. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chapter 57

DISCOVER/TASC : An Approach to Teaching and Learning That Is Inclusive Yet Maximises Opportunities for Differentiation According to Pupils’ Needs B. Wallace and C.J. Maker

Abstract June Maker has been developing DISCOVER (Discovering Strengths and Capabilities while Observing Varied Ethnic Responses); and Belle Wallace has been developing TASC (Thinking Actively in a Social Context). In their latest joint publication (Wallace and Maker, Thinking Skills and Problem-Solving: An Inclusive Approach, London: David Fulton Publishers, 2004), they have combined their work to make a powerful framework for curriculum development that accommodates the varying rates of pupil development. They maintain that although “intelligence” and “giftedness” may have a genetic base, these potentials are essentially developed and driven by the processes that are used in problem-solving; and that all learners are capable of improving their problem-solving processes across the ten human abilities: emotional, social, spiritual, somatic, visual/spatial, auditory, mathematical/symbolic, linguistic, mechanical/technical and scientific. In their joint work, they advocate an inclusive approach to the concept of giftedness.

where students learn by thinking through what they are learning about” (Perkins, 1992, p. 7). We can think of “smart schools” as exhibiting three characteristics: Informed. Administrators, teachers and indeed students in the smart school know a lot about human thinking and learning and how it works best. And they know a lot about school structure and collaboration and how it works best. Energetic. The smart school requires spirit as much as information. In the smart school, measures are taken to cultivate positive energy in the structure of the school, the style of administration and the treatment of teachers and students. Thoughtful. Smart schools are thoughtful places, in the double sense of caring and mindful. First of all, people are sensitive to one another’s needs and treat others thoughtfully. Second, both the teaching/learning and the school decision-making processes are thinking centered (Perkins, 1992, p. 3)

More than ever before, educators are aware that they need to work “smarter” rather than “harder” for two fundamental, commonsense reasons. First, the daily demands on teachers mean that there is very little energy left at the end of the day to work any harder! Keywords DISCOVER · TASC · Problem-solving · Second, we are well aware that dealing with current Modelling behaviour · Intelligence · Giftedness · In- living and working conditions requires thinking skills dependent learning · Matrix of human abilities and problem-solving abilities so that we can become smarter at coping with the increasing complexities that bombard us. Introduction Hence the purpose of this chapter is to reflect on the principles of good classroom learning and teaching “We need thoughtful learning. We need schools that and to consider ways of ensuring that learners are enfocus not just on schooling memories but on schooling gaged in activities that require them to think and solve minds. We need ‘a literacy of thoughtfulness.’ We need problems. There is a special reason for this emphasis: educational settings with ‘thinking-centred’ learning, namely, centralised national curricula usually detail the content of what pupils should cover; such curricula selB. Wallace (B) dom, if ever, detail the thinking processes that should National Association of Able Children in Education (NACE), guide the delivery of the content (Sammons, Hillman, Oxford, UK & Mortimer, 1985). e-mail: [email protected] L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 57, 

1113

1114

A Consideration of Common Issues Regarding Pedagogy Intelligence is not a fixed commodity given at birth: with appropriate teaching and mentoring, all pupils can become better thinkers (Bandura & Dweck, 1985; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Many pupils have never had the chance to work systematically on developing their capacity to think more effectively, and with appropriate help, all pupils are capable of reasoned decisionmaking (Mueller & Dweck, 1997). As teachers, we need to model thinking skills in the classroom, not only supporting the slower learners but also providing the faster learners with the skills they need for more independent learning. Obviously the level and pace of pupil development is influenced by both environmental and genetic traits, but all pupils can improve their capacity to think and solve problems. However, teaching thinking and problem-solving should not be a separate addon subject; it should be an integral part of the whole curriculum. Pupils learn thinking skills when they are embedded in relevant content and when teachers deliberately “teach for transfer”. The best way for pupils to acquire a range of skills and strategies is to first embed them in real-world scenarios with which pupils can identify, and then to call upon the use of these skills in other contexts. The content specified in any centralised national curriculum is often not immediately relevant to most learners’ lives, but we can make the content relevant by finding the appropriate key to arouse learners’ interest. For example, we need to present content as a “real” problem to be solved – a dilemma in history, a crisis in a novel, an environmental problem in geography, an examination of evidence in science. For many children, their home background, experiences and values are different from those of the school: such learners experience a feeling of dissonance that leads to de-motivation, loss of self-esteem and chronic underachievement (Furedi 2001; Suschitzsky and Chapman, 1998; Sainsbury, 1998). Moreover, the knowledge and skills that these learners do have are seldom recognised or accepted by the school and are regarded as “deficits” rather than possible strengths (Katz and Chard, 1990). More recently Whitehead and McNiff (2006) discuss the importance of “developing living learning”, emphasising that the art of teaching requires the balancing of children’s real-life and cre-

B. Wallace and C.J. Maker

ative responses with the broad curriculum objectives that need to be met. Whitehead and McNiff (ibid) also argue for a “living learning” through which teachers and learners engage in reflection about how and why certain knowledge and skills are being acquired – the reasons, values and purposes of learning for life. Children should be actively engaged in learning not passive recipients of bodies of knowledge. Although we all learn through experience, we also need a good role-model to follow, then we make faster progress and learn more easily. A teacher who shares her thinking processes with her pupils is modelling thinking. The senior learner is inducting the junior learner into different styles of thinking: the learner then practises until he/she has gained competency and can manage to use the strategies independently. Undoubtedly, good teachers have always taught with the aim of developing pupils’ thinking skills, but this has often lacked overall coherence and consistence and, with the increase of administrative work and curriculum content, those teaching techniques which we intuitively know are good practice have been pushed to one side. However, the climate is right for us to take stock of how we teach and how children learn and, in the light of the latest knowledge of how the brain works, to extend and consolidate existing good practice. Over the last few years in England, national curriculum documents have emphasised the need for the encouragement of pupils’ questioning; the promotion of self-discipline and self-assessment; the development of self-directed work with choice and ownership (NCC, 1989a; NCC, 1989b; Ofsted, 1991; Ofsted 1994; DfEE/QCA, 1999). However, a problem exists in that, after the more rigid demands of the national curriculum framework (UK), many teachers have lost the confidence to work creatively and flexibly to accommodate these more recent directives. It is important to stress again that extending and consolidating a problem-solving and thinking skills approach across the curriculum provides the less able with a supportive framework for the mental scaffolding they need to develop their potential, while the more able are equipped with a set of problem-solving strategies which enables them to work more independently and beyond the parameters of any centralised national curriculum on small group or individual activities. However, classroom activities that systematically develop thinking encourage and promote greater differentiation of pupil response; but when the ethos of the

57

DISCOVER/TASC

class is that everyone matters and can contribute to the whole, then it is acceptable to show different strengths and weaknesses. Classrooms need to be centres that celebrate diversity, difference, independence and interdependence (Williams, 2003; Sammons et al., 1985).

Theoretical Background to the Framework of TASC: Thinking Actively in a Social Context The Living Values Research Process There is no space here to describe in detail the research process that culminated in the formulation of the TASC Framework; so what follows is a summary of the longterm intensive process of “learning from living values” as expressed recently by Whitehead (2006), where learners and teachers discuss and reflect on learning and teaching issues revolving around their everyday lives and challenges. Huxtable (2006) explains living learning theories as “theories of practice, generated from within our living practices, our present best thinking that incorporates yesterday into today, and which holds tomorrow already within itself” (p. 3). Living learning means that teachers and children are actively engaged in creating and reflecting on the processes of teaching and learning and are not passively delivering or receiving bodies of knowledge. To develop a broad base of experiential knowledge, in the mid-1980s, Belle Wallace and Harvey B. Adams surveyed the main thinking skills packages that were already published and visited key areas in the world where there were major thinking skills projects in operation. Then, adopting an eclectic approach that embraced the most successful elements of the range of thinking skills projects they had evaluated, they conducted a recursive and reflective spiral action research project using the concept of living learning and theory in working with groups of disadvantaged learners and their teachers over an intensive period of 10 years. Strategies and methodologies were trialled, evaluated and reflected upon by the researchers, the participating teachers, a group of educational psychologists and, importantly, the pupils. The key to the success of the action research project lay in the quality of the reflection, consequent rethinking and trialling of the

1115

thinking skills and problem-solving strategies being used. This process culminated in the publication of TASC: Thinking Actively in a Social Context (Wallace & Adams, 1993a), which sets out a generic framework for the development of a thinking and problem-solving curriculum. Huxtable (ibid) sums up the research process that underpinned the development of the TASC Framework as follows: “I understand who, what and how I am as a person to be inextricably interwoven with my experiences of, and interrelationship with, my world. I am the only person who can and does live my life while I acknowledge other people influence me as I influence them. I believe other people are the same, in that sense, as me. ‘Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space lies our freedom and power to choose our response. In those choices lies our growth and our happiness’ (Covey 2004 p. 43). I seek to enable children to extend their space for choice and the possibilities they have of living satisfying productive lives to their own and society’s benefit. So, I find people unique, and delightfully complicated creators of their own learning, and that they are far more than the sum of their parts.” (p. 2).

The Major Tenets of TASC The principles of teaching and learning that underpin the TASC Framework can be summarised as follows: Thinking is a dynamic process and can be developed in all pupils, since intelligence is not a fixed, unchanging capacity. However, teachers need to model their own thinking processes, directly teach problemsolving and thinking skills and strategies; and encourage learners to share and reflect on their thinking, on how they are learning, and why the learning is valuable and useful in their lives. The content to be taught together with the subject-based skills constitute the vehicles for thinking. Actively – learners need to be actively involved: they need ownership of their learning. They need to think for themselves and not have their thinking done for them. Active engagement as a decision-maker is the key to high motivation and consequent achievement. Social– although there are appropriate times for individuals to work alone, essentially we are social beings and can learn a great deal from each other by working collaboratively and sharing ideas. Interactive learning engages all learners as teachers, and all teachers as learners. Children can and do explain things to

1116

each other – perhaps more clearly sometimes than the teacher. We forget that children are very perceptive about each others’ (and our) strengths and weaknesses and are quick to identify those learners who can explain clearly and give support. Context – learners need to understand what and how they are learning and why. They first need to locate their learning within their own culture, understand their own values and realities and then extend this realisation into the wider context of the global world, reflecting on the similarities and differences and celebrating the commonalities whilst understanding the diversities.

Understanding the Theory That Informs the Base of TASC: Thinking Actively in a Social Context Vytgotsky’s Development of Higher Psychological Processes

B. Wallace and C.J. Maker

the classroom are obviously vitally important. Most importantly, Vygotsky argues that the processes of mediation and transformation are dynamic, making the learner always open to change and growth. Translating this philosophy of learning and teaching into practice, essentially, Vygotsky maintains that learners learn and remember best when they can link all their learning, making increasingly complex mental maps that enable them to

r r r r

fit the jigsaw pieces together to make an understandable whole, paint the big picture to see where their learning might lead, show the connections between ideas and topics and make it all hang together in a commonsense and real scenario.

Hence, Vygotsky maintains that learners need to negotiate meaning for themselves by

r r

starting from the level of their own language base, rephrasing what they are required to do using their own words, engaging in group discussion and explaining to each other and developing a wide range of recording and communication skills.

The work of Lev Vygotsky (1978) has played a seminal r role in the formulation of the TASC Framework. Lev Vygotsky emphasises that pupils learn when they can r recall what is already learned and then extend their existing mental maps to accommodate new learning. The skilled teacher is adept at finding the mental “hooks” in From the base of Vygotsky’s work, we can argue learners’ existing learning schemes and then building that learners need to develop extended language by from these. The new learning “transforms” the previous knowledge, creating new networks of understand- r being introduced to “new” language from the base ing. Vygotsky discusses the essential role of the “seof what they already know, nior learner” who interacts with the “junior learner” r using everyday experiences to understand technical to negotiate meaning and understanding. The senior or abstract language, learner provides a scaffold of support until the appren- r exploring examples that illustrate meaning and tice junior learner demonstrates competence and inde- r building an ocean of language (word maps) around pendence. The major tool for interaction is language, an idea. which first needs to be grounded in the learner’s inHe further argues that all new learning needs to be formal language repertoire. This base of language then needs to be extended into the more formal and techni- linked with previous learning by cal language needed for formal education. The teacher r verbalising knowledge or fragments drawn from also needs to model styles and strategies of thinking so memory and recalling past experiences, that the learner has a role model who both demonstrates r putting the context of learning into real-life issues, thinking and uses thinking language. Responses, quesr drawing concept maps or mindmaps to link previtioning techniques, attitudes, emotions and thoughts ous learning with new learning, and, are “caught” rather than taught, and while the home r identifying the new learning so that learners recogbackground of the learners is fundamentally influential, nise their progress. the ethos, atmosphere and styles of behaviour within

57

DISCOVER/TASC

1117

r

Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intellectual Development Robert Sternberg (1985, 1986) has led the way in rethinking the whole concept of the nature of “intelligence” and of the processes by which children are enabled to learn more effectively. He maintains that although our individual genetic inheritance varies in the range of strengths and weaknesses we possess, we can all learn to use a range of thinking skills and strategies. These make up the components of our thinking processes, which derive from a repertoire of thinking tools that enable us to use our mental capacities more efficiently. We can all learn to plan and to monitor the efficiency of our planning. We can be taught how to reflect on our thinking processes in order to improve them and we can be assisted in the “crystallisation” of “what” we know and “how” we learn. Then using our experiences and with mediated help, we can transfer the skills and strategies we learn to new situations and contexts. These are the key processes of metacognition: reflect, consolidate and transfer. Using our thinking skills and problem-solving skills, we adapt to our environment; and if we are lucky enough to have the opportunity, we select the environment in which we want to function. Possibly, the highest form of human endeavour is shown when we shape the environment around us: we become the “movers” and the “shakers” of the world we live in. Sternberg identifies three key aspects to developing intelligence, i.e. problem-solving capacity and thinking skills: (a) Componential which is the development of skills and strategies to plan, monitor, reflect and transfer. These componential skills

r r r r

begin with everyday experiences, are given appropriate verbal labels, are used across the curriculum and need lots of practice.

(b) Experiential which are the skills for dealing with novelty and autonomising and transferring strategies. These experiential skills are developed when learners

r

systematically and appropriately select from a range of learned skills,

r r

embed learned skills in new tions/contexts, carry out relevant practice and discuss how else to use the skill.

situa-

(c) Contextual skills that encourage learners to adapt, select and shape real-world environments. For these skills to develop, learners need to

r r r

embed their learning in real-life scenarios to bring about change, choose relevant personal/school/community problems to actively solve, and, engage in anticipating/consequences/outcomes and working towards solutions.

Considering the Broad Principles of the Teaching Methodology That Underpins TASC Outstanding teachers are intuitively “gifted” in using their emotional ability: utilising both their awareness of themselves and their awareness of others to develop classroom rapport. As skilled communicators, they intuitively understand and respond effectively to the dynamics of the classroom. They are good mediators of learning, facilitators of interaction and often become mentors who inspire children to learn (Williams, 2003). However, all teachers need to reflect on the following principles that underline the TASC teaching methodology, celebrating what they already do, but extending their repertoire of teaching and learning skills. The basic pedagogy of TASC requires that teachers

r r r r r r

Make the thinking and problem-solving skills explicit by modelling their own thinking processes out loud as they are teaching and demonstrating. Develop a language for thinking by naming, using and demonstrating the specific thinking skill in action. Help the learner to identify and name the thinking and problem-solving skills they are using. Give ample practice in the specific skill(s) embedded in the context of the lesson. Find out what the learners already know at the beginning of a topic. Develop rigorous, well-controlled and “on task” group work.

1118

r r r r r r r

First give the learners a scaffold for their thinking and gradually remove the scaffold as they become confident and competent. Deliberately concentrate on developing the positive motivation of the learner through praise and constructive feedback. Link all learning with previous learning, life experiences and cultural frameworks. Encourage learners to explain in their own words and to share ideas. Systematically teach skills of self-monitoring and self-evaluation. Crystallise learning by encouraging learners to reflect on “what” and “how” they have learned. Deliberately teach for transfer by discussing how the knowledge and skills that are being learned can be used in other areas of the curriculum.

The TASC Problem-Solving Framework The TASC Problem-Solving Model incorporates all the principles discussed above (Fig. 57.1).

Fig. 57.1 Wallace B (2000) Teaching the very able child: Developing a policy and adopting strategies for provision. London: David Fulton Publishers (A NACE-Fulton Pub)

B. Wallace and C.J. Maker

The TASC Framework is composed of essential key stages that are outlined here.

Gather and Organise: What Do I Know Already? This stage encourages learners to pull the fragments of their learning into the working memory. This activity is error free and is a powerful motivator for learning since all children can be successful, although some of the remembering may be fragmented. The important element in this stage is to physically draw the connecting lines between ideas. Mindmaps of all kinds are vitally important since they replicate, albeit in a simple way, how the brain actually functions. The more children use concept maps, mindmaps, flowcharts and diagrams of all sorts, the better they can make the links in their learning. This activity also strengthens memory and recall since the very making of a mindmap activates and reinforces the dendritic connections in the brain. With young learners, this stage can be developed

57

DISCOVER/TASC

through gathering and organising a collection of tangible objects around a broad theme, for example, model vehicles, small toys, collections of various bottle tops or large buttons. The items are stored in a big box ready for sorting into groups in as many ways as possible. In these activities, we need to sort out the items on the floor and then use coloured ribbons to represent the connecting lines – a tangible, hands-on, changeable, visible mindmap. If we know that learners have little prior experience to “gather” from, then it is important to flood the experiential learning before doing a “Gather and Organise”. For example, if children are to do a project on the Aztec Civilisation, it is important to bring in a team of experts who will lead the children in a rich exploration of the artefacts, songs, food, dances, stories, costumes, etc. Then children have a rich store of experiences from which to gather and organise what they already know. An emphasis on first-hand experience is necessary for learners of all ages as essential real learning, providing a series of prompts or reference points: this living experience develops confidence in “playing with ideas” and developing the skill of “reflecting back” from a later stage of the TASC cycle.

Identify: What Am I Going to Do? Sometimes it is necessary to identify for the children the specific task they are going to explore and learn and this is important when we are teaching, for example, a set of specific skills. But as often as possible, children need to identify the area of their exploration for themselves. Just by asking questions such as: What would you like to know about this topic? What questions could we ask? What would you like to find out? gives the children ownership of their learning and is the first key to personalising learning. For example, after the rich experiential learning mentioned in the topic on Aztec Civilisation, children could be asked to identify particular questions about the Aztecs that they would like to explore further. Helping children to identify their own avenues of interest and exploration is a powerful motivator for learning: it focuses the direction of exploration and generates the emotional involvement needed for attention and concentration. It is also the critical point for differentiation: some children can tackle simpler tasks, while others work in greater depth and breadth. Alongside the identification of the

1119

task, pupils need to begin to discuss questions such as: How will I know that my work is good? excellent? What should it look like when I have finished? This kind of questioning links the purpose of the task with the end goal. The brain understands where the learning is leading – the direction, both logical and creative, of the learning journey.

Generate: How Many Ways Can I Do It? This is the highly creative stage of generating possibilities, and the brain is very actively making numerous cross-connecting links. Children enjoy “generating” because there are no “wrong ideas” and they become very enthusiastic and highly motivated. Again this stage of thinking engenders a sense of ownership and personalisation of the learning path. The children suggest possible avenues for the development of their activities, rather than the teacher directing the activity. There are a number of key questions such as What do I need to know in order to do this? Where can I find out? Who can I ask? How many ways can I do this? How shall I present/communicate my work? If children are reticent to suggest possibilities, or lack the confidence, then the role of the teacher is to enter into the excitement of generating ideas, modelling a range of possible avenues for exploration. By doing this, the teacher can “manoeuvre” the discussion and very subtly direct the range of activities to be developed.

Decide: Which Are the Best Ideas? After a very creative exploration of possibilities, the brain needs to think more directionally and decide which ideas are feasible and possible. This stage still allows for creative decision-making, but the decision is more focussed towards the end goal. Important questions include Which is the best way to do this? What is the plan of action? What materials do I need? How much time have I got?

1120

Implement: Let’s Do It! This is the stage to think about ways of putting the decision to action! Learners should already have some ideas of how they want to present or communicate their work from discussions at the Generate stage. Vitally, all children should have opportunities over half a term or a term, to present their work using their strong abilities. By working across the full range of human abilities – social, emotional, spiritual, mechanical/technical, scientific, auditory/musical, visual/spatial, movement, linguistic (oral and written), mathematical – all children have a chance to shine and celebrate what they can do well. The brain is capable of functioning across and within all the abilities and we combine several abilities in everything we do, but we also have different profiles of strengths that are partly genetically endowed and partly environmentally fostered. Often, learners who need support in literacy and numeracy shine brightly when engaged in using their other abilities; and it is essential that they have opportunities to show their strengths if their interest and motivation is to be maintained. Moreover, both authors believe that education should fundamentally involve celebration of diversity and difference and that all children should be valued and have a voice.

Evaluate: How Well Did I Do? Of course teacher observation, assessment and evaluation are necessary; but if we are to develop pupil ownership, decision-making and personalised learning, then pupils need to learn how to evaluate both their own and each others’ work. Being able to evaluate one’s effort is a major key to autonomy in learning. The brain has to acknowledge success, which is a powerful factor in building self-confidence, whilst simultaneously accommodating the need for improvement and further learning. This process demands not only critical thinking, but also deep emotional strength and self-esteem. In a classroom that celebrates success across all human abilities, it is easier for learners to acknowledge that they need to improve and strengthen certain abilities. Learners praising each others’ efforts, while offering an idea for improvement – begins the process of self-evaluation. But it is also necessary that learn-

B. Wallace and C.J. Maker

ers know what “competence” and “excellence” look like, and providing learners with concrete examples that they can discuss is an essential route for developing this evaluative capacity across all subjects within the curriculum and outside it.

Communicate: Let’s Share What We Have Learned! In sharing ideas, learners are celebrating and crystallising what they know and what they have learned. In explaining to other children, learners are ordering and manipulating their ideas so that others can understand. In addition, it is wonderful fun to share using a variety of methods and skills, and importantly, children are learning new ideas from each other. We are social beings and reaching out to interact with others develops our social, emotional and spiritual strengths as well as our cognitive abilities. When we communicate, we have the opportunity to use the whole brain – both creatively and logically across all dimensions of human abilities. Importantly, children are “doing something exciting” with their learning rather than just always “writing it down”. Moreover, when learners communicate across the full range of human abilities, their skills of literacy also improve. Since what they are communicating is the product of their own thinking, they can more easily talk about it and, as a result, more easily write about it.

Learn from Experience: What Have We Learned? This is the metacognitive stage – the thinking about thinking, feeling and learning. All learners need to realise that they are making progress: it is not only the children who receive learning support who need to realise this, but also the more able learners need to realise that they are extending their learning and not just marking time. At the end of a topic or piece of work, important discussion should take place centring round questions such as: What do I know now that I didn’t know before? What new skills have I learned? How else can I use

57

DISCOVER/TASC

1121

these skills? How can I improve my way of working? to effective living. As with the TASC problem-solving How can I improve how I work with others? framework, these Tools for Effective Thinking have It is essential to return to the original mindmap of particular thinking purposes (Fig. 57.2). the “gather and organise” stage and add in any new ideas or knowledge. This extends the original brain map of where the learner started and helps with train- Clarifying Goals – Are We on Track? What ing memory and later recall of what has been learned. are we trying to do? When we can articulate what we have learned, then we can understand the learning that has taken place. Many learners get confused with the complexity of the task and get sidetracked by irrelevant detail, often spending too much time decorating the final piece of work without being clear about the key messages they Developing Tools for Effective are presenting. It is essential that learners explain to Thinking Which Feed into the TASC each other what the actual purpose of the task is; they Problem-Solving Wheel need to be clear about their goals. Although there is a vast number of thinking tools which can feed into the TASC problem-solving wheel, the diagram below portrays a “starter kit”. These core tools emerged consistently in the original action research project which trialled and refined the TASC model, and it is worth examining these in detail. These thinking tools apply not only to effective learning but also

Fig. 57.2 Wallace B (2000) Teaching the very able child: Developing a policy and adopting strategies for provision. London: David Fulton Publishers (A NACE-Fulton Pub)

Creating a “Think Tank” – How Many Ideas Can We Think of? Often, pupils jump into the “doing” before considering a range of possibilities. Very able learners are used to

1122

quick and easy success – “doing the stint” without too much effort – while less able pupils are relieved that they manage to have an idea at all! Spending a few minutes for the class to explore possibilities widens everyone’s horizons and encourages creative thinking. Learners need to know that we all “hitch-hike” onto other people’s ideas and that teamwork is a good way to spark off thinking.

Looking at Both Sides of an Idea – What Is the Opposite View? Most young people go through the stage of being egocentric and self-opinionated; this often stems from feelings of insecurity and lack of self-esteem. Having the confidence to step into someone else’s shoes in any situation inevitably brings about a more balanced opinion, decision or action. Role play, discussions, questionnaires and surveys particularly help learners to develop a pattern of behaviour which automatically seeks the other viewpoint.

B. Wallace and C.J. Maker

Prioritising – Which Is the Most Important? Sequencing ideas and actions in order of importance lies at the root of summarising, efficiency and the effective accomplishment of goals. Far too many learners (and adults) waffle and go round in circles, not really knowing where they are going or the most efficient way to get there.

Consulting Others – What Do Other People Think? Most people learn best when they can share with others – exchanging knowledge, ideas, methods and experience. We are social beings and become cooperative and responsible through interaction with good group role models. Surveying the ideas of younger and older people, and consulting experts, produces living learning related to life. Web searches and literature searches are obviously useful but consulting real people is often more exciting.

Making Connections – How Do the Ideas Link? Exploring the Consequences – What Will Happen If? Young learners also tend to be impulsive, latching on to the idea, the action or the conclusion before stopping to think of the possible consequences. The highly creative thinker can often think of another interpretation, another method or solution; and we need to encourage all learners to change the accepted and the usual way of thinking and doing.

In school we all acquired large amounts of fragmented knowledge which we memorised, spat out and mostly forgot. Unless learners first recall what they already know, and then make meaningful links with the new knowledge, the latter soon disappears; and as teachers we usually resort to repetition and drill so that learners “remember”. Memory works best when we can make the links, see the relevance and use the new knowledge to solve problems. Making mindmaps of any kind helps pupils to absorb in a meaningful way and then they can more easily recall the knowledge, skills and methods as a whole learning experience.

Looking in All Directions – What Are All the Factors to Consider?

Extending the TASC Problem-Solving Framework Through Increasing Gathering all the evidence, getting an overview, asComplexity of the Tools for Effective sembling all the relevant information are essential preplanning stages. Pupils are less likely to make mistakes Thinking or to draw inadequate conclusions if they are fully prepared beforehand. They are less likely to be thrown by There are many extended thinking action words that can be called Tools for Effective Thinking. Some of factors they never considered.

57

DISCOVER/TASC

Reflect on problem-solving Recall Search ideas and memory process Discuss Highlight and links Analyse what has been learned Indicate Question and gaps Compare with previous learning Focus critical questions Crystallise new ideas Explore systematically Revise ideas Transfer to new Compare and contexts Contrast with Justify purpose/decisions previous experiences G at h e r f ro m / or Present evidence/activity ga Analyse the problem into parts arn ience ni Interact with others L ex per se Decide and Detail what new e Recall main points knowledge is needed Recount in sequence Clarify the task Explain with reasons Establish the criteria for success Interpret ideas Visualise in some way Check understanding e

TASC

te

Ge n

ua

er at

E va l

Check against criteria for success Evaluate effectiveness of product Examine processes Appraise efficiency of thinking skills and strategies Discuss success of group interaction

y

C om m

n t if

un

I de

ica

te

Fig. 57.3 Wallace B (2000) Teaching thinking skills across the middle years. London: David Fulton Publishers (A NACE-Fulton Pub)

1123

Im

ple m

ent

Monitor your way of working Select way to record Check progress Revise procedures Change direction Backtrack for mistakes

these are subject specific, while others are general and used across the curriculum. The following list provides a comprehensive collection of cross-curricular thinking tools which is useful as a checklist when planning classroom activities. Most of the tools are both necessary and suitable for all learners although the language would need to be adjusted to suit the level of understanding of various groups of learners (Fig. 57.3). Gather/organise Recall ideas and Search memory Discuss and Highlight links Indicate and Question gaps Focus critical questions Explore systematically Identify Compare and Contrast with previous experiences Analyse the problem into parts Decide and Detail what new knowledge is needed Clarify the task Establish the criteria for success Visualise in some way Check understanding

D ec

ide

Cascade/Brainstorm ideas Research information Discuss with experts Consult others Compare information Select Organise and Survey Interview and Formulate hypothesis

Predict consequences Consult other people’s views Consider all arguments Prioritise Select and Make a case/Justify Sequence steps Synthesise ideas Extrapolate the most important

Generate Cascade/Brainstorm ideas Research information Discuss with experts Consult others Compare information Select and Organise Survey and Interview Formulate hypothesis Decide Predict consequences Consult other people’s views Consider all arguments Prioritise and Select Make a case/Justify Sequence steps Synthesise ideas Extrapolate the most important Implement Monitor your way of working Select way to record Check progress Revise procedures

1124

Change direction Back-track for mistakes Evaluate Check against criteria for success Judge effectiveness of product Examine processes Appraise efficiency of thinking skills and strategies Discuss success of group interaction Communicate Justify purpose/decisions Present evidence/activity Interact with others Recall main points Recount in sequence Explain with reasons Interpret ideas Learn from experience Reflect on problem-solving process Analyse what has been learned Compare with previous learning Crystallise new ideas Revise ideas Transfer to new contexts

B. Wallace and C.J. Maker

tical applications of the TASC Framework, they then implemented one or more TASC projects and shared their work and evaluations with colleagues within the schools or across clusters of schools. All introductory TASC projects are hands-on, practical activities utilising the full range of the human abilities, with the slogan “Maximum Thinking! Minimum Writing!” Thereafter, teachers scrutinise their half-termly planning and decide how they can weave the TASC Framework across the curriculum, as often as possible introducing projects that use the whole TASC Framework, but also making constant use of sections of the TASC Framework whenever this is feasible. The following characteristics were common throughout the teacher assessments: 1. Motivation, Independence and Engagement– All teachers reported that pupils’ motivation and engagement with the learning tasks were increased to the point where they hardly needed to intervene in the learning activity. The TASC Framework supplied the structure which all children were keen to engage with, and the teacher’s role became that of a facilitator rather than an instructor:

r Evaluation of TASC in Schools During the academic year from September 2005 to July 2006, several follow-up studies were carried out in a wide range of UK primary schools in the local education regions of Barnsley, Berkshire, Hampshire, Kent, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. The primary schools included Nursery, Reception, Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 pupils aged 3–11 years. In all, 350 schools supplied their evaluations of the impact of their TASC work: this number of schools contained more than 3,000 teachers, with some of the evaluations reflecting on the whole school development and some of the evaluations reflecting on the work of individual teachers in single classrooms. The evaluations were based on qualitative teacher and pupil responses to TASC projects carried out by the pupils centring on and developing topics taken from the UK National Curriculum. In addition, a range of quantitative evaluations were carried out based on the assessment levels outlined by the UK National Curriculum guidelines. Teachers in all the schools had received in-depth Continuing Professional Training (CPD) in the principles and prac-

r r

r

r

r

“I have never experienced pupils so intent on their chosen project. They were totally engaged and I did not have to keep them on task.” “I found I was almost redundant! I had time to observe the children and saw a number of children in a new light.” “Children who are never engaged with learning and who generally need constant supervision just got on with the task they had decided on. They were making their own decisions, I realised it was because they had ownership.” “I have several children who are Statemented (requiring intense, usually individual, support) and several children on the Special Needs Register (requiring general learning support), but you really couldn’t pick them out from the rest. They were engaged and contributing to the group.” “The more able children took to the TASC Framework straight away and needed no extra support, but when I provided the minimum support for lower ability children, they could refer to the TASC Framework for further support. Even for these children I was just a ‘gofer!’ ” “Disaffected boys are hard to motivate! But I couldn’t stop them! They talked all day about

57

DISCOVER/TASC

their project – not about soccer – their usual conversation!” 2. Self-Esteem, Enjoyment and Success – All teachers reflected that the children enjoyed their work and entered fully into the celebration of their success:

r

1125

they chose. The most disruptive child has shown himself to be a very able leader and he revelled in the fact that the group appointed him the leader. He worked very fairly and gently when he was monitoring the group’s progress. When things went wrong, it was he who helped to sort them out.” “We realised that the whole school attendance picked up! One parent asked what we had done to X because she got up early for school – usually she has to be nagged and dragged up!” “A very quiet group of girls have blossomed. They are speaking up and taking the lead, whereas previously, they just got on with their work and said very little.”

“Some children who always struggle were so r happy that they could just do ‘re-thinks’! They realised that TASC is error free because they can go backwards and forwards in the TASC Wheel and put their thinking right!” r r “There is always a happy buzz when the children are working on their TASC project. They constantly ask if today is a TASC project day!” r “The celebration of their TASC work sent all children and parents home with smiling faces. We didn’t rehearse their feedback to parents – the children explained the kinds of thinking they had been doing quite easily.” r “Although a lot of the discussions are class or General Comments from the Teachers group work based, every child created their own mini-beast. They took pride in their own cre- r “The atmosphere in the school is very different now. We are looking at all the pupils with new eyes. ation.” r “A child who is normally the ‘outsider’ was The SATs (National Standard Attainment Test) only looks at Literacy and Numeracy, so we drill that in an accepted member of the group. I realised the Spring Term before SATs week. But we have that he is an excellent practical problem-solver discovered those children who are very able in other and when the group praised his work, he just ways. We are now looking at children across the full beamed!” spectrum of human abilities.” 3. Diminished Anti-social Behaviour and Increased r “Our very able children on the Register (language Socially Acceptable Behaviour– All the teachers and mathematics) have exceeded all our expectacommented on the positive change in pupils’ emotions. We realised that they were just coasting. We tional and social behaviour: have been amazed at what they have been able to r “On TASC days – the Incident Book is empty! do! But we have extended our concept of ‘more able’ and now we celebrate every child.” Children choose to stay in and continue at playr “It is so much more exciting to work in the TASC times, eating their snacks and lunch while carryway because the children respond better. You still ing on with their project.” r “My class is a very challenging class and I was have to do the background planning to assemble possible resources and you still have to guide what sceptical that working in the TASC way would it is possible to do in the time and space; but we make any difference. But I was amazed at what share the planning with the children now, and they the children already knew and how excited they can understand what is possible and what is not feawere because they could choose which questions sible. Their questioning skills have leapt in depth they wanted to explore. I really was surprised and breadth!” that they could work without arguing and shoutr “Our Standards in SATs have been the highest ever, ing!” r “Some children who are the lowest in ability and we think it is because the children are so motivated and on task. We still have to be concerned (language and mathematics) and who are usually about our SATs results but we are going for the very disruptive really shone when they realised thinking first!” that they could solve the problem in any way

1126

General Comments from the Children Reported by the Teachers

r r r r r

r r

“TASC Projects give us a chance to show what we can do. They are a break from school work.” “TASC days are a chance to be creative and not have the teachers telling you all the time what to do.” “I realised that TASC is already in my head but I didn’t know it! I use the TASC Wheel to guide my thinking.” “TASC days ‘confidences us up’ so we are not afraid to speak out in front of other people.” “TASC gives us a full packed education! We didn’t realise until afterwards that we had done research, history, ICT, art, craft, DT, drama, speaking and listening. We even did some Literacy and we enjoyed it!” “TASC days are exciting because ‘you can open up your creative side’. Teachers don’t say that’s wrong and it takes a lot of pressure off you.” “My mind is usually disorganised and whizzing around! The TASC Wheel helps me to organise my thinking better.”

The initial step in teacher development has to be the practical experience of trialling the TASC Process leading to the realisation that the TASC problem-solving approach actually does lift motivation and self-esteem and also promotes independent learning: this is in line with the government initiative to Personalise Learning through providing learners with Ownership and Independence. The cohort of teachers reported collectively above have undertaken to continue to develop their TASC approach, and they and the children will continue to be monitored throughout the academic year from September 2006 to July 2007. The next stage is for teachers to discuss how they and the children will monitor and assess the improvement of their problemsolving skills: they also need to learn how to analyse the types of problem-solving activities they and the children are negotiating. This development links directly into the DISCOVER work developed by June Maker and her associates. FOOTNOTE: Key initiatives that have been developed based on the TASC Framework include the following:

r

B. Wallace and C.J. Maker

r r

My World” and “Reading in My World”, Nasou Via Africa Publishers, South Africa; Three of the TASC books (David Fulton Publishers, UK) have been translated into Chinese by Professor Jiannong Shi and his associates at the University of Beijing, China; The Centre for London Gifted and Talented (UK) have developed an online e-TASC programme (see the chapter written by Ian Warwick).

Theoretical Background for the Framework of DISCOVER: Discovering Intellectual Strengths and Capabilities While Observing Varied Ethnic Strengths Need for Changes in Beliefs For over a century, educators have limited their beliefs about intelligence and superior abilities to research and theories from psychology, particularly from the research on “individual differences” even though this research has mainly been conducted on groups, especially those from advantaged and mainstream cultural backgrounds, with generalisations made based on averages and “standard” deviations rather than individual behaviour (Ceci, 1996; Nielson, 1994). We have entered a new era, and other important fields must no longer be ignored. Ideas, research results and theories from cultural anthropology, sociology, genetics, neuroscience, developmental psychology, education and the new field of cognitive science must be integrated into our thought systems to form a more complete view of the multifaceted, multidimensional phenomenon we call giftedness.

A New Framework: From Theory to Practice

The primary goal of June Maker’s research has been to transfer theory and research into classrooms and communities by designing an assessment and curriculum model integrating the theoretical frameworks proposed A whole school curriculum series on language and by Ceci (1996), Sternberg (1985, 1997, 1999) and thinking from grade 1 to grade 12: “Language in Gardner (1983, 1995, 1999), which are excellent

57

DISCOVER/TASC

examples of integrated perspectives. According to Ceci, a prerequisite for cognitively complex behaviour in a given realm is the possession of a well differentiated yet integrated knowledge base that gets operated on by efficient cognitive processes: “The knowledge and beliefs we possess in a specific domain . . . provide the raw materials for the operation of various cognitive processes during moments of problem solving. . .” (1996, p. 22). Gardner (1983, 1995) also synthesised a variety of perspectives in the development of his theory, including psychology, education, neuroscience and anthropology. His philosophical framework was consistent with June Maker’s ideas and research, as evidenced by his definition of intelligence as “a set of skills of problem solving enabling the individual to resolve genuine problems or difficulties that he or she encounters . . ., to create an effective product, and . . . the potential for finding or creating problems—thereby laying the groundwork for the acquisition of new knowledge” (pp. 60–61). Sternberg identified three types of abilities and stated that all three – analytical, creative, and practical – are of absolute functional importance in any area of human performance. General ability (g) as measured by intelligence tests is only a part of intelligence because what is usually measured by general intelligence tests is analytical thinking. To make Ceci’s, Sternberg’s and Gardner’s ideas applicable in education and easily understandable to teachers, June Maker’s work on defining levels of content enabling students to see how facts and experiences are connected to “big ideas” (Maker, 1982; Maker & Nielson, 1995) was integrated with the early work of psychologist Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976; 1967). Maker and Shirley Schiever elaborated and extended this work to create a continuum of problem types to design assessments and curricula (Maker & Schiever, 2005; Schiever & Maker, 1991, 1997). The framework of DISCOVER was designed to create a better alignment between the definition of problem solving, its assessment and its development in an educational context. In Csikszentmihalyi’s early research (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976; 1967), the ability (and willingness) to structure an open-ended or ill-structured problem, or “problem-finding”, as it was later labelled, was the single trait that most accurately predicted the later creative achievements of artists. This research has had a significant effect on the field of education for gifted students, leading to the de-

1127

velopment of teaching models and approaches in which problem-finding is valued over the solving of alreadydefined problems or problems with known solutions (Gallagher, Stepien, & Rosenthal, 1992; Maker & Nielson, 1995). Assessments and curricula must include a balance of all types of problems and must incorporate all levels of content – from data to concepts, principles and theories if educators are committed to the development of children’s ability to solve the problems they encounter, not only in the academic world and the world of work, but also in the worlds of personal relationships, human growth and personal satisfaction. Since the publication of her first books on curriculum design and teaching (Maker, 1982a,b), June Maker has advocated the design of learning environments for gifted students that are learner centred, knowledge centred, assessment centred and community centred (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). DISCOVER was created to extend these principles and practices into schools with high concentrations of culturally and linguistically diverse, geographically isolated and low-income students – helping administrators, teachers, parents and communities to adopt a “strength-based” instead of “deficit-based” view of students (Maker, 1993, 2001, Maker, Muammar, Serino, Kuang, Mohamed, & Sak in press; Maker & King, 1996; Maker, Nielson, & Rogers, 1994; Maker, Rogers, Nielson, & Bauerle, 1996).

Grounded Research Many years were spent on the development of this framework to make it useful in a practical setting and to test its applicability to a variety of cultures and situations. Only a brief summary will be presented here. More information can be gained from other publications (Maker, 1992, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2004, 2005a, 2005b). In the first series of studies (Maker, 1993), individuals considered highly competent and individuals considered competent in each of Gardner’s original seven intelligences (linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal and intrapersonal) were recruited through a nomination process. Using the continuum of problem types (Maker & Schiever, 2005; Schiever & Maker, 1991, 1997), the research team presented problems in each intelligence,

1128

observed participants as they solved these problems, videotaped them and interviewed them about the problem-solving processes they had used when solving the problems. As predicted by the theory, participants used the core capacities Gardner (1983) had identified for each intelligence. In addition, they used other strategies specific to each intelligence (an elaboration of the theory) and certain general problem-solving strategies not included or discussed in Gardner’s theory, but consistent with Sternberg’s theory: some of the strategies they used across all intelligences were analytical, some were creative and some were practical. These problem solvers also demonstrated different motivational traits depending on the type of problem being presented and the domain or intelligence in which they were working. Participants preferred, and were more motivated to solve, open-ended problems – problems requiring the highest levels of creativity – in their strongest intelligences while they were more motivated to solve, and preferred, closed problems – problems requiring the most reliance on past learning – in their weakest intelligences. In other words, those who were gifted in a particular area became more excited and motivated when the problems presented to them became more openended. (The problems were presented to all participants in the same order – from the most closed to the most open-ended based on the continuum of problem types.) However, those same individuals, when presented with problems in areas in which they were not gifted, became more anxious and reluctant when presented with more open-ended problems (see Maker, 2004, 2005a). In the second series of studies, the findings of this research were applied to the design of assessments and curricula in school settings (Maker, 2001, 2005a, 2005b; Maker, Nielson, & Rogers, 1994; Maker, Rogers, Nielson, & Bauerle, 1996; Maker, et al., 2008; Sarouphim, 2001; Sak & Maker, 2005; Taetle & Maker, 2005). Again using the continuum of problems, interesting and engaging tasks were designed for children that would stimulate the use of each intelligence. Starting with the three that are most important in school settings (linguistic, logicalmathematical and spatial), tasks were designed to be “intelligence-fair” (Gardner, 1992) and developmentally appropriate. They were presented to children in small-group settings in an attempt to simulate a real classroom environment so the children would not feel they were being “tested”, and observers from various cultures, age groups, experience backgrounds,

B. Wallace and C.J. Maker

educational levels and belief systems observed and documented the problem-solving processes children used through notes, audio and video recordings and photographs. The tasks and results of over 15 years of research on the assessments are described in various publications (Maker, 1992, 1994, 1996, 2001, 2005a; Sarouphim, 2000, 2002, 2004). Concurrently, a curriculum development framework was being field-tested through similar grounded research techniques. Teachers were provided intensive staff development on the different intelligences and the problem continuum. In small groups and in various workshops, they created curricula based on State and National Standards (USA) in which they developed all intelligences, allowed children numerous choices for “showing what they know” and developed children’s ability to solve a variety of problems across curricular and intellectual domains. Then, teachers were observed over the course of 3–6 years. The principles that characterised the classrooms of expert teachers were outlined and some pilot studies conducted to test whether the students in these classrooms demonstrated greater achievement, creativity and problem-solving skills than students in classrooms in which these principles were not used (Maker et al. 1996; Taetle & Maker, in review). Because pilot studies had such positive results, larger-scale projects were implemented, and the data analysis for these studies continues. This research is reviewed in the final section of this chapter. The current stage of development has involved reviewing and reflecting on the results and combining the work across cultures in the USA with the work of colleagues in other countries. Co-author Belle Wallace and professors Usanee Anuruthwong from Srinakharinwirot University in Thailand; Mei Ruili, Aibi Chen and Yu Xin from the Beijing Institute of Education in Mainland China; Ching Chi Quo from National Taiwan Normal University in Taiwan; and Todd Lubart from University of Paris V and Sylvie Tordjman from Central Hospital Guillaume-Regnier at University of Rennes I in France all have been collaborators in various aspects of this stage. For this chapter, the most important result of the recent stage of development is the re-framing of the conception of “intelligences” as presented by Howard Gardner. Ten new abilities were defined (Maker & Anuruthwong, 2003; Wallace, Maker, Cave, & Chandler, 2004): emotional, social, spiritual, somatic, visual/spatial, auditory, mathematical/symbolic, linguistic, mechanical/technical and scientific. Some of the

57

DISCOVER/TASC

new abilities have much similarity to the original intelligences, but are conceived more broadly (linguistic, mathematical/symbolic, somatic/bodily) and others involving a division of the original intelligences (visual/spatial and mechanical/technical were both defined as “spatial” in Gardner’s theory), others are redefined (emotional and social instead of interpersonal and intrapersonal, scientific instead of naturalistic), and spiritual was added even though rejected by Gardner as a separate, identifiable intelligence. The abilities were defined as domains of intelligence rather than as separate intelligences in recognition of the contribution of such general capacities as memory, creativity, intuition, metacognition, reasoning and logic to all areas of intellectual performance. In this chapter, the focus is on the teaching framework rather than the assessment. For teachers to implement the assessment, they need a week of observer training along with supervised practice, and the assessment needs to be adapted to each international setting in applied research. However, teachers can implement the curriculum and teaching framework based on reading and understanding this chapter – trying the approach, preferably with a group of interested colleagues – and assessing its effects on the learning and motivation of children. Certainly, participating in workshops led by expert teachers and curriculum designers would be the ideal way to begin, but if this is not possible, teachers can begin on their own!

Essential Elements of the Framework The two essential elements of the framework are the ten human abilities and the six problem types. Teachers design problem-solving experiences across the ten abilities and across the six problem types with the goal of helping children learn the State and National Standards or National Curriculum (USA and UK). Teachers allow children to make choices, participate in the evaluation of their own products, choose their own tools, make drawings and constructions in their own ways and be who they are; provide varied choices of learning experiences, interesting tools necessary for creating and solving problems across diverse domains, opportunities to make important decisions about their learning; and respect children’s decisions, choices and products.

1129

The Problem Continuum At the heart of the DISCOVER curriculum model is the continuum of problems ranging from closed to open (Maker & Schiever, 2005; Schiever & Maker, 1991, 1997). The problem continuum is helpful for teachers who wish to select or design problem-solving learning experiences that develop both knowledge and creativity. In the model, problemsolving situations are categorised according to whether the problem, method and solution are known by the presenter or the solver. Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1976, 1967) used three problem types, and Schiever and Maker added three to complete the gap between their first and third. In the new model (Maker & Schiever, 2005; Schiever & Maker, 1991, 1997) the first type is one in which the problem and method are “known” by the presenter and solver, and the solution is known only by the presenter. The solver’s task is to apply the known method to reach the solution already known by the presenter (i.e. the teacher or the author is a of the test). In math, for example, 4 + 7 = Type I problem. The second type is close to the first in structure, with a problem known to the presenter and solver, and both method and solution known to the presenter but unknown to the solver. Again, in math, a Type II problem can be a word problem such as “Jenny had 3 pet birds. One of them flew away and one of them died. How many pet birds does Jenny have now?” The third problem type has multiple methods, but only one correct answer. Another word problem could be presented: “Jerrica had 10 toys. She gave 5 toys to her sister and 3 toys to her brother. How many toys does Jerrica have now?” This problem can be solved using at least two strategies, but it has only one correct answer. In the fourth problem type, more than one method and more than one solution are acceptable. However, the methods and solutions are known to the person presenting the problem. An example from math is to give students three different numbers – 2, 5, 3 – and ask the students to write correct addition and subtraction problems using only those numbers. They can use two different methods and can reach four different solutions. The fifth problem type has a clearly defined problem, but an unlimited number of methods and an unlimited number of solutions can be identified or developed. The person presenting the problem does not have acceptable methods or

1130

B. Wallace and C.J. Maker

solutions in mind. If students are given any number (9, for example) and asked to develop as many problems as possible with that number as the answer, the number of possible methods is unlimited, as is the number of appropriate solutions. The sixth problem type is one in which the problem, method and solution are “unknown” to both presenter and solver. A math problem situation of this type is to “choose a number, an operation, or any other math idea, and show it in the best way you can”. Students also could be asked to show the number, operation or idea in “as many ways as possible”. In Type VI problem-solving situations, the problem solver must define the problem to solve before attempting to solve it. This type permits the most individual creativity and requires the ability to “find” or “define” a problem contained in a situation. Types I, II and VI comprised the original matrix developed by Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi (1967, 1976); Types III, IV and V were added by Maker and Schiever (Maker & Schiever, 2005; Schiever & Maker 1991, 1997) so the types could be perceived as being on a continuum of decreasing structure. The problem-solving situations presented to children need to be connected to the content standards required at each grade or to a prescribed national curriculum. In the first example below, the teacher of grade 3 (age 9) children has developed a teaching unit on “habitats” and is focusing on the desert environment as a habitat for various animals and plants. She designed a problem matrix including all ten human abilities. The one that follows is the problem continuum for linguistic. Theme: Habitats Topic: Deserts Generalisation: Every living thing needs a special place to live in this world. Humans as well as animals and plants learn to adapt to their own environment. Literature focus: America’s Deserts – by Marianne Wallace, Cactus in the Desert – by Phyllis Busch, A Desert Scrapbook – by Virginia Wright Intelligence: Linguistic Arizona State Standards 4SC-F3. Identify the basic structures and functions of plants and animals

Problem Types I–VI Type I

RF3. Use reading 1. Look at the drawings and comprehension strategies then draw a line to the such as drawing conclusions, matching word (L1.1) 2. Name the parts of a plant in summarising, making the following picture (L1.2) predictions, identifying cause and effect and differentiating fiction from non-fiction RF3. Use reading Type II comprehension strategies 1. Fill in the blank spaces of the such as drawing conclusions, paragraph below. Choose the summarising, making correct word from the word predictions, identifying cause box below (L2.1) and effect and differentiating 2. Read the story A Desert fiction from non-fiction Scrapbook by Virginia Wright, then answer the comprehension questions (L2.2) R-F4. Identify facts and the Type III main idea, sequence events, 1. Using your vocabulary words define and differentiate create a story about a desert characters and determine an creature (L3.1) author’s purpose in a range of 2. Choose any one of the books traditional and contemporary from the basket and read it. literature Then write a summary of the story including beginning, middle, problem and ending (L3.2) 3. Write a triangular poem. In the middle draw or paste a picture of your plant or animal (L3.3) W-F3. Write a personal narrative or a creative story that has a beginning, middle and end and use descriptive words or phrases to develop ideas and advance the characters, plot and setting W-F4. Gather, organise and accurately, clearly and sequentially report information gained from personal observations and experiences such as science experiments, field trips and classroom visitors W-F5. Locate, acknowledge and use several sources to write an informational report in their own words W-F4. Gather, organise and accurately, clearly and sequentially report information gained from personal observations and experiences such as science experiments, field trips and classroom visitors. W-F5. Locate, acknowledge and use several sources to write an informational report in their own words.

Type IV 1. Write a report about the desert 2. Using power point make a presentation of the things that you learned about the desert. Write a descriptive paragraph after each picture 3. Imagine you’ve been in the desert for a couple of weeks now and you have time to write a letter to your friends or family about your adventure

Type V Today you will need to gather information to present to a panel of environmentalists and discuss with them about how your school can help to protect the desert environment.

57

DISCOVER/TASC

1131

This example does not include a Type VI problem, and shows that not all problem types must be included at all times. In fact, what is most important is that a wide range of problem types is included in the course of the week, month, or semester of teaching. The second example from science (USA) for grades 9 to 12 secondary, ages 15 to 18, is designed to teach the theme of ecosystems, and is based on the National Science Standards:

of intelligence, the child’s strengths, and the prior experiences or knowledge needed. The problem continuum can be used in many different ways, and many more can be designed by creative, innovative teachers! Here are a few that have been tried by other teachers and teams of teachers.

National Science Standard Content Standard F Environmental Quality

The first, and most important, use of the problem continuum and matrix of human abilities is for teachers to conduct an inventory of teaching activities and learning experiences to determine their usual patterns of teaching. Using a matrix with all problem types and all human abilities, teachers examine their lesson and unit plans to determine which problem types and abilities they have included. Most teachers find that they have emphasised linguistic, mathematical and scientific abilities and have included very few experiences with auditory, somatic/bodily, spatial and emotional. Most also find that they have included many problemsolving experiences with Types I, II and III, but very few Types IV and V and almost no Type VI. After looking at the “audit” of your teaching for a term or halfterm, add experiences in the areas that are lacking or missing from your normal teaching plans. An example of a teacher audit can be found in Wallace et al. (2004).

Content Standard F Environmental Quality Content Standard F Science & technology in local, national, & global challenges Content Standard F Science & technology in local, national, content & global challenges. Content Standard F Population growth

Content Standard F Personal & community health

Learning Activity Type I Based on the article “Water Quality”, what three effects does polluted water have on aquatic organisms? Type II Assign an EPA quality rating to Big Lake. Type III Identify the watershed elements within a ten mile radius of our city. Type IV Only 1% of all the world water supply is usable. We are running out of water. Design a water conservation plan for your community. Type V If the population of this city continues to increase at the same rate it is presently, when will the city run out of water? How might this be avoided? Type VI Water pollution is suspected as one of several possible causes of excessive illness and disease in one area of a city. Create a presentation of your findings that includes visual and other elements.

Many different examples of the problem continuum have been published (Maker, 2005a; Maker et al. 1994; Maker & King, 1996; Maker & Nielson, 1996). The most important thing to remember is that all types are not necessary at all times, and that the problems do not have to be presented in order from one to six. In addition, they are not hierarchical. In other words, Type I does not necessarily require a lower level of thinking from Type VI. However, it does require a different type of thinking. Type VI problems are more complex than Type I problems, but may not be more difficult to solve—depending on the problem, the domain or type

Inventory of Teaching and Learning Experiences

Students Are Presented with and Led Through Solving a Real-World, Semi-structured Problem A very important use of the problem continuum is to present the students with a real-world, semi-structured problem (a Type V and a half!) and to design learning experiences of Types I through IV as ways to help students solve their real-world problem. After this experience of solving a real-world problem with their peers, they then design their own Type VI investigations of interest to them. These Type VI investigations can be related to the problem they have solved together or can be completely different. Following is an example of this using a recent teacher education program at the University of Arizona (USA) (Maker, & Zimmerman 2008). The teachers were first presented with a Type V problem related to the theme of ecosystems and

1132

ecosystem management. Workshop leaders described the Santa Cruz River near Tucson and gave students background information about issues related to sharing the river with another country (Mexico), the pollution in the river, the fact that no water remains in the river as it nears Tucson and the loss of riparian habitat near the water. Participants were then divided into six groups representing various real-life interest groups involved in the problem – the people who live near the river, the American Indians who want to develop sustainable farming using the water from the river, the environmental protection agency, the developers who want to make money by building near the river, the miners and farmers union and the society for biodiversity. Each group was to think of what its interests would be, how it might be contributing to the problem and to propose a solution that could be beneficial for all groups as well as for the preservation of the river and the riparian habitat. As the groups were working together to develop their solutions, workshop leaders presented them with several problem-solving experiences to help them expand their understanding of the Santa Cruz River problem and to make certain they learned important skills that were part of the required curriculum. Examples of Type I problems were (a) to learn and use the correct method for testing water and (b) to learn and use correct methods for grafting and planting new vegetation to restore the habitat along the river. An example of a Type II problem was to correctly assess the condition of the riparian habitat near the river, applying a technique developed in Australia. The Type III problem was to find many appropriate ways to present the data collected to support conclusions and solutions that each group proposed. Throughout the problemsolving experience, structured discussions were held. In these Type IV experiences, students grouped information, made and supported inferences about the causes and effects of various conditions of the river and made and supported conclusions about the most important causes and effects of these conditions. Each group had a facilitator who led them through the steps of the TASC problem-solving model, first gathering and organising information about the problem, then identifying the problem from the perspective of the interest group the students were representing, then deciding on the best idea, developing a plan for implementing the solution, evaluating the plan, then communicating the plan to others. At this stage, all groups presented their solutions to a simulated “city planning commission”

B. Wallace and C.J. Maker

who evaluated all the solutions. After the presentations, the groups reflected on their experiences and discussed what they had learned. They then participated in a discussion about ecosystems and ecosystem management. At the end of these discussions, in a real classroom situation, students would propose their own investigations – Type VI problems. Some of the investigations proposed by the groups were the following: 1. Study the condition of the riparian habitat at several places along the river and determine where the major problems begin. 2. Test the water at different points of the river at different times of the year, compare these tests with information about water quality from the past 10 years and determine whether the overall quality has declined significantly and where this has occurred. 3. Study the farming techniques used by the agriculture and mining consortium and by the American Indians to determine which have the least harmful effects on the water level and quality. These are Type VI problems because the students have determined the problem to be investigated, the methods to be used and will evaluate their solutions to decide on their quality.

Using the Continuum and Matrix to Design Student Options and Choices Another important way to use the problem continuum and matrix of human abilities is to develop problems of each type for each ability (examples of these can be found in Maker, 2005a, appendix of teaching units; Maker & King, 1996; Maker & Nielson, 1996; Maker & Pease, 2008) Maker & Schiever, 2005; Wallace et al., 2004) and to give students the opportunity to choose which problems they will solve. Some teachers require that all students solve the Type I and II problems before progressing to the more open-ended problems in each ability area. Others require that students experience more than one ability area, while some give students complete freedom to choose which problem types they will solve and the human abilities they will use. In Thailand, this is the way the human abilities and the problem continuum are used. All students in grades K through 3 in many schools participate in the Exploring Centres. Each class goes to the centre for 2

57

DISCOVER/TASC

1133

hours each week. During the 2 hours they first have 5. As described earlier, June Maker uses it in teacher a short group activity, then they choose what they will education – to inventory her teaching activities, to do. When they have finished at a particular corner, they design problem-based learning experiences (Types take back the name tag and find another available corV and VI) with other types embedded in them, to ner. At the end of the period, they record their choices develop options and choices, to design tests and to for the day and reflect on their experiences. They can evaluate teachers-in-training. display their products and sometimes discussions are held with all students. In Thailand, one city has built a large outdoor Exploring Park, and several schools have Problem Type I, Then II, III, IV, V and VI built Exploring Gardens.

Other Uses of the Problem Continuum Other important uses of the continuum can be combined with any of the major uses listed. I will describe these briefly: 1. Assess student knowledge and skills with Problem Types I, II and III, then allow them to progress to the solving of Types IV, V and VI if they perform successfully on these types; and if they do not perform successfully on the first set of these problems, ask them to solve more Types I, II and III to gain knowledge and skills necessary for the more open-ended types. If this model is used, students can work in groups on the problems they did not solve successfully the first time. 2. Assess student knowledge and skills with a Problem Type V or VI experience, and from this find out what skills and knowledge need to be taught to individuals, small groups or the whole group of students. This is the way some of the teachers in the program in Taipei have been using the continuum with young gifted children. This use of the continuum allows teachers to find out what skills children have already learned so they do not reteach skills and knowledge already mastered by gifted children. 3. The problem continuum can be used to design tests. June Maker uses it in this way with her university classes. We also used it to design assessments of students’ abilities across the spectrum of multiple abilities, as did the teachers in the UK schools, as reported in Wallace et al. (2004). 4. Some administrators use the problem continuum and matrix of human abilities to evaluate teachers and give merit raises in pay.

One use of the continuum has been saved until the end. Many teachers who are beginners in the use of the problem continuum think only of using the continuum sequentially – beginning with Type I, doing all problem types and ending with Type VI. Teachers who use it in this way believe that learning is sequential, and that students must solve certain closed problems before they can progress to more creative, open-ended problem solving. Although nothing is wrong with this approach, it is limited; educators can be more flexible in the use of the continuum so it can be adapted to many different teaching purposes! In conclusion, the problem continuum and matrix of human abilities can be used in many different ways, depending on the instructional purposes as well as the teacher’s style, preferences and levels of expertise. How to use it in any classroom or school is a Type VI problem!

The Ten Human Abilities Throughout this chapter, we have referred to the ten human abilities, and in the first section about DISCOVER, we discussed briefly how this framework is different from and similar to Gardner’s list of Multiple Intelligences. By outlining different human abilities, we have attempted both to draw on our own research and to connect the human abilities more closely to an educational context. In addition, we also have integrated the theoretical perspectives and research of others with that of Gardner. A more thorough description of the human abilities and how they interact can be found in Wallace et al. (2004). To integrate the full range of human abilities into the classroom, three important things need to be considered: the different type of thinking that characterises

1134

B. Wallace and C.J. Maker

each human ability, the different types of products that draw on different abilities and the diverse tools children need to be able to produce products and use types of thinking that characterise each human ability. Another important consideration is to remember that the abilities do not operate independently. They always interact and strengthen each other! Following are descriptions of each of the abilities. Each definition is followed by a table with examples of characteristics (including ways of thinking), products and tools. Social/Humanitarian abilities comprise the understanding and skills we need to get along with other people. At the highest level of development we see people engaged in responsible and caring leadership, humanitarian projects and endeavours and concern for human rights and responsibilities. Characteristics Shows empathy with others Gets along well with others

Products Games involving other people Dance, drama and mime productions

Shows patience with others

Plans for projects in which roles of people are outlined Group activities of all kinds

Involves or considers others in decisionmaking Considers others when expressing own feelings Leads and/or follows as appropriate

Discussions of roles of self and others

Tools Blank books Individual sized chalk boards or white boards with appropriate writing instruments Soft places to sit with others Miniature objects A play kitchen or other setting Books about families, people and their interactions Pictures of families and people interacting

Emotional abilities enable us to understand, share, talk about and deal with our feelings and emotions. They allow us to examine the causes underlying our emotions and enable us to have the courage to change and develop appropriate control. At the highest level, people with well-developed emotional intelligence are engaged in work requiring psychological and psychiatric empathy, understandings and insights.

Characteristics Identifies and describes own feelings Identifies causes and effects of own feelings Expresses and releases negative emotions

Products Dance, drama and mime productions Artistic products such as collages or original productions that portray emotions

Sees the effects of expressing emotions in certain ways

Role-play productions and experiences Discussions of emotions

Tools Soft places to sit Blank books and writing materials Construction materials and old magazines for cutting out pictures Books about emotional topics Miniature people Drawing and painting materials

Spiritual abilities relate closely to emotional and social abilities. People have an awareness of elements within daily life that are beyond their immediate understanding of the concrete world around them. They search for deeper meanings and purposes, analyse causes and consequences and seek to interpret “big” ideas. Even very young children ask “big” questions about how the world was made, why seasons come about and what makes “things happen”. They want to know about beginnings and how the world works, about intentions and purposes. Characteristics Aware of reactions of others (also social) Concerned about “fair play”

Products Discussions of moral dilemmas

Tools Soft places to sit

Proposed solutions Blank books and to world ethical writing problems materials Settles arguments Proposed solutions Construction (also social) to individual materials and Is a peacemaker and local ethical old magazines problems for cutting out pictures Asks questions Drama and Books about about living and role-playing ethical topics dying experiences Shows openness to Artistic products Miniature people all points of such as collages view on or original religious productions that questions portray spiritual and ethical issues or solutions Wonders about Drawing and universal painting questions materials

57

DISCOVER/TASC

1135

Mathematical/Symbolic abilities include the use of codes, symbols, numbers, models and diagrams to understand and manipulate mathematical ideas – showing both concrete and abstract relationships. Sign language such as that used by deaf individuals or hieroglyphics such as those on the Rosetta Stone or in the Chinese languages also are complex representations of ideas in codes and symbols. Children need to learn the symbolic language of mathematics, beginning with direct life experience and moving on to more abstract manipulation of ideas through mathematical symbols. Mathematical abilities go way beyond numbers: playing with codes, symbols, puzzles, shapes, 2D and 3D game strategies all contribute to the development of mathematical abilities. Characteristics Retains what is learned and can apply learning to solve mathematical problems Solves complex mathematical puzzles

Products Pattern and shape puzzles

Tools Tangrams

Charts and graphs

Attribute blocks, Unifix cubes, Geoboards and other similar materials A water/sand table or plastic container that can hold water, measuring cups of different sizes, funnels of various sizes for young children Measuring and drawing tools such as protractors, rulers and other technical materials Puzzles of varying difficulty

Creates unusual patterns

Solutions to mathematical problems

Sees relationships and connections among numbers, symbols and/or shapes

Structures made to scale or to a specific engineering design

Remembers sequences of numbers and symbols Can work forwards and backwards through a sequence Makes mathematical comparisons

Games of logic

ing and, of course, listening. They involve using words to create pictures, to reason, to explain ideas, to evoke emotions, to persuade others, to entertain. Verbal abilities are both oral and written, although children are not always equally skilled in both. Characteristics Uses advanced vocabulary with understanding Can use prepositions and comparisons to explain connections between ideas Tells stories with fluency and expressiveness Shows understanding in dual language

Often has a dialogue with the print Recalling events with details

Products Stories told from pictures

Tools Hand and finger puppets

Written stories, essays, letters, other products using language

Miniature objects

Speeches and debates

Wordless picture books

Oral stories, essays, poems and other products involving language Word and picture games (playing or creating)

Audio recorder, blank tapes if not using digital recorders Books on tape or CD Writing supplies (paper, markers and/or chalk) Books written by other children Books and other sources of many different types of writing (e g. poems, essays, haiku)

Discusses a story at length Invents and plays with words

Scientific/Realistic abilities are those needed to explain the real world. These abilities involve the use of observing, identifying, classifying, explaining and investigating. This cluster of abilities is used to understand systems, relationships and the natural and scientific world in which we live. Scientists, farmers and therapists all use this collection of abilities.

Games of strategy

Linguistic/Symbolic abilities include all the skills associated with using words – speaking, reading, writ-

Characteristics Likes experimenting with plants, animals, chemicals or environments Notices fine details in natural phenomena

Products Collections and groups of things

Tools Magnifying glass

Investigations and experiments

Microscope

1136

B. Wallace and C.J. Maker

Characteristics Likes solving science problems

Products Plans for investigations and experiments

Builds and makes models of scientific information or ideas Spots inconsistencies

Models of real or imaginary phenomena

Tools Natural objects such as sea shells, rocks, insects and leaves Books for identifying natural phenomena

Visual/Spatial abilities include seeing things not only accurately and with detail in the physical world, but also in the “mind’s eye”. Rotating and changing figures, projecting into three dimensions and mentally manipulating images are all characteristics of visual/spatial ability. Artists, inventors, sculptors, architects and mathematicians all use their visual/spatial abilities to create feelings, meanings and constructions. Often these abilities are exercised Construction materials such passively through computer games and television, as toothpicks, which demand unthinking reflex action or acceptance. ice cream sticks, Instead, pupils, regardless of their age, need many clay, glue, construction more opportunities to create their own images and paper, old derive pleasure from “doing and making”. newspapers

Mechanical/Technical abilities employ skills that are involved in understanding, manipulating, creating and repairing tools and machines that humans use to perform tasks. All types of mechanical/technical abilities involve, in varying degrees, the use of mathematical, movement, auditory and visual/spatial abilities. These abilities also include using and manipulating computers and technology. People who have well-developed mechanical/technical abilities work with both head and hands. Engineers, designers and mechanics all use this collection of abilities. Characteristics Takes things apart

Products Designs and drawings

Enjoys building and making devices Wants to see the inside workings of things

Models

Fixes machines or devices

Robots

Machines

Computer programs Complex computer designs

Tools Legos, Multifix, Capsela and other materials that can be used to make many kinds of machines with moving parts Toys with moving parts Old machines that don’t work or parts of machines Junk and recyclables such as Styrofoam peanuts, plastic bottles and aluminium cans

Characteristics Solves hands-on problems easily

Products Drawings and paintings

Spots visual similarities and differences

3D models of both real and imaginary things

Creates unusual or interesting visual patterns

Sculptures

Constructs or draws with detail and perspective Spends a long time looking at pictures, diagrams, maps May prefer to get information through pictures, diagrams and maps instead of reading

Collages

Photographs

Tools Tissue paper, drawing paper and construction paper of varied colours Coloured markers, coloured pencils, charcoal, paint brushes watercolours, chalk, and other materials to paint or draw with materials Scissors, glue, a collection of “junk” and recycled Scraps of various fabrics Clay, Play-doh and other materials for sculptures or models Examples of artwork by famous or local artists

Auditory/Sonal abilities (from the Latin “sonance” meaning sound) enable us to hear, produce and manipulate sounds. We hear external sounds but we also hear sounds “in our heads”. We hear pitch, tone and expression. Musicians obviously have keen, sensitive auditory abilities, but poets and writers also have well-

57

DISCOVER/TASC

1137

developed auditory abilities that are revealed in their use of rhythm, pattern and alliteration. Public speakers and leaders often use expressive sounds to great effect on their audiences. Characteristics Responds to melody and rhythm Distinguishes sounds and tones accurately Learns melodies easily Shows observable responses to different musical modes Recognises when voices or instruments are “in tune”

Products Tunes and original songs

Tools Music on tapes or CDs

Musical scores or rhythms for poems or stories Poems and songs using rhythm, pattern and alliteration Rhythmic patterns with different instruments or parts of the body

Tape or CD player Household items that make different sounds Glass bottles to fill with water

Rhythm instruments Keyboard, xylophone, recorder and other instruments as available

Has accurate sense of timing and direction Changes pace smoothly Distinguishes flavours accurately Distinguishes tastes accurately without looking Mimes with accuracy and expression

New yoga positions or combinations of known positions

Dress-up clothes

Bubble maker and soap for bubbles Mirrors Pictures of dance movements and yoga positions Videotapes of dancers and dances Large balls, jump ropes and other available athletic equipment

Evaluation of DISCOVER in Schools

Research on the effectiveness of the DISCOVER curriculum model has been conducted for several years, in varied settings, and with large groups of children in the USA and in two schools in the UK. These studies are reported in various publications (Maker et al., 1996; Maker, 2001; Maker, 2004, 2005a, 2005b, Maker et al., Movement/Somatic abilities (from the Greek in press; Maker & Taetle, 2005), so the results will be “soma” meaning body) include all abilities associated presented only briefly here. In the first pilot study (Maker et al., 1996) two with body movement and sensation, including the senses of taste, touch and smell. Gymnasts use gross teachers who implemented DISCOVER at different and fine body control and actors use body language levels (medium and high) were observed and their stuto convey relationships, emotions and feelings. While dents were tested. Statistically significant changes were we all respond and react to our environment through found in the children’s problem solving from pretest to our bodily awareness of taste, touch and smell, some posttest even though children only had 7 or 8 months people’s senses are particularly acute, for example between assessments. Based on this pilot study, the research team designed a 3-year study to investigate difvisually impaired people. ferences in students in classrooms of teachers at variCharacteristics Products Tools ous implementation levels. Has good Dances Games requiring In the next project, four schools in high-poverty, hand–eye large- or low-income areas were selected; and all children, all coordination fine-motor teachers and the community participated in the project. movement Moves with grace Drama and mime Obstacle courses A site coordinator from the research and development and fluency performances team worked closely with each school. At the beginMoves creatively Movement Tactile boxes ning of the project, children’s problem-solving abilities patterns Controls grossCreative Taste samples were assessed using the DISCOVER assessment, and and fine-motor movement teachers were given information about the strengths movement sequences for of the students and throughout the project teachers stories and poems were assisted in the development of curricula to meet their needs – based on the DISCOVER curriculum

1138

model. Teachers were observed and interviewed, and students were assessed at the end of each year with usual school district tests as well as the Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP). At the end of the 3 years, two individuals familiar with the school (one was always the site coordinator for the school) reviewed all the materials available on a particular teacher (observation forms, interview results, student products) and rated him or her on the six principles for implementing the DISCOVER curriculum model, forming a “level of implementation” score from 1 to 5. Creativity and achievement scores were compared for students in the classes of high, middle and low implementers. This design differs from the usual experimental and control design in that teachers were not arbitrarily assigned to the treatment groups, and we know (rather than assume) that differences existed between the classrooms on the criteria found to be important in implementing the theoretical framework of the project. At one school, Taetle and Maker (in review) found that scores on state tests of science achievement were dramatically different, and these differences were statistically significant for 10-year-old students in the classroom of a high-level implementer of the DISCOVER curriculum principles when compared with the scores of children in two middle and low implementers’ classrooms 2 years in a row. In this same study, reading scores in the high and middle implementers’ classrooms improved more than those in the low implementers’ classrooms, but the differences were not as great as those in science scores. In analyses conducted across the four schools involved in the project, two schools showed significant improvements in achievement across all students during the 3 years of the project. Students at a multicultural elementary school in the Southwest showed significant increases in Stanford 9 scores in the core subjects of language, reading and math (from approximately the 18th percentile to the 62nd). Similarly, at an elementary school in the Southeast, a DISCOVER Projects Magnet School, on the state tests of achievement, scores increased steadily in reading (from 40th to 60th percentile), math (from 22nd to 45th percentile), science (20th to 42nd percentile) and writing (9th to 42nd percentile). The research team found that certain characteristics were common to the schools in which overall increases were seen in creativity and achievement: (a) the school had a high percentage of high im-

B. Wallace and C.J. Maker

plementers, (b) the principal’s philosophy of education was similar to or compatible with the philosophy underlying the DISCOVER project; (c) teachers at the school were involved in making the decision to participate in the project, and their decisions were made after having information about the project and its goals; (d) other programs implemented at the school were based on a philosophy consistent with DISCOVER and their goals were similar to the goals of DISCOVER (reported in Maker, 2001). In a study recently completed, Maker et al. (2008) studied the differences in creativity among 2983 students in grade kindergarten through grade 6 in the classrooms of 108 high, middle and low implementers in all four schools during the 3 years they were involved in the project. Children in the high and middle implementers’ classrooms had significantly higher creativity and as grade level increased, TCT-DP scores of students in high and middle implementers’ classrooms increased while scores of students in low implementers’ classrooms decreased. Finally, an action research project reported in Wallace et al. (2004) showed that the combined DISCOVER and TASC models were highly effective. Teachers at the two schools involved were given instruction on the combined curriculum model, and the lead teachers assisted them in using the model throughout a 2-year period. In Phase 1, the teachers learned the TASC model and applied it by designing lessons in certain content areas: science, language arts and social studies. In Phase 2, they continued the TASC approach and expanded it to include an emphasis on multiple abilities as well as making certain the full range of problem-solving types was included in their instruction. In Phase 3, they designed ways to assess the students’ strengths across the multiple abilities. At the beginning of Phase 2, all teachers completed an inventory of multiple abilities and became aware of their own preferred modes of learning and activities. Students studied collages of pictures showing each of the ten human abilities, discussed their preferences and placed the sheets in order of their preferences. Older students completed an inventory in which various learning activities were listed according to the human abilities involved. Teachers compiled a class summary of preferred learning modes, noting particular trends in their own classes. Next, the teachers “audited” their plans of activities to see the range of problem types and abilities included.

57

DISCOVER/TASC

They created additional learning experiences in areas in which they seldom or never provided them. Here are some of the most important results of Phase 2 of the action research project: 1. The teachers became more aware of the needs of students who had abilities outside the linguistic, mathematical and scientific areas. 2. The teachers tried as often as possible to give students opportunities to present their work using preferred learning modes. 3. The teachers realised that the wording of the learning task often changed its problem type, so they examined their instructions closely as they presented tasks to children. 4. The teachers also began to believe that the boundaries between certain problem types were more “blurred” than others. For example, they saw types 1 and 2 as being very similar, types 3 and 4 very similar and types 5 and 6 very similar, but realised that having all six types was important so they could move students easily from one type to another and plan lessons with a full range in mind. 5. The teachers and students presented their work in meetings with parents and school officials and set up an exhibition in the local library. Phase 3 was to plan and implement a week-long activity-based assessment of children’s abilities across the spectrum of human abilities using the TASC model for each activity. Using the theme of “new beginnings”, together the teachers planned activities around the national curriculum that they could do in their classrooms. The teachers and researchers from both schools concluded that

r r r r

the combined teaching models were very effective, students enjoyed learning in these ways, the teachers felt more excited about teaching and teachers were motivated to continue expanding the opportunities they provided for their children.

1139

Conclusion A worldwide criticism of young people is that they do not think! And, sadly, there is an increasingly wide range of complex problems in our global societies that need to be solved. It is impossible for teachers to do all the work and to solve all of society’s problems, nor should they be expected to do so: parents must play their part; curriculum planners must allow teachers the freedom to teach in a thinking skills way; and adults in general need to assess what messages they convey to young people through their behaviour, values and lifestyles. Importantly, national government officials need to reflect on the kind of young citizens they are seeking to develop for the oncoming generation. Developing learners’ problem-solving and thinking skills should be an essential ingredient in the development of a humane and empowering curriculum; and there are emerging indications that curriculum planners realise that “raising standards” means far more than prescribing and testing content. However, the development of thinking skills is not a matter of “add-on” exercises but a holistic approach to the whole curriculum, and as teachers we need to realise that spending time on developing learners’ thinking skills makes them more efficient learners. When learners develop a repertoire of effective problem-solving and thinking skills, then educators save time because the learners are better able to learn. Importantly, the DISCOVER/TASC approach is Inclusive of all children who collectively manifest the full array of human abilities in varying profiles of strengths. The DISCOVER/TASC approach, however, also promotes Differentiation and acceptance of Diversity in an atmosphere of celebration of all children’s abilities. The surest way to develop a saner and more humane world is to enable children to grow as problem-solvers with respect for each others’ strengths and differences. When the energising breeze of thinking skills permeates the whole school, all learners and teachers breathe fresh air and experience new growth!

References More studies are in progress to continue the development and validation of this promising model Bandura, M., & Dweck, C. (1985). The relationship of conceptions of intelligence and achievement goals to and to assess its effectiveness when combined with achievement-related cognition, affect, and behaviour. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University. TASC.

1140 Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council. Ceci, S. J. (1996). On intelligence: A bioecological treatise on intellectual development (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Covey, S. (2004) The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. London: Simon and Schuster. DfEE/QCA (Department for Education and Employment/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) (1999) The national curriculum: Handbook for primary teachers. London: DfEE and QCA. Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. Furedi, F. (2001). Paranoid parenting. London: Allen Lane, Penguin Press. Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-based learning on problem-solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 195–200. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1992). Assessment in context: The alternative to standardized testing. In B. Gifford & M. O’Connor (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction. (pp. 77–120). Boston, MA: Kluwer. Gardner, H. (1995). Reflection on multiple intelligences: Myths and messages. Phi Delta Kappa, 77, 200–209. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligences reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. NY, Basic Books. Getzels, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1967). Scientific creativity. Science Journal,3(9), 80–84. Getzels, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley & Sons. Huxtable, M. (2006). Making public my embodied knowledge as an educational psychologist in the enquiry, How can (do) I improve my practice as a Senior Educational Psychologist? Presented at BERA conference, Warwick. Katz, L., & Chard, S. (1990). Engaging children’s minds. New Jersey, NJ: Ablex. Maker, C. J. (1982a). Curriculum development for the gifted. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Maker, C. J. (1982b). Teaching models in education of the gifted. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Maker, C. J. (1992). Intelligence and creativity in multiple intelligences: Identification and development. Educating Able Learners: Discovering and Nurturing Talent, 27, 12–19. Maker, C. J. (1993). Creativity, intelligence, and problemsolving: A definition and design for cross-cultural research and measurement related to giftedness. Gifted Education International, 9, 68–77. Maker, C. J. (1994). Authentic assessment of problem solving and giftedness in secondary school students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 2(1), 19–29. Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(1), 41–50.

B. Wallace and C.J. Maker Maker, C. J. (2001). DISCOVER: Assessing and developing problem solving. Gifted Education International, 15(3), 232–251. Maker, C. J. (2004). Creativity and multiple intelligences: The DISCOVER project and research. In S. Lau, N. N. Hui, & Y. C. Ng (Eds.) Creativity: When East Meets West. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. Maker, C. J. (2005a). The DISCOVER Project: Improving assessment and curriculum for diverse gifted learners. Senior Scholars Series Monograph. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Maker, C. J. (2005b). Integrating the concepts of creativity, intelligence, and problem solving: The DISCOVER project research and new directions. Psychology: The Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2(4) (Special Issue on Creativity), 102–112. [Published in the journal in Russian and available on the website in English] Maker, C. J., & Anuruthwong, U. (2003). The miracle of learning: The prism model. Proceedings of the 15th Biennial World Conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Students. Adelaide, Australia: World Council for Gifted and Talented Students. Maker, C. J., & King, M. A. (1996). Nurturing giftedness in young children. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Maker, C. J., Muammar, O., Serino, L., Kuang, C. C., Mohamed, A., & Sak, U. (2006). The DISCOVER curriculum model: Nurturing and enhancing creativity in all children. Korean Educational Development Institute (KEDI) Journal of Educational Policy, 3(2), 99–121. Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1995). Teaching/Learning models in education of the gifted (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1996). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Maker, C. J., Nielson, A. B., & Rogers, J. A. (1994). Giftedness, diversity, and problem-solving: Teaching Exceptional Children, 27, 4–19. Maker, C. J., & Pease, R. (2008). DISCOVER and TASC in a summer program for gifted students. Gifted Education International, 24(2/3), 323–328. Maker, C. J., Rogers, J. A., Nielson, A. B., & Bauerle, P. (1996). Multiple Intelligences, problem solving, and diversity in the general classroom. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(4), 437–460. Maker, C. J., & Schiever, S. W. (2005). Teaching/Learning models in education of the gifted (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Maker, C. J., & Zimmerman, R. H. (2008). Problem solving in a complex world: Intergrating DISCOVER, TASC, and PBL in a teacher education project. Education International, 24(2/3), 160–178. Mueller, C., & Dweck, C. (1997). Implicit theories of intelligence: Malleability beliefs, definitions, and judgements of intelligence. Unpublished data, Harvard University. NCC (National Curriculum Council) (1989a). A framework for the primary curriculum. London: HMSO. NCC (National Curriculum Council) (1989b). A curriculum for all. London: HMSO. Nielson, A. B. (1994). Traditional identification: Elitist, racist, sexist? New evidence. CAG Communicator: The Journal of the California Association for the Gifted, 3, 18–19, 26–31.

57

DISCOVER/TASC

Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) (1991). Wellmanaged classes in primary schools: A case study of six teachers. London: HMSO. Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) (1994). Primary matters. London: HMSO. Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds’. New York: The Free Press. Sainsbury, M. (1998) Making sense of baseline assessment. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Sak, U., & Maker, C. J. (2005). Divergence and convergence of mental forces of children in open and closed mathematical problems. International Education Journal, 6(2), 252–260. Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimer, P. (1985) Key characteristics of effective schools. London: HMSO. Sarouphim, K. M. (2000). Internal structure of DISCOVER: A performance-based assessment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23(3), 314–327. Sarouphim, K. M. (2001). DISCOVER: Concurrent validity, gender differences, and identification of minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 130–138. Sarouphim, K. M. (2002). DISCOVER in high school: Identifying gifted Hispanic and Native American students. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 30–38. Sarouphim, K. M. (2004). DISCOVER in middle school: Identifying gifted minority students. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 10, 61–69. Schiever, S. W., & Maker, C. J. (1991). Enrichment and acceleration: An overview and new directions. In G. Davis & N. Colangelo (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 99– 110). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Schiever, S. W., & Maker, C. J. (1997). Enrichment & acceleration: An overview & new directions. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 113–125). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

1141 Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Intelligence applied: Understanding and increasing you intelligence skills. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York, NY: Plume. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Intelligence as developing expertise. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 259–375. Taetle, L., & Maker, C. J. (in review) The effects of the DISCOVER problem-solving arts-infused curriculum model on state-mandated standardized test scores. Manuscript submitted for publication. Suschitzsky, W., & Chapman, J. (1998). Valued children: Informed teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wallace, B., & Adams, H. B. (1993). TASC: Thinking actively in a social context. Oxford: AB Academic Publishers. Wallace, B., & Adams, H. B. (Eds.) (1993). Worldwide perspectives on the gifted disadvantaged. Oxford: AB Academic Publishers. Wallace, B., Maker, C. J., Cave, D. & Chandler, S. (2004) Thinking skills and problem-solving: An inclusive approach. London: David Fulton Publishers (A NACE-Fulton Pub). Whitehead, J. (2006). Living inclusional values in educational standards of practice and judgement, Onatario Action Researcher, Vol. 8.2.1. Retrieved 11 September 2007 from http://www.nipissingu.ca/oar/new issue-V821E.htm Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J. (2006) Action research living theory. London: Sage Publications. Williams, J. (2003) Promoting independent learning in the primary classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Chapter 58

Future Problem Solving in Gifted Education Bonnie L. Cramond

Abstract This chapter traces the growth of the Future Problem Solving Program from its beginning at one high school in Athens, Georgia in 1974 to its 30th Anniversary as an International Program with over 250,000 students around the world participating from grades 1 to 12, and to the present. The various components and rationale of the Program are described with examples of problems and students’ innovative solutions. The chapter will end with a discussion of the benefits of this program for the students who participate as well as for the larger society, and an argument for widening its scope beyond gifted education will be made.

never contemplated—issues of integration, pollution, overpopulation, riots, serial assassinations, challenges of cultural pluralism, polarization of the segments of society, and so on. In the relative calm that followed this turbulent period, a little old man living in Athens, Georgia became very concerned about what he observed as students’ lack of creativity and apathy about the future. He worried that students were not very knowledgeable about their past, and they did not seem very concerned about their future. He also worried that they were not learning to think creatively and to use what knowledge they had imaginatively. Many people have worried about the younger generation in such a way, but this little old man Keywords Action based problem solving · Com- was no ordinary little old man, he was E. Paul Torrance, munity problem solving · Creativity · Torrance · and he decided to do something about this problem. Torrance (1978) had been impressed with Toffler’s Teamwork Future Shock (1970), a popular and controversial book To dream and to plan, to be curious about the future that predicted the stress that people would face from and to wonder how much it can be influenced by our efthe immense changes that would take place in the next forts are important aspects of our being human. . . (Tor30 years. Toffler explained future shock as similar to rance, 1983/ 1995, p. 131) culture shock, but more serious because of the accelerating rate of change that would sweep through the The Birth of FPSP industrialized world with “unprecedented impact”(p. 9) leaving some people stressed and disoriented. He The 1960s were a time of turbulence and great so- also coined the term “information overload” (Toffler, cial consciousness in many countries. In the United p. 360) to describe how people would feel if they were States, groups of people mobilized to protest the Viet- unable to adapt. A wonderful opportunity arose when, according to a nam War, work for Civil Rights, ensure Equal Rights handwritten note by Paul Torrance’s wife, Pansy, “Don for women, and become more involved in social and Hight [Clarke Central High School principal] phoned governmental issues than ever before. It was also a and asked Paul to devise some sort of task for stutime when societies began facing problems they had dents to do” (note recovered from the Torrances’ effects). Thus, it was that one night in 1974, Paul TorB.L. Cramond (B) rance and his wife, Pansy, sat at their kitchen table University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA discussing their concerns about students and trying to e-mail: [email protected] L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 58, 

1143

1144

think of a way to get them more engaged in solving societal problems of the future. It was that night that they decided to create a competition to involve students in solving problems of the future (Torrance, 1974). Torrance recalled his assignment with the U.S. Air Force after WWII as the Director of Survival Research in Colorado (H´ebert, Cramond, Millar, & Silvian, 2002; Millar, 1995). Working with jet aces, Torrance soon realized that it would be impossible to prepare them to survive every possible situation in which they might find themselves. Therefore, he determined to train them to think creatively in order to solve survival problems in whatever environment they found themselves. Based on that experience and all they had learned through their studies and teaching at the Creative Problem Solving Institute in Buffalo, Paul and Pansy Torrance (1978) decided to use the Osborn–Parnes Creative Problem Solving Process (CPS; Osborn, 1953; Parnes, 1967) as the method by which they would teach students to solve open-ended problems without clear answers. They knew that CPS would give the students the structure to work together and the freedom to be creative. They adapted the CPS process to include research on problems of the future and created a monthlong curriculum unit at Clarke Central High School in Athens, Georgia. The program proved to be successful and grew rapidly in both length and breadth over the next few years. By the school year of 1976–1977, the Future Problem Solving Program (FPSP) was established as a year-long program with over 150 schools and 3,000 4th–12th grade students participating in it. In addition to the group problem-solving component, a scenariowriting component and individual competition were introduced. By the next school year, 1977–1978, FPSP was a nationwide program in approximately 300 schools with approximately 6,000 students participating in it. Moreover, there were approximately 10,000 students involved in FPSP within their schools as the process was integrated into the curriculum. The Future Problem Solving Program continued to grow so that by 1978–1979, it was estimated that over 30,000 students participated in FPSP across the country. Then, in 1983–1984 the Advanced Division was introduced to take the problem solving one step further. The Advanced Division required that students identify a problem in their own community and carry out their proposed solution. This later became Community

B.L. Cramond

Problem Solving (CmPS), which is a systematic way for students to become involved citizens in their communities. The 30th anniversary of the Future Problem Solving Program was bittersweet. The summer before, in July 2003, the father of the program, E. Paul Torrance, had passed away. His loss was still keenly felt, but the FPSP had much to celebrate at its International Competition in 2004. The program had grown from that kitchen table in the Torrance home to a worldwide program, from a curriculum unit at one high school to an international program with affiliate programs in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russia, and Singapore in addition to the United States. There were over 250,000 students and over 40 affiliate programs participating around the world. Now called the Future Problem Solving Program International, FPSPI has grown in the kinds of opportunities that it offers to engage students in problem solving. Students can participate individually or as a member of a team, within a course or outside of the regular curriculum, competitively or not, and through the future problems provided by the international organization or problems they identify in their own communities. It has expanded from a competition for high school students to a program for students of all ages and in several different domains.

The Process and Examples Overview Students either work on FPS in their own classes or schools or compete at the local, state, and international levels in teams of four or as individuals. Because in real life problems are seldom presented as clearly as they usually are in school situations, students practice and train on fuzzy situations that are based on projected problems of the future or problem situations that they and/or their teacher choose. Topics are selected from three strands: Business and Economics; Science and Technology; and Social and Political Issues. The topics are focused on the future, but relevant to today. They are complex issues that individuals at different ages and from different viewpoints can understand as presented. Every year, several topics are listed in each cat-

58

Future Problem Solving in Gifted Education

egory on the FPSPI website, and participants can vote on them through the website (http://www.fpsp.org). For example, the topics for the next school year have already been voted on and listed on the site. Participants can now vote for the topics for the succeeding year. The 2007–2008 topics are Body Enhancement; Simulation Technology; Neurotechnology; Debt in Developing Countries; and Child Labor. The topics for 2008–2009 include Olympic Games, Cyber Conflict, Space Junk, Counterfeit Economy, and Pandemic. When a team registers for the FPSPI competition, they are given the list of topics for that year, a fuzzy that presents the first problem situation, and a list of resources. The first two problems are practice problems. The teams work on the first one, send it in to the affiliate, and receive constructive feedback. Then, they are sent the second fuzzy and another resource list. They repeat the process incorporating the feedback they received, and receive constructive feedback again. The third problem is the Qualifying Problem for the Bowl. Teams that do well on this problem are invited to compete in the Bowl. In the United States, this is done at the state level. At the Bowl, the students do not receive the fuzzy until the competition begins, although they have had the topic and an opportunity to do research on it. The teams work on the Bowl problem in a 3-hour timed session with only the help of a dictionary. Teams that win in their divisions at the Bowl level are invited to attend the International Competition. The process takes place over the course of a school year.

1145

end. (See appendix for sample problem solution from beginning to end.)

Identify Challenges Related to the Topic or Future Scene

This step involves investigating the problem, which is stated as a “fuzzy.” Students receive the fuzzy in one of three ways. Students who compete in individual or team problem solving, or in scenario writing, receive a few paragraphs explaining the situation from the FPSP International Office. This situation is called a fuzzy because there are many issues and possible problems embedded in it. Students working on Community Problem Solving identify a problem in their community, and those engaged in Curriculum-Based Problem Solving are assigned or choose a problem from some area of the curriculum. Because in real life problems are seldom clear, distinct, and delimited, this step helps students understand the problem situation, find several embedded related problems, and choose one to develop and refine. They must analyze the situation to determine what problem, if solved, would solve most of the problems in the situation, yet could be addressed realistically, albeit creatively. These are some sophisticated higher level thinking skills that are not typically taught in school, yet are necessary in real life. The students also begin research in order to understand the parameters of the problem situation and possible solutions. For example, if the first fuzzy is about the effects of world climatic changes on communities, the students The Process would receive a description of the problem and a list of possible research resources of all types according to Future Problem Solving Program International (FPSPI) their division. See the appendix for an example of a teaches students how to think . . . not what to think. (FPpossible fuzzy on this topic. SPI, Who We Are, Participant Thoughts) The students read and discuss the fuzzy, identify The process that students are taught consists of six several problems involved in the situation, and begin steps (FPSPI Fact Sheet, 2007). In order to explain the doing research on the issues. At this point, they try to process, I will give a brief explanation of each step and get as much information as possible so that they can an example taken through the steps. The explanations understand what is involved, causes, and possible outand examples at each step are streamlined to fit into comes. this chapter. Individuals who are interested in implementing this procedure are encouraged to pursue additional training or information through the FPSPI. In Select an Underlying Problem addition, I have added a section in the appendix that illustrates an example Future Problem Solving activ- Based upon their research and their lists of problems, ity taken from the beginning of the process through the the students must choose and define the problem that

1146

is at the heart of the problem situation, and which, if solved, could go far in solving the larger situation. Then, they must word the problem for creative attack. Continuing with our example, the students list the problems and identify criteria by which to select the best problem by using a grid as illustrated in the appendix. The formulaic beginning of all problem statements is “In what ways might we. . .?” shortened to IWWMW, in order to focus the students on thinking of positive solutions to the situation. Continuing with the example given for the fuzzy, a team might decide to choose the problem, “In what ways might we design our communities to withstand the effects of climatic changes?” Another group might use the same fuzzy and derive this problem statement, “IWWMW lessen civilizations effects on the climate?” Still others may choose, “IWWMW prevent storms or make them less damaging?” Students might choose to look at the problem in many ways. The first problem statement above would require some knowledge of architecture and trends in climate change while the second would focus more on ecology and the effects on weather. The third takes the approach of decreasing the likelihood and severity of storms. They choose the problem, sometimes combining problems if that makes sense. Then, they word the problem for attack using the beginning statement: “In what ways might we. . . ,” shortened to IWWMW. Our group might end this step with the problem, “In what ways might we design our cities to better weather the effects of climatic changes?” Other groups might choose other problems for the same fuzzy such as “IWWMW lessen the effects of civilization on the climate?” “IWWMW better forecast potential disasters and protect our communities?” or “IWWMW lessen the severity of storms so that they cause less destruction?” Because the process is recursive, at this point the teams may find that they need to go back to the research to get more information based upon the focus of their problem statement. At some point, they may even decide to limit, change, or enlarge the focus of the problem statement.

B.L. Cramond

problem. Students brainstorm and record their ideas, following the rules of no criticism and hitchhiking off other ideas. Even unlikely and fantasy ideas are encouraged in that they might prove to be feasible after all, and a crazy idea might trigger someone else in the group to come up with a great idea. Many of our most innovative ideas have come about from what were undoubtedly considered crazy at one time. Imagine the looks on the people around the table when the inventor(s) of the Roomba told manufacturers that they had invented a vacuum cleaner that would vacuum a room on its own! Our team’s brainstormed ideas are listed in the appendix.

Generate and Select Criteria to Evaluate Solution Ideas

In this step, the team must consider what criteria to apply to their solutions in order to choose the best one. This is a critical step, and one that I find students often have difficulty doing for the first time. I recall that in Dr. Torrance’s class, some of us complained one night that the process had not resulted in what we thought was the best solution. He told us that we probably did not use appropriate criteria. Why did we not think it was the best solution? In my case, it was because I did not like the winning solution. He assured us that it was fine to use a criterion like “which one do I like the best?” This is especially true when the problem is a personal one—like choosing a date or picking a party theme. I have found that some concrete activities help children who have difficulty with this. One activity that I found helpful in this regard was bringing in comic strips for the groups of students to critique. As they told me which ones they thought were best, I wrote the qualities on the board: best art, funniest, best characters, most interesting, etc. Then, I explained that these were criteria that could be used to judge the comic strips (Crabbe, 1986). The same thing could be done with candy, toys, etc. Because FPSPI deals with global issues, there are Produce Solution Ideas to the Underlying lists of some standard criteria that are often used. These Problem can include such qualities of the solutions as safe, effective, efficient, low cost, acceptable, easy, possible, At this step, the purpose is to create many, varied, and legal, ethical, humane. Students can start with some of unusual solution ideas that respond to the underlying these criteria, but they will score more points if their

58

Future Problem Solving in Gifted Education

1147

criteria are clearly targeted to the problem rather than just stock criteria (Shewach, 1990). More importantly, they will find that they can choose a better solution for their specific problem if the criteria are well chosen and well articulated. Other important considerations when writing the criteria are that they should include a measure of degree so that the solutions can be compared. Which solution is most affordable? is better than Which solution is affordable? In addition, each criterion should contain just one dimension: Which solution will provide the best protection. . .? is better than Which solution will provide the best protection for the least money? Finally, each criterion should be worded in a positive way so that a high value on any criterion makes that solution more desirable. Which solution will take the least time? is better than Which solution will take the most time? in this situation. Using these guidelines, the teams choose five criteria that they feel will help them choose the best solution to their specific problem. For the problem of IWWMW design our communities to withstand climatic changes?, our hypothetical team chose

1. Which solution is most affordable for the communities? 2. Which solution will provide the best protection for the people? 3. Which solution will be most acceptable to the people in the communities based on their cultural values? 4. Which solution will have the most aesthetic appeal?

Table 58.1 Grid for evaluating top solutions by chosen criteria

5. Which solution can be carried out in the shortest time? These criteria address different aspects of the problem taking into consideration some of the components of the original fuzzy as well as how to make the solution more acceptable for implementation.

Evaluate Solution Ideas to Determine the Better Action Plan The team works together to choose approximately 10 of their brainstormed solutions to evaluate according to the criteria in a grid such as Table 58.1. In this example, I have used five solutions for space purposes. With young children or less experienced teams, a lower number of solutions might be generated and used. However, for the competition, teams are awarded more points for a larger number of pertinent ideas generated. Each proposed solution is then ranked according to each criterion.

Develop the Action Plan This step requires the team to consider how they might implement their desired solution in order to solve the problem. They must write a plan to sell the idea to whatever constituency would be appropriate. In our example, it would be the targeted community.

Criteria Ideas Live in family groups Elevated houses Sturdy construction Floating houses Move communities to safe areas

1. Affordable 2.Protection 3.Acceptable 4. Aesthetics

5. Time

Total

5

1

3

2

4

15

4

3

5

4

3

19

3

4

4

3

2

16

2

2

2

5

1

12

1

5

1

1

5

13

1148

Organization and Components More than ever, an education that emphasizes general problem solving skills will be important. In a changing world, education is the best preparation for being able to adapt. —Bill Gates, The Road Ahead (Future Problem Solving Program, Who we are, 2007).

The Executive Director of FPSPI administers the program from the International Office in Melbourne, Florida. The program charters affiliate programs in most of the states of the United States, as well as in Australia, New Zealand, and Korea. Affiliate Directors for each of these regions direct the programs within their area. In areas where there is no affiliate program, an existing Future Problem Solving Program may mentor new or aspiring affiliate programs. Countries currently being mentored include Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Canada. As it now exists, FPSI has five components at the international level: Team Problem Solving, Individual Problem Solving, Action-based Problem Solving, Community Problem Solving, and Scenario Writing. Some affiliates may incorporate more or fewer components locally. For example, Georgia had a visual arts competition at one time that encouraged students to submit visual representations of their views of the future as drawings, sculptures, paintings, and videos. The visual component presented some difficult challenges for submission and judging, and it was discontinued. On the other hand, some affiliate programs may not offer opportunities in all of the areas.

B.L. Cramond

cess in two practice problems and a qualifying program during the school year. Evaluators score the teams’ work and return feedback to help teams improve. The teams that score highest on the qualifying problem are invited to Affiliate FPS Bowls held in the spring. The winners of the Affiliate FPS Bowls are eligible to compete at the FPSP International Conference in June.

Action-Based Problem Solving This non-competitive component is ideal for young students, those who are learning the process, or those who want to use the process in a non-competitive way. Teams of four to six students work together on two problems per year in three divisions: Primary (grades K-3), Junior (grades 3–6), and Middle (grades 6–9).

Community Problem Solving

Groups of students who participate in Community Problem Solving (CmPS) can work in larger groups than the teams for the other components. For example, they may work in class, cross class, or cross grade groups. The teams can be of any size, but only 15 can be present at the conference. The important difference is that for this component the students identify problems in their own communities and actually implement the action plan. Because the action plans must be much more detailed, and the Team and Individual Problem Solving students must carry them out there is typically a longer work period for the problem, extending for a year or There are three divisions: grades 4–6 (Junior), grades more (Terry & Bohnenberger, 1995), 7–9 (Middle), and grades 10–12 (Senior). Students As in the other competitive components, the top compete in these divisions as a team or individually. place winners from affiliate programs are eligible to attend the FPSP International Conference in June where their projects will be judged for the top award. They do not solve a problem at the International Conference. Team Problem Solving Some examples of community problems that such groups have solved include saving historic buildings There are three divisions in the Team Problem Solving that were threatened by flooding and traffic, writing component according to the students’ grade in school: a solid waste management plan for a county, and deJuniors, grades 4–6; Middle, grades 7–9; and Seniors, veloping Boredom Busting kits to help children hosgrades 10–12. Teams of four, or individuals in affiliate pitalized for long periods of time (Bohnenberger & programs that have such a component, apply the pro- Terry, 2002).

58

Future Problem Solving in Gifted Education

Scenario Writing Participants in this component choose one of the topics for the year as the theme for a futuristic short story set 20 years in the future and of no more than 1,500 words. An affiliate may send the first place winner in each division to the International Bowl and may submit the top three scenarios to the International Scenario Writing Competition (FPSPI). The winning scenarios from each division are published every year, and the book is available for purchase from the FPSPI site. Some excerpts from student scenarios are included in the appendix.

Rationale and Benefits The most basic skill that can be taught in today’s schools is problem solving. In fact, the teaching of future problem solving skills may be the key to the successful teaching of the basics such as reading, writing and arithmetic. Many children are not motivated to master these basics unless they can see the connection between them and their future lives (Torrance, 1970, p. 65).

1149

A colleague, Dr. Thomas H´ebert, commented after attending his first FPSPI Bowl, “I was amazed by the energy and excitement of the students. This clearly provides many social and emotional benefits beyond the competition itself.” (personal communication with Tom H´ebert, June, 2001). The benefit that is most rare in any educational program is that the process teaches problem finding. As indicated in the discussion of the second step of the process, real-life problems seldom present themselves as clear, defined, and delimited. Yet most problems presented to students in school are just that. In addition, most instructional problems have a definite solution that is dependent on the successful application of a strategy learned in the classroom. Starko (2006, pp. 151–165) presented a very clear and compelling case for the importance of problem finding in education. In so doing, she included a hierarchy of problem types developed by Getzels (1987). Type I is a problem with a known form, a known method for solving it, and a solution unknown to the problem solver, but known to others. This would describe most school problems with the answers in the teachers’ guide. Type II problems also have the first condition—the problem is clearly presented to the solver—but the method for solving it is not clear. This would be typical of a problem on a pretest for which a student has not learned the method for solving it yet. Type III problems are those that must be found before they can be solved. They are open ended with no known method or solution. These, the highest level problems, are not usually addressed in classes, but they are the ones that we most need to solve in our society. Starko (2005) also cited the pertinent quote from the 1938 Einstein and Infeld book, The Evolution of Physics:

There are clear benefits for students from participating in the Future Problem Solving Program International. At face value, the program incorporates higher level thinking about real problems, teamwork, research, and organization skills. The FPSPI website lists many others, and that list is in the appendix. However, some of the best information in this regard may be found in the comments of participants. My own daughter, who is now in college, participated from fourth grade through high school in the team problemsolving component. She told me that FPS was the most valuable thing she learned in middle school. These participant comments exemplify the value of The formulation of a problem is often more important than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathethe program beyond the academic skills: matical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new I think FPSPI is a great way to learn how to possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, recognize challenges and find solutions to those requires imagination and marks real advance in science. challenges. Senior, Aurora, NB (FPSPI, Participant (cited in Guerra & de Abreu, 2007). Thoughts, 2007). The best part (of the International Conference) was not the competition, it was the memories. Junior, HeDiscussion bron CT (FPSPI, Participant Thoughts, 2007). FPSPI has been very important to my education and Many states have tests that students must pass to gradudevelopment as an independent thinker. . .and it has ate from high school. . .On balance, they are designed to been a lot of fun. Senior, Zionsville, OH (FPSPI, Parmeasure the acquisition of discipline-based knowledge in the core subjects in the curriculum, but more often than ticipant Thoughts, 2007).

1150

B.L. Cramond

portantly, they must learn how to learn, and they must learn about the tentative nature of knowledge. Think about your own schooling. How much of what you were taught in school is no longer considered true? How much of what you now know and use was not taught to you in school, could not be taught to you in school because it was not known? In 1981, R. Buckminster Fuller (Huddle, 1984, p. 176) reflected on his childhood at the turn of the last The world is getting smaller even as our problems century. He recalled that as people tried to predict the are getting bigger. Issues of hand-to-hand combat in future in the new century, they could not begin to conrestricted areas have been replaced by concerns about ceive of automobiles, electrons, travel to the moon, or the capacity of several countries to destroy the world. even air wars as reality. Only about 1% of the world The ease and speed of modern travel have also in- was literate, and fewer still thought of humanity in creased the ease and speed of the spread of disease. world terms. We, too, are poised on the brink of change A predicted shift of the earth’s climate regions would in the new millennium and cannot presume that we are cause major changes in entire cultures—changes in more precognitive about what lies ahead than were our their way of life, crops, houses, clothes, recreation, and predecessors. However, one prediction that was true values. What once were local, regional, or even conti- then will undoubtedly remain true: successful adaptanental problems are now global problems. For exam- tion to world change and the continued civilization and ple, the annual meeting of the World Economic Fo- enrichment of our world depend on creative endeavors. rum, held in Switzerland in January 2006, had as its We must prepare our students to be creative for their theme: The Creative Imperative. During the 5 days of own good and for the good of the world. FPSPI is one the forum, groups worked together to generate inno- way to do this. vative solutions to global challenges (World Economic Forum, 2006). The growth of the amount of information and the tentative nature of that information requires that we References revise our ideas of schooling and education. In the past, an educated person was judged by what he knew. Bohnenberger, J. E., & Terry, A. W. (2002). Community problem solving works for middle level students. Middle School We are shifting to a time when educated people will Journal, 34, 5–12. be evaluated by what they can learn and how quickly Crabbe, A. B., (1986). Creating more creative people. Laurinburg, NC: Future Problem Solving Program. they can adapt. Think about it, when your grandparents were children, they studied history chronologi- Cramond, B. (2005b). Fostering creativity in gifted students. In F. A. Karnes & K. R. Stephens (Eds.), Practical strategies cally from the beginning of time to the present. Even series set II. Waco, TX: Prufrock. though this study was limited to a Western perspective, Getzels, J. W. (1987). Problem finding and creative achievement. Gifted Students Institute Quarterly, 12(4), B1–B4. they had many years of history to learn. My teachers attempted to teach us the same way, and we never even Guerra, V., & de Abreu, R. (2005). Relativity— Einstein’s lost frame. Retrieved January 31, 2007 from got as far as World War I. We cannot continue to accuhttp://www.lostrelativity.com. mulate knowledge and expect it all to be taught in the FPSPI Fact Sheet. (n.d.). FPSP Website, What’s new. Retrieved January 29, 2007 from http://www.fpsp.org/, same time and in the same way. All students, not just those who are labeled as gifted, Future Problem Solving Program International (FPSPI). (n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2007 from http://www.fpsp.org/, should be receiving training in the Future Problem H´ebert, T. P., Cramond, B., Millar, G., & Silvian, A. F. (2002). Solving Process. All students must learn how to find E. Paul Torrance: His life, accomplishments, and legacy (RM02152). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the problems, generate solutions, evaluate them, sell their Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. solutions to others, and implement them. They must Huddle, N. (1984). Surviving: The best game on Earth. Tel Aviv, learn how to work on teams as well as independently. Israel: Schocken. They should all learn to be involved in their commu- Millar, G. (1995). E. Paul Torrance: “The Creativity Man.” Norwood, NJ: Ablex. nities and how they can make a difference. Most imnot, little or nothing is done to measure many of the other qualities that we have suggested may spell the difference between success and failure for the students who will grow up to be the workers of 21st century America: creativity and innovation, facility with the use of ideas and abstractions, the self-discipline and organization needed to manage one’s work and drive it through to a successful conclusion, the ability to function well as a member of a team, and so on (National Center on Education and the Economy, 2006, p. 14).

58

Future Problem Solving in Gifted Education

National Center on Education and the Economy. (2006). Tough choices or tough times: The report of the new commission on the skills of the American workforce. Executive Summary. Retrieved January 29, 2007 from http://www. skillscommission.org/executive.htm. Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner. Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative behavior guidebook. New York: Scribner. Shewach, G. J. (1990). The evaluation primer. Ann Arbor: Future Problem Solving. Starko, A. J. (2005). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Starko, A. (2006). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight. NY: Longman. Terry, A. W., & Bohnenberger, J. (1995). ABLE program: ACTI-on plan book. Knoxville, TN: The ABLE Program. Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York: Bantam Books, 1990. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Ways gifted children can study the future. Gifted Child Quarterly, 18, 65–71. Torrance, E. P. (1983). The importance of falling in love with something. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 8(2), 72–78. Torrance, E. P. (1995). Why fly?: A philosophy of creativity. Westport, CT: Ablex/Greenwood. Torrance, E. P., & Myers, R. E. (1970). Creative learning and teaching. NY: Harper & Row. Torrance, E. P. (1978). Giftedness in solving future problems. Journal of Creative Behavior, 12, 75–86. Torrance, E. P., & Torrance, J. P. (1978). Developing creativity instructional materials according to the Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem Solving Model. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 3(2), 80–90. World Economic Forum. (2006). Retrieved January 31, 2007 from http://www.weforum.org/en/index.htm.

Appendix: Example Future Problem Solving Activity In a school situation these steps would probably be spread out over several weeks. However, once students learn the process, they are able to go through it in just a couple of hours at the competition since they have already done the research. This is an example of how FPS might be used in a curriculum-based manner. If this were a registered team, the Future Problem Solving Program International Office would send the main topics for the school year, and the registered teams would receive lists of resources appropriate to the topics and the students’ ages. The Steps The Fuzzy Situation and Information Gathering Future problem solving always begins with the recognition of a fuzzy situation that represents a complex of problems. In this example, the students in a middle

1151

school science class are studying climate, and one student brings up the issue of global warming. The students become animated in saying what they have heard about this topic. The teacher, recognizing that the students are spouting a mix of facts, opinions, and questions, asks them to hold on to their ideas for the moment. Then, he puts them in teams of four to list their ideas on the subject and categorize them into facts, opinions, and questions. If they are not sure if something is a fact or opinion, it is categorized with the questions. Then, the students further categorize their ideas into causes of global warming, effects, signs of it, and any other categories that they feel help. The students come back together as a large group to share their ideas and determine what they know and what they need to know. They compare their lists to consolidate them and add or scratch off items as they discuss them. The final lists may look something like this: Global Warming Fact Questions The temperatures have Is this a part of a regular been rising pattern? Storms are more destrucAre storms more severe tive or is it just that the Ocean levels are higher earth is more populated along coasts and Polar icecaps are melting other dangerous areas? More skin cancer Is skin cancer related to global warming? Hole in the ozone layer Is it a natural cause or caused by people? Heat is a kind of polluAre there positive points tion to global warming? Do we have any control over it? Based upon these lists, students are assigned in groups to find the information that is needed and to check the veracity of the items listed as facts. The teacher helps the students word their questions for investigation, in other words, help ensure that they are using the correct terms, and assists them as needed in determining what sources to use. Students should be encouraged to expand their search past the usual sources on the Internet or encyclopedia, and also interview experts, like a meteorologist from the local news station, a climatologist from a university, watch

1152

documentaries, and look at climate maps. Local farmers might be willing to provide information about their observations on climate over the last few years and the impact on agriculture. Students could brainstorm various sources and seek disconfirming evidence, as well as learn about how to evaluate sources for trustworthiness. In a class of mixed ability, the students could work according to their own abilities and interests with teacher guidance. In a class of academically gifted students, the level of investigation and resources might be more sophisticated according to their abilities and backgrounds. In short, the students discussed the issue to determine their prior knowledge and determine the needed knowledge. They then worked in groups to gather information to read, view, summarize, and discuss, and they performed error analysis to ensure that they felt comfortable that the things they listed as facts are indeed facts. During this process, additional questions may be added to the list of questions and additional facts should be added to the list of facts. Students may choose to include one or more additional columns such as “disputed idea” or “opinion” or “myth” as they discuss their findings. These lists should be posted where the class can refer to them frequently and add or delete items as the group agrees. Step 1: Identify Challenges At this point, the students list all of the challenges that they can see in the issue of global warming. The list might include agricultural problems, death of sea creatures, flooding, food shortages, increased health issues related to heat, challenges to home design, energy shortages, earlier maturity of animals, increased greenhouse gases, loss of certain species such as polar bears and penguins, increases of other species such as roaches and birds, changes in breeding and migratory patterns, loss of coral reefs, changes in schedules and calendars to accommodate hotter days and months, changes in clothing and hair styles, changes in recreation, etc. Because the listing of problems may create new questions, additional research and discovery may be necessary. Thus, students learn that problem solving is a recursive process rather than a linear one, and problems and solutions can create additional problems and solutions. Step 2: Select an Underlying Problem

B.L. Cramond

When the students have brainstormed a sufficient number of problems, they begin the process of targeting a specific problem to solve. The problem they choose should be one that they deem important, that, if solved, could solve other problems, that is interesting to them, and can be worked on. This is an important step that requires the students to analyze, evaluate, negotiate, and prioritize several other higher level thinking skills and behaviors. This step, which is not taught in schools, is the most crucial step for research. (Anyone who works with graduate students is familiar with the very bright students who successfully master coursework but are unable to find a workable problem and operationalize it as a researchable hypothesis.) Our students decide that the production of greenhouse gases is a major problem that is at the root of many of the other problems and is one that they can work on. They formulate the following problem statement: “In what ways might we get the U.S., the largest producer of greenhouse gases, to lower the production of these gases?” The teacher encourages the students because they have chosen a central and important problem, but he is afraid that they may not have narrowed it down enough. By doing further research, the students discover that greenhouse gases are called that because they allow sunlight to enter the earth’s atmosphere easily, then trap the heat, and hold it in, like a greenhouse does. They discover that greenhouse gases are both natural and manmade. They are necessary to hold in some of the heat, but the problem occurs when the natural balance is upset and too much heat is held in. Most of the manmade greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuels. The United States produces the largest amount of greenhouse gases because we consume the most energy, but our levels are lowering while developing countries levels are increasing. The class decides to watch “An Inconvenient Truth.” Some of the students download podcasts on the topic. Others find articles that argue against the notion of global warming on the Internet. They stage a debate and argue the issues on both sides. Finally, the class decides that although it is not proven that global warming is really occurring beyond what might be normal cyclical fluctuations, and it is not known how much human emissions affect this anyway, they would rather err on the side of safety. The teacher brings in a sign with the slogan, “Think globally, act locally,” and asks the class to figure out

58

Future Problem Solving in Gifted Education

what it means. The students think about the meaning in terms of their problem and agree to limit the scope to something more manageable. So, their problem statement now becomes “IWWMW. . .convince people in our community to lessen their consumption of energy, thereby lowering their impact on the environment.” Step 3: Produce Solution Ideas Now the students have to think divergently again to brainstorm as many ideas as possible as solutions to the problem. They enjoy coming up with many, varied, and unusual solution ideas in groups of three or four. Some of their ideas are silly or ridiculous, but they know that they should accept all ideas at this point. Some of the ideas that they produce are fine people for using energy, turn off the electricity when a house has reached a certain maximum usage, look down on energy consumers, make everyone learn about energy conservation, offer rewards for houses that use less energy, make gasoline cost a lot, use a media campaign to educate people, have everyone keep an energy diary, make a movie locally to show people about global warming, produce a monthly newspaper about energy use, create an energy police force that checks on energy use, put more buses on the streets, create special carpooling rewards, make a carpooling website where people can sign up to ride together, put bikes on the street for people to use, put timers in showers to get people to take quick ones, encourage people to wear their clothes and use their towels more than once before washing, find out about how people conserve energy in other countries, hang clothes out to dry, and so on. Step 4: Generate and Select Criteria Now the class must use criteria to select the best solution. The criteria should be important for picking the best solution to this problem, should be particularly suited to the problem, and should be worded in a positive way, such as most efficient, least expensive, and most workable. This is very important; otherwise students may choose criteria for which a high score may be either positive or negative. For example, if students choose criteria like cheapest, ugliest, hardest to do, and most effective, it will be impossible to rate the ideas because the highest score in some cases would be good, and in other cases would be bad. So, it would be hard to compare the solutions by using the criteria. Some ideas for criteria include Cost? Legal? Hasn’t been tried? Possible? Ethical? Can be modified? Acceptable? Appropriate? Last longest? Time? Effective?

1153

Solve fastest? Easy? Most beneficial? Extra benefits? Necessary resources? Can be sold? Creates more problems? Can be transferred? The students brainstorm as many criteria as they can before choosing the five that will help select the best solution. These students select the following criteria: effective for reducing emissions, doable, has long-term results, educates, and can be sold to the community. Step 5: Apply Criteria to Solution Ideas At this step, the students must evaluate the solution ideas using criteria to rank order the solution ideas. Using the FPS model, the students would pick their top solutions and their top criteria from the lists and create a grid such as the one below. In competition, the students must list 10 solutions and 5 criteria, but other quantities could be used depending on the maturity of the students, the complexity of the problem, and the number of ideas generated. I have chosen five each of solutions and criteria for this example. The solutions are listed in the left column and the criteria are listed in the top row. Then, each possible solution is ranked according to each criterion and the totals are added. In FPS, the highest ranked solution gets the highest number. If there are 10 solutions being considered, the solution considered best according to that criterion gets a 10, the next best a 9, and so on down to 1. More sophisticated ranking schemes can be used whereby solutions can be tied, or certain criteria weighted more heavily, but this is the basic method used (see Table 58.2). Once the students have used each criterion to rank each solution, they add the numbers across, and the strategy with the highest number of points is the “winner.” At this point, the students may look at the winning solution and decide that they don’t really think it is the best solution. If that happens, the teacher should ascertain through questioning why they don’t think it is the best solution. Usually they will be able to come up with some ideas such as the following: it would be too hard to do, it is not fun, it would cost too much, it would not work, etc. Then, they are directed to choose criteria from this list to add to or replace the criteria they have. When students do not like, or have confidence in, the solution they have chosen, it is usually because they did not include all of the essential criteria. Another option is to combine two or more solutions to make a more complete solution. In this case, two solutions were ranked high and are close enough to be combined: the educational campaign and the energy diaries. Students could decide to include energy

1154 Table 58.2 Grid for evaluating top solutions in example problem

B.L. Cramond Criteria Ideas 1. Effective 2. Doable Energy diaries 5 1Fines for usage Educational campaign Look to other countries 3rdCarpooling website

diaries as part of the educational campaign. In this case, they might also add their third ranked solution—look to other countries—if they see a logical fit with the others. One student suggests that they contact a class in a country that uses less energy and have both classes keep energy diaries to compare. Step 6: Develop an Action Plan In the competition, this is as far as the teams go. They develop a plan to explain or sell the highest ranked solution (or combination of solutions) to the critical audience. The critical audience is the person or group that needs to be sold on the idea in order for it to be implemented. They show their solution’s relevance and importance to the underlying problem and describe in detail how the problem will be solved. They also consider sources of assistance and resistance to the plan and include ideas for how to incorporate them into the plan. Our students, however, decide that they will implement their plan. This is now a Community Problem Solving Project (CmPS) because they are really working in their community to solve a problem. They want to develop an educational plan that will convince the people in the community to voluntarily limit their energy consumption. With the guidance of the teacher, they decide to incorporate some of their other solutions into the educational plan and work on it in stages. They decide to work in groups to implement the parts of the plan. They envision that they will work with one or two classes in other countries to keep energy diaries for a month. After that time, they will compare the energy use and make some tables to show how the countries compare. This will be a key part of their educational campaign. They will request a time to present this information along with any other information they develop at the Town Hall Meeting. At that time, they hope to convince key members of the community that they

3 4

4 1 3

3.Long term 4. Educates

5.Can be sold to the population

3

4

3

2

1

9

5

22

1st 3rd

2 5

5

Total

19

1

2

4

3

4

14

2

5

1

1

2

11

2nd

should conserve energy and offer some suggestions for where they might cut back based on data from their diary comparisons and other research. They begin by having a group of students take on each of the following initial tasks: 1. Find out who in the community will help them and who will be likely to resist energy conservation and begin working with their supporters. 2. Identify countries that use little energy in order to find a class that will keep an energy diary, too. 3. Create the format for the energy diary. 4. Work on the plan for the overall educational campaign beginning with making the appointment for the Town Meeting. 5. Create a system for keeping photographic and written records of all of their work for publicity and a history of the project. Each of these activities might include problem situations that would require students to use the problemsolving cycle again or at least use parts of it. For example, the group may identify several countries with whom they might communicate but they want to narrow the list down. They may determine criteria by which to judge which classes in other countries would be best for their collaboration. As new challenges develop, and as the plan moves forward, the students may reform the work groups, add or merge groups, and rethink certain parts of the plan. They continue to do research for their educational campaign and work with members of the community who can help them in certain ways. They talk to community members who oppose energy conservation or doubt global warming in order to prepare for questions at the Town Hall Meeting. Most importantly, they monitor and record their own energy use and attempt to limit it. Of course, not all FPS curriculum projects become this extensive or involved. This example showed how

58

Future Problem Solving in Gifted Education

1155

Table 58.3 Curriculum standards and the Future Problem Solving Program International (FPSP standards) Life skills Thinking and reasoning • Understands and applies basic principles of logic and reasoning • Understands and applies the basic principles of presenting an argument • Effectively uses mental processes that are based on identifying similarities and differences (compares, contrasts, classifies) • Applies basic problem-solving techniques • Applies decision-making techniques Working with others • Uses conflict-resolution techniques when disagreements occur • Works well with diverse individuals and in diverse situations • Displays effective interpersonal communication skills • Contributes to the overall effort of a group • Demonstrates leadership skills when making decisions Technology • Understands the nature and uses of different forms of technology to obtain topic research • Understands the relationship among science, technology, society and the individual • Understands the nature and operation of systems • Understands the nature and uses of different forms of technology Behavioral studies • Understands conflict, cooperation and interdependence among individuals, groups, and institutions • Understands that group and cultural influences contribute to human development, identity and behavior when working on a project in a multi-cultural community • Understands various meanings of social group, general implications of group membership and different ways groups function to involve various groups in a project • Understands that interactions among learning, inheritance, and physical development affect human behavior in order to respond appropriately to a variety of situations

a curriculum issue could evolve into a community r Understands the nature of scientific inquiry when project that would have the students involved in a conducting investigation using systematic observareal problem, using higher level thinking skills, real tion and logical reasoning to research FPS topics communication skills, research for real answers, r Understands the scientific enterprise as the catalyst for many FPS topics as societal challenges often inmathematical reasoning, and data demonstration spire scientific research which all derived from student interest. Such activities are inherently motivating and allow for differentiated instruction for students based upon their interests and abilities. Table 58.3 illustrates the many educational stan- History dards that can be met by using the FPS process in school. Depending on the type and level of the prob- r Understands and knows how to analyze chronologlem, more or fewer skills can be included. ical relationships and patterns to forecast trends r Understands the historical perspective in relationship to its impact on the future

Topic and Content Specific Standards Science

Civics

Nature of Science

What Is Government and What Should It Do?

r

r

Understands the nature of scientific knowledge as it relates to FPS topics

Understands ideas about civic life, politics, and government through exposure to multiple topics

1156

r

B.L. Cramond

Understands the sources, purposes, and functions of Uses of Geography law and the importance of the rule of law for the protection of individual rights r Understands global development and environmenand the common good as it relates tal issues through exposure to topics to challenges in the development of future societies that focus on global awareness

Geography

Economics

The World in Spatial Terms

r

r

Knows the location of places, geographic features, and patterns of the environment through the exposure to global issues

r r

Places and Regions

r r r

Understands the physical and human characteristics of place through the use of parameters in future scenes Understands the concepts of regions through topics relating to specific areas Understands that culture and experience influence The Arts people’s perceptions of places and regions through cultural diversity of the topics Visual Arts

Environment and Society

r r

r

Understands that scarcity of productive resources requires choices that generate opportunities by applying these concepts to research, challenges, solution ideas, and development of an action plan Understands characteristics of different economic systems, economic institutions, and economic incentives as they relate to FPSP topics Understands basic features of market structures and exchanges Understands basic concepts of United States fiscal policy and monetary policy, as well as basic concepts about international economics associated with FPSPI topics

Understands how human actions modify the physical environment as it relates to future attributes of the environment Understands the changes that occur in the meaning, use, distribution, and importance of resources in relationship to the possibility of the depletion of resources in the future

r r r r

Understands action plan and applies media, technology and processes related to the visual arts in Cm PS Knows a range of subject matter, symbols, and potential ideas in the visual arts Understands the visual arts in relation to history and culture Designs and produces informal productions in the presentation of action plan

Chapter 59

Practical Intelligence and Wisdom in Gifted Education Mary Anne Heng and Kai Yung (Brian) Tam

Abstract Confucius said, “To learn without thinking is labor in vain. To think without learning is desolation” (Lun Yu, n.d.). Confucius viewed learning as the foundation of self-development and education as thinking about life and living an experience. Dewey viewed education as life itself and experience as the touchstone of life. This chapter presents a broad conceptualization of practical intelligence, drawn largely from the work of Sternberg and others. The notion of wisdom is discussed, highlighting the role of experiential knowledge, reflection, and habits of virtue in a more expansive conception of practical intelligence that speaks to a symbiotic relationship between self and the larger community. The issue of wisdom and democracy is raised. Finally, the chapter puts forth the Evolving Self Model, with conceptual roots in the thoughts and ideas of Confucius and Dewey to help gifted students seek self and serve communities, and suggests the renewed focus on service learning as a powerful tool for the academic, social, and moral engagement of gifted students.

identities. Worldwide, it seems that education reform efforts have proclaimed the importance of a system of education that aims to help all children maximize their potential so that no child is left behind. The reality, however, is that the same system of education usually adopts a Procrustean approach to measure school success and academic potential of individual children. Despite the holistic vision of education that today’s schools purport to embrace, it appears that more than ever, children need an education that is grounded in a sense of self-realization for living and being in an era of change and uncertainty. In his book, The Hungry Spirit, Handy (1998) emphasizes the importance of living a genuine life of being true to oneself. Handy uses the hungry spirit as a metaphor for the modern condition, for the emptiness people feel after the quest for material success (and in the field of gifted education and in competitive societies, academic success to the exclusion of everything else) leaves them dissatisfied. He writes:

Keywords Practical intelligence · Wisdom · Gifted education · Academic intelligence · Democracy · Service learning

I am angered by the waste of so many people’s lives, dragged down by poverty in the midst of riches. I am concerned by the absence of a more transcendent view of life and the purposes of life, and by the prevalence of the economic myth which colours all that we do. Money [and traditional conceptions of success] is the means of life and not the point of it. There must be something that we can do to restore the balance. (Handy, 1998, p. 3)

Introduction

The changing nature of community in Asia and elseCan there be real individual fulfillment without a where has marked a move toward more globalized real quest for meaning? “Is it possible for people to economies and cosmopolitan living, with young peoachieve excellence if they don’t believe in anything?,” ple increasingly in search of new cultural contexts and J. Gardner in his treatise, Excellence (1961, p. xiv), asks. Can bright children truly achieve excellence if M.A. Heng (B) they do not have a real sense of purpose, if they lack Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Avenue, the ability to discern that, with purpose, the vision of Singapore the whole is far more powerful than the sum of welle-mail: [email protected] L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 59, 

1157

1158

reasoned parts? Gardner does not seem to think so. He argues that “talent in itself isn’t enough. . .we find ourselves asking ‘Talent in the service of what values?’ Talent in the service of truth or beauty or justice is one thing; talent in the service of greed or tyranny is quite another” (p. 144). One’s intellect and one’s talent, therefore, are twinned to the notion of responsibility. It therefore appears that the existential angst evident in the lives of many students today, including those who are seemingly successful and highly capable, may mean that these individuals should begin to think about meaning, purpose, and direction in school and in later life – not in a generic and vacuous sense, but rather beginning with intellectual discernment and then real-world experience, “answer to life by answering for. . .[one’s] own life. . .[and] by being responsible” (Frankl, 1984, p. 131). To paraphrase J. Gardner (1961, p. 173) once again, “A gifted child who does not believe in anything will never achieve excellence.” This chapter presents a broad conceptualization of practical intelligence, puts forth the notion of wisdom for gifted students, and highlights the importance of seeking self so as to serve communities. The first section of this chapter presents a review of the concept of practical intelligence, as relatively distinct from that of academic intelligence as measured by school achievement tests. The second section discusses the notion of wisdom, highlighting the role of experiential knowledge, reflection, and habits of virtue in a more expansive notion of practical intelligence that speaks to a symbiotic relationship between self and the larger community. The relationship between wisdom and democracy is discussed. In the last section, the chapter puts forth the authors’ Evolving Self Model and suggests the use of school-based service learning as a powerful tool for the academic, social, and moral engagement of gifted students.

M.A. Heng and K.Y. Tam

lation to the contextual subtheory of his triarchic theory of intelligence and to his notion of successful intelligence. Research studies provide support for practical intelligence as a construct somewhat independent of academic or schooled intelligence. The nature of tacit knowledge, as a concept central to practical intelligence, is examined.

Early Work

In a widely known treatise on hierarchical models of intelligence, Vernon (1950) established the existence of a g factor at the hierarchical apex of the structure of abilities. A factor analysis of residual correlations revealed the emergence of two major group factors: verbal-numerical-educational (referred to as v:ed factor) and practical-mechanical-spatial-physical (referred to as k:m factor). Vernon described the v:ed factor as “a rather strongly unified group” and he attributed this homogeneity to the possibility that “society gives a fairly uniform education to all its members” (p. 32). With the k:m factor, he noted “less cultural standardization. . .an aggregate of all non-symbolic capacities, or of bonds that are not usually affected by primary schooling” (p. 32). Some years earlier, in a seminal address at the 1941 convention of the American Psychological Association given by Raymond B. Cattell, one witnessed the birth of the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence (Cattell, 1941). Using the method of multiple factor analysis developed by Thurstone (1938, 1947, as cited in Gustafsson, 1988), Horn & Cattell (1966) performed a second-order factor analysis, in which the correlations among first-order factors were factor analyzed to yield second-order factors. Among several second-order factors which emerged, two dimensions were identified as most important: fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence (abbreviated Gf and Gc , respectively). Practical Intelligence Horn and Cattell interpreted fluid intelligence as primarily representing the biological and neurological This section presents the theoretical background for functioning of an individual. Horn (1968) explained the conceptualization of practical intelligence, drawn that in Piaget’s work (1947, 1952, as cited in Horn), for largely from the work of Sternberg and others. Begin- example, “the young child develops concepts and aids ning with early work on hierarchical models and fluid as a result of manipulations and experiments which are and crystallized abilities, this section traces some early not arranged by those who would educate the child. thoughts on practical intelligence. Sternberg’s (1996b) Such incidental learning occurs throughout developconception of practical intelligence is discussed in re- ment” (p. 247). Under such circumstances, learning

59

Practical Intelligence and Wisdom in Gifted Education

is relatively independent of sociocultural and environmental influences. Crystallized intelligence was attributed to “experiential-educative-acculturation influences” (Horn & Cattell, 1966, p. 254). Tests of crystallized intelligence, for example, the vocabulary inherent in verbal comprehension items, as Horn (1968) pointed out, “typically is that of a rather literate adult. Performance on such tests rather clearly indicates degree of acculturation” (p. 250). In later research, developmental patterns provide evidence that with age, fluid abilities tend to decline while crystallized abilities are maintained or even enhanced (Horn, 1982). That both fluid and crystallized abilities vary in different ways across the life span thus suggests that the abilities are distinct from each other. At the same time, correlations between measures of both abilities indicate points of overlap.

Relationship Between Academic and Practical Intelligence Drawing on the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence, the dichotomy of academic intelligence, as a construct distinct from practical intelligence, was one which Neisser (1976) – among the first psychologists to do so – pushed for. Neisser described academic intelligence as typically relating to the academic skills of school learning and as primarily measured by intelligence tests or by school achievement tests. He defined “intelligent performance in natural situations,” which Wagner & Sternberg (1985) pointed out as akin to practical intelligence, as “responding appropriately in terms of one’s long-range and short-range goals, given the actual facts of the situation as one discovers them” (p. 137). Characterizing academic problems as largely different from practical problems, a succinct account given by Sternberg and his colleagues (e.g., Sternberg & Wagner, 1993; Wagner & Sternberg, 1985) is as follows: Academic problems tend to (a) be formulated by other people, (b) be clearly defined, (c) be presented with all the necessary information needed to solve them, (d) have a single correct answer, (e) support and require a single method of obtaining the correct answer, (f) be disembedded from ordinary experience,

1159

and (g) be of little or no intrinsic interest to the problem solver. Practical problems, in contrast, tend to (a) require problem finding and formulating, (b) be less well defined, (c) require information seeking, (d) possess multiple acceptable solutions, (e) require multiple approaches to solution, (f) be related to everyday experience, and (g) require motivation and personal interest. Hence, in academic intelligence, the emphasis is on knowledge that tends to be formal, content based, and rule driven. Moreover, academic knowledge is explicitly taught and is highly valued in schools. In practical intelligence, on the other hand, the relevant knowledge tends to be informal, shaped by norms, and often tacit, that is, the knowledge is not openly expressed or explicitly taught. Tacit knowledge is learned primarily via the more indirect modes of observation and modeling, and is usually devalued or even ignored in schools. Thus, crystallized intelligence in the form of acculturated knowledge is particularly relevant to practical problems. Without such knowledge, you just can’t solve the problems life throws at you. In contrast, fluid intelligence, as is required to solve letter series or figural-analogy problems, is more relevant to the solution of academic problems and IQ-like tests. It is also important in everyday life for situations that require flexibility of thinking. (Sternberg, 1996b, p. 231)

Some caveats are in order here. Hence, while there is evidence to suggest that there are parallels between fluid and crystallized abilities, on the one hand, and academic and practical abilities, on the other, the relationship is not an isomorphic one, that is, there is no one-to-one correspondence between the abilities. A key implication of this relationship is given by Sternberg, Wagner, Williams, & Horvath (1995): “[B]ecause fluid abilities are weaker determinants of performance on practical problems than they are of performance on academic problems, the use of scores on traditional cognitive ability tests to predict real-world performance should be problematic” (p. 915). Additionally, a possible source of contention in the dichotomization of intelligence into academic and practical abilities lies in the reductionistic undertones of such a relationship. In his two facet model of the aging mind, Baltes (1993) proffered the terms “cognitive mechanics” (akin to fluid intelligence) and “cognitive pragmatics” (akin to crystallized intelligence) and argued that the juxtaposition of cognitive mechanics

1160

with the cognitive pragmatics does not mean that the categories are necessarily mutually exclusive. Baltes (p. 580) conceived of the cognitive mechanics as reflecting the “evolution-based neurophysiological architecture of the mind” (a prototype of this functioning is memory); the cognitive pragmatics relates to the influences of a given culture (a prototype of this functioning is wisdom). The cognitive mechanics interacts with the cognitive pragmatics and as Baltes asserts, “the pragmatics always build on the mechanics” (p. 581). Hence, along lines of argument similar to those advanced by Baltes, juxtaposing academic and practical abilities serves a heuristic purpose, that is, as an aid to understanding the theoretical “ideal-type conception.” In reality, the distinction between academic and practical abilities is less clear. It is also very likely that practical abilities build on academic abilities.

Validity Studies of Practical Intelligence Although diverse in terms of theoretical and methodological orientations, several studies of practical or everyday problem solving provide some evidence in support of the dichotomization of practical intelligence as a construct separate from academic intelligence. In a study of racetrack handicapping, Ceci & Liker (1986a, 1986b) investigated the strategies experts and non-experts used to predict winners at the racetrack. Handicapping 10 actual races and 50 hypothetical races, expert handicapping proved to be a cognitively complex task. To pick winners, experts developed highly sophisticated mathematical algorithms that took into consideration as many as seven variables. IQ test scores were found to be unrelated to handicapping complexity; experts with low IQs, in comparison to non-experts with high IQs, employed more complex algorithmic models. An important implication of this finding, assert Ceci & Liker (1986a), is the non-association between IQ and “real-world forms of cognitive complexity that would appear to conform to some of those that scientists regard as the hallmarks of intelligent behavior” (p. 255). Hence, in their study, Ceci and Liker draw a sharp distinction between academic and practical intelligence. They make their stand clear (1986b) as follows:

M.A. Heng and K.Y. Tam [M]any real-world challenges require the development of specific styles and modes of cognizing that may not only be unrelated to those required for successful academic performance, but actually be antithetical to it. For such persons it makes little sense to speak of their IQ score as anything more than a measure of probable academic readiness. (Ceci & Liker, 1986b, p. 138)

In a study of the strategies used by milk-processing plant workers to fill orders (Scribner, 1986), experienced assemblers, in comparison to novice assemblers, were better able to redefine and reformulate seemingly standardized and repetitive tasks. For example, these workers were adept at using complex strategies to complete an order in a manner that required the minimal number of moves and were thereby able to speed up their work. Moreover, the performance of the assemblers in regard to their ability to fill orders was neither related to their scores on an intelligence test nor to school performance. Investigating grocery shopping at supermarkets in California, Lave, Murtaugh, & de la Rocha (1984) sought to find out the cognitive basis on which consumers made their purchases. At a time when information on cost per unit quantity was not readily available at supermarkets, the study found that consumers were able to use mental shortcuts to make purchases at the least cost per unit quantity. Twenty-five shoppers attained 98% accuracy in grocery shopping arithmetic, while averaging 59% correct scores on a paperand-pencil mental arithmetic test. Moreover, number of years of schooling correlated with performance on the mental arithmetic test but not with accuracy in deciding upon the best purchases to make. These findings point to the limited predictive and explanatory power of IQ in relation to achievement in everyday pursuits. Investigating everyday problem solving among grade school students, Berg (1989) found that academic and everyday measures of competence for 8th and 11th graders reflected only a very weak relationship. There was less differentiation between the two kinds of measures, however, at the fifth grade level, suggesting that older adolescents may interpret problems in a more complex manner (Berg & Calderone, 1994) and this may lead to greater divergence in the array of strategies used to deal with everyday problems – differences that may not necessarily be attributable to an individual’s academic abilities. Berg concluded that the modest to moderate correlation between practical components and school

59

Practical Intelligence and Wisdom in Gifted Education

achievement indicated that these competencies needed to be measured apart from academic skills. Additional support for the hypothesis that formal education remains relatively unassociated with everyday problem-solving abilities comes from Klaczynski’s (1997) study of biases in adolescents’ everyday reasoning. Sixty 9th and 12th graders were presented with eight hypothetical problems that contained logical fallacies. Although verbal ability was the best predictor of everyday reasoning, an important caveat was that general ability measures, including that of verbal ability, was not predictive of biases in everyday reasoning. The studies therefore provide evidence of the weak association between measures of practical or everyday problem solving and conventional measures of intelligence such as intelligence test scores and school performance. In other words, practical intelligence, rather than academic intelligence, may be able to account for a substantial portion of the variance among individuals successful in real-world pursuits. In fact, in the real world, IQ scores leave more than 90% of the variation among individuals unaccounted for (Sternberg, 1996a). This therefore bears on the validity of practical intelligence as a construct separate from academic intelligence as it appears that practical intelligence is no less important than academic intelligence in successful accomplishments.

Practical Intelligence and Tacit Knowledge for School In his book, Successful Intelligence, Sternberg (1996b) writes about the synergistic and optimal use of one’s analytical, creative, and practical abilities in the pursuit of real-world success. Analytical intelligence is indispensable in the solution of problems and in the evaluation of ideas. Creative intelligence is useful in the formulation of problems and ideas. Practical intelligence is required in the effective implementation of ideas and solutions. Sternberg characterizes successful individuals as those who are able to capitalize on their strengths while compensating for their weaknesses; these are the individuals who are able to achieve a balance in the effective interplay of abilities important to achieving successful outcomes.

1161

Sternberg’s conceptualization of practical intelligence, the construct of focus in this chapter, drew from Sternberg’s earlier work on the contextual subtheory of the triarchic theory of intelligence (1984, 1985). Practical intelligence was conceived of as the ability to adapt to, shape, and select environments (Sternberg, 1996b). Adaptation refers to the “adjustment of one’s self and one’s behavior to the environment in order to provide a good fit to that environment” (Sternberg, 1991, p. 50). When attempts to adapt to a particular environment fail, shaping the environment may help to modify it in a way that can provide for maximal fit between the environment and a person’s adaptive skills. When attempts to both adapt to and shape the environment do not work out, the selection of an alternative environment may provide a better contextual fit (Sternberg, 1984). Sternberg (1996b) posited that individuals with practical intelligence, “actively seek out the tacit knowledge that is implicit and often hidden in an environment” (p. 246) and use this knowledge to help them adapt to, shape, and select environments. Successful intelligence has also been variously defined as the “ability to adapt to, shape, and select environments to accomplish one’s goals and those of one’s society and culture” (Sternberg & Kaufman, 1998, p. 494), and as the “acquisition and use of what you need to know to succeed in a particular environment, which you are not explicitly taught and which usually isn’t even verbalized” (Sternberg, 1996a, p. 19). It therefore appears that there is a good degree of convergence in Sternberg’s definitions of successful and practical intelligence. As Sternberg (1996b) contends, it may well be that success in life is less dependent on the kind of analytical intelligence that is recognized and rewarded in school than it is on the less-emphasized creative and practical aspects of intelligence. Instructional data have shown that students who have been taught for successful intelligence (that is, analytical, creative, and practical intelligence) have outperformed other students in terms of performance assessments (e.g., Sternberg, Torff, & Grigorenko 1998a, 1998b). Sternberg has therefore appropriately challenged all schools, including schools offering programs for gifted children to move beyond only valuing analytical intelligence and to help children develop all three abilities imperative to life success (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2000, 2003, 2004).

1162

The Nature of Tacit Knowledge While the acquisition of formal academic knowledge is primarily synonymous with academic intelligence, an individual with practical intelligence can be described as one who possesses a large body of tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge, as defined by Sternberg, Wagner, Williams, & Horvath (1995, p. 916), refers to “actionoriented knowledge, acquired without direct help from others, that allows individuals to achieve goals they personally value.” Simply speaking, it is “knowledge of what one needs to know to succeed in a given environment that is not explicitly taught and that usually is not verbalized” (Sternberg & Kaufman, 1998, p. 494). It essentially refers to an individual’s “sense of knowledge and vision” (Sternberg, 1993, p. 11) – an implicit knowledge that may not be commonplace, but which individuals with practical intelligence are able to draw on to help them adapt to, shape, and select environments. Specifically, three characteristic features of tacit knowledge are elaborated upon (Sternberg, 1996b; Sternberg et al., 1995). First, tacit knowledge is procedural and action oriented in nature; it is concerned with “knowing how” as opposed to “knowing that,” a characteristic of declarative knowledge (Ryle, 1949, as cited in Sternberg et al., 1995, p. 916). Second, tacit knowledge is important to helping people attain personally valued and relevant goals. Third, tacit knowledge is practical know-how that is not formally taught, but is implicitly acquired. Hence, knowledge which embodies these characteristics is termed “tacit” because it usually has to be indirectly inferred from exchanges and interactions in the environment. On occasion, however, tacit knowledge may be made propositional knowledge when implicit, “hidden” knowledge is brought out into the open, is made conscious, and is articulated.

Tacit Knowledge for School Within the context of school, Sternberg and his colleagues (e.g., Sternberg, Wagner, & Okagaki, 1993) have put forth the notion of practical intelligence for school. Integrating the triarchic theory of intelligence (Sternberg, 1985) and the theory of multiple intelligences (H. Gardner, 1993), the theory of tacit knowledge for school distinguishes three types of

M.A. Heng and K.Y. Tam

tacit knowledge: tacit knowledge about oneself, about school tasks, and about interpersonal relationships. In its fundamental sense, tacit knowledge for school entails an implicit understanding of how the self as learner, when in synergy with a knowledge of school tasks and interpersonal relationships and coupled with the ability to apply creative and analytic skills, opens up pathways toward achieving school success that better epitomize learning in its totality and, ultimately, learning that will culminate in the fulfilling endeavors of later life. Over a 6-year period, beginning in 1988, a collaborative effort was undertaken by researchers from Yale and Harvard Universities to develop a theorybased Practical Intelligence for School (PIFS) instructional model and curriculum to teach children the skills they need to succeed in school. The main aim of the PIFS program was to help students apply and integrate subject-specific academic knowledge as well as practical knowledge about self, school tasks, and the larger context of school (Williams, Blythe, White, Li, Sternberg, & Gardner, 1996). The target population of the PIFS program was students from grades 5 to 8. The program perceived that practical knowledge about self and the school environment would prove particularly helpful to pre-adolescents as they adapt and adjust to the many intellectual, emotional, and physical changes which characterize the early years of adolescence and make the transition from elementary to junior high school years. Tacit knowledge for school predicts academic success as well as conventional ability tests; its prediction of academic adjustment is even better. These findings were obtained in a study of 53 Yale college students (Sternberg, Wagner, & Okagaki, 1993), in which a tacit knowledge inventory was developed based on the responses of a subgroup of 50 college students to the question: “What does it take to succeed at Yale that you do not learn from textbooks?” The findings of the study also showed that criterion measures of academic performance were not correlated with those of adjustment, r = −0.09, indicating that to succeed in school, both academic and tacit knowledge are required. In summary, at the first level of conceptualization, practical intelligence is the application of a learner’s analytic and creative abilities to achieve success in the everyday context of school and out-of-school experience (e.g., Sternberg, 1997). Hence, it appears clear that practical intelligence is important for success in

59

Practical Intelligence and Wisdom in Gifted Education

school and in everyday life and that as a construct, practical intelligence is somewhat distinct from academic intelligence. While both formal and tacit knowledge are important for succeeding in school and in life, the next section puts forth a second level of conceptualization involving a more meta-level functioning and a focus beyond the self.

Wisdom Baltes (1993) identified the “meta-criteria” for wisdom, a prototype of functioning of the “cognitive pragmatics,” which has its origins in Horn & Cattell’s (1966) crystallized intelligence. In contrast to the “cognitive mechanics,” the “hardware” of the mind (akin to Horn and Cattell’s fluid intelligence), the cognitive pragmatics is conceived of as the “software” of the mind and reflects the “kind of knowledge and information that a culture offers as bodies of factual and procedural knowledge about the world and human affairs” (Baltes, 1993, p. 585). Wisdom is defined as an “expert knowledge system in the fundamental pragmatics of life permitting excellent judgment and advice involving important and uncertain matters of life” (p. 586). In other words, at the highest level of functioning, wisdom that is guided by more universal values seems to be what is needed to achieve success in the “pragmatics of life” that involves a larger good beyond the interests of self. It seems that there is some notion of wisdom actively being developed in schools. Most, if not all, disciplines in the university, and particularly in education and medical schools, are concerned not only with the knowledge and competences of the graduates they produce but also with the quality of the person. There is a need, however, to understand what it means to nurture students to be wise. There is a need to specify what wisdom means. While knowledge, skills, and attitudes may be expressed in terms of curriculum outcomes, to what extent can or should the same be done with the concept of wisdom? How would the concept of wisdom be articulated coherently, and whose idea of wisdom should it be? Aristotle’s philosophical concept of phronesis, otherwise known as practical wisdom or practical reason, sheds some light on the concept of wisdom and offers rich insights in terms of its relevance to the education of academically able students. Phronesis is the

1163

experiential knowledge, embedded in character, and meta-level functioning used by individuals to determine courses of action and understand significant consequences. Phronesis bears a relationship with moral virtue, which is not imparted by instruction. What is needed is habituation – actually performing actions that correspond with virtue. Phronesis is therefore an essentially moral form of knowledge, guided by the habits of virtue that come to form character (Aristotle, 1941, cited in Halverson, 2004). Phronesis represents the accumulated wisdom, embodied in character that helps us to determine which action is worth taking in a given situation. Specifically, phronesis brings reflection to bear on a specific circumstance or situation. In medical education, such reflection is important in clinical cases where the available information and knowledge are incomplete and recommended procedures are inconclusive (Dowie, 2000). Practical wisdom therefore involves beginning with a clinical situation, engaging in research and reflection, and then returning to the case and reexamining it in light of research findings. A contemporary neo-Aristotelian philosopher sheds further light: “[Aristotle] considered phronesis not only as the clever, skilful discovery of means for meeting specific tasks, not only as an awareness of what is practical, of how to realize incidental goals, but also as the sense for setting the goals themselves and taking responsibility for them” (Gadamer, 1996, cited in Dowie, 2000). In his balance theory of wisdom, Sternberg (2001) viewed wisdom as “a kind of practical intelligence, but not the kind that is applied simply to benefit oneself or some individual one cares about, for whatever reason” (pp. 230–231). He defined wisdom as the application of tacit and explicit knowledge as mediated by values toward the achievement of a common good through a balance of various self-interests (what he called intrapersonal) with the interests of others (what he called interpersonal) and of other aspects of the context in which one lives, such as one’s city, country, or even God (what he called extrapersonal). Sternberg made a distinction between practical intelligence and wisdom. It is not wisdom if one applies practical intelligence for one’s own good, but at the expense of the wellbeing of others. In wisdom, one not only seeks good ends for oneself but also seeks common good outcomes for others. What is fundamentally important is the significance of values as integral to wise thinking. Val-

1164

ues determine an appropriate balance of interests and an appropriate response to the environment and to the common good. While core, common values exist, individuals also subscribe to differing values. One makes a decision based on one’s values, and life-changing decisions may be beyond the comprehension of others. An example is given that illustrates this. Pat Tillman, a football player with the Cardinals (a professional football team in the United States), stunned everybody in 2002 when he walked away from a 3-year contract worth $3.6 million and made less than $20,000 in the Army. Apparently, Pat made that decision after he watched the coverage of terror attacks on September 11, 2001. Deep patriotism seemed to be the reason for his enlistment. Pat told a reporter in an interview, “My great grandfather was at Pearl Harbor and a lot of my family has gone and fought in wars and I really haven’t done a damn thing as far as laying myself on the line like that” (Coll, 2004). Although Pat was a well-known football player, he refused publicity after making the decision to enlist and admonished immediate family members not to speak with the media. Pat Tillman was killed in action by friendly fire in Afghanistan in 2004. He was 27 years old.

The Evolving Self Model: Seeking Self and Serving Communities In the section, we put forth our Evolving Self Model (Heng & Tam, 2006) as an attempt to delineate four broad philosophical beliefs that underlie the process of finding self and serving communities. We argue that the process is an evolving one, with the journey beginning with the individual’s search for deep meaning as self seeks to understand self. We posit that an enhanced understanding of self qua self leads the individual to a better understanding of self in relation to family and peers, culminating in a transcendent view of self that seeks to be of service to local and international communities far beyond the reaches of the self. We put forth the model as presenting a dynamic, conscious articulation of the tacit understanding of self and of one’s purpose in life itself. The Evolving Self Model has its conceptual roots in the thoughts and ideas of two legendary philosophers of education. Both Confucius and Dewey embraced the widest and richest perspectives that helped to illumi-

M.A. Heng and K.Y. Tam

nate the very essence of education. Confucius believed in the act of living an experience, which he termed “The Way” or “The Dao.” Sometimes referred to as the Second Confucius (Grange, 2003), Dewey conceived of experience as the touchstone of life. Confucius charted a developmental path for his students, beginning with the growth of self, following which self in relation to achieving family harmony, and then culminating in the development of self in relation to peace and order in the empire (Palmer, 2001). Learning, therefore, is the foundation stone of selfdevelopment: If one loves humaneness but does not love learning, the consequence of this is folly; if one loves understanding but does not love learning, the consequence of this is unorthodoxy; if one loves good faith but does not love learning, the consequence of this is damaging behavior; if one loves straightforwardness but does not love learning, the consequence of this is rudeness; if one loves courage but does not love learning, the consequence of this is rebelliousness; if one loves strength but does not love learning, the consequence of this is violence. (Palmer, 2001, p. 1)

Confucius was concerned with finding the right way or dao to handle a situation. Finding dao is a personal mission, one’s life path. Finding dao or one’s mission in life is a developmental path that begins with the self. Specifically, the journey begins with a deep understanding of the uniqueness and talents of self, as one tries to achieve the best that can be achieved by the self in a given setting. An enhanced knowledge of self – with self-knowledge usually tacit and unexamined – develops only if one is able to engage in sustained selfreflection and deep introspection. Self-reflection is the conscious, sustained analysis of self in relation to longterm goals and aspirations. H. Gardner (1997) identifies the process of self-reflection as a key element important to extraordinary achievement and contends that reflection is the “sine qua non of effective accomplishment” (p. 152). As educators, what this means is the need to value children for their unique talents and to listen to the inner agenda of the child to understand who the child really is. By this, we mean the need to help children seek answers to some of the more fundamental questions of mission, purpose, and connection: Who am I? What is the meaning and purpose of life? Am I happy? In other words, this is an endeavor to find an “actuating cause of life,” an “inner, depth dimension of human experience.”

59

Practical Intelligence and Wisdom in Gifted Education

At a more meta-level, von Wright (1992) provides another dimension to self-reflection that is worthy of note. To him, self-reflection concerns not only an interpretation of one’s actions and experiences. Self-reflection “permits the viewing of one’s representations as representations, one’s beliefs as beliefs. This ‘relativization’ of knowledge paves the way for decontextualization” (p. 62). Self-reflection is therefore the “root of the notion of voluntary choice” (p. 62). It follows, then, that with self-reflection culminating in voluntary choice, an individual with a mature sense of self may be within reach of a life of fulfillment and meaning. As the self develops, it strives to seek deeper meanings in relation to larger realms beyond the self. This points to the second philosophical belief of seeking deep meanings to rediscover connection and purposeful direction. In the process of finding dao, Confucius identifies the need to “unite thought and action, morality and stubborn fact, body and mind, individual and community” (Grange, 2003, pp. 15–16). Dao seeks a “real balance, not an idealized harmony achieved at the expense of others. Each individual is a center of influence but that significance must radiate in such a way as to enhance the stability of the region in question” (Grange, 2003, p. 17). Good teachers therefore seek to help students find connection and purposeful direction in their learning. Students are encouraged to seek deep knowledge and meta-understanding of self in relation to self, family, peers, and larger communities. Are gifted learners likely to be more adept than their mainstream peers in making meaning of their experiences and thereby in developing an enhanced understanding of self? While some educators and psychologists have documented that gifted adolescents develop an understanding of self at an early age (e.g., Piechowski, 2003), others (e.g., Buescher & Higham, 1989) caution that gifted adolescents may not “know themselves” as well as people assume they do. Often, these adolescents have prolonged doubts about themselves and are lacking in self-worth and self-esteem. The third philosophical belief brings to the fore the quest to help children pursue dreams. What this means is a need for educators to help children develop both the life of the mind and the life of the spirit. This means helping children ask big, almost transcendent, questions. As educators, this means helping children develop courage to find a vocation or a “calling” to re-

1165

alize self and seek success that culminates in meaning and fulfillment for the individual. Roeper (1995) subscribes to a philosophy of educating for life as opposed to educating for success (the latter conceived of in the conventional and narrow sense whereby success is regarded as a metric of academic grades). She writes, “true success in teaching gifted children can only be achieved when the passions of the child – her soul and mind – are accepted as the foundations upon which we bridge society’s expectations as well as our own” (1997, p. 166). Elsewhere, Roeper (1996) strongly urges educators to nurture the psyche of the child in the direction of self-actualization. At the same time, she emphasizes the importance of building “bridges to the expectations of the world. Indeed, the Self cannot grow in isolation. . .the Self must find a place in the world” (p. 19). Roeper (1996) therefore calls attention to the important need for educators to build bridges – to listen to the inner agenda of the child – and at the same time to be able to read the realities of the external environment to keep an open mind to societal needs and expectations. The fourth philosophical belief highlights the importance of being perseverant in the face of adversity. In the context of the Confucian idea of benevolence, perseverance requires the pursuit of what is best for all rather than simply what is best for self. The Chinese idunderscores the iom need for an individual to endure the most difficult, bitter hardships of life so as to reach the highest state of self-actualization. Resonant with Confucian beliefs, Dewey was especially concerned with the enhancement of democratic community and the concomitant dangers of losing moral and spiritual compass in modern democracies. In contrast to the factory-like, efficiency model of school that has typified competitive education systems in much of the world, whereby students are regarded as raw materials to be molded by teachers, Dewey viewed schools as life itself, rather than a preparation for life. [We must] make each one of our schools an embryonic community life, active with types of occupations that reflect the life of the larger society, and throughout permeated with the spirit of art, history, and science. When the school introduces and trains each child of society into membership within such a little community, saturating him with the spirit of service, and providing him with the instruments of effective self-direction, we shall have the

1166 deepest and best guarantor of a larger society which is worthy, lovely, and harmonious. (Palmer, 2001, p. 177)

For Dewey, therefore, school serves as a miniature, embryonic community. He viewed education as the construction and meaning making of experiences, the process of self-direction thereby leading to a spirit of service to the larger community. Dewey gave focus to the interrelatedness of the domains of feeling, thinking, judging, willing, and acting in his integrated view of self in relation to the larger community. The journey of the evolving self, as depicted in the Evolving Self Model, is in resonance with Sternberg’s (2001) balance theory of wisdom, which posits a balance of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and extrapersonal interests. Of greater resonance would be relevance to Aristotle’s concept of phronesis or practical wisdom, the experiential knowledge and habits of virtue that come to form character, as depicted in the model’s notion of perseverance in the face of adversity so as to remain steadfast to one’s beliefs and integrity.

A Case in China Education is life itself. John Dewey believed that students should be involved in real-world experiences and challenges. In this section, we illustrate the journey of the evolving self with the challenges faced by four undergraduate students majoring in journalism in China as they embark on a research project examining the problems of runaway youths, a social issue that has not received much attention in the country. To facilitate understanding of context, a brief foray into existing contextual constraints and issues would be useful. In an environment where freedom of the press is not valued and exercised, the work of a journalist in China is sometimes fraught with frustrations and challenges. Often, there are no clear guidelines as to what type of news is considered confidential. An issue is sometimes not reported in the press, despite the availability of evidence and data, simply because the publisher or executive editor of a newspaper is afraid of offending a government agency or someone influential in authority. More often than not, a journalist is only permitted to report non-controversial news and is forbidden from making objective comments on supposedly sensitive, provocative issues. It is not uncommon for a journalist to be thrown in prison because of what the authorities

M.A. Heng and K.Y. Tam

perceive as inflammatory, damaging writing. That there are young people who remain keen to pursue a career in journalism, given the vicissitudes and uncertainty of a harsh, unforgiving environment, is quite unimaginable. In the research project in focus, the four participating students nurture a strong desire to be first-rate journalists, notwithstanding parental opposition to career choice. In doing so, these students have embarked on a journey to seek deep meaning and to search for selfidentity. Each student has offered cogent reasons for pursuing journalism as an undergraduate study. Student A wants to report social injustice because of injustice encountered by her father. Student B wishes to examine marginality issues such as homosexuality and gender. Student C sets her sights on becoming a sports reporter. Student D would like to find out whether being a journalist is her calling. All students share a common dream in that all seek the opportunity to report important social issues that would contribute to the betterment of their country. Working on the project offered the first real-life assignment for the students. As they began to search for relevant information for the project, the students encountered many obstacles. For instance, when they contacted government officials to acquire information about runaway youths, they were told that there were no such data. The students browsed different government web sites and checked government year books, but were unable to locate any official statistics about runaway youths. A case in point was when one of the students talked to a staff member from a local government agency and was informed that there is no extant problem with runaway youths in China and that youths who leave home without parental consent would immediately be reported by schools or other relevant agencies. Collecting relevant information was therefore an extremely difficult task that required much tact and patience on the part of the four students. Nonetheless, the students acknowledged that the obstacles they faced offered lessons and insights into a better understanding of the realities and challenges of their chosen profession. To date, the students continue to look for information and are working toward writing an article based on the information they have collected. The students fully understand that regardless of the rigorous work done for the project, there is a likelihood that their report may not be published in any newspaper in China. These students live in an environment in which the understanding and practice of journalism is very

59

Practical Intelligence and Wisdom in Gifted Education

different from that embraced by Western democracies. Working as a student-journalist will serve as a litmus test to the students’ perseverance. As educators, it would be important to encourage these students to draw from the lessons they learn and to persevere in using their unique talents to pursue their passions and dreams.

Wisdom and Democracy According to Sternberg (2001), as indicated earlier, wisdom involves not only a balance of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and extrapersonal interests but also three possible courses of action in response to the balance. These possible courses begin with adaptation of oneself or others to existing environments, shaping of environments to render them more compatible with oneself or others, and selection of new environments. In adaptation, the individual tries to find ways to conform to the existing environmental context. The fit to an environment, however, requires not only changing oneself; sometimes a fit entails changing the environment as well. When the individual finds it impossible to fit into existing environments, the selection of a new environment may be the only feasible option. The courses of action proposed by Sternberg, we believe, are plausibly applicable in an environmental context where true democracy can take place and where individual rights are honored. This raises some disturbing questions: Can wisdom exist in an environment where there is no freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of religion, and where individual rights are not protected? Can wisdom be valued in a society where there is no check and balance, where there is no accountability, where policies and decision-making processes are not transparent, and where law and order is not enforced seriously? What about an individual who is trapped in such an environment as a result of neither being able to adapt to the existing environment, shape the existing environment nor being able to select a new environment? How does an individual uphold one’s values in a context where guanxi, the Chinese variant of social capital (Knight & Yueh, 2002), in which the Chinese cultural tradition of cultivating social relationships and networking is prevalent in every walk of life and where the Corruption Perceptions In-

1167

dex (CPI) is low, for instance. Conducted annually by Transparency International, the CPI ranks countries in terms of the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians. In 2006, almost three-quarters of the countries ranked were rated with a CPI score below five, indicating that most countries in the world face serious perceived levels of domestic corruption. As an age-old cultural tradition of cultivating and valuing social relationships in China, guanxi can make the difference between securing an interview and not getting one’s resume read at all, for example. That is, it does not matter that the individual has the right qualifications, credentials, and experience. It does matter, however, that the individual is well connected with the right person(s) with the power to influence hiring decisions. In comparison to human capital, social capital appears to be more important. Remarkably, one additional reported contact could contribute more to earned income than an additional year of schooling (Knight & Yueh, 2002)! Practical intelligence, as it is used to benefit oneself, speaks to the notion of guanxi in the use of seemingly strategic means to influence those who make hiring decisions, using our earlier example. One knows it is unlikely that one would be invited to a job interview based on one’s qualifications and credentials. What could one do? To adapt to the environment, one could take the person who is influential in the hiring decision process out to an expensive dinner, followed by an after-dinner entertainment. Alternatively, one could buy gifts for the person in order to increase one’s likelihood of getting the job. Like everybody else, if one succumbs to the environment, could one be happy with oneself? If one holds firm to the values of integrity and honesty, could one choose not to apply for the job and in doing so, select out of the present environment and into a new one? When guanxi is rampant and deeply rooted in every facet of life, what then are the options? How does one earn an honest living when one is unable to adapt to the context of guanxi and is unable to select a new environment (i.e., leave the country)? How do the decisions one make as a result of one’s values adversely affect the lives of family members, including one’s spouse and children? The crunch point, therefore, is whether one is able to uphold one’s values and beliefs and is unwavering and perseverant in times of difficulty and adversity? One is cognizant of strategic shortcuts and quick fixes to get what one wants, but

1168

one does not cultivate social relationships as a means to acquiring accelerated recognition and achievement. Is one able to ignore other people’s misperceptions of one’s beliefs and one’s actions? Is one able to manage psychologically and physically when one is devoid of understanding and support from everyone, including family members? Would one consider one’s beliefs and actions as wise thinking when everyone thinks one is na¨ıve and stupid? The question of “whose values?” also arises. In other words, on one hand, one’s values may mean a steadfast rootedness to one’s principles and beliefs. On the other hand, one may be perceived by colleagues, friends, and even family members as a na¨ıve, non-conforming idealist. Two incidents that took place during the Cultural Revolution in China demonstrate two different ways in which wisdom could be defined and played out in the context of a non-democratic community. A highly acclaimed translator, accused by the Red Guards of being a counter-revolutionist, and his wife committed suicide during the Cultural Revolution. To avoid further humiliation and insult, and not wanting to admit the false accusations by the Red Guards, the couple chose to end their lives. To survive in such political turmoil, the translator could have simply adapted and succumbed to the pressures of the Cultural Revolution by first admitting to the accusations thrust upon him and then by expressing his support for the Revolution, spewing false accusations about others as counter-revolutionists. It was evident that the translator and his wife could not adapt to or shape the existing environment, but chose instead to select a new environment by ending their lives in order to maintain their integrity, dignity, and innocence. In the same historical context, the Red Guards accused a famous writer of being a supporter of antirevolution. To protect his wife and children, the writer succumbed to the political pressure and conceded to the false accusations. To demonstrate that he had renounced his past wrongdoings, the writer wrote a series of reflection papers to please the authorities and gain further approval. The writer would do whatever the Red Guards wanted him to do and began to embrace a new ideology that was in opposition to his long-held ideology. He also began to accuse others, including friends and colleagues, of being counter-revolutionists, despite being aware of his dishonest claims. The writer therefore adapted himself to the existing environment

M.A. Heng and K.Y. Tam

by admitting his guilt in the face of false accusations, pleasing the authorities by showing support for the Cultural Revolution, and accusing others as counterrevolutionists. He did not choose to denounce and leave the existing environment. When the Cultural Revolution was over, the status of this famous writer was reinstated. He began to write his new memoirs to document and reflect on what had happened to him, his family, and others during the Cultural Revolution. In his memoirs, the writer expressed deep remorse and anguish for what he had done to himself and others. He remained unhappy and disappointed with himself until his death. In these two examples, who showed wise thinking, the translator or the writer? What about the translator’s wife? She loved her husband so much that she could not bear to see her husband humiliated and insulted by the Red Guards, and she decided to end her life together with her husband. Is her decision and action considered wise thinking? What about the writer in showing courage and remorse in admitting his wrongdoings? In modern, democratic societies, adapting to and shaping existing environments could also be regarded as a form of strategic self-compromise to achieve specific ends, and in a sense, considered a wise action. The issue of concern, however, is how much adaptation and compromise one can make. What is one’s threshold level before one loses respect for oneself? The threshold levels for adapting to and shaping environments vary among individuals. In order to achieve a task, there are times an individual may make a compromise by embarking on something the individual does not like to do. If so, the individual could experience some degree of dissonance, feel some discomfort or even personal remorse for a short time after the action has been taken. If the threshold for self-compromise has not been exceeded, however, the individual would eventually align thoughts, actions, and emotions in relation to the achievements the individual seeks. In this regard, there are some common, universal values such as respect for human life and self-worth, respect for law and order, honesty, sincerity, and fairness, although the extent to which societies subscribe to these values vary. With gifted students, Passow (1989) noted the tendency for educators to enhance students’ knowledge and critical thinking competencies without helping them think about the morality of knowledge and without engaging students at a deeper, more

59

Practical Intelligence and Wisdom in Gifted Education

affective level. How, then, can gifted students be guided to find greater connection between head and heart, mind and spirit, and between self and community?

Teaching Wisdom Can we teach wisdom in a context where true democracy does not exist? Conceivably so, although the experience would be fraught with challenges. Foremost, we can teach wisdom by role modeling, sharing life experiences and inspiring others. Before we teach our students, however, and as the Evolving Self Model posits, there is a fundamental need to know and understand who we are. As educators, we need to revisit why we are in the education profession and ask ourselves deep and honest questions. Can we be a good role model to our students? Is serving others or our country one of our life missions? To uphold our values, we need to find self-worth, happiness, and meaning in life. We must remind ourselves constantly about what is important to us. We need a support network and structure when presented with seemingly insurmountable challenges. These are critical elements for what would constitute a good role model. To be sure, we cannot and should not force students to accept our values. Instead, we should honor their free will and should provide guidance to help students develop their own values. As we share our experiences and those of others whom we consider good role models (e.g., Pat Tillman) in the hope that these stories would serve to inspire our students, there is a need for patience as we try to help students understand the values that we uphold. In a more tangible sense, to nurture in students habits of virtue and to saturate them with the spirit of service, in the words of Aristotle and Dewey, respectively, a renewed focus on service learning would provide a timely and important moral and spiritual compass for today’s youths and tomorrow’s leaders.

The Promise of Service Learning In the last decade in the United States, service learning has been given new impetus by congressional and

1169

presidential actions and funding. The report from the National Commission on Service-Learning (2002a) defines service learning as “a teaching and learning approach that integrates community service with academic study to enrich learning, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities” (p. 7). Service learning is viewed as the confluence of civic and academic engagement. “By its very definition, civic responsibility means taking a healthy role in the life of one’s community, state, and nation. That means that classroom lessons should be complemented by work outside the classroom. Service learning does just that, tying community service to academic lessons” (Glenn, in National Commission on Service- Learning, p. 7). Service learning is based on educational traditions variously described as experiential learning, project-based learning, and hands-on learning. These are educational methods developed by educators such as John Dewey and Ralph Tyler. A service learning project would embody the following key characteristics: (a) articulated and authentic learning goals that are linked to the school curriculum and to academic standards, (b) response to genuine community needs, (c) youthful decision making, and (d) analytic reflection at all stages of service learning work, from planning through assessment (National Commission on Service-Learning, 2002b, pp. 16–17). Madeline Kunin, former deputy secretary, US Department of Education, noted, “Service learning resurrects idealism, compassion and altruism. . .we cannot survive as a nation unless we hold onto these qualities and teach them to our children” (p. 38). Service learning offers excellent opportunities for the development of heightened empathy and sensitivity as noted in Dabrowski’s theory of emotional development (Piechowski, 2003) and sense of altruism that gifted students are observed to possess (Clark, 2002). Service learning also offers excellent leadership opportunities (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2006). That service learning constitutes an integral part of the school curriculum in many countries today, including Singapore, a resource-scarce small country known for its strong, almost single-minded commitment to academic excellence, lends promise to education reform efforts worldwide in the nurture of character and the whole child. Senator Edward M. Kennedy noted that “Students who participate in service learning are likely to continue to work all their lives in many different ways

1170

to improve the world around them, with lasting benefits for our country and our planet” (National Commission on Service-Learning, 2002a, p. 13). Johnnetta Cole, former president, Spelman College shares similar thoughts: “An education that teaches you to understand something about the world has done only half the assignment. The other half is to teach you to do something about making the world a better place” (National Commission on Service-Learning, 2002b, p. 37). Service learning has the potential to raise gifted learners as world-class learners and world-class citizens.

Concluding Thoughts This chapter has presented a review of the concept of practical intelligence, as relatively distinct from that of academic intelligence as measured by school achievement tests. The notion of practical intelligence is a broad one, and we have put forth a second level of conceptualization, highlighting the relevance of wisdom and the role of experiential knowledge, reflection, habits of virtue, and a focus beyond self so as to serve communities, as depicted in our Evolving Self Model. The pivotal foundation, however, begins with a deep understanding of the unique talents of the self. In the context of modern democratic societies, wise thinking entails seeking a balance of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and extrapersonal interests through different courses of action such as adapting to the environment, shaping the environment, or selecting a new environment (Sternberg, 2001). What does it mean to be wise in a less-supportive environment? How does one embark on a journey of seeking self so as to serve communities, particularly in the face of challenges, adversity, and possible compromise of one’s beliefs and integrity? A renewed focus on service learning in schools worldwide could provide a timely and important moral and spiritual compass that would nurture in all students, including the gifted, a sense of idealism, compassion, altruism, purposeful direction, and mission. The National Commission on ServiceLearning (2002a) has issued a clarion call: “If we want our students to lead creative, productive lives, we must give them opportunities to learn in ways that have consequences for others, as well as for themselves” (p. 11).

M.A. Heng and K.Y. Tam

To liberate today’s gifted children from mindless competition, narrowly utilitarian pursuits, and impoverished lives, gifted education must take on a new level of meaning. As J. Gardner (1961) noted, the thrust should be toward guiding children to discover meaningful life goals and to seek “individual fulfillment within a framework of moral purpose” (p. 169). The Evolving Self Model speaks of two interrelated Confucian sayings: (1) – Before one can make virtue and moral excellence known to every citizen in the country, one must be able to rule the country effectively; before one can rule the country effectively, one must be able to run the family effectively; before one can run the family effectively, one must manage oneself effectively; before one can manage oneself effectively, one must acquire a strong foundation of virtue and moral excellence and – When (2) one does not have the opportunity to make virtue and moral excellence known to every citizen and to rule the country, one must continue to run the family effectively and to maintain and strive for virtue and moral excellence. We would like to describe practical intelligence as the seeds of wisdom, culminating in the discovery of the self within the larger purpose of the world. A wise person may also be described as a lotus flower. It remains pristine, pure, and fragrant even as it grows in murky waters.

References Baltes, P. B. (1993). The aging mind: Potential and limits. The Gerontologist, 33, 580–594. Berg, C. A. (1989). Knowledge of strategies for dealing with everyday problems from childhood through adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 25, 607–618. Berg, C. A., & Calderone, K. S. (1994). The role of problem interpretations in understanding the development of everyday problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence (pp. 105–132). New York: Cambridge University Press. Buescher, T. M., & Higham, S. J. (1989). A developmental study of adjustment among gifted adolescents. In J. L. VanTasselBaska & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of influence on gifted learners: The home, the self, and the school (pp. 102–124). New York: Teachers College Press.

59

Practical Intelligence and Wisdom in Gifted Education

Cattell, R. B. (1941). Some theoretical issues in adult intelligence testing [Abstract]. Psychological Bulletin, 38, 592. Ceci, S. J., & Liker, J. K. (1986a). A day at the races: A study of IQ, expertise, and cognitive complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 255–266. Ceci, S. J., & Liker, J. K. (1986b). Academic and nonacademic intelligence: An experimental separation. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world (pp. 119–142). New York: Cambridge University Press. Clark, B. A. (2002). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Coll, S. (2004, December 5th). In the killing zone: The unnecessary death of Pat Tillman. The Washington Post, p. A01. Dowie, A. (2000). Phronesis or “practical wisdom” in medical education. Medical Teacher, 22(3), 240–241. Frankl, V. E. (1984). Man’s search for meaning. New York: Washington Square Press. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of minds: The theory of multiple intelligences [10th anniversary issue]. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1997). Extraordinary minds. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, J. W. (1984). Excellence: Can we be equal and excellent too? New York: W. W. Norton and Company. (originally published in 1961). Grange, J. (2003). John Dewey and Confucius: Ecological philosophers. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 30, 419–431. Gustafsson, J.-E. (1988). Hierarchical models of individual differences in cognitive abilities. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 4, pp. 35–71). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Halverson, R. (2004). Accessing, documenting, and communicating practical wisdom: The phronesis of school leadership practice. American Journal of Education, 111, 90–121. Handy, C. (1998). The hungry spirit. London: Arrow Books. Heng, M. A., & Tam, B. K. Y. (2006). Reclaiming soul in gifted education: The academic caste system in Asian schools. In B. Wallace & G. Eriksson (Eds.), Diversity in gifted education: Global issues (pp. 178–186). London: Routledge Falmer. Horn, J. L. (1968). Organisation of abilities and the development of intelligence. Psychological Review, 75, 242–259. Horn, J. L. (1982). The theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence in relation to concepts of cognitive psychology and aging in adulthood. In F. I. M. Craik & A. Trehub (Eds.), Aging and cognitive processes (pp. 237–278). New York: Plenum. Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253–270. Klaczynski, P. A. (1997). Bias in adolescents’ everyday reasoning and its relationship with intellectual ability, personal theories, and self-serving motivation. Developmental Psychology, 33, 273–283. Knight, J., & Yueh, L. Y. (2002). The role of social capital in the labour market in China. (Discussion Paper Series No. 121). Oxford, England: University of Oxford, Department of Economics. Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., & de la Rocha, O. (1984). The dialectic of arithmetic in grocery shopping. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave

1171 (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 67–94). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lun Yu. The analects of Confucius (n. d.). National Commission on Service-Learning. (2002a, January). Learning in deed: The power of service-learning for American schools [Executive Summary]. Retrieved December 22, 2006, from http://service-learningcommission.org/ slcommission/report.html National Commission on Service-Learning. (2002b, January). Learning in deed: The power of service-learning for American schools. Retrieved December 22, 2006, from http:// service-learningcommission.org/slcommission/report.html Neisser, U. (1976). General, academic, and artificial intelligence. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 135– 144). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Palmer, J. A. (Ed.). (2001). Fifty major thinkers on education: From Confucius to Dewey. New York, NY: Routledge. Passow, A. H. (1989). Educating gifted persons who are caring and concerned. Gifted Education International, 6(1), 5–7. Piechowski, M. M. (2003). Emotional giftedness and spiritual giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 403–416). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Roeper, A. (1995). Annemarie Roeper: Selective writing and speeches. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit. Roeper, A. (1996). A personal statement of philosophy of George and Annemarie Roeper. Roeper Review, 19, 18–19. Roeper, A. (1997). Listen to the gifted child. Roeper Review, 19, 166–167. Scribner, S. (1986). Thinking in action: Some characteristics of practical thought. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world (pp. 13–30). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1984). Toward a triarchic theory of human intelligence. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 269–315. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1991). Giftedness according to the triarchic theory of human intelligence. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 45–54). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Intelligence is more than IQ: The practical side of intelligence. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 28(2), 6–17. Sternberg, R. J. (1996a). IQ counts, but what really counts is successful intelligence. NASSP Bulletin, 80(583), 18–23. Sternberg, R. J. (1996b). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York: Simon & Schuster. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). A triarchic view of giftedness: Theory and practice. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 43–53). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Why schools should teach for wisdom: The balance theory of wisdom in educational settings. Educational Psychologist, 36(4), 227–245. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000). Teaching for successful intelligence to increase student learning and achievement. Arlington Heights, Ill: Skylight Professional Development.

1172 Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2003). Teaching for successful intelligence: Principles, procedures, and practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 207–228. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2004). Successful intelligence in the classroom. Theory into Practice, 43, 274–280. Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (1998). Human abilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 479–502. Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998a). Teaching for successful intelligence raises school achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(9), 667–669. Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1998b). Teaching triarchically improves school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 1–11. Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1993). The g-ocentric view of intelligence and job performance is wrong. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 1–5. Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., & Okagaki, L. (1993). Practical intelligence: The nature and role of tacit knowledge in work

M.A. Heng and K.Y. Tam and at school. In J. M. Puckett & H. W. Reese (Eds.), Mechanisms of everyday cognition (pp. 205–227). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). Testing common sense. American Psychologist, 50, 912–927. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Vernon, P. E. (1950). The structure of human abilities. New York: John Wiley & Sons. von Wright, J. (1992). Reflections on reflection. Learning and Instruction, 2, 59–68. Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Practical intelligence in real-world pursuits: The role of tacit knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 436–458. Williams, W., Blythe, T., White, N., Li, J., Sternberg, R. J., & Gardner, H. (1996). Practical intelligence for school. New York: HarperCollins.

Chapter 60

Recent Developments in Technology: Implications for Gifted Education Michael C. Pyryt†

Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to discuss how technological advances can impact the education of gifted and talented individuals. The appropriate use of technology for educational assessment, programming, and evaluation is discussed. Exemplary programs that utilize technology to enhance the educational experiences of high-ability learners are highlighted. The Pyryt enrichment matrix is introduced as a vehicle for examining the degree of curriculum differentiation that is occurring. Technological innovations are examined in terms of their capacity to accelerate the Pace of learning, facilitate the development of higher-order process skills, allow students to pursue their Passion areas, develop a variety of products, and interact with intellectual Peers. The integration of technology in educational classrooms will be discussed in the context of current realities such as limited availability and teacher reticence as well as accountability requirements that focus on attainment of basic skills.

technology-based training for gifted students is one of the integrating types of giftedness, domain-specific knowledge, learner characteristics, instructional environment, and vision of what gifted individuals should become (Pyryt, 2003). Many conceptions of giftedness (Colangelo & Davis, 2003; Renzulli, 1986; Sternberg & Davidson, 2006) are available to guide educators regarding possible visions of gifted education. Pyryt (2004) has examined the literature on curriculum approaches for gifted and has developed a parsimonious model for accommodating gifted students in regular classrooms. The approach is called Pyryt’s P’s to emphasize the key dimensions of the model. Pace accommodations involve strategies that enable gifted students to learn at an accelerated pace to address their rapid rate of learning. Process accommodations enable gifted students to develop higher-order thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis, evaluation, critical thinking, divergent thinking, and Keywords Technology · Gifted education · Curricu- creative problem solving in order to address their capacity for complex thought. Passion accommodations lum differentiation incorporate the use of independent inquiry to engage gifted students to pursue areas of interest. Product accommodations recognize that there are multiple Introduction ways for gifted students to represent their knowledge gained through independent inquiry. Finally, Peer The purpose of this chapter is to discuss ways of accommodations focus on ensuring that gifted students using technology to develop the potential of intel- develop positive relationships with peers. By examlectually gifted individuals. The major ways that ining the extent to which curriculum differentiation technology instruction can enhance educational is occurring in each subject area, teachers in both experiences for gifted individuals are by exposing inclusive classrooms and congregated settings can students to emerging innovations, providing more use the model to enhance learning opportunities. learner control in the instructional environment, and The five Ps represent the promise that the needs increasing personal productivity (Berger & McIn- of gifted students can be met in regular classroom tire, 1998). The challenge of providing appropriate if appropriate accommodations are made (Pyryt & L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 60, 

1173

1174

M.C. Pyryt

Bosetti, 2006). The following sections elaborate on tery. Shermis, Fulkerson, and Banta (1996) highlighted how technology can enhance each of the components the promise of computerized adaptive mathematics of the model. assessments for identifying mathematically talented students. Another strategy for effective acceleration is subject-matter acceleration. Students who show Pace strengths in particular subjects such as mathematics or science would accelerate in those subjects. There Various types of content acceleration can be imple- are several ways to accomplish subject-matter acmented to ensure that gifted students are provided celeration. The Study of Mathematically Precocious instruction at an appropriate pace (Colangelo, As- Youth (SMPY) at The Johns Hopkins University souline, & Gross, 2004). One of the most promising has demonstrated the effectiveness of fast-paced approaches for facilitating acceleration is the use classes in mathematics (Bartkovich & George, 1980; of diagnostic testing followed by prescriptive in- Benbow, 1986; Benbow, Perkins, & Stanley, 1983) struction (DT-PI). This technique pioneered by and science (Lynch, 1990; Mezynski, Stanley, & McJulian Stanley (2000) involves pretesting to determine Coart, 1983; Stanley & Stanley, 1986). Wallace (2005) a student’s current level of knowledge, analyzing discusses the variety of distance learning opportuerrors to determine instructional needs, designing nities that have been available through the Center and implementing an instructional program to meet for Talented Youth at The Johns Hopkins Univerthese needs, retesting using an alternate form of the sity. Each year, there are over 6,000 enrollments initial test to determine mastery, and proceeding to from students from over 50 countries in courses the next level using the same approach (Benbow & in mathematics, computer science, biology, chemLubinski, 1997). This approach has been successfully istry, physics, psychology, and writing. Evaluation used to promote acceleration in both science (Stanley results suggest a great deal of satisfaction with the & Stanley, 1986) and mathematics. Stanley (2000) course content. Some of the features of successful suggested that computer programs could greatly courses include frequent interaction with a qualified facilitate the diagnostic testing–prescriptive instruc- instructor, clear expectations about course requiretion process. Computer-based training instructional ments, student control of pacing, combination of designs rely on task analysis (Jonassen, Tessmer & asynchronous and synchronous forms of commuHannum, 1999). Using a learning hierarchy such as nication, support services for both students and Gagn´e’s (1985) approach, it is possible to specify instructors, and opportunities to interact with other prerequisite skills needed for subsequent achieve- gifted students. The Educational Program for Gifted Youth at ment and sequence the skills along the hierarchy. Stanford University (Ravaglia, Suppes, Stillinger Beginning with a content analysis of the discipline & Alper, 1995b) also implements subject-matter (Bruner, 1960), software designed for gifted students should result in a sequenced hierarchy of skills acceleration implemented via distance learning needed to master a discipline. The instructional courses. The current EPGY CD-Rom courseware designer of the software needs to focus on identifying programs are extensions of the pioneering work higher-order skills that incorporate other skills. For of Suppes (1980), who enabled highly gifted stuexample, the ability to solve simultaneous equations dents aged 10–15 with IQs mostly above 165 to incorporates the ability to solve simple equations. complete computer-assisted instructional courses at Educators concerned with selecting software for gifted their own pace from home through terminal access students should be extremely wary of courseware to the Stanford University’s mainframe computer. programs that involve the demonstration of many In a pilot project using EPGY material, a group minute skills in order to complete a course. Advances of 18 eighth graders mastered 1.5-grade years in computerized adaptive measurement (Bunderson, in 5 months of instruction (Gilbert-Macmillan, Inouye, & Olsen, 1989) will foster the development of 2000). At the high school level, the use of credit by software that leads to accurate assessment of student examination is also an effective way to accelerate strengths and efficient documentation of course mas-

60

Recent Developments in Technology

one’s progress. One example of this approach is the Advanced Placement (AP) Program (Curry, MacDonald, & Morgan, 1999). Students earn university credit based on their scores on an Advanced Placement examination. A grade of “3” on a 5-point scale will lead to the granting of credit at most universities. Selective universities require a grade of “4” or “5” before awarding credit. There are currently 35 examinations in 20 subject areas. The Advanced Placement Program provides online course descriptions, sample syllabi, examination information, sample items, and teacher resources for each of the Advanced Placement examinations (http://apcentral.collegeboard.com). Nearly 10,000 high schools worldwide offer courses geared to the content assessed on the AP examinations. Universities offer courses in summer institutes that prepare secondary teachers to instruct a specific AP course. Longitudinal studies have supported the effectiveness of AP courses for mathematically gifted students. Brody, Assouline, and Stanley found that Advanced Placement credits was the only statistically significant predictor of GPA, semesters on the Dean’s list, and graduation honors in their study of early entrants at The Johns Hopkins University. Universities such as Stanford (Ravaglia, Acacio de Barros, & Suppes, 1995a), Johns Hopkins (Wallace, 2005), Ball State (Adams & Cross, 1999/2000), and Iowa (Fisher, 2000) have developed a variety of online courses aligned with the AP curriculum. Funding secured by the Belin-Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development at The University of Iowa (http://www. education.uiowa.edu/belinblank/) enables students from Iowa high schools to take online Advanced Placement courses. For some students, early entrance to universities (2 years earlier than normal), part-time university courses, correspondence courses, and distance learning opportunities provide effective acceleration experiences. Students who are identified through talent searches benefit from early entrance experiences (Boothe, Sethna, Stanley, & Colgate, 1999; Brody, Muratori, & Stanley, 2004; Muratori, Colangelo, & Assouline, 2003; Muratori et al., 2006; Olszewski-Kubilius, 1998). The development of online courses at the University level is a constantly expanding enterprise. Skyba & Friedman-Nimz (2006) provide interesting insights into online courses available for professionals in gifted education.

1175

Process There are numerous approaches to conceptualizing process skills. Renzulli and Reis (1986) presented a wide variety of process skills in terms of Type II Enrichment, Group Training Activities. Renzulli and Reis (1986) categorized Type II Enrichment as consisting of cognitive and affective training (creative thinking skills, creative problem solving and decisionmaking, critical and logical thinking, and affective skills), how-to-learn skills (observation, notetaking, interviewing, and organizing data), advanced research skills (preparing for Type III investigations, developing library skills, and identifying community resources), and communication skills (visual, oral, and written). These Type II skills would be especially valuable in helping students develop effective research projects and presentations. Renzulli & Reis (2007) describe the Renzulli Learning System which incorporates technology to implement the schoolwide enrichment model. This section highlights additional uses of technology in developing higher-order cognitive processes. There are a variety of websites that are helpful for encouraging the developing of Type II skills such as creative thinking. Techniques for stimulating creativity range from simple brainstorming techniques to more complex creative problem-solving approaches. Simple divergent thinking techniques include attribute listing, general semantics approaches, SCAMPER, and morphological analysis. The Creativity Web (http://members.optusnet.com.au/charles57/Creative/ index2.html) synthesizes much of the knowledge base related to the development of creativity. The website provides an annotated description and links to 63 software products designed to enhance divergent thinking abilities. It also provides links to text-based and multimedia resources for enhancing creative thinking. The Center for Creative Learning (http://www. creativelearning.com) is a major resource to help professionals develop activities for enhancing creative thinking. They have recently developed distance education modules for the training of creative problem-solving skills. The Center for Learning is supportive of Destinations Imagination (http://www.destinationimagination.org) and the Future Problem-Solving Program (http://www.fpsp.org), two programs that emphasize a group approach to creativity development.

1176

A variety of resources for the training of critical thinking can be found at the Center for Critical Thinking website (www.criticalthinking.org ). These include definitions of the components of critical thinking, rationale for integrating critical thinking into the curriculum, sample lesson plans, and publication information. The Centre for Gifted Education at the College of William and Mary (http://cfge.wm.edu) integrates the teaching of critical thinking in its curriculum framework (Struck, 2003; VanTasselBaska, 2003). This framework was a major influence in the development of Project START (Supporting Teaching in Alberta through Resources and Technology), a collaborative initiative of the Alberta Online Consortium, the Centre for Gifted Education at the University of Calgary, and five school jurisdictions in Alberta (Pyryt & Smith, 2004).

Passion Allowing students to pursue their intellectual passion through independent inquiry is a major component of various models in gifted education. These include the Schoolwide Enrichment Model(Renzulli & Reis, 1986, 2007), the Integrative Curriculum Model (VanTassel-Baska, 2003), the Individualized Program Planning Model (Treffinger, 1986), and the Autonomous Learner Model (Betts & Kercher, 1999). Type III Enrichment, Individual and Small Group Investigation of Real World Problems, provides the opportunity for students to have self-selected independent inquiry experiences. The goal of a bonafide Type III project is the production of original knowledge. To the extent possible, the individual implements the methodology used by practicing professionals. Technology can greatly facilitate the process of conducting research. The gifted student would begin by using an electronic database to obtain relevant references, typically text-based, for the topic. Web-based resources could be obtained through using a search engine available at www.google.com. One of the advantages of the Renzulli Learning System is the integration of web-based resources and passion areas. Once the information is collected, it must be analyzed to determine the current knowledge base and areas that need to be studied. McCoach (2002) provides guiding questions to evaluate the credibility

M.C. Pyryt

of various websites. The use of “tool skills” such as word processing could be helpful in organizing the body of knowledge. Once the methodology is determined and data collected, a statistical analysis software package could be used to perform the data analysis. Once the data are analyzed and interpreted, presentation software such as PowerPoint could be used to produce a sophisticated display of the research project from initial conceptualization through final results. Siegle (2005, 2006) has many useful suggestions for incorporating sound, graphics, and web-based resources into PowerPoint presentations. Passion can also be enhanced by focusing on independence and self-directed learning. Treffinger & Barton (1979) examine the development of self-directed learning in the context of teaching styles that vary in terms of who controls the four major components of an instructional system: determination of goals and objectives, assessment of entering behavior, instructional activities, and evaluation plan. In the command style, the teacher maintains complete control over all these dimensions. Access to technologies such as the World Wide Web should promote more self-direction and independence because students will have ongoing experiences in determining which subject-based websites they want to explore and then evaluating the usefulness of these various websites. The Center for Gifted Education at the College of William and Mary has developed a problem-based science curriculum that uses real problems to integrate science process, concepts, and systems. The units cover topics such as electricity, nuclear waste, pollution, and acid spills. Evaluation data have supported the effectiveness of the William and Mary units for developing science process skills (VanTassel-Baska, Bass, Ries, Poland & Avery, 1998). Several of the teaching models that support the inquiry process are incorporated on their website (http://www.cfge.wm.edu/).

Products As part of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model, Renzulli & Reis (1986) stressed the importance of identifying students’ preferred expression formats as a way of expanding the options that students can use to represent the knowledge gained from their inquiry projects. Kettle, Renzulli, and Rizza (1998) operationalized the con-

60

Recent Developments in Technology

cept of expression preference and developed a promising instrument called My Way... An Expression Style Inventory. This instrument consists of 50 items organized around 10 types of products: artistic, audiovisual, commercial, computer, dramatization, manipulative, musical, oral, service, and written. The initial investigation with over 3,500 participants representing 24 states in the United States indicated that the instrument has excellent psychometric characteristics. Karnes & Stephens (2000) provide numerous suggestions for helping students generate quality products. They recommend that choice of products include issues such as audience credibility and resource feasibility in addition to mere preferences. Siegle (2005) has crafted a readable manual to enable teachers to use a variety of technological tools in product development.

1177

facilitating communication with content experts. The various discussion groups in gifted education (families, underachievement, curriculum, and miscellaneous issues) can be found on the Hoagies website (www.hoagiesgifted.org). Online course technology also provides the opportunities for synchronous and asynchronous modes. In the synchronous communication mode, all individuals have the opportunity to discuss issues in a selected time setting. In the asynchronous mode, individuals can post and receive information at their leisure. Electronic communication also provides a vehicle for collaboration and productivity and enables individuals to work on projects collaboratively at a distance. Group projects help create interdependence (Strop, 2000).

The Dark Side of Technology Peers Giftedness does not guarantee positive peer relationships. Factors that affect peer relationships are one’s degree of giftedness relative to one’s classmates (Hollingworth, 1942) and participation in extracurricular activities (Coleman, 1962). Gross provides compelling examples of the benefits of using of mental age rather than chronological age as the basis for peer relationships. Inclusive classrooms face the challenge of ensuring that intellectually gifted students have the opportunity to interact with mental age peers. Electronic communication can be a vehicle supporting positive peer relationships. The use of e-mail broadens the social milieu. Through a program such as BESTS Friends evolving from a collaboration between the Universities of Iowa, Calgary, and New South Wales (Assouline, Colangelo, Gross, & Pyryt 1999), students in the United States, Canada, and Australia have the opportunity to interact with each other electronically. This should reduce some feelings of social isolation if there are no intellectual peers in one’s home community. Electronic communication also promotes a greater sense of community since an individual is only “an e-mail away” regardless of distance. This is comforting in an age of geographic mobility. The use of discussion groups or LISTSERVs also reduces isolation since individuals have the opportunity to communicate with others having similar interests. Karnes and Stephens (2000) provide websites for

Although this chapter highlights the positive ways that technology can be used to nurture the potential of intellectually gifted individuals, it is important to discuss some potential problems that must be addressed. The first issue that must be addressed is the absolute insistence on integrity and ethics in using computer technology. Gifted individuals are capable of committing computer crimes such as software piracy, unlawful access to classified information, computer alteration of records, and virus infestation. Some gifted individuals appear to be more motivated by the intellectual challenge of hacking into a prohibited site than influenced by value-based standards of right and wrong. Another issue is the need for “controlled curiosity” when logging onto the Internet. There is the potential to be overwhelmed by the vast amount of information available. There is much inappropriate information available on the Internet such as directions for making pipe bomps and pornographic websites. Some of these sites may be accessed unintentionally. Gifted individuals need to have a focus when conducting Internet explorations and a plan for remaining focused. A third issue is the need to refrain from believing that all worthwhile information is contained on the Internet, and there is no longer a need to visit libraries to retrieve text-based information. Although access to full-text journal articles via the Internet is increasing, there still remains much information only available through manual searching of journals.

1178

Although LISTSERVs are beneficial vehicles for communication, they need to be used judiciously since they have the potential to generate enormous amounts of dubious information. One needs to carefully select the particular LISTSERVs that one belongs to. Otherwise, processing one’s electronic mail will be tedious and unproductive use of one’s time each day. Finally, educators need to remember that there is an affective dimension to giftedness that can be enhanced through positive human interaction. Although positive relationships can be developed through electronic communication, developing effective face-to-face relationships are also critical.

Other Pitfalls Along the Way Social psychologists have long recognized that when research evidence contrasts with personal beliefs, there is a tendency to ignore the evidence in hopes of reducing “cognitive dissonance.” Educators routinely ignore the overwhelming evidence in favor of academic acceleration (Colangelo et al., 2004; Daurio, 1979; Gallagher, 1996; Gross & van Vliet, 2003; Kulik & Kulik, 1984; Shore, Cornell, Robinson, & Ward, 1991). In doing so, educators often dismiss an essential strategy for challenging the intellectually gifted and the Pace component of the model. By far the most important barrier to effective accommodation of gifted students in regular classrooms is the inability of the typical classroom teacher to effectively differentiate curriculum. Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin (1993) observed classroom practices in 46 heterogeneous classes on two school days and reported that differentiation for gifted students occurred in 16% of the classes observed. This should not be surprising since coursework in gifted education, if available, is not required of teacher training programs. The extent of training in gifted education in 15 universities across Canada was a module in gifted education as part of a survey of special education course (Leroux, 2000). It is clear that effective teachers of the gifted possess specialized knowledge related to curriculum differentiation and sensitivity to the affective needs of gifted students (Croft, 2003; Frank, 2003; Hansen & Feldhusen, 1994; Feldhusen, 1997). The widening variability in the inclusive classroom affects a teacher’s ability to differentiate instruction. The accountability movement that has dominated public education for the past decade is another barrier

M.C. Pyryt

to appropriate education for intellectually gifted students. Moon, Brighton, & Callahan (2003) conducted a mixed method investigation of the impact of standardized testing teaching practices in the United States. In these classrooms, regardless of students’ ability levels, the focus of most of the instruction is ensuring content mastery of the material to tested and less on opportunities for pursuing areas of passion through independent inquiry. In the United States, the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has had a detrimental effect on attempts to provide appropriate programming for gifted students (Schemo, 2004). Since resources from the United States Government are contingent upon increasing the percentage of students achieving mandated proficiency standards, school jurisdictions are reducing the resources available for challenging gifted students. Tomlinson (2002) noted that the No Child Left Behind Act provides no incentive to challenge students who have met limited expectations of proficiency. Focusing on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity is a prescription for mediocrity (Gallagher, 1996).

Summary This chapter provided an overview of how technology could be used with gifted students to foster the key components of Pyryt’s Ps Individualized Programming Planning Model. The approach was adopted for illustration because it is a flexible programming system that is designed to nurture talents on an individualized basis at the school building level. The chapter assumes that the appropriateness of any technological experience is dependent upon the learner characteristics, domain-specific knowledge, technological features, instructional environment, and vision of desired outcomes. It is also assumed that gifted individuals should develop the necessary technological skills to enable them to conduct inquiry using methodology that emulates the methods of practicing professionals. The most important technology tools that gifted individuals should master include locating information on the Internet, using e-mail to communicate, analyzing data with statistical software, and communicating findings with presentation software. Examples of computer-assisted instruction courseware to accommodate pace of learning are also provided. In addition,

60

Recent Developments in Technology

some of the problematic features of using technology with gifted students are highlighted. The possibilities for the use of technology with gifted students continue to increase dramatically. The development of integrated software, powerful hardware, Internet expansion, and wireless technology has kept computer technology at the forefront of the educational revolution. I believe that the future possibilities for computer-based instruction with gifted individuals are limited only by our visions. The challenge will be to integrate our dreams and values with the enhanced technology.

References Adams. C. M., & Cross, T. L. (1999/2000). Distance learning opportunities for academically gifted students. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 88–96. Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Gross, M. U. M., & Pyryt, M. C. (1999, November). International Talent Search Results: Comparison with TIMMS. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, November, 1999, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Bartkovich, K. G., & George, W. C. (1980). Teaching the gifted in the mathematics classroom. Washington, DC: National Educational Association. Benbow, C. P. (1986). SMPY’s model for teaching mathematically precocious students. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 1–26). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (1997). Intellectually talented children: How can we meet their needs? In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 155–169). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Benbow, C. P., Perkins, S., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). Mathematics taught at a fast pace: A longitudinal evaluation of SMPY’s first class. In C. P. Benbow & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development (pp. 51–78). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Berger, S. L., & McIntire, J. (1998). Technology-based instruction for young gifted children. In J. F. Smutny (Ed.), The young gifted child: Potential and promise, an anthology (pp. 535–546). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Betts, G. T., & Kercher, J. K. (1999). Autonomous learner model: Optimizing ability. Greeley, CO: ALPS Publishing. Boothe, D., Sethna, B. N., Stanley, J. C., & Colgate, S. D. (1999). Special opportunities for exceptionally able high school students: A description of eight early-college-entrance programs. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 10, 195–202. Brody, L. E., Muratori, M. C., & Stanley, J. C. (2004). Early entrance to college: Academic, social, and emotional considerations. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (pp. 97–107). Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.

1179 Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bunderson, C. V., Inouye, D. K., & Olsen, J. B. (1989). The four generations of computerized educational measurement. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 367–407). New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa. Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Coleman, J. S. (1962). The adolescent society. New York: Free Press. Croft, L. J. (2003). Teachers of the gifted: Gifted teachers. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 558–571). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Curry, W., MacDonald, W., & Morgan, R. (1999). The Advanced Placement Program: Access to excellence. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 17–23. Daurio, S. P. (1979). Educational enrichment versus acceleration: A review of the literature. In W. C. George, S. J. Cohn, & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment (pp. 13–63). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). Educating teachers to work with talented youth. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 547–552). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Fisher, J. (2000, Spring). Wallace to provide AP classes for rural Iowa students. Vision, 8(2), 6. Frank, J. (2003). Teachers of the gifted: A literature review. AGATE, 16(1), 17–31. Gagn´e, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Gallagher, J. J. (1996). A critique of critiques of gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 234–249. Gilbert-Macmillan, K. (2000). Computer-based distance learning for gifted students: The EPGY experience. Understanding Our Gifted, 12, 17–20. Gross, M. U. M., & van Vliet, H. E. (2003). Radical acceleration of highly gifted children: An annotated bibliography of international research on highly gifted children who graduate from high school three or more years early. Sydney. Australia: Gifted Education Research, Resource, and Information Centre, The University of New South Wales. Hansen, J. B., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 115–123. Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ. Yonkerson-Hudson, NY: World Book. Jonassen, D. H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W. (1999). Task analysis for instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Karnes, F. A., & Stephens, K. R. (2000). The ultimate guide for student product development and evaluation. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Kettle, K. E., Renzulli, J. S., & Rizza, M. G. (1998). Products of mind: Exploring preferences for product development using My Way An Expression Preference Instrument. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 48–61.

1180 Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1984). The effects of accelerated instruction on students. Review of Educational Research, 54, 409–425. Leroux, J. (2000). A study of education for high ability students in Canada. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J.Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 695–702). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Lynch, S. J. (1990). Fast paced science for the academically talented: Issues of age and competence. Science Education, 74, 585–596. McCoach, D. B. (2002). Using the web for social studies instruction. Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 48–52. Mezynski, K., Stanley, J. C., & McCoart, R. F. (1983). Helping youths score well on AP examinations in physics, chemistry, and calculus. In C. P. Benbow & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development (pp. 86–112). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Moon, T. R., Brighton, C. M., & Callahan, C. M. (2003). State standardized testing programs: Friend or foe of gifted education?. Roeper Review, 25, 49–60. Muratori, M. C., Colangelo, N., & Assouline, S. G. (2003). Early-entrance students: Impressions of their first semester of college. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 219–238. Muratori, M. C., et al. (2006). Insights from SMPY’s greatest former child prodigies: Drs. Terence (“Terry”) Tao and Lenhard (“Lenny”) Ng reflect on their talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 307–324. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1998). Research evidence regarding the validity and effects of talent search educational programs. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 134–138. Pyryt, M. C. (2003). Technology and the gifted. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis, Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 582–589). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Pyryt, M. C. (2004, April). Adventures in curriculum differentiation: Using the Pyryt enrichment matrix. Paper presented at the meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, New Orleans. Pyryt, M. C., & Bosetti, B. L. (2006). Accommodating gifted learners in regular classrooms: Promises and pitfalls. In C. M. M. Smith (Ed.), Including the gifted and talented (pp. 141–160). London: Routledge. Pyryt, M. C., & Smith, R. (2004, September). Integrating technology into the curriculum: Lessons from Project START. Paper presented at the meeting of the European Council of High Ability, Pamplona. Ravaglia, R., Acacio de Barros, J., & Suppes, P. (1995a). Computer-based instruction brings advanced placement physics to gifted students. Computers in Physics, 9, 380–386. Ravaglia, R., Suppes, P., Stillinger, C., & Alper, T. M. (1995b). Computer-based mathematics and physics for gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 7–13. Renzulli, J. S. (Ed.). (1986). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1986). The enrichment triad/revolving door model: A schoolwide plan for the development of creative productivity. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 216–266). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

M.C. Pyryt Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2007). A technology based application of the schoolwide enrichment model and highend learning theory. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), Handbook on giftedness. Toronto, ON: Elsevier. Schemo, D. J. (2004, March 02) Schools facing tight budgets leave gifted programs behind. New York Times, p. A16. Shermis, M. D., Fulkerson, J., & Banta, T. W. (1996). Computerized adaptive math tests for elementary talent development selection. Roeper Review, 19, 91–95. Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press. Siegle, D. (2005). Using media and technology with gifted learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock. Siegle, D. (2006). Technology: Using hyperlinks to unleash the power of PowerPoint. Gifted Child Today, 29 (3), 40–45. Skyba, O., & Friedman-Nimz, R. (2006, November). Who is online? Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Charlotte. Stanley, J. C. (2000). Helping students learn only what they don’t already know. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 6, 216–222. Stanley, J. C., & Stanley, B. S. K. (1986). High-school biology, chemistry, or physics learned well in three weeks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 237–250. Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (2006). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed). New York: Cambridge University Press. Strop, J. (2000). The affective side of the internet. Understanding Our Gifted, 12, 28–29. Suppes, P. (1980). The future of computers in education. In R. P. Taylor (Ed.), The computer in the school: tutor, tool, tutee (pp. 248–261). New York: teachers College Press. Struck, J. M. (2003). Integrating higher order process skills into content. In J. VanTassel-Baska & C. A. Little (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high ability learners (pp. 47–78). Waco, TX: Prufrock. Tomlinson, C. A. (2002, November 6). Proficiency is not enough. Education Week, p. 36. Treffinger, D. J. (1986). Fostering effective independent learning through individualized programming. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 429–460). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Treffinger, D. J., & Barton, B. L. (1979). Fostering independent learning. G/C/T, 7, 3–6, 54. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Content-based curriculum for high ability learners: An introduction. In J. VanTassel-Baska & C. A. Little (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high ability learners (pp. 1–23). Waco, TX: Prufrock. VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G., Ries, R., Poland, D., & Avery, L. D. (1998). A national study of science curriculum effectiveness with high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 200–211. Wallace, P. (2005). Distance education for gifted students: Leveraging technology to expand academic options. High Ability Studies, 16, 77–86. Westberg, K., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. J. (1993). An observational study of classroom practices used with third- and fourth-grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120–146.

Chapter 61

High Intellectual and Creative Educational Multimedia Technologies for the Gifted Larisa V. Shavinina

Abstract This chapter presents high intellectual and creative educational multimedia technologies (HICEMTs) as one of the possible methods for gifted education in the near future. HICEMTs will constitute one of the innovative breakthroughs in science and technology of the 21st century and will lead to a new wave of innovations in psychology and education in general and gifted education in particular. HICEMTs appear at the intersection of many subdisciplines of psychology (including general, cognitive, developmental, educational, personality, media, cyber, and applied psychology), education, and multimedia. The general and specific nature of HICEMTs is described in this chapter. The importance of HICEMTs is discussed from an educational, psychological, societal, economic, and technological perspectives.

was that we do not use the full potential of modern technology in gifted education. That is, the gifted need special technologies, which could tailor their specific needs. Although the importance of mentorship for the gifted was emphasized in the literature and traditional education has an important social function, the gifted are highly self-organized individuals. Their well-developed metacognition allows them to know what they know, what they do not know, how to compensate for what they do not know, and how to learn according to their own time, speed, and learning needs. The available technologies for gifted education described in the literature, unfortunately, do not allow us to reach this goal entirely (to be analyzed below). Something completely new should be invented if we wish to fully actualize and develop both hidden and actual abilities of the gifted. This chapter presents one Keywords High intellectual and creative educational of such attempts. Specifically, it presents high intellecmultimedia technologies (HICEMTs) · Gifted educa- tual and creative educational multimedia technologies (HICEMTs). These technologies are aimed at develoption · Gifted and talented children · Innovation ing intellectual and creative abilities of the gifted in accordance with their time, speed, and learning needs. Psychoeducational multimedia technologies Introduction (PMTs) and HICEMTs were first introduced in 1997 (Shavinina, 1997a). PMTs are multimedia technoloAs discussed in the chapters by Pyryt, Renzulli et al., gies that base their five-part educational essence and Baldus et al. (this volume), modern computers (discussed below) on fundamental psychological proand Internet-related technologies play more and more cesses and phenomena (Shavinina, 1998a). HICEMTs active role in educating the gifted and talented. The constitute a special type of PMT whose general search for new methods to educate the gifted has never content is elaborated in accordance with underlying stopped. However, when I analyzed existing literature psychological mechanisms and states and whose on the subject (to be considered below), my feeling special content is developed, structured, presented, and delivered according to the key principles of human intelligence and creativity (Shavinina, 2000). L.V. Shavinina (B) The term high in HICEMTs refers to a significant Universit´e du Qu´ebec en Outaouais, Gatineau, Qu´ebec, Canada saturation of the special content of these technologies e-mail: [email protected]

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 61, 

1181

1182

through educational materials directed toward the actualization and development of human intellectual potential and creative abilities. HICEMTs emerge at the crossroads of many subfields of psychology (e.g., general, cognitive, developmental, educational, personality, media, cyber, and applied), education, and multimedia technology. It should be noted that HICEMTs constitute an ideal at the moment, the realization of which will require the joint efforts of many psychologists, educators, technology specialists, and even venture capitalists. The next high peak of the development of high technology in Silicon Valley will allow generous financial investments in the development of HICEMTs. Considerable support of public granting agencies will also be required. Leaving for now the investment part for the future, this chapter presents the idea of HICEMTs and describes its huge potential for educating gifted and talented children. In presenting HICEMTs, this chapter will proceed as follows. First, it seems appropriate to briefly discuss the impact of information technology on human beings in general and the gifted in particular that sets in motion the emergence of HICEMTs. Second, today’s educational multimedia applications1 available on the

1 Educational multimedia applications refer to online (e.g., Internet) and off-line (e.g., CD-ROMs) multimedia products and services devoted to learning, teaching, and training. In turn, “multimedia” refers to a new generation of communication tools that can draw on a full range of audiovisual resources, ranging from text and data to sound and pictures, and that store and process all of these diverse data in a single integrated delivery system. A general multimedia application thus delivers an integrated presentation that combines at least three of the following: (a) text (including notes, captions, subtitles, and resources such as tables of contents, indexes, dictionaries, and help facilities); (b) data (such as tables, charts, graphs, spreadsheets, statistics, and raw data of various kinds); (c) audio (including speech, music, atmospheric background noise, and sound effects); (d) graphics (often ranging from traditional media such as drawings, prints, maps, and posters to images processed or created entirely within a computer); (e) photographic images from negatives, slides, prints, or even digital cameras (which record photographic images directly as computer graphics); (f) animation (whether recorded on film or video or created with a computer); and (g) moving pictures (specifically, digital video either converted from analogue film and video or created entirely within a computer). Educational multimedia applications are not completely explored from a psychological point of view, because multimedia tools in their modern forms (i.e., Internet-based programs and CD-ROMs) have appeared on the market only during the last 12– 15 years. It should be noted that this chapter deals only with multimedia, not computer-assisted instruction (CAI) or computerbased training (CBT). Much has been written about CAI and

L.V. Shavinina

global educational multimedia market are analyzed from a psychological viewpoint to demonstrate how they contribute to the appearance of HICEMTs. Third, the importance of HICEMTs for contemporary people in general, and the gifted in particular, is described. Finally, the general and specific nature of HICEMTs is considered. It is important to emphasize that the gifted are very good in generating new ideas and implementing them into practice in the form of new products, processes, and services. In other words, they excel in bringing innovation to life. Innovation begins with new ideas and it is essentially about the implementation of ideas into practice. Creative ideas are the foundation on which innovation is built (Amabile, 1988, 1996; Shavinina, 2003). A wide range of methods for enhancing an individual’s ability to generate new ideas was suggested (Clapham, 2003; Reis & Renzulli, 2003; Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 2003). This chapter shows that HICEMTs are also contributing to the development of the gifted abilities to produce new ideas. This unique capacity of highly able individuals should be developed by all possible means.

Psychological View of an Information-Based Society Extraordinarily rapid information development is a key feature of the contemporary era. The extremely fast growth of information technology has an enormous impact on people, resulting in significant changes to everyday life and determining a new level of life quality. In the professional, educational, public, and home settings, we are faced with the strong presence of new information and communication technologies. No one is surprised by individuals’ daily use of the Internet. Cyberspace is becoming an integral part of individuals’ inner, psychological world. Society’s saturation by an unparalleled quantity of hardware, software, and applications has reached its threshold level, leading people to realize that we are actually living in an information CBT over the past years, provoked by the active entry of computers into educational and professional settings. Today, it is multimedia technology that is attracting attention, and it holds great promise in education in general and in gifted education in particular. Definitely, CAI–CBT and contemporary educational multimedia have some common features (Honour & Evans, 1997).

61

High Intellectual and Creative Educational Multimedia Technologies for the Gifted

1183

society. Today’s society has become a cybersociety. Everyday the news about tremendous discoveries and amazing inventions in the area of information and communication technologies does not leave any doubt concerning a novel reality of our life: We are living in an information era (Shavinina, 1998a). The present of information technology and its even more promising future (Lan & Gemmill, 2000) lead to an understanding of the unique challenges it presents for everyone and especially for the gifted. For instance, global economic competition is increasingly harsh, and companies must rapidly bring innovative products and services to the global market. To survive and prosper, companies desperately need intellectual and creative employees whose original and creative ideas are, to a great extent, a guarantee of companies’ existence and success. Therefore, modern society desperately requires highly able citizens who can bring innovative solutions to its current challenges and at the same time produce new ideas for its ongoing advancement. The distinguishing characteristic of the new millennium is, consequently, a need for creative and intellectual people—that is, for the gifted and talented—for further global progress (Shavinina, 1997a, 1997b). Certainly, there are gifted education programs as well as courses on creative thinking and intelligence training. Creativity consultants actively travel around the world, teaching strategies for increasing people’s abilities to overcome the everyday problems they face in their work and daily life. Nonetheless, not all gifted and talented children are in gifted education programs. Likewise, creativity and intelligence training are still available only to a small percentage of people,2 and

current textbooks and instruction manuals do not change this situation at all. This is especially problematic for children—including highly gifted kids—who often need someone (i.e., parents, teachers, or other caregivers) to monitor and encourage them as they proceed through learning manuals. The appearance of multimedia technology gives people an exceptional opportunity to develop their intellectual and creative potential through being guided and stimulated by the means of educational multimedia technology itself (i.e., through specific multimedia effects and unique educational contents). A significant problem is how to elaborate the most successful educational multimedia technologies that could productively develop human abilities. This chapter presents one such attempt. Of course, the idea of developing an individual’s abilities through computer technology is not a new one, having been discussed in the psychological literature (Bowen, Shore, & Cartwright, 1993; Olson, 1986; Salomon, Perkins, & Globerson, 1991). The novelty resides in the idea of developing an individual’s intellectual and creative resources through multimedia technology. However, in adopting from educational content alone, multimedia technology, with its multiple effects and advantages, provides almost nothing for the development of human creative and intellectual potential. What is particularly needed is a well-developed variety of educational contents that, together with multimedia, form “educational multimedia technology” (Shavinina, 1998a). Furthermore, if today intelligence and creativity guarantee personal and economic success, at least to some extent, then the contemporary educational system across all of its levels should provide productive teaching and learning to increase an individual’s 2 It is well known that gifted and talented programs are not accreative and intellectual resources in direct accordance cessible to all gifted and talented children. Similarly, creativity and intelligence training are currently available only to a small with the requirements of an information society. percentage of people, mainly for economic reasons. The services This is particularly important for all children—and of creativity consultants conducting such training are expensive, especially for the gifted—whose adulthood will take and, for the most part, only affluent organizations can use these place in a cyber environment entirely different from consultants. The available textbooks do not change this situation at all, mainly for psychological reasons. They do not pro- that of the present. Children must be prepared for vide a sufficient level of intrinsic motivation to follow their con- this environment of the future. This means that, even tent. This is particularly important for children, who often need a teacher or parent to guide and stimulate their learning through textbooks. Only multimedia technology allows people to develop their intellectual and creative abilities while being guided and motivated by means of educational multimedia technology itself. This is possible because the Internet allows the access to any web site from practically any place on Earth and at any time. The distinguishing features of multimedia technology, presenting a combination of text, sound, graphics, and animation, provide a

higher level of stimulation than traditional textbooks. The advantage of conventional textbooks and learning manuals is their low cost. Nevertheless, as more and more of today’s schools, universities, and other educational institutions are connecting to the Web, many Internet-based programs are becoming free for students. Definitely, the problem of the “haves” and “have-nots” still exists.

1184

today, they should be taught through radically new educational programs that will correspond to the needs of the 21st-century information era (Shavinina, 1998a). It is interesting to note that national governments realize this need for more productive teaching and learning models. This is conveyed through the rising attention of national governments to the development of citizens’ intellectual and creative potential. For example, for more than a decade the European Union has been demonstrating a real concern about the future life of Europeans, which is predetermined by the human ability to innovate. It manifests itself in the following initiatives and documents: (a) a white paper published on teaching and learning in a cognitive society (Teaching and Learning, 1995), (b) the “Education in the Information Society” initiative (1996), (c) a resolution on educational multimedia prepared by the Counsel of the Ministers of Education of the European countries (Educational Multimedia, 1996), and others. The common view across these documents was expressed by Olli-Pekka Heinonen, Finland’s Minister of Education: “We want creative citizens, who can take responsibilities and who are able to solve problems that do not yet exist today” (Heinonen, 1996). The next step of the European Union in the face of growing challenges of cybersociety was establishment of its Educational Multimedia Task Force. The aim of this task force was to encourage and stimulate the development of high-quality learning, teaching, and training multimedia resources and to raise awareness of the educational potential of multimedia applications in teaching and learning through financing the most promising projects. Canada, in attempting to increase its citizens’ ability to innovate, has established such foundations and initiatives as the Canadian Innovation Foundation (federal initiative) and the Innovators Alliance (Ontario provincial government initiative). Indeed, it seems that today’s educational multimedia technology holds the most promise for the development of human intellectual and creative resources. Nonetheless, multimedia opportunities that will considerably increase people’s abilities are not yet well understood. More than 20 years ago, David Olson (1986) emphasized that “the potential impact of computers. . .lies, in fact, on coupling the resources of the mind with the resources of the computer” (p. 355). This is generally true, but the idea is far from fully realized. Today multimedia applications—through the simultaneous use of audio, text, multicolor images,

L.V. Shavinina

graphics, movies, and so on—provide an excellent opportunity for the development of educational technologies going far beyond computer-assisted instruction or computer-based training, existing educational software, and traditional curricula. For example, productive training of creative thinking cannot be formulated and delivered only in verbal and written form. It also requires visual imagery and oral expressions, feedback and user-friendly means, and so on. Such full-scale delivery can be obtained through multimedia technology. With the appearance and advanced development of such technology, people are in a unique position to elaborate and “place” almost anything into a computer format. As a consequence, multimedia technology may significantly influence the development of any individual’s mind, especially that of the gifted. However, the contemporary educational multimedia technologies existing on the global market are far from reaching this goal. An understanding of this issue requires an understanding of the current state of educational multimedia products. However, before proceeding with this topic, we consider existing approaches to instructional technology.

Instructional Technology Innovations It seems appropriate to distinguish the following approaches in the large and rapidly growing body of literature on instructional technology innovations and their pedagogical outcomes: computer-mediated communication (CMC), virtual classrooms, simulation training, and intelligent tutoring systems. One of the current tendencies in the field is to combine some of these approaches in developing multimedia educational technologies. For instance, Oren, Nachmias, Mioduser, and Lahav (2000) used both CMC and virtual classrooms in their Learnet model. Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994, 1996) did the same in developing computer-supported intentional learning environments (CSILE) technology (to be considered below). To a certain degree such intersections of instructional technology approaches can be explained by continuous innovation introduced by modern information and communication technologies. As a consequence, another distinctive tendency is a lack of consensus about terms, notions, definitions, and conceptual approaches regarding technology-based education.

61

High Intellectual and Creative Educational Multimedia Technologies for the Gifted

CMC, a central characteristic of cyberspace, refers to the Internet, the World Wide Web, local area networks, bulletin board systems, electronic mail, and computer conferencing systems (Allen & Otto, 1996; Hiltz, 1986; Jonassen, 1996; Koschmann, 1996a, 1996b; McAteer, Tolmie, Duffy, & Corbett, 1997 ; Rapaport, 1991; Romiszowski, 1992; Romiszowski & Mason, 1996). CMC links students with one another, with their teachers, with experts in their fields of inquiry, and with the community at large (Sherry, 2000). Such methods of asynchronous (time-independent) communication such as e-mail, listservs, and electronic conferences gather participants in online discussions by transmitting content and providing a forum for group discussions. With regard to education, CMC refers to online learning and teaching. The fundamental idea behind online learning is that learning is a collaborative activity. There are two schools of psychological thought that relate to CMC education: activity theory and situated learning (Tolmie & Boyle, 2000). Within activity theory, CMC is considered as a mediating tool in an activity system. Drawing from the investigations of Russian psychologists (mainly Leont’ev, 1981, and Tikhomirov, 1981), Engestrom (1996) defined the framework of an activity system as consisting of six interrelated components: (a) the subject (e.g., a student, teacher, or expert who is carrying out an activity), (b) the object of activity (e.g., a product or message posted on the Internet), (c) the mediating tools of the activity (e.g., multimedia tools), (d) the community of learners (students, teachers, and all people who are connected electronically by the network and are concerned with the problems and issues discussed within that network), (e) the division of labor (the responsibilities commonly associated with the roles of student, teacher, expert, and so on), and (f) the rules and norms regarding appropriate social actions (posting, moderating a discussion, seeding a conference, and so on). Consequently, when exploring CMC as a way of enhancing teaching and learning, one should consider its effects on the entire sociocultural system into which it is introduced, including people who compose it, the tools they use, the products and performances they create, the norms and conventions of tool use, the roles and responsibilities of individual group members, and the meanings they share as a cultural group (Engestrom, 1996).

1185

The understanding of online learning as a collaborative activity led to the appearance of computersupported collaborative learning (CSCL), an emerging paradigm of education that emphasizes a delicate balance between the individual mind and socially shared representations developed through ongoing discourse and joint activities that take place within a learning community (Koschmann, 1996b). CSCL uses CMC in both its synchronous (real-time) and asynchronous forms to develop shared knowledge bases and to promote common understandings. The philosophical foundations of CSCL are based on situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Suchman, 1987), communities of learners (Brown, 1994; Brown & Palincsar, 1989), and cognitive apprenticeships (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989). Within these closely related approaches, scientists are attempting to expand investigations of human cognition and conceptual change beyond the individual mind to include learning that is built through mediated conversations among members of peer groups and learning communities. CSCL shifts the focus of education from learning as acquisition of knowledge and skills to learning as entry, enculturation, and valued activities situated within a community of practice (Sherry, 2000). Used as a mediating tool, CMC enables students, teachers, experts, and other members of a learning community to share distributed representations (Allen & Otto,, 1996) and to use distributed cognition (Norman, 1993) to overcome the limitations of the individual human mind. For instance, Bereiter (1994) pointed out that an important feature of online discourse is that “understandings are being generated that are new to the local participants and that the participants recognize as superior to their previous understanding” (p. 4). Hence, participants in online communication suspend their individual thinking and begin to share their ideas collectively, thus creating commonly shared meaning and constructing a shared purpose that leads to expansion of ways of knowing. An example of successful online learning is the National Geographic Society’s Kids’ Network. In a study of 36 schools that participated in the network, researchers found that participating students outperformed students in usual classrooms in terms of their grasp of certain scientific concepts and outperformed control group students on issues unrelated to their unit of study (Sherry, 2000).

1186

Oren et al.’s (2000) Learnet is another example of online learning. Learnet is a virtual community hosted by an appropriate virtual environment and embodying advanced pedagogical ideas. CyberSchool (http://www.cyberschool.4j.lane.edu), Willoway Cyberschool, and Science Learning Network (http://www.sln.org; a consortium of museums that defines itself as an online community of educators, students, schools, and science museums) can be considered examples of the Learnet model. Therefore, through using CMC as a mediating tool and (a) sharing information, (b) fostering multiple viewpoints, (c) suggesting promising strategies, and (d) negotiating shared meaning among students, teachers, and experts, online learning enhances and expands the traditional types of teaching and provides new opportunities for learning. The virtual classroom (laboratory, university, or company) is another innovation in today’s instructional technology (Hiltz, 1990; Javid, 2001; Jonassen, 1996; Lan & Gemmill, 2000; Oren et al., 2000; Westera & Sloep, 2001). CMC generates a new and virtual learning environment where communities of learners are involved in collaborative learning. The philosophical, theoretical, and methodological foundations of the virtual classroom approach are essentially the same as in the CMC approach (Bereiter, 1994; Brown, 1994; Collins et al., 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991), because the successful implementation and use of CMC inevitably lead to the development of virtual learning environments. The term virtual learning environment refers to any educational site on the Internet that includes information, learning activities, and educational assignments or projects (Oren et al., 2000). “Virtual” is typically used in a general form, such as the possibility of accessing a site from any place at any time, thus eliminating some of the physical constraints of the real world. These web sites offer a range of instructional modes, from the retrieval of curricular resources, to be integrated in regular classroom activities, to complete educational units that include information resources, pedagogical approaches, and technological tools. It is possible to distinguish two types of virtual learning communities: geographically bounded and interest bounded. Geographically bounded virtual learning communities are based on existing communities (e.g., schools and universities), and they use the capability of online technology to support

L.V. Shavinina

these communities. The educational advantages of online technology are connected to the support and enrichment it provides to real classrooms. Edmonds and Kamiak Cyberschools (Javid, 2001), the Maryland Virtual High School of Science and Mathematics (Verona, 2001), and Roosevelt Middle School (http://www.flinet.com/∼rms/) are examples of this type of virtual learning community. Interest-bounded learning communities are established through CMC and use of the Web as a “meeting place.” These communities are totally dependent on the virtual environment in which they exist and function in a manner similar to distance learning courses (Schuler, 1996). A successful example of this type of virtual learning community is the CSILE Knowledge forum project that will be considered in detail later. Another successful example of the implementation of a virtual classroom approach is an innovative educational model called the Virtual Learning Company (Westera & Sloep, 2001). This model was developed and implemented at the Open University of the Netherlands. The Virtual Learning Company is a distributed, virtual learning environment that embodies the functional structures of real companies. It offers students a rich and meaningful context that resembles the context of real work in many respects. Although it makes extensive use of advanced information and communication technologies, the true innovative power of the Virtual Learning Company resides in the underlying new educational framework. Students in the Virtual Learning Company assume professional roles and run the business; that is, they deliver knowledge-centered products and services to authentic, external customers. The approach differs from regular role-playing games, simulations, and various forms of apprenticeship learning in that its processes do not reflect predefined scenarios and outcomes. In the Virtual Learning Company, students are in charge of a business system that freely interacts with the outside world. The educator’s role reflects that of an in-company training coordinator: It is restricted to facilitating, monitoring, and supporting the growth of the “employees.” The Virtual Learning Company strives to bring together the contexts of education and work. It attempts to offer a concrete and meaningful environment that closely resembles students’ future workplaces (Westera & Sloep, 2001). The Virtual Learning Company is built on two entirely different but strongly interdependent processes. First, in the educational process, novice students are

61

High Intellectual and Creative Educational Multimedia Technologies for the Gifted

transformed into competent students. Second, in the business process, the students act on orders of external customers and turn them into knowledge-centered products and services. This duality is not unique to the Virtual Learning Company as it strongly matches modern ideas on knowledge-centered businesses, the importance of human capital, human resource management, performance improvement, personnel development, and work organized through virtual business teams. The pedagogical principles underlying the Virtual Learning Company include (a) competence learning rather than reproduction of codified knowledge, (b) custom-made education rather than boring uniformity, (c) student control instead of teacher control, and (d) closing the gap between learning and working. Various studies demonstrate that virtual learning companies are a powerful and promising tool to meet today’s educational needs, anticipating a worldwide shift to cybereducation (Westera & Sloep, 2001). Computer-based simulations represent a special type of innovation in contemporary instructional technology (Bliss & Ogborn, 1989; Ferrari, Taylor, & VanLehn, 1999; Gredler, 1990, 1992, 1996; Harper, Squires, & McDougall, 2000; Jonassen, 1993, 1996). A simulation can be defined as a “classroom experience, typically using a computer, which gives students information analogous to that obtained by working in a specific workplace, requires them to make decisions similar to those that the workplace demands, and experience the results of those actions” (Ferrari et al., 1999, p. 26). For instance, flight simulators have been developed for both the aviation and entertainment industries. Businesses and business schools routinely use simulations that place students in the role of a CEO or other high-level decision maker. Medical schools often allow students to practice diagnosis and treatment with computer-simulated patients. Ferrari et al.’s (1999) detailed analysis of 39 computer-based simulations of workplaces indicated that simulations fell into three main types: role playing, strategy, and skill. Role-playing simulations involve a high-fidelity portrayal of the information and activities that a real jobholder would experience in a typical day on the job. Examples are Parkside Hotel (manager of a hotel), Starr Medical (nurse at a large hospital), SWAT (rookie police officer on a SWAT team), and HRM (human resources manager for a large manufacturing company). Another good example is Court Square

1187

Community Bank, in which students are placed in a virtual office and play the role of bank vice president. In strategy simulations, the information and actions of the student are more abstract and powerful than those of the real occupation so that the student can implement long-range strategies and see their results. Examples are Sim City 2000 (managing the growth of a city), Transport Tycoon (developing a national transportation business), C.E.O. (managing a large conglomerate), and Entrepreneur (developing a startup company). Another example of this is Capitalism. The goal of this simulation is to set up a profitable corporation by outwitting the competition and gaining a greater market share while overcoming a number of realistic obstacles. In skill simulations, students practice a specific skill or task that is one component of an occupation. Examples are TRACON (controlling air traffic from an airport tower), Microsoft Flight Simulator (flying a small plane), Train Dispatcher (routing trains between Washington, DC, and Boston), and M1A2 Abrams Tank (driving an army tank). Another good illustration of a skill simulation is the flight simulation Apache. Throughout this simulation, the student is in the cockpit of an Apache helicopter and uses the joystick to steer the helicopter while using the keyboard to control the weapons, radar, and other systems. Simulations can be used not only for training purposes but also in traditional educational settings to assist students in acquiring basic academic skills such as math or science. The constructivist educational perspective is especially applicable for the development of educational simulations (Jonassen, 1993). Many writers have expressed the hope that constructivism will lead to better educational software and better learning (J. S. Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Papert, 1993). They stress the need for open-ended exploratory, authentic learning environments in which learners can develop personally meaningful and transferable knowledge and understanding. These writers have proposed guidelines and criteria for the development of constructivist software (Grabinger and Dunlap, 1995; Hannafin & Land, 1997; Honebein, Duffy, & Fishman, 1993; Rieber, 1992; Savery, 1995; Squires, 1996). A main thesis of these guidelines is that learning should be authentic. Harper et al.’s (2000) review of the literature indicates three important concepts originating from the notion of authenticity: credibility, complexity, and ownership.

1188

If students are to perceive that an environment offers realistic learning, they need to be able to explore the behavior of these systems or environments. One way to do this is through working with simulations. The environment should provide the student with intrinsic feedback, which represents the effects of the student’s action on the system or environment. Students should be able to express personal ideas and opinions, experiment with them, and try out different solutions to problems (Ainsworth, Bibby & Wood, 1997). Grabinger and Dunlap (1995) emphasized that learners should be presented with complex environments that represent interesting and motivating tasks rather than contrived, sterile problems. Only in complex-rich environments will learners have the opportunity to construct and reconstruct concepts in idiosyncratic and personally meaningful ways. Learners may need help in coping with complexity. Strategies to help learners include scaffolding, anchoring, and problem-based environments (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1990). A sense of ownership should be a prominent feature of learning. The established idea of locus of control (Blease, 1988; Goforth, 1994; Wellington, 1985) is relevant in this context. Working in software environments, which provide high levels of user control, will help students perceive that they are instrumental in determining the process of the learning experience. Metacognition, in which learners reflect on their own cognition to improve their learning, is also appropriate here (Scardamalia, Bereiter, McLean, Swallow, & Woodruff, 1989; Shore et al., this volume). The point is that, through a conscious, personal appraisal of cognitive processes, an individual can improve his or her capacity to learn. If this is to be effective, the learner must feel a sense of ownership of the learning. The use of simulations as learning environments has a long history. Initial claims for the educational benefits of using simulations tended to emphasize pragmatic solutions to classroom problems. Both lengthy processes (e.g., population growth or genetic change) and short processes (e.g., changes in impulsive force during a collision) are possibilities for simulation. Difficult, dangerous, or expensive processes are also candidates for simulation (e.g., experiments with radioactive materials). Gredler (1996) categorized simulations as either symbolic or experiential. Symbolic simulations are dynamic representations of the behavior of a system

L.V. Shavinina

or set of processes or phenomena. The behavior that is simulated is usually the interaction of two or more variables over time. The learner can manipulate these variables to discover scientific relationships, explain or predict events, or confront misconceptions. A simulation of a laboratory experiment is a classic example of a symbolic simulation. Experiential simulations aim to establish a particular psychological reality and place learners in defined roles within that reality. The main elements of an experiential simulation are as follows: (a) a scenario of a complex task or problem that unfolds in part in response to learner actions, (b) a serious role taken by the learner in which she or he executes the responsibilities of the position, (c) multiple plausible paths through the experience, and (d) learner control of decision making (Gredler, 1996, p. 523). Role-playing simulations of environmental planning are classic examples of experiential simulations. For instance, the CD-ROM Investigating Lake Iluka—an experiential simulation— is based on the concept of an information landscape that incorporates the biological, chemical, and physical components of a range of ecosystems that make up a coastal lake environment. Users are given problemsolving strategies to investigate this information in a variety of ways using the range of physical tools provided (Harper et al., 2000). Therefore, the possibilities afforded by new multimedia technology, combined with contemporary ideas about learning, have opened up new perspectives for educational simulations. In particular, the use of sophisticated multimedia environments has led to the design of experiential simulations in which the learner plays an authentic role, carrying out complex tasks. Intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) approaches also provide new ways of teaching and learning (Anderson, Corbett, Koedinger, & Pelletier, 1995; Costa, 1992; Frasson & Gauthier, 1990; Merrill, Reiser, Ranney, & Trafton, 1992; Park, 1996; Psotka, Massey, & Mutter, 1988; Schofield & Evans-Rhodes, 1989; Shute & Psotka, 1996; VanLehn, 1999). ITS are adaptive instructional systems developed with the application of artificial intelligence methods and techniques (Park, 1996). ITS are developed to resemble what actually occurs when student and teacher sit down one on one and attempt to teach and learn together (Anderson et al., 1995; Shute & Psotka, 1996). ITS have components representing content to be taught, the inherent teaching or instructional strategy, and

61

High Intellectual and Creative Educational Multimedia Technologies for the Gifted

mechanisms for understanding what the student does and does not know (Park, 1996; Park & Seidel, 1989). These components are referred to as the problemsolving or expertise module, the student-modeling module, and the tutoring module. The expertise module evaluates the student’s performance and generates instructional content during the instructional process. The student-modeling module assesses the student’s current knowledge and makes hypotheses about the conceptions and reasoning strategies he or she used to achieve his or her current state of knowledge. The tutorial module usually consists of a set of specifications for the selection of instructional materials the system should present and how and when they should be presented (Seidel & Park, 1994; Shute & Psotka, 1996). Artificial intelligence methods for the representation of knowledge (e.g., production rules, semantic networks, and script frames) make it possible for ITS to generate knowledge to present to the student on the basis of his or her performance on the task rather than selecting the presentation according to predetermined branching rules (Anderson et al., 1995; Park, 1996; Psotka et al., 1988; Schofield & Evans-Rhodes, 1989). There are many types of ITS (VanLehn, 1999). One common type is the coached practice environment. The tutor coaches the student as the student solves a multistep problem (e.g., solving a complex algebra word problem or discovering the laws governing a simulated economy). The student works with software tools, such as spreadsheets, graphs, and calculators. These tools are often designed especially for the task (e.g., a kind of scratch paper that facilitates entering of the types of equations or other notations that the task demands). To solve the problem, the student must complete many user interface actions. After each action, the coach remains silent or may make comments. These comments represent one main form of instruction. When the problem is finished, the coach may review certain key steps in the solution, a process called reflective follow-up. This is another important form of instruction (VanLehn, 1999). Examples of ITS include the LISP tutor (Anderson et al., 1995), which provides instruction in LISP programming skills; Smithtown (Shute & Glaser, 1990), a discovery world that teaches scientific inquiry skills in the context of microeconomics; Bridge (Shute, 1991), which teaches Pascal programming skills; the Geometry Tutor (Anderson, Boyle, &

1189

Reiser, 1985), which provides an environment in which students can prove geometry theorems; and WITS (Whole-course Intelligent Tutoring System; Callear, 1999), which provides an environment to teach a course on solid state electronics. In general, results from evaluation studies demonstrate that these tutors do, in fact, accelerate learning with, at the very least, no degradation in outcome performance relative to appropriate control groups (Shute & Psotka, 1996). However, there are criticisms that ITS developers have failed to incorporate many valuable learning principles and instructional strategies developed by instructional researchers and educators (Park, Perez, & Seidel, 1987). Cooperative efforts among experts in different domains, including learning—instruction sciences and artificial intelligence—are required to develop more powerful ITS (Park & Seidel, 1989; Seidel, Park, & Perez, 1988). Therefore, even a brief analysis of contemporary innovations in the field of instructional technology demonstrates that CMC, virtual classroom, simulation training, and intelligent tutoring systems approaches involve new methods of teaching and learning, which expand the resources of the human mind and broaden the conventional boundaries of education. These approaches hold a great promise for gifted education. Nevertheless, none of these approaches incorporate the specificity of HICEMTs discussed further in this chapter.

The First Generation of Educational Multimedia Technologies Today, many people are accustomed to the advanced educational tools included in existing educational multimedia products. Strong development of multimedia technology leads to rapid emergence of a great number of educational online and off-line applications. Due to the fact that they are easily accessible, educational multimedia products and services are becoming international ones. The first question then arises: What is really out there on the global educational multimedia market? It was concluded that current educational multimedia products constitute the first generation of educational multimedia (Shavinina, 1998a; Shavinina &

1190

Loarer, 1999). Five types of educational multimedia products within this first generation were identified. The first type is learning manuals used in the framework of traditional school or college curricula and higher education (i.e., history, chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology, and languages). An example would be History in the University: From the Ancient Times to the Beginning of the 20th Century. It is necessary to note that the great number and diversity of language multimedia products lead some authors to place them in a separate category of educational multimedia applications. This seems to be inappropriate because the main purpose of these educational multimedia titles is the learning of native or foreign languages. The second type is multimedia products focusing on general knowledge in various domains (e.g., automobiles). The third type is reference sources (i.e., various encyclopedias, dictionaries, and atlases). An example would be An Encyclopedia of the Human Body. The fourth type is edutainment (i.e., different games with educational aspects, multimedia versions of famous tales, and interesting stories). The final type is cultural cognition (i.e., online and off-line multimedia applications on arts and culture). An example would be The Best Museums of the World. Analyzing today’s educational multimedia applications from the viewpoint of their content, I found that they are “domain-specific” products and that they now dominate on the international market (Shavinina, 1997a, 1997b). Domain-specific educational multimedia products are directed toward knowledge acquisition and skill development in a particular domain (e.g., language, arts, history, physics, literature, and biology) and, very often, one narrow topic (Shavinina, 2000). As argued elsewhere (Shavinina, 1998a), these domain-specific educational multimedia applications are, in reality, computer versions of printed content (i.e., textbooks and learning manuals). In other words, they are simply “placed” on the Internet and/or multimedia devices. Certainly, contemporary multimedia technologies change the mode of presentation of traditional manuals and textbooks. Nonetheless, the nature of their content has not changed. The lack of such transformation can be considered the main shortcoming of today’s educational multimedia technologies and the biggest problem for their future. It should be noted that, in their current form, domain-specific educational multimedia products do not have realistic chances for further,

L.V. Shavinina

more advanced development. Content continues to be a problematic issue; in many cases, so-called educational multimedia products are nothing more than simple applications of pure multimedia technology in education. A solution can be found in the development of PMTs and HICEMTs (Shavinina, 1997a, 1997b). Analyzing current educational multimedia products from the point of view of multimedia technology (i.e., specific features of multimedia), I concluded that contemporary educational multimedia applications simply use multimedia effects without any attempt to present or perhaps modify these effects in accordance with users’ psychological organization (Shavinina, 2000). It seems that companies develop educational multimedia applications simply because they have the required multimedia technology. This is also not a promising direction for the development of educational multimedia technologies in general and for the purposes of gifted education in particular. The first generation of educational multimedia will undoubtedly be replaced by the second generation: PMTs and HICEMTs. The future belongs to HICEMTs, which will be distinguished by new principles in the creation and development of their content. The content of educational multimedia products and services is exceptionally important for the advancement of the field, because the most innovative breakthroughs can be accomplished in this area. In this light it is not surprising that executives of multimedia companies see successful developments of their business in terms of substantial improvements in the content of their products. For example, the president of Quebecor Multimedia, Monquie Lefebvre (1997), has insisted that “we must stop putting the emphasis on electronic might and more on content” (p. 20). With all the abovementioned ideas and arguments, it seems that the need for a new, second generation of educational multimedia is self-evident. However, before proceeding with a description of HICEMTs, it is important to consider their value and why everyone— including the gifted—needs them.

The Significance of HICEMTs The importance of HICEMTs can be analyzed from various multifaceted perspectives, but five closely related perspectives—educational, psychological,

61

High Intellectual and Creative Educational Multimedia Technologies for the Gifted

societal, economic, and technological—are especially significant. HICEMTs have a great value from an educational perspective. As discussed elsewhere (Shavinina, 1997a, 1997b, 1998a), the real and the most important goal of education should be seen not as knowledge transfer but as development of people’s intellectual and creative abilities. Today’s children and adults must have at their disposal a set of productive educational and training technologies to reach this goal. The main purpose of HICEMTs is to develop mental resources, which allow people to successfully apply existing knowledge and produce new knowledge. At the same time, education is—by its nature—a psychological process based on underlying psychological mechanisms. The essence of HICEMTs coincides with the goals and nature of education and with the basic functioning of users’ minds. Only in the case of a maximal matching between HICEMTs and the goal of education, on the one hand, and between HICEMTs and fundamental mechanisms of the functioning of human intelligence and creativity, on the other, can we really assert about productive learning and successful training. Any society that wishes to improve the quality of education should focus attention on the actualization and development of its citizens’ intellectual and creative resources (Shavinina, 1998a).3

3 Some opponents can point out that current realities of the African continent—where large segments of the population live at extreme levels of poverty—prevent local government officials and parents from investing in educational technology. However, this is not entirely true. The success of the WorLD program testifies to this (Carlson & Firpo, 2001). In almost all 15 WorLD countries (e.g., Mauritania, Senegal, and Uganda), parents are so excited about the opportunities their children are gaining through the program that they have set aside parts of their meager incomes to help the school pay its monthly connectivity costs. The same is true for officials in these countries. For example, in Mauritania, when the minister of education, a former biology teacher, was introduced to various web sites for use in biology, chemistry, and other sciences, he was impressed by the depth and breadth of information available. Shortly thereafter, at his request, the Ministry of Finance agreed to finance leased-line Internet connectivity for all secondary schools in Mauritania (Carlson & Firpo, 2001). Similarly, critics can note that in the United States 20% of all children are born in poverty and about the same percentage drop out of high school. There is also the sad problem of school violence. As a result, the American society’s educational focus is on broader social and economic issues other than the development of new instructional technologies. However, this is not the whole story. For instance, the National Science Foundation

1191

Among many possible psychological arguments in favor of HICEMTs, it is necessary to mention at least two. First, the human mind is a unique phenomenon in nature and its development must be realized by individualized means designed to be appropriate for the advanced development of mental resources of each particular person. This is exactly what the gifted and talented need and they have a natural inclination toward a highly individualized education. As patterns of their abilities and developmental trajectories of their talent are different, it is then obvious that one educational program will not fit all gifted children and adolescents. Definitely, educational multimedia applications in general provide a good opportunity for education when, where, and how users wish. Nonetheless, HICEMTs will allow people to advance in learning and training according to the unique characteristics of their minds (i.e., personal abilities, speed, and time). HICEMTs will provide an exceptional opportunity for individualized, personalized, differentiated, and flexible learning and training because the underlying idea of these novel technologies is the following: Many differing people can find in HICEMTs the individual means (i.e., the individual approach) for actualizing their own mental potential and the subsequent development of their intellectual and creative abilities (Shavinina, 2000). Second, the aforementioned conclusions about the current state of educational multimedia demonstrate that presently there is no educational multimedia technology that can satisfy all five perspectives as they manifest themselves in their contemporary requirements to the human mind in general and to its intellectual and creative resources in particular. The importance of HICEMTs is also evident from a societal perspective. Everyone knows that modern society has many unsolved problems, including demographic, medical, environmental, political, economic, moral, and social problems. Accordingly, contemporary society is characterized by a strong need for highly able minds that can productively solve the numerous social problems and make appropriate decisions. As mentioned earlier, today’s cybersociety produces many challenges to citizens, who must be exception(NSF) and other government and private funding agencies provide many grants for the development of new educational technologies, which support the main thesis of this chapter that we really need HICEMTs for both general and gifted education. For example, in 1997, NSF provided grants to 52 of 120 universities involved in the development of Internet 2, the next-generation Internet (Lan & Gemmill, 2000).

1192

ally capable if they are to bring innovative solutions to these challenges and, as a result, contribute to further societal progress. It means that intellectually creative citizens are guarantees of political stability, economic growth, industrial innovations, scientific and cultural enrichment, psychological health, and the general prosperity of any society in the 21st century. The value of HICEMTs is clearly revealed from an economic standpoint. As mentioned earlier, today’s industrial competition is increasingly harsh, and organizations must bring new products and services to the global market with unprecedented speed. Nevertheless, the speed of human thinking lags behind the speed of the international market. Therefore, there is an increasing need to develop special technologies for the mind, especially HICEMTs, to accelerate the speed of human intelligence and creativity and generate new ideas and solutions in accordance with the demands of the world market. Such development is one of the key goals of HICEMTs. The technological perspective refers to the abovementioned realities of the information age and its challenges for people. For instance, one of today’s realities is exceptionally fast development of high technology with challenges ranging from a huge change in individuals’ lives in business and private settings to a strong need to know and use appropriately the extraordinary quantity of developed software and applications. New breakthroughs in high technology encourage companies to rapidly introduce technological innovations related to business practices. For example, all of Bill Gates’ 12 rules for succeeding in the cyber era (Gates, 1999) are related to new technologies. But companies forget that it is, first of all, people who use today’s information and communication technologies. Unfortunately, the human mind does not improve as rapidly as new high technologies are introduced! Consequently, current realities of cybersociety reveal an exceptional need for the elaboration of special technologies whose primary goal is the development of human mental abilities (Shavinina, 2000). Therefore, there is a large and growing impetus for the development of HICEMTs.

When the Medium Is “Mental”

L.V. Shavinina

tem. He concluded that, as culture advances, the new technology (the new medium) used to frame and convey information creates a new environment that is more influential than the content of the information it conveys. In his now famous phrase, McLuhan described this super ordinance of the medium over its content as “the medium is the message.” Vandervert (1999, 2001) argued that, in the case of contemporary cybereducation in general, and in the case of HICEMTs in particular, for the first time in human history “the medium (i.e., the new technology) is mental.” Recent advances in multimedia technology, as well as in the educational and psychological sciences, form a strong foundation for the development of such mental technologies. New Scientist magazine’s (November 7, 1998), issue was devoted to Silicon Valley’s phenomenal capacity to generate and nurture ideas leading to the birth of dozens of the world’s most successful hightechnology companies. It was emphasized that Silicon Valley’s companies (e.g., Hewlett-Packard, Intel) profoundly understand the need to invest in ideas. Moreover, “now, even private entrepreneurs create companies which exist solely to produce ideas with moneymaking potential” (Editorial Introduction, 1998, p. 30). HICEMTs can be viewed as instruments that will enable individuals to generate such ideas. It has already been clear more than a decade ago that new ideas— resulting in great discoveries and inventions leading to innovations—began to rule the global economy. Energy information calculations demonstrate that the full information-processing capacity of each individual’s brain is approximately 22 legacies (Vandervert, 2001). Similar conclusions for the brain of the gifted would probably be even higher. The human brain is therefore characterized by huge intellectual and creative potential. The primary purpose of HICEMTs is the actualization and development of this potential. These new technologies will help people produce innovative ideas leading to significant achievements and exceptional performance in all areas of human endeavor.

General Characteristics of HICEMTs

The nature of HICEMTs can be described through a set of their general and specific characteristics. The genMcLuhan (1964) argued that all of a culture’s technolo- eral characteristics of HICEMTs include (a) general gies are extensions of the human body and nervous sys- psychological basis, (b) actualization of fundamental

61

High Intellectual and Creative Educational Multimedia Technologies for the Gifted

cognitive mechanisms, (c) new targets of educational and developmental influences, (d) better adaptation to individuals’ psychological organization,4 and (e) “psycho-edutainment” as an overall framework. Each of these five characteristics actually represents clusters of characteristics, and these characteristics within clusters are highly interrelated.

1193

relevant prior knowledge (Chi & Greeno, 1987). As I emphasized in the chapter on the nature of giftedness (Shavinina, this volume), the knowledge base can facilitate the use of particular learning strategies, generalize strategy use to related domains, or even diminish the need for strategy activation. Furthermore, a rich knowledge base can sometimes compensate for an overall lack of general cognitive abilities (Bjorklund & Schneider, 1996; Schneider, 1993). Despite all these findings, current educational multimedia products do General Psychological Basis not take into account the psychological nature of the human knowledge base, particularly with respect to its The general psychological basis means that HICEMTs optimum functioning, which characterizes exceptional are based on psychological processes and phenomena intellectual and creative performance that is the case and especially on the mechanisms of human intellec- of the gifted (Rabinowitz & Glaser, 1985; Shavinina tual and creative functioning. General psychological & Kholodnaya, 1996; Shore & Kanevsky, 1993; processes and phenomena include perception, atten- Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). Other psychological tion, short-term and long-term memory, visual think- processes and phenomena and their appropriateness ing, knowledge base, mental space, concept forma- for the development of HICEMTs have been described tion, analytical reasoning, metacognitive abilities, cog- elsewhere (Shavinina, 1997a, 1997b, 1998a). nitive and learning styles, critical thinking, motivation, and many other psychological mechanisms. One of the strong arguments to place psychological foundations at the heart of HICEMTs is the fact that the educa- Fundamental Cognitive Mechanisms tional process is always a psychological process. As mentioned earlier, learning, teaching, and training are HICEMTs should be directed toward actualization based on fundamental psychological mechanisms. of fundamental cognitive mechanisms, which play For instance, an individual’s knowledge base is an a significant role in an individual’s intellectual important psychological foundation for the process of and creative functioning. Broadly speaking, these knowledge transfer, which is traditionally considered technologies are aimed at the actualization and dea goal of education and of any educational tool. velopment of the gifted’s cognitive abilities. This is Researchers have found that knowledge base is a the second main characteristic of HICEMTs. The critical one in the successful functioning of human following cognitive processes and phenomena are high abilities (Bjorklund & Schneider, 1996; Chi viewed as important in contemporary accounts of & Greeno, 1987; Chi & Koeske, 1983; Kholodhuman intelligence and creativity (Brown, 1978, 1984; naya, 1997; Runco, in press; Runco & Albert, 1990; Flavell, 1976, 1979; Kholodnaya, 1997; Runco & Schneider, 1993; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996; Albert, 1990; Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996; SternSternberg, 1985, 1990). Psychologists demonstrated berg, 1984, 1985, 1988a, 1988b, 1990): conceptual that domain-specific knowledge is crucial in highly structures (Case, 1995; Kholodnaya, 1983, 1997), intellectual performance and in the process of acquirknowledge base (Chi & Greeno, 1987; Chi & ing new knowledge, especially its quantity and quality. Koeske, 1983), mental space (Kholodnaya, 1997; For example, an individual will not be able to solve Shavinina & Kholodnaya, 1996), cognitive strateany problem productively if he or she does not possess gies (Bjorklund & Schneider, 1996; Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987), metacognitive pro4 Working on the development of a series of new textbooks on cesses (Borkowski, 1992; Borkowski & Peck, 1986; mathematics, which are largely based on her theory of human in- Brown, 1978, 1984; Campione & Brown, 1978; telligence, Kholodnaya (1997) introduced the principles of new Flavell, 1976, 1979; Shore & Dover, 1987; Shore targets of educational influences and a need to better adapt learning and teaching material to children’s psychological organiza- et al., this volume; Sternberg, 1985, 1990), specific intellectual intentions or extracognitive abilities tion.

1194

(Shavinina, 1996b, 2003; Shavinina & Ferrari, 2004), objectivization of cognition (Shavinina, 1996a), and intellectual and cognitive styles (A. E. Jones, 1997; Kholodnaya, 1997; Martinsen, 1997; Riding, 1997; Sternberg, 1985, 1987), just to mention a few. Other processes and phenomena should also be embedded in HICEMTs. These psychological mechanisms provide a necessary foundation for the further successful development of human creative and intellectual abilities, because development of an individual’s mental potential must be based on already-actualized cognitive resources (Shavinina, 1998a). The great French scientist Blaise Pascal said that “chance favors the prepared Mind.” To rephrase Pascal’s words with respect to HICEMTs, I must say that the prepared mind will gain much more advantage from specially elaborated psychoeducational multimedia technologies designed for the development of human mental abilities. Through repeated exposure to the fundamental processes and phenomena of the human cognitive system, HICEMTs will become “know-how” learning and training multimedia technologies by providing an underlying educational basis for the subsequent development of an individual’s mind.

New Targets of Educational and Developmental Influences HICEMTs will change the conventional point of view about the targets of educational and developmental influences. The conventional wisdom of companies and developers of current educational multimedia technologies is to address their products to the abstract “user” as a whole. Designers are mostly unconcerned with where their products and services are directed. There is a general user (i.e., children, adolescents, or adults), and what is needed is to specify to what age category a given online program or DVD is addressed (Shavinina, 1997b). For example, in analyzing educational multimedia available on the Internet, Roberts (1996) did not even raise the question as to where these learning programs are directed. Instead, the goal is seen in another issue: “How do we redesign and adapt our classroom teaching and learning approaches in ways that are effective and appropriate to distance education?” This demonstrates that developers of educational multimedia do not go

L.V. Shavinina

beyond the simple “placing” of the content of printed learning manuals on the Internet. From a psychological point of view, it is unproductive to direct educational multimedia technologies to users in general, because people in general and the gifted in particular are complex psychological systems with many hierarchical components, multidimensional variables, multifaceted parameters, and structural interrelations. To direct any educational influence to such complex systems as a whole is to decrease immediately the quality of education. As a result, the exact targets of the existing educational multimedia applications are missing, although they could be responsible for the higher productivity of the educational process. In my opinion, when analyzing the current educational multimedia technologies, we have always to ask ourselves: “To what exactly, in the structure of users’ mind or personality, is the given educational multimedia technology directed?” It is not easy to answer this question because the developers of educational multimedia usually do not ask it. The importance of asking the right questions was emphasized by Einstein (1949) and other brilliant minds of the 20th century. The main goal of current educational multimedia is “knowledge transfer.” However, today such transfer is not fully realized, because successful knowledge transfer is a derivative of fundamental psychological mechanisms. The basic mental processes and phenomena should be viewed as the real targets of learning, teaching, and training. The development of HICEMTs leads to a change in the traditional audience (i.e., targets) of available educational multimedia products from “users as a whole” to the underlying mechanisms of human intellectual and creative functioning. The primary objective of education has also changed from realizing simple knowledge transfer to developing an individual’s intellectual and creative abilities. Such changes will result in significant increases in the quality of education for the gifted and will contribute to the advancement of educational multimedia products and services (Shavinina, 1998a, 2000).

Better Adaptation to Individuals’ Psychological Organization The foregoing features of HICEMTs will allow them to be better adapted to an individual’s psychological

61

High Intellectual and Creative Educational Multimedia Technologies for the Gifted

organization than current educational multimedia. HICEMTs can take into account numerous psychological characteristics of users, such as behavioral, developmental, emotional, motivational, personality, and social ones. HICEMTs are directly built on the psychological specificity of users (Shavinina, 2000). For instance, any two educational multimedia courses for learning of a foreign language are certainly different for children and adults. It is clear that this difference is mainly connected to content, and developers of educational multimedia, for the most part, are limited by content issues. Their way of thinking is as follows: “Children cannot understand some educational material, so we need to present them with more simple information.” Nevertheless, this is not enough. Another difference between educational multimedia courses for children and adults concerns the psychological organization of the two groups of users. Adults have an internal motivation to study foreign languages, whereas children should have a strong, ongoing external motivation in addition to the internal one (or even instead of it; Shavinina & Ponomarev, 2003). HICEMTs have the potential to generate the necessary conditions for the appearance and maintenance on the appropriate level of a child’s motivation to learn, cognitive behavior, emotional involvement, and personal satisfaction with her or his gradual progress through the educational content (Shavinina, 1997a, 1997b). It does not matter by what means developers of educational multimedia can reach this goal (e.g., exciting scenarios, specific multimedia effects, user-friendly means, innovative learning methods; of course, their combination would be preferable). My principal thesis in this regard is that educational multimedia technologies should fit the internal psychological structures of human intellectual, creative, behavioral, cognitive, developmental, emotional, motivational, and other systems. HICEMTs have to be developed to accomplish this goal. Contemporary achievements of information and communication technologies allow today’s developers of educational multimedia to reach it.

Psycho-edutainment As I have argued and predicted elsewhere (Shavinina, 1998a), the appearance of “psycho-

1195

edutainment”—a new area of the global educational multimedia market—is an inevitable event. This innovative multidisciplinary multimedia field that emerges at the crossroads of existing multimedia fields (i.e., education, entertainment, and edutainment) and a new area—psychology—is the only scientifically viable framework for the development of HICEMTs. Taking into account that (a) education is, in its essence, a psychological process; (b) entertainment involves its own psychological mechanisms related to games; (c) play is a preferable and leading form of children’s activity; and (d) fun accompanies successful learning, as well as is highly desirable as one of the means to sustain children’s curiosity, then one can conclude that HICEMTs cannot be developed other than through the synthesized regrouping of contemporary fields of multimedia (Shavinina, 2000). The nature of HICEMTs cannot be associated with one particular multimedia field; they may be created only in the space of “psycho-edutainment.” The five features described above provide the general characterization of HICEMTs. The other considerable portion of the features of HICEMTs relates to their more specific characteristics.

Specific Characteristics of HICEMTs Among specific characteristics of HICEMTs, the following can be distinguished: (a) “intellectual” content, (b) “creative” content, and (c) “intellectually creative edutainment.” The first two characteristics deal with the specific content of HICEMTs, and they demonstrate “what” should be included in these technologies. Intellectually creative edutainment, on the other hand, represents a substantial part of the important characteristics related to the mode of presentation of this content. Therefore, intellectually creative edutainment describes “how” specific content might be embedded in HICEMTs. Intellectual and creative contents cover many different, multidimensional, and interrelated aspects. However, it is not possible to consider all of them here because they vary significantly and depend on developers. At the current level of the development of psychology, there are many different theories of human intelligence and creativity (Detterman, 1994; Kholodnaya, 1997; Miller, 1996; Runco, in press;

1196

Runco & Albert, 1990; Shavinina, 1998b; Simonton, 1988; Sternberg, 1982, 1985, 1988b, 1990; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995) that determine developers’ conceptions of creative and intellectual contents. A variety of the psychological approaches to the understanding of the nature of individual intelligence and creativity will strongly influence differences in the content of HICEMTs through developers’ conceptions. These different approaches will predetermine what is intellectual and creative in HICEMTs. One of the most promising approaches to developing the content of HICEMTs can be based on Kholodnaya’s (1997) theory of individual intelligence. In other words, this theory might underlie the development of HICEMTs. Sternberg’s triarchic theory of human intelligence and Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory are examples of other theories that could also serve as foundations for the development of HICEMTs. I will not consider all possible theoretical approaches that may underlie HICEMTs. It is beyond the scope of one chapter to analyze the advantages and limitations of the existing theories of intelligence and creativity in their application to the development of HICEMTs. This is a topic for a special chapter or even a book. The joining of entertainment and education has led to the appearance of “edutainment,” a rapidly developing multimedia field. Similarly, as mentioned above, the combining of psychology and edutainment has led to the emergence of “psycho-edutainment,” a promising new multimedia area. Likewise, the combination of intelligence and creativity with edutainment leads to “intellectually creative edutainment,” a framework for the development of HICEMTs. HICEMTs will significantly transform “edutainment.” Taken together, modern multimedia technology, educational games, and entertainment—built on the fundamental psychological processes and basic principles of human intellectual functioning and creative performance—form an “intellectually creative edutainment” that provides a real opportunity to develop HICEMTs.

L.V. Shavinina

cussed above, the variety of psychological approaches and theories in the areas of human intelligence and creativity—which provide a foundation for developers’ conceptions of creativity and intelligence—exclude at all a limited number of HICEMTs. Second, the complex multidimensional nature of intellectual and creative abilities (toward the actualization and development of which HICEMTs are directed) excludes in principle a single educational multimedia technology that would be more productive than other technologies, because the development of mental abilities can be achieved through various psychoeducational methods. Different methods are suitable for different individuals in general and for the gifted in particular, who have various multiple profiles of abilities. Third, the transdisciplinary nature of HICEMTs (i.e., in contrast to traditional interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches, “the complete fundamental-level merging of ‘disciplinary’ sources of knowledge is the focus”; Vandervert, 2001) provides a basis for the development of a variety of new psychoeducational multimedia technologies (Vandervert, Shavinina, & Cornell, 2001). Finally, technological and economic factors also result in the exclusion of a limited quantity of HICEMTs.

General and Specific HICEMTs

HICEMTs are not a simple “placing” on the Internet of already-existing creativity and intelligence training such as Osborn’s brainstorming, Parnes’s creative problem solving, Feldhusen’s critical thinking, Torrance’s future problem solving (Crammond, this volume), or Sternberg’s (1986) intelligence program. This is a rather trivial task. More precisely, such products should be referred to as “computer versions” of printed matters (i.e., books, manuals, tests), but not as HICEMTs. HICEMTs can be developed in two main directions: (a) as derivatives of special creativity and intelligence training, but essentially changed, enriched, and preHow Many HICEMTs: One, Two, or More? sented in multimedia form and (b) as derivatives of any knowledge domain (i.e., chemistry, biology, mathematCertainly, an interesting question might arise: How ics, history). In other words, one can distinguish genmany HICEMTs can be developed? The answer is ob- eral and specific HICEMTs. In the case of the latter, vious to me: An unlimited number can be developed. the principles of HICEMTs, described previously, will There are a few scientific reasons for this. First, as dis- provide a foundation on which a special content of any

61

High Intellectual and Creative Educational Multimedia Technologies for the Gifted

1197

domain can be built. These principles will serve as a Its authors assert that they are developing a miniature basis for the development of an immense quantity of version of a knowledge-building society using CSILE HICEMTs across various content domains. software (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996). Developed by Marlene Scardamalia, Carl Bereiter, and the team of educational and psychological researchers and computer scientists at the Ontario Examples of HICEMTs Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, Knowledge forum was born over a I mentioned in the introductory section above that decade of research on “expert learning” (Bereiter & HICEMTs, as described in this chapter, do not exist Scardamalia, 1993; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). at the moment. However, some of the new educa- Expert learning is defined as learning that leads to tional multimedia technologies incorporate certain the gradual acquisition of expert knowledge through general characteristics of HICEMTs. For instance, the continual reinvestment of students’ mental resources Web-based Integrated Science Environment (WISE) in addressing problems at higher levels (Bereiter and the Learning by Design (LBD) are examples & Scardamalia, 1993). Scardamalia and Bereiter’s of such technologies. Developed by Marcia Linn research on the nature of expertise and expert learning and her laboratory in the Department of Education, has resulted in a knowledge society model for an eduUniversity of California at Berkeley, WISE is a simple cational network that engages students in constructing, yet powerful learning environment where students using, and improving knowledge (Scardamalia & examine real-world evidence and analyze current Bereiter, 1996). scientific controversies. WISE is a powerful tool The goal of Knowledge forum is to enhance that combines advanced educational approaches and students’ knowledge building and understanding, with cutting-edge multimedia technology. WISE version a special emphasis on kindergarten through grade 12. 2 is a more powerful and versatile generation of When students analyze and evaluate information and the WISE software, with increased capabilities for revise and reshape ideas, real knowledge building expansion, internationalization, and customization. occurs. That is, Knowledge forum supports knowledge See http://www.wise.berkeley.edu for more details. construction. In short, this educational technology Created by Janet Kolodner and her colleagues at the works in the following way. Students initially repreEduTech Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology, the sent and develop their ideas and questions through LBD project has as its goal developing a design-based the production of graphics and text notes. Research curriculum for middle school science and software to on expertise demonstrates that often students’ initial go with it. LBD takes its cues from case-based reason- ideas and theories are based on misconceptions. After ing, according to which one can best learn from expe- reaching a deeper understanding, their initial theories rience if one does a good job of interpreting one’s ex- change. Students then reference other work (and can periences and anticipating when the lessons they teach track back to the original source with a simple mouse might be useful. See http://www.cc.gatech.edu/edutech click), identify gaps in knowledge, and ask for collabfor more details. oration, if necessary, to increase their understanding. Another example of today’s educational multime- Referencing and “building-on” facilities thus help dia products that addresses many of the general charac- students create a multidimensional and multifaceted teristics of HICEMTs is Knowledge forum, a second- knowledge-building framework for their ideas. Shargeneration CSILE product.5 This web-based educa- ing of comments stimulates students to revise their tional technology can be considered, to a certain extent, ideas and initial theories. As students structure and as a partial practical illustration of HICEMTs online. connect these ideas beyond the usual “topic titles,” they enhance their ability to understand and apply new concepts. Continual improvement of ideas is sup5 For more information on CSILE research, development, ported by features of CSILE software that encourage team members, and applications, visit the CSILE web site explanation seeking, theory building, problem solving, (http://www.csile.oise.on.ca). For CSILE product information, argumentation, publication, and other socio-cognitive contact Learning in Motion, 500 Seabright Avenue, Suite 105, operations that help advance understanding. Using a Santa Cruz, California 95062 ([email protected]).

1198

variety of linking, searching, commenting, and visiting activities, the network encourages analysis of various ideas from different points of view. The objective of this educational multimedia technology is to enable students to gain deep and wide knowledge and to understand the subject matter. To sum up, Knowledge forum is an educational online environment where knowledge can be examined and evaluated for gaps, added to, revised, reformulated, and, as a result, a comprehensive understanding can be achieved. This educational multimedia technology is an application of progressive discourse into practice. The concept of progressive discourse was introduced by Bereiter (1994). It refers to a set of innumerable local discourses that consist of clarifications and resolutions of doubts that generate ideas advancing the larger discourse. He emphasized that meaning making and new conceptual structures arise through a dialectic process, where participants of a learning community negotiate contradictions and begin to integrate opposing points of view into a more encompassing whole. Progressive discourse can be considered as another label for what many researchers and educators call inquiry learning. It is especially useful in problem-based learning, wherein the field of inquiry is ill defined and there are no simple or straightforward answers. The concept of progressive discourse is also closely related to the concept of engaged learning, which integrates authentic tasks, interactive instruction, collaborative knowledge building, heterogeneous grouping, and co-exploration by students and teachers (Sherry, 2000). Evaluation research demonstrates that students using CSILE, the first generation of Knowledge forum, outperformed control groups on both standardized tests and knowledge tests (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996). For instance, students working in Knowledge forum showed impressive results in terms of textual and graphical literacy, theory improvement, implicit theories of learning, and comprehension of difficult concepts. The depth of their explanation and understanding was higher than that of control groups. Also, Scardamalia and Bereiter (1996) found that students working in Knowledge forum became actively involved in building enriched databases and linking them, pointing out discrepant information, contributing new information and ideas, considering ideas from different viewpoints, and forming important new working relationships and study groups.

L.V. Shavinina

To conclude, Knowledge forum is built on general psychological processes and fundamental cognitive mechanisms described above, which are associated with the successful growth of an individual’s knowledge base that, in turn, leads to the acquisition of expertise. Knowledge forum also brings new targets for educational influences. All in all, Knowledge forum incorporates general psychological characteristics of HICEMTs and thus can be considered as a partial illustration of HICEMTs.

Summing Up Researchers and practitioners in the area of gifted education never stop to think about the most productive methods for educating the world’s brightest children. The emergence of educational multimedia technology opened up new horizons in gifted education by bringing to life, for instance, HICEMTs. The cultural, economic, technological, and scientific future of human beings will definitely be synonymous with a permanent need for highly intellectual and creative minds, because all fields of activity will require an extremely high level of innovation. Today it is clear that only exceptionally able people—the gifted and talented—can produce new ideas of such quality that lead to really innovative products, processes, and services. In spite of the evident importance of individuals with creative and intellectual abilities in the life of any societal “organism,” one should acknowledge that their development through psychoeducational methods is far from well understood. The need to develop HICEMTs for the gifted thus seems to be a very timely and important endeavor. Therefore, by rethinking the role of education in the information era in general and that of gifted education in particular, using contemporary achievements of multimedia technology and findings of psychological science, especially knowledge on human intelligence and creativity, as well as elaborating “intellectually creative entertainment,” an entirely new wave of educational technologies for the gifted—HICEMTs—can be developed. HICEMTs will dominate the global educational multimedia market of the 21st century. The gifted deserve to have highly individualized, personalized, and differentiated educational multimedia technologies at their disposition as soon as possible.

61

High Intellectual and Creative Educational Multimedia Technologies for the Gifted

References Ainsworth, S. E., Bibby, P. A., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Information technology and multiple representations. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 6, 93–104. Allen, B. S., & Otto, R. G. (1996). Media as lived environments. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communica0tions and technology (pp. 199–225). New York: Macmillan. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview. Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C., & Reiser, B. (1985). Intelligent tutoring systems. Science, 228, 456–462. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167–207. Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29, 3–12. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves. Chicago: Open Court. Bjorklund, D. F., & Schneider, W. (1996). The interaction of knowledge, aptitude, and strategies in children’s memory development. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 59–89). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Blease, D. (1988). Evaluating educational software. London: Croom Helm. Bliss, J., & Ogborn, J. (1989). Tools for exploratory learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 5, 37–50. Borkowski, J. G. (1992). Metacognitive theory: A framework for teaching literacy, writing, and math skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 253–257. Borkowski, J. G., & Peck, V. A. (1986). Causes and consequences of metamemory in gifted children. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 182–200). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bowen, S., Shore, B. M., & Cartwright, G. F. (1993). Do gifted children use computers differently? Gifted Education International, 8, 151–154. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognition, executive control, selfregulation, and other even more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and learning (pp. 60–108). Stuttgart, West Germany: Kuhlhammer. Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23, 4–12. Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 76– 108). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

1199

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32– 41. Callear, D. (1999, September–October). Intelligent tutoring environments as teacher substitutes: Use and feasibility. Educational Technology, 6–11. Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1978). Toward a theory of intelligence: Contributions from research with retarded children. Intelligence, 2, 279–304. Carlson, S., & Firpo, J. (2001). Integrating computers into teaching: findings from a 3-year program in 20 developing countries. In L. R. Vandervert, L. V. Shavinina, & R. Cornell, (Eds.), Cyber education: The future of long distance learning (pp. 85–114). New York: Liebert Publishers. Case, R. (1995). The development of conceptual structures. In W. Damon, D. Kuhn, & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 745–800). New York: Wiley. Chi, M. T. H., & Greeno, J. G. (1987). Cognitive research relevant to education. In J. A. Sechzer & S. M. Pfafflin (Eds.), Psychology and educational policy (pp. 39–57). New York: New York Academy of Sciences. Chi, M. T. H., & Koeske, R. D. (1983). Network representation of a child’s dinosaur knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 19, 29–39. Clapham, M. M. (2003). The development of innovative ideas through creativity training. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International handbook on innovation (pp. 366–376). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19, 2–10. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 154–185). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Costa, E. (Ed.). (1992). New directions for intelligent tutoring systems. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Detterman, D. K. (Ed.). (1994). Current topics in human intelligence: Vol. 4. Theories of intelligence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Editorial introduction to the special issue on Silicon Valley. (1998, November 7). New Scientist, 168, 30. Education in the information society (an initiative of the European Commission). (1996). Bruxelles, Belgium: Office for Official Publications of the European Community. Educational multimedia in Europe (a resolution on educational multimedia prepared by the Counsel of the Ministers of Education of the European countries). (1996). Bruxelles, Belgium: Office for Official Publications of the European Community. Engestrom, Y. (1996). Interobjectivity, ideality, and dialectics. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 259–265. Einstein, A. (1949). Autobiographical notes. In P. A. Schlipp (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher and scientist (pp. 3–49). New York: The Library of Living Philosophers. Ferrari, M., Taylor, R., & VanLehn, K. (1999). Adapting work simulations for school: Preparing students for tomorrow’s workplace. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21, 25–53. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231– 235). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.

1200 Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-development inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. Frasson, C., & Gauthier, C. (Eds.). (1990). Intelligent tutoring systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Gates, W. H. (1999, March 22). Bill Gates’ new rules. Time, 153, 30–35. Goforth, D. (1994). Learner control = decision making + information: A model and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11, 1–26. Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 2, 5–34. Gredler, M. E. (1990). Analyzing deep structure in games and simulations. Simulations/Games for Learning, 20, 329–334. Gredler, M. E. (1992). Designing and evaluating games and simulations: A process approach. London: Kogan Page. Gredler, M. E. (1996). Educational games and simulations: A technology in search of a (research) paradigm. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 521–540). New York: Macmillan. Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student centres learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167–202. Harper, B., Squires, D., & McDougall, A. (2000). Constructivist simulations: A new design paradigm. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9, 115–130. Heinonen, D. P. (1996, June 21). Citoyens de l’Europe. [European Citizens]. Le Monde, p. 3 Hiltz, S. R. (1986). The “virtual classroom”: Using computermediated communication for university teaching. Journal of Communication, 36, 95–104. Hiltz, S. R. (1990). Evaluating the virtual classroom. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 133–183). New York: Praeger. Honebein, P. C., Duffy, T. M., & Fishman, B. J. (1993). Constructivism and the design of authentic learning environments. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 87– 108). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Honour, L., & Evans, B. (1997). Shifting the culture towards electronic learning media: Learning as an interactive experience. In Open classroom II conference: Papers and presentations (pp. 285–294). Athens: Kastaniotis. Javid, M. A. (2001). Edmonds and Kamiak cyberschools: Two innovative emerging models for cybereducation. In L. R. Vandervert, L. V. Shavinina, & R. Cornell (Eds.), CyberEducation: The future of long distance learning (pp. 185–218). Larchmont, NY: Liebert Publishers. Jonassen, D. H. (1993). A manifesto to a constructivist approach to the use of technology in higher education. In T. M. Duffy (Ed.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 231–247). New York: Springer-Verlag. Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.) (1996). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan. Jones, A. E. (1997). Reflection-impulsivity and wholist-analytic: Two fledglings? ... or is R-I a cuckoo? Educational Psychology, 17, 65–77.

L.V. Shavinina Kholodnaya, M. A. (1983). The integrated structures of conceptual thinking. Tomsk, Russia: Tomsk University Press. Kholodnaya, M. A. (1997). The psychology of intelligence. Moscow: APN Press. Koschmann, T. (Ed.) (1996a). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Koschmann, T. (1996b). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lan, J., & Gemmill, J. (2000). The networking revolution for the new millennium: Internet 2 and its educational implications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6, 179–198. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lefebvre, M. (1997). For better or for worse: The multimedia reign. Focus, 3, 20–22. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37–71). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Martinsen, O. (1997). The construct of cognitive style and its implications for creativity. High Ability Studies, 8, 135–158. McAteer, E., Tolmie, A., Duffy, C., & Corbett, J. (1997). Computer-mediated communication as a learning resource. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 219–227. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill. Merrill, D. C., Reiser, B. J., Ranney, M., & Trafton, J. G. (1992). Effective tutoring techniques: A comparison of human tutors and intelligent tutoring systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 277–306. Miller, A. (1996). Insights of genius: Visual imagery and creativity in science and art. New York: Springer-Verlag. Mumford, M. (2008). Cognitive approaches to creativity. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (Vol. 2). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Olson, D. R. (1986). Intelligence and literacy: The relationships between intelligence and the technologies of representation and communication. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligence (pp. 338–360). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Oren, A., Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., & Lahav, O. (2000). Learnet–A model for virtual learning communities in the World Wide Web. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6, 141–157. Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books. Park, O. (1996). Adaptive instructional systems. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 634–664). New York: Macmillan. Park, O., Perez, R. S., & Seidel, R. J. (1987). Intelligent CAI: Old wine in new bottles or a new vintage? In G. Kearsley (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and instruction: Applications and methods (pp. 11–45). Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley. Park, O., & Seidel, R. J. (1989). A multidisciplinary model for development of intelligent computer-assisted instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37, 78–80.

61

High Intellectual and Creative Educational Multimedia Technologies for the Gifted

Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive strategies: Good strategy users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 4, pp. 89–129). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Psotka, J., Massey, L. D., & Mutter, S. A. (Eds.). (1988). Intelligent tutoring systems: Lessons learned. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rabinowitz, M., & Glaser, R. (1985). Cognitive structure and process in highly competent performance. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 75–97). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rapaport, M. (1991). Computer-mediated communications. New York: Wiley. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Developing high potentials for innovation in young people through the schoolwide enrichment model. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 333–346). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Riding, R. (1997). On the nature of cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 17, 29–49. Rieber, L. P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40, 93–106. Roberts, J. M. (1996). The story of distance education: A practitioner’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47, 811–816. Romiszowski, A. J. (1992). Computer-mediated communications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology. Romiszowski, A. J., & Mason, R. (1996). Computer-mediated communication. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 438–456). New York: Macmillan. Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2003). Intuitive tools for innovative thinking. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 377–387). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Runco, M. A. (Ed.) (2008). Handbook of creativity (Vols. 1 and 2). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (Eds.) (1990). Theories of creativity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Salomon, G., Perkins, D., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20, 2–9. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35, 31–38. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265–283. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Engaging students in a knowledge society. Educational Leadership, 11, 6–10. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 51–68. Schneider, W. (1993). Domain-specific knowledge and memory performance in children. Educational Psychology Review, 5, 257–273. Schofield, J. W., & Evans-Rhodes, D. (1989). Artificial intelligence in the classroom. In D. Bierman, J. Greuker, & J. Sand-

1201

berg (Eds.), Artificial intelligence and education (pp. 238– 243). Springfield, VA: IOS. Schuler, J. (1996). Cyberspace as dream world. (Retrieved January 18, 1998, from the World Wide Web: http://www.rider.edu/∼suler/psycyber/cybdream.htm) Seidel, R. J., & Park, O. (1994). An historical perspective and a model for evaluation of ITS. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10, 103–128. Seidel, R. J., Park, O., & Perez, R. S. (1988). Expertise of ICAI: Development requirements. Computers in Human Behavior, 1, 235–256. Shavinina, L. V. (1996a). The objectivization of cognition and intellectual giftedness. High Ability Studies, 7, 91–98. Shavinina, L. V. (1996b). Specific intellectual intentions and creative giftedness. In A. J. Cropley & D. Dehn (Eds.), Fostering the growth of high ability: European perspectives (pp. 373– 381). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Shavinina, L. V. (1997a, July). Educational multimedia of “tomorrow”: High intellectual and creative psychoeducational technologies. (Paper presented at the European Congress of Psychology, Dublin, Ireland) Shavinina, L. V. (1997b, September). High intellectual and creative technologies as an educational multimedia of the 21st century. (Paper presented at the European Open Classroom II Conference: School Education in the Information Society, Sisi, Crete, Greece) Shavinina, L. (1998a). Interdisciplinary innovation: Psychoeducational multimedia technologies. New Ideas in Psychology, 16, 189–204. Shavinina, L. V. (1998b). On Miller’s insights of genius: What do we know about it? Creativity Research Journal, 12, 183– 185. Shavinina, L. V. (2000). High intellectual and creative educational multimedia technologies. CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 3, 1–8. Shavinina, L. V. (2003). Understanding scientific innovation: The case of Nobel Laureates. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 445–457). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Shavinina, L. V., & Ferrari, M. (Eds.) (2004). Beyond Knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers. Shavinina, L. V., & Kholodnaya, M. A. (1996). The cognitive experience as a psychological basis of intellectual giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 3–35. Shavinina, L. V., & Loarer, E. (1999). Psychological evaluation of educational multimedia. European Psychologist, 4, 33–44. Shavinina, L. V., & Ponomarev, E. A. (2003). Developing innovative ideas through high intellectual and creative educational multimedia technologies. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 401–418). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Sherry, L. (2000). The nature and purpose of online discourse. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6, 19–51. Shore, B. M., & Dover, A. C. (1987). Metacognition, intelligence and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 37–39. Shore, B. M., & Kanevsky, L. S. (1993). Thinking processes: Being and becoming gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 133–147). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

1202 Shute, V. J. (1991). Who is likely to acquire programming skills? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7, 1–24. Shute, V. J., & Glaser, R. (1990). A large-scale evaluation of an intelligent discovery world: Smithtown. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 51–76. Shute, V. J., & Psotka, J. (1996). Intelligent tutoring systems: Past, present, and future. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 514–563). New York: Macmillan. Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. (New York: Cambridge University Press) Squires, D. (1996). Can multimedia support constructivist learning? Teaching Review, 4, 10–17. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.) (1982). Handbook of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.) (1984). Mechanisms of cognitive development. New York: Freeman. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Intelligence applied. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace. Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Intelligence and cognitive style. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction: Vol. 3. Conative and affective analyses (pp. 77–97). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.) (1988a). The Nature of Creativity. (New York: Cambridge University Press) Sternberg, R. J. (1988b). A three-facet model of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 125–147). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human/machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.

L.V. Shavinina Teaching and learning–Towards cognitive society (a white paper of the European Commission). (1995). Bruxelles, Belgium: Office for Official Publications of the European Community. Tikhomirov, O. K. (1981). The psychological consequences of computerization. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 256–278). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Tolmie, A., & Boyle, J. (2000). Factors influencing the success of computer mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching. Computers & Education, 34, 119–140. Vandervert, L. R. (1999). Maximizing consciousness across the disciplines: Mechanisms of information growth in general education. In J. S. Jordan (Ed.), Modeling consciousness across the disciplines (pp. 3–25). New York: University Press of America. Vandervert, L. R. (2001). A provocative view of how algorithms of the human brain will embed in cybereducation. In L. R. Vandervert, L. V. Shavinina, & R. Cornell (Eds.), CyberEducation: The future of long distance learning (pp. 41–62). Larchmont, NY: Liebert Publishers. Vandervert, L. R., Shavinina, L. V., & Cornell, R. (Eds.). (2001). CyberEducation: The future of long distance learning. Larchmont, NY: Liebert Publishers. VanLehn, K. (1999). Intelligent tutoring systems. (Retrieved September 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.pitt.edu/∼vanlehn/ITSseminar9) Verona, M. E. (2001). WebSims–Creating an online science lab. In L. R. Vandervert, L. V. Shavinina, & R. Cornell (Eds.), CyberEducation: The future of long distance learning (pp. 237–256). Larchmont, NY: Liebert Publishers. Wellington, J. J. (1985). Children, computers and the curriculum. New York: Harper & Row. Westera, W., & Sloep, P. (2001). The future of competence learning in cyberreality: The virtual learning company and beyond. In L. R. Vandervert, L. V. Shavinina, & R. Cornell (Eds.), CyberEducation: The future of long distance learning (pp. 115–136). Larchmont, NY: Liebert Publishers.

Chapter 62

A Technology-Based Application of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model and High-End Learning Theory Joseph S. Renzulli and Sally M. Reis

One hesitates using the word revolutionary in this day of technological advancements by the hour, but the word did occur to me as I reviewed the Renzulli Learning System. It provides a new level of differentiation and engagement. John Lounsbury National Middle School Association Georgia College & State University

Abstract Remarkable advances in instructional communication technology (ICT) have now made it possible to provide high levels of enrichment services to students online. This chapter describes an Internet-based enrichment program based on a high-end learning theory that focuses on the development of creative productivity through the application of knowledge rather than the mere acquisition and storage of knowledge. The program, called Renzulli Learning System (RLS), extends the pedagogy of the SEM to various forms of enrichment as well as first-hand investigative and creative endeavors. In this chapter, a brief overview is provided about the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM), the organizational framework upon which the RLS is based. This section will be followed by summaries of the Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness and the Enrichment Triad Model, the two theories underlying SEM, and the final section presents a detailed description of the Renzulli Learning System. Keywords Renzulli Learning System (RLS) · Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) · Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness · Enrichment Triad Model

J.S. Renzulli (B) The University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction How can we develop both academic giftedness and creative productivity? How can we develop the potentials of all children? What services should be provided to students who are identified for gifted and talented programs, as opposed to enrichment opportunities that should be provided for all students? How can we modify the regular curriculum for high achieving students? Can enrichment and gifted programs help to develop academic gifts and talents? How can we help children learn to think creatively and value opportunities for creative, self-selected work? The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) is the organizational framework of our programming model that addresses these questions. The model is organized around three service delivery components, including (1) strength-based student portfolio that contains information about academic achievement, preferred areas of interests, learning styles, and preferred modes of expression; (2) curriculum compacting, a systematic procedure for modifying and differentiating the curriculum for high achieving students; and (3) enrichment learning and teaching, with three types of enrichment opportunities based on the Enrichment Triad Model. The SEM also includes a continuum of services concept that includes separate organizational approaches (e.g., special classes, pull-out programs,

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 62, 

1203

1204

grade skipping, and differentiation in the regular classroom) which is the “one best way” to develop high levels of talent in young people. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, but an integration of services between and among various approaches will maximize the value of any combination of organizational structures. It will also provide opportunities for more students than the 3–5% usually served in traditional programs for gifted students.

A Brief History of the SEM The original Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1977), the curriculum core of the SEM, was developed in the mid-1970s and initially implemented as a gifted and talented programming model in school districts in Connecticut and the northeast of the United States. The model, initially field tested in several districts, proved to be quite popular and requests from all over the country for visitations to schools using the model and for information about how to implement the model increased. A book about the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1977) was published, and increasing numbers of districts began implementing this approach. It was at this point that a clear need was established for research about the effectiveness of the model and for other vehicles that could provide technical assistance for interested educators to help develop programs in their schools. Different types of programs based on The Enrichment Triad were designed and implemented by classroom, gifted education, and enrichment teachers, and we began to see differences both in programs and in student productivity. Our curiosity was peaked, and thus began almost 30 years of field testing, research, and dissemination.

Theories Underlying Schoolwide Enrichment: The Renzulli Learning System The Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness Present efforts to develop giftedness are based on a long history of previous theoretical or research

J.S. Renzulli and S.M. Reis

studies dealing with human abilities (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986) and a few general conclusions from current research on giftedness. In their latest edited volume on conceptions of giftedness, Sternberg & Davidson (2005) provide a critical background for this discussion of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM). The first conclusion is that giftedness is not a unitary concept, but there are many manifestations of gifts and talents and therefore single definitions cannot adequately explain this multifaceted phenomenon. The confusion about present theories of giftedness has led many researchers to develop new models for explaining this complicated concept, but most agree that giftedness is developed over time and that culture, abilities, environment, gender, opportunities, and chance contribute to the development of gifts and talents. The SEM focuses on the development of both academic and creative-productive giftedness. Creativeproductive giftedness describes those aspects of human activity and involvement where a premium is placed on the development of original material and products that are purposefully designed to have an impact on one or more target audiences. Learning situations designed to promote creative-productive giftedness emphasize the use and application of information (content) and thinking skills in an integrated, inductive, and real-problem-oriented manner. In the SEM, traditional academic gifts are developed using curriculum compacting, acceleration, differentiated instruction, and various forms of academic enrichment. Our focus on creative productivity complements our efforts to increase academic challenge when we attempt to transform the role of the student from that of a learner of lessons to one of a first-hand inquirer, one who can experience the joys and frustrations of creative productivity (Renzulli, 1977). This approach is different from the development of giftedness that tends to emphasize deductive learning, and the acquisition, storage, and retrieval of information. In other words, creative-productive giftedness enables children to work on issues and areas of study that have personal relevance to the student and that can be escalated to appropriately challenging levels of investigative and creative activity. Why is creative-productive giftedness important enough to question the traditional approach that has been used to select students for gifted programs on the basis of test scores? Why do some people want to rock

62

Application of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model and High-End Learning Theory

the boat by challenging a conception of giftedness that can be numerically defined by simply giving a test? The answers to these questions are simple and yet compelling. Our research (Reis & Renzulli, 1984; Renzulli, 1978, 2005, 2006) has proven that there is much more to identifying human potential than the abilities revealed on traditional tests of intelligence, aptitude, and achievement. Furthermore, history tells us that it has been the creative and productive people of the world, the producers rather than consumers of knowledge, who have been recognized in history as “truly gifted” individuals. Accordingly, the SEM integrates both opportunities for academic giftedness as well as creative-productive giftedness. The SEM is based on Renzulli’s (1978) Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness, which defines gifted behaviors rather than gifted individuals. This conception encompasses three interrelated components (see Fig. 62.1) and is described as follows: Gifted behavior consists of traits and aptitudes that reflect an interaction among three basic clusters of human characteristics—above average ability, high levels of task commitment, and high levels of creativity. Individuals capable of developing gifted behavior are those possessing or capable of developing this composite set of traits, using them interactively, and applying them to any potentially valuable area of human performance. Persons who manifest or are capable of developing an interaction among the three clusters require a wide variety of educational opportunities and services that are not ordinarily provided through regular instructional programs (Renzulli & Reis, 1997, p. 8).

Above Average Ability

Creativity

Longitudinal research supports this distinction between academic giftedness and creative/productive giftedness. In Perleth, Sierwald, and Heller’s Munich Longitudinal Study of Giftedness (1985–1989), for example, differences were found between students who demonstrated creative/productive giftedness as opposed to traditional academic giftedness. Most of the confusion and controversy surrounding the definitions of giftedness can be placed into perspective if we examine a few key questions. Is giftedness or creativity an absolute or a relative concept? That is, is a person either gifted or not gifted (the absolute view), or can varying degrees of gifted behaviors be developed in certain people, at certain times, and under certain circumstances (the relative view)? (see Fig. 62.2) Is giftedness or creativity a static concept (i.e., you have or you do not have it) or is it a dynamic concept (i.e., it varies within persons, cultures, and among learning/performance situations)? We believe that a fundamental change must occur in the way that we view giftedness. For the last two decades, we have advocated labeling the services students receive rather than labeling the students, for we believe that a shift should occur from an emphasis on the traditional concept of “being gifted” (or not being gifted) to a concern about the development of gifted and creative behaviors in students who have high potential for benefiting from special educational opportunities, as well as the provision of some types of enrichment for all students. This change in terminology may also provide the flexibility in both identification and programming endeavors that encourages the inclusion of at-risk and underachieving students in our programs. Our ultimate goal is the development of a total school enrichment program that benefits all students and concentrates on making schools places for talent development for all young people. We believe that a rising tide lifts all ships! Every student benefits, from our highest achievers to struggling learners, when schools create

Task Commitment

Fig. 62.1 Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness (Note: The hounds tooth background reflects the interactive influences of personality and environment.)

1205

Fig. 62.2 Development of gifted behaviors

1206

an atmosphere that respects individuality and diversity and when opportunities, resources, and encouragement are made available to maximize the strengths of all students.

The Enrichment Triad Model In order to understand the qualitative differences in learning guided by the Enrichment Triad Model it is necessary to review briefly the pedagogy or learning theory upon which Triad is based. All learning exists on a continuum ranging from basic learning or deductive (sometimes called didactic) approaches at one end of the continuum to inductive or high-end learning approaches at the other. This continuum exists for learners of all ages—from toddlers to doctoral students—and it exists in all areas of curricular activity. The continuum also exists for learning that takes place in the non-school world, the kind of learning that young people and adults pursue as they go about acquiring new skills for their jobs or working in the kitchen, the garden, or the workshop in the basement. (There are, of course, occasions when a particular approach falls between the two ends of the continuum. However, for purposes of clarifying the main features of deductive and inductive learning, we will treat the two models as polar opposites.) Both models of learning and teaching are valuable in the overall process of schooling, and a well-balanced school program must make use of basic and high-end approaches as well as the combined approaches between the two ends of the continuum.

The Deductive Model of Learning Although many names have been used to describe the theories that define the ends of the continuum, we simply refer to them as the Deductive Model and Inductive Model. The Deductive Model is familiar to most educators and guides most of what takes place in classrooms and other places where formal learning is pursued. The Inductive Model, on the other hand, represents the kind of learning that typically takes place outside formal school situations. A good way to understand the difference between these two types of learning is to compare how learning takes place in a typical class-

J.S. Renzulli and S.M. Reis

room with how someone learns new material or skills in real-world situations. Classrooms are characterized by relatively fixed time schedules, segmented subjects or topics, predetermined sets of information and activities, tests and grades to determine progress, and a pattern of organization that is largely driven by the need to acquire and assimilate information and skills that are deemed important by curriculum developers, textbook publishers, and committees who prepare lists of standards. The Deductive Model assumes that current learning will have transfer value for some future problem, course, occupational pursuit, or life activity, and it is built almost exclusively on information (content) derived from predetermined standards, textbook publishers, or test makers. We call this kind of information “To-Be-Presented Knowledge.” Deductive learning is based mainly on the factory model or human engineering conception of schooling. The underlying psychological theory is behaviorism, and the theorists most frequently associated with this model are Ivan Pavlov, E. L. Thorndike, and B. F. Skinner. At the center of this ideology is the ability to Lproduce desirable responses by presenting selected stimuli. In an educational setting, these theories translate into a form of prescriptive and structured training for purposes of knowledge and skill acquisition. A curriculum based on the Deductive Model must be examined in terms of both what and how something is taught. The issue of what is (or should be) taught has always been the subject of controversy, ranging from a conservative position that emphasizes a classical or basic education curriculum to a more liberal perspective that includes contemporary knowledge and life adjustment experiences (e.g., driver’s education, sex education, computer literacy). Overall, American schools have been very effective in adapting what is taught to changes taking place in society. Recent concerns about the kinds of skills that a rapidly changing job market will require have accelerated curricular changes that prepare students for careers in technological fields and a post-industrial society. Nowhere is this change more evident than in the emphasis currently placed on thinking skills, interdisciplinary approaches to curriculum, and the use of technology in the learning process. These changes are favorable developments, but the Deductive Model still limits learning because it restricts both what is taught and how the material is taught. There is nothing inherently “wrong” with the Deductive Model; how-

62

Application of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model and High-End Learning Theory

ever, it is based on a limited conception of the role of the learner. It fails to consider variations in interests and learning styles, and it always places students in the roles of lesson learners and exercise doers rather than authentic, first-hand inquirers.

The Inductive Model of Learning The Inductive Model, on the other hand, represents the kinds of learning that ordinarily occurs outside formal classrooms in places such as research laboratories, artists’ studios and theaters, film and video production sets, business offices, service agencies, and almost any extracurricular activity in which products, performances, or services are pursued. The names most closely associated with inductive learning are John Dewey, Maria Montessori, and Jerome Bruner. The type of learning advocated by these theorists can be summarized as knowledge and skill acquisition gained from investigative and creative activities that are characterized by three requirements. First, there is a personalization of the topic or problem—the students are doing the work because they want to. Second, students are using methods of investigation or creative production that approximate the modus operandi of the practicing professional, even if the methodology is at a more junior level than that used by adult researchers, filmmakers, or business entrepreneurs. Third, the work is always geared toward the production of a product or service that is intended to have an impact on a particular audience. The information (content) and the skills (process) that are the substance of inductive learning situations are based on need-to-know and need-to-do requirements, what we call “Just-In-Time Knowledge.” The importance of using Just-In-Time Knowledge (as opposed to To-Be-Presented Knowledge), and as we will see later, is one of the greatest assets of having a technology-based learning system that takes advantage of the vast storehouse of knowledge available on the Internet. All resources, information, schedules, and sequences of events necessary for a high quality product are directed toward the goals of high-end learning, and evaluation (rather than grading) is a function of the quality of the product or service as viewed through the eyes of a client, consumer, or other type of audience member. Everything that results in learning in a

1207

research laboratory, for example, is for present use. Therefore, looking up new information, conducting an experiment, analyzing results, or preparing a report is focused primarily on the present rather than the storage of information for some future use. Even the amount of time devoted to a particular project cannot be determined in advance because the unfolding nature of the problem and the unknown obstacles that might be encountered as the project evolves prevent rigid, predetermined schedules. What is undoubtedly most significant about using relevant knowledge and methods in this type of learning is that it is much more likely to “stick” beyond the test-taking events that are typically associated with traditional didactic learning. In summary, the Deductive Model has dominated the ways in which most formal education is pursued, and the track record of the model has been less than impressive. One need only reflect for a moment on his or her own school experience to realize that with the exception of basic language and arithmetic, much of the compartmentalized material learned for some remote and ambiguous future situation is seldom used in the conduct of daily activities. The names of famous generals, geometric formulas, the periodic table, and parts of a plant learned outside an applicable, real-world situation are usually quickly forgotten. This is not to say that previously learned information is unimportant, but its relevancy, meaningfulness, and endurance for future use is minimized when it is almost always learned apart from situations that have personalized meaning for the learner. Inductive learning, on the other hand, focuses on the present use of content and processes as a way of integrating material and thinking skills into the more enduring structure of the learner’s repertoire. It is these more enduring structures that have the greatest amount of transfer value for future use. When content and processes are learned in authentic, contextual situations, they result in more meaningful uses of information and problem-solving strategies than the learning that takes place in artificial, preparation-for-the-test situations. If individuals involved in inductive learning experiences receive some choice in the domains and activities in which they are engaged and if the experiences are directed toward realistic and personalized goals, this type of learning creates its own relevancy and meaningfulness, as in the types of enrichment that we advocate in the SEM.

1208

High-End Learning Theory

J.S. Renzulli and S.M. Reis

skills and methods of inquiry) are learned within the context of a real and present problem. Therefore, attention should be given to opportunities to To understand the essence of high-end learning is to personalize student choice in problem selection, the compare how learning takes place in a traditional classrelevance of the problem for individuals and groups room with how someone might learn new material or who share a common interest in the problem, and skills in real-world situations. The majority of classstrategies for assisting students in personalizing rooms are characterized by an organizational pattern problems they might choose to study. largely driven by the need to acquire and assimilate information and skills imposed from outside the class- 4. Some formal instruction may be used in high-end learning, but a major goal of this approach is to room. Contrast this type of learning with the more enhance knowledge and thinking skill acquisition natural chain of events that takes place in research labgained through teacher instruction with applicaoratories, business offices, or film studios. In these sittions of knowledge and skills that result from stuuations, the goal is to produce a product or service. dent construction of meaningfulness. All resources, information, schedules, and events are directed toward this goal, and looking up new inforMany educators have asked us how these principles mation, conducting experiments, analyzing results, or differ from the traditional goals of didactic learning. preparing a report are activities focused primarily on To address these questions, we used an inductive rather the present need for information rather than for a disthan deductive approach—that is, rather than making a tant future. It is these present uses that have the greatest list from the theoretical literature or our own expecamount of transfer value for future use. When content and processes are learned in authentic, contextual situ- tations about goals and outcomes, we examined acations, they result in more meaningful uses of informa- tivities taking place in high-end learning situations, tion and problem-solving strategies than the learning evaluated student work and teacher involvement, and that takes place in overly structured, prescribed class- drew conclusions based on these actual experiences. In room situations. In short, high-end learning applies two other words, we did exactly what we are recommendconcepts—(1) high-end learning and (2) the often used ing students do as they go about pursuing problems (and abused) concept, real-world problems—to the In- through the use of the Renzulli Learning System. After carefully examining the work of numerous students ductive Model of Learning. High-end learning is based on the ideas of a small and questioning many teachers who participated in renumber of philosophers, theorists, and researchers search on high-end learning, we were able to identify (e.g., John Dewey, Albert Bandura, Howard Gardner, the following specific outcomes: Plan a task and conMaria Montessori, Philip Phenix, Robert Sternberg, sider alternatives; monitor one’s understanding and the E. Paul Torrance, and Alfred North Whitehead). The need for additional information; identify patterns, relawork of these theorists, coupled with our own research tionships, and discrepancies in information; generate and program development activities, has given rise to reasonable arguments, explanations, hypotheses and the concept that we call “high-end learning.” The best ideas using appropriate information sources, vocabuway to define this concept is in terms of the following lary, and concepts; draw comparisons and analogies to other problems; formulate meaningful questions; apply four principles: and transform factual information into usable knowl1. Each learner is unique, and, therefore, all learning edge; rapidly and efficiently access just-in-time inforexperiences must be examined in ways that take into mation; detect bias, make comparisons, draw concluaccount the abilities, interests, and learning styles of sions, and predict outcomes; apportion time, schedules, the individual. and resources; apply knowledge and problem solving 2. Learning is more effective when students enjoy strategies to real world problems; work effectively with what they are doing. Consequently, learning expe- others communicate effectively in different genres, lanriences should be constructed and assessed with as guages, and formats; and creatively solve problems and much concern for enjoyment as for other goals. produce new ideas. Not all outcomes occurred in every 3. Learning is more meaningful and enjoyable when learning situation, and the levels to which any individcontent (i.e., knowledge) and process (i.e., thinking ual or group achieved these outcomes vary.

62

Application of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model and High-End Learning Theory

The ultimate goal of learning guided by these four principles is to replace dependence and passive learning with independence and engaged learning. Although all but the most conservative educators will agree with these principles and outcomes, controversy exists about how these (or similar) principles and outcomes may be applied in everyday school situations. Some might view these principles as yet another idealized list of generalities that cannot be easily manifested in schools already overwhelmed by prescribed curriculum and deductive models of teaching. For this reason, we recommend setting aside some time during which students will have opportunities to participate in high-end learning experiences sometime during their school week. The most difficult part of facilitating high-end learning is getting teachers to stop prescribing and replace traditional instruction with the kinds of “guide-on-the-side” responsibilities that are used by mentors and coaches. People in these roles instruct only when there is a direct need to accomplish a task necessary for developing a product or service. Many teachers who have served in extracurricular activities such as yearbook advisors, drama club directors, 4-H Club advisors, or athletic coaches already have the techniques necessary for high-end learning.

1209

The teacher’s role in these activities is to guide students as they find and focus a real-world problem, lend a hand as they locate content and methodological resources, and help them understand how to use the resources. For example, an interest-based group of students examined the incidence of acid rain in the northeastern part of the United States. Using what we call a How-To Book obtained from the RLS web site, the teacher taught students how to prepare slides for microscope analysis and, with the aid of a microprojector, showed them how to identify contaminants in their rainwater samples. Direct instruction should take place only when the acquisition of a new skill needs some explanation and demonstration by the teacher. The Enrichment Triad Model is the theoretical “heart” of the SEM (Renzulli, 1977) and the pedagogical basis of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model. It was originally designed as a gifted program model to encourage creative productivity on the part of young people by exposing them to various topics, areas of interest, and fields of study and to further train them to apply advanced content, process-training skills, and methodology training to self-selected areas of interest using three types of enrichment. The original Triad Model has three types of enrichment (see Fig. 62.3): Type I enrichment is designed to expose students

TYPE I

TYPE II

GENERAL EXPLORATORY ACTIVITIES

GROUP TRAINING ACTIVITIES

TYPE III

T

EN M

N RO VI

Fig. 62.3 The Enrichment Triad Model

EN

CL RE AS GU SR LA O R O M

INDIVIDUAL & SMALL GROUP INVESTIGATION OF REAL PROBLEMS

1210

to a wide variety of disciplines, topics, occupations, hobbies, persons, places, and events that would not ordinarily be covered in the regular curriculum. Type II enrichment includes materials and methods designed to promote the development of thinking and feeling processes. Type III enrichment involves students who become interested in pursuing a self-selected area and are willing to commit the time necessary for advanced content acquisition and process training in which they assume the role of a first-hand inquirer. A book written by a fifth grade student named Gretchen from Haynes School in Sudbury, MA, highlights the kinds of products produced when the Enrichment Triad Model is used. Gretchen had two passionate interests as a fifth grader: the literature of Louisa May Alcott and cooking. Gretchen had read all of Louisa May Alcott’s books and identified in each book any specific food mentioned. She researched the recipes of the time that would have been used to make the food (such as buckwheat cakes), field-tested each recipe (including making substitutions for ingredients no longer available), and created an original cookbook. Gretchen spent a year and a half working on a cookbook that combined vignettes of scenes from Little Women and Little Men with many authentic 19th century recipes for making the foods described in the novels. The Louisa May Alcott Cookbook was accepted and became the first book contracted by Little Brown with a child author. In Gretchen’s Type III, both the process she used and the final product involved high levels of creative engagement and clear evidence of creative work.

“Real-World Problem” Defined The term “real-world problem” has been tossed around so freely and easily in education circles these days that it has become little more than a hollow clich´e. Because a good deal of the focus of high-end learning is on the pursuit of real-world problems, we feel obligated to provide the reader with as precise a definition as possible about this oft-used but frequently elusive (and illusive) term. High-end learning situations are designed to promote the kind of student engagement described above, and a key concept in organizing and delivering services for this type of learning is application. Highend learning consists of applying relevant knowledge,

J.S. Renzulli and S.M. Reis

research skills, creative and critical thinking skills, and interpersonal skills to the solution of real problems. High-end learning focuses on the pursuit of real problems and should be viewed as the vehicle through which everything—from basic skills to advanced content and processes—comes together in the form of student-developed products and services. In much the same way that all the separate but interrelated parts of an automobile come together at an assembly plant, we view this form of learning as an assembly plant of the mind. This kind of learning represents a synthesis and an application of content, process, and personal involvement. The student’s role is transformed from one of lesson learner to first-hand inquirer, and the role of the teacher changes from an instructor and disseminator of knowledge to a combination of coach, resource procurer, mentor, and, sometimes, a partner or colleague. Although products play an important role in creating these authentic learning situations, the development and application of a wide range of cognitive, affective, and motivational processes are the major goals of this type of learning.

The Renzulli Learning System: A Four-Step Procedure Every teacher has had the satisfaction of seeing a child “turn on” to a topic or a school experience that demonstrates the true joy and excitement of both learning and teaching. We have sometimes wondered how and why these high points in teaching occur, why they do not occur more frequently, and why more students are not engaged in highly positive learning experiences. Teachers are also painfully aware of the boredom and lack of interest that so many of our young people express about so much of the work they do in school. Highly prescriptive curriculum guides, endless lists of standards to be covered, and relentless pressure to increase achievement test scores have often prevented us from doing the kind of teaching that results in those joyous but rare times when we have seen truly remarkable engagement in learning. One teacher we interviewed as part of a research project dealing with high engagement in learning said, “I could easily improve student enthusiasm, enjoyment, and engagement if I had about a dozen teaching assistants in my classroom!” Comments like these

62

Application of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model and High-End Learning Theory

combined with the understanding that an almost infinite number of resources are now available through the Internet inspired the development of the Renzulli Learning System (RLS) at the University of Connecticut’s Neag School of Education. With sponsorship by the University of Connecticut Research and Development Corporation and income from subscriptions the system continues to be developed and researched to provide the highest levels of learning and student engagement. So how does this happen? The use of instructional technology, and especially the Internet, has evolved rapidly over the past decade. First “generation” use of technology consisted mainly of what might be called worksheets-online, with the added advantage of providing students with immediate feedback about correct responses and subroutines for remediating incorrect answers. This generation was not unlike the teaching machines of the 1950s. The next generation consisted mainly of courses-online, and although this innovation enabled students to have access to teachers and professors with expertise beyond what might be available locally, it usually followed the same pedagogy as traditional courses (i.e., read the chapter, answer questions, take a test). The third generation was a great leap forward because of the advent of hypertext. Students could now click on highlighted items in online text to pursue additional, more advanced information, and the kinds of scaffolding that consumes more time than most teachers can devote to individualized learning. The Renzulli Learning System might best be viewed as the next generation of applying instructional technology to the learning process. This program is not a variation of earlier generations of popular e-learning programs or web-surfing devices being offered by numerous software companies. It is a totally unique use of the Internet that combines computer-based strength assessment with search engine technology, thus allowing true differentiation in the matching of thousands of carefully selected resources to individual strengths as well as learning styles and interests. The RLS also has what might best be called theoretical integrity because it is based on high-end learning theory in the form of the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1977) and numerous research studies dealing with model implementation (Reis & Renzulli, 1994). With minimal skills in the use of the Internet, and only a small amount of the teacher’s time, schools easily make use of a system that gives teachers the equivalent of “a dozen assistants” in

1211

their classrooms. The Renzulli Learning System is a four-step procedure that is based on more than 30 years of research and development dealing with the diagnosis and promotion of advanced level thinking skills, motivation, creativity, and engagement in learning. Step 1: Strength Assessment Using the Electronic Learning Profile. The first step consists of a computerbased diagnostic assessment that creates a profile of each student’s academic strengths, interests, learning styles, and preferred modes of expression. The online assessment, which takes about 30 minutes, results in a personalized profile that highlights individual student strengths and sets the stage for step two of the RLS. The profile acts like a compass for the second step, which is a differentiation search engine that examines thousands of resources that relate specifically to each student’s profile. Student profiles can also be used to form groups of students who share common interests. A project management tool guides students and teachers to use specifically selected resources for assigned curricular activities, independent or small group investigative projects, and a wide variety of challenging enrichment experiences. Another management tool enables teachers to form instructional groups and enrichment clusters based on interests and learning style preferences. Teachers have instant access to student profiles, all sites visited by students on the web, and the amount of time spent in each activity. Parents may also access their own child’s profile and web activities, and in order to promote parent involvement, there are opportunities for students to work on some of their favorite activities with their parents. Step 2: Enrichment Differentiation Databases. In step two the differentiation search engine matches student strengths and interests to an enrichment database of 17,000 enrichment activities, materials, resources, and opportunities for further study that are grouped into several categories: Virtual Field Trips; Real Field Trips; Creativity Training; Critical Thinking; Summer Programs; Projects and Independent Study; Online Classes and Activities; Research Skills; Contests and Competitions; Research; Fiction and Non-Fiction Books; and How-To Books. These resources are not intended to inform students about new information or to occupy time surfing around the web. Rather, they are used as vehicles for helping students find and focus a problem or creative exploration of personal interest that they might like to pursue in greater depth. Many of the resources provide

1212

the methods of inquiry, advanced level thinking and creative problem-solving skills, and investigative approaches that approximate the modus operandi of the practicing professional. Students are guided toward the application of knowledge to the development of original research studies, creative projects, and action-oriented undertakings that put knowledge to work in personally meaningful areas of interest. The resources also provide students with suggestions for outlets and audiences for their creative products. The RLS helps accomplish the goals of high-end learning for students of varying interests, abilities, and learning styles and who have their own unique vision for creative products. Teachers are also provided with multiple resources for managing the individualized activities of their students: A set of learning maps is provided for each of the 14 enrichment resource databases and for the many other resources available, teachers can download numerous curricular activities for use in their classrooms, and management tools classify and cross-reference activities by subject area, thinking skill, and subject matter standards. Our goal in this approach to learning is to promote high levels of engagement by providing a vehicle that enables a student’s engagement in thinking, feeling, and doing like a practicing professional, even if they are operating at a more junior level than adult scientists, artists, writers, engineers, or other adults who pursue knowledge in professional ways. Research on the role of student engagement is clear and unequivocal—high engagement results in higher achievement, improved self-concept and self-efficacy, and more favorable attitudes toward school and learning. A strong body of research points out the crucial difference between time-spent and time-engaged in school achievement. In the recently published international PISA (2006) study, the single criterion that distinguished between nations with the highest and lowest levels of student achievement was the degree to which students were engaged in their studies. This finding took into account demographic factors such as ethnicity and the socioeconomic differences among the groups studied. In a longitudinal study comparing time-spent vs. time-engaged on the achievement of atrisk students, Greenwood (1991) found that conventional instructional practices were responsible for the students’ increased risk of academic delay. A study by Ainley (1993) reported that there were important

J.S. Renzulli and S.M. Reis

differences in achievement outcomes favoring engaged over disengaged students of similar ability. The resources available in step two also provide students with places where they can pursue advanced level training in their strength areas and areas of personal interest. Online courses and summer programs that focus on specific academic strengths and creative talents are ways that any school or parent can direct highly able and motivated students to resources that may not be available in the regular school program. Step 3: The Wizard Project Maker. A special feature of the Renzulli Learning System is a project organization and management plan for students and teachers called “The Wizard Project Maker.” This guide allows teachers to help students use their web-based explorations for original research, investigative projects, and the development of a wide variety of creative undertakings. The sophisticated software used in this tool automatically locates potentially relevant web-based resources that can be used in connection with the student’s investigative activity. This management device is designed to fulfill the requirements of a Type III enrichment experience, which is the highest level of enrichment described in the Enrichment Triad Model. Specifically, the Wizard Project Maker provides students with the metacognitive skills support to:

r r r r r r

Define a project and set a goal Identify and evaluate both the resources to which they have access and the resources they need (e.g., time, Internet sites, teacher or mentor assistance) Prioritize and refine goals Balance the resources needed to meet multiple goals Learn from past actions, projecting future outcomes Monitor progress, making necessary adjustments as a project unfolds

Metacognition is generally defined as understanding and monitoring one’s own thinking. The Wizard Project Maker helps students make the best use of web resources, it helps to focus their interests as they pursue advanced level work, and it is a built-in safeguard against using the Renzulli Learning System to merely surf around the web. It also establishes a creative and viable responsibility for teachers in their role as “the guide on the side.” By helping students pursue advanced levels of challenge and engagement through the use of the Wizard Project Maker, students see teachers as mentors rather than taskmasters or disseminators of knowledge. The Wizard Project Maker also has a

62

Application of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model and High-End Learning Theory

metacognitive effect on students, i.e., they have a better understanding about what the investigative learning process is all about. As one teacher recently said, “The Wizard Project Maker helps my students understand ‘the why’ of using the Internet.” A Wizard Project Maker template is attached to this chapter and Wizard software is built into the System to help students acquire resources for the various sections of this planning device. Step 4: The Total Talent Portfolio. The final step in the Renzulli Learning System is an automatic compilation and storage of all student activity from steps one, two, and three into an ongoing student record called the Total Talent Portfolio. A management tool allows students to evaluate each site visited and resource used, students can complete a self-assessment of what they derived from the resource, and if they choose they can store favorite activities and resources in their portfolio. This feature allows easy-return-access to ongoing work. The portfolio can be reviewed at any time by teachers and parents through the use of an access code, which enables teachers to give feedback and guidance to individual students and provides parents with information about students’ work and opportunities for parental involvement. The portfolio can also be used for:

r r r r r r r r

Providing points of reference for future teachers Making decisions about possible class project extra credit options Selecting subsequent enrichment preferences Designing future projects and creative activities Exploring online courses and competitions Participating in extracurricular activities Deciding on electives in middle and high school Guiding college selection and career exploration alternatives

The Total Talent Portfolio “travels” with students throughout their educational career. It can serve as a reminder of previous activities and creative accomplishments that they might want to include in college applications and it is an ongoing record that can help students, teachers, guidance counselors, and parents make decisions about future educational and vocational plans.

1213

The Renzulli Learning System and High-End Learning A wide range of programs based on the Enrichment Triad Model were developed by classroom teachers and gifted education specialists in different school districts across the country that serve diverse populations of students at all grade levels. Many examples of creative student work were completed as part of the enrichment opportunities built around the Triad Model. Teachers using the model worked very hard to access resources to provide enrichment for students, but the many responsibilities of classroom teachers and the amount of time required to track down resources made this a daunting task. In the Renzulli Learning System, thousands of resources and enrichment materials are provided for teachers and students with the click of a mouse. This system is unique in that these resources are individually tailored to students’ abilities, interests, and learning styles and these resources can be accessed in school, during after-school programs, or even at home when students want to pursue enriched learning opportunities on their own. The Enrichment Triad Model was designed to encourage advanced level learning and creative productivity by (1) exposing students to various topics, areas of interest, and fields of study in which they have an interest or might develop an interest, (2) providing students with the skills and resources necessary to acquire advanced level content and thinking skills, and (3) creating opportunities for students to apply their skills to self-selected areas of interest and problems that they want to pursue. Type I enrichment is designed to expose students to a wide variety of disciplines, topics, occupations, hobbies, persons, places, and events that would not ordinarily be covered in the regular curriculum or that are extensions of regular curriculum topics. In schools using this approach, an enrichment team of parents, teachers, and students often organizes and plans Type I experiences by contacting speakers, arranging mini-courses, conducting overviews of enrichment clusters, demonstrations, or performances, using Internet resources, or by ordering and distributing films, slides, CDs, DVDs, videotapes, or other print or non-print media. It is often difficult to rally teams of teachers, parents, and students on an ongoing basis;

1214

however, the Renzulli Learning System provides Type I enrichment opportunities by making virtual field trips, online activities that challenge student thinking, exciting web sites, books, videos, and DVDs related to areas of special interest, and other exposure activities associated with independent projects readily available, without a lot of planning time. Obviously, the RLS does not replace parent, teacher, and student involvement in the development of Type I experiences that might be viewed as the motivational “hook” that causes individual students to become turned-on to particular topic or area of study, but it supports the ongoing implementation of exposure opportunities that some students may subsequently pursue in greater depth or even consider for a future career. Type II enrichment consists of materials and activities designed to develop a broad range of higher level thinking processes and advanced inquiry skills. Some Type II enrichment is general, and usually provided to groups of students in their classrooms or in enrichment programs. This general Type II training includes the development of (1) creative thinking, critical thinking, and problem solving; (2) affective processes and co-cognitive skills;2 (3) a wide variety of specific learning-how-to-learn skills; (4) skills in the appropriate use of advanced-level research and reference materials; and (5) written, oral, and visual communication skills. Teachers can use the Renzulli Learning System to access general Type II enrichment activities (e.g., a lesson in creative thinking) and make them available to students online or in print form for whole group or small group instruction, or an online activity can be recommended for individuals or small groups to pursue on their own. Other Type II enrichment is specific, as it cannot be planned in advance and usually involves advanced instruction in an interest area selected by the student. For example, students who become interested in botany after a Type I on this topic would pursue additional training in this area by reading advanced content in botany; compiling, planning, and carrying out plant experiments; and more advanced methods training for those who want to go further and pursue a Type III in that area. In a regular classroom, this kind of exploration might require substantial support, guidance, and possibly some advanced planning by the teacher. Following and supporting students in the multitude of individual projects that might exist in a single class could become

J.S. Renzulli and S.M. Reis

taxing for a teacher to do alone. Now take an example from the RLS: A small group of students become interested in mechanical engineering after a Virtual Field Trip that dealt with some of the world’s most imaginative bridges. They located resources on the Internet that provided instruction for designing, planning, and building a model of a bridge. They also found a number of model bridge competitions to which they subsequently submitted their designs. The RLS enabled the students to pursue this high-end learning opportunity with less aid from the teacher than might have been required otherwise. In the Renzulli Learning System, Type II training is embedded across many of the enrichment activities listed above. A quick tour of the various categories reveals the vast array of resources that can be used for all three types of enrichment in the Triad Model. When several students are using the RLS, a fun informative way to support student self-regulation and autonomy in learning is to take a “tour” through their enrichment activities with them. Our experience in using the Enrichment Triad Model over the years has shown that Types I and II enrichment and/or interests gained in the regular curriculum or outof-school activities will motivate many students to pursue self-selected topics in greater depth. We call these advanced types of involvement Type III Enrichment, which is defined as individual or small group investigations of real problems. When students choose to become involved in Type III Enrichment, they usually are interested enough in a topic to pursue a self-selected area of study in great depth. They also are willing to commit the time necessary for advanced content acquisition and process training in which they assume the role of a first-hand inquirer.

In the Renzulli Learning System, the Type III component can emerge from almost any of the enrichment options that students choose to pursue. They can, for example, get an idea for what they might like to learn more about by becoming involved in a virtual field trip or a real field trip. They might find an idea from a creativity training exercise or critical thinking activity. The most logical way for students to become involved in a Type III project is by pursuing an independent study or by becoming involved in a contest or a competition. We have also found that students may become interested in doing in-depth research by using any of the other components of the RLS such as special topic web sites, Fiction, Non-Fiction, How-To Books, Summer Programs, Online Activities, and Research Skills. There are also numerous options in Renzulli Learning

62

Application of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model and High-End Learning Theory

for students to pursue Type III studies in specialized areas (e.g., Math League, Invention Convention, National History Day Competition, to mention only a few of the hundreds of available options). Type III enrichment is different from the types of projects and reports that students typically do in connection with their regular schoolwork. The best way to describe this difference is to list the three things that make a problem “real” to a student. First, real problems are based on a sincere interest of the student rather than one assigned by the teacher. It is something the student wants to do rather than something he or she is assigned to do. You may discuss and provide guidance in helping a student find and focus a problem, and the problem might be within the general curriculum area you are covering, but the subject or theme on which a student chooses to work must represent a personalization of the topic for him or for her. The second distinguishing feature of working on a real problem is that the student will use the methods of investigation of the practicing professional. They are going to do what the real geologist, scenery designer, or community activist does, even if it is at a more junior level than an adult professional working in one of these fields. This focus will help to distinguish a bona fide Type III project from the ritualistic reports that students typically complete by merely gathering and summarizing information from reference books or Internet sites. The most powerful tools for giving students the know-how of authentic methodology, such as How-To Books For Conducting Research and Creative Projects, can be found in the Enrichment Database under the category How-To Books. Take a quick tour of this enrichment category to get a “feel” of the many exciting books that provide the skills for helping students become practicing professionals. And think about using some of the material in these books for whole-class and small group lessons on teaching research and investigative skills. We have found that teaching young people a practical data gathering technique such as questionnaire design, for example, will motivate them to identify a problem that allows them to use their new skill on a problem in which they have a personal interest. The third characteristic of a real problem is that it is always geared toward an audience other than or in addition to the teacher. In the adult world, practicing professionals carry out their work because they want to have an impact on one or more relevant audiences— others who voluntarily attend a performance, read a

1215

newsletter, or go to a science fair. Presenting to classmates occasionally may qualify as a real audience, but such presentations should be viewed more as practice sessions for more real-world settings such as a presentation to the local historical society, submission of one’s writing to a magazine that publishes poetry or short stories, or entering an invention contest. The enrichment category entitled Contests and Competitions will give you and your students many ideas about opportunities for audiences in all areas of student interest. And the Websites category includes many organizations and professional societies that produce journals and newsletters where high quality student products might be included. These organizations are also excellent sources for resources in specialized areas of study, and some of them even provide online mentoring services for students. The goal of Type III enrichment is to transform the role of the student from a person who merely acquires information to a role in which she or he is thinking, feeling, and doing like the practicing professional by actually engaging in authentic activities. Reeves, Herrington, and Oliver (2002) describe authentic activities in a similar manner. According to these researchers, authentic problems have characteristics that include realworld relevance; ill-defined problems, requiring students to define the tasks and sub-tasks needed to complete the activity; complex tasks to be investigated by students over a sustained period of time; the opportunity for students to examine the task from different perspectives, using a variety of resources; the opportunity to collaborate; the opportunity to reflect: integrated and applied across different subject areas and lead beyond domain-specific outcomes; seamlessly integrated with assessment; and polished products valuable in their own right rather than as preparation for something else; competing solutions and diversity of outcome (p. 565). To help students understand the difference between an authentic Type III and the more traditional kinds of reports that they typically do in school, The Wizard Project Maker (see Fig. 62.4) highlights the specific ways in which teachers can provide guidance in helping students find and focus a problem, examine potential outlets and audiences, and obtain the necessary resources to carry out their investigative activities, and as the teacher embraces their role as coach, or guide on the side, they realize that their role is active, but re-

June 15, 2006

Completion Date:

play.

3. Design and produce a program for the

about lighting!

2. Design and build a set for the play; learn

the community.

and if it goes well, the school and even

1. Direct and produce a play for my class

Building Things

Science

Foreign Languages

Graphic

Journalism

Reading/Literature

Mathematics

Helping in the Community

Photography/Video

Music

History

Geography

Design/Animation

Drama/Performing

Computers/Technology/Gaming

Creative Writing

Business/Management

art show, performance, science fair, etc.) (robots, models)

Athletics/Sports/Fitness

share your work (competition, on-line magazine,

Fig. 62.4 Sample Wizard Project Maker

successfully direct a play for kids?

2. What types of tasks will I have to do to

perform?

1. What is a good play for elementary students to

following kinds of information.

classmates. I will have to find some of the

produce a play starring some of my friends and

I love theater and want to try to direct and

project with other people? In what ways will you

hope to find out or learn? & pointing)

Architecture

you share and communicate the results of your

you want to learn about and study. What do you

Arts (drawing

-------------- Check All That Apply----------------

Interest Areas for this Project

final project take? How, when, and where will

the project, problem, topic, or interest area that

4/2/06 5/13/06

3. What type of play will I select? Will I have to pay for it? What other tasks are involved in directing and producing a play?

Intended Project(s): What form or format will the

2/21/06 3/11/06

Dates for Progress Meetings with My Teacher:

January 15, 2006

Start Date:

Project Description: Write a brief description of

School: Southeast School

Teacher: Ms. Latino

Name(s): Liza

Service/Leadership

Other:

Using my hands to make/build something

Oral/Discussion (speech, teach, presentation)

Technology/Computer

Written

Musical

Audio/video/DVD

Drama/Perfor mance

Display

Artistic

-

----------------Check All That Apply--------------

What Format Will Your Project Take?

1216 J.S. Renzulli and S.M. Reis

Other:

Other:

This site helps you to organize your search for plays and other dramatic material. You can choose to organize your knowledge by character, setting, conflict, or resolution. This will help you keep

need? What questions do you have that you need answered in order to start your work? What help do

you need from your teacher or parents? List that information here.

Fig. 62.4 (continued)

3. Locate information on how to create sets and produce a play.

Arlington, VA 22206

P.O. Box 6313

The American Century Theater

The American Century Theater

2. Conduct research about childrenís plays and drama and find specific information about which

plays might be good for my class and for me

http://www.readwritethink.org/materials/dramamap/

1. Learn how to direct a play and how to produce one.

information neat and organized.

Drama Map

materials you will need, etc.

you with your work. Include websites, contact names, addresses and phone numbers, lists of the

along with other resources (people, organizations, businesses, etc.) you have located that will help

Project Skills, Resources and Materials I Will Need: List the Renzulli Learning™ resources here

information do you need to find in order to do your work? Where will you get the information you

Getting Started: What are the first steps you should take to begin your work? What types of

Using my hands to make/build something

Social Action

62 Application of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model and High-End Learning Theory 1217

Fig. 62.4 (continued)

ISBN: 0-7460-0699-3

some of it online. After all, he was the greatest playwright who ever lived.

Grade Level: 4-12

64 pages

Copyright 1992

Author: Cheryl Evans and Lucy Smith

Acting and Theatre

How-to books:

http://library.thinkquest.org/5291/games.html

games in a group. Learn the art of being a mime or act out roles that you draw from a pile.

If you are interested in drama this is the activity for you. Practice your acting skills by playing these

Try Out These Theater Games

http://www.tramline.com/tours/lit/shake/_tourlaunch1.htm

I can also take an online journey through Shakespeare's life to learn about his writing and access

http://playsandmusicalsnewsletter.pioneerdrama.com/public/blog/100616

as some of these will require a small fee that I can make from ticket sales.

We can also look at other plays that will be available at this site. I will have to check with my teacher

http://www.childrenstheatreplays.com/sw.htm

searching for plays in the school library.

stage this show. Maybe I can charge a minimum amount for tickets? I can also do some more

classmates. I will need to also find out how I might earn the money to be able to buy the rights to

At the site below, I will be able to consider directing and producing Snow White with my friends and

http://americancentury.org/index.htm

discover if enough other theater-lovers felt the same way.

indispensable assistance and support of Arlington County, we were provided with the opportunity to

Century American plays and playwrights were getting short shrift in this area. Thanks to the

years ago, a group of us started The American Century Theater because we felt that great Twentieth

Dedicated to Great, Important & Neglected American Plays and Playwrights of the 20th Century! Ten

703-553-8782

1218 J.S. Renzulli and S.M. Reis

2343 Auburn Avenue

and radio.

Bring out the writer and director inside of you by entering this contest. Write a short (thirty

Activity Type: Writing a play

Application of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model and High-End Learning Theory

Fig. 62.4 (continued)

Thespian Playworks

how to make a career of it all, with tips on agents and auditions and getting jobs in theater, film, TV,

Cincinnati, OH 45219

Create a Play for Thespian Playworks

http://www.edta.org/rehearsal_hall/thespian_playworks.asp

4. If I decide to write my own play, I can submit it to the following using Renzulli Learning:

3. Town Play (open to public)

2. School Play

see movie recommendations. Plus, for the ambitious, talented, and just plain curious, there's advice on

legends and lore (Why is Macbeth cursed? Why do we say "break a leg"?) and offers dozens of must-

production. And for the fun of costumes and make-up, a 16-page color insert. In addition, it covers

overcoming stagefright. A backstage look at blocking, lighting, and other technical aspects of theater

The performance: analyzing scripts, building a character, what to expect from rehearsals, and

projection, crying on command, learning accents, and staging falls and fights without getting hurt.

improv, miming, and other fun ways to develop technique. Important acting skills, such as voice

sections on body preparation, including warm-ups, stretches, and breathing exercises. Theater games,

they need to know about stagecraft and the production of performances, in home or out. There are

A complete drama course for kids in a book. BREAK A LEG! teaches budding thespians everything

Dowdle (Workman Publishing Company, 2002) ISBN: 0761122087

Break a Leg!: The Kid's Guide to Acting and Stagecraft by Lise Friedman and Mary

1. Class project

and email, along with meeting times and locations.

the ways actors train and rehearse, as well as the practical arts of set, prop, and costume design and

the technical basics of lighting and sound.

sites that include work done in your area of study. Include contact names, phone numbers, addresses

Introduce students to every aspect of the theatrical world! This book illustrates and explains some of

them here. Also consider contests, places where your work might be displayed or published, and web

groups (clubs, organizations, societies, teams) at the local, state, regional and national levels, and list

Intended Audience(s): Who would be most interested in your work or project? Consider organized

62 1219

Fig. 62.4 (continued)

List of state standards addressed with this project:

For Completion By Teacher (Optional)

eligible you must be enrolled in a high school and a member of the Thespian Society.

Festival, you will join them during the workshops that bring your play to life. In order to be

minutes or less) play and send it in for review. If the judges select your work for the Thespian

1220 J.S. Renzulli and S.M. Reis

62

Application of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model and High-End Learning Theory

quires minimal time because it does not require large amounts of face-to-face instruction. One of the questions that teachers frequently ask is “Where will students find the time to do Type III projects?” All students can use the Renzulli Learning System, but we have found that above average ability students—those who can master the regular curriculum at a faster pace than others—can “buy” some time for enrichment activities through a sub-component of the RLS called curriculum compacting. Essentially, compacting is a process through which the teacher uses formal and informal assessment at the beginning of a unit of study to determine which students have already mastered basic skills, and therefore do not need the same amount of practice material as others. Indeed, it is sometimes this excessive practice of skills already mastered that causes many of our more able students to become bored with school! And in subjects such as science and social studies, students may not know the material to be covered, but are eager to select an option that allows them to cover it at an accelerated pace. Many students are especially eager to select this option if they know that it will “buy” them the time to work on Type III enrichment as well as other options in the RLS, using a strategy such as curriculum compacting (Renzulli & Smith, 1982; Reis, Burns, & Renzulli, 1992).

The Value-Added Benefits of Learning with Technology The conditions of learning have changed dramatically for young people going to school today. Don Leu and his team of New Literacies researchers at The University of Connecticut (2002, 2004) have pointed out that the Internet is this generation’s defining technology for literacy and learning and that profound changes have already taken place in higher education, adult learning, and the workplace, all situations for which we are preparing the young students who are in our classrooms today. There was a time when teachers and textbooks were the gatekeepers of knowledge, but today virtually all of the world’s knowledge is accessible to any student who can turn on a computer and log into the Internet. One of the dangers of a content-abundant resource such as the Internet, however, is that we might be tempted to simply use it to cram more informa-

1221

tion into students’ heads! But by applying a learnercentered pedagogy rather than a traditional drill-andpractice approach, we can harness the power of the Internet in a way that respects principles of high-level learning developed by the Task force on Psychology of the American Psychological Association (APA, 1997). A crucial question, therefore, is will we use this information wisely? Or will we simply turn the powerful resources available through the Internet into electronic work sheets, test-prep tutorials, and online courses that adhere to the same prescriptive model for learning that almost all reform initiatives have followed thus far— a model that has indeed left so many young people bored, disengaged, and behind? Or will the new technologies be the workhorse that can finally allow teachers to truly differentiate learning experiences for all students? These technologies now make it possible to apply to all students the pedagogy typically used with high achieving students. In an article entitled “A Rising Tide Lifts All Ships” (Renzulli, 1988), a discussion occurs about how “gifted education approach” can improve engagement and achievement for all students. With almost unlimited access to the world’s knowledge, a critical issue for educators is selecting the software and providing the training that will help young people use this access safely, efficiently, effectively, and wisely. Leu and his colleagues define the five major skill sets of the New Literacies as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Identifying important questions Locating relevant information Critically evaluating information Synthesizing information Communicating effectively

In addition to improved academic achievement and opportunities for creative productivity, which are the major goals of the Renzulli Learning System, there are a series of metacognitive tools that result from computer-based learning environments. Metacognition is generally defined as the monitoring and control of one’s own thinking processes. Metacognitive tools are skills that help students organize and self-regulate their learning so that they can make the most efficient use of time, resources, and the cognitive skills that contribute to higher levels of thinking. Metacognition involves problem-solving skills such as exploring alternative options and strategies in open-ended problem situations and applying critical thinking skills such as examining the sources of evidence, the logic of argu-

1222

ments, and how to find and use reliable information. Training and experiences in metacognitive skills may be the single biggest difference between the education provided in high and low achieving schools! Several researchers studying constructivist models of learning and metacognition have developed or modified traditional theories of learning to explain the role of computer environments in mediating the interactions between and among the cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and social processes that are involved in learning complex material (Bandura, 1986; Corno & Mandinach, 1983; Pintrich, 2000; Schunk, 2001). Promising results have emerged from these new developments in theory and research on the ways in which computer learning environments facilitate metacognitive skill development. The Internet can also be a good educational tool for hard-to-reach populations. Researchers from Michigan State University examined the positive effects of home Internet access on the academic performance of low-income, mostly African American children and teenagers involved in a home Internet project. In this research, 140 children aged 10–18 years old (83% African American and 58% male) living in single-parent households (75%) with a $15,000 or less median income were followed for a 2-year period to see whether home Internet use would influence academic achievement. The children who participated in the project were online for an average of 30 minutes a day. Findings indicate that children who used the Internet more had higher standardized test scores in reading and higher grade point averages (GPAs) at 1 year and at 16 months after the project began compared to children who used the Internet less, said lead author Linda Jackson. The Internet use had no effect on standardized test scores in math. “Improvements in reading achievement may be attributable to the fact that spending more time online typically means spending more time reading,” said Dr. Jackson. “GPAs may improve because GPAs are heavily dependent on reading skills,” she added. An even more promising trend is emerging as computer use evolves from traditional e-learning (i.e., taking an online course or developing basic skills through computer-assisted instruction) to inquirybased software that focuses on the application of knowledge to creative productivity and investigative research projects that promote high levels of student

J.S. Renzulli and S.M. Reis

engagement. Students learn the basic difference between to-be-presented information that characterizes traditional instruction and just-in-time information, which is the hallmark of problem-based learning. Skills such as problem finding and focusing; stating research questions; task understanding and planning; identifying appropriate investigative methodologies; searching, skimming, selecting, and interpreting appropriate resource material; identifying appropriate outlets, products, and audiences; and preparing effective communication vehicles are all value-added benefits when the learning theory that underlies the Enrichment Triad Model is combined with the vastness of resources available through the Internet.

Summary: The Renzulli Learning System The Renzulli Learning System is designed to be an aid to busy teachers who seek the tools for effective differentiation as they go about the process of dealing with a broad range of individual differences, diverse student needs, and increased pressures to improve student achievement. Through the use of technology and an approach to learning that is the opposite of highly prescriptive instruction, the RLS provides teachers with the “dozen teaching assistants” that every teacher would like to have in his or her classroom. The main goal of the RLS is to simultaneously increase achievement and enjoyment of learning by making available an inexpensive, easy-to-use, research-based system that promotes student engagement. Although student engagement has been defined in many ways, we view it as the infectious enthusiasm that students display when working on something that is of personal interest and that challenges them to “stretch” for the use of materials and resources that are above their current comfort level of learning. Research on the role of student engagement is clear and unequivocal—high engagement results in higher achievement, improved self-concept and self-efficacy, and more favorable attitudes toward school and learning. Numerous students involved in our field tests of the RLS summed it up with one word—“Awesome!” Interested readers can examine the RLS by going to www.renzullilearning.com and clicking on Test Drive Renzulli Learning.

62

Application of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model and High-End Learning Theory

References Ainley, M. D. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning: Multidimensional assessment of their relationship with strategy use and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 395–405. APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs. (1997). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school reform and redesign. Washington, DC.: American Psychological Association. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Corno, L. & Mandinach, E. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88–109. Greenwood, C. R. (1991). Longitudinal analysis of time, engagement, and achievement in at-risk versus non-risk students. Exceptional Children, 57(6), 521–536. Leu, D. J. (2002). The new literacies: Research on reading instruction with the Internet. In A. E. 1025 Farstrup & J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 310–336). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Leu, D. J., Jr., Leu, D. D. & Coiro, J. (2004). Teaching with the Internet: New literacies for new times? (4th ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation is selfregulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452–502). New York: Academic. Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). (2006). PISA Study. http://www.iea-dpc.de/Home e/ Studies/PISA e/body pisa e.html Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and on-line learning. In A. Goody, J. Harrington, & M. Northcote (Eds.), Quality conversations: Research and development in higher education (Vol. 25, pp. 562–567). Jamison, ACT: HERDSA. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184.

1223

Renzulli, J. S. (1988). The multiple menu model for developing differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. GiftedChild Quarterly. 32, 298–309. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 217–245. Renzulli, J. S., Koehler, J., & Fogarty, E. (2006). Operation Houndstooth intervention theory: Social capital in today’s school. Gifted Child Today, 29(1), 14–24. Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented: Part II. Gifted Child Quarterly, 21, 237–243. Renzulli, J. S., & Smith, L. H. (1984). Learning style preferences: A practical approach for classrom teachers. Theory Into Practice, 18, 44–50. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1984). A research approach on the revolving door identification model: A case for the broadened conception of giftedness. Phi Delta Kappan, 63(4), 619–620. Reis, S. M., Burns, D. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992). Curriculum compacting: The complete guide to modifying the regular curriculum for high ability students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Research related to the Schoolwide Enrichment Triad Model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 7–20. Schunk, D. (2001). Social cognitive theory of self-regulated learning. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Selfregulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 125–152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Sternberg, R.J. & Davidson, J. (Eds.) (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R.J. & Davidson, J. (Eds.) (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 63

The Iowa Online Advanced Placement Academy: Creating Access to Excellence for Gifted and Talented Rural Students Clar M. Baldus, Susan G. Assouline, Laurie J. Croft and Nicholas Colangelo

Abstract The Belin-Blank Center’s Iowa Online Advanced Placement Academy (IOAPA) was initiated in 2001 to provide access to a standard of excellence—AP courses and exams. The heart of the IOAPA program is the commitment to preparing students to succeed in AP. This is done by a combination of three educational programs. First is the IOAPA structure, which provides excellent online AP courses as well as support in the local schools. Second is the preparation that Iowa students receive through the Iowa Excellence Program, which is a Belin-Blank Center program that prepares students (especially in rural schools) for AP while they are still in middle/junior high school. Finally, the third component is the Belin-Blank Dynamic Model of Professional Development, which prepares teachers to prepare students to seek out and succeed in highly challenging courses, such as AP. This chapter highlights the success of these programs.

room. In reality, this comment came from a rural highschool student enrolled in an Advanced Placement (AP) online course through the Iowa Online Advanced Placement Academy program (IOAPA). This IOAPA student was working from home because a snowstorm cancelled school. While she was sending homework to her online teacher, the student’s dog chewed through the DSL connection. To our knowledge, this is the first verified case of online homework consumption by a canine! Iowa is essentially a rural state, with 68% of its schools identified as geographically rural where approximately 50% of Iowa’s rural high schools have student populations of less than 400 (McLaughlin, Huberman, & Hawkins, 1997). Smaller numbers of students translate to fewer course offerings, especially courses that are of a specialized nature, such as Advanced Placement courses, because most small schools do not have sufficient numbers of students Keywords Technology · Gifted education · Talent de- to comprise an AP class, nor do they have teachers velopment · Advanced placement · Professional devel- prepared to teach them. Therefore, for Iowa students, as well as any student who lives in a rural setting, opment · Rural schools lack of access to appropriately challenging academic opportunities is a main barrier to talent development. The consequences of limited accessibility to challenging classes, such as Advanced Placement, may be lowered aspirations of students in rural settings The Virtual Reality of Being a Rural and disengagement from talent. The Connie Belin and Small School & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development (Belin“My dog ate my homework!” is perhaps a statement Blank Center) developed the Iowa Online Advanced one might hear from a student in a traditional class- Placement Academy (IOAPA) to address issues of access to a standard of excellence—AP courses and exams. C.M. Baldus (B) The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Whether or not a student takes an AP course and exam is an issue of motivation. Whether or not a student has the

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 63, 

1225

1226 opportunity to take an AP course and exam is an issue of access. Nicholas Colangelo, 2003 Director, Belin-Blank Center

Excellence and Access Excellence (academic) as a standard can be met only by commitment, effort, and the effective use of complex cognitive skills. A standard of excellence means that its attainment is respected; it indicates accomplishment of the task at hand; and it is a predictor of success at the next level of that task (e.g., from high school to college level). Advanced Placement courses were chosen as the standard of excellence for advanced academic opportunities provided through IOAPA. These academically challenging and rigorous college-level courses lead to national exams developed by the College Board, which have been available since 1955. A high score on the AP exam is a proven indicator of the mastery of depth and complexity in the subject area; a measure respected by virtually all colleges and universities. AP exams have both a long history and a national respect as markers of academic excellence. Also, there is considerable research to support that success on AP exams is a strong, if not the strongest, predictor of academic success at the college level (Adelman, 1999). Students who take AP courses and exams are much more likely than their peers to complete a bachelor’s degree in 4 years or less (Camara, 2003). Advanced Placement is noted as the largest-scale acceleration option available to academically advanced high-school students (Benbow & Stanley, 1983; Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004; National Research Council, 2002). Access means reasonable availability. From the statistics comprised by the College Board, students in rural/small schools are among those who do not have reasonable access to AP. The focus of IOAPA is making the standard of excellence, the AP coursework and exams, accessible to Iowa high-school students, especially those in rural/small schools (see www.iowaapacademy.org for program updates). At the most basic level, access means that AP courses and exams are offered in a school. However, availability in a school is a superficial definition of access. An AP exam may be “given” at a school, but the true availability can differ among students within that school. If a student cannot financially afford to take an AP exam, this is not reasonable access. If

C.M. Baldus et al.

students are not educated about AP, not encouraged to take AP, and not prepared to take an AP exam, then the mere presence of AP exams within a building is not reasonable access for all students. The goal of IOAPA is to bring the AP coursework to students, who otherwise would have no access, as well as to develop a culture within each school that informs students about AP and encourages them to consider AP as part of their high-school experience. This goal can be met best by enthusiastic educators who are prepared to make AP courses and exams accessible to students by ensuring that courses and exams are an integral part of the school curricular program. This final point is tremendously significant for students of high ability and motivation because it highlights the fact that the presence or absence of AP and lack of an academic culture supportive of AP within a school can have long-term consequences for the students. Therefore, it is imperative to establish educational opportunities that provide equitable access regardless of “location.” In a predominately rural state, a student’s “location” becomes a significant factor in the academic preparation for post-high-school success. By providing online AP curriculum, the IOAPA program helps level the academic playing field for Iowa’s rural students.

Opportunities for Overcoming Geographic Barriers In 2001, through an Iowa Department of Education (IDOE) technology grant, the Belin-Blank Center established the Iowa Online AP Academy (IOAPA) program to provide access to AP courses for Iowa students in accredited schools who had no access to such a highlevel curriculum. The Belin-Blank Center’s IOAPA offers a model for developing an academic culture of providing appropriate challenges for high-ability highschool students. Although it is technology based, IOAPA is not a virtual school, but was designed to be an integral part of what schools can offer to enrich programs for students. It is meant to supplement and enhance, not supplant, what schools offer students. IOAPA is a model that seeks to expand options by providing a combination of coursework for students, training for teachers, and development of schools and districts. “With the support of IOAPA, our rigor of offerings has grown and a

63

Iowa Online Advanced Placement Academy

culture of AP is becoming more of a student attitude” (rural school administrator). Beyond the change in academic culture, specific goals of the program include increase the number of Iowa students taking AP courses, increase the number of AP exams taken by Iowa students, provide AP training for teachers, and increase the availability of AP offerings to all Iowa students.

Technology as Access to Excellence The Belin-Blank Center is committed to using technology as “access” to educational opportunity. The center has been successful in its outreach to local communities through innovative forms of technology such as the Iowa Communications Network (ICN) and Webbased learning. The IOAPA program uses both forms of technology to create a network of support, provide AP program information, AP curriculum, and exam review opportunities for students and teachers.

Iowa Communications Network (ICN) The Iowa Communications Network (ICN) provides more than 3,000 miles of fiber-optic cable reaching into all 99 counties in the state, putting every citizen within 15 miles of a video site. The center has a record of effectively using the (ICN) for professional development and communication with school staff, students, and parents. The capacity of the network enables the IOAPA program to communicate with schools via “real-time” (synchronous), high-quality, full-motion video; high-speed Internet connections; and telephones. Four IOAPA ICN courses (AP US history, AP English literature and composition, AP music theory, and AP art history) were piloted for 3 years of the program. The use of ICN classes is limited because the asynchronous nature of the online coursework (students can work on the course materials anytime) is more adaptable to school schedules, and online courses are more cost effective.

Online Learning Although the use of computers for instruction has been available since the 1960s (Allessi & Trollip, 1991;

1227

Gibbons & Fairweather, 1998), it was not until the emergence of the World Wide Web in the early 1990s that online curriculum opportunities began to flourish. Up until a few years ago online courses were generally developed for use by adults in the post-secondary or professional fields. Before 2001 (when IOAPA was initiated), there was very little use of online curriculum for Iowa high-school students. Online learning resources are quickly evolving and many technology-based applications (such as those used by IOAPA) provide appropriate educational options for gifted students (Pyryt, this volume; Renzulli & Reis, this volume). “For our highly able learners IOAPA courses enable us to say ‘yes’ more often than ‘no you cannot!’ The AP online classes have upped the rigor and study habits of those who need it before they head to college” (IOAPA site coordinator). IOAPA’s online AP courses and other online AP products are built by educators, instructional designers, and technologists. IOAPA’s main provider for online products has been Apex Learning, Inc. The Apex online products are an engaging, educationally rigorous, and technologically stable process for providing AP coursework. The online AP courses available through IOAPA are taught by Iowa licensed teachers provided by Apex. Students are very positive about their IOAPA online experiences. An IOAPA US History student explains, “I like the assignments because they require digging into the information and applying it to make connections with history and today. I get a lot out of the discussions because they require us to apply and think critically about what we have been learning.” No matter what the content area is, this same enthusiastic attitude is typical among the 6,300 plus Iowa students who have taken IOAPA classes since 2001. Encouragement and support for taking AP exams, through exam reviews and professional development, are critical components of IOAPA. IOAPA was developed to assist students in online AP courses as well as in the school’s on-site AP courses. Online exam review materials are provided to every AP student (taking online or on-site courses) in schools participating in IOAPA. Professional development in AP through the Belin-Blank Center’s Dynamic Model of Professional Development is another element of course and exam support that will be discussed in detail later.

1228

Program Support: Collaboration with Schools Successful technology programs do not rely just on technology. To assure that students receive the greatest benefits from IOAPA program opportunities, each school provides certified Iowa teachers (a site coordinator and mentors) to offer guidance and support for students. Partnership between school staff and IOAPA program staff creates an effective support system and, according to one IOAPA student, “. . .helps keep us from falling into a virtual abyss.” The role of the site coordinator is to coordinate IOAPA opportunities with the local school program. The site coordinator provides students with information about IOAPA courses, guides students in their choice of appropriate courses, requests enrollment for students who would benefit from IOAPA courses, schedules a time for the class, and records grades on the school transcript. Site coordinators act as the liaison between the school and the IOAPA program staff, as well as select mentors for students taking IOAPA courses. Schools designate one or more mentors in the building to work with students in the IOAPA classes. The significant, positive effects of mentor support for high-ability students have been well documented (Ambrose, Allen, & Huntley, 1994; Berger, 1990; Casey & Shore, 2000). The online coursework is well designed with built-in tutorials, learning checks, and master teachers, who provide expertise in the discipline. Some schools provide content-specific mentors for additional support and for courses that require lab work (i.e., chemistry and physics). Although virtual labs are incorporated into the online materials, schools may designate a science teacher to supervise the hands-on labs on-site for their IOAPA students. However, the major role of the IOAPA school mentor is not to be a content expert, but rather, to act as a guide to provide essential emotional support and to help students develop academic skills necessary for success (Clasen & Hanson, 1987). Mentors proctor tests, act as intermediaries with the online teacher, and help students stay on schedule with coursework. All site coordinators and mentors receive online professional development, technical support, and program support. Although the coursework is delivered asynchronously and can be taken at any time, schools are

C.M. Baldus et al.

required to schedule IOAPA courses during the day, just as they do with on-site classes. This sends an important message to students that an IOAPA class is considered part of the school’s academic programming, not an “extra” that is the sole responsibility of the student outside of school. Although there is no collective empirical data, it has been suggested by some (Carr, 2000) that the overall attrition rate for online coursework has been estimated at 50–60%. Because of the IOAPA infrastructure and school support, the attrition rate for IOAPA online AP classes is typically between 5 and 10% with course passing rates at approximately 90% each year. This is a very significant point. The effectiveness of technology is dependent on a sound structure of teacher, school, and program support.

A Comprehensive Approach to Advanced Academic Challenge Offering AP curriculum opportunities does enhance academic challenge in rural schools, and IOAPA has clearly demonstrated its effectiveness as a change agent. However, AP is not the only advanced curriculum that needs to be provided to students in rural schools. The Belin-Blank Center has developed a comprehensive three-pronged approach to bring academic challenge to rural high schools. All three prongs are interrelated and essential to systemic change. While IOAPA is the centerpiece with its focus on technology and AP, the other two prongs are the Iowa Excellence Program (pre-AP curriculum) and the Dynamic Model of Professional Development (DMPD). The following sections are a discussion of the Iowa Excellence Program and the DMPD.

The Iowa Excellence Program: Academic Enrichment as a Foundation for Academic Acceleration The creation of a culture of commitment and excitement about taking advanced-level courses (such as AP courses) starts with students in the middle school and the early high-school years. There is greater chance of enrollment and success in Advanced Placement high-

63

Iowa Online Advanced Placement Academy

school courses when there is curricular articulation through a process such as the College Board Vertical Team planning and systematic exposure to advanced curriculum, such as the Belin-Blank Center’s Iowa Excellence Program. The Iowa Excellence Program provides middle-school students with curriculum to sustain engagement in a chosen academic talent area. Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, and Whalen (1993) investigated the myriad variables leading to teenagers’ success in high school. Offering challenging opportunities was identified as the overriding variable that would orient a student toward engagement in a talent area. When gifted students are not presented with challenging material, the result may be disengagement from the talent area and underachievement. Therefore, it is essential that high schools offer a challenging curriculum for their academically able students. Ensuring high-school students’ commitment to learning begins with encouragement and exposure to challenge well before they enter high school. Recognition of that fact led to the College Board’s development of Pre-AP Initiatives such as Vertical Teaming. Vertical Teaming is carried out at the district level by bringing together teachers from different grade levels to develop and implement an articulated program focused on providing students with the academic skills needed to succeed in AP courses. According to the College Board, the basic tenet of Pre-AP and Vertical Team strategies is to develop programming that engages students in “active, high-level learning, thereby ensuring that all . . . students develop skills, habits of mind, and concepts they need to succeed. . ..” (College Board, 2006). The PreAP and Vertical team processes are not prescriptive; each school organizes curriculum and utilizes strategies that provide the most benefits for their students. The Iowa Excellence Program was implemented in a number of IOAPA school districts precisely to encourage a commitment to challenge and to promote an enthusiasm for advanced coursework that would transcend a culture of middle-school mediocrity. A detailed description of Iowa Excellence appears in Systems and Models for Programming for Talented and Gifted (see Assouline, Blando, Croft, Baldus, & Colangelo, in press). Briefly, Iowa Excellence is an extracurricular program that is built on two pillars: Julian Stanley’s Talent Search Model (Stanley, Keating, & Fox, 1974) and an interactive professional development program aligned with the Belin-Blank Center’s Dynamic Model of Professional Development.

1229

Talent Search Many educators are familiar with the above-level testing associated with the Talent Search Model (for a comprehensive description of this highly effective approach to discovering talented students, see Lupkowski-Shoplik, Benbow, Assouline, & Brody, 2003). The above-level testing refers to a particular grade level of students taking a test designed for students in a grade that is at least 2 years beyond their current grade placement. Thus, a third-grade student taking a sixth-grade test participates in the above-level testing. The goal for participation in a Talent Search is “discovery” of talent, so that educators can determine a student’s need for academic challenge. As part of the Iowa Excellence Program, students are given a test that is at least 2 years above their grade placement. The test is offered to students who have scored well on grade-level standardized tests and serves as a means to differentiate among able students. The rationale for above-level testing is grounded in the fact that grade-level tests have a ceiling, and the true extent of a student’s abilities is not revealed if they answer correctly most, or all, of the questions on a grade-level test. An above-level test offers more difficult items, and for students who do well on the above-level test there is reason to believe that their performance is an indication of aptitude in those content areas. In addition, the above-level test is a component of the evaluation process of the Iowa Excellence Program. The large-scale “discovery” aspect of the Talent Search Model is only the first step in the implementation of the Iowa Excellence Program. The next stage is “development” of the student’s talent through the use of an enrichment curriculum. For this component of Iowa Excellence, units from the Mitchell Excellence Curriculum, which was developed by the Israel Arts and Science Academy (IASA), are used (see http://www.see.org.il/eng/Index.asp?CategoryID=143 &ArticleID=54). IASA, which opened in 1988, is a residential public high school located in Jerusalem, Israel, for gifted and talented students. As a learning institution, it is organized like the many state residential high schools in the United States, and specifically based its initial programming on the North Carolina School of Math and Science. Within the first couple of years, the prescient administrators of IASA realized that the majority of students who were applying to the school came from urban areas, not from the more

1230

remote or rural areas of Israel. Although students from remote and rural areas could apply to IASA, and many qualified for entry into the school, invariably, too few had the requisite preparation for success at IASA. That is why the IASA educators developed a comprehensive middle-school curriculum for math and science (the Mitchell Excellence Curriculum). It is a common fact that throughout the world, rural communities typically have fewer resources than more urban communities; therefore, the goal for implementation of the Mitchell Excellence Curriculum was to provide opportunities that would level the playing field for rural students (for an evaluation of the Mitchell Excellence Curriculum, see http:// www.see.org.il/eng/ Uploads/22SzoldShortSummary Eng.doc). Although developed for use in Israel, many units have been translated into English, and the Belin-Blank Center realized that implementing such a curriculum through a purposeful program could yield similar success in the United States. The Iowa Excellence Program seemed a natural preliminary step on the IOAPA path to success.

Interactive Professional Development: A Critical Aspect to the Successful Implementation of Iowa Excellence Development of talent is most likely to occur when challenging curriculum is taught by knowledgeable and interesting teachers. For that reason a professional development component is an important piece of Iowa Excellence and is required before the Iowa Excellence Program is implemented in a school. The DMPD will be discussed in detail; however, a unique aspect of the DMPD, as used with Iowa Excellence, is the immersion of teachers (taking the role of a student) when presented with the advanced science and math content presented by the university-based content experts. Iowa Excellence professional development has three parts: (a) a methods lesson by university-based content experts in math and science; (b) a section on gifted and talented learners and the interactive nature of talent and talent development; and (c) on-going program support through university-based electronic newsletters, e-mail mentoring for professionals who teach and/or coordinate the program, and access to additional enrichment materials that augment the curriculum.

C.M. Baldus et al.

Belin-Blank Center Dynamic Model for Professional Development Early Commitment to Professional Development The Belin-Blank Center has emphasized the professional development of educators since 1980. When first asked how to effectively support the academic needs of high-ability students, Nicholas Colangelo proposed an intensive educational program for teachers, convinced that every teacher who could provide appropriate challenge could have a positive impact on literally thousands of students during a career. The first professional development programs focused on the nature and needs of gifted students in the general education classroom. However, by 1991, the center joined the College Board as it began to support professional development in core content areas.

Systematic Professional Development Systematic programs to prepare educators to meet the needs of their most able students make sense. In 1996, only one in five teachers felt “very well prepared” to meet the needs of high-ability learners (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future); 10 years later, one in three teachers felt “very” or “extremely” prepared to “work with children of varying abilities,” but 26% still felt “not too prepared” or “not at all prepared” to meet varying needs (Markow, Moessner, & Horowitz, 2006, p. 107). Those educators who are not well prepared to provide substantially different curriculum from that appropriate for the general education classroom are likely to demonstrate less effective strategies for high-ability learners. Their curriculum may not reflect the conceptual complexity necessary to challenge students to develop greater expertise in fields of study, and they may not facilitate student development of the skills essential for success in higher education. Teachers who lack appropriate educational preparation for meeting the unique challenges of above-average students may establish inappropriate educational environments that discourage students from mastering sophisticated

63

Iowa Online Advanced Placement Academy

1231

content. Effective teachers understand how to serve as by colleagues and the College Board consultants; far catalysts for the development of a learner’s abilities. greater understanding of the national exam process sponsored by the College Board; and initial syllabi that they have begun developing for their own AP courses.

The Dynamic Model of Professional Development The Belin-Blank Center developed the Dynamic Model of Professional Development (DMPD) as a flexible way to engage educators in an intensive learning experience, applying the model to support professional development in the AP program. As participants in the Advanced Placement Teacher Training Institute (APTTI), teachers meet as a community of scholars during the summer, experiencing the fast-paced challenging environment that appeals to high-ability learners typically enrolled in AP classes. Each cadre of educators is homogeneous in two important ways: all participants are professionals in a common domain such as biology, calculus, English literature, or United States history, and all are committed to personal and professional growth in their fields. The summer program reconnects teachers with a passion for learning, by providing readings and presentations, as well as opportunities for extensive discussions, small-group activities, and individual research and presentations. The APTTI facilitates teacher exploration of appropriately accelerated programs; they are able to enlarge their understandings of the ways AP prepares students for success in college as they develop and refine their own plans to offer a college-level class in the high-school setting. The program familiarizes educators with useful resources in their fields, and it both introduces and models best practices in education. Since 1991, participants in the APTTI have expressed appreciation and enthusiasm for knowledgeable College Board consultants; these subject-area facilitators are experienced in teaching AP courses, in participating in the AP “reading” or grading process for AP exams, and sometimes in developing the national subject-area AP exams. Participants also express positive attitudes about the divergent approaches and opinions provided by spending concentrated time with colleagues in their fields. Teachers leave the APTTI with essential AP materials, including College Board materials; samples of college-level textbooks; lesson plans and strategies for best practices shared

Professional Development as Talent Development for Teachers This type of intensive professional development, conducted over the summer, reflects what Sosniak (1999) has labeled “the second phase” of the talent development in a specific field: formal, disciplined, and sophisticated learning; the dedication of time with a community of like-minded learners; and the mastery of deep understandings, in this case, in a content area available through the AP program. As well, contemporary definitions of and standards in professional development have been linked directly to student outcomes, something that has been clearly demonstrated with AP coursework (Adelman, 1999, 2006). The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) suggests that professional development goals (Hassel, 1999) revolve, in part, around:

r r r

improving student learning; improving teacher effectiveness [to improve student outcomes]; and setting high standards for teachers [to learn innovative strategies beneficial to students].

Teachers who provide AP coursework might have few local colleagues who share their responsibilities or their commitment to improving student learning by providing college-level coursework in the secondary setting. Through the intensive summer APTTI experience, however, they create communities of scholars that transcend local schools and districts. Through their educational experiences, they join an international community of teachers committed to providing the challenge that some students need to have while still in high school. In essence, “AP lets minds travel, while hearts stay close to home” (Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004, p. 33). As noted, both IOAPA and Iowa Excellence employ the Belin-Blank Center’s Dynamic Model of Professional Development (DMPD). IOAPA and Iowa Excellence schools are encouraged to promote AP professional development among their staff by sending

1232

C.M. Baldus et al.

Fig. 63.1 Annual average score on AP exams: a comparison of National and Iowa Scores, 2000–2007 (We created the figure based on the publicly released data from the College Board site at http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/)

teachers to the AP Teacher Training Institute (APTTI) and other College Board endorsed AP training. IOAPA training grants and Belin-Blank Center workshops support the professional development of Iowa high-school and middle-school teachers. The center provides advanced training for educators in the techniques and curricula necessary to offer students the opportunity to participate in the College Board Advanced Placement Testing Program. The sustainability and further development of any academic initiative are dependent upon the thorough preparation of educators and schools involved in the program.

gram have been dramatic. According to the College Board, the percentage of Iowa high schools participating in AP has significantly increased from 33% (2001) to 54% (2006), moving Iowa’s national ranking from 45th to 26th in 6 years. More importantly, Iowa students consistently score above the national average on AP exams. With a rapid increase in the number of students participating in AP, there was a concern that students would not be adequately prepared for the challenges of AP, resulting in a dip in statewide AP exam performance. However, this has not been the case for Iowa students. Even with an annual increase in the number of exams, performance level has remained steady (Fig. 63.1).

Cultivating a Culture for Academic Challenge To describe the impact of the IOAPA program and the Belin-Blank Center’s comprehensive approach to provide access to challenging academic opportunities, the data are indisputable. Prior to the 2001 implementation of IOAPA, Iowa ranked 45th in the nation for school participation in AP, with only one third of Iowa schools providing any AP programming for their students. In terms of school participation, the effects of the pro-

Systemic Improvement and Change in Academic Culture In an effort to recognize the high level of commitment to provide AP opportunities and to encourage Iowa schools to raise the bar, the Belin-Blank Center created the Iowa AP Index (http://iowaapindex.org/), which annually lists the top 50 schools in Iowa based

63

Iowa Online Advanced Placement Academy

on the ratio of AP exams taken (at any grade) by the number of graduating seniors. Iowa’s AP Index is adapted with permission from Jay Mathews’ American Schools Challenge Index (2005). The schools listed in the top 25 of the Iowa AP Index are honored at the Center’s Recognition Ceremony held each fall. Each school is provided with their annual index score, which enables them to track the improvements from year to year. A recent survey of IOAPA schools indicates both an increase in the number of online AP course enrollments (before IOAPA there were no online AP courses offered in Iowa) and an increase in the number of onsite AP courses offered. As one IOAPA site coordinator explained, “IOAPA is creating a need, a desire from students to take more rigorous course work. Although we are still in the infancy stage, this program has had a huge impact on our students that are taking the AP courses and on our teachers that are currently taking the AP course work to become qualified to teach the classes in-house.” Statistics clearly demonstrate that the Belin-Blank Center’s comprehensive approach has had a significant effect on Iowa’s academic culture. However, the data pales in comparison to the impact the programs have on the lives of students. Preparation for, as well as access to, appropriately challenging academic opportunities does make a profound difference for students with regard to talent development. Clearly, this is embodied in the reflections of a rural Iowa student (now in college), “Today I went to my first college chemistry class. It was the best class I have ever taken—I am confident that I can understand the material because of the IOAPA AP course I took last year. Without that AP class, I would not have known how awesome chemistry is and wouldn’t have chosen biochemistry as my major!” The issue is not whether Iowa students can succeed, but whether they have access to meaningful challenge. The expansion of AP demonstrates the effectiveness of the Belin-Blank Center’s comprehensive approach to providing access to challenging academic opportunities through IOAPA, Iowa Excellence, and the BelinBlank Dynamic Model of Professional Development.

References Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attain-

1233 ment [Electronic version]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Retrieved on October 20, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Toolbox/toolbox.html Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college [Electronic version]. Washington, DC: US Department of Education Retrieved on October 20, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/ research/pubs/toolboxrevisit/toolbox.pdf Allessi, S., & Trollip, S. (1991). Computer based instruction: Methods and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Ambrose, D., Allen, J., & Huntley, S. (1994). Mentorship of the highly creative. Roeper Review, 17, 131–134. Assouline, S. G., Blando, C., Croft, L. J., Baldus, C., & Colangelo, N. (in press). Promoting excellence: Acceleration through enrichment. In J. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for programming for talented and gifted. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (Eds.). (1983). Academic precocity: Aspects of its development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Berger, S. (1990). Mentor relationships and gifted learners. Retrieved January 11, 2007, from http://www.hoagiesgifted. org/eric/Archived/e486.html. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED321491) Camara, W. (2003). College persistence, graduation, and remediation. College Board Research Notes (RN-19). New York: College Board. Carr, S. (2000, February 11). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 23, A1. Retrieved June 8, 2006, from http://chronicle.com/free/v46/i23/23a00101.htm Casey, K. M. A., & Shore, B. M. (2000). Mentors’ contributions to gifted adolescents’ affective, social, and vocational development. Roeper Review, 22, 227–230. Clasen, D. R., & Hanson, M. (1987). Double mentoring: A process for facilitating mentorships for gifted students. Roeper Review, 10, 107–110. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. College Board. (2006). AP Program Guide 2006-07. New York: Author. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gibbons, A., & Fairweather, P. (1998). Designing computer based instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Hassel, E. (1999). Professional development: Learning from the best. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory [Electronic version]. Retrieved on July 19, 2004, from http://www.ncrel.org/pd/toolkit/lftb.pdf Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E., Benbow, C. P., Assouline, S. G., & Brody, L. E. (2003). Talent searches: Meeting the needs of academically talented youth. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), (3rd ed., pp. 204–218). Handbook of gifted education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Markow, D., Moessner, C., & Horowitz, H. (2006). The MetLife survey of the American teacher: Expectations and experi-

1234 ences [Electronic version]. Retrieved on October 20, 2006, from http://www.metlife.com/WPSAssets/ 8182140270116 0505871V1F2006MetLifeTeacherSurvey.pdf Mathews, J. (2005, May 23). Top American schools challenge index [Electronic Version]. Washington Post. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from http://www.washingtonpost.com McLaughlin, D. H., Huberman, M. B., & Hawkins, E. K. (1997). Characteristics of small and rural school districts. (Office of Educational Research and Improvement Rep. No. NCES 97529). Washington, DC: US Department of Education. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author.

C.M. Baldus et al. National Research Council. (2002). Learning and understanding: Improving advanced study of mathematics and science in U. S. high schools. Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Sosniak, L. A. (1999). An everyday curriculum for the development of talent [Electronic version]. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 10(4). Stanley, J. C., Keating, D. P., & Fox, L. H. (1974). Mathematical talent: Discovery, description, and development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Chapter 64

On Bringing Interdisciplinary Ideas to Gifted Education Bharath Sriraman and Bettina Dahl

Abstract This chapter is based on the premise that the utopian goal of education is to unify various strands of knowledge as opposed to dividing it. Ideally education should nurture talent in the classroom and create wellrounded individuals akin to the great thinkers of the Renaissance. That is, individuals who are able to pursue multiple fields of research and appreciate both the aesthetic and the structural/scientific connections between mathematics, arts, and the sciences. We will explore an under addressed aspect of giftedness, namely the role of interdisciplinary activities and problems to foster talent in and across the disciplines of mathematics, science and humanities, increasingly important for emerging professions in the twenty-first century. Examples from the history of mathematics, science and arts will be used to argue for the value of such activities to foster polymathic traits in gifted individuals, particularly the questioning of paradigms. Recent findings from classroom studies will be used to illustrate the value of such an approach to gifted education.

where knowledge is increasingly being integrated in emerging domains such as mathematical genetics; bio-informatics; nanotechnology; modeling; ethics in genetics and medicine; ecology and economics in the age of globalization, the curriculum in most parts of the world is typically administered in discrete packages. The analogy of mice in a maze appropriately characterizes a day in the life of students, with mutually exclusive class periods for math, science, literature, languages, social studies etc. Yet reality does not function in this discrete manner. Although critical thinking, problem solving and communication are real world skills that cut across the aforementioned disciplines (Sriraman, 2003a, 2004a, 2004b; Sriraman & Adrian 2004a, 2004b) students are led to believe that these skills are context dependent. For instance teachers encourage critical thinking in debate, history, and literature, whereas problem solving is encouraged in the sciences and communication is traditionally valued in language classes. Even Mathematics is increasingly viewed as a highly specialized field in spite Keywords Interdisciplinary ideas in gifted education · of its intricate connections to the arts and sciences. Domain general creativity · Domain general giftedness This being said, within the field of mathematics itself, a Danish project (Niss & Jensen, 2002) describes · History of science · Interdisciplinarity mathematics, not solely as various areas of content knowledge but also discusses eight mathematical competencies that comprise intuition and creativity Introduction: Why Interdisciplinarity? across educational levels and topic areas throughout the education system. The thinking behind the Danish Interdisciplinarity is a topic on which one finds project1 has influenced the mathematical domain of scant literature in the field of education, particularly OECD’s PISA project (OECD, 1999). in gifted education. Although we live in an age The thinkers of the Renaissance did not view themselves simply as mathematicians, or inventors B. Sriraman (B) The University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA e-mail: [email protected]

1

Niss & Jensen (2002) see two groups of competencies, each comprising four competencies: (a) the ability to ask and answer

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 64, 

1235

1236

or painters, or philosophers or political theorists, but thought of themselves as seekers of Knowledge, Truth and Beauty. In other words there was a Gestalt worldview that unified the arts and sciences as opposed to dividing it. An example of such thinkers is Sir Isaac Newton (1643–1727) who not only excelled in mathematics but did also in-depth and ground-breaking work in optics, physics, astronomy, and theology. His book entitled Quaestiones Quaedam Philosophicae was headed with a statement meaning “Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but my best friend is truth.” Newton also did alchemy experiments. Alchemy (Holmyard, 1990) is both an early form of chemical technology exploring the nature of substances and a philosophy and spiritual discipline, combining elements of chemistry, metallurgy, physics, medicine, astrology, semiotics, mysticism, spiritualism and art., i.e., it was interdisciplinary in nature and builds on the assumption that everything is connected. Western alchemy became the forerunner of modern science and significant for the development of experimental sciences, and until the eighteenth century alchemy was considered a serious science. Another example is Ren´e Descartes (1596–1650), a philosopher, mathematician, scientist, and lawyer. After crawling into a wall stove, Descartes had a vision and three dreams on the unification of science on November 10, 1619: He was possessed by a Genius, and the answers were revealed in a dazzling, unendurable light. Later, in a state of exhaustion, he went to bed and dreamed three dreams that had been predicted by this Genius. . . . He tells us that his third dream pointed to no less than the unification and the illumination of the whole of science, even the whole of knowledge, by one and the same method: the method of reason (Davis & Hersh, 1988, pp. 3–4).

Akin to this thinking is Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646–1716), a philosopher, mathematician, and lawyer: The vision of Descartes became the new spirit. Two generations later, the mathematician and philosopher Leibniz talked about the ‘characteristica universalis’. This was the dream of a universal method whereby all human problems, whether of science, law, or politics, could be

question in and with mathematics: (1) mathematical thinking competency, (2) problem-handling competency, (3) modeling competency, (4) reasoning competency. (b) The ability to deal with mathematical language and tools: (5) representation competency, (6) symbol and formalism competency, (7) communication competency, (8) aids and tools competence.

B. Sriraman and B. Dahl worked out rationally, systematically, by logical computation. In our generation, the visions of Descartes and Leibniz are implemented on every hand (Davis & Hersh, 1988, pp. 7–8).

An earlier example is Girolamo Cardano (1501–1576), a mathematician and a medical doctor who wrote on a diversity of topics such as medicine, philosophy, astronomy, theology, and mathematics. He also published two encyclopedias of natural science, where we, as above, see an attempt to unity these various fields under the heading of science. Gliozzi (1970) comments about these encyclopedias that they essentially contain everything from cosmology and machine construction principles to the influence of demons. In other words, these encyclopedias were an amalgamation of fact and fiction, of science and imagination, of the real, and the occult. The question for education, particularly gifted education, then is how do we re-create this worldview in the mathematics classroom? How can we create the experiences for students that lead to the realization and appreciation of the underlying unity of the arts and sciences? Is this even possible in the classroom? As mathematicians and mathematics educators our view of interdisciplinarity for gifted education is skewed toward the use of mathematics to develop interdisciplinary activities for students. This view is justified by the development of mathematics itself as a result of work in art, astronomy, natural and physical sciences, and theology. Our chapter will reveal that much of this historical work was conducted by eminently gifted individuals who were polymaths of the highest order. In order to convey a unified view of knowledge to students who are used to viewing the arts and sciences through the “discrete” lens of disjoint school subjects unrelated to each other, one would almost have to create a paradigmatic shift in their mind sets. The unique nature of mathematics and philosophy and their intricate connections to the arts and sciences makes them the ideal bridge to unify the fragmented nature of students’ curricular experiences. In this chapter, we demonstrate the possibility for students to create and challenge paradigms arising from fundamental philosophical questions common to both the arts and the sciences that lead to the consideration of a unified view of Knowledge. In today’s world the urgency of preparing today’s students adequately for futureoriented fields is increasingly being emphasized at the university level. Steen (2005) wrote that “as a science

64

On Bringing Interdisciplinary Ideas to Gifted Education

biology depends increasingly on data, algorithms and models; in virtually every respect it is becoming. . . more mathematical” (xi). Both the National Research Council (NRC) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the United States is increasingly funding universities to initiate interdisciplinary doctoral programs between mathematics and the other sciences with the goal of producing scientists who are adept at “modeling reality.” Yet many institutions find it difficult to recruit students capable of graduate level work in interdisciplinary fields such as mathematical biology and bio-informatics. This suggests that undergraduates feel under prepared to pursue careers in these emerging fields. Any educator with a sense of history foresees the snowball effect or the cycle of blaming inadequate preparation to high school onto middle school onto the very elementary grades, which suggests we work bottom up (Lesh & Sriraman, 2005a). That is, initiate and study school subjects from an interdisciplinary point of view; engage in the mathematics modeling of complex systems that occur in real-life situations from the early grades; and encourage the presentation of data and models through multimedias (Lesh, Hamilton, & Kaput, 2007; Lesh & Sriraman, 2005a, 2005b). Another objective of this chapter is to illustrate how students are capable of constructing a paradigm based on ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions (Sriraman, 2005a). In particular, we will demonstrate the value of and argue that the use of classical and contextual mathematics problems, mathematics fiction (literature), and paradoxes in mathematics classrooms can lead to desirable holistic outcomes such as broader student perspective, which is characterized by creativity (originality in thinking), critical thinking (philosophy), and problem solving. These outcomes create a potential for students to realize the unity of the arts and sciences. Our preamble begs the question as to whether creativity is domain general or domain specific? We operate on the premise that creativity is domain general and that individuals are capable to making creative contributions across domains. Root-Bernstein (this volume) presents both sides of the issue and argues that creativity is domain general and that polymathy fosters creativity. He argues that “the observation that creativity is associated with polymathic ability has been validated by historians as well”. We construct a working definition for interdisciplinary creativity based on the

1237

domain-specific and domain general arguments found in the literature. In the general literature on creativity numerous definitions can be found. Craft (2002) used the term “life wide creativity” to describe the numerous contexts of day to day life in which the phenomenon of creativity manifests. Other researchers have described creativity as a natural “survival” or “adaptive” response of humans in an ever-changing environment (Gruber, 1989; Ripple, 1989). Craft (2003) has pointed out that it is essential we distinguish “everyday creativity” such as improvising on a recipe from “extraordinary creativity” which causes paradigm shifts in a specific body of knowledge. It is generally accepted that works of “extraordinary creativity” can be judged only by experts within a specific domain of knowledge (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, 2000; Craft, 2003). For instance, Andrew Wiles’ proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem could only be judged by a handful of mathematicians within a very specific sub-domain of number theory. In the realm of educational psychology, one can also find a variety of definitions of creativity. For example, Weisberg (1993) suggested that creativity entails the use of ordinary cognitive processes and results in original and extraordinary products. Further, Sternberg & Lubart (2000) defined creativity as the ability to produce unexpected original work, which is useful and adaptive. Other definitions usually impose the requirement of novelty, innovation or unusualness of a response to a given problem (Torrance, 1974). Rather similar to this, Krutetskii (1976) stated that creative thinking is indicated by the product of mental activity having novelty and value both subjectively and objectively, that the thinking process requires a transformation of previously accepted ideas or a denial of them, and that the thinking process is characterized by the presence of strong motivation and stability. “A thorough, independent, and creative study of mathematics is a prerequisite for developing an ability for creative mathematical ability—for the independent formulation and solution of problems that have new and socially significant content” (Krutetskii, 1976, p. 69). Numerous confluence theories of creativity define creativity as a convergence of knowledge, ability, thinking style, motivational, and environmental variables (Sternberg & Lubart, 1996, 2000), an evolution of domain-specific ideas resulting in a creative outcome (Gruber & Wallace, 2000). For example, Csikszentmihalyi (2000) suggests creativity is one of several mutations resulting from a favorable interaction

1238

between an individual, domain, and field. Most recently, Plucker and Beghetto (2004) offered an empirical definition of creativity based on a survey and synthesis of numerous empirical studies in the field. They defined creativity as “the interplay between ability and process by which an individual or group produces an outcome or product that is both novel and useful as defined within some social context” (p. 156). The definition of Plucker and Beghetto is easily applicable to interdisciplinary creativity with the addition that processes and outcomes need not be domain specific. Philosophers define a paradigm as the assumptions, concepts, and practices that create a view of reality in an intellectual discipline (Sriraman, 2004b, 2004c). Students naturally have an underlying (intuitive) but disjointed notion of what constitutes a paradigm in the liberal arts or mathematics or science based on observed practices in these disciplines during their schooling experiences. The question then is how we can use mathematics to change the disjointed assumptions students may have of the various disciplines. In other words how can we create experiences that eventually lead students to pose the ontological, epistemological, and methodological questions that constitute a paradigm? In doing so the approach to any content naturally takes on an interdisciplinary stance. We first present a historical perspective which suggests that an interdisciplinary outlook toward scholarship was more the norm than the exception. Our historical analysis will examine significant paradigmatic shifts which are didactically replicable particularly in the classroom with gifted students.

History of Connections in the Renaissance The Intrinsic Connection Between Theology–Art–Science and Mathematics The history and development of mathematics, science and arts are intricately connected to the rise and fall of ancient and modern civilizations. The progression of humanity from hunter-gather societies onto societies with sophisticated astronomical calendars, visually pleasing architectural forms (temples, mosques, cathedrals, etc.) reveals our quest to understand the

B. Sriraman and B. Dahl

cosmos, our attempts to represent and symbolize it via patterns, symmetries and structure. A common characteristic of many civilizations (both ancient and modern) is the quest to answer three basic philosophical questions: (1) What is reality? Or what is the nature of the world around us? This is linked to the general ontological question of distinguishing objects (real versus imagined, concrete versus abstract, existent versus non-existent, independent versus dependent and so forth). (2) How do we go about knowing the world around us? [the methodological question, which presents possibilities to various disciplines to develop methodological paradigms] and, (3) How can we be certain in the “truth” of what we know? [the epistemological question]. The interplay of mathematics, arts and sciences is found in the attempts to answer these fundamental philosophical questions. In this sense philosophy can be viewed as the foundational bridge unifying mathematics, arts and the sciences. We will first focus on the attempts of the thinkers of the Renaissance, who did not view themselves simply as theologians or mathematicians or inventors or painters or philosophers or political theorists, but who thought of themselves as philosophers in the pursuit of Knowledge, Truth and Beauty. Then we will try to pinpoint the thinking characteristics of these natural philosophers, particularly the trait of polymathy (Root-Bernstein, 2003) which explains innovative behavior across numerous subject specific domains. Finally we will examine the implications of these findings for present day gifted education at the school and university levels. Given the dearth of literature on interdisciplinary approaches in gifted education, our goal is to use history and the limited number of interdisciplinary studies involving the innovative use of mathematics (content and pedagogy) within the realm of gifted education to bring interdisciplinary ideas to the field of gifted education.

Revisiting the Renaissance The great intellectual gifts of the Renaissance can be viewed as the influence of Theology on Art and Science resulting in powerful mathematics as a conse-

64

On Bringing Interdisciplinary Ideas to Gifted Education

quence. The great works of Art during the Renaissance, particularly those of Italian painters (Massacio, Brunelleschi, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Titian, Giotto, Raphael, etc.) immediately reveal the interplay of church doctrine with art in that these painters inspired devotion in people by painting divine Christian icons. In this process of trying to convey these divine images as realistically and beautifully as possible, these painters moved away from the medieval style of painting (very two dimensional) and essentially created the rules of perspectivity that allowed threedimensional images to be projected onto a flat surface. This suggests that art was instrumental in initiating the mathematical foundations of the true rules of perspective. Geometrical optics also played a major role in how artists experimentally arrived at the mathematical rules of perspectivity. Calter (1998) traces a rich lineage of the interaction of optics with art: Euclid’s Optica (300 BC), Vitruvius’ Ten Books on Architecture, Ptolemy’s Optica (c. AD 140), (the Islamic) Alhazen’s Perspectiva (c. AD 1000), Roger Bacon’s Opus Majus (c. AD 1260), with sections on optics, “whose geometric laws, he maintained, reflected God’s manner of spreading his grace throughout the universe—onto John Pecham’s Perspectiva communis” (c. AD 1270). The amalgamation of mathematical ideas proposed in this lineage was formalized by Desargues (1593–1662) which is today studied in courses on projective geometry. Today the visual-artistic side of mathematics is completely lost under the rubble of formalization in most places although for instance the Danish compulsory education grades 3–9 has perspectivity included in the mathematics curriculum (Danish Ministry of Education, 2001). The visual side of mathematics has seen a revival in the twentieth century in the area of fractal geometry due to the work of Benoit Mandelbrot. This is explored further at a later junction in this chapter.

1239

oped a rigorous and systematic philosophy to answer the three aforementioned questions (Sriraman & Benesch, 2005). The Pythagorean School (c. 500 BC) developed a mystical numeric system to designate and describe everything in the universe. They even went so far as to claim that numerical attributes could be used to describe everything in the universe. Numbers were designated abstract attributes: one, the number of reason; two, the first even or female number (the number of opinion); three, the first true male number (the number of harmony); four, the number of justice or retribution; five, marriage; six, creation; and so on. According to Brumbaugh (1981) each number had its own personality—masculine or feminine, perfect or incomplete, beautiful or ugly, which modern mathematics has deliberately eliminated, but we still find overtones of it in fiction and poetry. Further the motion of planets and musical notes was expressed as ratios of numbers. The Pythagorean School developed an elaborate numerical system consisting of even and odd numbers to describe the world around them. However Plato (429–327 BC) and Aristotle (384–322 BC) deviated from the mysticism of the Pythagoreans and instead attempted to understand the universe via reason. Plato suggested that the universe consisted of two realms, the visible realm which was deceptive because of its changing nature and an abstract realm which he believed was eternal and unchanging (Sriraman, 2004a). Within this “dualistic” ontology of reality, Plato answered the epistemological question by suggesting that knowledge derived empirically from the changing world was fallible, whereas knowledge derived from the abstract realm was infallible or absolute. Plato accorded a special place for mathematics in this pursuit of absolute knowledge by claiming that mathematics was derivable independent of the physical senses. Thus the purest form of “thought” was mathematical thought as it was deemed capable of deriving “eternal truths” or absolute knowledge. In spite of the alleged motto of the academy, Plato distinguished “numbers as ideas” from “numbers as mathematical objects.” Unfortunately over time this The Scientists-Mathematiciansimportant distinction faded and Platonism approached Theologians of the Renaissance–PostPythagoreanism, which in turn influenced Renaissance Renaissance philosophers, then modern natural science and thereby again modern philosophy. Aristotle on the other hand was an empiricist whose The relationship between science and theology can be traced back to the pre-Socratic Greeks. Pre-Socratic prodigious work left a lasting impression until the thirGreek society evolved from the typical “Sky-God” ex- teenth century (namely the dawn of the Renaissance). planation of creation/reality onto a society that devel- The Aristotelian approach to science was empirical

1240

and placed a heavy emphasis on perception through the senses. Aristotle rejected the Platonic notion of the mind’s capacity to intuit/discern a priori reality and instead proposed an a posteriori or empirical methodology whereby knowledge is acquired by the mind. Aristotelian science was axiomatic and deductive in nature with the aim of explaining natural phenomenon. The underlying assumption of Aristotelian science was that all natural objects were fulfilling a potential determined by an actual prior natural object. For instance, a seed becomes a plant because it is merely fulfilling its potential of becoming a plant. Science historians today agree that Aristotle was an empiricist, who believed that knowledge is gained via observation, experimentation, and experience (Sriraman & Adrian, 2004a; Sriraman & Benesch, 2005). The question of whether or not Aristotelian science was the origin of dualism is still a matter of present day debate.2 Recent scholarship on post-Renaissance science and natural philosophy traces a rich intellectual lineage centered on “scholasticized Aristotelianism” from seventeenth century natural philosophy onto medieval thinkers like Aquinas onto Aristotle (Sriraman & Benesch, 2005, p. 42). Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) synthesized “all that had been argued in Western thought up to his time and he showed it to be compatible with Christian beliefs” (Sharp, 2003, p. 346). His argument is superbly summarized by Sharp (2003) as follows: . . .Aquinas argued that all our rational knowledge of this world is acquired through sensory experience, on which our minds then reflect. When children are born, their minds are like a clean slate (tabula rasa). Aquinas developed a theory of knowledge which is uncompromisingly empirical. The world through which we gain our knowledge is God’s creation, and therefore it is impossible for this gained knowledge to conflict with religious revelation (p. 346).

The Greek philosophers also stumbled upon the idea of the “infinite”, a sophisticated mathematical abstraction, as evidenced in Zeno’s paradoxes.3 Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) observed that scholastic theology was 2 One could argue that Aristotle drew a distinction in the natural world between the animate and the inanimate, whereas Descartes was more focused on the human. Descartes’ dualism dominated physics for a substantial period of time. 3 Zeno (born around 495 BC) was a Greek philosopher and logician, and a student of the philosopher Parmenides. Zeno is remembered for paradoxes that stumped mathematicians for centuries. Zeno’s paradoxes evolved from Parmenides’ ideas about the illusory nature of motion, change, and time.

B. Sriraman and B. Dahl

one of the outcomes of mathematical abstraction (Russell, 1945, p. 37). His claim is supported by numerous historical examples, a handful of which are presented here. Sa’id ibn Yusuf (Saadia Gaon), a tenth century theologian and leader of the Babylonian Jews wrote a theological treatise called Kitab al-Amanat wa-al Itiqadat (the Book of Beliefs and Opinions) in which extensive use is made of mathematical arguments to answer cosmological questions, such as the existence of a creator. Gaon (1948) also cleverly reversed Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the tortoise4 to prove that Creation occurred by arguing that if the world were uncreated, then time would be infinite. But infinite time could not be traversed. This implied that present moment could not have come about. But since the present moment exists, this implies that the world had a beginning. The ideas of the Greeks also had a profound influence on post-Renaissance mathematicians like Descartes (1596–1650), Pascal (1623– 1662) and Leibniz (1646–1716) among others. One routinely comes across the use of mathematical analogies to prove the existence of God in the theological works of Descartes, Leibniz, and Pascal. For example, Descartes in the Fifth Meditation states, Certainly the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being is one which I find within me, just as surely the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature. Hence, even if it turned out that not everything on which I have meditated in these past days is true, I ought still to regard the existence of God as having at least the same level of certainty as I have hitherto attributed to the truths in mathematics (Descartes, 1996, p. 45).

Leibniz in Theodicy argued that faith and reason were compatible: Theologians of all parties, I believe (fanatics alone excepted), agree that no article of faith must imply contradiction or contravene proofs as exact as those of mathematics, where the opposite of the conclusion can be reached ad absurdum, that is, to contradiction. It follows thence that certain writers have been too ready to grant that the Holy Trinity is contrary to that great principle, which states that two things, which are the same as the

4 Achilles and the tortoise: The running Achilles can never catch a crawling tortoise ahead of him because he must first reach where the tortoise started. However, when he reaches there, the tortoise has moved ahead, and Achilles must now run to the new position, which by the time he reaches the tortoise has moved ahead, etc. Hence the tortoise will always be ahead.

64

On Bringing Interdisciplinary Ideas to Gifted Education third, are also the same as each other. For this principle is a direct consequence of that of contradiction, and forms the basis of all logic; and if it ceases, we can no longer reason with certainty (Leibniz, 1985, p. 87).

Leibniz’s dissertation on the conformity of faith and reason can be interpreted to mean that it is logically contingent and intelligible for a human being to ask why an eternal being exists (Craig & Smith, 1995). Blaise Pascal, perhaps the most intriguing mathematical mystic argued for the use of “infinitesimal reasoning”5 (or reasoning in infinitely small quantities) by proclaiming that the infinitely large and the infinitely small were mysteries of nature that man stumbled on by divine inspiration. Pascal is also remembered for his famous wager, where he argued that if God’s existence has a probability of 0.5 (50/50 chance), then it is only rational for us to believe he does exist. Popkin (1989) paraphrasing Pascal writes that if you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing! The aforementioned historical examples, viz., the number mysticism of the Pythagoreans, the paradoxes of Zeno that brought forth the abstraction of the infinite, the attempts of medieval theologians like Saadia Gaon to systematize theology by constructing uniqueness proofs to theological theorems, and the use of mathematical arguments to prove the existence of a Creator by post-Renaissance mathematicians, illustrate that there has been a rich interplay between mathematics and theology (Sriraman, 2004a). While these aforementioned thinkers of the Renaissance and postRenaissance who strongly believed in the existence of a creator invoked mathematical arguments to prove their beliefs in their philosophical writings, others such as Copernicus and Galileo, who were professed believers of the Catholic Church, found it increasingly difficult to believe in the prescribed view of the world (earth) as the center of the universe. Their model building during this time period reveals the interplay as well as the conflict between theology and science with mathemat5

An infinitesimal is a number that is infinitely small but greater than zero. Infinitesimal arguments have historically been viewed as self-contradictory by mathematicians in the area of analysis. The infinitesimal Calculus of Newton and Leibniz was reformulated by Karl Weierstrass in the nineteenth century for the sole purpose of eliminating the use of infinitesimals. In the twentieth century Abraham Robinson revived the notion of infinitesimals and founded the subject of non-standard analysis to resolve the contradictions posed by infinitesimals within Calculus. Robinson attempted to use logical concepts and methods to provide a suitable framework for differential and integral Calculus.

1241

ics replacing Aristotilean logic as the language of description.

Modeling the Universe: Copernicus– Galileo–Kepler The Ptolemaic model (c. AD 87–150) of astronomy was based on the assumption that the earth was the center of the universe which was accepted by the Catholic Church as being compatible with its teachings. However this geocentric view of the world could not explain the curious planetary phenomenon observed by Nicholaus Copernicus (1473–1543). That is the retrograde motion (moving backwards and then forward) of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, in addition to nearly invariant times that Venus and Mercury appeared in the sky which is shortly before sunrise and after sunset. However these queer motions were perfectly reasonable if one viewed the sun as the center of the “universe” as opposed to the earth. In such a model the peculiarities of the inner planets (Mercury and Venus) as well as the outer planets (Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) in relation to the earth make perfect sense. The retrograde motion of outer planets is due to the fact that they get overtaken by the earth in its orbitary motion. Similarly Venus and Mercury appear static and only before sunrise and after sunset because their orbitary motions do not allow them to get behind the earth and manifest in the night sky. It is amazing what a little change in perspective does to our perceptions! However the conflicts of Copernicus’ findings with Church dictum prevented a wider dissemination of his simpler planetary model until his death. Centuries later, the great German philosopher, writer, scientist Goethe (1749–1832) reflected on Copernicus’ new perspective of our reality: Of all discoveries and opinions, none may have exerted a greater effect on the human spirit than the doctrine of Copernicus. The world had scarcely become known as round and complete in itself when it was asked to waive the tremendous privilege of being the center of the universe. Never, perhaps, was a greater demand made on mankind—for by this admission so many things vanished in mist and smoke! What became of our Eden, our world of innocence, piety and poetry; the testimony of the senses; the conviction of a poetic—religious faith? No wonder his contemporaries did not wish to let all this go and offered every possible resistance to a doctrine which

1242

B. Sriraman and B. Dahl

law was published by Harmonices Mundi in 1619. The third law states that the squares of the periodic times are to each other as the cubes of the mean distances. Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) pushed things further Incidentally Newton’s theory of gravitation grew by using mathematics to explain interplanetary motion. out of Kepler’s third law (and not a fallen apple as In fact many science historians claim that Galileo was suggested by myth). Szpiro (2003) recently suggested the first person to systematically use mathematics as that among the forces driving Kepler’s work during the language of science instead of Aristotilean logic. his turbulent T¨ubingen years was to seek a theological Aristotle’s conceptions of motion had several flaws explanation to his questions: which were rectified by Galileo by determining that veSince God had created a perfect world, he thought it locity and acceleration were distinct. More importantly should be possible to discover and understand the geometric principles that govern the universe. After much dethe question that vexed Copernicus of why the motion liberation Kepler believed he had found God’s principles of the Earth was unfelt (if in fact it was moving) was in the regular solids. . ..His explanations of the universe answered by Galileo by suggesting that only accelerwere based on an imaginary system of cubes, spheres ation is felt, whereas velocity is unfelt and invariant and other solids that he thought were fitted between the sun and other planets. . .published in Mysterium Cosmoexcept when acted on by an external force (the notion graphicum. This tome did not unveil any mysteries of of inertia). Thus, Galileo suggested that the Earth in the planetary system. . .since no solids exist that are susaddition to orbiting around the sun was also rotating pended in the universe. But the book came to the attention on its own axis. Needless to say, his attempt to make of Tycho Brahe (Szpiro, 2003, p. 13). his model public met with fierce resistance from the And the rest is history. . . Church and led to his condemnation by the Inquisition. Isaac Newton’s (1642–1727) prodigious work During this same time period the German asincluded a mathematical model of the planetary tronomer Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) confirmed system, in a sense suggesting that the universe was and supported many of Galileo’s well-formulated governed by certain laws, expressible via mathematics theories. Johannes Kepler was born in Weil der Stadt, and discernible by humans (Sharp, 2003). This led to W¨urttemburg. While studying for Lutheran ministry at the development of natural philosophy as an answer to the University of T¨ubingen, he became familiar with the ontological, methodological, and epistemological the Copernican model, which he defended explicitly questions with mathematics becoming the medium in the Mysterium Cosmographicum. The political of establishing truth. One consequence of Aristotle’s forces of that time period with his unique personal empiricist tradition was the acceptance of the notion circumstances, namely his strong adherence to the that knowledge of the external world was derived Augsburg Confession but rejection of several key by an active soul,7 which was in essence separate Lutheran tenets, the use of the calendar introduced from that world (Polkinghorne, 1998). Salmon (1990) by Pope Gregory XIII, his rejection of the Formula comments, of Concord, and finally his snub to Catholicism led It is illuminating to recognize that Cartesian dualism ofto him to exile in Prague where he worked for the fered a way of resolving the conflict between science Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe. With the help of and religion—which had brought such great troubles to Brahe’s data, Kepler made several seminal discoveries Galileo—by providing each with its own separate dopublished in Astronomia Nova. The beauty of this main. Physical science could deal with matter, while religion could handle whatever pertains to the soul (p. 236). work lies in the fact that Kepler arrived at the first two laws of planetary motion by working with incom- This led to a growing acceptance among seventeenth plete/imperfect data (we must remember that this data century natural philosophers in the notion of duality was obtained before the invention of the telescope!). (or dualism). Ren´e Descartes (1596–1650) is considThe first two laws were (1) planets move in ellipses with the Sun at one focus and (2) the radius vector describes equal areas in equal times. Finally the third 7 Polkinghorne comments that Aristotle’s view of the soul as the in its converts authorized and demanded a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown, indeed not even dreamed of.6

6 Quote retrieved April 24, 2005, from http://www.blupete.com/ Literature/Biographies/Science/Copernicus.htm

underlying “form” or pattern of the body was then taken up by Thomas Aquinas who rejected Platonic dualism that had dominated Western Christian thinking since Augustine. This view is corroborated by extant histories on the philosophy of dualism.

64

On Bringing Interdisciplinary Ideas to Gifted Education

ered the founder of this belief system since he initiated the mind–body problem. Cartesian dualism essentially proclaims that we are composed of two distinct and basic substances, namely the mind (soul) and the matter. Matter was the material substance that extended into the world and took up space, whereas the mind (soul) was a thinking substance, which was not “localizable” in space. “If these two aspects (mind-matter) are to be held in equal balance, it seems that it will have to be in some way more subtle than mere juxtaposition” (Polkinghorne, 1998, p. 54). The problem of dualism can be reformulated as follows: One can think of subject and object as two unique and separate natures, neither of which is reducible to each other. The question of course in such a dualistic assumption is how do these two natures relate to each other? (Sriraman & Benesch, 2005).

The Modern Day Renaissance: Shifts in Perspective

1243

which was central to the classical physical sciences, is less applicable when dealing with living systems. Such an approach may lead to a study not of the “living” but of the “dead” because in the examination of highly complex living systems “only by ripping apart the network at some point can we analyze life. We are therefore limited to the study of ‘dead’ things” (Cramer, 1993, p. 214). One of the most important shifts in the natural sciences in the modern period has been away from the view of a simple and complete separation between observer and observed to an awareness that an observer also represents a living aspect of that which is being observed—both as a product of nature and as the mental possibility in nature of observing, as in the notion of the “participatory universe” coined by John Wheeler. A synthesis of “product” and “process” are at the heart of the puzzles and paradoxes that we associate with ideas of “indeterminacy” in physics and with genes in biology. The very concept of “objectivity” maintains that the observed and observer are separate does not hold in the study of “highly complex biological processes such as evolution or the functioning of the central nervous system . . . we cannot distance ourselves from the object being considered; indeed, this is so at the very moment we start to think” (Cramer, 1993, p. 212). It is amazing how close in understanding, and that across six centuries, modern physics and biology are to the Neo-Confucian Philosopher, Wang Yang-Ming’s continuum view of “innate knowledge”:

Scientists in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have developed the technical tools and the analytic and theoretical maturity necessary for analyzing nature at unprecedented micro and macrocosmic levels. By doing so, they have reaffirmed the dynamic nature of the whole that was reflected in the paradoxes of the ancients. The result is a view of nature in which processes have supplanted “things” in descriptions and explanations. By the end of the nineteenth century, limThe innate knowledge of man is the same as that of plants itations of the classical Newtonian/Euclidean worldand trees, tiles and stones. . .Heaven, Earth, the myriad things, and man form one body. The point at which this view had become increasingly problematic as physiunity is manifested in its most refined and excellent form cists began exploring nature at the subatomic level. The is the clear intelligence of the human mind (Chan, 1973, paradoxes posed by uncertainty, incompleteness, nonp. 221). locality, and wavicles, etc. let it seem apparent that in the subatomic world observations and observers are as- The very process of generalizing implies a belief in the pects of a whole. The physicist John Wheeler com- unity of the world: “if the different parts of the universe were not like the members of one body, they mented, would not act on one another. . .know nothing of one . . .In the quantum principle we’re instructed that the acanother, and we. . .would know only one of these parts. tual act of making an observation changes what it is that We do not ask if nature is one, but how it is one” one looks at. To me, this is a perfectly marvelous fea(Poincar´e, 1946, p. 130). The position on mind and ture of nature. . .. So the old word observer simply has to be crossed off the books, and we must put in the nature of theoretical physicists seems consistent with new word participator. In this way we’ve come to realthat of the neo-Confucian philosopher. Another physiize that the universe is a participatory universe (Buckley cist suggests that the heliocentric universe is again be& David, 1979, pp. 53–54). coming geo or human centered in that it is “formBiologists have found that methodological reduction- less potentia. . .and becomes manifest only when obism, i.e., going to the parts to understand the whole, served by conscious beings. . .Of course, we are not the

1244

geographical center, but that is not the issue. We are the center of the universe because we are its meaning” (Goswami, 1993, p. 141). This is yet another amazing shift in perspective. Benoit Mandelbrot (1924–), a very recognizable name in twentieth century mathematics because of his seminal contributions to the development of fractal geometry, has repeatedly emphasized the need to reorient our perspectives to better understand the world around us. He has often very humbly characterized himself as an “accidental” mathematician. In spite of his early interest and precocity in the study of geometry he was “encouraged” by the French university establishment to embrace formalization which led him ´ to leave the Ecole Normale Sup´eriere. He writes,

B. Sriraman and B. Dahl

els the “butterfly effect” in a paper he wrote entitled “Can the flap of a butterfly’s wing stir up a tornado in Texas?” The discovery of “sensitive dependency on initial conditions” coupled with the “iteration of patterns or data” which produce random irregularities in deterministic systems is the beginning of the contemporary science of “deterministic chaos” (Peitgen, Juergens, & Saupe, 1992, p. 48). The term “fractal” was coined from Latin fractua “irregular,” to refer to the results of this combination of iteration and sensitivity. And it was Mandelbrot who provided the pictures of this deterministic chaos in his computer generated fractal images—what is described as “. . .a way of seeing infinity” (Gleick, 1987, p. 98). We discover these irregular non-linear fractal structures and patterns throughout nature, in the iteraI spent several years doing all kinds of things and betions of buds in Romanesco broccoli, the arterial and came, in a certain sense, a specialist of odd and isolated phenomena. . .I did not know or care in which field I was venous systems of kidneys, lungs, brains, coast lines, playing. I wanted to find a place, a new field, where I mountain ranges, root systems, and turbulences in flucould be the first person to introduce mathematics. Forids. For example, one might ask the length of a head malization had gone too far for my taste, in the mathematof cauliflower or a coastline. At one level, the answer ics favored by the establishment. . . (Mandelbrot, 2001, p. 192). might be 8 in. or 580 miles. However, at the fractal level of iteration of growth patterns and/or ocean Mandelbrot made his astonishing mathematical discovforces, both can be seen as infinite. In most, perhaps all ery when working on an economics problem accidenof nature, we encounter a kind of deterministic chaos tally handed to him by a friend. Economists had long in a world described by “fractal geometries” which attempted to make sense of (and predict) stock market have “. . .become a way of measuring qualities that othfluctuations and had proposed theories based on existerwise have no clear definition: the degree of roughing data which did not hold up when tested with priminess or brokenness or irregularity in an object” (Gletive computers. Mandelbrot viewed fluctuations from ick, 1987, p. 98). This is the heterogeneous and nonthe perspective of changing scales. That is the time linear world of the branching of buds in the cauliflower scale can be in days or months or years. He suggested head, the spongy tissue of the lungs, and the indentathat the interchangeable nature of the time scales was tion on the beach. “Chaos is more like the rule in nathe key to understanding the fluctuations: ture, while order (=predictability) is more like the exI cooked up the simplest mathematical formula I thought ception” (Peitgen, Juergens, & Saupe, 1992, p. 48). could explain this phenomenon. . .[making] no assumpAn unpredictable consequence of fractal geometions about people, markets or anything in the real world. try coupled with advances in computer graphics was It was based on a ‘principle of invariance’,—the hypoththat it was now possible for machines to produce geesis that, somehow economics is a world in which things are the same in the small as they are in the large except, of ometric “art” based on very simple formulae which course for a suitable change of scale (Mandelbrot, 2001). “shows surprising kinship to Old Masters paintings, 8 In 1960, Edward Lorenz, who was modeling the earth’s Cubist paintings, or Beaux Arts architecture. An obatmosphere with non-linear equations at MIT, switched from rounding his equations to the sixth decimal point 8 Cubism is a more modern art movement in which forms are abto doing so to the third. What emerged was a totally dif- stracted by using an analytical approach to the object and paintferent system! He attributed the difference to a combi- ing the basic geometric solid of the subject. Cubism is a backlash nation of the iteration of his equations plus the sensitiv- to the impressionist period in which there is more of an emphasis ity of the system to initial conditions—in this case, the of light and color. Cubism itself follows Paul Cezanne’s statement that “Everything in nature takes its form from the sphere, changes in the terminal decimal points. Lorenz named the cone, and the cylinder” in which these three shapes are used this randomness within his non-random weather mod- to depict the object of the painting. Another way that the cu-

64

On Bringing Interdisciplinary Ideas to Gifted Education

1245

the literature in the humanities, very few (if any) attempts have been made to isolate the qualitative aspects of thinking that adequately describe this term. Most cognitive theorists believe that skills are domain specific and typically non-transferable across domains. This implicitly assumes that “skills” are that which one learns as a student within a particular discipline. However such an assumption begs the question as to why polymathy occurs in the first place. Although the numerous historic and contemporary examples presented are of eminent individuals, it has been found that polymathy as a thinking trait occurs frequently in non-eminent samples (such as high school students) Fig. 64.1 Anklets of Krishna when presented with the opportunities to engage in trans-disciplinary behavior. In particular the use of unvious reason is that classical visual arts, like fractals, solved classical problems and mathematics literature involve very many scales of length and favor self- has been found to be particularly effective in fostersimilarity (Mandelbrot, 1981, 1989). The discovery ing interdisciplinary thinking (see Sriraman, 2003a, that self-similarity was an inherent property of nature 2003b, 2004b, 2004c). These are explored further in a as mathematically conceptualized by Mandelbrot was subsequent section of the chapter. long written about and expressed by poets, satirists, writers, philosophers, and numerous religious traditions. For instance, in Southern India, Kolam is an art form used by women to decorate the entrance to homes Thinking Traits of Polymaths and courtyards (see Fig. 64.1). These art forms go back over 6,000 years and consist of self-similar patterns re- Root-Bernstein (2003) has been instrumental in rekinpeated in different scales in very sophisticated fashion. dling an interest in mainstream psychology in a sysArchitecture in Hindu temples also reveals that the no- tematic investigation of polymathy. That is the study of tion of self-similarity was used to create visually stun- individuals, both historical and contemporary, and their ning forms. trans-disciplinary thinking traits which enabled them to contribute to a variety of disciplines. His analysis of the works and biographies of numerous innovators both historical and contemporary reveals that arts adPolymathy vance the sciences and scientists are inspired by the arts (Fig. 64.2). The numerous examples of thinkers given thus far One recent example provided by Rootrepresent a unique sample of gifted individuals who Bernstein (2003) is the effect of Escher’s drawings on a made remarkable contributions to the arts, sciences, young Roger Penrose, the mathematical physicist, who and mathematics, and who also happened to be visited one of Escher’s exhibitions in 1954. Stimulated philosophers. These individuals are best characterized by the seemingly impossible perspectives conveyed by as polymaths. The term polymath is in fact quite old Escher in two dimensions, Penrose began creating his and synonymous with the German term “Renaissance- own impossible objects such as the famous Penrose mensch.” Although this term occurs abundantly in “impossible” tribar which shows a three-dimensional triangle that twists both forward and backward in two bist expressed their painting was by showing different views of dimensions. Root-Bernstein writes, an object put together in a way that you cannot actually see in real life. The Cubism period stated in Paris in 1908, reached its peak in 1914, and continued into the 1920s. Major cubists were Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque. For more information visit http://abstractart.20m.com/cubism.htm

Roger Penrose showed his tribar to his father L.S. Penrose, a biologist who dabbled in art. . .[who] invented the impossible staircase in which stairs appear to spiral both up and down simultaneously. . .[and] sent Escher a

1246

Fig. 64.2 The impossible Penrose Tribar9 copy. . .[who] then developed artistic possibilities of the impossible staircase in ways that have since become famous (p. 274).

Another well-known consequence of Escher’s artistic influence on mathematicians is the investigation of tiling problems (both periodic and aperiodic) popularized by both Roger Penrose and Martin Gardner, which helped crystallographers understand the structure of many metal alloys which are aperiodic (Peterson, 1985 as quoted by Root-Bernstein, 2003, p. 274). Common thinking traits of the polymaths described in this chapter in conjunction with the thousands of polymaths (historical and contemporary) as analyzed by Root-Bernstein (1989, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2003) and reported in various chapters in Shavinina and Ferrari (2004) among others are (1) visual geometric thinking and/or thinking in terms of geometric principles, (2) frequent shifts in perspective, (3) thinking in analogies, (4) nepistemological awareness (that is, an awareness of domain limitations), (5) interest in investigating paradoxes (which often reveal interplay between language, mathematics, and science), (6) belief in Occam’s Razor [simple ideas are preferable to complicated ones], (7) acknowledgment of Serendipity and the role of chance, and (8) the drive to influence the Agenda of the times.

B. Sriraman and B. Dahl

tial for creativity to manifest in the mathematics classroom, teachers can encourage mathematically creative students to share their synthetic insights on connections between seemingly diverse problems with the other students in the class (Sriraman, 2004e). Historic examples of synthetic thinking in mathematics, which connect seemingly diverse ideas/concepts can be used in the classroom to further illustrate the power and value of such insights. The scholarly, free market and aesthetic principles contain aspects of Sternberg’s (1997) triachic view of giftedness. The five principles also encompass notions of polymathy which can foster creativity in general by connecting notions from the arts and sciences to mathematics and vice versa. These five overarching principles emerge from a synthesis and analysis of the historical literature which reveals the interdisciplinary creativity of individuals, particularly mathematicians (Sriraman, 2005b). The five principles are labeled as follows: (a) the Gestalt principle, (b) the Aesthetic principle, (c) the free market principle, (d) the scholarly principle, and (e) the uncertainty principle.

The Gestalt Principle

The eminent French mathematicians Hadamard (1945) and Poincar´e (1948) viewed creativity as a process by which the mathematician makes choices between questions that lead to fruition as opposed to those that lead to nothing new. These mathematicians also viewed the act of creation as a combination of disparate latent ideas within the unconscious. Their conceptions of creativity were influenced by the Gestalt psychology of their time and they characterized mathematical creativity as a four-stage process consisting of preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification (Wallas, 1926; Hadamard, 1945). This combinatorial view of idea generation was also proposed by Hilbert, A Model of Interdisciplinarity which unfortunately has been construed as a formalist view of mathematics. Both Poincar´e and Hilbert were In this section we present five overarching principles to polymaths who had worked on numerous problems maximize interdisciplinary creativity and general gift- in physics, particularly the class equation. Hadamard edness (see Fig. 64.3). In order to maximize the poten- made numerous forays into Gestalt psychology and his book was instrumental in popularizing Gestalt psychology from beyond the domain of psychology to the 9 More information on the Penrose Tribar is found arenas of mathematics and cognition. Although psyhttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/PenroseTriangle.html chologists have criticized the Gestalt model of cre-

64

On Bringing Interdisciplinary Ideas to Gifted Education

1247

Giftedness

THE GESTALT PRINCIPLE Freedom of time and movement Interdisciplinary Creativity

THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE Open-ended and/or ill posed problems. Tolerating ambiguity

THE SCHOLARLY PRINCIPLE View creativity as contributing to, challenging known paradigms and extending the existing body of knowledge THE AESTHETIC PRINCIPLE Appreciating the beauty of unusual solutions /connections to the Arts and Sciences

THE FREE MARKET PRINCIPLE Encouraging risk taking and atypical thinking

Fig. 64.3 Harmonizing interdisciplinary creativity and general giftedness

ativity because it attributes a large “unknown” part of creativity to unconscious drives during incubation, numerous studies with scientists and mathematicians (i.e., Burton, 1999a, 1999b; Davis & Hersh, 1981; Shaw, 1994; Sriraman, 2004d) have consistently validated this model. In all these studies after one has worked on a problem for a considerable time (preparation) without making a breakthrough, one puts the problem aside and other interests occupy the mind. Also Polya argued for the importance of the unconscious when stating that “conscious effort and tension seem to be necessary to set the subconscious work going” (Polya, 1971, p. 198). Hadamard put forth two hypotheses regarding the incubation phase: (1) the “resthypothesis” holds that a fresh brain in a new state of mind makes illumination possible. (2) The “forgettinghypothesis” states that the incubation phase gets rid of false leads and makes it possible to approach the problem with an open mind (Hadamard, 1945, p. 33). Tall (1991) also argues that “working sufficiently hard on the problems to stimulate mental activity, and then

relaxing . . . allow the processing to carry on subconsciously” (p. 15). Krutetskii explains that what is experienced as sudden inspiration “despite the apparent absence of a connection with his former experience, is the result of previous protracted thinking, of previously acquired experience, skills, and knowledge; it entails the processes and use of information the person amassed earlier” (Krutetskii, 1976, p. 305). Also Dahl (2004) has the unconscious as one of six essential themes in her CULTIS model [U for “unconscious”] of the psychology of learning mathematics. This period of incubation eventually leads to an insight on the problem, to the “Eureka” or the “Aha!” moment of illumination. Most of us have experienced this magical moment. Yet the value of this archaic Gestalt construct is ignored in the classroom. This implies that it is important that teachers encourage the gifted to engage in suitably challenging problems over a protracted time period thereby creating the opportunities for the discovery of an insight and to experience the euphoria of the “Aha!” moment.

1248

The Aesthetic Principle Many eminent creators (particularly mathematicians) have often reported the aesthetic appeal of creating a “beautiful” theorem that ties together seemingly disparate ideas, combines ideas from different areas of mathematics, or utilizes an atypical proof technique (Birkhoff, 1956, 1969; Dreyfus & Eisenberg, 1986; Hardy, 1940). Wedderburn’s theorem that a finite division ring as a field is one instance of a unification of apparently random ideas because the proof involves algebra, complex analysis, and number theory. Cantor’s argument about the uncountability of the set of real numbers is an often quoted example of a brilliant and atypical mathematical proof technique (Nickerson, 2000). The eminent English mathematician G.H. Hardy (1940) compared the professional mathematician to an artist, because like an artist, a mathematician was a maker of patterns in the realm of abstract ideas. Hardy (1940) said, A mathematician, like a painter or a poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas. . . . The mathematician’s patterns, like the painter’s or the poet’s, must be beautiful; the ideas, like the colors or the words, must fit together in a harmonious way. Beauty is the first test: there is no permanent place in the world for ugly mathematics (p. 13).

B. Sriraman and B. Dahl

announcement of a proof to the Riemann hypothesis10 fell through upon scrutiny by the experts. This led to subsequent ignorance of his claim to a brilliant proof for the Bieberbach Conjecture.11 The western mathematical community took notice of Louis De Brange’s proof of the Bieberbach conjecture only after a prominent Soviet group of mathematicians supported his proof. On the other hand, Ramanujan’s numerous intuitive claims, which lacked proof, were widely accepted by the community because of the backing of giants like G.H. Hardy and J.E. Littlewood. The implication of these anecdotes from professional mathematics for the classroom is that teachers should encourage students to take risks. In particular they should encourage the gifted/creative students to pursue and present their solutions to contest or open problems at appropriate regional and state math student meetings, allowing them to gain experience at defending their ideas upon scrutiny from their peers (Sriraman, 2005b).

The Scholarly Principle

K-12 teachers should embrace the idea of “creative deviance” as contributing to the body of mathematical knowledge, and they should be flexible and open to alternative student approaches to problems. In addition, they should nurture a classroom environment in Also Krutetskii states that capable students often try which students are encouraged to debate and question to solve the problem in a more simple way or im- the validity of both the teachers’ and other students’ prove the solution. They do not show satisfaction be- approaches to problems. Gifted students should also fore the solution is economical, rational, and elegant be encouraged to generalize the problem and/or the (Krutetskii, 1976, p. 285). Recent studies in Australia solution as well as pose a class of analogous problems (Barnes, 2000) and Germany (Brinkmann, 2004) with in other contexts. Enhancing students’ ability to middle and high school students revealed that students work with analogical problems has historically been were capable of appreciating the “aesthetic beauty” of a simple solution to a complex mathematical problem. 10

The Free Market Principle Scientists in an academic setting take a huge risk when they announce a new theory or medical breakthrough or proof to a long-standing unsolved problem. Often the reputation of the person is put to risk if a major flaw or refutation is discovered in their findings. For instance in mathematical folklore, Louis De Branges’

The Riemann hypothesis states that the zeros of Riemann’s zeta function all have a real part of one half. Conjectured by Riemann in 1859 and since then has neither been proved nor disproved. This is currently the most outstanding unsolved problem in mathematics. 11 The Bieberbach conjecture is easily understood by undergraduate students with some exposure to complex analysis because of the elementary nature of its statement. A univalent function f transforms a point in the unit disk into the point represented by the complex number f(z) given by an infinite series f(z) = z + a2 z2 + a3 z3 + a4 z4 + . . . where the coefficients a2 , a3 , a4 , . . . are fixed complex numbers, which specify f. In 1916 Bieberbach conjectured that no matter which such f we consider |an | ≤ n. Loius de Branges proved this in 1985.

64

On Bringing Interdisciplinary Ideas to Gifted Education

proposed by Polya (1954). Allowing students problem posing opportunities and understanding of problem design helps them to differentiate mathematical problems from non-mathematical problems, good problems from poor, and solvable from non-solvable problems. In addition, independent thinking can be cultivated by offering students the opportunity to explore problem situations without any explicit instruction. This is also supported by Carlson (1999) who found that one of the non-cognitive factors that play a major role in the high-achieving mathematics graduate students’ success and further mathematical study is that they “enjoy the challenge of attempting complex mathematical tasks and believe that they possess abilities and strategies that facilitate their problem solving success” (Carlson, 1999, p. 242). Their teachers created a non-intimidating environment where students were encouraged to pose questions until they acquired understanding (Carlson, 1999, p. 244). As Root-Bernstein (this volume) puts it,

1249

curriculum acceleration and compaction in mathematics (Benbow, Lubinski, & Sushy, 1996). But the point we are making here is that many mathematical problems can be historically researched by students to find out the analogous problems tacked by individuals in history in order to make a breakthrough on the given problem. Kepler’s conjecture is one outstanding example of such a problem and there is no shortage of such problems.

The Uncertainty Principle

Real-world problems are full of uncertainty and ambiguity as indicated in our analysis so far. Creating, as opposed to learning, requires that students be exposed to the uncertainty as well as the difficulty of creating original ideas in mathematics, science, and other disciplines. This ability requires the teacher to provide affective support to students who experience frustration over being unable to solve a difficult From the polymathy perspective, giftedness is the ability problem. Students should periodically be exposed to to combine disparate (or even apparently contradictory) ideas, sets of problems, skills, talents, and knowledge in ideas from the history of mathematics and science that novel and useful ways. Polymathy is therefore the main evolved over centuries and took the efforts of genersource of any individual’s creative potential. The question ations of mathematicians to finally solve (Einstein & of “who is creative” must then be reexamined in light of Inheld, 1938; Kuhn, 1962). Cultivating this trait will what is necessary for creative thinking. In light of this distinction, Santiago Ramon y Cajal, one of the first Nobel ultimately serve the mathematically gifted student in laureates in Medicine of Physiology, argued that it is not the professional realm. Kiesswetter (1992) developed the precocious or monomaniacal student who is first in his the so-called Hamburg Model in Germany, which is class who we should expect to be creative, but the second more focused on allowing gifted students to engage tier of students who excel in breadth: “A good deal more worthy of preference by the clear-sighted teacher will be in problem-posing activities, followed by time for those students who are somewhat headstrong, contemptuexploring viable and non-viable strategies to solve the ous of first place, insensible to the inducements of vanity, posed problems. This approach captures an essence and who being endowed with an abundance of restless of the nature of professional mathematics, where the imagination, spend their energy in the pursuit of literature, art, philosophy, and all the recreations of mind and most difficult task is often to correctly formulate the body. problem (theorem). Conversely, some extant models Teachers are also encouraged to engage in curriculum within the United States, such as those used in the acceleration and compaction to lead gifted students Center for Talented Youth (CTY), tend to focus on into advanced concepts quickly to promote indepen- accelerating the learning of concepts and processes dent scholarly activity not simply from the point of from the regular curriculum, thus preparing students depth but also from that of breadth. The longitudinal for advanced coursework within mathematics (Barnett Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) & Corazza, 1993). Having presented five principles started by Julian Stanley at the Johns Hopkins Univer- that can maximize the interdisciplinary creativity we 12 sity in 1971 generated a vast amount of empirical data present examples from classroom studies at the gathered over the last 30 years, and has resulted in many findings about the types of curricular and affective interventions that foster the pursuit of advanced 12 The classroom studies reported here were conducted by Sriracoursework in mathematics. More than 250 papers man with secondary students in the 1999–2002 time period. The have been produced in its wake, and they provide study with pre-service teachers was conducted by Sriraman in excellent empirical support for the effectiveness of the 2002–2005 time period.

1250

B. Sriraman and B. Dahl

secondary school and university level that illustrate tine problem purportedly posed by Diophantus himthese principles at work in a practical settings. self. In general a diophantine n-tuple is defined as a set of n positive integers such that the product of any two is one less than a perfect square. For instance (1,3,8) is a diophantine 3-tuple since the product of any integers is always one less than a perfect square. Can Paradigm Shifts Be Didactically Over the course of the school year ninth-grade stuEngineered? dents tried to answer if a diophantine 5-tuple exists? This problem was tackled in parallel with the reguThe Value of Unsolved Classical Problems lar curriculum. The Lakatosian (1976) methodology of conjecture–proof–refutation was emphasized as stuThe use of unsolved classical problems both conveys dents tackled this problem. The limitations of modern a sense of perspective on the origins of the problems computing tools became obvious very quickly as we and presents a natural opportunity to grapple with the were working over the field of integers. The unimagquestion of allowable tools to tackle a given problem. ined difficulties that arose from generating the general Let us explain. Most students with even just a basic forms of the 4-tuples and the “futile” exhausting search background in middle school mathematics would view for a 5-tuple led students to question the ontological most historical problems through the lens and the “re- status of the set of integers and more importantly their sources” of the twenty-first century. One resource that properties. It should be noted that this was a natural many twenty-first century students rely on are calcula- function of realizing the fallibility of all their known tors with powerful graphing and computing capabilities methodological tools, which were to a large extent that including computer algebra systems, not to mention of trial and error before an insight occurred. Since the freely available computing software and web-based ap- students did not have the mathematical sophistication plets. The didactic goal was to make students realize to create number theoretic tools, a natural consequence the limited nature of modern computing tools! Elemen- was to question the question itself. In other words, it tary number theoretic concepts such as prime numbers led to questions such as (1) why do positive integers and tests for divisibility are introduced in most mid- have this strange property? (2) Does it matter if we are dle school curricula. However, in many parts of the unable to find a 5-tuple? (3) Does a 5-tuple exist even world, particularly in the United States, at the high if we are not able to find it? (4) Is this search real? The school level, the curriculum offers students very little four aforementioned questions are philosophical in naopportunity to tackle number theoretic problems (Sri- ture and pose the challenge of examining the ontologiraman, 2003b). A famous example of one such un- cal status of mathematics. In other words, Is mathematsolved problem would be Goldbach’s conjecture. Gold- ics real or imagined? bach (1742) casually wrote in a letter to Euler that numbers greater than 2 could be expressed as the sum of three primes, which Euler restated as follows: all even integers ≥4 could be expressed as the sum of two primes. Other good candidates are Catalan’s conjecture (which was only resolved two years ago!). Catalan’s conjecture asks whether 8 and 9 are the only consecutive powers? More generally it asks for all integer solutions to xa –yb = 1 in integers. Another beautiful problem is the Four Squares problem (resolved by Lagrange a long time ago), which states that every natural number n can be expressed as the sum of four squares. In other words x2 + y2 + z2 + w2 = n is solvable for all integers n. One problem used by Sriraman (2003b) with 13to 15-year-old students is called the 5-tuple diophan-

Mathematics and Literature One could easily bias the students’ natural line of philosophical questioning by pointing to the numerous connections and applications of mathematics to the arts and sciences. A better didactic approach is of course to let students make up their own minds. The question then was to find a didactic tool that would allow the teacher to scaffold this process. Mathematics fiction serves as the ideal tool to both awaken the imagination and explore more deeply philosophical questions. Flatland (Abbot, 1984 reprint of 1884 edition) a book of mathematical fiction is the unusual marriage of

64

On Bringing Interdisciplinary Ideas to Gifted Education

literature and mathematics. Sriraman (2003a) used this book as a didactic tool to provide the ideal scaffolding for 13- to 15-year-old students to critically examine societal norms and biases in addition to exposing students to some very advanced mathematical ideas such as dimension. It also created the perfect setting to expose students to non-Euclidean geometries such as the Minkowskian space–time geometry and Fractal geometry. One purpose of introducing non-Euclidean geometries was to expose students to relatively modern ideas that were instrumental in the subsequent foundational problems that plagued mathematics in the early part of the twentieth century. The hope was that this exposure to non-intuitive mathematics would lead students to form a basis for an ontological and epistemological standpoint. A follow-up teaching experiment (Sriraman, 2004b) consisted of reading the first five chapters of Flatterland, a sequel to Flatland, in which Stewart (2001) brilliantly makes numerous nonEuclidean geometries accessible to the lay person in addition to introducing ideas such as encryption on the Internet, the taxi-cab metric, and fractal geometry. These readings further exposed students to the nonintuitive aspect of mathematics. For instance Stewart (2001) describes the non-intuitive possibility of fitting a cube of side length 1.06 into a unit cube, which some students did not accept as being possible in spite of the sound mathematical argument in the book:

1251

The specific epistemological question was whether one could believe in the truth of these new geometries? For some students that were interested in science fiction, these questions also coincided with questions about the nature of reality and truth raised by the film The Matrix in which reality as is was quite different from reality experienced through a virtual interface (Sriraman, 2004b, 2004c). In other words, students were not only posing the analogous question for mathematics but were also willing to consider this question independent of the context of a specific intellectual discipline.

Conveying the Applied Nature of the Field of Mathematics

Another important aspect of this discussion is the question of the balance between pure and applied mathematics. The literature suggests that the nature of mathematics relevant for today’s world has also changed. In spite of the rich and antiquated roots of mathematics, Steen (2001) suggested that mathematician’s today should acknowledge the contributions of researchers in external disciplines like biology, physics, finance, information sciences, economics, education, medicine, and so on who successfully use mathematics to create models with far reaching and profound applications in today’s world. These interdisciplinary and emergent Mathematics is imagined by the human mind because you cannot physically create mathematics. There are many applications have resulted in the field of mathematics things that can be proven mathematically such as the thriving at the dawn of the twenty-first century. This larger cube in a smaller one but you cannot physically wide range of application can also be seen in the TV sepush a larger cube in a smaller one – Student comment ries “Numb3rs” where a university professor in mathThe origins of this mathematical problem of fitting ematics helps his brother who is an FBI agent solving a larger cube into a smaller one was a wager made and crimes. won by Prince Rupert in the late seventeenth century However, problem solving as it is implemented in (Jerrard & Wetzel, 2004) about this bizarre possibility. the classroom does not contain this interdisciplinary The non-intuitive aspect of mathematics brought alive approach and modeling of what is happening in the real by Flatterland led students in Sriraman’s studies to world. Secondary mathematics is usually the gateway take an ontological position on the nature of mathemat- for an exposure to both breadth and depth of matheics. Eventually students also asked the epistemological matical topics. However, most traditional mathematics question “How does one know truth in mathematics?” curricula are still anchored in the traditional treatment In other words students were questioning the nature of of mathematics, as opposed to an interdisciplinary and the truth of the non-intuitive possibilities of mathemat- modeling-based approach of mathematics used in the ics. The specific ontological question was whether the real world. The traditional treatment of mathematics protagonist of Flatterland was discovering geometries has little or no emphasis on modeling-based activithat were present a priori or were the different geome- ties, which require team work and communication. Adtries a figment of imagination made real via the use of ditionally, the traditional mathematics has historically a virtual reality device in the book (Sriraman, 2004b). kept gifted girls from pursuing 4 years of high school

1252

mathematics. This deficit is difficult to remediate at the undergraduate level and results in the effect of low numbers of students capable of graduate level work in interdisciplinary fields such as mathematical biology and bio-informatics (see Steen, 2005). To remediate this deficit is also in line with UNESCO’s Salamanca Statement that declares that “schools should accommodate all children regardless of their physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic or other condition. This should include disabled and gifted children, street and working children, children from remote or nomadic populations, children from linguistic, ethnic or cultural minorities and children from other disadvantaged or marginalized areas or groups” (UNESCO, 1994, p. 6): Any educator with a sense of history should foresee the snowball effect or the cycle of blaming inadequate preparation to high school onto middle school onto the very elementary grades, which suggests we work bottom up. That is, we should initiate and study the modeling of complex systems that occur in real-life situations from the very early grades. Lesh, Hamilton, & Kaput, (2007) reported that in projects such as Purdue University’s Gender Equity in Engineering Project, when students’ abilities and achievements were assessed using tasks that were designed to be simulations of real-life problem solving situations, the understandings and abilities that emerged as being critical for success included many that are not emphasized in traditional textbooks or tests. Thus, the importance of a broader range of deeper understandings and abilities and a broader range of students naturally emerged as having extraordinary potential. This finding coheres with the recommendations outlined by Renzulli and Reis (this volume). Surprisingly enough, these students also came from populations, specifically female and minority, that are highly underrepresented in fields that emphasize mathematics, science, and technology, and they were underrepresented because their abilities had been previously unrecognized (Lesh & Sriraman, 2005a, 2005b; Sriraman, 2005a, 2005b). Thus it may be more fruitful to engage students in model-eliciting activities, which expose them to complex real-life systems, as opposed to contrived problem solving. The mathematical conceptual systems arising from such investigations have great potential for being pursued by mathematically gifted students purely in terms of their implications and because they create axiomatic structures through which theorems can

B. Sriraman and B. Dahl

be discovered that are analogous to what a pure mathematician does.

The Use of Paradoxes in Teacher Training Given the lack of teacher training in interdisciplinarity, a vital component to promulgate in interdisciplinary approach in the curriculum is to initiate interdisciplinary thinking in the training of prospective teachers. In order to investigate whether prospective elementary school mathematics teachers display some of the thinking traits of polymaths, the first author conducted a 3-year study with approximately (Sriraman, 2009a, 2009b)120 prospective elementary school mathematics teachers enrolled in a year long mathematics content sequence required of elementary teachers for elementary certification. Students were presented with several set theoretic paradoxes in a linguistic form. For instance one of the tasks was The town barber shaves all those males, and only those males, who do not shave themselves. Assuming the barber is a male who shaves, who shaves the barber? First explain in your own words what this question is asking you? When you construct your response to the question, you must justify using clear language why you think your answer is valid? If you are unable to answer the question who shaves the barber?. . .you must again justify using clear language why you think the question cannot be answered.

This task is the well-known linguistic version of Russell’s paradox, appropriately called the Barber Paradox. Students were given about 10 days to construct a written response to this task. The purpose of this task was to investigate whether students with no prior exposure to the paradox would be able to decipher the contradictions in the linguistic version of Russell’s paradox, and whether they would be able to then construct their own set theoretic version of the paradox. All the students were also asked to complete the following affective tasks parallel to the mathematical task: Write one paragraph (200–300 words) about your impressions of a given question after you have read it, if possible while tackling it, and after you’ve finished it. In particular record things such as: a. The immediate feeling/mood about the question. (confidence, in confidence, ambivalence, happiness, tenseness etc.) b. After you’ve finished the question record the feeling/mood about the question (if you are confident about

64

On Bringing Interdisciplinary Ideas to Gifted Education your solution; why you are confident? Are you satisfied/unsatisfied? Are you elated/not elated? Are you frustrated? If so why? c. Did you refer to the book, notes? Did you spend a lot of time thinking about what you were doing? Or was the solution procedural (and you simply went through the motions so to speak) d. Was the question difficult, if so why? If not, why not? e. Did you experience any sense of beauty in the question and/or your solution?

In this study besides the written responses of the students to the aforementioned tasks, the first author interviewed 20 students from the 120 students. These students were purposefully selected on the basis of whether they were able to unravel the paradox and formulate its set theoretic equivalent and those that were unsuccessful in their attempts to do so. During the interview clarifications were sought on the written solution and their affective responses. Students were allowed to speak at length on the nature of the problem and their struggles with it. The written artifacts (student solution and affective responses) and interview data were analyzed using a phenomenologicalhermeneutic approach (Merleau-Ponty, 1962; Romme & Escher, 1993) with the purpose of re-creating the voice of the students. In addition, the constant comparative method from grounded theory was applied for the purposes of triangulating the categories which emerged from the phenomenological approach (e.g., Annells, 2006). The qualitative analysis of student solutions, affective responses, and interview transcripts indicated that nearly that 40% of the students displayed polymathic traits when engaged with the paradox. In particular students reported (1) frequent shifts in perspective (2) thinking with analogies, and (3) tendency toward nepistemology (i.e., questioning the validity of the question and its place in the domain of mathematics). The pre-service teachers also reported an increased interest in the place of paradoxes in mathematics, which they had believed as an infallible or absolutist science (Sriraman, 2009a, 2009b). There have been recent attempts to classify works of mathematics fiction suitable for use by K-12 teachers in conjunction with science and humanities teachers to broaden student learning. Padula (2005) argues that although good elementary teachers have historically known the value of mathematical fiction, mainly picture books, through which children could be engaged in mathematical learning, such an approach also has con-

1253

siderable value at the secondary level. Padula (2005) provides a small classification of books appropriate for use at the middle and high school levels, which integrate paradoxes, art, history, literature, and science to “stimulate the interest of reluctant mathematics learners, reinforce the motivation of the student who is already intrigued by mathematics, introduce topics, supply interesting applications, and provide mathematical ideas in a literary and at times, highly visual context” (p. 13).

Concluding Thoughts The tension between the disciplines that came out of the Renaissance, namely natural philosophy– art–alchemy–theology during the post-Renaissance continues today in the modern day antipathy between the ever increasing subdisciplines within arts, science, mathematics, and philosophy. Many of the thinking processes of polymaths who unified disciplines are commonly invoked by artists, scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers in their craft albeit the end products are invariably different. These disciplines explore our world for new knowledge. Literature is an excellent medium to create frequent shifts in perspective. Paradoxes can be easily investigated by exploring geometry motivated by Art. After all Art suggests new possibilities and pushes the limits of our imagination, whereas science verifies the actual limitations of these possibilities using mathematics. Both are driven by the need to understand reality with philosophy (and theology) often serving as the underlying framework linking the three. Models and Theory building lie at the intersection of art–science– mathematics. The history of model building in science conveys epistemological awareness of domain limitations. Arts imagine possibilities, science attempts to generate models to test possibilities, and mathematics serves as the tool. The implications for education today are to move away from the post-Renaissance snobbery rampant within individual disciplines at the school and university levels. By building bridges today between disciplines, the greatest benefactors are today’s gifted children, the potential innovators of tomorrow.

1254

References Abbot, E. (1984). Flatland (Reprint of the 1884 edition). New York: Signet Classic Books. Annells, M. (2006). Triangulation of qualitative approaches: hermeneutical phenomenology and grounded theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(1), 55–61. Barnes, M. (2000). Magical moments in mathematics: Insights into the process of coming to know. For the Learning of Mathematics, 20(1), 33–43. Barnett, L. B., & Corazza, L. (1993). Identification of mathematical talent and programmatic efforts to facilitate development of talent. European Journal for High Ability, 4, 48–61. Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., & Sushy, B. (1996). The impact of SMPY’s educational programs from the perspective of the participant. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent (pp. 266–300). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Birkhoff, G. D. (1969). Mathematics and psychology. SIAM Review, 11, 429–469. Birkhoff, G. D. (1956). Mathematics of aesthetics. In J. R. Newman, (Ed.), The world of mathematics (Vol. 4, 7th ed., pp. 2185–2197). New York: Simon and Schuster. Brinkmann, A. (2004). The experience of mathematical beauty. In Contributions to P. C. Clarkson & M. Hannula (Organizers), TSG 24: Students’ motivation and attitudes towards mathematics and its study. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Mathematics Education, Copenhagen, Denmark. CD-ROM. Buckley, P., & David, P. F. (1979). Conversations in physics and biology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Burton, L. (1999a). The practices of mathematicians: What do they tell us about coming to know mathematics? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37(2), 121–143. Burton, L. (1999b). Why is intuition so important to mathematics but missing from mathematics education? For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(3), 27–32. Brumbaugh, R. S. (1981). The philosophers of Greece. Albany: State University of New York Press. Calter, P. (1998). Retrieved 14, April 2005, from Origins of Perspective http://www.dartmouth.edu/∼matc/math5.geometry/ Carlson, M. P. (1999). The Mathematical behavior of six successful mathematics graduate students: Influences leading to mathematical success. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40, 237–258. Chan, W. (1973). A source book in Chinese philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Craig, W. L., & Smith, Q. (1995). Theism, atheism and big bang cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Craft, A. (2003). The limits to creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educator. British Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), 113–127. Craft, A. (2002). Creativity in the early years: A lifewide foundation. London: Continuum. Cramer, F. (1993). Chaos and order. New York: VCH Publishers. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325–339). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

B. Sriraman and B. Dahl Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–338). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dahl, B. (2004). Analysing cognitive learning processes through group interviews of successful high school pupils: Development and use of a model. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56, 129–155. Danish Ministry of Education. (2001). Klare M˚al – Matematik – Faghæfte 12. Copenhagen: Undervisningsministeriet. Davis, P. J., & Hersh, R. (1981). The mathematical experience. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Davis, P. J., & Hersh, R. (1988). Descartes’ dream: The world according to mathematics. London: Penguin Books. Descartes, R. (1996). Meditations on first philosophy (J. Cottingham, Trans. & Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1986). On the aesthetics of mathematical thought. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(1), 2–10. Einstein, A., & Inheld, L. (1938). The evolution of physics. New York: Simon and Schuster. Gaon, S. (1948). The book of beliefs and opinions. Translated by S. Rosenblatt. New Haven: Yale University Press. Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos – Making a new science. New York: Penguin Books. Gliozzi, M. (1970). Dictionary of scientific biography (New York 1970–1990). Retrieved 12, December 2006, from http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/∼history/Biog Index.html Gruber, H. E. (1989). The evolving systems approach to creative work. In D. B. Wallace and H. E. Gruber, Creative people at work: Twelve cognitive case studies. (pp. 3–24), New York: Oxford University Press. Goldbach, C. (1742). Letter to L. Euler. Retrieved from http://www.mathstat.dal.ca/∼joerg/pic/g-letter.jpg on December 19 , 2006. Gruber, H. E., & Wallace, D. B. (2000). The case study method and evolving systems approach for understanding unique creative people at work. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 93–115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goswami, A. (1993). The self-aware Universe. New York: G. P. Putnam Sons. Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hardy, G. H. (1940). A mathematician’s apology. London: Cambridge University Press. Holmyard, E. J. (1990). Alchemy. New York: Dover Publications. Jerrard, R. P., & Wetzel, J. E. (2004). Prince Rupert’s rectangles. The American Mathematical Monthly, 111(1), 22–31. ¨ Kiesswetter, K. (1992). Mathematische Begabung. Uber die Komplexit¨at der Ph¨anomene und die Unzul¨anglichkeiten von Punktbewertungen. Mathematik-Unterricht, 38, 5–18. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in school children (J. Teller, Trans. & J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirszup, Eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

64

On Bringing Interdisciplinary Ideas to Gifted Education

Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and Refutations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leibniz, G. W. (1985). Theodicy (E. M. Huggard, Trans.) from C. J. Gerhart’s edition of the collected philosophical works, 1875–1890. Lasalle, IL: Open Court Press. Lesh, R., Hamilton, E., & Kaput, J. (2007). Foundations for the future: The need for new mathematical understandings & abilities in the 21st century. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lesh, R., & Sriraman, B. (2005a). John Dewey revisitedpragmatism and the models-modeling perspective on mathematical learning. In A. Beckmann, C. Michelsen, & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Mathematics and its Connections to the Arts and Sciences. University of Schwaebisch Gmuend: Germany.Franzbecker Verlag, 32–51. Lesh, R., & Sriraman, B. (2005b). Mathematics education as a design science. International Reviews on Mathematical Education (Zentralblatt f¨ur Didaktik der Mathematik), 37(6), 490–505. Mandelbrot, B. (1981). Scalebound or scaling shapes: A useful distinction in the visual arts and in the natural sciences. Leonardo, 14, 45–47. Mandelbrot, B. (1989). Fractals and an art for the sake of science. Leonardo Supplemental Issue, 21–4. Mandelbrot, B. (2001). The fractal universe. In K. H. Pfenninger, & V. R. Shubnik (Eds.), The origins of creativity (pp. 191– 212). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Nickerson, R. S. (2000). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 392–430). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Niss, M., & Jensen, T. H. (Eds.). (2002). Kompetencer og matematiklæring. Uddannelsesstyrelsens temahæfteserie, nr. 18, 1–334, Undervisningsministeriet (Danish Ministry of Education). OECD. (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills – A new framework for assessment, OECD, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Paris: France. Padula, J. (2005). Mathematical fiction – It’s place in secondary school mathematics learning. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 61(4), 6–13. Heinz-Otto Peitgen, H. O., Juergens, H., & Saupe, D. (1992). Chaos and fractals: New frontiers of science. New York: Springer Verlag. Plucker, J., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153–168). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Poincar´e, H. (1946). The foundations of science (George Bruce Halsted, Trans.). Lancaster, PA: The Science Press. Poincar´e, H. (1948). Science and method. New York: Dover Books. Polkinghorne, J. (1998). Science & theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning: Induction and analogy in mathematics (Vol. II). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

1255 Polya, G. (1971). How to solve it – A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Romme, M. A. J., & Escher, A. D. M. A. C. (1993). The new approach: A Dutch experiment. In M. A. J. Romme & A. D. M. A. C. Escher (Eds.), Accepting voices (pp. 11–27). London: MIND publications. Popkin, R. (1989). Pascal: Selections, New York: MacMillan. Ripple, R. E. (1989). Ordinary creativity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 189–202. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1989). Discovering. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1996). The sciences and arts share a common creative aesthetic. In A. I. Tauber (Ed.), The elusive synthesis: Aesthetics and science (pp. 49–82). Netherlands: Kluwer. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (2000). Art advances science. Nature, 407, 134. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (2001). Music, science, and creativity. Leonardo, 34, 63–68. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (2003). The art of innovation: Polymaths and the universality of the creative process. In L. Shavanina (Ed.), International handbook of innovation (pp. 267–278). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Russell, B. (1945). A history of western philosophy. New York: Simon & Schuster. Salmon, W. C. (1990). Philosophy and the rise of modern science. Teaching Philosophy, 13, 233–239. Sharp, P. (2003). A triple tie: The relationship between science, religion and society. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 73, 346–351. Shavinina, L., & Ferrari, M. (Eds.). (2004). Beyond knowledge: Extra-cognitive aspects of developing high ability. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shaw, M. P. (1994). Affective components of scientific creativity. In M. P. Shaw & M. A. Runco (Eds.), Creativity and affect (pp. 3–43). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Sriraman, B. (2003a). Mathematics and literature: Synonyms, antonyms or the perfect amalgam. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 59(4), 26–31. Sriraman, B. (2003b). Can mathematical discovery fill the existential void? The use of Conjecture, Proof and Refutation in a high school classroom (feature article). Mathematics in School, 32(2), 2–6. Sriraman, B. (2004a). The influence of Platonism on mathematics research and theological beliefs. Theology and Science, 2(1), 131–147. Sriraman, B. (2004b). Mathematics and literature (the sequel): Imagination as a pathway to advanced mathematical ideas and philosophy. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 60(1), 17–23. Sriraman, B. (2004c). Re-creating the Renaissance. In M. Anaya & C. Michelsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Topic Study Group 21: Relations between mathematics and others subjects of art and science: The 10th International Congress of Mathematics Education, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 14–19. Sriraman, B. (2004d). The characteristics of mathematical creativity. The Mathematics Educator, 14(1), 19–34. Sriraman, B. (2004e). Reflective abstraction, uniframes and the formulation of generalizations. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23(2), 205–222.

1256 Sriraman, B., & Adrian, H. (2004a). The pedagogical value and the interdisciplinary nature of inductive processes in forming generalizations. Interchange: A Quarterly Review of Education, 35(4), 407–422. Sriraman, B., & Adrian, H. (2004b). The use of fiction as a didactic tool to examine existential problems. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(3), 96–106. Sriraman, B. (2005a). Philosophy as a bridge between mathematics arts and the sciences. In A. Beckmann, C. Michelsen, & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Mathematics and its Connections to the Arts and Sciences. University of Schwaebisch Gmuend: Germany. Franzbecker Verlag, 7–31. Sriraman, B. (2005b). Are mathematical giftedness and mathematical creativity synonyms? A theoretical analysis of constructs. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1) 20–36. Sriraman, B., & Benesch, W. (2005). Consciousness and science – An Advaita-vedantic perspective on the theologyscience dialogue. Theology and Science, 3(1), 39–54. Sriraman, B. (2009a). Mathematical paradoxes as pathways into beliefs and polymathy: an experimental injury. ZDM- The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41(1&2), 29–38. Sriraman, B. (2009b). Interdisciplinarity in mathematics education: psychology, philosophy, aesthetics, modelling and curriculum. ZDM- The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41(1&2), 1–4. Steen, L. A. (2005). Math & bio 2010: Linking undergraduate disciplines. Washington DC: Mathematical Association of America.

B. Sriraman and B. Dahl Steen, L. A. (2001). Revolution by stealth. In D. A. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level (pp. 303–312). Docrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). A triarchic view of giftedness: Theory and practice. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 43–53). Boston: Allyn Bacon. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (2000). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 93–115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51, 677–688. Stewart, I. (2001). Flatterland. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. Szpiro, G. G. (2003). Kepler’s conjecture. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Tall, D. (1991). The psychology of advanced mathematical thinking. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 3–21). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Lexington, MA: Ginn. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Adopted, Salamanca, Spain, 7–10 June 1994. Voelkel, J. R. (1999). Johannes Kepler: And the new astronomy. New York: Oxford University Press. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt Brace. Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: Freeman.

Chapter 65

Innovation Education for the Gifted: A New Direction in Gifted Education Larisa V. Shavinina

Abstract This chapter introduces a new direction in gifted education: innovation education. In order to actualize and develop the unique talents of gifted children, we have to concentrate on innovation education. Innovation education refers to a wide range of educational interventions aimed at identifying, developing, and transforming child talent into adult innovation. That is, those societal actions aimed at preparing gifted children to become adult innovators. Such educational interventions should include, but should not be limited to, the six components. This chapter will discuss these components. Keywords Innovation education · Innovation science · Innovation gap · Individual differences principle of innovation · Courage · Creativity · Excellence · Deadline management

Introduction: How Giftedness Is Related to Innovation Societal interest in gifted children is related to those unique talents which—in their adulthood—may greatly enrich the world. One of the obvious ways to understand the history of human culture is via its inventions and discoveries. All cultural development of mankind is based on the ever-growing scientific, technological, educational, moral, political, and commercial achievements of the human mind. Simonton L.V. Shavinina (B) Universit´e du Qu´ebec en Outaouais, Gatineau, Qu´ebec, Canada e-mail: [email protected]

(this volume) showed that a large proportion of the contributions to any domain come from a small number of its most-talented contributors. Consequently, the gifted are first and foremost responsible for innovations worldwide. They move frontiers of innovation ahead. It also means that the degree of societal interest in gifted children, and societal investment in gifted education, will be directly reflected in the level of innovations in each particular society, and, as a result, in its economic prosperity. This is why innovation is closely related to giftedness, and why giftedness is related to economy and public policy and therefore should be among the top priorities on any government’s agenda. Today’s gifted children and adolescents are tomorrow’s innovators. Such logic of reasoning led me to the following conclusions with respect to research on giftedness and gifted education. First of all, a clear and direct link between giftedness and innovation should be reflected in the concept of high abilities as a whole. In my opinion, the concept of high ability refers to giftedness, talent, the child prodigy phenomenon, creativity, exceptional human intelligence, great leadership, and wisdom. I think that the concept of high ability should be extended to include innovation. Innovation is an integral part of high ability. This is also because creativity is the first step in the innovation process. That is, innovation begins from new, original, and appropriate ideas. Second, scholars investigating high abilities should play an active role in research on innovation. My first step in this direction was The International Handbook on Innovation (Shavinina, 2003a), the first and only handbook of its kind in the area of innovation. As a psychologist working in the field of giftedness, talent, the child prodigy phenomenon, and creativity, I found that innovation was studied by many different

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 65, 

1257

1258

disciplines as one of their important facets. Nevertheless, I noticed an emerging tendency that contemporary demands on innovative ideas, solutions, products, and services marked an imperative of a special unified, multifaceted, and multidimensional discipline: the science of innovation. It was a combination of my interest in giftedness and innovation with my perception of the field of innovation as needing unification and clarification that encouraged me to produce The International Handbook on Innovation. The Handbook was published by Elsevier Science in 2003 and became a bestseller. Third, the efforts of the gifted education community should be directed to preparing today’s gifted children to become tomorrow’s innovators. In order to actualize the innovative potential of the gifted and develop their unique innovative talents, we have to focus on innovation education. I would like to emphasize that innovation education is not about innovations in teaching mathematics, biology, chemistry, and so on. These are the so-called domain-specific innovations in each particular area of human endeavour. I will not discuss them in this chapter. By innovation education, I broadly mean a wide range of educational interventions aimed at identifying, developing, and transforming child talent into adult innovation. It refers to those societal actions aimed at helping gifted children to become adult innovators. I think that such educational interventions should include, but should not be limited to, the following main components: (a) The existing programs for the gifted, which proved their effectiveness (e.g., The Renzulli Enrichment Program, The Future Problem Solving, and other programs; see chapters by Brody, Cramond, Renzulli & Reis, and VanTassel-Baska, this volume; just to mention a few). (b) New programs that can be based on the latest advances in the field of giftedness (to be considered below). (c) The essentials of deadline management. (d) Programs aimed at the development of the gifted’s metacognitive abilities. That is, special emphasis should be made on the fostering of their abilities to implement things: the so-called executive abilities. (e) A general “know-what” and “know-how” about innovation science. This is what I call the basics of innovation. There is an unlimited number of ed-

L.V. Shavinina

ucational opportunities here. Below I will discuss the most promising of them. (f) Courage-related issues: For innovators to succeed, the courage is compulsory. Unfortunately, no one teaches today’s gifted children to be courageous in pursuing their unique interests and implementing their new ideas into practice in the form of new products, processes, or services. The first component of innovation education—the successful existing programs for the gifted—is well described in the literature (Colangelo & Davis, 2003; Heller, Monks, Sternberg, & Subotnik, 2000) and many contributors to this volume have analysed recent progress in gifted education. I will not consider them in this chapter. Instead, I will concentrate on the last five components, which provide a good introduction to what innovation education for the gifted is all about.

The Components of Innovation Education for the Gifted Recent investigations on giftedness, talent, and creativity serve as an excellent foundation for innovation education programs for the gifted. I think that the facets of the following research streams should be incorporated in the innovation curricula for the gifted.

Entrepreneurial Giftedness The first and the foremost component of innovation education should be related to entrepreneurial giftedness. This is because entrepreneurs put ideas into practice via the creation of new ventures, which, in turn, create employment and—in successful cases—lead to economic prosperity. The essence of entrepreneurship thus entirely coincides with the nature of innovation, that is, innovation is about the implementation of ideas into practice in the form of new products, processes, and services. It is therefore safe to assert that successful entrepreneurs are innovators. This is why the research findings related to entrepreneurial giftedness must be at the centre of innovation education. Specifically, the following aspects of research on entrepreneurial giftedness should be included and highlighted:

65

Innovation Education for the Gifted

1259

1. Early signs of entrepreneurial giftedness. Tomorrule: they are able to put into action all the ingredirow’s innovators should be aware of a wide range ents necessary for the implementation of their ideas. of characteristics, which successful entrepreneurs In sharp contrast to the conventional wisdom of inmanifested in childhood (e.g., initiative, creativity, novation science emphasizing that people are good risk-taking, competitiveness, perseverance to suceither in generating ideas (i.e., creativity) or in their ceed, hard working, and so on; Shavinina, 2008). implementing into practice (i.e., innovation), just Even more importantly, today’s gifted children and to mention one dogma, I found that there is a rare adolescents should know that fulfilled talented engroup of individual innovators. They possess by a trepreneurs tried to be entrepreneurs already in their unique ability to both generate great ideas and imchildhood by doing real, practical things and impleplement them into practice in the form of new prodmenting their ideas into practice (e.g., selling newsucts, services, and processes by putting into place papers or cokes, growing tomato plants and selling all the necessary organizational (e.g., creating a rethem, and so on). For more information on this subsearch lab as Thomas Edison did or setting up many ject refer to my chapter on entrepreneurial giftednew companies as Richard Branson did), human ness in this volume. (i.e., hiring the best talent and managing it appro2. Executive abilities of talented entrepreneurs. As priately), and “environmental” (e.g., changing the mentioned above, innovation is mainly about the dominant working culture as Akio Morita did when implementation of creative ideas into practice in he almost rejected the traditional Japanese way of the form of new products, processes, or services. doing business at Sony) structures (Branson, 2002; Lessons learned from successful entrepreneurs reMorita, 1987). This is what the phenomenon of ingarding how they do it successfully and what helps dividual innovation is all about. The goal of innovathem will be of immense importance to today’s tion education should be to develop individual ingifted. Translated into a set of special exercises, novators. these “know-what” and “know-how” facets of the 4. Motivation-related issues: Creativity and excelexecutive abilities of talented entrepreneurs will be lence. Research demonstrates that many fulfilled, an essential part in developing innovative abilities. highly accomplished entrepreneurs founded new 3. Creative abilities of great entrepreneurs: Individventures not because they wanted to make money ual innovators. Truly talented entrepreneurs devel(see my chapter on giftedness and economy in this oped their own, highly individual methods and techvolume). Many of them started businesses for variniques for producing new, original, and appropriety of reasons, which were not related to financial ate ideas (Shavinina, this volume). It is interesting rewards. Thus, creativity has always been behind to note that traditional creativity training does not the entrepreneurial motivation of Richard Branson. contain anything similar. Creativity techniques and For instance, he wrote in the autobiography that methods of great entrepreneurs will help to enhance “I have never gone into any business purely to abilities of future innovators. It is my belief that make money . . . A business has to exercise your successful entrepreneurs are polymaths (R. Rootcreative instincts” (Branson, 2002, p. 57). In the Bernstein, this volume), multi-talented individuals case of Michael Dell it is excellence that is in (to be also discussed below) because they are able the heart of his entrepreneurial motivation. When to both generate ideas with money-making poten18-year-old Michael almost left university and his tial and to implement them into practice. It is a father asked him what he was planning to do with rare ability. For the most part, people either produce his life, he replied: “I want to compete with IBM!” ideas or implement them in life. I would call the (Dell, 1999, p. 10). High abilities—for example, first group “creators” and the second group “innovacreativity or excellence—and achievement-related tors”. This unique ability of talented entrepreneurs issues are behind great entrepreneurs’ wish to has allowed me to talk about the phenomenon of increate new ventures. Today’s gifted children and dividual innovation. Usually, innovation is viewed adolescents should know that money was not the a “team sport” in that it involves many individuals driving force for many talented entrepreneurs. to implement ideas into practice. The case of indi- 5. Unique vision: Unusual type of representations. vidual innovators is a complete exception from this Unique point of view or unique type of repre-

1260

sentations is the very essence of giftedness (see my chapter on the nature of giftedness in this volume). Talented entrepreneurs see, understand, and interpret everything in an unusual way. For example, not many 18-year-olds could say with all the certitude that they “want to compete with IBM” and consider it as the goal of their life. I therefore think that examples of the unique vision of successful entrepreneurs and how many important business decisions were made based on their unrepeatable viewpoints will certainly contribute to the development of innovative abilities of today’s gifted. It is interesting to note that leadership researchers1 have come to the conclusion that vision is a critical aspect of great leaders. 6. Specific extracognitive abilities. Highly accomplished entrepreneurs are characterized by very specific feelings, intentions and beliefs, preferences and values, as well as intuition (their definition will be considered below). Examples of these abilities (see my chapter on entrepreneurial giftedness in this volume) and the demonstration of their exceptional role in entrepreneurial giftedness along with exercises designed to develop them in the gifted should be an essential part of innovation education. It is amazing that how many important decisions in all areas of human endeavour were made based on intuition (Branson, 2002; Morita, 1987; this issue will also be mentioned below). 7. Micro-social factors stimulating or inhibiting the development of entrepreneurial giftedness. Future innovators should also be aware of the micro-social factors that can facilitate or hinder the development of their innovative abilities and entrepreneurial giftedness. Examples from successful entrepreneurs will thus be quite appropriate for innovation education. In this respect, information regarding the positive role of nuclear and extended family,2 significant others, and great contemporaries, as well as knowledge of how to turn negative micro-social influences into the beneficial ones are of great importance to today’s gifted children and adolescents.

L.V. Shavinina

I am therefore convinced that entrepreneurial giftedness should be a major component in the structure of innovation education. Any individual will benefit from this, regardless of his or her actual abilities. It will also help us to identify many potentially gifted young entrepreneurs and businessmen. Likewise, this element of innovation education will fill an apparent niche in gifted education and will benefit a global economy as a whole.

Managerial Talent: Lessons from Great Managers

As was mentioned above, innovators are distinguished by an excellent ability to put into place all the organizational, human, and “environmental” structures necessary for implementing their ideas into practice in the form of new products, processes, or services. The human aspect is an exceptionally critical here. As David Ogilvy, the legendary founder and CEO of the advertising agency Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide emphasized when he was given an advice to a new CEO, “people are the only thing that matters, and the only thing you should think about, because when that part is right, everything else works” (Wademan, 2005, p. 36). Innovators should therefore be very good in managing people. This is why managerial talent is an essential ingredient of innovation talent. My research demonstrates that many famous innovators were indeed very good in managing the human part of business. For instance, Shavinina and Medvid’s chapter in this volume presents a special case study of Richard Branson as a great manager. Nelson Mandela, Akio Morita, Michael Dell, Andy Grove, just to mention a few, were also excellent in managing people. Lessons learned from these managers should be important elements of innovation education. The knowledge of their unique approaches to and methods of managing people will be a great asset for tomorrow’s innovators. However, this not the whole story. The second part of learning from great managers should be based on the Gallup organization’s study of more than 80,000 best managers in the world. 1 Leadership research traditionally belongs to the field of manAs Shavinina and Medvid (this volume) reviewed agement and business studies, administrative sciences. It means this research in detail, I will only mention here that that leadership scholars found the importance of vision in great today’s gifted children and adolescents will benefit leaders independently of giftedness researchers. 2 For definitions of these concepts please see my chapter on en- enormously from knowing how and why the best mantrepreneurial giftedness in this volume. agers in the world break all the rules of conventional

65

Innovation Education for the Gifted

management wisdom in every facet of their professional activity. Practical examples with exercises will develop the gifted’s managerial abilities. For instance, future innovators should know that best managers hire for talent (not only for intelligence, experience, and persistence) because they are convinced that every role performed at excellence requires talent. When these managers set expectations for their employees, they define the right outcomes, not the right steps. It is up to employees to determine the appropriate steps. When motivating someone, great managers focus on human strengths, not on weaknesses. This is because they realize perfectly that the greatest room for our enhancement is in the area of our strengths, not weaknesses. It means that best managers in the world even do not try to change or improve people. Instead, they concentrate on human strengths and work from there. When developing employees, great managers try to find the right fit between the individual’s abilities and the job requirements; not just promote someone. Great managers also realized that they can manage people only by remote control. Real control is a powerful illusion of mediocre managers. The best managers spend more time with their “stars”—their best employees. Therefore, everything what great managers do is a complete deviation from conventional management wisdom. This is why the Gallup researchers concluded that the best managers around the globe break all the rules of conventional management wisdom (Buckingham & Coffman, 1990). Adding these two parts of lessons from great managers to innovation education will allow us to guarantee that tomorrow’s innovators will really develop their managerial talents and thus will be well prepared to manage human resources, the most important aspect of innovation.

1261

of Canada, Sheila Fraser. In my opinion, the most powerful way to prevent future mistakes of any kind is to rely on human wisdom. (Auto)biographical accounts on great innovators show that they have highly developed wisdom-related skills (Branson, 2002; Dell, 1999; Grove, 1987, 1996; Lowenstein, 1996; Morita, 1987). Wisdom is to a significant extent behind success in any area of human endeavour. Wisdom and innovation are therefore associated. Societies can progress today only by innovating; hence, every effort should be made to develop wisdom in today’s gifted children and adolescents—tomorrow’s innovators. Shavinina and Medvid (this volume) briefly described the wisdom-based performance of Richard Branson. This and similar examples from other areas of human activity, along with practical exercises aimed at developing wisdom-related abilities of the gifted, should be incorporated in innovation education. Future innovators should understand the nature of wisdom and its role in innovation and in decision-making process, as well as be aware of the fundamental characteristics of wise individuals, and know how to bring wisdom-related performance to organizations.

Deadline Management

A new—and, from my viewpoint, exciting—area of research has relatively recently appeared with management, business, and administrative sciences: deadline management. Every single project—including innovative one—has its beginning and end. The same is true for any innovation that often depends on timely efforts, that is, time needed to develop it, to introduce it to the market place, and so forth. Usually, shorter peApplied Wisdom riod of time is better for innovation. It means that with respect to innovation those individuals and organizaFerrari (this volume) and Heng and Tam (this volume) tions, who are fast in the innovation process, will be well described the importance of developing wisdom winners. This is why knowledge about deadline manin children in general and in the gifted in particular. agement should be a vital part of innovation education. Here I want to emphasize another aspect in light of The basics of deadline management include the underinnovation education. The collapse of Enron, World- standing of the fact that deadlines bring out the best com, and other companies demonstrated that wisdom in us, a need to cultivate positive attitude to deadlines, is a much needed, yet a relatively rare, human ability. as well as to develop a culture conducive to deadlines “Mistakes will be made”, repeats the Auditor General (Amabile, Hadly, & Kramer, 2002; Gersick, 1995).

1262

Scientific Talent: Learning from Nobel Laureates Future innovators will certainly benefit from learning helpful lessons from Nobel laureates. Scientific discoveries made by Nobel laureates also belong to innovation. The nature of innovation is cross-disciplinary, that is, in any field of human endeavour, innovation begins from great creative ideas. If we are talking about scientific innovation and are thus concerned with the development of scientific talents, then it seems reasonable to study the Nobel Prize winners in great detail. This is why I began my research on the high abilities of Nobel laureates in science (Shavinina, 2003b, 2004). As I wrote in my chapter on scientific talent in this volume, winning a Nobel Prize represents the pinnacle of accomplishments possible in one’s field of expertise. This prize in science is associated with a rare, high degree of intellectually creative achievement that testifies to innovative minds of its recipients. What do we know about the origins of such minds? During their early years, Nobel laureates in science encompassed a wide range of human abilities including the gifted, the gifted underachievers, twice-exceptional children, and children without any special talents. It is interesting to see that these obviously different profiles of abilities—that manifested themselves in clearly divergent trajectories of talent development—eventually led to the same outcome: great scientific discoveries, which means that those who made them possess by the exceptional intellectually creative abilities. At the end of the day, all the various trajectories of talent development led to the same result: astonishing scientific achievements. My study of autobiographical and biographical accounts on Nobel Prize winners demonstrates that among many factors, which made it possible, their extracognitive abilities and their objectivization of cognition played an essential role (Shavinina, 1996a). I analyzed this issue in detail in my chapter on scientific talent in this volume. Here I only wish to mention that extracognitive abilities refer to the following interrelated elements, including

r

L.V. Shavinina

r r r

specific intellectually creative beliefs and intentions (e.g., belief in elevated standards of performance; Kholodnaya, 1993); specific preferences and intellectual values (e.g., the “inevitable” choice of great mentors and internally developed standards of working; Kholodnaya, 1993); and intuition (Marton, Fensham, & Chaiklin, 1994).

The word “specific” embodies the uniqueness of these elements in the structure of Nobel laureates’ high abilities. I found that extracognitive abilities of Nobel laureates represent the highest level of the manifestation of human intellectual and creative potential, as well as predict outstanding scientific talent of Nobel calibre (Shavinina, 1996b, 2003b, 2004). It will be helpful for future innovators to know how specific feelings, beliefs and intentions, preferences, and intuitive processes helped Nobel laureates to be innovative. All in all, a special program can be designed for the gifted based on these research findings, which would explain the essence of extracognitive abilities, why they are needed to make innovation happen, and how everyone can develop them. Another important aspect of learning from Nobel laureates is lessons from their childhood and adolescence. I have recently started a special project on this subject entitled A Study of Early Childhood and Adolescent Education of Nobel Laureates and the Implications for Gifted and General Education: Developing Scientific Talent of Nobel Calibre. The project studies early childhood and adolescent education of Nobel laureates in science—starting with the first laureate, who received his prize in 1901, and ending with the most recent laureates, who received their prizes in 2007 (N =586). The objectives of this research are twofold. The first is to discover the unique aspects of the early childhood and adolescent education of Nobel laureates, which contributed to their superior intellectual and creative development and had led to their excellent achievements in science. The second objective consists in translating the results of this investigation into larger-scale gifted, science, and general education specific intellectually creative feelings: feelings of worldwide. The discovery of the principles involved in direction, harmony, beauty, and style, including the educational development of Nobel laureates will alsenses of “important problems”, “good” ideas, low educators to accordingly improve, develop, mod“correct” theories, elegant solutions; and feelings ify, and transcend areas in the current curriculum in of “being right, being wrong, or having come an attempt to cultivate outstanding scientific talent, of across something important”; Nobel calibre, in today’s children. This is why this

65

Innovation Education for the Gifted

research is an exceptionally timely and important endeavour and lessons that can be derived for gifted education are enormous. Specifically, the research aims to address the following issues: (1) What are the patterns of educational experience, learning trajectories, and determinants of education in Nobel laureates? (2) What educational influences are there on the development of their abilities? When can exceptional scientific talent first be identified? (3) What are the advantages and disadvantages of different educational approaches? (4) What are other influential variables (e.g., motivation, personality, and micro- and macro-social factors) that may help to sculpt the path of education in Nobel laureates? This research is of immense importance for innovation education, science, and society at large. It has great potential to advance knowledge because it (1) introduces a new direction in educational science in general, “Learning from Nobel laureates,” which will fuel further development of early childhood, special, and science education; (2) introduces a fresh trend in psychology aimed at research on early educational histories of Nobel laureates, which will advance positive child psychology that concentrates on “optimal human functioning;” (3) complements and extends existing studies on Nobel laureates (see my chapter on scientific talent, this volume); and (4) presents the multifaceted issue of the fostering of scientific talent in a new light (i.e., emphasizing the importance of childhood education, not only of graduate training). The wider social benefit of this research consists in the fact that it will contribute to the improvement of education in a number of ways that will advance innovation education significantly. First, research on childhood and adolescent education of each Nobel laureate in the light of his or her developmental history will allow us to draw unique conclusions, which are of great interest to early childhood specialists and parents concerned with optimizing gifted children’s educational development. Second, valuable recommendations will be developed for teachers in science education in trying to improve current educational practice as well as to facilitate scientific talents.

1263

the cases of multiply talented individuals who made significant major contributions to multiple domains (R. Root-Bernstein, 2003, this volume; R. Root-Bernstein & M. Root-Bernstein, 1999). High-ability researchers and especially scholars working in the area of expertise approach often state that specialization is a requirement for adult success, that skills and knowledge do not transfer across domains, and that the domain dependence of creativity and giftedness makes general creativity and talent impossible (Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, this volume). The absence of people who have made key contributions to multiple domains supposedly supports the specialization thesis. R. RootBernstein’s (this volume) research challenges all three legs of the specialization thesis. He had identified individuals who have made important contributions to several domains; thus demonstrating polymathy among creatively gifted adults. I am therefore strongly convinced that future innovators will enormously benefit from the very basic knowledge about the phenomenon of polymathy that must be included in innovation education programs, as well as from parents’ and teachers’ encouragement to develop their talents to the fullest extent in all possible fields of human endeavour.

Development of the Gifted’s Abilities to Implement Things: Metacognition in Action

A special emphasis on the development of gifted children and adolescents’ abilities to implement things—or their executive abilities—should be an important component of innovation education because innovation is essentially about the implementation of new ideas into practice in the form of new products, processes, and services. This is a unique ability and not everyone is capable of it. A couple of years ago, one management book became a bestseller on Amazon.com. Why? Because its authors found that many executives never execute. This is why the issue of the innovation gap is a critical one. The concept of the innovation gap means that people have a lot of creative ideas, but they are Polymathy: Multiple Giftedness Among not able to implement them due to various reasons. Adults There are a lot of barriers to innovation. Although many people believe that innovation is a good thing, Another component of innovation education should be researchers found that in fact obstacles are the norm, related to polymathy. The concept polymathy refers to rather than the exception, on the way to innovation

1264

(Hadjimanolis, 2003). There exist human-related, technology-related, and policy-related barriers to innovation, just to mention the main, broad groups of barriers (Shavinina, 2003a). A wide range of these obstacles make it very difficult for potential innovators to implement their creative ideas into practice in the form of new products, processes, and services. Therefore, the topic of the innovation gap should be kept in mind when we are discussing the executive abilities of the gifted. This also explains in part why innovation is still a relatively rare thing and why innovators’ executive abilities—that is, individuals’ abilities to both generate and implement great ideas—are unique ones and should be highly appreciated. Every effort should thus be made to develop them in the gifted. By definition, our human abilities to implement things—or our executive abilities—are in fact our metacognitive abilities. Metacognition refers to one’s own knowledge about one’s own cognitive abilities and processes, as well as guiding, monitoring, and executing of one’s own mental processes (Brown, 1978, 1987; Flavell, 1976, 1979; Kholodnaya, 1997). Ann Brown (1994) and other researchers (Brown & Palincsar, 1989) working in the area of metacognition designed special educational programs aimed at developing children’s metacognitive abilities. Innovation education should therefore include the best from the metacognition programs (see also Barfurth, Redden, Irving, & Shore, this volume).

L.V. Shavinina

Take as an example the individual differences principle of innovation (Shavinina, 2007). Because of individual differences among people and organizations, there is no one best “recipe” for making innovation happens, which would fit everyone. Something that works perfectly for one individual or organization may not work well for others and might lead to collapses in the third case. Even if one company does almost always come up with great solutions, which excellently work for them—say, Dell Computer Inc.—it does not follow at all that everyone else adopting those solutions will meet with the same degree of success. Copying may simply make the problem worse, if those things, which we try to copy, do not correspond to our individual differences. Our individual differences play an important role in success or failure of our efforts aimed at innovation. This is what I call the individual differences principle of innovation. For example, Richard Branson’s innovative approaches to creating a highly successful Virgin group and a unique brand name—as well as the Virgin’s expansion through branded venture capital—are well known for more than a decade (Branson, 2002). However, how many entrepreneurs and businessmen did follow his example and did the same?3 The individual differences principle of innovation explains why innovation is anything but business as usual. “There are no reliable templates, rules, processes, or even measures of success . . . Innovation is not like most other business functions and activities” (Editorial, Harvard Business Review, 2002, p. 39). Innovation poses a constantly mutating puzzle or set of A General “Know-What” and “Know-How” puzzles. Individuals and organizations cannot afford About Innovation not to play the game but the rules are anything but clear. There is no comfort of a single “right” answer Innovation education will not be comprehensive because the question keeps changing. Yet certain indiwithout some general and important knowledge about viduals and organizations are somehow able to come innovation science and practice such as the tyranny up with great ideas and implement them over and over of success—when winners often become losers— again into practice. My theory of individual innova(i.e., when companies lose their innovative edge), tion explains why and how it happens (Shavinina & conflicting organizational pressures (i.e., functioning Sheeratan, 2003). The individual differences principle efficiently today while innovating effectively for of innovation also suggests that innovation agenda or the future), problems associated with partial views of innovation, individual differences in innovation, multiple barriers to innovation, how can innova3 Stelios Haji-Ioannou, a founder of EasyJet, is probbaly an tion help individuals and organizations to increase exception. EasyJet has been so successful that it now has a performance, why it is important to work on many stock-market quote and Stelios Haji-Ioannou is developing new types of innovation simultaneously, and many others businesses, using the same brand, through his separate private venture-capital vehicle easyGroup. (Shavinina, 2003a).

65

Innovation Education for the Gifted

innovation strategy will vary significantly for different individuals and organizations. The gifted children and adolescents are able to understand these dialectical, multidimensional, and multifaceted problems very well. The earlier they learn about them, the better prepared they become for the future.

Courage: Much Needed and Untrained Ability My research on highly accomplished innovators— such individuals as Richard Branson, Michael Dell, Akio Morita, Thomas Edison and many others— demonstrates that they were and are very courageous people (Shavinina, 2006a, 2006b). They were virtually not afraid of anything. The case of Richard Branson is especially compelling: he is well known for broking a few world records in crossing the Atlantic by boat and in hot air ballooning. Courage is much needed for potential innovators. When they are about to implement great ideas into practice and thus introduce breakthrough, revolutionary innovations that have not existed before and nobody can predict, say, the reaction of markets, they should not afraid to go ahead. Markets simply do not exist for the breakthrough, revolutionary innovations. It is innovators who have to create them. In order to reach that point, they should be courageous enough to convince everybody around that the market for such and such particular product, process, or service will exist. Akio Morita is a good example in this regard. When he—a co-founder and then the Chairman of Sony—decided to develop Walkman, he faced strong resistance. “Everybody gave me a hard time. It seemed as though nobody liked the idea” (Morita, 1987, p. 79). Sony’s Walkman thus appeared despite very strong marketing input to suggest there was no demand for this kind of product. The marketing department at Sony even resisted using the word Walkman, explaining that it does not exist in English language and sounds very strange to English-speaking people. The incredible intuition of Akio Morita made Walkman possible. He pioneered the Walkman project and took personal responsibility for it. At the peak of a very strong resistance to the idea of the Walkman, he resolved the problem by threatening to leave the Chairman

1265

position if Sony did not sell 100,000 Walkman in the first 6 months. Sony sold much more in the first half a year, and Akio Morita was later awarded by a Royal Academy of the United Kingdom for his contributions to the development of English language (Morita, 1987). That is, he introduced the words Sony and Walkman. It is impossible to imagine modern English language without these words. As he pointed out later, creativity “requires human thought, spontaneous intuition, and a lot of courage . . .” (Morita, 1987, p. 83). Unfortunately, today’s gifted children and adolescents are not taught to be courageous. This component of innovation education will thus fill in an apparent niche in gifted education by attempting to develop this much needed and untrained ability.

High Intellectual and Creative Educational Multimedia Technologies So far I have considered various components of innovation education. This is the know-what part of innovation education. Its know-how part is about how to present these components in a better possible way to gifted children and adolescents. High intellectual and creative educational multimedia technologies (HICEMTs) can be a good carrier of the know-how part of innovation education. It would be definitely excellent to design HICEMTs for the development of innovative abilities of the gifted. With their general and specific sets of characteristics (see my chapter 61 on this subject in this volume), HICEMTs seem to be a good way to deliver all the above-mentioned elements of innovation education. This is certainly a great and challenging task for the near future.

Innovation Education for Society at Large: The Case of INNOCREX Up to this point I have discussed innovation education for the gifted. Nevertheless, innovation education should be accessible to all members of any society. In this case, the above-described components of innovation education should be slightly modified. I can present an example of this modification. In 2005 I founded a special organization, INNOCREX (www.innocrex.com) aimed at developing adults’ high

1266

abilities via a series of seven one-day workshops on creativity, innovation, excellence, managerial talent, entrepreneurial giftedness, practical intuition, and applied wisdom. Specifically, the workshops are entitled as follows: 1. From New Ideas to Success and Prosperity: Managing for Creativity. 2. How to Realize the Innovative Potential of Your Organization: The Basics of Innovation Management. 3. On Managerial Talent: Skills Recognition and Development. 4. Managing for Excellence in Your Organization. 5. Recognizing Entrepreneurial Giftedness. 6. The Role of Intuition in Successful Management: Developing and Using Practical Intuition. 7. Applied Wisdom for Individuals and Organizations: Managing for Wisdom-related Performance. My intention was to offer the workshops to all people working in the private, public, and not-for-profit organizations. In reality it turned out that managers are the best audience because they are interested in professional development and promotion. As Ottawa is the national capital of Canada and there are many federal government departments and agencies, it turned out that public servants are the primary audience for these workshops. This is good because the public sector is not as innovative as the private sector. Almost every federal government department and agency in Canada is currently working on their renewal, transformation, or innovation strategy or agenda. This is why special advisors to Deputy Ministers, Associate Deputy Ministers and Assistant Deputy Ministers, as well as Director Generals, Directors, policy analysts, career development counsellors, and human resource specialists seem to realize that they need these workshops. All in all, I provide managers with practical tools (for example, intuition and wisdom), which help them to channel their talent, to motivate their subordinates to be more creative, to solve everyday problems in innovative ways, and to perform professional activities at the level of excellence.

Summing-Up This chapter presented innovation education as a new direction in gifted education. The main components of innovation education described above are as follows:

L.V. Shavinina

r

r

r r r r

The existing programs for the gifted, which proved their effectiveness (e.g., the Renzulli Enrichment Program, The Future Problem Solving and other programs; see chapters by Brody, Colangelo et al., Crammond, Renzulli & Reis, and VanTassel-Baska & MacFarlane, this volume; just to note a few). New programs that can be based on recent research in the field of high ability (e.g., entrepreneurial giftedness, managerial talent, wisdom, learning from Nobel laureates, polymathy, extracognitive abilities, HICEMTs, just to mention a few). The basics of deadline management. Programs aimed at the development of the gifted’s metacognitive abilities. It is very important to develop their abilities to implement things: the socalled executive abilities. A general “know-what” and “know-how” about innovation science: the basics of innovation. There are a lot of educational opportunities here, some of them I discussed above. Courage-related issues. For innovators to succeed, the courage is compulsory. It is a disturbing reality that nobody teach today’s gifted children to be courageous in pursuing their interests and developing their talents, which will eventually help them to implement their new ideas into practice in the form of new products, processes, or services.

To sum-up, giftedness is closely related to innovation and economy. If we are really concerned about the future of the gifted and the future of our world, we have to focus on innovation education both for the gifted and society at large. Policy makers have an important role to play in order to help psychologists, educators, and parents to achieve this goal. Successful realization of this goal will ultimately mean the fulfilment of one of the most essential missions of any government: economic prosperity for all.

References Amabile, T. M., Hadly, C. N., & Kramer, S. (2002, August). Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 52–61. Branson, R. (2002). Losing my virginity: The autobiography. London: Virgin Books. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

65

Innovation Education for the Gifted

Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, selfregulation, and other even more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 64–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23, 4–12. Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 76– 108). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1990). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently. New York: Simon & Schuster. Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. (2003). Handbook of gifted education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Dell, M. (1999). Direct from Dell. New York: Harper Business. Editorial. (2002, August). Inspiring innovation: Voices. Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 39–49. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231– 235). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-development inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. Gersick, C. J. (1995). Everything new under the gun. In C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations (pp. 142–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Grove, A. (1987). One-on-one with Andy Grove. New York: Penguin Books. Grove, A. (1996). Only the paranoid survive. New York: Doubleday. Hadjimanolis, A. (2003). The barriers approach to innovation. The international handbook on innovation (pp. 559–573). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Heller, K. A., Monks, F., Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. (2000). The international handbook of giftedness and talent. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Kholodnaya, M. A. (1993). Psychological mechanisms of intellectual giftedness. Voprosi psichologii, 1, 32–39. Kholodnaya, M. A. (1997). The psychology of intelligence. Moscow: Science Press. Lowenstein, R. (1996). Buffett: The making of an American Capitalist. New York: Main Street Books.

1267 Marton, F., Fensham, P., & Chaiklin, S. (1994). A Nobel’s eye view of scientific intuition. International Journal of Science Education, 16(4), 457–473. Morita, A. (1987). Made in Japan. London, UK: Collins. Root-Bernstein, R. (2003). The art of innovation. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 267–278). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (1999). Sparks of genius. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Shavinina, L. V. (1996a). The objectivization of cognition and intellectual giftedness. High Ability Studies, 7, 91–98. Shavinina, L. V. (1996b). Specific intellectual intentions and creative giftedness. In A. J. Cropley & D. Dehn (Eds.), Fostering the growth of high ability: European perspectives (pp. 373– 381). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Shavinina, L. V. (2003a). The international handbook on innovation. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Shavinina, L. V. (2003b). Understanding scientific innovation: The case of Nobel Laureates. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 445–457). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Shavinina, L. V. (2004). Explaining high abilities of Nobel laureates. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 243–254. Shavinina, L. V. (2006a). Innovation education for the gifted and for society at large. In A. Ziegler (Ed.), Beyond standards (pp. 1–13). London, UK: Taylor & Francis in collaboration with Evangelische Akademie Bad Boll, Germany. Shavinina, L. V. (2006b). Micro-social factors in the development of entrepreneurial giftedness: The case of Richard Branson. High Ability Studies, 17(2), 225–235. Shavinina, L. V. (2007). Comment l’innovation peut-elle accroitre la performance organisationnelle? Dans L. Chaput (dir.), Mod`eles Contemporains en Gestion: Un Nouveau Paradigme, la Performance (pp. 167–197). Le Delta I, Qu´ebec, Canada: Presses de l’Universit´e du Qu´ebec. Shavinina, L. V. (2008). Early signs of entrepreneurial giftedness. Gifted and Talented International, 23(1), 9–15. Shavinina, L. V., & Sheeratan, K. (2003). On the nature of individual innovation. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on innovation (pp. 31–43). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Wademan, D. (2005, January). The best advice I ever got. Harvard Business Review 83(1), 35–44.

Chapter 66

Dual-Language Gifted Education and Its Evaluation Ernesto M. Bernal and Jaime H. Garc´ıa

Abstract This chapter engages the dialog at two different levels: dual-language education and its program evaluation. This approach develops the idea of dual-language education for gifted children as one way to differentiate the core curriculum. It also integrates something that, in the authors’ views, almost always gets compromised: accountability, especially for program improvement, and the research aspects of program implementation. Together, these spell continuous curricular improvement and an expanded research base. Keywords Dual-language education · Formative program evaluation · Second language acquisition · Gifted and talented

Introduction Dual-language instruction goes way beyond bilingual education. The latter is usually carried on in an ethnically and linguistically segregated setting and ordinarily has a transitional philosophical underpinning, moving the children out of bilingual instruction as soon as they meet some criterion, such as a passing score on an English proficiency test. Dual-language education, on the other hand, deliberately integrates English-language learners (ELL) and native speakers of English as well as fluent bilinguals for the purpose of producing fluent and literate bilinguals, thereby giving these students the E.M. Bernal (B) Bernal & Associates, San Antonio, TX, USA e-mail: ebernal [email protected]

cognitive advantages that attend bilingualism and a classic educational experience as well. All core subjects are involved. Transitions to an all-English curriculum, if they occur at all, happen “naturally,” according to a school’s budget and bilingual resources, and most commonly occur when students enter middle or high school, and more often than not these students take advanced courses in the target language—the non-English language—and qualify for AP classes and examinations as early as the eighth or ninth grade in that language. It is not surprising, therefore, that dual-language education can be used for the education of gifted and talented (GT) children. Indeed, differentiating instruction, which is an important requirement and touchstone for GT curriculum, can be achieved through the use of two languages for all students in all core areas. What is more, many schools that have a legislatively imposed mandate that all core instruction be carried on in the majority language of that society may still be able to claim dual-language instruction, especially for a limited category of students, such as the gifted, who need a differentiated curriculum and can demonstrate proficiency in the state-mandated tests of achievement. This brings us to program evaluation and accountability. National and statewide evaluations have as their focus broad policy and legislative questions. These efforts frequently combine evaluative data gathered at the local level in many sites or analyze research data gathered at different times or places. Local evaluations, on the other hand, focus on local policy and practical managerial concerns. Mostly these are formative evaluation concerns (Lapan, 1989). If these local projects are tied to broader programs, they may also support national and state evaluations. To do this the evaluations must include accurate descriptions

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 66, 

1269

1270

of the project and its settings, e.g., the nature of the intervention, part-time vs. full-time programs, the actual extent of the intervention (or implementation success), number of sites, demographic information on participants, and linguistic and ethnic characteristics of the staff. Beyond this, the evaluation must help settle questions of accountability for the staff and the project and basic questions, such as the matter of doing no harm to the participants, and may involve special studies that originate from the policy-makers, the staff itself, or even the concerns one finds in the professional literature, such as the notion that positive project effects “wash out” after a number of years, that English-learning students need 4–7 years to acquire formal English well enough to be tested without bias through that language,1 or that so-called pullout GT programs are rarely worth the dollar cost to the schools or the ill will toward the GT students. Good evaluations, furthermore, require qualitative and quantitative data to provide the reader of the report a “feel” or intuition about the student clients, the project staff, and for the intervention itself. This chapter focuses on the case of dual-language gifted education at the local level. There are reasons for this focus, one of which is that the numbers of gifted programs that are explicitly bilingual are very few, which makes policy decisions less of a matter of empirical investigation and more of a political decision. Perhaps the second reason is more satisfying: a detailed explication will provide both the rationale and the practical details of doing an evaluation of all gifted programs correctly. This is especially important since evaluations have not always taken the special circumstances of gifted programs into account (Bernal, 1986), much less innovative curricular projects that aim to serve the needs of gifted children (Callahan, 2000)— especially when all of these children are targeted, not just the White or upper middle class or upper class subsets (Bernal, 2007). Once a school’s or a school district’s decisionmakers cross the line, as it were, and decide to find and serve all of the district’s gifted students, then children from non-dominant ethnic groups may still face residual, institutionalized bigotry and historical

E.M. Bernal and J.H. Garc´ıa

elitism that have evolved in programs for the gifted, such as the insistence on the traditional (IQ-based) “identification” process for GT programs, informally closing the college board’s stipulation for open admissions to AP courses, or becoming even more selective for the International Baccalaureate Program through the use of additional local criteria or “blackballing” by certain faculty. It is the project evaluator who must bring objectivity to monitoring (1) the effects of such decisions, formal or informal, on the staff and students, (2) the process of change on the culture of the institution, and (3) whether any real progress has been made toward the new goal, especially in terms of enrollments and achievement. And of course it is important for projects in the field to get the attention of academicians in the two ways that professors can understand, publication being one and empirical data being another. At this moment in history, almost all curricular innovations for the gifted in dual-language or bilingual settings are being done by schools, be these private schools (such as the “American” schools abroad and other private schools in the United States and elsewhere with intensive second language programs) or public schools with a significant proportion of language-minority students (usually from one language group). To turn this innovation into both research and program evaluation is the trick. Mindful of these expenses (Doherty & Crakes, 1980), data gathered by researchers can be used by evaluators, especially student performance data and interventionimplementation scales, though not all data used by evaluators can ordinarily be used by researchers, for example, parental involvement at project meetings or growth of the GT program in terms of ELLs, unless the researchers are explicitly looking at these dimensions.

The Nature of Dual-Language Programs

The bilingual education model that has gained the greatest support is the dual-language approach. Other models use either the target language for instruction with strategies to assist the learner develop second language abilities or the first language to help transition the learner to the target language. The support for dual-language programs be1 In the El Paso Connecting Worlds Dual-Language Project, chilgan with the work of Lambert and Tucker (1972), dren were not compared to the “control” group of gifted students until the fourth grade in order to ensure that the original ELL who compared performance of students enrolled in children could be tested fairly in English. dual-language and single-language programs over

66

Dual-Language Gifted Education and Its Evaluation

a period of 4 years. Students in the dual-language classroom outperformed those in single-language classrooms on measures of language, intelligence, creativity, and attitude. This seminal study led to additional research on cognitive abilities in bilingual individuals. Ram´ırez and Casta˜neda (1974) found that bilingual individuals exhibited what they termed “cognitive flexibility,” which they suggested was due to the ability to use two languages in the performance of cognitive tasks. Similarly, Hakuta (1986) pointed out that bilinguals performed significantly better on average than monolinguals. Finally—and very importantly—participation in dual-language programs produces advanced second language proficiency and does not negatively affect academic achievement nor the development of first language abilities (Genesee, 1987; Swain & Lapkin, 1982). Dual-language programs are also called duallanguage immersion programs. This is because the lessons and units taught in one language are never translated into the other language. Through the use of comprehensible input during the initial development of second language competencies, the child eventually knows a sufficient amount of the new tongue that she/he can continue to “get it” with nothing more than the occasional help of a Language Buddy, who knows the child’s second language natively and is there to help translate or to provide a word or phrase that the first child can use in class. Teaching teachers to plan to teach selected academic content or skills in one language only is an important part of staff development. There is also a social aspect to dual-language programs. Within these programs, students of different ethnic groups are brought together and instructed in two languages. Generally, students from the target language group are from the dominant ethnic group while those in the first language group are part of the ethnic minority. For example, in the southwestern United States, where some English–Spanish dual-language programs are found, English-dominant students may be primarily European American while the Spanish-dominant students are Latino. Lambert and Cazabon (1994) noted that interaction and friendships across ethnic groups increased in a dual-language program. Students developed greater appreciation for the abilities each brought to the classroom. However, Vald´es (1997) warns that the attitudes held toward the dual-language program influences the effectiveness of the program. She suggests that even though

1271

dual-language programs are seen as better than other bilingual education models their success is in no small part dependant on the status of the two languages used in the program. Hence how the teachers employ the two languages becomes critically important, for example, when they speak to one another in the students’ presence or when they speak informally with the students themselves. While these and other positive results for bilingual persons and dual-language programs have strong research-based support, other models of bilingual education have seen greater implementation. In the United States, the focus of bilingual education programs has been the transitioning of second language learners to English-only programs. Transitional programs break down into two groups, depending on the time frame for transitioning, for one transitions ELL students to English instruction after only 1–3 years of instruction in both languages and the other transitions these students after 5 or 6 years of instruction (kindergarten to grade 5, usually) in both the native language and English. Dual-language programs differ from other bilingual programs in that they integrate students who are from different linguistic backgrounds into the same classroom to share instruction in two languages. Different models for implementation exist with some models focusing on the percentage of time spent on the instruction. A 90/10 model uses the minority language for 90% of the instruction time while a 50/50 model uses both languages in equal proportions.2 The latter may divide the use of each language by alternate days, alternate mornings and afternoons, or even alternate weeks (Christian, 1996; Christian, Howard, & Loeb, 2000), although one of our authors feels that switching languages every other week could easily lead to what is known in educational research and evaluation as “treatment drift.” (See an example later in this paper.) It is even possible for two monolingual teachers who speak different languages and who work well together to implement an effective dual-language program, provided that each can be scheduled to teach all core subjects in their respective tongues to the students. (See Bernal’s “Teacher-switch” Model, 2000c.) For gifted programs inclusion of dual-language programs may result in superior performance of 2 Where the 90/10 model is used, it is most often confined to the kindergarten–first grade levels. Second grade is usually 80/20, and so on until the 50/50 model is achieved.

1272

students. Since students in gifted programs are generally selected based on intelligence and achievement measures, they are likely to benefit from dual-language programs in a number of ways. The obvious benefit is the development of second language proficiency. The cognitive and social benefits noted above are an additional enhancement to the gifted student’s education. Careful planning and evaluation are necessary for best practices in dual-language gifted programs to be documented and assessed. Examining dual-language gifted programs through the lens of evaluation practices seems to us the most appropriate starting point.

Conducting an Evaluation in the Field In General First, address all the major features or goals or objectives of the gifted project with quantitative data and, wherever possible, qualitative data as well. These features include identification/selection procedures and any requalification measures that students must undergo, types of relations with parents, student achievement, curricular implementation, judging and scoring “advanced products” that the gifted students have completed, staff development, and any considerations peculiar to the gifted project, such as the selection of a specific dual-language model or the delivery of a validated gifted curriculum at the end of the project. Duallanguage programs require that achievement be measured not only in students’ L1 but also in their L2. The focus here is implementation success, called treatment fidelity by some authors (e.g., Gallagher, 2006), whether the program has in fact been implemented well enough to determine its strengths and weaknesses, and of course to document its intended and unintended effects (Leithwood & Montgomery, 1980) regardless of its implementation success. The ways in which treatment drift occurs also need to be documented, so that one might detect patterns in the deviations, particularly at certain grade levels, such as middle school, determine difficult areas to implement, and recommend fixes.3 3 See Callahan (2000) for the importance of documenting the selected approach and its implementation, so that revisions might be made in a timely fashion.

E.M. Bernal and J.H. Garc´ıa

Next, meetings of parents can be documented by date, attendance, and agenda, and can even be evaluated by the parents themselves on evaluation forms. It may help gain additional insights if the evaluator schedules some meetings with parents who have and have not attended these meetings to discuss their concerns and motives for participation and non-participation. Note that projects that are evaluated perennially need not cover each topic, especially with qualitative data, but federally funded projects require that all major topics be reviewed unless there have been established certain timelines for the occasional examination of some. One goal of the Connecting Worlds/Mundos Unidos Project in El Paso was that students would come to choose their peers in representative proportions on important matters, ranging from whom to invite to a party to whom to ask to help fix one’s computer. The analysis was restricted to grade 4 and above (since prior research had determined that much younger gifted children picked their friends without regard to the content of the question [Bernal, 1974]). The findings, gathered during the second year of the project, were that the children at all grade levels beyond grade 4 did indeed pick their peer choices without ethnic preferences. This finding, once done, was sufficient to satisfy the federal project officer for the duration of the project. Third, all quantitative data should be presented in the aggregate and then disaggregated by any of a number of proper subgroups of students for finer analyses, the breakdown depending upon the objectives to be studied. Teachers may be examined by grade level or by school, and subsets of students may include ethnic group, socioeconomic status (SES), which is often measured by students’ eligibility for free or reduced lunch program, at-risk status, special education classification (in addition to gifted classification), gender, age, campus, and grade level. Achievement measures in both languages need to be included for children in a dual-language program. Of course immigrant children are presently of great interest, not only in the United States but also in many European countries and in Australia as well. Research organizations that are affiliated with these innovative schools can in some instances secure, analyze, and disseminate the data. But the degree of overlap between research and the data needed to evalu-

66

Dual-Language Gifted Education and Its Evaluation

ate a program is so great that one must speak to the importance of using these data for both of these purposes. Student or classroom data in particular are of interest here. Although implementation of the intervention is certainly a question for evaluators, it is also of great importance to researchers, and researchers and evaluators can find common ground in deriving a scale that is useful to both enterprises. Implementation data that are useful for an evaluator to recommend how to inform staff development are not unrelated to the researcher’s need to ensure the implementation success of the specified treatment. Matters that impact program evaluation, such as the selection and assignment of students and classes and the types and numbers of comparison groups, can be allocated more often to the evaluation side. But the point to be made is that innovation in the area of gifted education, with the possible exception of studies of individuals, such as the study of creativity or cognitive style, cannot be made apart from the schools, where attempts are being made to turn research into practice or at least to try something systematically that has not been tried before, such as dual-language gifted education. It is hoped that these new collaborations, especially in the curricular area, will yield knowledge of such important matters as, at what point does one stop the dual-language intervention (given that scheduling conflicts are found in middle school with other activities, such as music and athletics) and that some of the gifted children opt to take other languages and a myriad of electives during the high school years, thereby making scheduling of advanced courses in the original non-English language more difficult. Do gifted children learn a second language to comparable levels as their first and does it matter when the native language (L1) is the marked language? How many years does it take for gifted English learners to acquire “academic” English, and does the age at which they begin school in English matter? Even if gifted English-language-learning students in dual-language programs do not acquire English to the same level as their native-English-speaking peers, will they perform at a level that is high enough “not to matter?” (The last question may require that the evaluator or researcher examine not only means and standard deviations but also ranges, and will doubtlessly require other criteria to supplement achievement data, such as advanced academic products.)

1273

One can see that some of these questions need the touch of a researcher to provide, say, an international, cross-cultural perspective on the phenomenon. Yet without good answers to these interrogatories, children from “other” language backgrounds may founder in school unless frontline teachers and their administrators are willing to “experiment.” In these matters evaluation comes into its own, for it can shed light on practices that may or may not have the generalizability of formal research but that can guide praxis in a way that goes beyond “action research,” that requires timeliness, and that has great possibilities for dissemination, i.e., for use or application in a host of settings.

Effect Size Effect size, not just statistical significance, needs to be emphasized here, more so when small sample sizes— or large sample sizes—are encountered, for on the one hand the power of a statistical test is so diminished that significant findings are difficult to obtain and on the other the numbers are so overwhelming that even a small difference—and a small effect size—is sufficient to make the findings tip in the direction of statistical significance. Effect size (Cohen’s d statistic) can be used as a common metric—the same statistical parlance—to tease out comparisons that are worth mentioning as likely to be real differences (Cohen, 1988). The effect size is keyed to the standard deviation; hence an effect size of 0.50 is like saying that one group’s mean is half a standard deviation higher than the other’s. Things being equal, such as the similarity of the distributions of scores of the groups being compared, even small samples can be declared to have significant findings. This happened in one instance where a comparison group of gifted students was compared to a group of students in a dual-language program with such low numbers that “almost significant” differences on three measures were declared significant because of the effect sizes involved.

Selecting the Unit of Analysis Where one has the numerical advantage of lots of classrooms at different levels that are implementing

1274

the model (the intervention or treatment), select the classroom as the unit of analysis and block on school or grade level, especially if the classrooms are intact (as opposed to having the students or the classrooms randomly selected) or when we know that the teacher or the classroom is the true object of the experiment. But for most disaggregated studies the entire categories of students (e.g., boys and girls) or teachers (e.g., native speakers of the target language or persons for whom the target language was a second language) need to show sufficient variation in order to display the true range of abilities; so group averages are less meaningful (unless, of course, these larger groupings are of interest). In these cases aggregation becomes a form of specification bias, since collinearity is apt to apply (due to the “collapse” of variables within larger groupings) and some potentially causal variables may be submersed in the aggregation (Burstein, 1975). For example, it is known that home/family background variables become more salient when one moves the unit of analysis from the individual student to the school (Langbein, 1977).

Particulars Another perennial item is how well the gifted children who are “doubly exceptional”—who are crossclassified with special education—are doing, and whether an exceptionality such as a learning disability affects their academic trajectories in both languages. Our experience suggests that teachers are reluctant to nominate children who have any exceptionality to the GT program and often find “reasons” for furloughing the ones that have been placed there, fearing without evidence, as one bilingual review group put it, that LD children cannot stand the strain of learning in two languages, even if they are gifted. Grade-level analysis has proven to be one of the best feedback mechanisms that permit the evaluator to concentrate qualitative data on the spots where it is needed most, so that detailed information can be provided to project management about potential problems or unusually effective practices. Gender is especially important to monitor in the middle school and early high school grades, where some discrepancies in the achievement of boys and

E.M. Bernal and J.H. Garc´ıa

girls are possible in science, math, and literature (Sommers, 1996). Another factor, age, can monitor the acceleration of younger students; so age is—or should be—an important covariable in any gifted project. For students in a dual-language program, acceleration, it should be noted, should be preceded by an assessment of the child’s capability in her/his second language, not just the child’s L1, to determine if it is equivalent with the second language of gifted children at the target grade level. Out-of-level testing can be of help here, as can the resulting scaled scores for the child and the target level’s children, since scaled scores go across grade levels and allow children at one level to be compared to those at another. Relationship with parents can take many forms and extensiveness can be dramatic. Information, training, and advisory functions are some of the forms. Extent of involvement, further, can be from attending an occasional group meeting to being a regular classroom volunteer. Meetings with groups of parents should be evaluated with a simple questionnaire. One of the items should have to do with the ethnic integration of parents for meetings and other joint activities. In a duallanguage or bilingual setting, the parents who elect to answer the questionnaires in the different languages are disaggregated to see if their responses, especially those dealing with satisfaction, are similar.

Staff Development Staff development is so important that we have designated a separate category for its evaluation. It matters not whether one’s gifted project intends change or relative stasis. Ideally, staff development is more than making persons aware of the latest district guidelines for gifted education. The training that is involved should be integrated, should show a theme and a purpose, and should be geared to making things better (Bernal, 2000a). Training teachers to achieve greater facility in the native language so that they can better teach in that idiom or teaching teachers how to handle compacting and depth as two sides of the instructional coin are good examples of topics that involve change for the better. Each inservice experience should be evaluated. Evaluation here means not only an improved delivery system but a chance for the participating dual-language

66

Dual-Language Gifted Education and Its Evaluation

teachers themselves to help shape the training they receive. An open-ended item on the evaluation form that asks for their input is all it takes. In fact, one of the best uses of evaluation is to show the need in terms of classroom behavior of teachers, securing the teachers’ reaction, and then planning the staff development classes. This occurred for us when several teachers in a certain program decided to use a 50/50 dual-language model in a way that involved one language for an entire week, then the other for a week. Classroom observations and debriefing teachers provided the evidence here, not test scores. The teachers in a subsequent meeting explained that they wanted “continuity” in instruction, but clearly this did not necessarily mean that the other language could not be used in any other academic subjects during the same day. This spontaneously occurring practice is a good example of treatment drift (Gallagher, 2006) of how educators can resort to a previous practice once the initial trial of an innovation has taken place.

Evaluating Referral and Assessment Procedures for Dual-Language Gifted Programs One area often neglected in the evaluation of gifted programs is the referral and assessment process that is utilized in the identification of students for gifted programs. This often results in the exclusion of some students from programs because of the instrumentation used or even because of the process of referral in the first place. An effective assessment procedure is particularly difficult for dual-language gifted programs for a variety of reasons. These include formal measures as well as informal or observational data. The training of teachers to nominate strong language-minority students for gifted assessment and to support native-language instruction and multicultural education can also be improved, be this by a small amount for selected teachers when most of them are on the right track or by a great amount. The project that seeks extensive change must be willing to invest an evaluator’s time to secure a baseline of information and to follow this up in subsequent years (Bernal, 1990) in order to improve on the procedure’s efficacy.

1275

The characteristics of the populations being assessed for dual-language gifted programs are the first consideration. Traditionally based perceptions, attitudes, values, and behaviors may actually limit who is referred for assessment. If there is a disconnect between how ability is perceived from either group represented, then the identification procedures can be detrimental to the accurate identification of students from one group. For example, a Spanish–English dual-language gifted program in south Texas is going to require a different set of instruments, both standardized and observational, than would a Chinese–English dual-language gifted program in San Francisco. Thus, the first place to start is with the examination of the populations being served. Teacher attitudes and beliefs influence who is referred for assessment. These attitudes and beliefs may not be based on ability but on peripheral characteristics. Thomas (1991) found that when asked to describe bright students from underrepresented groups who were not in gifted programs, teachers would mention students’ dress or family structure, or other observations not related to ability. Masten and Plata (2000) found that teachers tend to nominate or select only the most acculturated minority students. This can also be seen in referral patterns by school. Chamberlain and Garc´ıa (2003) examined the referral rates for special education and gifted education in a south Texas school district. While the focus of the investigation was referral for special education assessment it was noted that as the income level of the neighborhood went down, the referral rate of students for special education services went up. An examination of the rates for gifted education showed the opposite: as neighborhood income went down, fewer students were identified for gifted programs. Examining patterns of identification by school one can see that there are likely attitudes and perceptions that drive referrals, rather than sound observations. Thus any observational measures provided to teachers require sufficient examples of the ways in which criterial behaviors to be observed may vary in the student populations being considered. In conducting a program evaluation of a duallanguage gifted program considering teacher attitudes and beliefs should include two major questions. First, what are teacher attitudes toward the languages used in the program? This provides information regarding the relative status not only of the languages of the

1276

classroom but also of the children who speak them. If one language is valued more than the other, there is a greater likelihood that the language with less prestige—the marked language—will be viewed more as a study of a second language, rather than both languages holding equal value, which is an absolute condition for a dual-language program to function correctly. If one of the target language dialects is considered more appropriate or more prestigious by the teachers, then there is a distinct possibility that the speakers of the dialect (which could be the entire class or group, in some cases) would be disparaged in subtle ways by the teachers themselves, who must in this case learn to accept and build upon the language of the students, not to be critical of them. An anonymous faculty survey (except, perhaps, for campus information) could answer these questions. Second, the training in the use of observational measures that is received by teachers needs to be examined. The project evaluator could devise a questionnaire to accompany the training, especially the openended items, but we suggest that a qualitative piece be done as well to tap important differences in the teachers’ answers. It could be that there are few if any differences and that there is an almost stereotypic response from everyone regarding the marked language, in which case the nature of the professional development may have to change. As noted, teachers use their cultural reference points in observing students’ behaviors. Heath (1983) holds that communication patterns are culturally bound. One may see a response to a communicative act as being inferior or even defiant if the response is based on a different discourse pattern. Examining what training teachers receive can provide valuable information in developing a profile of the students being referred and later selected for dual-language gifted programs. A teacher’s evaluation of the training combined with a pre–post design using enrollments and proportions in the gifted program (corrected for year-to-year changes in a school enrollment) would be appropriate here to get an independent assessment of the effectiveness of the training. Once a student is referred, it is necessary that standardized instrumentation used in an assessment process for a dual-language gifted program be equitable for all students. All state-mandated, criterion-referenced tests—even those that have “parallel” forms in the other language—that we have seen

E.M. Bernal and J.H. Garc´ıa

so far should not be used for this purpose because their ceiling (top score) is too low and too unreliable and because the purpose of the test is too limited. Standardized instruments in either language being used in the program should be equivalent in both languages. An instrument that has been formally translated and normed is not sufficient. It is essential that the technical manual be examined to ensure that there is a match between the population to be tested and the measure being used (Frasier, Garc´ıa, & Passow, 1995). For example, an intelligence test translated into Spanish and normed with a sample in and around Mexico City may not be appropriate for use in the northeastern United States. The language equivalence of the measure should also be examined. Direct translations do not, as a rule, take into account the level of difficulty of what is ostensibly the same vocabulary in different languages (Chamberlain, 2005). Language is of concern in the use of standardized measures when the language(s) of instruction is (are) considered. If an individual is a non-native speaker who has not received sufficient instruction in that language, academic assessment in that language will not produce accurate results (Chamberlain, 2005). An example of this was noted during a placement committee’s deliberations in Georgia. A student who had been referred and tested scored 1 standard deviation above the mean in reading and language, 2 standard deviations above the mean in math, and 1.5 standard deviations above the mean on an intelligence test. In the evaluation, the committee felt that the student was above average but not at the level that necessitated placement in a gifted program. However, the student was an immigrant who had emigrated 2 years earlier with no English language abilities. It was pointed out that being able to score this high on tests that required English after only 2 years of instruction was remarkable. A “clinical” decision was reached and the student was provisionally placed in the gifted program, where he flourished. The view of education that is held by a culture is also important. Valenzuela (1999) examined the differences between the concept of “well educated” and “bien educado.” These words translate interlineally (and involve false cognates), the phrases mean quite different things. “Well educated” has to do with academic credentials, whereas bien educado

66

Dual-Language Gifted Education and Its Evaluation

has to do with behavior, with being respectful and acting in the proper manner. Thus, when eliciting information from members of the non-dominant ethnic community, one needs to know that comments such as “the child is well mannered and respectful” reflects a social value that transcends formal schooling and that involves another aspect of “education” or upbringing, and that school is one domain where being bien educado is expected to be in evidence. Often neglected in the assessment process are data that are not quantified but that may provide a tool for understanding the observed scores. Until recently IQ scores alone determined whether a child was admitted to a gifted program. Even with intelligence tests that purportedly are language-free there is a cultural base to the instrument that may work against culturally and linguistically diverse students (Helms, 1992). Thus, evaluating the norm and tryout populations used to produce the test become important for the determination of any test’s construct and predictive validity. We include predictive validity (and the actual standard error of estimate) because we believe that the actual use should guide the judgment for acceptance of a test whenever possible, that one should not select a test without a period of tentativeness (see Bernal, 2000b). Narrative and categorical data may be valuable in decision-making for selecting students for duallanguage gifted programs. Comments from parents and community members can provide information on how the student is perceived locally in terms of ability (Bernal, 1974). Life history events may also provide insight into the abilities of the child. Place of birth, length of residence in different locales, clubs or competitions in which the child has participated, and previous educational experience are some of the areas that should be taken into account in a comprehensive assessment, and stories about the child—stories offered by parents or siblings—often provide the insights necessary to make a placement decision. Finally, the evaluator may need to document what multicultural training the teachers and staff of the gifted program have had in understanding how language, culture, and other sociocultural factors influence who is referred, who is assessed, and who is selected into the gifted program.

1277

When an Evaluator Is Asked to Write or Design Part of a Grant Proposal There are times when a professional evaluator is asked to do something that few besides the evaluator can do satisfactorily, such as the design to produce an assessment-identification procedure when a proposal is being put together. Here the professional needs to be careful not to lose objectivity, especially if the proposal gets funded and she/he is asked to fill the evaluator’s slot. If the evaluator actually conducts the study that leads to the procedure, then the evaluator violates the presumption that he/she will not evaluate her/his own work. (See Callahan, 2000.) One can, however, prepare the design of the study, recognizing that just two things will make the process of selecting students better: instrument validity and a lack of redundancy. The question of instrument validity has just been addressed, and redundancy eliminates any duplicative data gathering from the procedure. One basically needs a year or two to try the system out and secure data and quite possibly another year to clean the process. An intercorrelation matrix, a factor analysis, and a comparison of results to previous gifted program records can provide the rest. Eliminating redundancies makes the process more efficient, which in turn provides the option of adding additional features that enhance the validity of the process itself. The comparison gives one an important historical perspective: Does the new system produce more and better results than the old?

Other Disaggregations and Special Studies The project’s objectives may dictate other disaggregations, such as by native language or English-learner (ELL) status. One way of presenting quantitative data is to cross-tabulate some or all the results, depending upon what is important to show the reader; be very mindful of interactions (cell effects) in the data that show departures in some of the cells from the trends or usual pattern of results. Indeed, the groups represented in these cells may require greater investigation or further disaggregation. Qualitative data, of course, are perforce disaggregated. One should involve the various groups of inter-

1278

est that one is studying. An effective technique to use has been the focus group, be it with students, parents, or educators. The focus, of course, should be on the primary features of the project that one has selected for discussion, else the group may wander in its own direction. Sometimes a set of questions that the evaluator needs answered can be circulated to the group at the beginning. A very difficult job is to examine the quantitative and qualitative data for any contradictions. Teachers sometimes bring to the table the need for special studies when their intuitions about some group of students may need greater depth. Here a focus group of students may pay off handsomely, especially when one asks the question or defines problem directly and seeks their input. The sixth grade teachers in one bilingual program, for instance, had some “feelings” about the reluctance of the gifted students to continue to use Spanish for instruction or informal exchanges with the teacher. Despite everything that an evaluator tried quantitatively with their English and Spanish achievement scores, nothing could be detected. It was not until these students became seventh graders that the qualitative and quantitative data showed a pattern of a number of low scorers who indeed did not seem to want to continue in the program. This was reported in detail to the gifted administrators in the district (who at present are seeing if this development has implication for admission/selection before grade 1, where the project officially starts). Once again the status of the languages used must be maintained as equal if the students (and teachers) are not to succumb to considering the language-minority students’ language to be the marked language. The theoretical basis that the curriculum is supposed to address may also dictate some special studies. For example, grade acceleration, special talents, multicultural education—all generate questions of interest—even criteria—that other gifted programs do not have to answer or meet. Do the selected students at all grade levels (K–5) seem to benefit from acceleration in the long run? At what point do ELL gifted children usually see an upturn on norm-referenced achievement test scores and close the initial gap between their achievement levels and those of native speakers of English? (In our experience as evaluators, children who have studied in a bilingual kindergarten and have been in a dual-language program at least since grade 1 need to be in grade 4

E.M. Bernal and J.H. Garc´ıa

before they are able to function well in “academic English.”) Project evaluators also need to document and analyze any enrichment programs sponsored by the GT project. One such project sponsored by a dual-language gifted program was a “Summer Camp” that actually had three objectives, one for enriching the lives of the GT students who participated, one for the parents of these students who wanted to take part in enhancing their knowledge of computers, and one for training other teachers in the larger geographic area in GT and dual-language methods and procedures. One can have each group of participants evaluate their sessions.

Achievement Tests Used to Measure Progress State-mandated tests and norm-referenced achievement tests are ways to monitor student achievement quantitatively. Mandatory tests from the state are typically criterion referenced and often keyed to a statewide curriculum or at least a set of instructional objectives, which the students are held to account. These are essential in that passing scores and sometimes commended scores (in one form or another) are specified, and in most cases students who do not perform at the critical level, at least in reading and mathematics and sometimes in writing, must often repeat a grade or may not graduate from high school. This is why state-mandated assessments are called high-stakes tests. And this is also why gifted students’ performance on these measures should be summarized and disaggregated, for there are often great insights that can be realized from the disaggregation. The critical scores for each area tested and for the commendation level need to be displayed in the tables prominently. Our own experience has been that gifted children pass these tests at greater than 98%. Some gifted children—usually in excess of 50%—also do well enough on these measures to earn commendations. Furthermore, the few gifted children who do not score well on state-mandated instruments do not usually fail two or more tests that year and do not have a record of failing; and gifted students who fail, say, math one year, will in most cases not fail in it on followup. And if norm-referenced tests are administered in the same

66

Dual-Language Gifted Education and Its Evaluation

school year, chances are that the children who failed a section of the criterion-referenced, state-mandated subtest will usually score above average on the same subject on the norm-referenced test. What this means, basically, is threefold. First, statemandated tests usually have less quality than the popular norm-referenced tests used, in many cases, by the same testing company as the one with the state contract. There may be some good reasons for this, one being the regular release of previous test items, which the schools then use for practice. Second, there are always a few gifted children who either do not test well at all or who do not test well every time they are tested. There are even a few students who were deemed “gifted” at the time they were admitted but whose later test performances make them good candidates for furloughs. Third, the time spent on “practicing” for the state-mandated tests is largely wasted for gifted students and takes time away from gifted instruction. Often the data from state tests and norm-referenced tests can be combined and analyzed (for example, with correlated samples statistics) to perform a special study. One group of bilingual teachers spoke about their gifted students growing “tired” of all of the mandatory testing, which included not only the tests for evaluating academic progress of the project children but also both the state-mandated tests and the district-required benchmarking tests (to get the students ready for the state-mandated tests). What is more, norm-referenced testing was done in both English and Spanish. The statistics indicated that for the period prior to the benchmarking the students did no better on standardized tests in both languages than in the period immediately after the additional testing load was imposed, so there was no loss of performance. Since “tired” could have meant something other than a decrement in performance, a special questionnaire was designed for the students to complete after they had taken the complete round of tests, and a modification of the extant testing procedure reduced the number of tests which the students had to take for the project’s evaluation. Evaluators should use the tables for the statemandated test’s scaled scores for analyzing the results. Using the appropriate tables, look for any signs of progress, not just passing rates, mindful of the fact that very high initial passing rates, such as those quoted above, cannot be improved much but can regress much toward the table’s mean score.

1279

For norm-referenced tests, use effect sizes as well as significant differences between/among groups, be these gifted children in the same program that have been disaggregated or comparisons with other gifted groups not in the program. One can make the kinds of interesting comparisons that permit project administrators to select certain groupings of students or teachers for more intense followup. Watch for interaction effects as well as outliers, since these peculiarities often point to high and low groups that need further investigation or to individuals that may require further followup and recommendations on the other.

Advanced-Level Products Advanced products’ review and summary is a relatively new feature in the evaluation of gifted programs, but a very important one. Indeed, for critics of the practice of using standardized tests for the evaluation of gifted programs (e.g., Callahan, 1983), this look at advanced products may be the answer. The problem is how to organize what is potentially a diverse enterprise in a way that makes sense of the multitudinous ways that children at different levels of expertise can “produce.” The Performance Standards (Dean, 2003) is a way to organize products and the necessary personnel to do the work. The notion of “advanced products” has its roots in Cleveland’s Major Work Program of the 1950s (Gold, 1996) and the knowledge that expert knowledge leads to creative production (OlszewskiKubilius, 2000; Sternberg, 2000). Hard work, not just high intelligence, is involved (Amabile, 1989; Gallagher, 2006; Treffinger, Young, Selby, & Shepardson, 2002). So if sufficient “depth” is achieved in the education of gifted children, particularly in the later elementary years through high school, then we might expect that gifted children will produce some outstanding work on a project, such as a science or mathematics project, which could be reviewed using rubrics or experts, in such diverse fields as artistic performance, creative writing, social studies, or an art portfolio. Gifted students in dual-language programs are there to take advantage of the heightened creativity among bilinguals (Robisheaux & Banbury, 2002). Scaling these rubrics requires some expert help, so the evaluator of one project may be called upon to as-

1280

sist various groups of teachers in another project to create instruments. The use of exemplars is one important way of anchoring judgments (Wiggins, 1996). Another is to have both criteria and scales that can handle the variety of student submissions (Dean, 2003). Nor can one expect that all fields may be covered in any one year. Focus on the projects at hand and utilize the expertise that is found on the faculty. The selection (and in some cases, the training) of raters is also important, so a manual for them might be important to produce. The evaluator’s role here, however, is one of initial consultant, not one of participation in the actual review process. One way to help the reader of the evaluation report make sense of these students’ productions is to prepare summaries of their works by grade level. The number of participants (and of those who did not participate), coupled with a categorization of works produced, plus an explanation of the scales used to judge these projects are in order.

Control and Comparison Groups Of late the US Department of Education has insisted on a “Gold Standard” of educational research in all its projects. Strictly speaking, this “standard” involves the use of control groups, and comes just short of the medical model of double-blind experimental designs. The Department of Education has used medical and traditional scientists to speak before groups of educators during orientation sessions to grant awardees on the merits of this approach, and in doing so have disregarded 35 years of research on quasi-experimental design. The upshot has been raising both ethical considerations and questions of validity. In reality, there has had to be some compromise on the notion of a notreatment group, because public education cannot have no-treatment controls for any extended period. For any time-extended treatment, such as the ones the Javits (gifted) Program funds, a comparison group—where some treatment, usually an ongoing program, is in place—works just fine. There are severe ethical consequences (Conner, 1980) to not providing a worthwhile alternative or denying services to any set of children in the context of public education. Among the ethical considerations that an evaluator needs to take into account is the matter of doing no

E.M. Bernal and J.H. Garc´ıa

harm in the proposed treatment (for example, to students’ self-esteem [Lapan, 1989]). It is ethical to raise this question, for while the new intervention is assumed to be worthwhile and even superior to the old or standard treatment, it must be shown to be so. A comparison group is absolutely necessary, although the timing and frequency of the comparisons themselves (beyond the first comparison) may be open to debate and negotiation. Both validity and ethics come into the picture when the issue of random assignment of students is raised by federal officers. Many programs of the gifted— especially dual-language programs—rely on parental consent, not random assignment. Except for very limited interventions, random assignment of students whose parents have given such a consent means that some would either be left out (making up the classic control group) or assigned to the comparison group, while the rest would get the designated or experimental treatment. We have questioned those who have reported at Javits (gifted) meetings about their cooperating school districts’ concerns with these constraints on their participation, and they have answered privately that some districts would not agree to the study in their schools or that some districts agreed but then proceeded to assign students non-randomly anyway, as they normally would, and that about one in three, four, or five districts they approached agreed and went along with random assignment for the campuses involved. There are reasons, of course, why random assignments of students to teachers are not made routinely by districts. One is that school administrators frequently try to make a match between a teacher’s characteristics and a student’s, or simply that some parents request a particular teacher. Random assignment probably seems too objective—too “cold”—for some administrators. A validity issue rests on how representative can a one-in-four district can be or, for that matter, how representative would a district that agrees to random assignment of students at certain campuses be? Would a policy-maker at some as-yet uncommitted district be interested in such results? Should the evaluator simply “forget” about this forced random assignment, forget about the districts that had to be passed over, and not include any mention of the matter in the project description? Or would the US Department of Education be better advised to go ahead and insist that potential contractors use sound evaluation designs but to place

66

Dual-Language Gifted Education and Its Evaluation

1281

these within the constraints of practical expediency and and again, but not very often, and nobody seems to set aside the fabled Gold Standard? know how their students are doing! Nor do we know the types of training their staffs and teachers have received. What is perhaps the greatest problem is that we Followup Studies do not know what trends the gifted program is undergoing, except for the few gifted programs that seek grants. Politics may prevent this from happening, but the The final issue to be discussed in this paper involves evaluator of a gifted program should try to publish the matter of following up the graduates of the GT pro4 gram. Few programs do so (see, for example, the dis- these results in the interests of openness, accountabilcussion of Barbe’s work in Gold, 1984), and this is cer- ity, and professional courtesy. These days almost all program innovations for tainly not something that needs to be done every year. gifted education are done by public schools and a few For students who graduate from elementary or middle private schools, sometimes in liaison with knowledgeschool, followup is relatively easy to do unobtrusively able faculty from local universities, and the need to with students who remain in the district. Following up document and examine critically what is being done gifted high school graduates and students who move to is important not so much in a summative sense but other districts usually requires either a mail-out or an mostly as a means to secure continuous improvement e-mailed questionnaire with a number of open-ended items as well as more structured items on topics of in- in the program itself and further the research base for terest to administrators and teachers. Usually items that the profession. Dual-language education for gifted students is an request feedback on curriculum dominate the followup important option for schools to weigh, especially if questionnaire. they have bilingual teachers as resources who can For bilingual gifted students who are recent gradbe educated to provide appropriate schooling for the uates from high school, get feedback on their experigifted in ethnically and linguistically integrated setences in higher education, including their perceptions tings. Securing the cognitive benefits of bilingualism of themselves relative to other bright students and the to the children can be one point raised to the parents of way they were prepared for academic challenges. Ask them, too, about whether they received credit for their the youngsters who must, after all, support the practice bilingual skills. One may even try to contact working of dual-language education as if it were a classical young adults who have completed their gifted studies educational opportunity, for that it is! Learning academic content in all the core academic in your district and compare their responses to those areas teaches one more than how to speak, read, and of recent graduates. If the followup of the gifted bilinwrite two languages fluently. It also provides a breadth gual program is made as part of a larger followup of of intercultural contact and understanding, an enriched all gifted students it may be possible to contrast two or literature, and opportunities which we can only imagmore groups and even conduct a “value-added” analyine in the personal and the professional domains. Evalsis for the evaluation report. Once again qualitative analysis combined with uation should be tailored to ensure that these promises quantitative inferential description is in order. It may be are being achieved. advantageous to do some of these followups in person, so that one can really get behind what students think.

Concluding Remarks It is important to publish the gifted program’s data, not only in the aggregate but also in the disaggregated form. Gifted programs have been studied now 4 Followup is perhaps the one area in which private schools consistently outperform the public schools.

References Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative: Nurturing a lifetime of creativity. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation. Bernal, E. M. (1974). Gifted Mexican-American children: An ethno-scientific perspective. California Journal of Educational Research, 25, 261–273. Bernal, E. M. (1986). Evaluation of programs for the gifted and talented. In J. J. Gallagher & R. D. Courtright (Eds.), The World Council’s annotated bibliography of gifted education (pp. 65–72). New York: Trillium.

1282 Bernal, E. M. (1990). Some thoughts on how testing and evaluation can improve educational opportunities for underachieving minorities. In J. G. Bain & J. L. Herman (Eds.), Making schools work for underachieving minority students (pp. 181– 187). New York: Greenwood Press. Bernal, E. M. (2000a). As state performance standards for GT programs increase, so does the need for program evaluation. TAGT Tempo, 20(2), 4–5, 15–17. Bernal, E. M. (2000b, October). Evaluation report: Region one’s Javits Project, 1998–2000.(Evaluation Report). San Antonio, TX: Author. Bernal, E. M. (2000c). The quintessential features of gifted education as seen from a multicultural perspective. In G. B. Esquivel & J. C. Houtz (Eds.), Creativity and giftedness in culturally diverse students (pp. 159–191). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Bernal, E. M. (2007). The plight of the culturally diverse student from poverty. In J. VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on lowincome promising learners (pp. 27–30). Washington, DC and Williamsburg, VA: National Association for Gifted Children and the Center for Gifted Education, College of William and Mary. Burstein, L. (1975, April). Data aggregation in education research: Applications. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. Callahan, C. M. (1983). Issues in evaluating programs for the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(1), 3–7. Callahan, C. M. (2000). Evaluation as a critical component of program development and implementation. In K. Heller, F. M¨onks, R. Sternberg, & R Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 537–547). New York: Elsevier. Chamberlain, S. P. (2005). Recognizing and responding to cultural differences in the education of culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(4), 195–211. Chamberlain, S. P., & Garc´ıa, J. H. (April, 2003). Teacher attributions of special education students’ difficulties in one border community. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Christian, D. (1996). Two-way immersion education: Students learning through two languages. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 66–76. Christian, D., Howard, E. R., & Loeb, M. I. (2000). Bilingualism for all: Two-way immersion programs in the United States. Theory into Practice, 39(4), 258–266. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Conner, R. F. (1980). Ethical issues in the use of control groups. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 7, 63–75. Dean, B. K. (2003). Gifted/talented student performance standards: The forgotten link. Tempo, 23(3), 1, 8–18. Doherty, N., & Crakes, G. (1980). Social program costs: Adjusting for research and evaluation activities. Evaluation Review, 4(4), 537–548. Frasier, M. M., Garc´ıa, J. H., & Passow, A. H. (1995). A review of assessment issues in gifted education and their implications for identifying gifted minority students. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

E.M. Bernal and J.H. Garc´ıa Gallagher, J. J. (2006, April). Future prospects for gifted education. Invited presentation at the Javits Conference, Storrs, CT. Gallagher, J. J. (2006). How to shoot oneself in the foot with program evaluation. Roeper Review, 28(3), 122–124. Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. Glass, G. V., Stanley, J. C. (1970). Statistical methods in education and psychology. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gold, S. (1996, June). Sixty years of programming for the gifted in Cleveland. Phi Delta Kappan, 497–499. Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: the debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Helms, J. E. (1992). Why is there no study of cultural equivalence in standardized cognitive ability testing? American Psychologist, 47(9), 1083–1101. Lambert, W. E., & Cazabon, M. (1994). Students’ views of the Amigo Program (Research Report No. 11). Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). The bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Langbein, L. I. (1977). Schools or students: Aggregation problems in the study of student achievement. In M. Guttentag & S. Saar (Eds.), Evaluation studies review annual (Vol. 2, pp. 270–298). San Francisco: SAGE. Lapan, S. D. (1989). Guidelines for developing and evaluating gifted programs. Roeper Review, 11(3), 167–169. Leithwood, K. A., & Montgomery, D. J. (1980). Evaluating program implementation. Evaluation Review, 4(2), 193–214. Masten, W. G., & Plata, M. (2000). Acculturation and teacher ratings of Hispanic and Anglo-American students. Roeper Review, 23(1), 45–46. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2000). The transition from childhood giftedness to adult creative productiveness: Psychological characteristics and social support. Roeper Review, 23(2), 65–71. Ram´ırez III, M., & Casta˜neda, A. (1974). Cultural democracy, bicognitive development, and education. New York: Academic Press. Robisheaux, J. A., & Banbury, M. M. (2002). Voice and validation: Creativity and bilingualism. In J. Castellano & E. D´ıaz (Eds.), Reaching new horizons: Gifted and talented education for culturally and linguistically diverse students (pp. 76–3). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Sommers, C. H. (1996, June 12). Where the boys are on the gender-equity barometer. Education Week, 52, 42. Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Identifying and developing creative giftedness. Roeper Review, 23(2), 60–64. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case study. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Thomas, L. S. (1991). A survey of attributes of bright students from economically disadvantaged families and areas: How teachers describe these students. Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

66

Dual-Language Gifted Education and Its Evaluation

Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C., & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators (Report No. RM 02170). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Vald´es, G. (1997). Dual-language immersion programs A cautionary note concerning the education of language minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 67(3), 391–420.

1283 Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U. S. Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany, NY: State University of New York. Wiggins, G. (1996). Anchoring assessment with exemplars: Why students and teachers need models. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(1), 66–69.

Chapter 67

Observed Trends and Needed Trends in Gifted Education Michael F. Shaughnessy and Roland S. Persson

Abstract This chapter discusses observed trends in Gifted Education as well as trends that need to develop. Based on interviews with a number of leading researchers and thinkers in Gifted Education the following issues are believed to be significant in developing Gifted Education in the future: The increasing significance and application of neurological findings; enrichment particularly by means of Information Technology as well as by writing skills and communication. In addition, the increasing importance of creativity, mentoring, and counseling and the increasing use of the Internet are discussed. However, there are also trends that need to develop; trends that have been somewhat neglected in the past, namely a focus on educational efficiency and a greater focus on critical thinking and higher order thinking in General Education, but in Gifted Education in particular. In closing, legislation and genetics as future developments are commented upon.

opment and future. On the other hand, we are living in the “worst of times” also, in that given all of the technology and given all that we know about gifted children, we still fall horrendously short of any type of ideal by which to build Gifted Education. Education is overshadowed by the special education of children with exceptionalities, but gifted children often are neglected, not referred, remain untested, and remain very poorly served by any stretch of the imagination. Teachers are still insufficiently or minimally trained, and school systems do not avail themselves of the opportunities available. Further, there is, at least in America, an emphasis on “adequate yearly progress” due to the “No Child Left Behind” legislation. In many school districts, however, the gifted children are the ones who indeed are left behind. This chapter will review recent trends observed in Gifted Education as they have been experienced and researched by distinguished scholars and educators such as Renzulli, O’Boyle, Feldman, Elder, Rimm, SternKeywords Gifted education · Mentoring · Higher or- berg, Gallagher, Freeman, Fitzhugh, Bradley, Sterling, and Yapp—all of whom at different occasions have der thinking skills · Critical thinking skills been interviewed by the first author to this chapter in a series of “reflective interviews” mainly published in Gifted Education International over a period of years. Introduction We can therefore not claim to exhaustively explore all current trends, only the ones observed and wished for “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times” was by these scholars. They should, however, reasonably be a line immortalized by Charles Dickens. In a sense, the most central ones in a worldwide perspective. we are living in the “best of times” regarding Gifted Education, in that we finally have a solid foundation upon which to build the edifice of its continued devel-

The Changing World of Gifted Education M.F. Shaughnessy (B) Eastern New Mexico University, Portales, NM, USA e-mail: [email protected]

James Gallagher’s (2002) work has been around for many years and he continues to provide a beacon of

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 67, 

1285

1286

light illuminating the realm of Gifted Education. He has discussed the issues confronting us in the new millennium: (a) The changing views of intelligence, (b) the paradigm of creativity, (c) identification of gifted students, and (d) the challenges of cultural differences and various models of instructional strategies for gifted students. He further has discussed the “equity/excellence conflict” and new environments for gifted students. Perhaps most importantly, he pensively reviewed the impact of technology. In an interview with Gallagher (in Shaughnessy, 2003) he indicated that

M.F. Shaughnessy and R.S. Persson

study and implementation of acceleration for the next 20 years or so (see also Colangelo’s chapter in this handbook). Also, it is worth noting the publication of Genius Denied: How to Stop Wasting Our Brightest Young Minds (Davidson, Davidson, & VanderKam, 2004). This book, along with the establishment of a school affiliated with the University of Nevada-Reno has heralded in a new American commitment to Gifted Education and certainly a heightened awareness of the need for also special schools, special services, and special counseling avenues for gifted boys and girls. Several other influential texts need also be mentioned. They one the challenges that advocates for gifted students is have all in their way contributed to the direction which to convince the public of the relevance of special educaGifted Education now seems to be taking, for examtional opportunities for them. There still is a widespread ple, Feldman, Csikszentmihalyi, and Gardner (1994); belief that these students will do well on their own without any special help or stimulation and there is also a VanTassel-Baska (1998); Cline and Schwartz (1999); tendency to ignore important support systems or infrasand Colangelo and Davis (2003). tructures that are necessary to solidify a quality program. When asked to ponder some of the future trends in (p. 108) Gifted Education, Feldman, for example, did not feel Gallagher’s comments are relevant, salient, and ger- able to “pontificate about what kinds of practice should mane. It is surprising that in, for example, the United emerge or guide the field, but if they are not concorStates, principals, administrators, and even democrati- dant with what we know about the brains, bodies, excally elected representatives and leaders still hold some periences and contexts of development in challenging of the same erroneous beliefs that were espoused in the domains of expertise, they will badly miss the opportu1950s. This is relevant to this text in that while the vari- nity to fulfill it’s promise to the children of the world” ous authors of the many chapters in this handbook have (in Laman & Shaughnessy, 2004, p. 25). Having thus established a short background, oball done quite elegant and sophisticated work, the results have sadly not seen much fruit. The proponents served and more positive emerging trends as noted by and advocates of Gifted Education still have a long way the interviewed scholars will now be examined more to go toward educating parents and the powers that in- closely. fluence the many varieties and forms of Gifted Education reviewed in this text. As the new millennium approached, mentoring, brain research, technology, and computers were the The Increasing Significance of Neurology main realms explored to develop Gifted Education (Shaughnessy, Jausovec, & Lehtonen, 1999). Soon a Although viewed by some as a fad, the idea of learndecade later it is worth reflecting on the insights gained ing styles, right and left hemisphere dominance, Edand more keenly develop these areas. A couple of wards’ (1989) early ideas about calling on the right side matters bear mentioning, however, prior to surveying of the brain and O’Boyle’s (in press) current work recontemporary developments in Gifted Education more garding EEG, the increasing knowledge of the brain and how to put such knowledge into application will thoroughly. The publication of A Nation Deceived: How Schools presumably continue and potentially develop into a Hold Back America’s Brightest Students (Colangelo, major trend in the more specialized field of education Assouline, & Gross, 2004) has seemed to once and of the gifted (e.g., Sousa, 2003). The practical application of our increasing knowlfor all settle some of the issues regarding acceleration. This text has propelled the issue and the various forms edge of brain functions may well be the most important of acceleration into the forefront of discussion. We be- concern over the next two decades. Translating such lieve that this text will provide the groundwork for the research results into classroom accommodations

67

Observed Trends and Needed Trends in Gifted Education

1287

and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning will be paramount concerns (compare McCormick, Miller, & Pressley, 1989; Riding & Rayner, 1998; Sternberg, 1997). Freeman (in Shaughnessy, 2004) has mentioned several tangential concepts whose understanding and application are directly related to neurological research. Cognitive style, for example, is considered by Freeman as

spanning the entire time children are school students will remain a challenge. It is likely that future trends will include a more precise operational definition of this relatively elusive construct. In order to do this there needs to be an increase in longitudinal research especially of the growth and development of gifted children’s cognitive structures (see Subotnik & Arnold, 2000).

the way each person approaches experiences, whether emotional or intellectual, practical or academic—one’s personal manner of learning. Cognitive style includes personal preferences for the learning set up, such as working alone or with others, learning by hearing or by reading, choice of subject areas, persistence and the rhythm and length of conversation. Cognitive style can be explained in terms of the relative use of the two sides of the brain, each of which has different ways of operating. The left hemisphere is considered to work in a careful ordered way, tacking problem analytically (successive processing) while the right hemisphere takes an overall more picture like view (simultaneous processing). (p. 287)

Enrichment and Information Technology

In addition, it needs to be determined whether Information Technology approaches to education will provide an impetus for a closer examination of the depth and breath and scope of knowledge or simply will be a repository of data in a data-driven world. One singular trend over the next 20 years is very likely A sensitivity to the cognitive structures of the gifted to be, however, the internal accumulation of growth (the way in which they process, organize, and deal in computer-driven models. Renzulli (in Knobel & with incoming information and knowledge) as well Shaughnessy, 2002), regarding this issue, argues that as their cognitive preferences or styles is important one of the most crucial issues in Gifted Education is tryto maximize the learning time with gifted children. ing to get better information about defensible programs and practices out to the general public and especially to Freeman also indicates that teachers need to be careful policy makers. . .[because] the policy-makers who argue of what she terms “the three times problem,” which for inclusion, little or no special services, and even criticonfronts gifted children. That is, (1) the teacher cize Gifted Education initiatives—are often persons who tells them what they are going to teach them, they send their own children to private schools! (p. 120) then (2) teach them, and finally (3) they tell them Renzulli and Reis have offered a technology-based what they taught them. This is simply not an efficient information processing style, nor does it conform application of the so-called Schoolwide Enrichment to the educational style of gifted children who may Model and High-End Learning Theory in this handhave already been exposed to this knowledge and book. The use of instructional communication technology (ICT) has made it possible to access the Reninformation. A sensitivity to the learning styles is surely on the zulli Learning System (RLS) to maximize the creativagenda for future teachers of the gifted. Furthermore, ity and potential of all students (see also Renzulli & teachers also need to be sensitive to the needs of gifted Reis, 1985, 1994; Torrance, 1993; Wallace, 2005). Also, the last 20 years or so has seen an explosion children with sensory and physical challenges (Baldof a wide variety of educational materials. Educational win & Vialle, 1999). software has become commonplace. The appropriate use of these will also be a challenge for the next 20 years. The trend will certainly be to utilize computers Focusing Enrichment and software to do a wide variety of projects utilizing various software to enhance skills. There are many While much discussed as an approach, there is little software clearinghouses which provide a veritable listandardization and little consensus as to what enrich- brary of software materials for skill building. There is ment means, how it is implemented and evaluated or also software specifically for gifted children and adoits long- and short-term efficacy. Training teachers to lescents in, for example, the realms of critical thinking do quality, in-depth, extensive, appropriate enrichment or higher order thinking and mathematics.

1288

M.F. Shaughnessy and R.S. Persson

Enrichment and Writing Skills

ulations may certainly become pervasive. Creativity, overall, will certainly continue to be of importance for Within any educational system, the role of writing the future development of Gifted Education (see also is imperative—the ability to communicate thoughts, Sternberg, 1999). The challenge for the future will be facts, and ideas. Gifted students need writing skills to integrate the need for creativity in the classroom and and need to hone and polish their expository and other the schools. writing realms as a part of their academic program. Sterling (in Shaughnessy, 2006a) examined the role of writing and the critical role that writing plays in education, as well as the dissemination of important Mentoring and Counseling ideas, theories, research, and knowledge. He believes that “writing is one of the most powerful ways to learn and I think that our best thinkers tend to be people Mentoring is one of the more recent trends: “This trend who know how to write well” (pp. 12–13). Sterling’s will continue,” Neely (in Shaughnessy & Neely, 1991) National Writing Project (see the online project site argues, “although not necessarily in a formalized way.” at http://www.writingproject.org) is one example of However, society is often slow to adopt the formalized an important and promising project. Will Fitzhugh mentoring process, nor does the average professional is editor of The Concord Review, which publishes usually have the time to devote to mentoring. Together only outstanding papers written by high school stu- with mentoring is also counseling. The need for coundents. He has examined and explored some ideas seling gifted children is becoming increasingly apparand relevance of writing stating simultaneously the ent. Perfectionism and underachievement, for examconsiderable importance to having an outlet for one’s ple, are problems of major concern to parents, teachcreative and scholarly academic work also at a young ers, and counselors relative to gifted children (e.g., age. Fitzhugh (in Shaughnessy, 2005a) indicated Rimm, 1997). In an interview with Rimm, she says (in Seevers & Shaughnessy, 2003a) that the intellectual benefits conferred by serious academic writing extend their authors’ ability to read more, and to understand the lectures of professors more easily as well. They are less likely to feel confused, lost or out of place in academic courses at the college level and therefore less likely to join the large number of those who give up and drop out of college. (p. 366)

Creativity Revisited In the field of creativity, no name is more well know than E. Paul Torrance. For the past 50 years and until his passing away, he has been establishing trends with his tests, his books, and his work on mentoring and exploring various realms of creative giftedness. In one of his last papers he reflected on what he saw were upcoming trends (Torrance, 2000): (a) We will see an increasing emphasis on diversity and an awareness of different cultures. Further, (b) we will see an increasingly aged population as more and more individuals live longer and longer. While this is perhaps a truism, the implications for quality of life and investigations into creative realms in older geriatric pop-

I see far too much emphasis placed on educational conformity and not enough on individual excellence. Our concerns with social adjustment seems to have been prioritized above learning. In tune with Plato’s statement “what is honored in one’s country is what will be cultivated”, we are surely honoring peer conformity far too much! (p. 82)

Although individual teachers, principals, and parents cannot change an entire culture, they can indicate in their own classrooms, schools, and homes what is considered valuable, important, and cherished and attempt to nurture individual excellence and quality learning and teaching. Note that there are clear differences between the processes involved in mentoring, counseling, and the nurturing of gifted children. Shaughnessy and Bradley (2005) reviewed the main counseling concerns relative to giftedness including perfectionism, rejection by peers, social immaturity, fear of failure, and stress and anxiety. Individuals working with the gifted need to be sensitive to these subtle nuances and reflect on these various aspects of enhancing their growth and development (Shaughnessy, 2005b).

67

Observed Trends and Needed Trends in Gifted Education

1289

The Internet: Increasing Use of The World the quality of these various portals of assistance will remain problematic. Wide Web One likely, even inevitable, avenue to take in developing future Gifted Education is of course the use of the Internet. Technology is opening many doors to teachers, scholars, researchers and gifted children, adolescents and adults alike. The Internet has provided a wealth of information. We have only begun to touch the tip of the iceberg in terms of using it appropriately and comprehensively. Unfortunately though, it is often difficult to keep up with innovations in technology relating to the web. Just as one begins to feel “up to date” on its technology and other innovations new and improved versions emerge. The pace of innovation and change is even so staggering that there has emerged a need for the psychometrically viable construct of technostress (Persson, 2001). Nevertheless, the relevance of the Internet to Gifted Education cannot be emphasized enough. In specific, gifted children are able to take courses online that may accelerate their progress through school, enhance their intellectual development, and provide advanced placement classes that may not be available in rural areas. Future trends in Gifted Education are likely to see colleges offering early admission and courses specifically for gifted high school students. This is a “win– win situation” in that gifted children will be able to progress more quickly through their high school years, procure college credits online, as well as be able to progress at their own rate of growth. Yapp (in Shaughnessy, 2006b) indicates that “the information and conceptual explosion enabled by the Internet. . . is more like The Renaissance than the Industrial Revolutions” (p. 5). The teacher of the future may be more of a “guide on the side” than a “sage on the stage.” Yapp also indicates that “Microsoft has a Partners in Learning Program, including an innovative Teachers Program, which provides vehicles to join in and facilitate some of the networking and sharing of what works” (p. 7). Teachers, researchers, and consultants alike will need to be using technology more efficiently, effectively, and consistently in the future to aid in the education of gifted children. There will undoubtedly be more clearinghouses and state and national sources and interlinks via the Internet to assist with the educational and growth process. However, assessing

Forgotten Issues? Trends that Need Developing Sternberg (in Shaughnessy, 2002) has commented on what he would like to see in the future in terms of Gifted Education: I think the single biggest problem for gifted education today is the use of programs whose efficacy has not been shown, or, often even been evaluated and the use of models that have not been scientifically validated. . .and this means we have to convince the government and private foundations to fund such research. (p. 203)

We agree with Sternberg. Effect studies of educational implementation are important and interestingly, they are scarce in General Education, but even more so in Gifted Education. Many parents are unhappy with the quality of Gifted Education in the public schools. Some parents opt to home schooling their children or rely on private or parochial schools for an in-depth quality education for their children. We need to address this problem, and the only way forward is assessing the efficiency of what we actually do in Gifted Education (see also Shaughnessy, 2004). In the minds of many, Gifted Education is synonymous with critical thinking and higher order thinking. There are many tests available for assessing either critical thinking or higher order thinking, however you define these constructs. The incorporation of critical thinking/higher order thinking skills remains of critical importance in future Gifted Education. Although researchers Paul and Elder (2001) as well as VanTasselBaska (1994, 1998) have done much work attempting to incorporate critical thinking and higher order thinking into regular curricula, there are few who cogently and coherently fight to integrate critical thinking and higher order thinking into the curriculum of the gifted child. One would hope for a “new trend” to rise, and that is, the ongoing integration of these skills into the curriculum of the gifted child in the realm of their educational portfolio. Elder (in Seevers & Shaughnessy, 2003b) says that the most important area of education reform at this point in our history should be on rethinking “education” so that students learn the intellectual skills, abilities, and disposi-

1290

M.F. Shaughnessy and R.S. Persson

tions vital to living a productive and ethical life. Students need these skills to reason through the content in class, to interrelate important ideas within and between subjects, and apply content to life’s problems. (pp. 104–105)

Summary and Conclusions Predicting the future is of course fraught with peril, but it is also an exciting endeavor. The past years have been exciting ones that have realized a better quality of education for gifted children. These also are challenging times for parents, teachers, counselors, and gifted teachers. We have a number of options open for gifted students, yet not all individuals are aware of the options. Those who are aware are often hampered by administrative structures in the schools, and anachronistic beliefs of principals and school boards. Shaughnessy (2004) reviewed some of the concerns relative to Gifted Education. The conclusion of the review was, unfortunately, that we seem currently to be neglecting our best and brightest. However, Landau (in Laman & Shaughnessy, 2005) admonishes everyone involved in Gifted Education that we need to “keep the flame of curiosity, enthusiasm and involvement alive so that the gifted child will become a creative gifted actualized adult” (p. 133). She is concerned that “most of our gifted children will not actualize their wonderful potentials if they are not prepared to work hard, persevere in their doings, look at things from different aspects, and invest their interest and energy so that whatever looks like a difficulty becomes a challenge” (p. 134). Landau’s work in counseling and in the social and emotional realms is needed as is future work in curriculum, computers, and cognition. Table 67.1 Trends observed and trends desired in Gifted Education for the future

As far as observed trends go this chapter has nevertheless outlined a few important issues, which in all likelihood will develop and become increasingly important and influential with time. Observed are also a few trends that are hopefully to be, trends we need to see gain momentum in the near future (see Table 67.1 for a concluding overview). If there is one trend that bears mentioning in closing, it is legislation in regard to Giftedness and Gifted Education. In many countries, unless something is solidified into law, there is little recourse for parents dissatisfied with their gifted children’s education. What may be the most imperative trend of them all for the future is the increasing frequency of parents resorting to legal measures to procure an appropriate education for their gifted children. If anything, this certainly puts Gifted Education under pressure to improve where needed by all means available. We feel it is also appropriate here to mention the increasing significance of genetics and in all likelihood its considerable future influence on understanding both theoretical and applied aspects of Gifted Education. The continued uncovering of how behavior and genetic potential interact in certain environments, however, could not be considered a trend per se. It is more of an inevitability, which may well in due course change our entire understanding of Gifted Education (for an excellent overview of giftedness and genetics, see Franc¸oys Gagn´e’s contribution to this handbook). Researchers, policy-makers and practitioners alike need to be continually updated regarding this field of research to avoid “reinventing the wheel” once more.

Trends observed (a) The increasing significance and educational applications of neurological findings (for example, learning styles and cognitive structures) (b) Further developments regarding enrichment strategies, particularly in regard to the use of Information Technology, writing skills, and communication skills (c) The increasing impact of understanding and implementing creativity (d) The increasing need to provide mentoring and counseling to gifted individuals, particularly in relation to perfectionism and underachievement (e) The increasing use of the Internet in Gifted Education Trends needed (a) An increasing need to regularly demonstrate educational efficiency in General Education and in Gifted Education in particular (b) An increasing need is also to place greater emphasis on critical thinking and higher order thinking in General Education curricula but even more so in Gifted Education curricula

67

Observed Trends and Needed Trends in Gifted Education

References Baldwin, A.Y., & Vialle, W. (1999) The many faces of giftedness: Lifting the mask. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Cline, S., & Schwartz, D. (Eds.). (1999). Diverse populations of gifted children: Meeting their needs in the regular classroom and beyond. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A Nation deceived: how schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vols. 1 & 2). Iowa City, Iowa: The Connie Belin and Jacqeuline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, The University of Iowa. Davidson, J., Davidson, B., & VanderKam, L. (2004). Genius denied: How to stop wasting our young brightest minds. New York: Simon & Schuster. Edwards, B. (1989). Drawing on the right side of the brain. New York: Tarcher. Feldman, D. H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Gardner, H. (1994). Changing the world: Framework for studying creativity. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Gallagher, J. J. (2002). Gifted education in the 21st century. Gifted Education International, 16(2), 100–111. Knobel, R., & Shaughnessy, M. F. (2002). A reflective conversation with Joe. Renzulli Gifted Education International, 16(2), 118–127. Laman, E., & Shaughnessy, M. F. (2004). A reflective conversation with David Henry Feldman. Gifted Education International, 19(1), 21–26. Laman, E., & Shaughnessy, M. F. (2005). A reflective conversation with Erika Landau. Gifted Education International, 20(2), 129–138. McCormick, C. B., Miller, G. E., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (1989). Cognitive strategy research: From basic research to educational application. New York: Springer. O’Boyle, M. (in press). A reflective conversation with Michael O’Boyle. Gifted Education International, Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. New York: Simon Schuster. Persson, R. S. (2001). Pandora’s box revisited? In M. Chaib. (Ed.), Perspectives on human-computer interactions: A multi-disciplinary approach (pp. 17–49). Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1994). Research related to the schoolwide enrichment model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 2–14. Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and behaviour. London: David Fulton Publishers. Rimm, S. (1997). An underachievement epidemic. Educational Leadership, 54(7), 1–6. Seevers, R., & Shaughnessy, M. F. ( 2003a). A reflective conversation with Sylvia Rimm: About underachieving gifted children. Gifted Education International, 18(1), 77–83.

1291 Seevers, R., & Shaughnessy, M. F. (2003b). A reflective conversation with Linda Elder. Gifted Education International, 18(1), 83–106. Shaughnessy, M. F., & Neely, R. (1991) Mentoring gifted children and prodigies: Personological concerns. Gifted Education International, 7(2), 129–132. Shaughnessy, M. F., Jausovec, N., & Lehtonen, K. (1999). Gifted education: Some considerations as we approach the year 2000. Gifted Education International, 12(1), 40–42. Shaughnessy, M. F. (2002). A reflective conversation with Robert J. Sternberg: About giftedness, gifted education and intelligence. Gifted Education International, 16(3), 201–208. Shaughnessy, M. F. (2003) A reflective conversation with James Gallagher. Gifted Education International, 18(1), 106–111. Shaughnessy, M. F. (Ed.). (2004). Education in the new millennium: Not like your grandmother’s school house. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Shaughnessy, M. F. (2004). A reflective conversation with Joan Freeman. Gifted Education International, 18(3), 283–290. Shaughnessy, M. F. (2005a). A reflective conversation with Will Fitzhugh. Gifted Education International, 20(3), 364–368. Shaughnessy, M. F. (2005b). The dynamic synergy between mentoring, nurturing and counseling the gifted. Gifted Education International, 19(3), 253–258. Shaughnessy, M. F., & Bradley, L. (2005). A reflective conversation with Loretta Bradley: Issues in counseling the gifted and talented student. Gifted Education International, 19(3), 236–244. Shaughnessy, M. F. (2006a). A reflective conversation with Richard Sterling. Gifted Education International, 22(1), 8–13. Shaughnessy, M. F. (2006b). A reflective conversation with Chris Yapp: Towards an educational renaissance. Gifted Education International, 22(1), 5–7. Sousa, D. A. (2003). How the gifted brain learns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Subotnik, R. F., & Arnold, K. D. (2000). Addressing the most challenging questions in gifted education and psychology: A role best suited for longitudinal research. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 243–252). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Torrance, E. P. (1993). Experience in developing technology for creative education. In S. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestein, & T. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Understanding and recognizing creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 177– 214). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Torrance, E. P. (2000) The millennium: A time for looking forward and looking backward. The Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 10(1), 5–21. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. VanTassel-Baska, J. (Ed.). (1998). Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company. Wallace, P. (2005). Distance education for gifted students: Leveraging technology to expand academic options. High Ability Studies, 16(1), 77–86.

Part XII

Policy Implications and Legal Issues in Gifted Education

Chapter 68

United States Policy Development in Gifted Education: A Patchwork Quilt Joyce VanTassel-Baska

Abstract This chapter provides an overview of the policy picture of gifted education in the United States. Although a critical issue, policy in gifted education remains a patchwork quilt of legislative and administrative rules and regulations, mostly at the state level. Although a federal definition exists with an accompanying modest funding package, the No Child Left Behind Act, focused on raising achievement for lowperforming students, has driven out gifted education as a priority for federal attention. All 50 states cite some form of legislation for gifted and talented learners, but there is a variance of policies that causes national reform in gifted education to be less cohesive, comprehensive, and inclusive than it needs to be. Because of the lack of a federal mandate, specific policies and funding mechanisms are typically left to the advocacy efforts of interested stakeholders in individual states.

options for consideration, and a careful reading of the environment for policy direction that stakeholders will support and intuiting correctly the winds for change. In gifted education, the task is even more challenging as the importance of supporting the gifted learner is not seen as a national priority in the United States. National policy development in gifted education in the United States has been hampered by several factors in the larger society. One of these is the strong trend of anti-intellectualism of the society, preferring athletes and rock stars as the role models for emulation to scientists and philosophers. Another is a persistent interest in the underdog, in championing the cause of those who are weaker and ignoring the potential contributions by those of high ability. The emphasis on special education in our schools has affected the use of resources, the focus of classroom attention, and the educational structures we use to deliver curKeywords Acceleration · Accountability · AP riculum in ways that impede appropriate services to (Advanced Placement) · Advocacy · Assessment · our best learners. Our society also has a limited vision Certification · Curriculum · Definition of policy · Dual of the criticality of developing the talents of its population if it hopes to compete successfully in a global enrollment · Evaluation economy. Several countries in Asia and Europe already routinely are preparing their advanced students at levels 2 years beyond our current secondary coursework. United States students in math problem-solving comIntroduction petitions at age 15, for example, are less represented in the top group and overrepresented in the bottom group Developing educational policy that is effective for in comparison to other competing countries (Washingany group of learners is a daunting task. It requires ton Post, 2007). Finally, we are a society that responds tireless advocates, a strong policy analysis team, clear to crises rather than proactively solving problems. Only because of the imminent threat of terrorism do we now believe it is important to have our students take a secJ. VanTassel-Baska (B) ond language, with a major emphasis on Arabic and College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA e-mail: [email protected] Chinese. L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 68, 

1295

1296

Federal Policy in Gifted Education The first federal policy to benefit the gifted emerged as a result of Sputnik crises in the late 1950s, during which time special opportunities for advanced classes at the secondary level were funded in math, science, and foreign language, and counselors were funded to provide academic guidance for keeping students in the math and science pipeline. This emphasis waned by the middle 1960s as civil rights and special education legislation dominated the period. A second federal interest in gifted education emerged, however, in 1974 with a new piece of legislation, including a federal definition, and an accompanying modest funding package, spurred by the Marland Report 2 years before. Although the legislation was revised in 1979, other than a change in definition, no new impetus was forthcoming for greater emphasis in gifted education or in funding at higher appropriation levels. Funding from the Jacob Javits Act was forthcoming in 1988 and remains intact today to focus on demonstration projects, state grants, and a national research center (USDOE, 1993), all funded at under $10 million, with annual concerns about reauthorization and continued funding. A federal report, called National Excellence, was disseminated in 1993 to state the need for emphasis on gifted populations, including those from low-income and minority populations, yet it did not generate additional support for new legislation or funding. A more recent national report from The Templeton Foundation, called A Nation Deceived, focused on research findings over the past 80 years on acceleration, producing some movement in states to address more open policies on this issue for highly able youth.

J. VanTassel-Baska

with special attention to those on the cusp of potential for showing annual yearly progress (AYP). This focus has caused gifted student needs to be ignored in policy circles and therefore in the reality of classrooms as well. New attempts to improve the NCLB legislation primarily focus on the following areas: (1) shoring up the current support systems to students not meeting AYP through additional professional development, transition and crisis intervention models, home– school interventions, and targeted materials and guidebooks (Center for Mental Health in Schools, 2006) and (2) focusing on the goals of accountability, flexibility, teacher quality, rigor, and choice, with special attention to Title I schools (Education Daily, 2007).

Special Education as a Model for Policy

Gallagher (2006) has suggested that there are strong driving forces that have catalyzed policy in special education to be enacted and move forward in this country. These forces include legislation, court decisions, administrative rules, and professional initiatives. Whereas special education has had turnkey mandated legislation at the federal level (94-142, IDEA, 2004) and several influential court cases to drive positive change on behalf of disabled learners, gifted education has not enjoyed these catalysts for change. Rather, it has had to rely on state-based administrative rules and regulations and a few key professional initiatives. What must the gifted education community be able to do to bring about a sea change in educational vision, one that would positively impact on the lives of gifted learners over time? Some people would argue that such a change can occur only through sustained advocacy and serendipitous politics that posiThe Policy Engine of No Child Left Behind tion us for more visible support for funding. Others would suggest that more emphasis on strong research In general education, the United States is currently ex- coupled with informed policies might be a way to periencing a new wave of educational policy reform, proceed. The truth of the matter is that both agenbuttressed by ideological and political agendas that das need to be pursued vigorously in order to hope have driven out even modest support for our best youth. that action will be taken. However, this chapter is foThe No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) has called cused on issues of policy and how they can make a for draconian measures to ensure school accountabil- difference in tandem with strong advocacy. Thus, we ity and, at the same time, raise teacher’s quality. The need to understand the elements of policy and how preoccupation at national, state, and local levels has they can be constructed to benefit a population like the been on raising the achievement level for all learners, gifted.

68

United States Policy Development in Gifted Education

Definition of Policy Educational policy is an adopted course of action by a governing board, motivated by the existence of an educational problem or issue. The substance of policy usually rests in a set of rules and standards by which educational agencies allocate resources to address the identified need. At the state level, gifted education policy is tied to the rules and regulations adopted by state legislatures that govern the administration of programs and control how funding is allocated. Aspects of program administration are also often captured in state publications on best practice guidelines in gifted education but do not carry the force of law. Ideally, policy in gifted education that is binding on local districts would address the areas of identification, program services, curriculum, instruction, and assessment of learning, program design and management, teacher preparation, and program evaluation.

Rationale for Its Importance in Gifted Education The importance of coherent and comprehensive policy in gifted education cannot be overstated. The history of the field suggests that the incentive for local program development is inextricably tied to state structures and related funding mechanisms for programs and services. Since the early 1960s, local districts have created programs based on state regulations and funding formulas. While the intent was always for local districts to increase and supplement state funding, we have reason to believe that this situation never materialized in the majority of school districts across the country. Therefore, the structure that holds gifted programs together is nested in the policies that individual states have enacted. The direction and continuity of the field at the grassroots level, then, is heavily influenced by the state one resides in and the strength of the policy initiatives in that state. Moreover, since there are no federal laws or mandates governing gifted education programs and services, federal attention to gifted education services is intermittent and limited. Consequently, state policy is the cornerstone of gifted programming in the United States. Therefore, an effort to evaluate current policies

1297

and determine how they can be strengthened to support the learning needs of gifted students is central to improving the field. Gifted education policy is tied to the rules, statutes, codes, and regulations adopted by state legislatures, interpreted by state school boards of education and state departments of education, and implemented by local school districts. Therefore, the importance of coherent and comprehensive state policy in gifted education cannot be overstated because not only is it influenced through all policy levers but it also affects the daily lives of gifted students and those who work on their behalf. The ultimate test of any educational policy is the extent to which it improves the lives of students, and the effectiveness and efficiency of schooling (Hannaway & Woodroffe, 2003).

Policy Tools Policy instruments, or tools, are “mechanisms that translate substantive policy goals into concrete actions” (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987, p. 134). These instruments include mandates, inducements, capacity building, system changing, and ideas. The primary elements of each vary as do the associated costs and benefits. Mandates establish rules, which, in turn, dictate consistent behavior. Responsive action is expected regardless of capacity and, without the rule, would not occur with the desired frequency or consistency. System-changing instruments assume and existing delivery system is faulty and altering authority for the system will improve its efficiency. Ideas, as a policy tool, persuade people that more desirable actions and outcome exist (Weiss, 1990). Tool selection is often dependent on two criteria: how the policy problem is defined and the policymakers’ resources and constraints. Furthermore, all policy tools have a symbolic component, which puts a spin on the selection process. For example, mandates offer politicians the rhetoric of heavy-handed change, can be implemented within one’s elected term of office, and provide visible results to constituents (Linn, 2000). But an unfunded mandate diminishes the policy’s potential to invoke change. Each policy tool has an inherent accountability system. The system establishes who is accountable for what, to whom they are accountable, as well as the

1298

J. VanTassel-Baska Table 68.1 The nature of policy instruments Instruments

Primary elements

Expected results

Sanctions

Mandates

Rules

Compliance and changed behavior create uniformity

Coercion is required

Capacity building

Money investments

Skill enhancement and competence; provides long-term returns

System changing

New authority and governing structures

Ideas

Conversations with all stakeholders

Different composition and public delivery system provides incentives for future systems growth Persuading people that more desirable means exist

Reducing variation is the goal but does not always result in compliance If capacity does not exist, additional investments are needed to mobilize Tangible present benefits serve as proxies for future, intangible benefits Institutional changes provoke defensive response

No visible sanctions

Adapted from McDonnell & Elmore (1987) and Weiss (1990).

process through which they will be held accountable. Mandates direct changes within an organization, but the people implementing those changes are generally accountable to someone outside the organization through an externally driven process. The following Table 68.1 outlines a few key policy tools with their primary elements, expected results, and sanctions. The use of IEPs in special education, for example, provides a strong understanding of the push–pull relationship of policies once they have been enacted through mandated means. While benefits have accrued for families in enhanced relationships with teachers and better understanding of programs, costs of the mandate include heavy task demands on teachers and the perception of the IEP as required but meaningless paperwork. Gifted education has been operating at the national level for the past 35 years in the absence of a mandate, a capacity-building agenda for personnel preparation, and system-changing levers. Its only policy tool has been ideas, not a currency that has yielded tangible results. Clearly, the field of gifted education must enlist more comprehensive tools and strategies if a policy agenda is to emerge that would impact all states and localities in the United States on gifted education issues. In order for that to happen, there needs to be careful policy analysis of costs, benefits, and probable outcomes with respect to key stakeholder groups for each policy option entertained.

Lack of Policy Coherence in Gifted Education Since the 1993 National Excellence report (U.S. Department of Education, [U.S. DOE], 1993) many programs for the gifted in states without mandates have been eliminated. Even mandated programs have seen a decline, documenting that gifted programming is typically less comprehensive in states without a mandate (Landrum, Katsiyannis, & DeWard, 1998). Even if a state has policies for gifted education, the extent to which the policies support and integrate with each other is not well documented in the literature, and little research exists regarding the relative strengths, limitations, and effects on practice of policies in gifted education. Coherent policy would address the following program development components in an integrated way: (a) identification, (b) program services, (c) curriculum and instruction, (d) assessment of learning, (e) program design and management, (f) teacher preparation, and (g) program monitoring and evaluation (VanTassel-Baska, 2006). Additionally, these policy components should be integrated within the larger state school reform efforts (Brown, 2001). Therefore, the direction and continuity of local gifted programs is heavily influenced by the state one resides in and the strength of the policy initiatives in that state. Based on the government structure of education, states are responsible for the education of children

68

United States Policy Development in Gifted Education

1299

but may devolve control to local districts. This structure leads to fragmentation in decision making, implementation, and practice (Cohen & Spillane, 1993). Therefore, policy initiatives may or may not be implemented according to the policymaker intent. Consequently, unintended outcomes are unavoidable. Reform attempts made to reduce fragmentation actually perpetuate them (Cohen & Spillane, 1993). Leadership consistency, understandings of policy, at least 5 years of sustained implementation, and commitment to reform efforts and policy implementation have been found to contribute to school reform, student growth, and policy implementation (Borman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2003; Carnoy & Loeb, 2002; Furney, Hasazi, & Hartnett, 2003). In such a context of 50 different states and local control initiatives, even mandated federal legislation such as IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1997) faces strong difficulty in cohesive implementation. Even with such legislation in place, states do not necessarily meet even minimum compliance standards (National Council on Disability, 2000). Many districts allege that state requirements and current reform initiatives such as high stakes testing and accountability contradict national policies or do not include special populations (Johnson, Stodden, Emmanuel, Luecking, & Mack, 2002). Challenges continue to exist for the special education population regarding coherence, policy, fidelity, collaboration, intended and unintended consequences, sustainability, and coordination of services (Furney et al., 2003; Johnson et al., 2002).

services; and Hawaii has brief provisions defining gifted and talented students and permitting a statewide flexible system based on three factors, starting with “the availability of financial and physical resources” (Zirkel, 2003, p. 84). On the other extreme, a larger but still limited group of states—Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia— has laws that approach the strength and specificity of the primary federal legislation for students with disabilities—the IDEA. This act establishes various school district obligations at the individual eligible student level, such as an individualized special education program and an impartial dispute–resolution mechanism. Only Tennessee provides undifferentiated treatment from students with disabilities by statute. The other states in this group provide varying degrees of differentiation by statute or, in Alabama and Florida, by regulation. In either event, these requirements provide individually enforceable legal rights for gifted education, serving as the springboard for published case law that clarifies ambiguities and fills in gaps. The vast majority of states fit in the broad, grouporiented category of specifying various state-level and/or district/school responsibilities that support and encourage group-based programs for gifted students. Although the specification of state and local responsibilities also characterize the laws in the IDEA-type category, those in the group-oriented model lack the hallmarks of Individualized Education Program (IEP)-type documents and the impartial adjudicatory dispute resolution.

State Law in Gifted Education

State-Level Responsibilities

Zirkel (2005) conducted an up-to-date review of statutes and regulations in the field of gifted education, noting a pattern of wide variability. At one extreme, a few states have no or negligible laws specific to gifted education. Specifically, New Hampshire is the only state with no mention in either its legislation or its regulations of gifted education; South Dakota recently repealed its legislation requiring the state board to issue regulations for identification and programming for gifted students; Minnesota merely mentions gifted children as one aspect of staff development and gifted education as one example of inter-district

Almost all states have specific provisions at the state level of responsibility, usually in terms of standards and/or funding. The typical template for “standards” is enabling legislation that either mandates or permits gifted education and delegates to the state education department the specific procedures and criteria via regulations. Colorado, for example, has permissive legislation that charges the state agency with the responsibility of issuing regulations that specify procedures and criteria for program approval, admissions, teaching, and services. Illustrating unusual variations, Maine’s statute estimates that 3–5% of the

1300

state’s students are gifted and talented; Mississippi’s legislation instructs the state agency to maximize local flexibility and parental involvement in its regulations; and West Virginia’s law provides for the participation of non-qualifying students upon two conditions: “the recommendation of a principal, counselor, teacher and parent” and “available” classroom space (Zirkel, 2003, p. 140). Similarly, state-level funding provisions are relatively frequent and flexible. A minority of states specify a formula that would appear to guarantee a minimum funding base or increase at the state level, typically pending local contribution. For example, Iowa’s legislation specifies a $38 annual increase, presumably per eligible student, that shall “increase in subsequent years by each year’s state percent of growth” (Zirkel, 2003, p. 88) and on the condition that the local district providing at least one-fourth of the costs of the gifted program. Mississippi provides an added allotment based on the number of state-approved teachers. Texas’s legislation does not appear to require a local contribution, entitling the district to a minimum multiplier of 0.12 in relation to the state’s per pupil allocation. On the other hand, in 2003, Maine repealed its 2:1 match of state to local funding. The third and least frequent of the legislatively specified state responsibilities is for technical assistance. Some states (e.g., Arkansas, Illinois, and Iowa) require the state education department to have a specialized staff member or office for such purposes. Others (e.g., Illinois and New Jersey) additionally provide for intermediate units to share in this responsibility. Ohio’s statutory provision for technical assistance is unusual in terms of being targeted to non-compliant districts, with reduction of funds being the next sanction applied.

J. VanTassel-Baska

and/or other such grounds. Arkansas’ law is notable for requiring the list of “nominated” students to be “representative of the entire student population in terms of race, sex, and economic status” (Zirkel, 2003, p. 65). The second most frequent feature of local responsibility is programming. This provision, whether in the group-oriented or individual-oriented categories, is typically characterized by flexibility rather than narrow prescriptiveness. Overall, the models for gifted education legislation and regulations fit into two broad categories. The first model is premised on a group orientation, either on a permissive or on a mandatory basis. The vast majority of state statutes and regulations for gifted education fit in this category with varying degrees of strength and specificity. The primary characteristic is specification of state- and local-level responsibilities, but without individualized substantive and procedural requirements that serve as the basis and avenue for litigation. The second model, analogous to the federal IDEA, is not only mandatory, as the strings attached to funding, but also individual oriented. It includes an individualized program requirement, which in the IDEA is “appropriate” education as documented in an individualized education program (IEP), and an impartial dispute–resolution mechanism, which in the IDEA includes at least a due process hearing and judicial review. The second model may yield a body of case law to fill in the gaps, but, to the extent that parents of gifted children follow the path of parents of students with disabilities, the trade-offs include parent–district adversariness and high transactions cost (Zirkel, 1994). Thus far, only a handful of states, including Pennsylvania, have fully opted for this model, usually with partial differentiation from the framework for students with disabilities.

Local Responsibilities Policy Development in Gifted Education The statutes or regulations of all of the states in both the IDEA and the intermediate categories have one or more specific provisions at the local level of responsibility. The highest frequency of these provisions addresses the criteria and/or procedures for identification. Of these state laws, only a limited group (e.g., Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) have specific provisions for non-discrimination with regard to racial, linguistic,

While all 50 states cite some form of legislation for gifted and talented learners, a broad range of accountability systems and policies among individual states exist (NAGC [NAGC], 2003a; Passow & Rudnitski, 1993; Swanson, 2002). The variance of policies makes national reform in gifted education less cohesive, comprehensive, and inclusive. Policy development in gifted education is typically

68

United States Policy Development in Gifted Education

confined to initiatives focusing on identification and limited programming features (Passow & Rudnitski, 1993; Shaunessy, 2003; U.S. DOE, 1993; VanTassel-Baska, 2003). The No Child Left Behind Act neither excludes nor includes gifted learners (National Association for Gifted Children, 2003b), encouraging many states to compromise services for the gifted in order to focus on specific mandates addressed in the legislation. Yet research reports have had negligible impact on changing this situation. Federally commissioned reports empirically document the need for gifted services (United States Department of Education, 1993), citing research that gifted students spend the majority of the school day in the regular classroom without curricular modifications or accommodations to meet their special needs even though they have already mastered 33–50% of the material to be taught prior to the start of the school year. More localized studies have found that gifted students are also at a greater risk for dropping out of high school or underachieving if their needs are not met, with 20% of high-school dropouts identified as gifted and more than 30% underachieving (Russo, Harris, & Ford, 1996; Stambaugh, 2001). The Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) indicates that even the brightest of students in the United States do not attain the same academic standards as their international counterparts (U.S. DOE, 1997). Because of the lack of federal response, specific policies and funding mechanisms are typically left to the advocacy efforts of interested stakeholders in state and local governments, causing great diversity and inequity in funding and services among and within states (Baker & Friedman-Nimz, 2004; Baker & McIntire, 2003; Passow & Rudnitski, 1993; Purcell, 1992; Shaunessy, 2003). While states with greater fiscal health boast more mandates and programming initiatives (Purcell, 1995), there is a variance among funding mechanisms employed within certain geographic or specific socioeconomic regions, causing inequity of resources among certain groups (Baker, 2001; Baker & Friedman-Nimz, 2004; Russo et al., 1996). Regardless, the impetus for state gifted policies, with or without funding, is reliant upon advocacy efforts, with a knowledgeable and persistent “champion” to spearhead the process (Robinson & Moon, 2003). The majority of states that have mandates have identification mandates (Passow & Rudnitski, 1993; Stephens & Karnes, 2000), and approximately half of the states

1301

boast a mandate or partial mandate for gifted services, with the remainder of states citing no service mandate (Shaunessy, 2003). While the policy studies in gifted education are few, there are two consistent findings that are noted. First, mandates matter. States that do not mandate gifted education have experienced significant cuts in programming or the elimination of programs (Brown, 2001; Landrum et al., 1998; Purcell, 1995). Although mandates do not guarantee meaningful education (U.S. DOE, 1993) or cohesive implementation, states with accountability systems enjoy higher academic results (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002). Second, perceptions matter. When policies make sense to those who implement them, the likelihood of systemic change is greater (Brown, 2001; McDonnell & Elmore, 1987; Rand Corporation, 1978). State policies can legitimize the perception of the need for gifted services and set the stage for dispelling misconceptions associated with giftedness. The comprehensiveness of gifted programming and services is less documented in policy literature and is not evident in many states (NAGC, 2005). However, the need for further policy development is suggested in the literature (Bleske-Rechek, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2004; Gallagher, 2002; VanTassel-Baska, 2003). Gallagher specifically lists four recommendations to incorporate into gifted policy that will better educate gifted students. The suggestions include (a) multi-dimensional identification; (b) more inclusive placement procedures, especially for International Baccalaureate and Advanced Placement programs (also Bleske-Rechek et al., 2004); (c) differentiated programming of content; and (d) a greater level of program evaluation and accountability to include how gifted services make a difference in the lives of gifted students. Nested within these findings are equity issues surrounding the identification and inclusion in programming of disadvantaged, low socioeconomic, and minority populations (Fithian, 2003; Russo et al., 1996). VanTassel-Baska (2003) illustrated the need for curriculum policy that includes curriculum flexibility to better meet the needs of diverse learners; curriculum differentiation that specifically addresses the selection of high-level materials and worthwhile curriculum; articulation and alignment throughout the child’s K-12 experience; grouping policies based on best practices (Kulik & Kulik, 1992; Rogers, 2002); and teacher de-

1302

velopment to support the necessary training to implement effective strategies and high-level curriculum for gifted learners. While a documented need for stronger policy in gifted education exists, the evidence for its presence in the field is scarce. Specific policies in or related to gifted education such as Advanced Placement (BleskeRechek et al., 2004; Dounay, 2006), identification (Stephens & Karnes, 2000), and self-report documents from all 50 states (NAGC, 2005) are extant. However, a comprehensive study of intended policies, impact on student populations, and how policies are translated to practice as evidenced by stakeholder perceptions and actual policy documents is currently not available. Recent studies showcase the problem well.

State of the States Report: A Snapshot of State Policy

J. VanTassel-Baska

ming. Nevertheless, many states fail to provide direction regarding the education of gifted and talented students. In states that do, there is often a lack of specificity and clarity in the laws and policies designed to guide LEAs in establishing identification procedures, programs, and services for gifted learners. Additionally, there is a disparate range of state and local resource allocation. Although 29 states mandate the identification of gifted students and 28 states mandate the provision of services, only 11 states provide funds to all LEAs by mandate; another 15 fund LEAs as part of general funding. In 17 states, gifted and talented education in the state education agency is a part-time responsibility. In many states, services to gifted and talented students are limited by district funding, geographic isolation, or other inhibiting factors. However, at least 30 states fund summer programs or special statewide schools to meet students’ needs. Specifically, 14 states have a statewide school for math and science, seven states have a statewide school for the fine and performing arts, two states have statewide schools for the humanities, and 16 states offer state-funded summer programs, often called “Governor’s Schools”. State laws and policies vary greatly in the acceleration opportunities afforded gifted and talented students across the nation. Only seven states have policies specifically permitting early entrance to kindergarten, while 29 states specifically permit gifted students to be dually or concurrently enrolled in high school and college. Access to information about programs, services, and student performance allows advocates to monitor state and LEA commitment to ensuring academic growth in all student populations. Yet, only 13 states require all local districts to report on the effectiveness of gifted and talented education through state accountability procedures or guidelines. More than half of the states (N =26) utilize advanced proficiency indicators in state reporting. Yet, only six states report that gifted education personnel were involved in the development of the advanced indicators.

Data from the most recent (2004–2005) State of the States Report provide a snapshot of the extent of state support for gifted learners in that school year. Although many local education agencies (LEAs) recognize that gifted and talented students have unique educational needs, state laws and policies vary widely, resulting in a disparity of services between states, within states, and sometimes even from school to school. In the absence of any federal funding, the success and long-term stability of gifted programs and services are tied to the degree to which states are willing to dedicate a reliable funding stream. Unfortunately, the security of this financial support is easily threatened by budgetary fluctuations. Survey responses indicated that at every grade level, LEAs relied upon the regular classroom as one of the top two delivery methods for gifted services. However, only one state, Washington, required regular classroom teachers to have coursework in gifted and talented education despite the fact that these teachers are most often relied upon to meet the diverse educational needs of our most able students. Only six states required gifted and talented training in initial teacher preparatory programs, while 23 states required classroom teachers working in specialized programs for gifted students to Five-State Policy Analysis have a certificate or endorsement in gifted education. Coordination and uniformity are keys to ensuring A recent in-depth study of state policies in gifted edequity and access to high-quality educational program- ucation in five states revealed key gaps in regulatory

68

United States Policy Development in Gifted Education

frameworks (Brown, Avery, VanTassel-Baska, Worley, & Stambaugh, 2006). Syntheses of cross-state findings were drawn from an extensive content analysis of state documents, focus groups with state advocacy groups, and interviews with state department personnel. Definition and Identification. The five different states studied reflected models for the distribution of power between state and local governance. Four of the five states in the sample required that all districts both identify and serve the gifted-student population. However, the definition of the population, the specification of parameters for identification, and the nature of the approach (special education or general education orientation or combination of both) varied. These distinctions often reflected at what level the control of the relevant decision was vested. Two states in the analysis (South Carolina and Pennsylvania) successfully employed cutoff score control on specific instrumentation types, while others provided more open-ended guidelines for identification. States that were more stringent in their identification mechanism also appeared to exert greater pressure on other policy levers to control quality. Attention to identification issues received the greatest emphasis in all state regulations as seen through the number of rules and regulations governing this process in comparison to other processes. This may be due in part to the process used for state funding and in part to the continuing debates over this issue in the field of gifted education. With the exception of Indiana and Virginia, identification parameters across states were fairly restrictive. The attention that has been focused on identification since the release of the Marland Report (1972) and the National Excellence report (U.S. DOE, 1993) has clearly helped the field to narrow the definition of gifted, yet acknowledge and try to respond to concerns regarding diversity and under-representation of key groups. Increased and targeted attention is still needed, however, for states to continue retooling the identification process for all areas and populations of gifted students as well as to provide evidence of such efforts. Three of the states in the study do not uniformly track or report the numbers of gifted students identified and served according to demographics. Virginia and South Carolina were examples of states that were able to do this. Programs and Services. Less prominent in these state regulations was an emphasis on appropriate pro-

1303

grams and services to gifted students. Standards regarding service provision shared many of the same foci but were not dealt with in the same manner or even the same sequence across states. Although many important dimensions of service delivery were addressed, no clear template emerged to guide the articulation of a model service delivery policy. Also, the decision as to what belonged in regulation versus guideline or best practice manuals seems particularly haphazard. Issues of grouping approaches, contact time, differentiated content-based instructional provisions, specialized programming for highly gifted and at-risk learners, and comprehensive articulation of services should all be explicitly addressed in program standards. None of the states reviewed had all of these components in place, suggesting the need for more comprehensive program development and service delivery policies. Curriculum and Instruction. The impact of standards-based curriculum reform was clearly documented in this analysis showing that all states addressed the issue of core standards and the importance of curriculum differentiation, although three of the five did so in guidelines rather than regulations. Only South Carolina addressed grouping and scope and sequence issues in regulations. Pennsylvania was the only state to address acceleration and individualization in state regulations. All states had language regarding the measurement of student learning, although this was not consistently linked to the state assessment instruments as a component of monitoring gifted-student progress. Pennsylvania required that all students demonstrate at least a year’s growth for a year in the program. Only Indiana required academic and career planning, but the other states addressed this issue in varying degrees in guidelines. Professional Development. The parameters outlined in policy documents on teacher preparation and staff development seemed underdeveloped and lacking in connectivity to issues of service delivery. Teacher preparation in the form of endorsement or certification was present in the language of all five states, but lacked specificity with respect to standards of preparation in line with NCATE and involvement with a state’s higher-education community as players in this area of policy development and implementation. Preservice regulations cited both in Virginia and in Indiana regulations suffer from lack of enforcement as reported by state personnel and advisory groups in each state. Moreover, there was no policy language

1304

that linked staff development to improved teacher performance. Neither was there much recognition that regular classroom teachers and teachers of the gifted need far more tools for differentiating content curriculum for high-ability learners in light of the curriculum standards in each state. None of the states had policies delineating the issue of differentiation of the content standards for gifted learners, revealing a lack of connection to general education. Program Monitoring and Evaluation. The technical assistance and monitoring role of the state in gifted education were not defined in the five states analyzed. State personnel are the only individuals whose perspective by necessity looks across the sweep of programs; so they are well positioned to suggest policy and program improvements at the local level. Yet if their role in this monitoring function is ill-defined or absent, it detracts from the capacity of a state to move a gifted education agenda forward. While most state governments accorded responsibility to state personnel for the review of program plans, on-site monitoring expectations were not in evidence nor was annual accountability for gifted-student learning. Even if the model recommended is one that supports district self-governance, there still needs to be accountability for gifted-student learning and program quality through the mechanism of annual local plan review and a local advisory committee. Similarly, in order for the state to deliver technical assistance, resources need to be allocated to support such efforts. A healthy tension needs to exist between the quality control mechanisms of monitoring and technical assistance, a situation not found in any of the states studied. Supplemental Policies. Although all states referenced the state’s systemic reform agenda/platform in their gifted education documents, the focus of this connection varied greatly, and the converse was not always true. In other words, the state’s documents on systemic reform did not always contain references to gifted education per se. The primary point of interface was in relation to core curriculum standards. In all cases, gifted students were expected to master the core standards, but Pennsylvania and North Carolina more strongly emphasized acceleration in the scope and sequence for these students. The connection with assessment was less pronounced. South Carolina referenced the use of PACT data in identifying gifted learners, but the potential for using state assessment data as one indicator of program effectiveness was

J. VanTassel-Baska

addressed in regulation only in Pennsylvania. In practice, only North Carolina and South Carolina made targeted use of this data source. Three of the five states required the creation of local Advisory Councils that had some responsibility for gifted program planning and review. These same states required the appointment of parents as well as other groups to these local councils. Four of the states also specified that the local school board had to sanction the gifted program plan. One of the states, Virginia, required the creation of a state Advisory Council. Four of the states also required local districts to produce a gifted education planning document. The Pennsylvania model was tied to compliance with detailed program standards based on a special education model. In the other states, the nature of this planning document and the role of the state in “approving” its contents varied widely. South Carolina appeared to require the fewest components. Four of the five states addressed the need for a professional development plan for educators of the gifted, but in Pennsylvania, the gifted staff development needs were covered in the district’s evaluation plan, although only three made it clear that the annual evaluation report needed to be in writing in order to be communicated to relevant constituencies. Due process was also handled differently across states, with Pennsylvania following a special education model and North Carolina incorporating modified aspects of this model. In other states, districts were expected to resolve disputes within their own district borders. More individual state studies of policy impacts as well as programs and services need to be conducted. Programs at local levels will not improve without appropriate incentives, levers, and sticks from the state level as most districts still depend on states for 90% or more of their funding for gifted education (Chandler, 2004). Knowing what works and what does not is crucial for states in exercising both quality control of programs and services and developing new initiatives. In the area of identification, for example, states should be interested in who wins and loses under the current policy and consider the statewide implications of that situation. Moreover, without specific regulations to ensure non-traditional assessment procedures being used, many under-represented groups will continue to go unnoticed in programs. Even where such procedures are employed, we have limited evidence of how they perform across a state with respect to yielding the desired

68

United States Policy Development in Gifted Education

1305

student population. Clearly, identification protocol imwith state standards, and policies for guidance and pact is a major area for analysis across and within career counseling. Evaluation studies across mulstates. tiple states have found similar results within speAs computerized systems become more ubiquitous cific school districts studied (VanTassel-Baska & in program development work, a study of suitable stuFeng, 2004). dent outcomes or measures of accountability such as 4. Supplemental policies such as alignment to constate assessment tests, Advanced Placement, Internatent standards, policies for testing out of standards tional Baccalaureate, and dual enrollment programs known, and the analysis of state proficiency data are should become much easier to accomplish. Such data the weakest in this category but slightly stronger in would provide an important national picture of giftedpolicies for secondary options and acceleration, alstudent performance on the measures decision makers though few states boasted meeting full criteria. have come to rely on and respect. Such a study would 5. The category of program management assumes be helpful in thinking through state policy on curricumonitoring and review of district programs by the lum and program development. state department. Within this category, data are mixed. States report partial to no monitoring of the gifted programs. 6. While states believe that their current policies are Self-Assessment of State Policies clear, feasible for implementation, and based on a solid empirical research base, they do not believe they are comprehensive. A follow-up self-study of 27 state directors and affiliate groups on specific gifted education policies in the In summary, states vary considerably in the types of five key areas of identification, programs and services, policies enacted for gifted learners. Yet they are simpersonnel preparation, assessment and evaluation, and ilar in the pattern of policies attended to. Identificalinkage to general state policy revealed major gaps and tion is by far the strongest area of policy enactment substantiates the picture of state policy in this field as by states, while linkages of identification to services a “patchwork” quilt (Stambaugh, Worley, VanTasselBaska, & Brown, 2004). The majority of states re- and the larger school reform agendas outside of the port operating gifted programs as loosely coupled sys- core of gifted education are lacking. Few states require tems, without comprehensive alignment to best prac- differentiation of standards for gifted learners, persontices and connectivity to the major school reform agen- nel preparation of leadership, and alignment of content das. The following generalizations were made based on standards to gifted education objectives. Even fewer states provide accountability systems for local districts this study: to adhere to policies, incorporate gifted programming, 1. The strongest area of policy development across or disaggregate test data on gifted students. states is the category of identification for gifted learners. This finding coincides with previous literature on identification policy (Passow & Rudnitski, 1993; Stephens & Karnes, 2000; Brown et al., 2006). 2. The majority of states require minimum courses in gifted education for teachers. However, states were equally mixed on the incorporation of policies for personnel preparation linked to NCATE standards, and few states require leadership coursework in gifted education. 3. Programs and service policies were reported to be the weakest categories, overall, specifically in the areas of assessment strategies, the incorporation of a policy for contact time, differentiation aligned

The Role of Standards in Policy Development Just as laws and administrative rules and regulations can and do govern gifted program operation, national standards can exert important leverage on policy formulation. Two sets of standards in gifted education have impacted the field’s thinking about the need for state policy change. These standards are the NAGC program standards, adapted in 1995, and the more recent teacher education standards, jointly adapted by CEC-TAG and NAGC in 2006. Each set of standards

1306

J. VanTassel-Baska

represents an attempt to create a research-based tem- r Multiple criteria should be employed to identify stuplate for policy action at state levels in the critical ardents in each category of giftedness (at least three eas of program development—identification, programs for each area). and services, personnel development, and assessment r Instruments sensitive to the inclusion of underrepresented groups including low income, minority, and evaluation. Each set of standards emphasizes the twice exceptional, and ELL (English language focus and direction needed to build quality programs learners) should be used. and to prepare teachers to work effectively with gifted r Equal stringency should be applied to the identifipopulations. cation for all categories of giftedness. The new teacher education standards, for example, include 10 areas for the development of compe- r Clear specifications that identification may occur in all categories of giftedness (e.g., general academic tencies, including foundational knowledge, individual ability, specific academic aptitude, creativity, leaddifferences, assessment, instructional planning and deership, and the visual and performing arts) should livery, learning environments, collaboration, language, be cited. and professional ethics. Included within these 10 areas are a total of 70 knowledge and skill sets that teach- r A systematic process for the linking of identification procedures to appropriate program and service ers of the gifted must possess, suggesting the need for provisions should be articulated. at least 12 h of coursework in the field. Having these r A process for equitable decision making at screenstandards in place benefits the policy environment coning, identification, selection, and placement stages, siderably because each standard also has an accompaincluding an appeals process, should be delineated. nying research and literature base supporting it, making it easy to analyze the relevance of each area for improving the field. Moreover, the standards have the potential to shape new policy that provides greater bal- Program and Service Provisions ance among the program development emphases and attends to the key areas of diversity and differentiation. Educational programs and services for the gifted must provide an optimal match to the mechanisms used to identify students. Thus, a careful delineation of proComponents of a High-Quality State gram and service components must be included in state Policy regulation. The following components should be addressed in regulations: All states need to have comprehensive policies for educating gifted and talented students in the following areas: identification, program and service provisions, personnel preparation, and program management. Furthermore, supplemental state policies that exist and affect gifted students need to be analyzed and linked to gifted education in some way. Existing policy should be assessed for its effectiveness regularly.

r

r r

Identification Identification policy needs to address the following areas:

r

An operational definition of giftedness should be constructed that acknowledges general and specific abilities.

r

Grouping arrangements conducive to administering gifted programs include cluster, resource room, pull-out, special classes, or self-contained. At least one of these options should be employed to ensure adequate service delivery to gifted learners. Contact time for programs should constitute no less time than 150 min per week, with at least 1 h per week of planning time for teachers. Curriculum should be modified in each relevant subject area for identified students according to the need for acceleration, complexity, depth, challenge, and creativity. Such curriculum differentiation is built upon and extends standards-based regular curriculum and requires the development and/or use of curriculum designed for gifted students. Instruction employed in classrooms for the gifted is appropriately diverse in technique and empha-

68

United States Policy Development in Gifted Education

sis is placed on the higher-level skills of problemsolving, critical thinking, creative thinking, and research skills. Assessment practices employed for gifted programs are matched to the demands of the specific curriculum objectives. Off-level standardized tests, performance-based tasks, and portfolio approaches are encouraged. A modified and extended program (i.e., value added) is articulated to accommodate at-risk and highly gifted populations identified. Acceleration in the learning rate of gifted learners should always be an option in a quality gifted program. The following policies are central to such efforts.

1307

sure that the differentiation of curriculum, instruction, and assessment for gifted learners is appropriately connected to these quality standards of learning. Specific r regulations needed in this area are the alignment of gifted education curriculum to state standards of learning needs to occur so that districts can see how gifted education addresses the standards but extends beyond them. r States should annually monitor statewide proficiency data to ensure that gifted students are reaching desired proficiency levels (i.e., proficient or advanced) r in each academic area relevant to their identification. States need to monitor participation of gifted students in the hallmark secondary programs of Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, and dual enrollment, to ensure that gifted students in the state (a) Students may enter kindergarten early, based are participating in at least one of these options. Where on meeting the identification guidelines for state policies already exist to promote these programs, general intellectual ability. gifted regulations should be linked to them; where (b) Students may advance more than one grade state policy does not address these programs, gifted based on review of performance and ability criregulation should encourage these program options at teria. the secondary level. (c) Students may be advanced in one subject area and accommodated flexibly by advanced curricular placement. (d) Students may enter middle school, high school, Personnel Preparation or college early as determined by overall performance, demonstrated readiness, and relevant Endorsement or certification of teachers in gifted eduexit examination testing. cation is a necessary provision to include in regulation (e) Students may test out of state standards reregarding personnel preparation. The personnel prepaquirements early. ration initiative should contain these components, r Social–emotional support for student development which are based on the approved National Council is included as a part of the service delivery plan. for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) r Academic guidance and career counseling are avail- standards for gifted program teacher preparation able at grades 6–12, emphasizing the need for ad- (National Association for Gifted Children & Council vanced course-taking early and the use of student for Exceptional Children, 2006) and the NAGC assessment data to counsel students on college and Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards (Landrum career alternatives. & Shaklee, 1998): r A state/local advisory council provides oversight to the state/local service delivery plan, which receives r A minimum of 12 h of coursework in gifted eduthe local Board of Education approval. cation should be required and linked to universitybased programs with a statewide university network collaborative working on implementation. The 12-h course requirements should reflect the NCATE stanSupplemental Policies Linked to Program dards for gifted program teacher preparation. and Service Provisions r Frequent, regularly scheduled staff development opportunities for all program staff should be required. Because all states now have relatively new standards of In addition, all classroom teachers, school counlearning in place for all students, there is a need to enselors, and administrators should receive profes-

1308

r

sional development about the nature and learning needs of gifted students. Individuals who serve as gifted education program coordinators should be required to complete an additional 15 h of coursework in educational administration, in addition to the requirements for endorsement or certification for working with gifted learners (VanTassel-Baska & Feng, 2004).

Program Management

J. VanTassel-Baska

uation of any new regulations and policies. This evaluation should take place after 3 years from the date of enactment. Data from such an evaluation should reveal how well the mechanisms of identification, program, personnel preparation, program management, supplemental policies, and funding structure are working in tandem to benefit gifted children. Thus, states should consider studying the effects and impacts of policy on relevant stakeholders—districts, schools, teachers, students, and parents. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches should be employed to tease out the potential benefits and liabilities of policy enactment.

State leadership must exert quality control over programs at the local level. This may be accomplished through a five-pronged approach:

Attributes that Define High-Quality r Each state should require an annual plan from Local Gifted Education State Policy

r r

r

r

Education Agencies (LEAs), specifying how local districts intend to identify and serve gifted learners. An annual state department review of Local Education Agency (LEA) plans should be instituted. Local coordinators may be designated to carry out this task annually during a 2- to 3-day session. An outline of major state plan components should be specified by regulation, including (1) screening, identification, and referral processes; (2) program provisions employed at each level pre-K-12; (3) goals, student outcomes, and student assessment process for each specified program model; (4) student contact time for each model; (5) pupil–teacher ratios for each model; (6) a professional development plan; (7) counseling and guidance plan; and (8) a program evaluation design. A State Education Agency (SEA)-monitoring plan should be implemented to ensure local compliance. On-site visits to local school districts should be undertaken annually, with all districts visited every 5 years. A state system to require LEA evaluation of programs should be developed, requiring annual assessment and evaluation as a part of the documented plan submitted each year and tied to funding.

The importance of criteria in developing sound state policy is a critical component of its chance for success. The following criteria and accompanying questions are offered as guideposts for that process:

Clarity

r r r

Are the policies written in a clear and unambiguous way? Do the policies encourage a common understanding and interpretation? Can all stakeholders readily interpret each policy to determine (1) the extent to which their district complies with it, and/or (2) how their practices can be strengthened in order to comply?

Comprehensiveness

r r

Do the policies cover all the major components outlined? Is each component sufficiently explained in order to be interpreted for implementation?

Evaluation of State Policy Connectedness Based on a careful review of several state policies (Brown, Avery, & VanTassel-Baska, 2003), it appears warranted to recommend that all states conduct an eval-

r

Do the policies flow in a logical way from one component to the next? Are they internally consistent?

68

r r

United States Policy Development in Gifted Education

Are policies linked, aligned, or compatible with one another (e.g., Does the definition of gifted and talented align with the services?)? Do the policies in gifted education connect to general education policies in consistent and appropriate ways?

1309

Assessment of Administrative Implementation

r r r

Feasibility for Implementation

Where does this new policy fit within our organizational framework? Who will be responsible for designing the policy and its implementation strategy? What are the costs for implementing the policy option?

r

Do the policies constitute a set of regulations that Assessment of Consequences local districts could implement? r Have the policies been implemented in other states of Implementation successfully? r What are the implications and consequences of putting this new policy in place? r What positive outcomes do we expect as a result of adopting this policy? Research Based r Is it possible that enactment of this policy will lead to unintended consequences for districts, teachers, r Are the policies grounded in research-based best or individual students and will require revisions? practice? r Are the policies congruent with new research in the field?

Assessment of the Political Implications of Each Policy Option The Stages of Policy Development

r

In order for gifted education to advance in policymaking, the field must be cognizant of key stages in the policy development process. These stages include formulation of options, assessment of implementation, assessment of consequences, and assessment of political implications.

r r

How are the desires and interests of different stakeholder groups related to the new policy or the issue that the policy is designed to address? Are there links between these desires and interests and the potential consequences for each policy option? Does the policy option consider the unique needs of frequently underserved populations (e.g., low income, minority, twice exceptional, and ELL)?

Gallagher (2006) lays out a decision-making matrix (see Table 68.2) for use in gifted education that examFormulation of Policy Options ines different policy options and their relative “play” in the society. For example, the option of residential r What policies exist currently at the state level? schools for the gifted has strong support from parents, r What are the different ways in which policy might policy-makers, and the general public, producing evibe addressed for each of the key components of dence of strong outcomes for students and having light identification, program and service provisions, sup- costs and personnel needs. plemental policies linked to program and service Another option on the chart may present a very difprovisions, personnel preparation, program man- ferent picture of cost and benefits. Support for infrasagement, and evaluation? tructure, while modest in respect to cost and personnel

1310

J. VanTassel-Baska Table 68.2 Decision matrix for gifted education (Gallagher, 2006) Options

Subsidize gifted programs Subsidize personnel preparation for gifted Support parental vouchers Math and science schools, residential schools Summer programs, governor schools Support infrastructure Educational acceleration Status quo

Criteria for choice Cost

Personnel needs

Track record

Public acceptance

Parental support

Heavy

Heavy

Good

Mixed

High

Modest

Modest

Good

Good

High

Heavy

Modest

Uncertain

Mixed

Mixed

Light

Light

Good

Good

High

Light

Light

Good

Good

High

Modest

Modest

Probably good

Uncertain

Moderate

Light

Light

Excellent

Mixed

Mixed

Modest

Modest

Moderately good

Mixed

Moderate

needs, may not generate great support among stakeholders, even though the track record may be sound. Thus, the question emerges regarding what policy options to select: those that have strong track records but heavy costs and torpid support or those that are least offensive to a variety of stakeholders, carry a modest price tag, and have some evidence of a positive track record. Shoring up the policy structure for administering gifted programs may not be popular, but it is essential for catalyzing widespread student services in school districts. Moreover, recommendations for strengthening and aligning policies to address cohesively the learning needs of highly able young people may provide stability in the ever-changing support mechanisms for gifted education. Improved state-level policies can inform local district policies, which, in turn, can build a strong foundation for guiding and maintaining gifted program implementation. These ideas can provide insight to a wide range of stakeholders as they advocate for stronger policies: members of state departments of education, professional organizations, advocacy groups, and parent and community members.

Conclusion Developing and implementing national, state, and local policies that govern the administration of gifted

Other

programs and services is the glue that holds gifted education together. Ensuring that these policies have been developed with an eye to core criteria and reflect up-to-date research is crucial to improving practice. Moreover, greater coherence among program policy elements will enhance the overall operation of gifted programs, and sound evaluation of policy impacts will advance the field.

References Baker, B. D. (2001). Measuring the outcomes of state policies for gifted education: An equity analysis of Texas school districts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 4–15. Baker, B. D., & Friedman-Nimz, R. C. (2004). State policy influences governing equal opportunity: The example of gifted education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 39–64. Baker, B. D., & McIntire, J. (2003). Evaluating state funding for gifted education programs. Roeper Review, 25(4), 173–177. Bleske-Rechek, A., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2004). Meeting the educational needs of special populations: Advanced placement’s role in developing exceptional human capital. Psychological Science, 15, 217–224. Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125– 230. Brown, E. F. (2001). Systemic reform: The impact of North Carolina’s state-initiated policies on local gifted programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

68

United States Policy Development in Gifted Education

Brown, E., Avery, L., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Gifted policy analysis study for the Ohio Department of Education. Williamsburg, VA: Center for Gifted Education. Brown, E., Avery, L., VanTassel-Baska, J., Worley, B., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Legislation and polices: Effects on the gifted. Roeper Review, 29(1), 11–23. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305–331. Center for Mental Health in Schools. (2006, July). Promoting a systematic focus on learning supports to address barriers to learning and teaching. UCLA: Author. Chandler, K. (2004). A national study of curriculum policies and practices in 50 states. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. Cohen, D. K., & Spillane, J. (1993). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 35–95). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dounay, J. (2006). High school – Advanced placement. Retrieved December 20, 2006, from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/67/44/6744.pdf Education Daily. (2007, January 31). Bush administration’s proposal for NCLB reauthorization. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://www.educationdaily.net/ ED/index.jsp?contentId=9395433&topic=arb Fithian, E. C. (2003). Rate of advanced placement (AP) exam taking among AP-enrolled students: A study of New Jersey high schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. Furney, S., Hasazi, S. B., & Hartnett, J. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of shifting policy landscapes in special and general education reform. Exceptional Children, 70, 81–94. Gallagher, J. J. (2002). Society’s role in the education gifted students: The role of public policy (RM02162). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Gallagher, J. J. (2006). Driving change in special education. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 1999, 20 U.S.C. 8031 et seq. (Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives 2000 suppl. 2). Hannaway, J., Woodroffe, N. (2003). Policy instruments in education. Review of Reasearch in Education, 27, 1–24. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, P.L. 105-17, 105th Cong. (1997). Retrieved September 30, 2008, from www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/Policy/IDEA/ the law.html Johnson, D. R., Stodden, R. A., Emmanuel, E. J., Luecking, R., & Mack, M. (2002). Current challenges facing secondary education and transition services: What research tells us. Exceptional Children, 68, 519–531. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73–77. Landrum, M. & Shaklee, B. (1998). Pre-K-Grade 12 gifted program standards. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from http://www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/ PDF/Standards PDFs/k12%20GT%20standards%20brochure. pdf Landrum, M. S., Katsiyannis, A., & DeWard, J. (1998). A national survey of current legislative and policy trends in gifted

1311 education: Life after the National Excellence report. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21(3), 352–371. Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4–16. Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented (Vol. 1). Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152. National Association for Gifted Children. (2003a). Gifted education and the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved January 4, 2004, from http://www.ncagt.org/nclbgifted.shtml National Association for Gifted Children. (2003b). State of the states: Gifted and talented education report 2001–2002. Washington, DC: Author. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P. L. 107-110, 107th Cong. (2001). Retrieved September 30, 2008, from http://www. ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml National Association for Gifted Children. (2005). State of the states: A report by the National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted 2004–2005. Washington, DC: Author. National Council on Disability. (2000). Promise to keep: A decade of federal enforcement of the Americans with disabilities act. Washington, DC: Author. Passow, A. H., & Rudnitski, R. A. (1993). State policies regarding education of the gifted as reflected in legislation and regulation (CRS93302). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Purcell, J. (1992). Programs for the gifted in a state without a mandate: An “endangered species?”. Roeper Review, 14, 93– 95. Purcell, J. (1995). Gifted education at a crossroads: The program status study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(1), 26–35. Rand Corporation. (1978). Volume VIII: Implementing and sustaining innovations (Research Rep. No. R-1589/8-HEW). Santa Monica, CA: Author. Robinson, A., & Moon, S. M. (2003). A national study of local and state advocacy in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(1), 8–25. Rogers, K. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: Matching the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Russo, C. J., Harris, J. J., & Ford, D. Y. (1996). Gifted education and law: A right, privilege, or superfluous? Roeper Review, 18(3), 179–182. Shaunessy, E. (2003). State policies regarding gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 26(3), 16–21. Stambaugh, T. (2001, Winter). Cluster grouping the gifted: One school’s journey. The Review, Ohio Association for Gifted Children. Stambaugh, T., Worley, B., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. (2004). Analysis of state gifted education policy selfassessment forms. Williamsburg, VA: College of William and Mary. Stephens, K. R., & Karnes, F. A. (2000). State definitions for the identification of gifted and talented revisited. Exceptional Children, 66(2), 219–238. Swanson, M. (2002). National survey on the state governance of K12 gifted and talented education. Sum-

1312 mary report. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Initiative for Gifted Education Reform. Retrieved April 1, 2003, from http://www.tigernetwork.org/docs/tigersurvey2002.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S. fourth grade mathematics and science achievement in international context. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Curriculum policy development for gifted programs: Converting issues in the field to coherent practice. In J. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 173–185). Danvers, MA: Teachers College Press. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2006). State policies in gifted education. In J. Purcell & R. Eckert’s (Eds.), Designing services and programs for high-ability learners (pp. 249–261). Washington, DC: NAGC.

J. VanTassel-Baska VanTassel-Baska, J., & Feng, A. (Eds.). (2004). Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement. Waco, TX: Prufrock. (Published in 2003). Weiss, J. (1990). Ideas and inducements in mental health policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 9(2), 178–200. Zirkel, P. A. (1994). Over-due process revisions for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Montana Law Review, 55, 403–414. Zirkel, P. A. (2003). The law on gifted education (RMO3178). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Zirkel, P. (2005). State laws for gifted education: An overview of the legislation and regulations. Roeper Review, 27(4), 228– 232.

Chapter 69

Identifying and Developing Talent in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): An Agenda for Research, Policy, and Practice1 Rena Subotnik, Martin Orland, Kristin Rayhack, Julie Schuck, Ashley Edmiston, Janice Earle, Edward Crowe, Pat Johnson, Tom Carroll, Daniel Berch and Bruce Fuchs

Abstract The recent National Academies publication, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (National Research Council, 2006), identified the need to produce greater numbers of highly educated and innovative scientists, engineers, and mathematicians as vital for securing a bright economic future for the United States. The members of a collaborative committed to exploring options for developing STEM talent came together to (1) review the current U.S. approach to serving adolescents who are talented and interested in STEM, (2) analyze the obstacles to meeting national goals, and (3) propose solutions for consideration by the research, policy, and practice communities. This chapter reflects the efforts of the collaborative to meet these goals. Keywords Talent development · Talent identification · STEM · Policy · Program evaluation · Domain specific talent · Special schools · Apprenticeships · Competitions

Introduction The recent National Academies publication, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Em-

R. Subotnik (B) Center for Gifted Education Policy, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: [email protected] 1 The views and opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of their respective institutions.

ploying America for a Brighter Economic Future (National Research Council, 2006), identified the need to produce greater numbers of highly educated and innovative scientists, engineers, and mathematicians as vital for securing a bright economic future for the United States. This study, as well as many others, has pointed to major shortfalls in both the quality and the quantity of preparation for Americans educated in the STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and how this puts our future at risk in terms of quality of life, economic competitiveness, and national security. For example, an earlier National Academies report, Policy Implications of International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars in the United States, sponsored by the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health (National Research Council, 2005c) notes that nearly 50% of doctoral level staff and 58% of postdoctoral fellows at the National Institutes of Health are foreign nationals. In STEM occupations, 38% of doctorate level employees are foreign born, up from 24% in 1990. Furthermore, about 30% of U.S. college students major in STEM disciplines as compared to 59% for China and 66% for Japan. Recently, national leaders have addressed this concern by proposing major legislative initiatives designed to strengthen science and mathematics education and increase the number of university graduates in STEM. These initiatives include President George W. Bush’s “American Competitiveness Initiative” (ACI) and the “Protecting America’s Competitive Edge Act” (PACE), both introduced in Congress in early 2006. PACE, for example, proposes new policies such as scholarships and stipends for STEM majors and new STEM teachers, and summer institutes for training the existing STEM teacher corps. The goal of this program is to

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 69, 

1313

1314

quadruple the number of American high school students enrolled in advanced mathematics and science courses to 4.5 million by 2010 and increase the number of university graduates with STEM degrees. State legislators have followed suit, and many states are now considering new initiatives and policies such as increasing secondary mathematics and science course requirements in order to prepare students for the twentyfirst century and to build capacity for innovation. In many ways, this legislative pressure to increase the number of participants in STEM careers mirrors the federal initiatives of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958, which was developed in response to the Soviet launching of Sputnik in 1957. Launch of this satellite represented a technological and military threat, and subsequently, the United States responded on the educational front. Timing for new initiatives was propitious because the launch came just after 1955 reports in the New York Times about serious shortages in various key professions. During the same year, the National Education Association reported that 200,000 outstanding high school graduates per year did not enroll in college (Tannenbaum, 1983). As a result, NDEA and related policies were implemented to develop STEM-talented students’ abilities as a service to the nation. Schools throughout the country tried out various enrichment and acceleration programs, and curricula in STEM and in modern foreign languages were dramatically revised. Talented students flocked to these opportunities. Just as the NDEA included loans for students who would enter needed fields; financial support for improving school instruction in science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages; and fellowships for graduate students, so do current legislative considerations. However, unlike NDEA, the existing and proposed efforts to improve STEM education underemphasize the critical need to seed the next generation of leaders in science and technology. For example, the NDEA included provisions for identifying students in the public schools with “outstanding aptitudes and ability” and supported guidance and counseling programs for such students so that their talents might be successfully fostered (NDEA, 1958 Title V, Sec. 503a [1 and 2]). This focus underscores what is still needed today: appropriate policies and programs to identify youth possessing exceptional talent in STEM and to ensure the quality of students’ educational experiences and their interest in STEM careers.

R. Subotnik et al.

Current research outcomes on STEM teaching and learning provide fundamental principles for successful educational experiences: (1) students should engage prior understandings with new material within the learning environment; (2) students need both factual knowledge and a conceptual framework on which to hang that knowledge; and (3) students must learn to monitor their own learning (National Research Council, 1999). Furthermore, although there is increasing evidence that learning is domain specific, this research has not been widely applied to teaching in general or to learning and teaching of students with special abilities or interests in STEM subjects (National Research Council, 2005a, 2005b, 2007). In recent efforts to bring together content and processes, experts have suggested that mathematics and science instruction include at least minimal notions of “proficiency.” These notions require that students learn more than discrete pieces of content knowledge and recommend linking deeper conceptual understanding of the STEM disciplines and their processes to the content (National Research Council, 2001, 2007). For example, the discipline of science is concerned with how learners develop ideas about the natural world. In science, these ideas are inextricably linked to science processes and this means that models, theories, and hypotheses are valued to the extent that they (1) make testable precise predictions for as-yet-unmeasured or unobserved effects; (2) provide a coherent conceptual framework that is consistent with a body of facts that is known; and (3) offer suggestions of new paths for further study (National Research Council, 2007). These ideas should scaffold STEM teaching and learning for all students and are of critical value to the education of talented students, who, with appropriate instruction, can be expected to exceed proficiency standards. Given this knowledge base about STEM learning, coupled with the pursuit of an agenda to generate STEM leaders of the future, a STEM Talent Development Organizing Committee comprised of representatives from the American Psychological Association, the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education and the Center for Education (CFE) of the National Academies was established in December 2005. The group sponsored an invitational forum in September 2006 in Washington, DC, on the topic of identifying and developing exceptional

69

An Agenda for Research, Policy, and Practice

talent in the STEM disciplines. Participants included representatives from current STEM talent development initiatives; representatives from scientific and technical societies; prominent researchers on expertise, creativity, and eminence in scientific domains; and federal and state education officials. Invited speakers at the forum included those who have investigated the concept of talent, those who have managed current approaches for identifying and developing STEM talent in middle school and high school, and those who have considered how to evaluate the success of STEM talent development programs.2 The forum participants were asked to address the available evidence regarding STEM talent identification and development and its implications for research, policy, and practice. Four specific questions provided focal points for the day’s discussion: 1) How is “talent” conceptualized in STEM? Is talent domain specific, and is it amenable to development through appropriate program initiatives? 2) Which outcome measures are most appropriate for assessing the effectiveness of STEM talent development efforts in middle and high school (e.g., completing an undergraduate STEM major in undergraduate education, entering a STEM career, becoming a leading scientist or innovator)? 3) How is STEM talent currently identified? Is this the best way to continue? How might STEM talent be identified in ways that would expand and diversify the talent pool? 4) What evidence is available to assess the impact and effectiveness of current STEM talent development programs both for traditional and underrepresented populations? What research evidence might inform the design of new program models? We address below each set of questions with summaries of responses derived from the forum’s commissioned papers (Brody, 2006; Lederberg, 2006; Milgram, 2006; Ross & Parker, 2006; Sawyer, 2006; Simonton, 2006; Subotnik, Rayhack & Edmiston, 2006) as well as from other sources:

2

An audio file of this event as well as commissioned papers prepared for the meeting can be found at http://www7. nationalacademies.org/cfe/STEM%20Talent%20Dev%20Agenda %209-26-06.html.

1315

1) How is “talent” conceptualized in STEM? Is talent domain specific, and is it amenable to development through appropriate program initiatives? STEM talent is conceptualized in adulthood as transformational discovery or innovation in STEM. The goal of talent development is to tie together evidencebased instruction for adolescents with the potential for becoming the next generation of STEM innovators and discoverers. Recent foci on talent development highlight how different domains require different abilities and preparation and feature the importance of psychosocial dimensions such as intrinsic motivation and persistence (Brody, 2006; Simonton, 2006; Subotnik & Calderon, 2008). Earlier studies illustrate the fact that cognitive and dispositional variables of talent depend on the particular scientific discipline (even within STEM disciplines). Simonton (2006) points to Roe’s (1953) study of 64 distinguished physicists, biologists, psychologists, and anthropologists, which found that the domains could be differentiated with respect to verbal, spatial, and mathematical intelligence, the use of visual or verbal imagery, and various personality variables, such as aggressiveness, anxiety, emotionality, and orientation toward people or things (see also Cattell, 1963; Chambers, 1964). A more recent study of female students’ selection of engineering majors (Schuck, 1997) supports the notion that different preparation experiences (e.g., mechanical activities, role models, and STEM curricula experiences) lend themselves to selection of different disciplines. Gifted adults in STEM operate in a competitive environment. They are challenged to take risks needed to develop breakthroughs, while seeking recognition within their field or profession (Bloom, 1985). This may require supreme confidence, persistence, curiosity, and charisma, otherwise difficult but not impossible attributes to develop (Jarvin & Subotnik, 2006; Lederberg, 2006). However, according to surveys conducted for this chapter and our forum, adolescent STEM talent is narrowly conceptualized by educators in the form of test scores and grades, and less often by interest in and commitment to spending time on STEM pursuits. How can we best prepare adolescents with interests in STEM disciplines? According to Bloom (1985), Brody (2006), and Lederberg (2006), young people with potential talent can lose interest in playful exploration without (1) others to engage with at their

1316

level and (2) sufficient instruction in rules and techniques associated with their areas of passion. Teachers and mentors are needed to guide students into acquiring content expertise, learning the values of the field or subject, and engaging with young people of similar interests to meet, support, and sometimes compete with one another. Teachers also need to encourage psychosocial strength in their pupils, because increased competition and advanced work often lead to reduced self-confidence. This loss of self-confidence is a normal course of events, but it may not feel that way to the developing adolescent. Other teachable skills that can be conveyed by mentors or teachers include being a good teammate and dependable colleague, accepting accolades graciously and encouraging friends when they do not succeed at a difficult task (Jarvin & Subotnik, 2006; Lederberg, 2006). 2) Which outcome measures are most appropriate for assessing the effectiveness of STEM talent development efforts in middle and high school3 (e.g., completing an undergraduate STEM major, entering a STEM career, becoming a leading scientist or innovator)? Intuitively it seems evident that existing talent development programs fulfill a need for adolescents interested in STEM by providing challenging experiences and peer groups. Likewise, apprenticeship/laboratory programs should provide networks and socialization by mentors into STEM careers (Subotnik, Duschl & Selmon, 1993). Currently, however, there appears to be sparse empirical evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of these programs. For this reason, we conducted an analysis derived from a website review of current programs4 categorized into the following types:

3

The organizing committee chose to focus on middle and high school students while acknowledging a research base from which we know that deep interests and abilities can and often do emerge earlier (Roe, 1953; Shavinina, see this volume). The decision was based on two rationales: (1) predictive validity is stronger in longitudinal studies as one approaches the outcome measures of interest – in this case, completing STEM majors and engaging in STEM careers and (2) the large proportion of programs we reviewed targeted adolescents. 4 These listings are thorough but not comprehensive. We also wish to recognize the efforts of Science Service (www.sciserv.org) and Imagine, from the Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University, for the STEM program listings they offer for gifted youth.

R. Subotnik et al.

r r r r

Special schools – secondary schools emphasizing STEM subjects Apprenticeship/laboratory programs – after-school or summer programs focused on providing handson opportunities to work in an authentic STEM context such as a laboratory, hospital, or museum Competitions – STEM national contests for middle and high school age students Summer and after-school courses – for middle and high school students

A relatively large number of special schools, competitions, and programs exist in the United States that are designed to serve STEM-talented adolescents. One goal of our survey was to investigate whether STEMfocused programs posted STEM-focused outcomes of program participation, such as post-secondary STEM majors, or other STEM achievements. In assessing program effectiveness, we expected that participant selection criteria would be related to desirable outcomes. Upon review of posted selection criteria, we found that most programs do not require explicit demonstration of interest in STEM topics, only general grade point averages (GPAs) and STEM-specific grades, test scores, and teacher recommendations. And few post desirable STEM outcomes for their participants, such as enrollment in STEM majors in college. For example, while 64% of special schools post outcomes on their websites, only 39% of those outcomes are specifically STEM related. Additionally, only 18% of special schools allude to future STEM-related college choices and careers.5 It should be noted that few of any of the four types of special programs (special schools, apprenticeship/laboratory, competitions, or out-of-school courses) are funded to follow their participants over time, and few address STEM participation in college or beyond as goals or aspirations for the programs. While many programs lack STEM-related program objectives and outcomes, competitions can potentially encourage a major in STEM-related fields, foster friendly rivalry, and help students gain scholarships and admission to special programs offered by top colleges and universities (Kaiser, 2003). MathCounts, a competition targeting mathematics achievement among middle school students, reports that the top three college majors for alumni are

5

These percentages were achieved excluding the schools with insufficient presentable website data.

69

An Agenda for Research, Policy, and Practice

engineering, mathematics, and computer science (http://www.mathcounts.org/). Another competition that tracks alumni achievement is the Intel Science Talent Search (STS). STS alumni have attained great distinction in STEM fields, including six Nobel Prize winners (http://www.intel.com/education/sts/). In each case, however, a dearth of longitudinal studies makes it difficult to determine the proportion of competition participants who enroll in and complete STEM majors. Overall, there is insufficient empirical evidence to demonstrate how STEM program interventions add value to talented adolescents’ career trajectories. The current evidence is particularly difficult to assess, given the fact that programs do not include relevant outcome measures in their website materials. This issue could be addressed with agreement on what are desirable outcomes and increased funding for evaluations. 3) How is STEM talent currently identified? Is this the best way to continue? How might STEM talent be identified in ways that would expand and diversify the talent pool?

1317

tion. Specifically, we sought to identify whether entry into STEM-focused programs requires meeting STEMspecific criteria such as completing prerequisite STEM courses or completing an essay expressing interest in STEM. We present below the selection criteria for programs in keeping with the four models of STEM talent development most popular in the United States6 : special schools, apprenticeship/laboratory programs, competitions, and summer and after-school courses. Special schools. According to our survey, 92% of special schools posted some criteria for admission. In contrast to open admissions programs (such as the New Orleans Charter School and the Utah Academy for Mathematics, Engineering, and Science), 79% of the special schools with website-posted criteria used standardized achievement or locally designed tests as screens for admission. Since the only test instrument with a research base for predicting performance in STEM is the SAT-M (Benbow et al., 1999), we presume that the other tests used for selection are employed by programs to ensure general academic ability on the part of pupil participants or else to enhance the likelihood that their graduates will be admitted to elite universities. Students who apply to specialized STEM schools may or may not be interested in STEM careers, since 44% of special schools require no evidence of interest in mathematics and science,7 such as science or mathematics teacher recommendations, STEM course completion requirements and prerequisites, or grades in STEM classes. A smaller number, 28%, solicit papers, essays, descriptions of experience, or interviews on STEM topics to demonstrate interest, commitment and creativity in those domains. In light of the Tai (2006) study, these data reveal the possibility that youngsters who are considered academically gifted, but not necessarily interested in mathematics and science, may attend special schools without intending to major in STEM disciplines. Since few programs identify success outcomes (see previous section), this may reinforce a failure to capitalize on opportunities in ways that improve the STEM pipeline.

As mentioned earlier, traditional measures of achievement are relied on heavily by STEM programs in order to identify STEM talent. These traditional measures include, but are not limited to, standardized test scores, grades, recommendations, the Scholastic Achievement Test-Mathematics (SAT-M), and demographic-based applications. However, the only traditional variable predictive of academic success is the SAT-M (Benbow, Lubinski & Sanjani, 1999). A more recent report by Lubinski and Benbow (2006) focuses on high SAT-M individuals’ interests in STEM disciplines and future careers collected at the end of high school as a further predictor of STEM career selection and success. Notably, Tai (2006) reveals strong predictive validity of expressed interest in a STEM career on the part of eighth graders with completing a STEM major in college. No other ongoing studies indicate how many students identified in pre-collegiate years continue in their STEM studies in university and what characteristics they possess. Without STEM talent development goals, existing programs limit robust efforts to promote needed expansion and refinement of high-quality programs. 6 In other countries, interest-based out-of-school science and The second goal for the survey conducted for the fomathematics clubs are very popular, but less so in the United rum was to learn about definitions of STEM talent from States (Subotnik, 2005). these program efforts. To do that, we had program se- 7 These percentages were achieved excluding the schools with lection criteria serve as a stand-in for talent identifica- insufficient presentable website data.

1318

Apprenticeships/laboratory programs. Fifty percent of apprenticeship/laboratory programs we surveyed require test scores from standardized achievement tests as part of the application process. Twenty-five percent require that students sit for a locally designed examination, and 25% do not require any tests for screening. All request some demonstration of interest in STEM subjects as an admission criterion. Competitions. Over 75 national competitions8 aim at promoting science, mathematics, and engineering as potential careers to middle and high school students. The stated goals of these programs are to enhance interest in STEM and recognize and reward talent with scholarships and other prizes. The majority of elite competitions in STEM do not use test scores as the key prerequisite for participation. Except for the U.S. Mathematics Olympiad, the Olympiads are open to all at the entrance phase, yet get more selective as competitors advance by examination to the next level. Although many of the competitions aim to engage a broad range of student interest in STEM subjects, very few require evidence of pre-existing interest such as recommendations, standardized test scores, or essays of purpose. Competitions that do post a requirement of demonstrated interest are Discovery Channel Young Scientists Challenge, the Intel Science Talent Search, and the U.S. Mathematics Olympiad. Summer and after-school courses. According to our survey, 90% of the special courses have admissions criteria, 58% of which include STEM-related criteria. Sixty-three percent of these programs do require some type of testing for entry. Again, more emphasis is placed on general testing, rather than STEM instruments. Furthermore, only two of the programs we reviewed require more explicit demonstrated interest in mathematics and science. Of the summer and afterschool programs we reviewed, 42% listed outcomes; 38% of the 42% stated STEM-related outcomes. In sum, a relatively large number of special schools, competitions, and programs exist in the United States that are designed to serve STEM-talented adolescents. Upon review of posted selection criteria, most do not require explicit demonstration of interest in STEM topics, only grades, test scores, and teacher recommendations. This suggests the nation’s collective “return on

8

Competitions exist widely on the state level and local level as well.

R. Subotnik et al.

investment” in these programs is less than it might be with more targeted selection criteria and outcomes. 4) What evidence is available to assess the impact and effectiveness of current STEM talent development programs for both traditional and underrepresented populations? What research evidence might inform the design of new program models? If we assume that the programs we reviewed meet the needs of STEM-talented adolescents, then one important way to augment the talent pool is to make sure that such high-quality enrichment is available in every state. Only 27 states offer school programs including STEM centers, magnet, governor, and exam schools. The following states support five or more school STEM programs (in descending order): Michigan (10), Virginia (9), Georgia (8), New Jersey (8), New York (7), and Maryland (5). Although competitions and laboratory/apprenticeship programs tend to draw participants from all over the country, the level of participation varies greatly by region. Yet even with wider regional representation, special efforts need to be made to recruit talented and interested students from underrepresented groups. Very few of the surveyed programs explicitly identify serving girls and underrepresented groups with interests in STEM as their primary goal. Of the six special STEM schools that direct attention on their websites to underrepresented groups in STEM, only one, the Hathaway Brown School in Ohio, serves females exclusively. Two apprenticeship/laboratory programs we reviewed specifically recruit talented girls and students from underrepresented groups: Science Outreach at Rockefeller University and University of Connecticut Mentor Connection. Another approach to diversification of STEM program participants is to experiment with selection criteria. Two special schools, the New Orleans Charter Science and Mathematics High School in Louisiana and the Academy for Math, Engineering, and Science in Utah, employ open admissions policies. The New Orleans Charter Science and Mathematics High School boasts a majority of African-American students and posts STEM-related outcomes and statistics. For example, according to the school, the N.O. Botics robotics team represented New Orleans at the first regional robotics competition in 2005, progressing to the semifinals, thus prompting 80 students from New Orleans to participate the following year.

69

An Agenda for Research, Policy, and Practice

Throughout this chapter we have argued for more rigorous evaluation of STEM talent development efforts. Programs based on traditional assumptions of STEM talent identification and development do not have the empirical support to be deemed evidence based. Although we are interested in expanding the pool of talented youth who go into STEM careers, we do not promote the notion of replacing one untested mechanism with another. Therefore we have developed proposals for consideration in the arenas of research, policy, and practice.

Follow-Up from the Forum Based on reactions and responses to the questions, presentations, and facilitated group discussion, the assembled experts identified a number of critical issues in STEM talent development and suggested specific initiatives for research, policy, and practice. The forum participants focused their attention on meeting the needs of two distinct groups:

r r

Students with a “developed” talent as reflected in significant accomplishments, intense curiosity, and motivation Students with interest and potential STEM talent but who have not had access to opportunities allowing it to be adequately identified or developed

The meeting highlighted how efforts to address the needs of each of these groups are often stymied by poor alignment between current policies/practices for identifying and developing STEM talent and what highquality research, preliminary policy analysis, and the judgment of expert practitioners suggest are needed. Among the critical disjunctions noted was

r

A significant shortfall in the supply of STEM talent development opportunities relative to the number of students who could potentially benefit from such opportunities.

1319

where STEM interests can be developed and mentorships established, and (3) an outreach officer to engage educators and parents who might not be aware of opportunities for their STEM-interested students, especially among girls and other underrepresented groups. These initiatives are an expanded version of a provision of the 1958 NDEA seeking enhanced and focused guidance and support for talented adolescents. As mentioned earlier, providing opportunities for younger students to engage in rigorous STEM programs is supported by the study conducted by Tai (2006), who found that those eighth-grade students who expected to enter a science-related career had, by age 30, obtained baccalaureate degrees in science-related fields at higher rates than students who did not have this expectation. His study suggests that career expectations in elementary and middle school have important impacts on future career plans. Few programs exist around the country that attempt to reinforce deep existing interests among middle and elementary school students and prepare these youngsters for potential careers in STEM fields. In accordance with the relative lack of available resources, the National Association for Gifted Children (www.nagc.org) reports that only nine states allow middle school students to take high school courses and no states allow them to take college courses.

r

A lack of clearly articulated goals and program expectations for a significant number of existing STEM talent development initiatives

Our survey showed that most STEM programs lacked clear goals and associated criteria to measure impact. Examples of success criteria that might be helpful for researchers and the general public include9

r r r r

Enrollment in post-secondary STEM programs Graduate satisfaction regarding preparation for STEM majors Achievement of graduates in STEM majors and/or careers Organizational and individual staff recognition for STEM-related activities and accomplishments Awards won by graduates in STEM-related contexts

Given the fact that only 27 states offer STEM pro- r grams to their pre-collegiate populations, it seems imIt is important that explicit criteria for selection and perative to ensure that every region of the country has desired outcomes for STEM talent development proaccess to (1) a specialized center for deep study of STEM subjects, (2) an expert coordinator to bring together talented youth and museums, hospitals, agri- 9 These criteria are modified versions of those posted by the Maculture study centers, laboratories, and industrial sites rine Academy of Technology and Environmental Studies.

1320

grams be generated and used in describing these efforts. A comprehensive list of programs meeting those criteria could then be used by parents, interested adolescents, educators, counselors, and researchers.

r

The absence of a sound knowledge base for determining which initiatives and strategies are most likely to prove effective in meeting particular program objectives

The 100+ programs we reviewed for the forum all contain components – such as mentoring, high-level instruction, and challenging peers – that are assumed to foster the development of STEM talent. Yet sound evidence from the literature documenting the relationship between program goals and the value-added of specific models is currently weak. The development of such a knowledge base on the effectiveness of different talent development models and initiatives must be built on clear and measurable program objectives. We therefore must strive to (1) standardize a range of desired outcomes (and how they are measured) and (2) develop well-designed longitudinal studies of impact (both in the short and in the longer term) to track program quality. It is particularly important to follow the future endeavors of program participants to assess whether these initiatives instill long-term passion and involvement with the STEM disciplines.

r

Inadequate exposure to the nature of the scientific enterprise and inadequate attention in STEM programs to enhancing the full complement of knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for students to pursue and achieve career success in STEM

A rich literature exists on talent development in various domains including STEM (Bloom, 1985; Pyryt, 2000; Subotnik & Calderon, 2008; Zuckerman, 1996). According to this literature, high-quality instruction and mentoring play central roles in successful developmental transitions. Teachers and mentors provide instruction, advice, networks, “insider” or tacit knowledge, and socialization into the field. The literature also discusses the core abilities needed for maximal benefit from such instruction. Looking at pre-high school efforts to intervene in terms of gender and ethnicity gaps in STEM courses and programs, participation has increased achievement, yet many students still have difficulty perceiving themselves in STEM careers and lack information not only about the rewards of pursuing a STEM career

R. Subotnik et al.

but also the factors involved in achieving success (Sorge, Newsom, & Hagerty, 2000). By eighth grade, twice as many boys as girls demonstrate an interest in science, engineering, and technology careers, and girls’ interest and confidence in their mathematical abilities have eroded, even when they perform as well as boys do (Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development, 2000). Girls who continue pursuing STEM subjects after middle school tend to be motivated by helping others (Baker & Leary, 2003) and welcome adult encouragement from a mentor regarded as being highly credible in terms of prestige and trustworthiness (Koballa, 1988). Teachers and mentors working with gifted students can assist students with tools to overcome some psychological obstacles that inhibit student participation and enhance creativity and achievement (Lent, 1993). Many individuals, whether they are athletes, professors, or students, face obstacles such as test or performance anxiety, fear of failure and fear of success, intimidation, lack of self-esteem, stress, self-doubt, negative self-talk, and lack of direction. Sports psychologists and life coaches have become more ubiquitous in important arenas. We propose developing empirically based programs for guiding STEM students in the same way. The number of teachers in our schools holding majors or certification in STEM subjects is another enormous impediment to meeting the goal that every secondary school student with interests in STEM subjects has access to rigorous coursework at his or her school or online. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2003), only 39% of U.S. students had a chemistry teacher who majored or minored in chemistry, 33% had a physics teacher who majored or minored in physics, and 68% of secondary school students had a mathematics teacher who majored or minored in mathematics. This trend is unlikely to change dramatically in the near future in terms of deep content knowledge and teaching skills in the STEM fields, despite the requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. Clearly, accurate and compelling instruction in content and professional advice and guidance are more widely needed to engage a wider range of future STEM participants.

r

The absence of sufficient federal and private funding.

69

An Agenda for Research, Policy, and Practice

The Academic Competitiveness Council has been cataloguing federal efforts designed to address a shortage of adequately prepared citizens, teachers, and STEM workers at all levels. According to former U.S. Department of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings

1321

ticularly economically disadvantaged, Limited English Proficient (LEP), and students with disabilities, to help reduce egregious gaps in achievement among certain groups of students at the highest levels of achievement. Over the years, annual funding levels for the Javits program have ranged from about $4 million to almost Currently, there are more than 200 programs that focus $12 million. Although a majority of the program’s on math and science, spread across 13 agencies. . .. Our goal is to gauge effectiveness and better coordinate these awards go to supporting activities funded through the programs. . . . discretionary grants program, funds are also allocated The 200+ programs mentioned by Secretary Spellings to support a national research center to conduct ongoinclude a large number designed to promote talent ing scholarship and leadership activities to promote among STEM undergraduate and graduate students. A good practices in gifted and talented education. The majority of the programs targeted at K-12 are focused poorly funded, but symbolically very significant on improving STEM teaching as well as inspiring in- Javits dissemination grants and National Research terest on the part of pupils. Reflecting on NCLB’s goal Center are not exclusively focused on STEM. Nor of achieving proficiency in science and mathematics are the Javits-funded programs targeted exclusively achievement, we have not been able to identify signif- at adolescence, when crucial decisions are made icant federal programs targeting adolescents with po- regarding course and peer group selection (Atanda, tential for going beyond proficiency to outstanding per- 1999). formance in STEM subjects. Academic Competitiveness Grant funding to support Advanced Placement participation and the A Research and Policy/Practice Agenda Javits program stand alone in presenting federal opportunities for academically achieving and motivated youth to develop their abilities. Students entering All of these data suggest to the authors of this chapter university without a solid base of rigorous course a series of high-priority agenda items for research work in mathematics and science are disadvantaged in and policy/practice representing two strands of acentering STEM majors (Government Accountability tivity – information gathering/dissemination and new Office, 2005) by the need to accumulate sufficient knowledge generation. Results from both strands background knowledge and credits. Two promising would channel appropriate information to educators federal avenues for addressing this concern among to design and implement more effective STEM talent STEM-interested, socio-economically disadvantaged identification and development programs as illustrated youth are the Academic Competitiveness Grant below (see Fig. 69.1). According to the goals of program signed into law in 2006 as part of the the committee, by giving current practitioners the Higher Education Reconciliation Act and the Ad- opportunity to improve their efforts based on the vanced Placement Incentive Program Grants. The best available information while also generating new Academic Competitiveness grants are designed to knowledge to support future improvements in policy reward first-year college students who take more and practice, both the quantity and the quality of talent challenging STEM courses in high school, and the in STEM will improve substantially. Advanced Placement grants cover the costs of taking Advanced Placement examinations, many of which are in mathematics, science, and technology. Information Gathering/Dissemination The Jacobs K. Javits Gifted and Talented Program, established in 1989, is a discretionary grant program designed to enhance the ability of elementary and sec- Current Program Inventory/Empirical Data ondary schools to meet the special education needs of Collection gifted and talented students. The major emphasis of the program is on serving students traditionally un- In order to generate support from policy makers derrepresented in gifted and talented programs, par- and the public, empirical data need to be collected to

1322

R. Subotnik et al.

Fig. 69.1 Two proposed strands of work – (1) information gathering and dissemination and (2) new knowledge generation – which when pursued in tandem will channel appropriate information to the development of effective new policies and programs for STEM talent identification and development

demonstrate the numbers of talented applicants that are turned away from talent development programs. This can be started by creating a comprehensive inventory of STEM talent opportunities, key characteristics, and availability – i.e., a consumer guide to STEM talent opportunities. The organizing committee began this effort in preparation for the forum (see Note 2), but a more intensive study needs to be conducted.

Information Exchange Network A STEM talent information exchange network should be established consisting of resource listings, people to contact with particular expertise, updates on relevant research, best practice models, etc. A website called Cogito (www.cogito.org) is a new initiative in this vein. One major element of the network should be listing of outstanding teachers who have sent cohorts of their students onto careers in STEM and are willing to assist their peers. It is important that we capitalize on the talent of teachers who have already been successful at channeling their students into competitions and special programs. They are an untapped resource for leading professional development. These teachers might also help program officials and evaluators in establishing benchmarks of achievement for students to aim for including skills of working with given data and writing technical papers.

Forums Our invitational forum only lasted 1 day. Consequently, we were able to scratch the surface of the problem we posed for ourselves: an agenda for research, policy, and practice directed at identifying and developing talent in STEM. We argue that additional forums

need to take place among STEM, social and behavioral science research, and gifted communities. The purpose would be to discuss definitions of STEM success, expansion of the talent base, the interaction of in-school and out-of-school talent development, and the resolution of conflicting positions around identification and development of talent.

New Knowledge Generation Studies of STEM Talent Dimensions, Identification, and Assessment A critical research need is to develop a scientifically grounded conceptualization of STEM talent including those specific to sub-disciplines and those that transcend them, as well as different types of talent (e.g., initiators of ideas, developers of ideas, those who find applications for ideas). This agenda gets back to one of our original questions: “What are the best indicators of adolescent STEM talent?” Such studies would explore the strengths and limitations of current procedures based on what we know from cognitive science and related fields (including measurement/psychometrics). Identification and assessment of talent to be developed work best when it is content or discipline based (Sawyer, 2006; Simonton, 2006; Subotnik & Calderon, 2008). That is, it is best to use mathematics or science content to assess whether students have a passion for and ability in mathematics or science. Also, talent identification seems to work best when carried out over time, rather than in a single test of assessment and when it incorporates student interest (Tai, 2006). The challenge is finding ways for this kind of performancebased assessment to work effectively in real school settings.

69

An Agenda for Research, Policy, and Practice

Studying alternative mechanisms of STEM talent identification might include conducting longitudinal studies of open admissions to STEM-based schools – such as the New Orleans Charter Science and Mathematics High School and Utah Academy for Math, Engineering, and Science – to compare outcomes with schools of comparable mission and state financial support that use more traditional admissions criteria. In addition, other open admission policies such as the MIT open Internet courseware program and the Excel for Youth Program at Sonoma State University may help researchers determine what attracts individuals to these opportunities.

Analyses of Current Programs A second and related area of research that needs to be pursued is analyzing current models of STEM talent development for evidence of their effectiveness, including some international comparisons of how firstworld countries are developing STEM talent in the preuniversity years. These studies would inform U.S. researchers about talent identification in other societies, interest-based clubs and “people’s palaces,” as well as how the status of STEM careers differs by country. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Global Science Forum and Netherlands Ministry for Education, Culture, and Science met to discuss science and technology careers and their relationship to science and technology studies in November 2005. The conference members compared educational matriculation, graduation, and doctoral statistics related to STEM for the following 19 countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Their statistics, findings, conclusions, and policyrelated suggestions reflect our sentiments concerning the decline in STEM-related studies and further pursuit of these careers:

r

1323

r r

r

Young people often have stereotyped visions of STEM professionals and their careers. Students should be provided with accurate information (such as through direct contacts with real professionals). STEM curricula are often rigid and outdated. Their content should be updated to be more relevant to modern society and should include the acquisition of useful professional skills at the university level. They should also be more flexible, allowing students to return to STEM fields at various stages of the educational process instead of being definitively excluded after a first choice outside STEM tracks or following a break in their curriculum. Some teachers in primary or secondary education lack adequate STEM training. At the university level, the needed pedagogical skills are sometimes lacking, particularly since evaluation of academics is usually based on their research work only. Resources and incentives should be provided for additional training throughout teachers’ careers (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2006).

We agree with OECD that although there has been an increase of students who matriculate into universities, there has been a proportional decrease of students who pursue STEM-related subjects and fields. Additionally, we agree that women and minorities need to have greater opportunity to contribute to these fields and we must increase incentive and motivation for all students. In order to analyze the effectiveness of STEM talent development programs, the research agenda will have to include agreed-upon and feasible outcome goals – such as increasing the number of completed STEM majors. Studies conducted rigorously using mixed methods designs as well as intensive meta-analyses of existing literature could allow us to identify which variables are most important in identification and educational services. The outcomes of these studies would ensure replication and dissemination of the most effective mechanisms for meeting the needs of middle and high school students who have expressed or demonGirls and minority students are largely underrepre- strated interest in STEM. sented in STEM studies. They are a vast untapped One promising potential new source of data to inreservoir of potential science students and profes- form these efforts is the National Center for Educasionals. Action plans directed toward declining stu- tion Statistics’ proposed 2009 new longitudinal study dent enrollment in STEM should systematically in- of high schools. Among the topics that are planned as tegrate concrete actions targeted at these groups. specific foci for the 2009 survey are (1) transition into

1324

R. Subotnik et al.

mathematics and science courses in high school and (2) mistakes that need to be avoided. According to Tanunderrepresentation of women in STEM. nenbaum (1983), many of the programs that were put into place did not hold up because they were not evidence based. Furthermore, the exclusive reliance on testing for identification rather than a more compreStudies on Teaching Talented STEM Students hensive, evidence-based approach led to an excess of Another key research need is to understand the false positives and negatives regarding STEM talent approaches used by expert teachers to identify and potential. Additionally, during the post-Sputnik era, reserve STEM-talented students. For example, what is search was funded on a number of topics that have yet the proper balance of acceleration and enrichment to be sufficiently tested and resolved such as achievefor exceptional students? How can this be done in ment, motivation and other non-intellective factors in normal school settings? What happens when you high-level learning. Finally, we have learned that the have students from low socio-economic status or policy scene changes from year to year and the press minority background interested in mathematics and for STEM careers may well be swept under the rug science but they are uncomfortable in the “culture” of by other crises. We need to develop a plan that is susacademic departments or workplaces? How can they tainable for the long term and that successfully addresses negative public associations, such as charges be supported? of elitism, and stresses the continuous and ongoing national need to address talent identification and deStudies of the Relationship Between STEM Talent velopment in the academic domains, particularly in STEM. Development and Human Capital Formation We propose that new STEM policies and programs be developed as a direct outgrowth of the Advocates for greater investments in STEM talent aforementioned investments in information gatherdevelopment often argue that these efforts are, in the ing, synthesis, dissemination, and new knowledge long run, cost-effective because they benefit economic generation. Examples include research-based talent growth and development. However, we know of no rigorous empirical work that attempts to test this identification schemes; adopting ideas from other premise and provide data that support, refute, or mod- countries; combining the best aspects of various inify this assertion. An important unmet research need and out-of-school programs into new evidence-based is to examine the question of if and how jurisdictions program models; and embedding into teacher educainvesting in adolescent STEM talent development tion and professional development best practices that derive cost-effective human capital payoffs from such have been shown to enable identification and development of talent. In order to increase the likelihood investments. that these policies will be successful, we also propose that such efforts be promoted by policymakers and administrators in ways that enhance the prestige of New Policies and Program Models STEM subjects, majors, and careers among America’s youth. Funding is a significant incentive to ensuring that A National Campaign for Raising the Status every young person with an interest in STEM can of STEM Careers receive appropriate services. Most of the current In order to undertake a campaign to raise the status programs for STEM-talented youth are privately of STEM careers, a historical look at the last attempt funded and require tuition expenditures or scholarby the United States to do this will be helpful. The ships. Therefore, a STEM talent identification and Sputnik effect did not last beyond the 1960s, but we development agenda should include creating and can learn a considerable amount from these earlier ex- promulgating real-world program models and governperiences. First, a federal “call to arms” with strong ment/foundation cost-sharing models that address the funding support led to widespread activity at all levels large unmet demand for STEM talent development of schooling for several years. There were also some opportunities in local school systems.

69

An Agenda for Research, Policy, and Practice

Conclusion In this chapter, we have highlighted the research needed to study the shortfall between supply and demand of talent programs as well as the policies needed to expand opportunities for all children with interests and abilities in STEM. The framework we have proposed for research and policy initiatives suggests a sequencing of activities designed to result in the creation and spread of new models and programs holding promise for substantially improving both the quantity and the quality of talent in STEM. Ideally, these initiatives would be developed, funded, and carried out in such a way as to allow practitioners to improve their efforts based on available evidence while also accumulating new knowledge to support future improvements in policy and practice.

References Atanda, R. (1999). Do gatekeeper courses expand education options? Education Statistics Quarterly, 1, 33–38. Baker, D., & Leary, R. (2003). Letting girls speak out about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 176–200. Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., & Sanjani, H. E. (1999). Our future leaders in science. Who are they? Can we identify them early? In N. Colangelo & S. G. Assouline (Eds.), Talent Development III (pp. 59–70). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Bloom, B. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine. Brody, L. (2006, September 26). Measuring the effectiveness of STEM talented initiatives for middle and high school students. Paper prepared for Identifying and Developing STEM Talent: A Planning Meeting. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Cattell, R. B. (1963). The personality and motivation of the researcher from measurements of contemporaries and from biography. In C. W. Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 119–131). New York: Wiley. Chambers, J. A. (1964). Relating personality and biographical factors to scientific creativity. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 78(7, Whole No. 584). Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development. (2000). Land of plenty: Diversity as America’s competitive edge in science, engineering and technology. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Government Accountability Office. (2005). Higher education: Federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs and related trends. Report to the Chairman, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, GAO-06-114.

1325 Jarvin, L., & Subotnik, R. F. (2006). Understanding elite talent in academic domains: A developmental trajectory from basic abilities to Scholarly Productivity/Artistry. In F. A. Dixon & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 203–220). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Kaiser, B. (2003). Mentoring students and teachers for high stakes science competitions. NATO Science Series: Science and Technology Policy, 38, 178–184. Koballa, T. (1988). Persuading girls to take elective physical science courses in high school: Who are the credible communicators? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 465– 478. Lederberg, J. S. (2006, September 26). Interviews. Paper prepared for Identifying and developing STEM talent: A planning meeting. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Lent, R. W. (1993). Sports psychology and counseling psychology: Players in the same ballpark? Counseling Psychologist, 21, 430–435. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345. Milgram, J. R. (2006, September 26). Personal reflections on STEM talent identification and development. Paper prepared for Identifying and developing STEM talent: A planning meeting. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The condition of education: Contexts of elementary and secondary education learning opportunities (Indicator 28). Out-of-field teaching in middle and high school grades. US Department of Eudcation. Washington DC. National Defense Education Act of 1958. PL 85-864 (1958). National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Mathematics Learning Study Committee. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2005a). How students learn: Mathematics in the classroom. Committee on How People Learn: A Targeted Report for Teachers. M.S. Donovan & J.D. Bransford (Eds.). Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2005b). How students learn: Science in the classroom. Committee on How People Learn: A Targeted Report for Teachers. M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.). Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2005c). Policy implications of international graduate students and postdoctoral scholars in the United States. Committee on Policy Implications of International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars in the United States. Board on Higher Education and Workforce. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Committee on Prospering in the Global Econ-

1326 omy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through Eighth Grade. R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Evolution of student interest in science and technology studies: Policy report from global forum. Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/30/36645825.pdf [1/22/07]. Pyryt, M. C. (2000). Talent development in science and technology. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 427–438). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Roe, A. (1953). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd, Mead. Ross, P. O., & Parker, P. (2006, September 26). Summary of the Javits Gifted and talented student education program. Paper prepared for Identifying and developing STEM talent: A planning meeting. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Sawyer, R. K. (2006, September 26). Identifying and developing talent in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Paper prepared for Identifying and developing STEM talent: A planning meeting. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Schuck, J. A. (1997). Factors contributing to the underrepresentation of women in physics-based engineering fields. A Final Report to the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

R. Subotnik et al. Simonton, D. K. (2006, September 26). Talent development in the sciences: Conceptual definitions, distinctions and dimensions. Paper prepared for Identifying and developing STEM talent: A planning meeting. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Sorge, C., Newsom, H., & Hagerty, J. (2000) Fun is not enough: Attitudes of Hispanic middle school students toward science and scientists. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science, 22, 332–345. Subotnik, R. F. (2005). Out of school science programs for talented students: A comparison. In P. Csermely, T. Korcsmaros, & L. Lederman (Eds.), Science education: Best practices of research training for students under 21. NATO Science Series V, Vol. 47. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press. Subotnik, R. F., & Calderon, J. (2008). Developing giftedness and talent. In F. Karnes & K. Stephens (Eds.), Achieving excellence: Educating the Gifted and Talented (pp. 49–61). Columbus. OH Pearson. Subotnik, R. F., Duschl, R. A., & Selmon, E. H. (1993). Retention and attrition of science talent: A longitudinal study of Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 61–72. Subotnik, R., Rayhack, K., & Edmiston, A. (2006, September 26). Current models of identifying and developing STEM talent: Implications for research, policy and practice. Paper prepared for Identifying and developing STEM talent: A planning meeting. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Tai, R. (2006). Planning for early careers in science. Science, 312, 26–27. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: McMillan. Zuckerman, H. (1996). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Chapter 70

Gifted Education and Legal Issues Frances A. Karnes and Kristen R. Stephens

Abstract Once gifted children enter school, their parents soon realize the lack of accommodations that are available to address their children’s unique educational needs. With no federal protection under the law and with permissive legislation in many states, gifted children are not afforded the same safeguards as those children protected under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA). This chapter will explore the legal processes (negotiation, mediation, due process, litigation) that parents can utilize in seeking appropriate identification and services for their gifted children. The efforts of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in resolving disputes pertaining to gifted students will also be discussed along with the role that legislation and court cases have had in policy development in gifted education.

Very rarely, if at all, are the needs of gifted students addressed proactively by federal and state policymakers. The lack of a federal mandate for gifted education leaves the identification and availability of programs and services for gifted students up to each state. In turn, permissive state regulations have forced many parents to seek legal recourse in securing an appropriate education for their gifted and talented child (Stephens, 2008). This chapter will discuss the status of gifted education across states in the United States, as well as in other countries around the world, the legal processes that parents can utilize in seeking appropriate identification and educational services for their gifted children, and the role of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in resolving disputes pertaining to gifted students. Future policy issues in gifted education will also be explored.

Keywords Compensatory education · Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) · Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004

Introduction Federal and state responses to the educational needs of the gifted and talented have been both sporadic and minimal. Increased concern toward and recognition of this special population of students always seems to follow significant international events or perceived crises in which the United States reacts to the fear of lagging behind other countries (i.e., the launching of Sputnik). K.R. Stephens (B) Duke University, Durham, NC, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Status of Gifted Education Around the World United States Unlike students with disabilities who are protected by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), the identification and provision of services for gifted students in the United States are not mandated by federal law. There are also wide variances among states in regards to how the needs of gifted students are addressed. Some states have welldeveloped, sound policies regarding gifted students, while others have limited, if any, policies.

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 70, 

1327

1328

The State of the States Report (NAGC, 2005) provides a biannual summary of the status of gifted education across individual states. Data from the 2005–2006 report indicate that 29 states mandate the identification of gifted students, and in 18 of these states, this mandate is unfunded. Additionally, only 7 states have specific policies that permit early entrance to kindergarten, while 29 states have policies permitting students to be dually enrolled in high school and college with 26 of these 29 states making families responsible for the cost of college tuition for dual enrollers. As a result, parents have little leverage when disputes arise regarding these issues.

F.A. Karnes and K.R. Stephens

Chen, Kato, & Londo, 1995). In China, there are no national policies regarding gifted students; however, there are many programs, predominantly at the secondary level, designed to meet the educational needs of such students. Taiwan’s government exclusively establishes and funds special education, including programs for the gifted, and such programs have been greatly expanded over the years. In contrast, Japan has no formal government programs for gifted children. This is perhaps due to their cultural philosophy which discourages singling out children based on individual differences. Emphasis is placed on effort rather than innate abilities (Stevenson et al., 1995).

Europe Canada Support for gifted education is widespread in many European countries (M¨onks & Pfl¨uger, 2005). In Switzerland, gifted students are recognized as a group of students with special needs in the school legislation of most Swiss cantons. In Spain, gifted students are explicitly mentioned in the Royal Decree 696/1995 legislation, and in 2002 the Organic Act on the Quality of Education (LOCE) established a new framework, which focused attention on students with specific educational needs, including highly gifted students. Several legislations and regulations exist in Hungary for gifted students. The 1995 Romanian Law of Education contains several articles pertaining to gifted students in Romania. The Bill of Law on the Education of Gifted and Capable of High Performance Youth was recently rejected by the Romanian government, and the Romanian Consortium for the Education of Gifted and Talented Children and Youth, one of the largest private educational initiatives in Romania, is actively supporting the adoption of this bill. Finally, though the United Kingdom does not mention giftedness or gifted education in their legislation, the country does have published regulations and guidelines pertaining to gifted education (M¨onks & Pfl¨uger).

In Canada, the current trend in gifted education is toward policies of inclusion (Mathews & Foster, 2005). Parents and private organizations have greatly influenced policy and programming in gifted education within specific provinces. For example, in Ontario, the Association for Bright Children effectively lobbied for a legislative mandate for educating gifted students and parents in British Columbia advocated for sustained leadership and programming for gifted students.

Australia and New Zealand

In 2003, New Zealand’s Ministry of Education amended the National Administration Guidelines (statements of desirable principles of conduct or administration) to include gifted and talented students. As a result, all state and integrated schools have to demonstrate how they are meeting the needs of their gifted and talented learners. The School Education Act 1999 supports gifted education in Australia. Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia, South Australia, and New South Wales all have recent policy papers and guidelines regarding East Asia gifted education. In addition, a 2001 Australian Senate inquiry recommended a national strategy There has been international interest in the academic for gifted education to coordinate programs across success of students from East Asia (Stevenson, Lee, states.

70

Gifted Education and Legal Issues

Resolving Legal Issues When parents and schools cannot resolve issues regarding the education of a child, dispute resolution strategies may be employed. It is recommended that dispute resolution begin at the lowest level possible, with litigation being a final consideration. Negotiation, mediation, and due process are all alternate avenues to litigation in resolving disputes.

Negotiation When disputes start in gifted education, the first step is usually negotiation (Karnes & Marquardt, 1997; Karnes & Marquardt, 2000). Negotiation is the informal process by which parties discuss a problem in an effort to reach a compromise. All parties involved should be well informed regarding state law pertinent to gifted education as well as relevant rules, regulations, and policies at both the state and the local levels. If court decisions involving similarly disputed issues are available, they should also be identified and evaluated. Negotiation should begin at the level where the dispute arises, which is often the classroom teacher (Karnes & Marquardt, 1997). If negotiations at this level are unsuccessful, parents may chose to meet with others up the administrative ladder (i.e., principal, superintendent, school board). Detailed records of all meetings and correspondence between parents and school district personnel should be maintained during the negotiation process. If negotiation is unsuccessful, mediation may be the next course of action.

Mediation

1329

2. Expeditious Process – The mediation process is usually completed within 20–30 days. 3. Improves Relationships – Mediation helps reconcile differences between disputing parties and assists in enhancing communication between home and school. 4. Collaborative Resolution – In due process, decisions are made by a third party, and one or both parties may be unhappy with the outcome. In mediation, the participants themselves develop collaborative resolutions. 5. Confidential – Issues discussed in mediation remain confidential and are not admissible in any future legal proceedings. 6. Empowers Participants – Both parties determine who the participants are, who the mediator will be, where and when the mediation sessions will occur, and contribute to the creation of the final agreement. 7. Allows for Flexibility – Because mediation sessions are not limited by issues of law, parties can develop new, creative options that benefit the child. (BarLev, Neustadt, & Marshall, 2002) A State Directors of Special Education report (NASDE, 1998) indicates that qualifications for mediators vary across states. Most states have some initial prerequisites, with the most common requirement being the completion of a specific number of hours of training. Initial training and continued support appear to be provided by all states for mediators (NASDSE). Ten states specifically offer mediation as a strategy for resolving issues in gifted education (NAGC, 2005). Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania all require mediation for the gifted under state law, while Florida, Kansas, New Mexico and Utah give gifted students the same rights to mediation as those who qualify for services under IDEA. It should be noted that the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA mandates that states offer mediation as an option to individuals requesting a due process hearing. Though gifted students are not protected under IDEA, such mandates may serve to increase the use of mediation in resolving conflicts.

Mediation is a voluntary, nonadversarial process that allows disputing parties to meet with an impartial, third party facilitator in order to reach an agreement. There are a number of advantages in using mediation to reDue Process solve conflicts:

1. Reduced Cost – While mediation costs vary from Due process is a procedure by which an aggrieved party has an opportunity to be heard by an impartial hearing state to state, they rarely exceed $1,500.

1330

officer. Locating decisions from due process hearings is not an easy process since there is no federal mandate for the collection of such data (Ahearn, 2002). Furthermore, most states retain confidentiality of proceedings by deleting the names of the children, parents, and hearing officers involved. Due process hearings have several common requirements across states. These include 1. Timely notice to all parties involved that a hearing has been scheduled; 2. Opportunity to present evidence, witnesses, and oral arguments to an impartial hearing officer; 3. Opportunity to have counsel present; 4. An oral or written record of the proceedings; and 5. A written decision from the hearing officer based on the arguments presented at the hearing (Karnes, Troxclair, & Marquardt, 1998) The 2004–2005 State of the States Report (NAGC, 2005) indicates that 16 states offer the right to due process for the gifted. Seven of these states (Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, New Mexico, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia) offer this right under the same provision as afforded to students with disabilities under IDEA, while nine states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas) have a state law different from IDEA providing gifted students the right to due process.

Litigation When all other dispute resolution strategies have been exhausted, the last option for many parents in securing an appropriate education for their child is litigation. This is the most costly and time-consuming method for resolving a dispute. When reviewing case law regarding gifted students, two distinct categories should be considered: (1) “gifted alone”, those students eligible for gifted education without any other special legal protection; and (2) “gifted plus”, those students who are gifted, but are also eligible for other federal, legal protections under IDEA or Title IV of the Civil Rights Act (Zirkel, 2004, 2005). Zirkel (2004) indicates that in both instances, “gifted alone” and “gifted plus” decisions, courts have favored school districts with

F.A. Karnes and K.R. Stephens

regard to gifted education provisions, particularly in those states with permissive gifted education legislation. In addition, in “gifted plus” cases courts have had a tendency to focus on a child’s disability rather than his or her academic or intellectual strengths (Zirkel).

Selected Court Decisions Court cases have addressed a wide range of issues such as tuition reimbursement, admissions, early entrance, appropriate programming, twice-exceptional, compensation, personnel issues, and more. Table 70.1 provides a visual overview of the selected cases that are detailed below.

Federal Court Decisions Matters that involve constitutional or statutory challenges, like those pertaining to discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause or procedural due process, are typically addressed by the Federal courts. Interestingly, two such cases involved the same family in Pennsylvania. In Student Doe v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1984), the use of an IQ test to exclude a student from the gifted program was in dispute. The plaintiff claimed such use violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the US Constitution. The court dismissed the complaint and concluded “that use of a minimum cut-off score might not be the best procedure available but that the court could not conclude that such a method cannot be reasonably used” (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2004, p. 58). In Student Roe v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1987), parents raised various statutory and constitutional challenges after their child, who scored 121 on an IQ test, was denied entrance into the gifted program. The court found that Pennsylvania’s minimum cutoff score for eligibility into gifted programs did not violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2004).

Right to IEP

Grade point calculation

Admissions/ placement

PA

PA

PA

PA

Centennial School District v. Commonwealth Department of Education

Ellis v. Chester Upland School

Gateway School District v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Lisa H. v. Board of Education

Luping Qu v. North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics New Brighton Area School Dist. v. Matthew Z.

Right to special education/IEP

CT

Broadley v. Board of Education

Grades

Tuition reimbursement

NC

PA

Tuition reimbursement

Admissions/ placement

NY

Bennett v. City School District of New Rochelle

Issue

State

Case

Should a school system have to pay for transportation or college courses for a gifted student?

Should schools/teachers be liable for grading practices?

Does the gifted and talented program infringe upon students’ fundamental property right to a free, public education appropriate to their needs when they are excluded from such programs?

Should college courses be included in grade point average?

Should a school system have to pay for private school tuition for gifted students?

Are gifted students entitled to an IEP?

Are gifted students entitled to special education and the development of an IEP?

Is the use of a lottery system for entrance into a gifted program in violation of the equal protection clause?

Dispute

The court held that a school district should not have to pay for transportation or college courses since they were beyond the district’s current curriculum

The court found that education is not among one of the rights, either implicitly or explicitly, that is guaranteed under the Federal Constitution. In addition, the court held that the state constitution does not confer an individual with the right to a particular level or quality of education Supporting the authority of schools in grading matters, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint

The court held that the use of a lottery system was not a violation of the equal protection clause, but was instead an impartial and fair manner of selecting participants The Supreme Court of Connecticut found that the state’s constitutional right to a free public education does not afford gifted students the right to special education, including the development of an IEP A hearing officer concluded that the student needed not only enrichment but also acceleration in certain subject areas. The high court affirmed the hearing officer’s decision, indicating that regardless of an existing enrichment program, the district was not relieved of the responsibility of providing the student with an appropriate academic education The court held that the curriculum available to a gifted student need not maximize the student’s ability, but must only provide an appropriate program for the student. Therefore, the students were not eligible for reimbursement of tuition and transportation expenses to attend private schools The appeal was quashed by the court due to the district’s failure to respond within a 30-day allotted period

Decision

Table 70.1 Snapshot of selected court decisions involving gifted students

School system

School

Board of Education

Board of Education

School system

Parent

School system

School system

Favors

70 Gifted Education and Legal Issues 1331

Transportation

Early entrance

Early entrance Compensatory education

PA

TX

WI

PA

Woodland Hills School District v. Commonwealth Department of Education Wright v. Ector County Independent School District Zweifel v. Joint District No. 1, Belleville Brownsville Area School District. v. Student X

Compensatory education

Admissions/ placement

PA

Student Roe v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

PA

Admissions/ placement

PA

Student Doe v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Carlynton School District v. D.S.

Admissions/ placement

MD

Rosenfeld v. Montgomery County Public School

Issue

State

Case

Should compensatory education extend beyond a district’s current curricular offerings?

Is compensatory education an appropriate remedy for gifted children whose district fails to provide them with an adequate program?

Should a gifted student be allowed to enter Kindergarten early?

Should a 5-year-old be allowed to enter first grade?

Are public school districts obligated to furnish free transportation to nonpublic elementary school students who are participating in the district’s gifted education program?

Does the use of an IQ test to exclude a student from a program violate the equal protection clauses of the US constitution?

Are students entitled to injunctive relief under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act who are not members of “preferred” minority groups, thus are at a disadvantage in the competition for a limited number of spaces in the gifted program? Does the use of an IQ test to exclude a student from a program violate the equal protection clauses of the US constitution?

Dispute

Table 70.1 (continued)

State

The court dismissed the complaint and concluded “that use of a minimum cut-off score might not be the best procedure available but that the court could not conclude that such a method cannot be reasonably used” (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2004, p. 58) The court found that Pennsylvania’s minimum cutoff score for eligibility into gifted programs did not violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment The court determined that the gifted, non-public school students had the right to be identified and provided with an education program to meet their needs The court ruled that the district’s policy to exclude admission to the first grade to those children age 6 or older was within the school board’s discretion The court found that the district’s policy requiring students to be 5 years old was not an abuse of the school board’s discretion The court found compensatory education to be an appropriate remedy for gifted children whose district failed to provide them with an adequate program; however, compensatory education was limited to the education that was currently available within the school district’s curriculum The court vacated the panel’s compensatory education award and remanded the matter back to the Appeals Review Panel

School system

The district court found that the students involved lacked standing to challenge the admissions policy

School system

School system

School system

School system

Parents

State

Favors

Decision

1332 F.A. Karnes and K.R. Stephens

CA

PA

Ford v. Long Beach Unified School District

Programs

PA

Central York School District v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Education Scott S. v. Commonwealth Department of Education

PA

Programs

PA

Conrad Weiser Area School District v. Department of Education

Huldah A. v. Easton Area School District

Twice exceptional

PA

York Suburban School District. v. S.P.

Table 70.1 (continued)

If a student exhausts all of the school’s math courses, including the school’s most advanced course, are schools obligated to reimburse parents for the cost of a college calculus course?

Is a school district’s duty to provide programs to gifted students contingent upon reimbursement from the state for the cost of such programs?

Does a gifted student’s success in a regular education program preclude him or her from receiving services for a specific disability?

Are school districts required to provide an education that confers sufficient educational benefit upon a student?

Can a hearing panel impose requirements upon a school district that are outside the scope of existing regulations?

Dispute

Reimbursement Are parents entitled to reimbursement for an independent evaluation?

Reimbursement Should parents of a gifted child be reimbursed by the district for an independent evaluation and for his attorney’s fees?

Compensatory education

Compensatory education

PA

Saucon Valley School District. v. Robert O.

Issue

State

Case

The court decided that a school district is not required to devise an educational program which makes the best use of each student’s abilities, but only to identify exceptional children and develop educational programs appropriate to their particular needs The court indicated that gifted children do not fall under the protections of IDEA; therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to an independent evaluation at the school district’s expense or the reimbursement of attorney fees The court found that the district’s assessments were adequate and that the parent’s were responsible for the cost of any independent evaluations

The court determined the hearing panel had exceeded its authority by imposing requirements upon the school district that were outside the scope of existing regulations The court ruled that a school district was required to provide an education that conferred sufficient educational benefit upon a student and was tailored to the student’s unique needs by means of an IEP The court agreed with the panel in that despite the student’s classification as gifted, the student was also a child with a learning disability whose performance level was not sufficient to guarantee success in the regular classroom without supplementary aids and services to address his disability The court found that the provision of programs for the gifted was a condition of a district’s right of reimbursement rather than vice versa

Decision

School district

School district

School district

State Department of Education

School district

Parent

School system

Favors

70 Gifted Education and Legal Issues 1333

1334

State High Court Decisions

F.A. Karnes and K.R. Stephens

In New Brighton Area School District v. Matthew, the court held that a school district should not have to The rulings in two seminal cases, Broadley v. Board pay for transportation or college courses beyond the of Education of the City of New Meridian (1994) and district’s current curriculum because it would be more Centennial School District v. Commonwealth Depart- than a free, appropriate public education. Likewise, the court in Ellis v. Chester Upland ment of Education (1988), have been used by subseSchool District cited that the curriculum available to a quent courts in reaching decisions. The importance of gifted student need not maximize the student’s ability, state statutes in protecting gifted students is reflected but must only provide an appropriate program for the in each of these cases. The Centennial case arose in Pennsylvania, a state student. Therefore, the court held that gifted students that affords gifted students similar provisions as those were not eligible for reimbursement of tuition and protected by IDEA. In this case a school district ob- transportation expenses to attend private schools. jected to a hearing officer’s decision that required the district to provide an appropriate individualized education program (IEP) to a gifted student, apart from enrolling the student in the district’s existing enrich- Reimbursement for Independent ment program. The hearing officer had concluded that Educational Evaluation the student needed not only enrichment, but also acceleration in certain subject areas. The high court affirmed the hearing officer’s decision, indicating that re- IDEA provides a provision that allows parents to obtain gardless of an existing enrichment program, the dis- an independent educational evaluation at the school trict was not relieved of the responsibility of provid- district’s expense whenever parents disagree with an ing the student with an appropriate academic education evaluation provided by the district. Since gifted students are not included in IDEA, parents of gifted chil(Stephens, 2000). In contrast, the Broadley case took place in Con- dren have unsuccessfully pursued reimbursements for necticut, a state with a mandate for identifying gifted such evaluations. In Ford v. Long Beach Unified School District students, but not one for providing gifted students spe(2002), parents challenged a district’s determination cialized programs (Stephens, 2000). In this case, the that their daughter was not disabled despite the fact Supreme Court of Connecticut found that the state’s constitutional right to a free public education does not that she scored high on IQ tests, but was doing very afford gifted students the right to special education, in- poorly in school. The parents believed that their daughter was entitled to services under IDEA due to cluding the development of an IEP. a central auditory processing disorder. They relied on a California regulation that makes students eligible for services if they have a severe discrepancy between Tuition Reimbursement intellectual ability and achievement. The parents challenged the assessments given by the district and their In search of appropriately challenging coursework for right for reimbursement for an independent evaluation. their gifted child, parents have sought reimbursement The court found that the district’s assessments were from public schools to cover tuition for learning ex- adequate and that the parents were responsible for the periences at private schools, colleges, and universities. cost of any independent evaluations. Courts have typically ruled in favor of school systems, In a similar case, a parent demanded that his daughindicating that a district should not be required to offer ter receive an independent evaluation at the district’s coursework and services above and beyond their cur- expense and that he be reimbursed for his attorney’s rently existing curriculum. fees pursuant to IDEA (Huldah A. v. Easton Area New Brighton Area School District v. Matthew School District, 1992). The court affirmed the special (1997) and Ellis v. Chester Upland School District education appeals panel’s decision, which indicated (1994) are two Pennsylvania cases that demonstrate that gifted children do not fall under the protections the courts standing on the tuition reimbursement issue. of IDEA; therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to an

70

Gifted Education and Legal Issues

independent evaluation at the school district’s expense or the reimbursement of attorney fees.

Early Entrance States, for the most part, have left early entrance decisions to the discretion of local school boards. As a result, parents have had limited success in litigating for early entrance for their gifted child. In Wright v. Ector County Independent School District (1993), a Texas parent sought admission for her 5-year-old into the first grade. The Texas Education Code requires that a child be at least 6 years of age to enter first grade. The court ruled that the Texas Education Code was intended to grant school boards discretion regarding the admission of underage and overage children, and the district’s policy to exclude admission to the first grade to those children age 6 or older was within the board’s discretion. Another example of the courts leaving early entrance decisions to the discretion of the local school board is seen in the Wisconsin case, Zweifel v. Joint District No. 1, Belleville (1977). Parents in this case sought early admission to Kindergarten for their gifted child. The court found that the district’s policy requiring students to be 5 years old was not an abuse of the school board’s discretion.

Admissions/Program Eligibility The use of lottery systems for admission into gifted and talented programs and discriminatory admissions practices have both been under dispute. The presence of statutory law that protects the educational rights of gifted students is extremely important if parents are to have any success in litigating admission’s issues. The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division reviewed a school district’s use of a lottery system to select participants for the gifted and talented program (Bennett v. City School Dist. of New Rochelle, 1985). A limited number of spots were available for the program therefore participants were being randomly selected from a pool of eligible students. The disputing father cited the New York statute that stated “school districts of this state should develop programs to in-

1335

sure that children reach their full academic potential” (Karnes & Marquardt, 1991, p. 45). The use of the word “should” instead of “shall” in the statute served as the basis for both the trial and the appellate courts’ rejection of the father’s argument. The court held that the school district was not required by state law to place a child into an educational program of choice and that the use of a lottery system was not a violation of the equal protection clause, but was instead an impartial and fair manner of selecting participants. In addition, the court indicated that New York law did not require districts to offer gifted programs, thus school systems were not obligated to offer such programs. In Rosenfeld v. Montgomery County Public School (2001), parents of two students in Maryland challenged various procedures and policies used by the school system to select students for participation in the gifted and talented program. The parents claimed that the policies and procedures discriminated against students who were not members of “preferred” minority groups, by creating different, less stringent admission criteria for such minority students. As a result of this practice, white and Asian students were at a disadvantage in competing for the limited number of spaces available in the program. The parents sought injunctive relief under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The district court sided with the school system indicating that both students involved lacked standing to challenge the admissions policy. One student lacked standing because her prospective injury was not imminent enough to meet the constitutional requirement of injury, and the other student’s claim for injunctive relief was barred because he had already been accepted into the International Baccalaureate (IB) program at his high school, which was considered the “gifted program”. On appeal, the circuit court affirmed the district court’s decision. In the Pennsylvania case, Lisa H. v. Board of Education (1982), two students who were evaluated but not selected to participate in the gifted program, claimed that the Pennsylvania Code which defines gifted and talented individuals was unconstitutional under both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. They argued that the gifted and talented program infringed upon their fundamental property right to a free, public education appropriate to their needs. The plaintiffs also argued that the program excluded them

1336

from available educational instruction without just cause, provided them with an education inferior to that afforded to students in the program, and resulted in the expenditure of less tax dollars on their education than on the education of students categorized as gifted. The court found that education is not among one of the rights, either implicitly or explicitly, that is guaranteed under the Federal Constitution. In addition, the court held that the state constitution does not confer an individual with the right to a particular level or quality of education, but it only requires the legislature the duty of providing a thorough and efficient system of schools throughout the state. In addition, the court held that the plaintiffs did not utilize their right to due process prior to seeking litigation; therefore, the objections of the defendants were sustained and the case dismissed.

Grades Courts tend to support the authority of schools in grading matters, as evidenced by Luping Qu v. North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics (2005). In this case, a father sued the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics (a residential high school for gifted students) for capricious grading and false presentation asking the judge to overrule a teacher who gave a bad grade to his daughter for failure to turn in a homework assignment. The grade resulted in the student not receiving credit for the course. The father did not deny that his daughter had failed to do the homework, but claimed the missing homework was assigned in the third grading quarter but was not calculated until the fourth quarter grading period. The school argued that as a state agency, the school, teachers, and administrators were immune from liability for discretionary actions, and that even if no such immunity existed, the plaintiff’s claim should be barred because he failed to follow the school’s administrative procedures for contesting grades. Supporting the authority of schools in grading matters, the court granted summary judgment for the school and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint.

Transportation In Woodland Hills School District v. Commonwealth Department of Education (1986), a Pennsylvania court

F.A. Karnes and K.R. Stephens

held that a school district had an obligation to furnish free midday transportation to nonpublic elementary school students who were participating in the district’s gifted education program. When the district initially developed its gifted program, it gave nonpublic students the opportunity for dual enrollment. When the district reorganized its gifted program, transportation for the nonpublic school students was eliminated. The court relied on the Centennial decision to determine that the gifted, non-public school students had the right to be identified and provided with an education program to meet their needs.

Compensatory Education Compensatory education is a legal term that describes future educational services that courts provide students as a result of them being denied a free and appropriate education. Though compensatory education has been a right of exceptional students covered under IDEA, such awards have been limited for gifted students, and there have been contradictory outcomes regarding whether gifted students are entitled to such awards. The majority of cases involving compensatory education have occurred in Pennsylvania. In Brownsville Area School District. v. Student X (1999), compensatory education was found to be an appropriate remedy for gifted children whose district failed to provide them with an adequate program that ensured they were afforded a free, appropriate public education. However, compensatory education was limited to the education that was currently available within the school district’s curriculum. In Carlynton School District v. D.S. (2003), a school district disputed an Appeals Review Panel’s decision that required the district to design a compensatory education plan that included weekend and/or summer enrichment classes and a review course in algebra. The district argued that the review panel had erred in determining that no statute of limitation applied to the request of compensatory education and that the compensatory education awarded by the panel extended beyond the school’s current curriculum. The court vacated the panel’s determination that no statute of limitations applied to the claims and to the compensatory education award and remanded the matter back to the Appeals Review Panel.

70

Gifted Education and Legal Issues

Similarly, in Saucon Valley School District. v. Robert O. (2001), the court determined that a hearing panel had exceeded its authority by ordering a school district to reclassify a gifted student to another graduation class, conduct in-service training for its staff, and hire an outside consultant to develop an IEP for the student. The court ruled that the hearing panel could not impose such requirements upon the school district as they were outside the scope of existing regulations. In contrast to the above cases, the court ruled in York Suburban School District. v. S.P. (2005) that a school district was required to provide an education that conferred sufficient educational benefit upon a student and was tailored to the student’s unique needs by means of an IEP. The court held that the school district’s failure to attempt to customize course work to a student’s needs and to provide an adequate IEP, entitled the student to an award of compensatory education.

Twice Exceptional In cases involving twice-exceptional students, the courts have had a tendency to focus on the remediation of student deficits rather than the nurturance of student strengths. In addition, school systems have been reluctant to provide twice-exceptional students with special services if the student appears to perform adequately in school. In Conrad Weiser Area School District v. Department of Education (1992), a school district appealed a special education hearing panel’s decision that a student had a specific learning disability in the area of written expression and needed special education to address his disability. The district claimed the hearing panel erred in failing to recognize that the student’s success in the regular education program precludes classification of him as an exceptional student with a specific learning disability. The district conceded that discrepancies between the student’s intellectual level and the level of achievement existed, but argued that the student was not entitled to special education because the student did not “need” special education provisions. The court agreed with the panel in that despite his classification as gifted, the student was also a child with a learning disability whose performance level was not sufficient

1337

to guarantee success in the regular classroom without supplementary aids and services to address his disability.

Appropriate Programs The implementation of appropriate educational programs for the gifted has been a major focus of court cases involving the gifted. In most cases, school systems have prevailed on such issues. A Pennsylvania school district argued that its duty to provide programs to gifted students was contingent upon reimbursement from the state for the cost of such programs (Central York School District v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Education, 1979). The court rejected this argument indicating that the provision of programs for the gifted “was a condition to its right of reimbursement rather than vice versa” (Zirkel, 2005, p. 9). In Scott S. v. Commonwealth Department of Education (1986), parents of a gifted high school student requested that the district offer a classroom course in math beyond Calculus BC or reimburse them for the cost of a college calculus course, since their son had already exhausted all of the school’s math courses. The court, citing the Centennial case, sided with the district stating that “a school district is not required to devise an educational program which makes the best use of each student’s abilities, but only to identify exceptional children and develop educational programs appropriate to their particular needs” (Centennial, 1986, p. 1094). In Gateway School District v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Education (1989), a school system appealed the secretary of education’s adoption of the recommendation by a hearing officer that they develop an IEP for a student that included college level courses he had taken during the 1987–88 school year for grade point calculation. The appeal was quashed by the court due to the district’s failure to respond within a 30-day allotted period. The district claimed that a recent decision (Centennial) was not available at the time the original exceptions were filed, and the Centennial case offered new case law regarding a school district’s obligation to gifted students. The court found the district’s argument insufficient to overcome the waiver rule.

1338

Personnel Issues

F.A. Karnes and K.R. Stephens

6 months. The Administrative Law Judge adopted the Commission’s recommendations. On appeal, the superior court concluded that the In Howze-Campbell v. Mound Bayou School District commission had “acted in an arbitrary and capricious (2005), issues regarding the termination of a contract manner” by failing to consider the impact of their dewere disputed. The Superintendent of Mound Bayou cision on the school system and its students. However, School District’s contract was terminated due to defi- on appeal by the Professional Standards Commission, ciencies in the elementary school’s gifted program and the Court of Appeals of Georgia decided that since the alleged violations of federal law regarding the school Commission had determined that the state interest in systems confidential records pertaining to the gifted ensuring the integrity of standardized test results outprogram. The plaintiff appealed the school system’s de- weighed other considerations (e.g., impact on school cision to terminate her contract indicating that (1) there system, etc.), the decision by the Commission to suswas no substantial evidence presented to support her pend the teacher’s teaching certification did have a ratermination, (2) a board member of the school system tional basis and the superior court exceeded its authorshould have rescued herself from the proceedings due ity by overturning it. to prejudice against the plaintiff, and (3) the board had an illegal public meeting prior to the hearing. The state consultant for gifted education in Mississippi testified that the district had reported that 23 Summary students in grades two through six were participating in the district’s program, no other documentation reThe large majority of cases presented here derived at garding the existence of a program was ever produced; the state level, with Pennsylvania, a state that affords therefore, it was recommended that funding be withgifted students many, but not all, of the same state drawn. Furthermore, a site visit by a State Department and federal protections as those students covered unof Education representative found no evidence or docder IDEA, having a significant number of cases perumentation to prove that a gifted program existed. The taining to the gifted. In nearly all cases, school systems representative asked to view samples of student work have prevailed. As a result, there remains an absence of and meet with students in the program, but no samlegal precedence for gifted students and their families. ples could be produced and no students were available. Without federal and state mandates, legal precedence is The principal of the elementary school testified that she critical in securing appropriate programs and services was unaware of a gifted program in her school, and for the gifted. the gifted teacher (who happened to be the plaintiff’s sister) was not teaching a class during the 2001–2002 school years. The court found all of plaintiff’s arguments to be The Office for Civil Rights without merit and supported the school board’s decision to terminate her employment. The Office for Civil Rights in the US Department of In Professional Standards Commission v. Denham Education is designated to enforce five federal civil (2001), issues involved the suspension of a teacher’s rights laws. The laws prohibit discrimination pertainteaching certificate. A teacher had changed answers on ing to color, national origin, race, sex, disability and a child’s Iowa Test of Basic Skills Test (ITBS) from age in activities and programs receiving federal assiscorrect to incorrect because she did not think the stutance. Equal access to education and the promotion of dent should qualify for the gifted program. educational excellence is the mission of OCR. The maThe school board issued a written reprimand and jor responsibilities of OCR include investigating combarred the teacher from administering the ITBS test in plaints, compliance reviews, and providing technical the future. The Professional Standards Commission in assistance to institutions to achieve voluntary complithe state of Georgia referred the matter to the Office of ance with OCR standards (Karnes & Marquardt, 1994). State Administrative Hearings with a recommendation Three major studies have been reported on the that the teacher’s teaching certificate be suspended for investigations of OCR involving gifted students

70

Gifted Education and Legal Issues

(Karnes & Marquardt, 1994; Karnes, Troxclair, & Marquardt, 1997; Karnes, Stephens, & McCard, 2008). From 1985 to 1991, there were 48 letters of finding pertaining to the gifted (Karnes & Marquardt, 1994), and OCR data from 1992 to 1995 revealed 38 cases involving the gifted (Karnes et al., 1997). From 2000 to 2006, Karnes et al. (2008) reported 56 letters of findings from 25 states. During this time, Florida had the highest number of investigated complaints (seven). The major issues from 2000 to 2006 were identification and admissions to programs. Two letters of findings pertained to age, two to gender, eight to national origin, seventeen to disabilities, and twenty-seven to race. It must be emphasized that there are no quotas or percentages of protected classes of students in gifted education set forth by OCR. Rather school districts must prove that their policies do not discriminate against these students. Some guidelines school systems might take into consideration to ensure compliance follow.

r r

r r r

r r

Appoint a bi-racial committee to establish guidelines for screening and identification procedures which do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, disability, gender, and age. Determine the eligibility criteria, including multiple criteria for eligibility and multiple assessment measures. Inform all parents, students, and the community about the screening and identification procedures and program(s). Provide staff development on an annual basis for all certified school personnel about the characteristics, nature, and needs of all gifted and talented students. Utilize nondiscriminatory screening criteria and procedures which are directly related to the purpose of the gifted program. Ensure that all approved assessment instruments/measures are validated with respect to the population for whom they are being used; the instruments/measures accurately assess the abilities/skills intended to be measured; and the abilities/skills are consistent with the definition of the gifted used at the local/state level. Monitor by race, disability, gender, and age, the number of students nominated and identified in each individual school in the district to determine that discrimination does not occur. Initiate change, if and when needed.

1339

r

Appoint a bi-racial appeals committee for the district.

OCR has worked in many ways to represent and protect gifted students from underserved populations. In 2000, OCR collaborated with a state educational agency to ensure that all students with outstanding abilities had access to gifted and talented programs (OCR, 2000). In addition, OCR commissioned a study in 2002 by the National Academy of Sciences entitled Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education (Donovan & Cross, 2002). This report examined the underrepresentation of minority students in programs for the gifted and made recommendations to increase participation. The OCR has proven to be a viable vehicle for resolving discrimination on issues involving race, color, national origin, sex, disability and age in programs and activities receiving federal assistance. Karnes and Marquardt (1994) emphasized that complainants can delineate the issues, provide information, and discuss proposed solutions without worrying about technical court procedures. The underserved gifted must continue to be represented and protected, and this federal agency works to accomplish that goal.

Implications for Future Policy Development Policies help determine the major elements of programs such as

r r r r

Who receives the special resources (eligibility)? Who delivers the resources (teacher qualification)? What are the resources to be delivered (programming)? What are the conditions under which the resources are delivered (method of delivery)? (Gallagher, 2002)

Without detailed and comprehensive policies, guidelines, and/or regulations to address these questions, disputes are certain to arise between parents and schools. Gallagher (2002) outlines four major sources of educational policies: (1) state and federal legislation, (2) court decisions, (3) administrative rules, and (4) professional standards (i.e., professional preparation standards). With no federal mandate, limited state legis-

1340

lation, and minimal legal precedence, parents have an uphill battle in acquiring appropriate services for their child. In addition, there are a multitude of forces that have influenced policy development both positively and negatively in gifted education. Societal views and perceptions of the gifted have hampered the development of sustained policies to support the educational needs of the gifted as evidenced in the ongoing excellence vs. equity debate. Those favoring equity believe that educating gifted students is “contrary to equity principles” (Gallagher, 2002, p. vii), and those supporting excellence feel that individual accomplishments are crucial to the development of society. Supporters of gifted education have been working vigilantly for the benefit of gifted students, but seem to return to the same issues over and over again. Tannenbaum (1988) indicates that the field seems to be stuck on a treadmill. For example, in 1968, a White House Task Force on Gifted Persons commissioned by President Lyndon B. Johnson compiled a report detailing the issues that the federal government should address to ensure that exceptional talent within the United States is appropriately nurtured. The same recommendations that were made in this report nearly 40 years ago are still being sought today (Stephens, 2008). How far has the field really come over the years? What can be done to facilitate further progress? Gallagher (2002) refers to hot and cool problems in our society. Unfortunately the status of gifted education is not perceived to be a “hot” problem by most policymakers. However, there are many current “hot” problems that gifted education has a direct impact on, and the relationship between gifted education and these critical areas needs to be emphasized, so that conversations regarding the educational needs of the gifted and talented are brought to the table when educational policies are being discussed and developed. In the white paper entitled Tapestry of Talent: Educating North Carolina’s Gifted and Talented for the 21st Century (Stephens, 2006), the critical issues pertaining to education, business and industry, healthcare, immigration, social class, and homeland security are discussed in the context of gifted education. In helping policymakers clearly see the direct relationships between gifted education and these other “hot” areas, it is hoped that support for educational programs and services for the gifted and talented will be increased thus included in future policy discussions and decisions.

F.A. Karnes and K.R. Stephens

Conclusion It is evident that there is little consistency across the United States regarding identification procedures and services for gifted students. Even with the presence of a state mandate, high-quality and long-term services for the gifted are not guaranteed as funds to support such mandates may not be adequately appropriated (Passow & Rudnitski, 1994). The challenge in the field of gifted education lies in moving school systems to proactively address the needs of their gifted students regardless of the presence of an imposed mandate. In doing so, schools can ensure that all students, including the gifted, have the opportunity to develop their talents.

References Ahearn, E. (2002, April). Due process hearings: 2001 update. Retrieved on July 31, 2006, from http://www. projectforum.org/docs/due process hearings 2001.pdf Bar-Lev, N. B., Neustadt, S., & Marshall, P. (2002). Considering mediation for special education disputes: A school administrator’s perspective. [Brochure]. Eugene, OR: Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education. (ERIC Reproduction Document Service No. ED471809). Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Gallagher, J. J. (2002). Society’s role in educating gifted students: The role of public policy. [Monograph]. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED476370). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004). Karnes, F. A., & Marquardt, R. G. (1991). Gifted children and the law: Mediation, due process, and court cases. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential. Karnes, F. A., & Marquardt, R. G. (1994). Gifted education and discrimination: The role of the Office for Civil Rights. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 87–94. Karnes, F. A., & Marquardt, R. G. (1997). Know your legal rights in gifted education. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (Eric Reproduction Document Service No. ED415590). Karnes, F. A., & Marquardt, R. G. (2000). Gifted children and legal issues: An update. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential. Karnes, F. A., Stephens, K. R., McCard, E. (2008). Legal issues in gifted education. In F. A. Karnes & K. R. Stephens (Eds.), Achieving excellence: Educating the gifted and talented (pp. 18–35). Columbus, OH: Pearson Merrill/Prentice Hall. Karnes, F. A., Troxclair, D. A., & Marquardt, R. G. (1997). The Office of Civil Rights and the gifted: An update. Roeper Review, 19, 162–165.

70

Gifted Education and Legal Issues

Karnes, F. A., Troxclair, D. A., & Marquardt, R. G. (1998). Due process in gifted education. Roeper Review, 20, 297–301. Mathews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2005). Being smart about gifted children: A guidebook for parents and educators. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential. M¨onks, F. J., & Pfl¨uger, R. (2005, February). Gifted education in 21 European countries: Inventory and perspective. Retrieved January 5, 2007, from http://www. bmbf.de/pub/gifted education 21 eu countries.pdf National Association for Gifted Children. (2005). The state of the states report. Washington, DC: Author. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (1998). State mediation systems: A NASDSE report. Retrieved July 18, 2006, from http://www.directionservice.org/ cadre/qta-1a.cfm# Office for Civil Rights. (2000). Annual report to Congress. Retrieved August 9, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/about/ offices/list/ocr/AnnRpt2000/edlite-index.html Passow, H. A., & Rudnitski, R. A. (1994). Transforming policy to enhance educational services for the gifted. Roeper Review, 16, 271–275. Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2004). Gifted guidelines. Harrisburg, PA: Author. Retrieved August 3, 2006, from http://www.pagiftededucation.info/ pdf/GiftedGuidelines.pdf Stephens, K. R. (2008). Applicable federal and state policy, law and legal considerations in gifted education. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of gifted & talented: A psychological approach. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Stephens, K. R. (2000, January/February). Gifted education and the law. Gifted Child Today, 23, 30–37. Stephens, K. R. (Ed.). (2006). Tapestry of talent: Educating North Carolina’s gifted and talented for the 21st century. Retrieved December 7, 2006, from http://www.tip.duke.edu/resources/Tapestry of Talent.pdf Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S., Chen, C., Kato, K., & Londo, W. (1995). Education of gifted and talented students in China, Taiwan, and Japan. In P. O’Connell-Ross (Ed.), National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. An anthology of readings (pp. 27–60). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED372582). Tannenbaum, A. (1988). The gifted movement: Forward or on a treadmill. [Monograph]. West Lafayette, IN: Gifted Education Resource Institute. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED315949). White House Task Force on the Education of Gifted Persons. (1968). Talent development: An investment in the nation’s future. A report to the President. Available through the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library. Zirkel, P. A. (2004). The case law on gifted education: A new look. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 309–314. Zirkel, P. A. (2005). The law on gifted education (Rev. ed.). [Research Monograph 05178R]. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

1341

Court Cases Bennett v. City School District of New Rochelle, 497 N.Y.S. 2d 72, 80 (App. Div. 1985). Broadley v. Board of Education, 639 A.2d 502 (Conn. 1994). Brownsville Area School Dist. v. Student X, 729 A.2d 198 (Pa. Commw. 1999). Carlynton School District v. D. S., 815 A. 2d 666 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003). Centennial School District v. Commonwealth Department of Education, 539 A.2d 785 (Pa. 1988). Central York School District v. Commonwealth Department of Education, 41 Pa. Commw. 383; 399 A.2d 167 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979). Conrad Weiser Area School District v. Department of Education, 603 A.2d 701 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1992). Ellis v. Chester Upland School Dist., 651 A.2d 616, 618 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994). Ford v. Long Beach Unified School District, 291 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2002). Gateway School District v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Education, 559 A.2d 118 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989). Howze-Campbell v. Mound Bayou School District, 914 So.2d 1284 (Miss. App. 2005). Huldah A. v. Easton Area School District, 601 A.2d 860 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1992). Lisa H. v. Board of Education, 447 A.2d 669 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1982). Luping Qu v. North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics, No. 04 CV 06351 (NC Super. Ct. 2005). New Brighton Area School Dist. v. Matthew Z., 697 A.2d 1056, 1058 (Pa. Commw. 1997). Professional Standards Commission v. Denham, 252 Ga. App. 785 (Ga. App. 2001). Rosenfeld v. Montgomery County Public School, 41 F. Supp.2d 581 (D. Md. 1999) (4th Cir. 2001). Saucon Valley School Dist. v. Robert O., 785 A.2d 1069, 1075 (Pa. Commw. 2001). Scott S. v. Commonwealth Department of Education, 512 A.2d 790 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1986). Student Doe v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 593 F. Supp. 54 (E.D. Pa 1984). Student Roe v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 638 F. Supp. 929 (E.D. Pa 1987). Woodland Hills School District v. Commonwealth Department of Education, 516 A.2d 875 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1986). Wright v. Ector County Independent School District, 867 S.W.2d 863 (Tx. App. Ct. 1993). York Suburban School Dist. v. S.P., 872 A.2d 1285, 1287 (Pa. Commw. 2005). Zweifel v. Joint District No. 1, Belleville, 251 N.W.2d 822 (Wis. 1977).

Part XIII

Giftedness Research and Gifted Education Around the World: Institutional and Regional Examples

Chapter 71

Swimming in Deep Waters: 20 Years of Research About Early University Entrance at the University of Washington Kathleen D. Noble and Sarah A. Childers

Abstract Radical acceleration from secondary school to university is an unusual educational option in the United States of America, yet it is one that more than 500 gifted young scholars have chosen at the University of Washington in Seattle since the inception of the Early Entrance Program in 1977 and the UW Academy for Young Scholars in 2001. From the beginning, research, using multiple methodologies, has carefully guided the evolution of these programs. The findings from these studies and recommendations for viable and successful early entrance programs are discussed in the context of early entrants’ intellectual, emotional, and social needs. Keywords University of Washington · UW Academy for Young Scholars · Radical acceleration · Early Entrance Program

Introduction Cultivating promising young scholars is one of the best investments that any society can make in its future. The Halbert and Nancy Robinson Center for Young Scholars (Robinson Center) at the University of Washington (UW) in Seattle has been actively making that investment for almost 30 years through innovative programs and services that nurture young scholars’ intellectual, social, and emotional development, inspire them to achieve personal and professional excellence, and encourage them to become active members of their comK.D. Noble (B) University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA e-mail: [email protected]

munities. Each year, the Center serves several thousand families and youth throughout the State of Washington in a variety of ways. These include the Washington Search for Young Scholars, a regional academic talent search for students in fourth through eighth grade; Summer Stretch and Summer Challenge, accelerated courses for students in fifth through ninth grade; the Transition School (TS) and Early Entrance Program (EEP) for students who enter the UW after Grades 7 or 8; and the UW Academy for Young Scholars (Academy) for students who enter the UW after Grade 10. Faculty, staff, and students are involved in ongoing research about the short and long-term effects of educational acceleration on young scholars. This research is used to refine existing programs and inform the Robinson Center’s new directions. This chapter will focus on research about students in the EEP and the Academy with an emphasis on their intellectual, emotional, and social development. At the time of this writing, there are 18 early entrance programs in the United States of America (US), including two at the UW, that differ in significant ways. (See Brody, Muratori, & Stanley, 2004, for all program descriptions.) Eleven are residential; seven, including the UW’s programs, are for commuters. Some programs expect students to transfer to another college or university after a period of 2 years; others admit students only in 12th grade. One admits only women (Grades 9–12), and two are accelerated high schools. One program was loosely modeled on the UW EEP but does not offer students the formal academic preparation provided by TS, a preparatory program for the EEP that is discussed in detail below. The UW is the only university in the US to offer two unique early entrance options for academically talented students. In 1977 the EEP was created so that each year 16 gifted

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 71, 

1345

1346

young scholars could accelerate their education by entering the university prior to age 15. Then, in 2001, the Academy became a second early entrance option for students after Grade 10, admitting its first cohort of 35 students in Autumn 2002. Since its inception, the Robinson Center has been committed to conducting research to better understand and provide for students’ intellectual, academic, social, and emotional well-being, as well as to guide program development. Thus far, 15 studies have investigated multiple aspects of early university entrance from both students’ and parents’ perspectives, using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. These studies span the earliest years of the program to the present and include Janos and Robinson, 1985; Janos, Sanfilippo, and Robinson, 1986; Robinson and Janos, 1986; Janos et al., 1988; Janos, Robinson, and Lunneborg, 1989; Noble and Drummond, 1992; Noble, Robinson, and Gunderson, 1993; Noble and Smyth, 1995; Noble, Arndt, Nicholsen, Sletten, and Zamora, 1999; Halvorsen, Noble, Robinson, and Sisko, 2000; Noble, Vaughan, Chan, Federow, and Hughes, 2005; Noble et al., 2007; Childers, 2006; Noble, Childers, and Vaughan, 2008; and Noble and Childers, 2008. A brief discussion of the history and structure of both the EEP and the Academy will place this body of work in context.

The Early Entrance Program Since 1977, the EEP has been the gateway through which some of the brightest young scholars in Washington State enter the UW, the premier research university in the Pacific Northwestern region of the United States. Each year 16 students under the age of 15 are admitted to the preparatory Transition School (TS) on campus, which compresses most of secondary school into three academic quarters. Students graduate to the EEP at the end of the year and become fully matriculated UW undergraduates. To date 352 students have participated in the EEP. Of these, 13 students are currently enrolled in TS and 58 in the EEP; 250 have graduated from UW and 20 have transferred to and graduated from other colleges and universities. Only 11 students who proceeded to EEP later left school altogether, and their educational status is unknown.

K.D. Noble and S.A. Childers

The EEP was created by the late Dr. Halbert Robinson, a professor of developmental psychology at the UW. His goal was to enable a small and carefully selected group of academically advanced middle school students to accelerate into postsecondary education at a pace equal to their intellectual development (Robinson & Robinson, 1982). At the outset, EEP students could be dually enrolled in middle school and the UW, but it quickly became apparent that this divided their loyalties and diluted their satisfaction with their university experiences. By the third year of the program, dual enrollment was abandoned and students became full time UW students upon admission to the EEP. Initially, there was no formal TS. Students participated in an informal “transition component” of weekly group meetings led by the program’s psychologist, and they could avail themselves of mentoring, academic advising, and personal counseling as needed from the faculty and staff. When Dr. Hal Robinson died in 1981, Dr. Nancy Robinson, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at UW, assumed directorship and made a major programmatic change. She recognized that many EEP students were struggling with the rigor demanded by their university courses, particularly in mathematics and the sciences, and that they needed more than high intelligence to succeed at the university. Specifically, many needed more rigorous preparation in particular content areas and study skills, such as time management, organization, critical analysis, and scholarly writing. Thus, TS was born. Since 1981, all EEP students spend their first academic year in TS. The academic structure of TS has stayed much the same since 1981 although significant changes in faculty have occurred, and some new courses have been added. TS follows the quarter-based academic calendar of the UW. During their first year in the program, students take five courses: English (Writing and Literature), History (Medieval and Modern Western Civilization, and US history), Physics, Pre-Calculus, and Ethics. During the third TS quarter, Physics and Ethics are replaced with a five-credit university course of their choice so that students can take it while still under the protective umbrella of TS faculty and staff. At one time TS students undertook one quarter of language training in German, but this course was dropped in favor of a second quarter of Physics after research revealed that students needed better preparation in science. In 1990 a one-quarter seminar that prepares TS students for their entry into UW was added to the curriculum,

71

Swimming in Deep Waters

as were a one-quarter service-learning component to the English course in 1998 and a two-quarter Ethics seminar in 2002. Some changes in personnel have, of course, occurred over the years. All faculty members are doctoral trained experts in their academic fields; many are also UW professors. Faculty turnover is remarkably low. The English instructor, who is the Associate Director of the Robinson Center for TS and EEP and who also serves as Principal of TS, joined the faculty in 1996; the history instructor, who is the Associate Director of the Robinson Center for Summer Programs and also serves as Principal of Summer Programs, joined in 1990. Although the current math instructor was appointed in 2004, her predecessor was a member of the TS faculty for 15 years. A licensed psychologist was available for academic and personal advising from the onset of the program until 2008. The first author was the director of the Robinson Center and the first Halbert and Nancy Robinson professor from 2000–2008. This continuity of faculty has provided students with a great deal of academic and emotional stability both during and after their participation in TS and the EEP and has enabled the Robinson Center to continuously refine its programs and policies as circumstances warranted. Policy refinements have largely involved admissions and retention. On several occasions during earlier years of TS and the EEP, some students revealed that they had entered the program because their parents wished them to but that they had been ambivalent or had wished they had attended high school. Thus, in 1998 the faculty decided to pay more attention to whether the student or parent was driving the choice to come to TS, and the admissions interviews were restructured so that all applicants would have an opportunity to talk with the admissions committee without their parents present. This enabled the committee to ascertain whether the student was making the independent decision to apply to TS and not simply acquiescing to parental desires. Applicants to EEP must take the ACT and submit their scores along with grades from their two most recent years of schooling. For those who have scored at the 85 percentile on the reading, writing, and math sections of the ACT and whose grades are consistently high, in-depth recommendations are discussed with two or three of each applicant’s current teachers, preferably one from language arts/social sciences and

1347

the other from math/science. Each applicant and her or his parent/s must spend a full day attending TS and visiting with current TS and EEP students; at the end of that day, interviews are held with parent/s and student, separately and together. Although TS used to have a rolling admissions procedure, in 1997 the decision was made to interview all the candidates before selecting the final class to ensure fairness for those who applied later in the admissions cycle. Each year approximately 25% of applicants are accepted to TS, which limits its class size to 16. Another important refinement was a clearly defined policy for dismissal. Although earlier in TS’ history students were occasionally counseled out of the program, they were not dropped for poor grades. This is no longer the case. At entry TS students now sign a written contract stating that they can be dismissed for poor academic performance or for rendering the classroom environment emotionally unsafe for other students. If such a situation arises, the student is given a brief probationary period and will be dismissed from the program if he or she does not comply with the terms of probation. When students graduate from TS at the end of the year, they become full-time undergraduates at UW (Seattle) and are known to the Robinson Center community as EEPers. Our involvement with them continues in a variety of ways. The UW is an academic home to approximately 36,000 undergraduate and graduate students, and it would be all too easy for young scholars to feel lost on the Seattle campus. Thus, a number of support services are available to them through the EEP. Perhaps most importantly, students have access to a lounge at the Robinson Center where they can meet friends, study, play games, visit with faculty, and consult with advisors. A seminar on developing their particular talents and academic interests is offered for all first-year EEPers to encourage them to take advantage of the vast resources available at UW. Students are mentored at various stages of their undergraduate careers by Robinson Center faculty, and many students have served as undergraduate research assistants for studies undertaken at the Robinson Center and received co-authorship on the resulting publications. Others have served as teaching assistants for TS and other Robinson Center academic programs. EEPers are required to meet with program staff once each quarter during their freshman year, and their academic performance is monitored on a quarterly

1348

basis so that staff can help students if they are experiencing personal difficulties and/or their GPAs fall below a certain level, typically 3.3 on a 4-point scale. EEP students created a highly successful drama society in 1990, and every year produce, direct, design the sets and costumes for, and act in a play that is open to the public at large. There is also a faculty-led hiking club, an overnight orientation for entering TS students and first-year EEPers at the beginning of each academic year, and an end-of-the-year overnight celebration for the entire community at a camp on the Puget Sound. Parent involvement is also an important component of TS. Each year new TS parents are welcomed by faculty and EEP parents to the Robinson Center community with a picnic in early September. They participate in a parent orientation prior to the start of TS that includes a conversation with faculty, EEP parents, and EEP students about the challenges of TS, and a potluck dinner with faculty later that evening where more of their questions and concerns can be aired. Quarterly parent meetings are held during Autumn and Winter Quarters to talk about students’ academic progress and to introduce parents to the academic requirements of the UW. A parent email list is provided, and a parent support group led by EEP parents is also available to TS parents. As of December 2006, 250 EEPers had graduated from the UW and 20 had transferred to and graduated from another college or university. EEP students have majored in fields as diverse as music, classics, biochemistry, computer science, and dance, and many have completed two or three majors, often in disparate fields. EEPers have won a disproportionately large number of prestigious scholarships and research opportunities at UW. For example, since 2000, three of the four Rhodes Scholars at UW have been members of EEP, and a fourth was a Rhodes Finalist in 2004. Five EEP students have been Goldwater Scholars, two were Marshall Scholars, six were UW Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, or Senior Medalists (the students with the highest scholastic standing in their respective classes), three were NASA Space Grant Scholars, and many have won other scholarships and grants for foreign study, undergraduate research, music performance, and various academic endeavors. Each quarter, a majority of EEPers earn places on the Dean’s List for high academic performance.

K.D. Noble and S.A. Childers

The UW Academy for Young Scholars After many years of interviewing applicants for the EEP and consulting with parents and teachers about the educational needs of gifted secondary students in Washington State, it became apparent in 1998 that a second early university entrance option was needed for students after Grade 10. The form this program would take evolved over the next few years. One option that we considered initially was Running Start (RS). RS is a dual-enrollment program through which high school students take classes at community colleges and earn credit for both high school and college, as well as a high school diploma. After carefully researching several RS programs in Washington (Halvorsen et al., 2000) the Robinson Center recommended that the RS option be rejected in favor of establishing a joint program with the UW Honors Program (Honors) that would admit annually 35 academically advanced high school students into Honors after Grade 10. This program became known as the UW Academy for Young Scholars (Academy). Unlike RS, Academy students (ACADs) would not be dual enrolled in high school nor would they earn high school diplomas but instead would be fully matriculated UW undergraduates. Because a diploma is not required to enroll at UW, they, like EEPers, would be given special admissions status until all their high school coursework equivalencies were completed, usually by the end of their first year. In July 2001, the first author and the Director of Honors received a 1-year start-up grant from the UW to create the Academy with the understanding that, like the EEP, it would be self-sustaining after the first year. Like the EEP, the Academy was designed as a commuter-based program, although students could choose to live in the dorms or in off-campus housing. The Robinson Center coordinates admissions to the Academy and supports students through first-year programming, academic advising, and social opportunities for students to build community with their Academy and EEP peers. Academy students matriculate directly into Honors through which they complete their UW general education requirements before pursuing their major/s. Early in the history of the EEP the Robinson Center entered into a contract with the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) that directed students’ basic education funds

71

Swimming in Deep Waters

to the EEP rather than to the secondary schools they would otherwise have attended. These funds are used to provide all the special academic and support services available to EEPers. Successful negotiations were undertaken to extend this contract to the Academy, thereby enabling the Academy to be self-sustaining as well. By November 2001, key staff members were hired and/or reassigned; within 6 months a first-year curriculum, faculty, and admissions procedures were decided, and students were recruited via direct mail and an information evening. When the first cohort of students was admitted in May, 2002, the Academy was born. First-year students quickly named themselves “Academy 1.0s,” and the name stuck – subsequent cohorts have become known, informally, as “2.0s,” “3.0s,” and “4.0s”, and, in September 2006, a new class of “5.0s” matriculated. Thus far, 202 ACADs have enrolled at UW. The Academy is currently the only commuter-based program in the United States that admits students to fully matriculated university status after 10th Grade. Like the EEP, the Academy is designed to help students make a smooth and successful transition from secondary school to university, and students have full access to the support services and community of the Robinson Center until they graduate from UW. Unlike some early entrance programs at other US institutions, neither ACADs nor EEPers are expected or encouraged to transfer to another college or university. The admissions procedure and first-year structure for the Academy are different than that of the EEP because applicants are entering UW after 10th grade, rather than after 7th or 8th, and do not attend prescribed courses except for two during their first quarter. Academy candidates are required to submit a standard UW Freshman application, the ACT college entrance examination, two confidential, written teacher recommendations, their mid-year sophomore high school transcript, and an essay required for Honors consideration. During the first year of the Academy, all applicants were interviewed prior to acceptance to the program; however, for the second and subsequent years a decision was made to drop the interview because it did not yield the most useful information. A composite ranking is constructed based on each applicant’s cumulative high school grade point average at the conclusion of first semester, sophomore year; the ACT composite score; teacher recommendations (rated on a scale of 1–60); an index of the

1349

intensity of each student’s secondary curriculum; and an essay score. The 35 top-ranked applicants are then invited to enroll in the Academy. All prospective Academy students are invited and encouraged to spend a day at UW shadowing ACADs from previous years prior to accepting an offer of admission. Each year approximately 30% of applicants are invited to join the Academy; after the first year, acceptance rates have exceeded 90%. One question that arose early in the creation of the Academy was what combination of academic and advising features would work best for ACADs. We knew from previous experience that in order to succeed as early entrants ACADs would need many of the same programmatic components as did EEPers, such as a period of intellectual preparation, a peer group, a home base, formal and informal advising, counseling, and mentoring by faculty and staff who liked and understood gifted adolescents, and a welcoming university environment. Because of the long-running success of the EEP, all these components were in place. Unlike EEPers, however, ACADs were entering UW after having completed 2 years of high school and thus do not need the full year of academic preparation offered by TS. Still, some preparation to help them transition smoothly into the academic and social life of the UW was important. For this reason, an Academy Bridge Program (Bridge) was created. At this time, Bridge has four components: a 2-day orientation (Academy Camp) in early September at a camp on the Puget Sound; a 2-week Honors course (HA&S 397) with discussion sections before and after camp; the continuing Honors course during Autumn Quarter, linked to an English Composition course (ENGL 198); and a Winter Quarter seminar (Academy 198) for first-year ACADS (and EEPers) that helps them explore the resources and opportunities afforded by UW as well as their own interests and goals. ACADs share with EEPers a designated academic counselor, and various social activities that help to build a cohesive sense of community are initiated by students and staff throughout the year. The Academy is only in its sixth year of operation, but already its students are proving to be exceptional young scholars. For example, in 2006, the three UW students selected as Goldwater Scholars were members of the Academy. One of these students was also the UW Sophomore Medalist in 2005, the recipient of a School of Music Performance Scholarship in 2004,

1350

and the 2004 Outstanding Freshman Calculus Student. Another Goldwater Scholar was an undergraduate research assistant (RA) at the Robinson Center for 2 years for which he received a Mary Gates Undergraduate Research Training Grant. The second Robinson Center undergraduate RA was selected to participate in a year-long foreign exchange program in China to conduct independent research for her senior thesis in Economics. An Academy student also won the Department of Chemistry’s 2004 Freshman Chemistry Award. Like their EEP counterparts, many ACADs have won prestigious research training grants, internships, scholarships, departmental awards, admission to foreign exchange programs, and election to national honors societies, and the majority are on the Dean’s List at the end of each academic quarter. In June 2006 the Academy celebrated its first UW graduates. Nine ACADs earned bachelor’s degrees in such fields as Spanish, International Studies, Bioengineering, Computer Science and Engineering, Psychology, Architecture, English, Economics, and Music. Several of these students had completed double majors. Academy parents are invited with their newly admitted students to a welcoming reception in May and participate in a parent orientation in June. The parent orientation has evolved over the years as we have learned more about Academy parents’ needs. It now consists of a half-day session during which we advise parents about the UW academic requirements and the Robinson Center’s advising philosophy, and discuss the social and emotional transitions that they and their students are likely to experience based on our experience and prior research. The orientation concludes with a question and answer period led by a panel of Academy students and parents from previous years. Because their students are older, there is no Academy parent support group similar to that of TS; however, we offer parents a roster of parents’ addresses and emails and encourage them to contact each other for assistance and advice.

K.D. Noble and S.A. Childers

to evaluate the young EEP. The first study (Robinson & Janos, 1986) compared the academic performance of EEPers with classmates who had entered UW at the traditional age of 18. The issue with which the investigators were most concerned was whether radical acceleration was too much of an academic challenge for early entrants. In the first phase of this study, 24 EEPers and 24 regular-aged students (REGS) were matched for pre-entry achievement on the verbal and quantitative composite scores of the Washington Pre-College Test (WPCT). In the second phase, a comparison group of 23 National Merit Scholars (NATS) was matched to EEPers by year of entry to UW and by gender, although not by WPCT scores. All three groups were administered two measurements of academic performance: the Concept Mastery Test (to assess verbal ability differences among groups) and a questionnaire designed by the investigators to assess students’ perceptions of their university experience. Students rated on a scale of 1– 5 the importance they ascribed to five academic variables at UW (the pace and quality of instruction, the intellectual quality of courses, faculty attitudes and time for interaction with faculty) and their satisfaction with the university’s fulfillment of these variables. Participants’ UW transcripts were also examined for number of credit hours taken and cumulative GPA. Although no significant differences were found among the groups in the number of UW credits earned, significant differences were found in the CMT total score and the cumulative GPA, with means for REGS substantially lower than means for the two other groups. EEPers’ mean ratings of the importance of various academic characteristics were similar to NATS, but their satisfaction with the academic environment provided by UW was significantly higher. The authors concluded that “under propitious circumstances certain students who matriculate before the age of 15 can perform well academically at the university level and report satisfaction with the intellectual challenge” (p. 178). The next study examined the incidence and causes of “underachievement” among EEPers (Janos Research About Early Entrance at the UW et al., 1986). The authors acknowledged that because underachievement was a difficult concept to define in this highly accelerated population, they used what Early EEP (1977–1989) they determined should be the “least objectionable criterion” – a cumulative GPA of 2.9 or below (p. 304). In 1982 the Robinson Center, then named the Child De- Participants included 56 undergraduates and graduates velopment Research Group, began a research program of EEP (nFemales=25, nMales=31), to whom the

71

Swimming in Deep Waters

authors administered multiple instruments. Participants’ intellectual ability was first assessed using Washington Pre-College Test (WPCT). Academic information was gleaned from participants’ transcripts and included cumulative GPA; number of course withdrawals; number of credits earned and grades received in Honors courses and in four academic disciplines (humanities, engineering, natural sciences, and social sciences); and number of courses that were not completed. Other measures included the Concept Mastery Test (CMT); five personality variables on the California Personality Inventory (CPI) relevant to achievement (responsibility, self-control, achievement via conformance, achievement via independence, and intellectual efficiency); an assessment of students’ perceptions of their families’ interpersonal relationships, directions for personal growth, and organization and structure using the Family Environment Scale (FES); and an evaluation of students’ knowledge and attitudes about studying using the Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes (SSHA). Finally, students completed the questionnaire developed for the previously reported study in which they rated the importance of and their satisfaction with various components of their UW academic experience. Students also rated the importance of and their satisfaction with time spent and quality of interaction with peers. Twelve participants (nFemales=4, nMales=8) were described as “underachievers” because their GPAs were 1.5 standard deviations below the mean of 3.36. Transcript data showed that underachieving students earned fewer credits in honors courses and lower grades in all subjects. There were no differences in the number of credits earned in any subject area, but underachievers had withdrawn from nearly twice as many courses and took incompletes more than twice as often as high-achieving students. Transcript patterns also revealed that achieving students tended to perform consistently across quarters, whereas underachievers varied between “successful” and “dismal” quarters (p. 308). No significant differences on any measure were observed. Overall, both groups “placed a high value on learning, and on developing peer relations and extracurricular competencies as well” (p. 310). Despite the comprehensiveness of their measures, the authors could discern no underlying or common source of EEPers’ underachievement. The third study (Robinson & Janos, 1986) investigated students’ social and psychological adjustment

1351

to academic acceleration. The authors compared data they had collected between March 1982 and October 1984 from 4 groups of students: 24 EEPers; 23 NATS; 24 REGS; and 27 students who had qualified for EEP but had chosen to attend high school instead (QUALS). Four instruments were used: the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), which measures serious psychopathology; the California Personality Inventory (CPI), which measures higher levels of psychological functioning; the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (TSC), which gives a global estimate of self-esteem; and the Inventory of Peer and Parent Attachment (IPPA), which assesses the affective quality of students’ relationships with parents and peers. No significant differences were found among groups on any measure, and the authors concluded that accelerants were as well adjusted as non-accelerants. The social and emotional fitness of early university entrance as an educational option for participants in EEP in its earliest days was thus confirmed. In a fourth study conducted in 1986 (Janos et al., 1988), Janos, Robinson, and several EEP undergraduate students addressed the issue of friendships among early entrants. These investigators designed a cross-sectional developmental study of social relations among the 63 EEPers (nFemales=28, nMales=35) that enrolled at UW. Participants completed a questionnaire about the age of their best friends and the age of five additional friends, as well as supplied details about their relationships with two types of friends – age mates (<3 years older) and elders (≥3 years older). Questions included the number of hours they spent in 1 week with age mates and/or elders, the number of times in the past week they spoke with friends in each group about 10 potentially sensitive topics (e.g., relationships with parents and friends, deep feelings, values, and life plans), and their rating on an 8-point scale of six variables having to do with the degree of trust and affection they felt within their relationships, the duration and dedication of these relationships, and their freedom to communicate criticism or hostility within them. From this last rating an intimacy score was constructed. Participants were grouped into four cohorts for purposes of comparison: freshmen, sophomores, juniors/seniors, and graduates. The results of this study indicated that EEPers in all cohorts were socially well situated. Ninety-two percent had best friends, many of whom were older, and 68% had at least

1352

five additional friends whom they considered close. Sophomores reported the most contact with age mates and graduates the least, whereas graduates reported spending more time with elders than did the other three groups of undergraduates. In all cohorts except freshmen, females communicated more often with age mates about sensitive topics than did males, but this difference was not statistically significant. The authors concluded that a large majority of EEPers experienced a viable social life with intimates and a circle of friends, thereby counteracting the pervasive stereotype of the early university entrant as an isolated social misfit. The last study conducted in the EEP’s earliest years (Janos et al., 1989) was a multiyear comparison of EEPers’ academic performance and psychological adjustment. The investigators followed 179 participants in four groups over a period of 3 years: EEPS who had entered the UW between 1977 and 1983; QUALS who were the same age as EEPers but had elected to attend high school instead of joining the EEP; REGS (traditional-aged students at UW who were four and one half years older than EEPers and matched to them by year of matriculation, gender, and secondary school catchment area); and NATS (traditional-aged National Merit Scholarship awardees at UW who were four and one half years older than EEPers and who were matched with EEPers by year of matriculation and gender). Each group numbered between 42 and 43 with an even distribution of males and females. Some measures were administered to participants only once. These were the Concept Mastery Test (CMT), the Family Environment Scale (FES), the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (TSC), and the Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes (SSHA). Multiple year measures included students’ academic transcripts, the California Personality Inventory (CPI), the Inventory of Peer and Parent Attachment (IPPA), and the Defining Issues Test (DIT), which measures the cognitive underpinnings of mature social interactions and moral principles. In measures of intellectual and academic achievement, NATS scored higher than EEPS, with EEPS and QUALS scoring higher than REGS. No significant differences were observed for the SSHA, leading the investigators to conclude that “EEP students’ attitudes toward study and knowledge about study skills were comparable to those of the other students, including the academically oriented National Merit finalists” (p. 504). Similarly, no group differences were found

K.D. Noble and S.A. Childers

in scores on the TSC; all participants scored close to mean, which indicated that “all groups are best characterized as normal and healthy in psychological adjustment” (p. 507). Neither were significant differences observed on the CPI or the IPPA. The authors note: “EEP responses indicated they trusted and communicated with parents and peers much as did comparably bright age mates, bright older students, and typical older students” (pp. 508–511). EEP participants scored at almost exactly the same levels as QUALS, NATS, and REGS on the DIT “suggesting that they were developmentally ‘in sync’ at college” (p. 511). Significant differences were found on only two subscales of the FES, achievement orientation and moral/religious orientation, with EEP scoring lower than REGS. This finding was not surprising to the investigators because “the FES measures conventional attitudes which would probably not be valued in EEP families pursuing nontraditional options” (p. 511). Overall, the results from this study did not deviate from those found in the third study reported above. There was “no association between early entrance and psychological or social impairment. Indeed, in every comparison, the early entrants were virtually indistinguishable from comparably bright age mates who had elected to attend high school.” (p. 514)

Mature EEP (1989–Present) In the early years of the EEP, researchers were most concerned with measuring students’ academic achievement, psychosocial adjustment, and social relationships, and demonstrating the intellectual and psychological viability of early university entrance for academically advanced students. After 1990, following a change in program personnel, research attention shifted to students’ self-perceptions of the intellectual, social, and emotional aspects of early university entrance and longitudinal studies about the program’s impact on EEP graduates over time. One reason for this change in emphasis was to address the enduring myths and misconceptions about the affective aspects of radical educational acceleration; another was to provide more comprehensive information about the experience and legacy of early university entrance for prospective students, parents, and educational professionals. In the studies that follow, careful attention was

71

Swimming in Deep Waters

paid to collecting data from non-overlapping groups of students whenever possible. “When people learn about the Early Entrance Program at the University of Washington, the first question they often ask is ‘But what about the Prom?” (Noble & Drummond, 1992, p. 106). This is also the question that inspired a qualitative study of EEPers’ perceptions about early entrance conducted in 1990. Thirteen open-ended questions were developed by the authors based on questions most frequently asked of students, faculty, and staff about the EEP. Individual, structured interviews were then conducted with 24 EEPers who volunteered to participate. Participants ranged in age from 14 to 21 and comprised members of all academic classes who also represented a broad spectrum of academic disciplines. Results of this study indicated that participating in the EEP presented both benefits and challenges to most students, although the majority emphasized that much of their dissatisfaction resulted from other people’s perceptions rather than their own. As one student said, “For example, it is burdensome and annoying for EEPers to be asked frequently if they are ‘geniuses,’ to labor under an assumption that they spend (or should spend) all their time studying, or to be told ‘that we have an obligation to go on to graduate school’ and pursue a ‘worthwhile’ occupation. It never occurs to them that we might not want to become renowned research scientists or something on that level” (p. 110). Overall, students were glad to skip high school and the senior prom and stressed that high school was not a path that worked for all gifted students. Based on the results of this study, the authors urged readers “to remember. . .that early entrance may provide a more optimal educational and social environment for some highly capable students than high school, and that attending one’s prom should not be a criterion for rejecting that option” (p. 111). Might early university entrance help to inoculate gifted girls against sexist or unsupportive academic and professional environments? To answer this question a study of female EEPers was undertaken in 1993 (Noble & Smyth, 1995). The authors designed a 25-item questionnaire that interspersed open-ended questions with Likert-scale response items to ascertain why participants chose early entrance, whether gender played a role in their decision, and how their attitudes toward themselves and other’s attitudes toward them were affected by their participation in EEP. The questionnaire

1353

also included propositions about giftedness, posed by the first author in a previous study of 109 gifted adult women (Noble, 1989), that had been cited in the literature as most powerfully influencing the development of gifted women’s talent. Ninety-percent of female EEPers (n = 27) volunteered to participate in this study. They ranged in age from 14 to 20 (mean=16.8, SD=1.9) and were enrolled between 1988 and 1992. All but one respondent felt they had made the right decision to accelerate their education. Although gender was not a factor in this decision for most respondents, these young women reported a number of benefits of radical acceleration: increased confidence in themselves and in their intellectual and social skills; the experience of being surrounded by intellectual peers and therefore not having to hide their level of ability or enthusiasm for learning; and the encouragement to perform as well as their capabilities allowed. All respondents believed that participating in the EEP had positively changed their parents’ attitudes toward them, particularly in terms of their independence and ability to work hard. Respondents revealed themselves to be independent thinkers who were determined and assertive and who had a strong intrinsic motivation to succeed. Further, the authors claimed “(a)s our respondents reminded us repeatedly, students must want to undertake this kind of challenge and continue to want it, even when difficulties arise” (p. 54). The most frequently cited problem was dating men who, although of traditional college age, were considerably older than they. The authors suggested that early university entrance might offer gifted young women a rare combination of acceptance and encouragement at a critical age that could be inoculating if and when they entered less supportive environments later in their lives. Noble and Smyth concluded that “(t)aken as a whole, the findings from this study and those cited earlier clearly suggest that the most important question parents, educators, and champions of gifted girls can ask is not ‘What are the negative effects of acceleration?’, but rather ‘What are the negative consequences of not accelerating mature and self-disciplined gifted young women’ ” (p. 55)? Earlier studies about early university entrance had left little doubt about its positive effect on most participants’ academic development and their sanguine perceptions about the overall experience. The question now under consideration was how students perceived the social and emotional effects of early entrance on

1354

their own development (Noble et al., 1999). This study was prompted by concerns expressed to program faculty and staff by many adults that high school was not only desirable but necessary to the psychosocial soundness of an adolescent’s life. To address this concern, all currently enrolled EEPers were invited to reflect on their social and emotional experiences in the EEP. Thirty-one students (nFemales=16, nMales=15) chose to participate in a 1-hour focus group to explore four principal questions: How had the EEP affected you socially and emotionally? Has it been helpful or harmful? How have you changed? Have you grown up too fast? Participants, who comprised 50% of then-enrolled EEPers, ranged in age from 14 to 19, were evenly divided among all undergraduate classes, and represented a wide variety of academic majors and extracurricular interests. All believed that had they stayed in secondary school they would have been less mature, socially and emotionally. Although a few students had enjoyed satisfactory social lives in their previous schools, EEP allowed most – sometimes for the first time – to expand their sense of self beyond the “smart kid” mask they had worn for so many years (p. 78). One of the best things about early entrance, participants observed, is that the culture of university differs significantly from secondary school such that intellectual ambition and drive are not only expected but prized and rewarded by students and faculty alike. The EEP encouraged them to develop and cherish a degree of independence and assertiveness that few were allowed in secondary school. For the first time they were expected to be proactive learners, to question their own and others’ assumptions, and to express their ideas in a thoughtful and cogent manner. Furthermore, they learned to take responsibility not only for setting academic goals, but for initiating social activities inside and outside the program. Most participants said that their decision to join the EEP produced no negative social or emotional effects. All believed themselves to be more mature than they otherwise would have been, and most considered themselves well socialized with both friendships and peer and adult relations as good as or better than they might otherwise have been. Although all participants expressed varying degrees of comfort in diverse social situations, they felt confident, independent and comfortable in their social environments.

K.D. Noble and S.A. Childers

Longitudinal, Follow-Up Studies In 1992, Noble et al. (1993) carried out the first follow-up study of EEPers who had entered the program between 1977 and 1986 and two groups of students (NATS and QUALS) who had participated in two earlier studies (Janos & Robinson, 1985; Janos et al., 1989). The investigators adapted an eight-page, 47-item, follow-up questionnaire from the 24-page, 105-item post-college questionnaire developed by Stanley, Benbow, and their colleagues to follow the progress of students who had participated in the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth at Johns Hopkins University. The revised questionnaire focused on former students’ undergraduate and graduate education as well as their activities and interests, employment, achievements, and attitudes toward acceleration. In addition, questions relating to students’ values, career and lifestyle expectations, marital status, and the educational attainment of their parents and partners were included. Sixty-one former EEPers participated in the study, along with 27 NATS and 36 QUALS. These numbers represented 56, 71, and 56% of the total populations. Results indicated that respondents from all groups appeared to be doing well at that point in their lives. Most had completed their undergraduate degrees or expected to do shortly, and most had enjoyed the experience. Most were working in career-related jobs or still attending graduate or professional school. Most described themselves as relatively happy, emotionally stable, and creative, with feelings of self-worth, selfesteem, and self-efficacy, and a sense of satisfaction with their lives. Most believed strongly in the value of education and wanted to be successful in work that had meaning for them as well as have leisure time to explore their interests. Most wanted to find life partners, if they had not already done so, and to enjoy strong friendships. The majority of all groups were satisfied with the degree of acceleration or non-acceleration that they had chosen. Eleven EEPers wished they had accelerated less; significantly, nine of these respondents had entered EEP prior to the creation of TS. Like the 1985, 1986, and 1989 studies, this study found more similarities than differences among these three groups of gifted young people. EEPers’ educational aspirations tended to be higher than either of the other groups, and EEPers entered graduate school in significantly

71

Swimming in Deep Waters

higher numbers than did NATS or QUALS. However, all three groups indicated similar degrees of happiness with their lives. The authors concluded that “accelerating one’s secondary education is as healthy a decision for many highly capable students as remaining with age mates. Despite fears about psychosocial ramifications expressed by many well-meaning adults, the social and emotional development of most EEPers had neither been compromised nor harmed by acceleration” (p. 130). The second follow-up study of EEPers who were enrolled from 1977 to 2003 was conducted by Noble et al. (2007) in 2004. One reason for this study was to assess the impact of programmatic changes on the evolution of the EEP. An analysis of the EEP history revealed three distinct programmatic periods: PreTS (1977–1980), Early EEP (1981–1989), and Mature EEP (1990–present). The distinction between PreTS and Early EEP was based on the radical shift in the program that occurred with the inception of TS in 1981, whereas the difference between Early and Mature EEP resulted from major personnel changes that emphasized advising, orientation seminars, and admissions policies designed to accept self-motivated, rather than parent-motivated, students. The study was also designed to understand more fully EEP graduates’ patterns of work, education, and social affiliation. The authors designed an eight-page, 100-item questionnaire that focused on participants’ assessments of their educational and work experiences, friendships, and love relationships. Participants were asked a variety of open-ended and Likert-scaled questions; the latter used a 4-point scale to discourage neutral responses. Sample questions included are as follows: What aspects of your EEP experience do you feel were especially unique and beneficial to you, personally and professionally? Did you experience an uncomfortable level of pressure to succeed academically and/or professionally by parents, friends, EEP faculty/staff, UW faculty/staff, and/or yourself? What are the three most important traits that you look for in a romantic partner? Have you had any difficulties finding suitable friends and/or partners? What are the three most important values that you seek in employment? Have you significantly changed your career path in your lifetime? Overall, how well do you feel you have lived up to your own and your parents’ expectations in the following areas: financial, work, intellectual, friendships, family, and romantic relationships?

1355

Ninety-five of a possible 211 graduates participated in this study. Respondents included 49 females and 46 males; 53 were married or in long-term partnerships and 20 had children, whereas 61 planned to do so. Respondents’ mean age was 28 years (SD = 6.14 years). As described earlier in this chapter, the EEP had undergone a number of important changes over time in policies, procedures, and personnel; the data from this study revealed significant improvements in students’ perceptions of their early entrance experience as a result. The most important programmatic change was the 1981 creation of TS to better prepare young scholars for the rigor of university coursework and to provide a stronger sense of belonging and community for students. The results of this study clearly supported the wisdom of that decision and identified the emergence of several trends over the maturation of the program: the increased importance of the EEP peer group, the decreased influence of parental pressure to enroll, and increased intellectual readiness to succeed at the university. The number of respondents who reported that the EEP “nurtured [them] intellectually” increased from 62% in the pre-TS group to 75% in the Early EEP group to 88% in the Mature EEP group. Indeed, of the 95 respondents only one individual felt that EEP had negatively influenced her intellectual development, and she was a member of the Pre-TS cohort. Prior to 1981, students enrolled directly into the EEP without any special preparation or coordinated program that would create a supportive peer group. Not surprisingly, respondents from this sub-group (PreTS) were much less likely to cite “liking the EEP peer group” as a reason they chose for entering the program. The authors speculated that these respondents, who were the oldest in the sample population and the program’s pioneers, might have forgotten their main impetus to join the program. However, upon the introduction of TS, 50% of respondents in the Early EEP sub-group cited the EEP peer group as important or very important in their decision to join the program; in the Mature EEP sub-group, this number grew to 75%. Clearly, the presence of a cohesive peer group was extremely important to most respondents’ willingness to enter the UW as young scholars. The data indicated that EEP proved to be a social boon to most respondents. As the EEP community developed over time, not only did it become a more important factor in students’ decision to enroll in EEP but it also became a source of close friendships for many EEPers and spouses for others.

1356

The data also revealed a difference in respondents’ perceptions of the effects of gender on their achievement, and significant gender differences in satisfaction with platonic and romantic relationships. Despite comprising a special population, EEP graduates are not isolated from social and cultural forces. This was apparent in respondents’ awareness of the effects of gender on their academic and professional achievements. It is perhaps not surprising that significantly more males than females reported their gender as contributing only positively to their professional achievement and that females were more aware of the complexity of gender effects. Two women mentioned struggling with internalized gender norms, three experienced their gender simultaneously as a hindrance and a benefit, and five articulated the various ways in which their choices, opportunities, and interpersonal interactions in academia and in the workforce were influenced by their gender. The data did not suggest that females alone experience their gender in complex ways, but rather that gender continues to be a more salient factor for females in conceptualizing and explaining professional achievement than it is for males. A significant and disturbing finding that emerged from this study was gender disparity in social satisfaction. As compared to females, male respondents reported less satisfaction in past and current friendships and romantic relationships (22% vs. 54%), with 21 males citing the EEP as a specific and negative factor. Several possible explanations for this finding were proffered. Males tend to experience puberty later than females, and thus tend to reach psychological, emotional, and physical maturity later. This decreased maturity, coupled with the significant age difference (average of 3–4 years) between EEPers and regular-aged college students, could have made male EEPers less attractive to females in the EEP and in the larger university population. Female EEPers are less likely to experience the negative effects of their young age on their romantic possibilities due to their earlier development and social norms that do not discourage women from dating older men. Male EEPers, on the other hand, are the youngest of all males on campus, and, in a society that does not encourage women to date younger men, are thus at a disadvantage when it comes to finding romantic partners in the EEP and general university population. EEP males’ young age, physically and psychologically, may lie at the heart of their romantic dissatisfaction during their college years. It would seem

K.D. Noble and S.A. Childers

that time would mitigate EEP males’ dissatisfaction in romantic and platonic relationships but the data suggested otherwise. Relative to females, males reported a significantly lower level of satisfaction in finding current relationships and in finding happiness within relationships. The authors acknowledged that there was no way to discern whether this dilemma was unique to this population of gifted and accomplished men, or if the male respondents were experiencing social forces operating on all men. Income was another arena in which a significant gender difference appeared. Females reported earning much less than did males, although the authors were uncertain whether this difference was due to the number of female respondents who were still enrolled in graduate or professional school. They speculated that the difference might stem from the differences in majors pursued by male and female EEPers. Although in the interest of preserving anonymity the questionnaire did not request respondents’ academic majors, an analysis of the entire population of EEP graduates revealed that males were far more likely than females to have majored in scientific or mathematical disciplines, thereby putting themselves on a path in American society toward higher income potential. The most important conclusion drawn from this study was that, as earlier studies had demonstrated, early university entrants did not fit the stereotype of the socially isolated, unhappy “nerd.” Respondents valued intelligence highly and they sought a high degree of intellectual satisfaction and challenge in all aspects of their lives, both personal and professional. Yet, overall they revealed themselves to be well-rounded, balanced individuals on whom the EEP continued to exert a profound and overwhelmingly positive influence.

The Academy (2001–Present) With the advent of the Academy in 2001, new questions presented themselves for investigation and resulted in four additional studies. How did ACADs experience their early university entrance? Were they making the most of their university experience? How did their experience compare with EEPers? What were their parents’ perceptions of the impact of early entrance on their children who were enrolled in either the EEP or the Academy?

71

Swimming in Deep Waters

In Spring 2003 and 2004 the Robinson Center research team held a series of focus groups for ACADs in the first 2 years of the program and invited them to reflect on their experiences in the program (Noble et al., 2005). Students were asked: What has the transition from high school to college been for you, socially, emotionally, and academically? How do you feel you are “fitting in” here at the UW, in general classes, in Honors classes, in departments where you might major, and in extracurricular activities? How have your experiences here affected your relationships with your parents and siblings? What about the Academy is working well, needs improving, or maybe needs changing altogether? A total of 45 ACADs participated: 18 from the first year and 27 from the second year. Although each cohort had its distinct personality, ACADs’ experiences in the Academy were remarkably similar. Overall, participants reported mostly positive experiences as UW undergraduates. Initially, many of them felt that they were high school students on a university campus, but after the first quarter they started feeling like university students. Although ACADs were still aware that they were younger, for the most part, they were able to “pass” as traditional-age university students in academic and social settings, which came as a source of relief for them. Many felt somewhat insecure about being younger when they entered the Academy but were pleased that no one (professors or other students) in their courses or social interactions noticed that they were younger or cared. Most participants said that the Academy was an excellent home base for students; they liked the peer group and felt that it provided them with a good foundation for friendships from which they could, if they chose, branch out. ACADs said that they fit into the UW as much or as little as they wanted. Some chose to disengage entirely from the Academy community, while others had mostly Academy friends. Many students mentioned that the UW was so large that there was no single “in” to fit into. Some ACADs said they experienced a loss of social life once they went home, if home was off campus, because campus had become their social center. Many reported that living in the dorms or in apartments close to campus significantly enhanced their early entrance experience. A prominent link connected the academic performance of this highly motivated population of early university entrants and their emotional well-being. Immediately after entering the Academy, students began to

1357

realize that they were no longer automatically at the top of their class as they had been in high school. Each Academy cohort entered the UW with a median high school GPA of 4.0; after their first quarter, the median dipped slightly for each group. Although ACADs were still achieving significantly higher grades than most UW undergraduates, they reported that it was difficult to get used to working hard and still not necessarily earning a 4.0. Although many ACADs spoke at length about how stressful their academic transition to university was, they enjoyed the fact that they were learning in their classes, as well as participating in academic discourse, and they especially appreciated the intellectual challenge without having to do the mundane academic tasks and rote learning that they described as “high school busy work.” The next study (Noble & Childers, 2008) was designed to assess the elements of optimal match that were best suited to different age groups of early entrants and to further develop the theory of optimal match that was propounded by Halbert Robinson in 1977. With four cohorts of EEPers and ACADs then in residence at UW, it was possible for the first time to compare students across a variety of dimensions, including their assessment of the transition and support services available to them in the EEP or Academy. In May 2006 all current EEP (n = 56) and Academy students (n = 125) were invited to participate anonymously in this study. A letter and email describing the study and requesting participation was sent to 181 individuals, of whom 52% (nEEP=32, nACAD=70) returned completed questionnaires. The authors designed a 15-page, 62-item questionnaire that focused on participants’ assessments of their educational and work experiences, friendships, family and love relationships, as well as their identification of their own talents and the UW activities in which they participated. Participants were asked a variety of open-ended and Likert-scaled questions; the latter used a 4-point scale to discourage neutral responses. Sample questions included: What was your main motivation for entering university early? How influential were your parents to your decision to enter university early? In your experience, what are the benefits and detriments of being EEP or Academy students? Do you ever emphasize or downplay that you are an EEP or Academy student? Did you experience an uncomfortable level of pressure to succeed academically by parents, friends, EEP faculty/staff, Honors faculty/staff,

1358

UW faculty/staff, and/or yourself? What are you particularly good at? What are the three most important traits that you look for in friends and in a romantic partner? What are the three most important values that you seek in employment? What would be your dream job? What do you most want to do with your life? The questions concerning values about career and sought-after traits in friendships and romantic relationships were identical to those asked of EEP graduates in the 2004 followup study (Noble et al., 2007) so that comparisons could be made. This study found that the experience of early university entrance had been extremely positive for the majority of EEPers and ACADs. Despite the intellectual, academic, and social challenges inherent in early university entrance, most EEPers and ACADs appeared to be delighted with their experience. For some, it was the first time in their lives that they felt intellectually challenged and engaged and surrounded by faculty and peers who shared their passion for learning. For others, the availability of like-minded peers from whom to choose friends and/or romantic relationships was a powerful and positive event. Although the majority of respondents were satisfied with their respective program (EEP=100%, ACADs=76%), ACADs as a group were less satisfied with their transition experiences. This may reflect the maturity of the EEP as well as a number of challenges faced by the Academy since its birth, not least of which was the presence of four different academic counselors in its first 4 years. The Bridge program was also reconfigured annually during this time. In the first year, Bridge included five Academy courses but this changed to two courses in the second year and three in subsequent years. Our original conclusion, that we needed to offer fewer Academy courses in the second year based on student complaints in the first, resulted in dissatisfaction among many second-year students and led us to reconsider our decision. Therefore, in the third year we introduced Academy 198, a course that has also matured based on student evaluations. Despite the prominence of the UW as a world class, highly regarded Research 1 University, gifted students in the state of Washington often set their sights on attending out-of-state, prestigious private and public colleges or universities. Thirty-five percent of the respondents in this study (nEEP=17, nACAD=19) said they were not likely to have attended UW had it not been for an early entrance option. This suggested to the authors

K.D. Noble and S.A. Childers

that an early entrance program can be a major tool not only for drawing academically advanced young scholars to their state universities but also for developing their talents to a high level in a rigorous environment close to home. This study indicated that young scholars in the EEP and the Academy were doing just that. Overall, they were earning high grades, participating in a wide variety of academic and extracurricular activities, generating high aspirations, and enjoying satisfying friendships. With few exceptions these students revealed themselves to be well rounded, passionate, motivated, and happy. No significant programmatic or gender differences were observed. Of particular interest to the authors was the discovery that males in this study did not indicate the degree of unhappiness within relationships that was reported by EEP male graduates in the 2004 study. Similarities between contemporary early entrance students and EEP graduates were found in the area of values. EEPers’ and ACADs’ four top-ranked career values (passion, meaningfulness, enjoyment and fun, and intellectual challenge) were identical to those of EEP graduates, although in different order, as were their four top-ranked traits sought after in friendships (sense of humor, intelligence, moral values, and emotional stability). There was also similarity in the top five-ranked traits sought in romantic relationships (intelligence, sense of humor, moral values, emotional stability, and physical attractiveness). No significant programmatic or gender differences were observed. The respondents in this study included a very small number of disaffected students. This led the authors to observe that early university entrance is not a good educational option for all gifted students – even if they were qualified academically or intellectually. EEPers and ACADs who enter these programs are used to receiving the highest possible grades in the primary and secondary environment, often with little or no effort, and they have to adjust their expectations, study habits, time management, and organizational skills as university undergraduates. Even when they do this they may not earn the high grades they have come to expect. In middle school and high school gifted students often feel happy academically but not intellectually; this condition flips at the university level, a change that takes most students some time to absorb. Age differences also cause many to wonder at some point whether they made the right decision. Age is a salient social factor

71

Swimming in Deep Waters

during adolescence, particularly when choosing whom to date or which parties to attend. Many respondents said that age ceased to matter once they turned 18, but early entrants who are younger expressed more ambivalence. Still, no EEPer or ACAD chose to return to secondary school even when given the choice. The authors concluded that the theory of optimal match is sound, but that the practice requires more than a pairing of student ability and academic challenge. All early entrants need a period of intellectual preparation in a supportive and rigorous environment; a peer group; a home base; communication with parents; a faculty and staff who enjoy teaching, advising, and mentoring gifted young scholars; and a welcoming university or college environment. However, programs for younger students, like those in the EEP, need to provide more intensive academic transitioning during the first year, and programs for older students, like those in the Academy, must balance students’ competing needs for independence and guidance. Adequate preparation of parents and the institutional environment are also important to the success of early entrants, regardless of age. Data from this study were used by Childers (2006) to look specifically at ACADs’ experiences in university from a talent development perspective. The sample for this study comprised 70 ACADs (40 females and 30 males), ranging in undergraduate class from freshman to seniors. Three talent development variables were explored: self-identified academic and non-academic talent areas; extracurricular participation in universityaffiliated activities; and future plans and aspirations. Gender differences were also explored. Childers found that many ACADs possessed multifaceted talent and interest profiles. Seventy-one percent of respondents identified their talents as lying in two or more academic domains and 84% identified two or more non-academic domains; 69% had declared double majors in disparate academic disciplines. Narratives provided by respondents suggested a complicated relationship among ability, interest, and talent development behavior. For example, gifted students might be adept at but not passionate about an academic discipline or talent domain, or conversely, they might be interested in domains in which they do not possess extraordinary potential. Although ACADs’ academic majors certainly related to their self-identified academic talent domains, the one did not necessarily predict or dictate the other. Finally, although ACADs were admitted to the Academy primarily based on their academic

1359

potential and achievement, they often identified themselves as talented in many non-academic domains, and it is possible that development of non-academic talents commanded the majority of their passion, time, and energy. Childers also found that many ACADs participated in university-affiliated extracurricular activities, suggesting that, despite their younger age, they were involved members of the university community. On average, respondents reported involvement in two different categories of extracurricular activity (e.g., volunteer organizations or religious or spiritual groups and sports teams). Significant gender differences were found, suggesting that gender remains a salient factor for talent development of ACADs during university. Results indicated a gendered split between affiliation with organic and inorganic disciplines within the sciences, with males more likely than females to identify as talented in and also to major in engineering and computer science, whereas females tended to identify with and major in the organic sciences, including the life and natural sciences. In the non-sciences, gender differences were found in respondents’ affiliation with the humanities, with more females than males identifying themselves as talented in the humanities’ academic domain, in the non-academic humanities-related domains of performing and visual arts, and deciding or planning to major in a humanity. No gender differences were found in students’ identification with the majority of nonacademic talent areas, including the male-stereotypic domains of athletics and building and fixing things and the female-stereotypic domains of interpersonal and intrapersonal skills. Both females and males reported holding high educational aspirations, although significantly more males than females anticipate earning a doctorate. For those respondents who foresaw partnering and raising children, females were more likely than males to anticipate non-traditional, creative career arrangements for both themselves and their partners. The final study in this section was a comparative assessment of the impact of early university entrance from parents’ points of view (Noble et al. 2008). The purpose was to better understand parents’ reasons for choosing early entrance, satisfaction with their students’ program, perceived advantages and disadvantages of early entrance, and assessment of the effect of early entrance on family relationships. In May 2006 the authors invited 181 parents of all

1360

currently enrolled EEPers and ACADs to participate anonymously in this study, of whom 52% (nEEP=31, nACAD=64) returned completed questionnaires. The authors designed an 8-page, 28-item questionnaire that focused on parents’ assessments of their children’s experiences of early university entrance, the reaction of their family and friends to their decision to allow them to enroll in the EEP or the Academy, and their educational and career aspirations for their children. Participants were asked a variety of open-ended and Likert-scaled questions; the latter used a 4-point scale to discourage neutral responses. Sample questions included the following: When your student first enrolled full time at the UW, how concerned were you about the following issues: younger age, difficulty navigating the UW system, personal safety on campus, and possible negative impact on family relationships? Has your student’s participation in the EEP or the Academy changed your family rules or norms? How did your friends and family react to your decision to enroll your student in the EEP or the Academy? Is the EEP or the Academy living up to your expectations? Is there something you wish your student were doing differently? What are the advantages and disadvantages of early entrance from your perspective? What advice would you give to other parents considering early university entrance for their students? Parents’ reasons for choosing early entrance reflected their children’s educational needs. In rank order, the three factors most often seen as “very important” or “important” by both groups were students wanting to come (98%; nEEP=30, nACAD=63); students not being challenged, academically or intellectually, in their previous schools (75%; nEEP=28, nACAD=43); and students’ social unhappiness in previous schools (44%; nEEP=18, nACAD=24). Only one significant difference occurred between EEP and Academy parents’ responses in this area. As compared to Academy parents, more EEP parents reported students’ social unhappiness in previous schooling to be a “very important” factor in their decision to pursue early entrance. The three issues about which respondents were “very concerned” or “concerned” prior to their children’s early entrance were students’ younger age as a social hindrance (39%; nEEP=11, nACAD=26); students’ difficulty with career and life goals (34%; nEEP=10, nACAD=22); and students’ difficulty navigating the UW system (32%; nEEP=7, nACAD=23).

K.D. Noble and S.A. Childers

The majority of respondents (77%; nEEP=28, nACAD=60) were not concerned about the possible negative impact of early entrance on family relationships. There were no significant differences between the groups, although EEP parents reported less concern about age differences even though their children are younger than Academy students. The transition from secondary student to university undergraduate is often a difficult transition, even for traditional-aged students. As one respondent said, “At 14, our child was living the life of an 18 yr old, at 15, a 19 yr old, etc.” Early entrants have more freedom and autonomy at an earlier age than their peers and questions arise as to whether the student is a high school student by virtue of age or a college student by virtue of enrollment at UW. Many respondents wondered “What are the rules?” “Should there be a curfew and, if so, when should it be?” “What chores should a student be responsible for?” “What is ‘age-appropriate behavior’ in light of early entrance?” “The UW is not a neighborhood school,” one parent reflected, and this added a level of complexity to family dynamics several years earlier than it might otherwise have occurred. Respondents reported differing levels of comfort about their children’s newfound freedom, and this sometimes led to conflict when students wanted more than their parents believe they should have. Because their children were now university students, parents were much less involved in their educational development and decision making and some experienced a sense of disconnection from these important areas of their children’s lives. As their oversight of their children’s academic progress and social lives decreased, some wondered about the quality and quantity of advising students receive at the university, how differential rates of emotional and social maturation would affect their children’s academic progress, and how their children would rise to the challenge of having to make many difficult choices in a relatively brief period of time. When their gifted students struggled academically, as some did during the transition from secondary school to university and often for the first time in their academic careers, or when early entrants stayed late at the university to study or socialize, parents wondered whether, when, and how to intervene. When asked what were their educational and career aspirations for their children, respondents expressed a wide range of aspirations, with no particular pattern

71

Swimming in Deep Waters

emerging. They hoped that their children would achieve good grades and earn places in good graduate or professional schools, discover their passions, explore, be challenged to attain their goals, be disciplined and self-sufficient, be life-long learners, be happy, and grow spiritually. Some respondents want their children to become professionals; others hope they will find challenging careers that they enjoy and that are intellectually satisfying, useful, and financially viable. Very few respondents specified particular fields for their students; most said it was up to their children, although as one parent told us, “We don’t have any clue about this.” ALL EEP parents were satisfied with their children’s program, and as a group expressed a slightly higher degree of satisfaction with the various aspects of the program than did Academy parents. This may reflect the Academy’s evolution over its 6 years of existence and significant changes that distinguish the first year from the most recent. As the Academy matures the authors hoped to see increased satisfaction among these parents as a result of programmatic changes. The authors concluded that early entrance programs are very attractive options for parents of academically advanced students who have outpaced available secondary programs. They are especially appealing to highly educated parents who are willing to follow the lead of their ambitious and talented adolescents in making this educational choice, and who are prepared to trust their children’s judgment.

Summary of Research Findings The Robinson Center has demonstrated clearly and consistently with two different programs that early university entrance is prized – intellectually, socially, and emotionally – by gifted students and their parents; further, these programs have earned high praise and support from the UW and Washington State education agencies. The body of research reviewed above suggests that early entrance programs are not inevitably initially successful; rather, they benefit greatly from ongoing programmatic evaluation, flexibility, and experimentation. The EEP, now in its 30th year, has changed significantly since its first two students were admitted in 1977. The introduction of TS was perhaps the most

1361

crucial change, followed by changes in personnel and in new policies regarding admissions and retention. Despite these changes, the soundness of the EEP as a strategy for meeting the intellectual, academic, social, and emotional needs of students who have outpaced secondary school has been confirmed in every study conducted by the Robinson Center. A similar picture of change and success has emerged for the Academy. Like their EEP peers, ACADs are proving themselves to be remarkable young scholars; our research indicates that the Academy is as much an optimal educational match for them as the EEP is for EEPers. Also like the EEP, many important differences exist between the Academy’s beginning iteration and its present one. Finally, the research indicates that three constituents – students, parents, and the institution – must be well prepared if early entrance is to be successful. Our recommendations are as follows.

Students As stated earlier in this chapter, all early entrants need a period of intellectual preparation in a supportive and rigorous environment; a peer group that is large enough for them to find same-age friends; a home base in which to congregate, study, and/or socialize; communication with parents; a faculty and staff who enjoy teaching, advising, and mentoring gifted young scholars; and a welcoming university or college environment. However, programs for younger students, like the EEP, need to provide more intensive academic transitioning during the first year, and programs for older students, like the Academy, must balance students’ competing needs for independence and guidance. Academic advising that is tailored to this population is critical. Our studies clearly reveal the multipotentiality of the two groups of early entrants enrolled at UW, a dynamic that can pose a significant challenge to students’ decision-making and advising needs. EEPers and ACADs rise to the challenge of multipotentiality in different ways and at different times. Some feel paralyzed by having to choose between equally prized interests; some get stalled and confused. Some get off to a flying start only to change their minds part way through their undergraduate careers. Others stay focused on their original interest and may or may not take

1362

K.D. Noble and S.A. Childers

the risk to explore other options. EEPers and ACADS are used to receiving the highest possible grades in the primary and secondary environment, often with little or no effort, and they have to adjust their expectations, study habits, time management, and organizational skills as university undergraduates. Students’ social lives also change as they transition to traditional-aged peer groups and primary relationships take on increasing importance. Further, early entrants are not immune from events that can traumatize adolescents, such as changes in family lives and parental configurations, the emergence of psychological disorders, and increasing exposure to a complex world. The availability of psychological counseling, both formal and informal, from individuals who understand these gifted students is thus of great importance.

we communicate regularly are admissions officers, departmental advisors (to help early entrants’ transition to their major department/s), Honors program staff, and staff from undergraduate support services (e.g., student housing, financial aid, student health and counseling). Students who are minors will also need institutional and parental permission to engage in some research opportunities, internships, service-learning projects, or foreign study programs until they reach the age of majority, authorization which program staff help to facilitate. Regular interaction with faculty and central administrators also helps to sustain a welcoming climate in which early entrants feel at home.

Parents

All Robinson Center programs are works in progress, and the EEP and Academy are no exceptions. Over the many years that the opportunity for early entrance has been offered to gifted young scholars at UW, first through the EEP and then through the Academy, we have learned much through our research about what works well or not at all, and we have always put the results of our learning into effect. In the next several years we will turn our attention to understanding more fully the talent development processes of emerging adulthood among EEPers and ACADs and to further exploring the reasons why a small number of early entrants drop out, earn poor grades, and/or are disaffected. A third, 10-year follow-up study of graduates of the EEP and the Academy is planned for 2013 to elucidate the complexity of giftedness and talent development in action and over time. We also plan to study more thoroughly parental concerns about early university experience. Several parents commented that their children’s entry into EEP or the Academy placed them in opposition to their friends, their culture, and sometimes to their extended family. The pressure of negative attitudes on the part of friends and family can inhibit some parents from allowing their gifted children to pursue this educational option. What parents can do and have done to resist this pressure remains to be explored. Another question involves parents’ levels of comfort with the predictable crises that take place in most undergraduates’ lives. These crises might include lower grades than students are used to

The early entrance experience presents parents with a number of issues and challenges. Parents benefit greatly from information and advice about the social, emotional, and academic challenges that they and their children may encounter during the first year. Comprehensive parent orientation activities at the start of this academic year give parents a better idea about what to expect from the EEP or the Academy, and about the complexities of the university environment that their children will be entering. Opportunities for them to speak with parents of earlier cohorts of early entrants and to support each other during their own transition are also invaluable. Finally, channels of communication with program staff must remain open, especially during students’ first undergraduate year. The younger the student, the more intense and regular that communication will be.

Institution Institutional support will vary depending on the size and location of the college or university that early entrants attend. At the UW, we have found that active collaboration with officers and services that are important to students’ lives assists EEPers and ACADs to access these services when they need them. A few with whom

Future Directions

71

Swimming in Deep Waters

achieving in secondary school; the pressure to choose majors and career paths; making decisions about social lives; and becoming increasingly independent. Parents of gifted students, who are used to being actively involved in overseeing their children’s educational trajectories, must learn to disengage from their children’s lives at the university level. For parents of early entrants, this disengagement comes several years earlier than it does for parents of traditional-aged students. In future studies we hope to elucidate those crises that may be unique to early entrants’ parents and those that are common to all undergraduates’ parents.

Conclusions Both the Early Entrance Program and the UW Academy for Young Scholars have assumed a vital role in the education of gifted young scholars in Washington State. Their success has drawn upon the accomplishments of many individuals over the past 30 years. Dr. Halbert and Dr. Nancy Robinson’s vision in creating the EEP at UW and their success in lobbying the Washington State Legislature for support via public education funding laid the groundwork. Subsequent years of work by Robinson Center faculty and staff to establish, strengthen, and refine TS and EEP, to develop summer programs for gifted students, to create a regional academic talent search for gifted students in Grades 5–8, to provide leadership for gifted education throughout the State of Washington, and to generate a coherent and rigorous body of research gave the Academy the history, programmatic depth, integrity, and recruitment tools that made the concept very appealing to outstanding high school sophomores and their discerning parents. Equally important were the active support of the UW Honors Program, the UW central administration, and the Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The EEP and the Academy will continue to evolve in the coming years and to find new, perhaps better, ways of reaching out to and educating the brightest students in the state. Yet, the results of more than 20 years’ research strongly suggest that both programs are making a major contribution to the welfare of the students whose higher education is in our hands.

1363

References Brody, L. E., Muratori, M. C., & Stanley, J. C. (2004). Early entrance to college: Academic, social, and emotional considerations. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (pp. 97–107). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Childers, S. A. (2006). Making the most of university: Gender differences in early entrance students’ talent development. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. Halvorsen, M., Noble, K. D., Robinson, N. M., & Sisko, N. (2000). Making the transition: Assessment of student satisfaction with preparation for Running Start. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington, Seattle. Janos, P. M., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). The performance of students in a program of radical acceleration at the university level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 175–179. Janos, P. M., Robinson, N. M., Carter, C., Chapel, A., Cufley, R., Curland, M., et al. (1988). A cross-sectional developmental study of the social relations of students who enter college early. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 210–215. Janos, P. M., Robinson, N. M., & Lunneborg, C. E. (1989). Markedly early entrance to college: A multiyear comparative study of academic performance and psychological adjustment. Journal of Higher Education, 60, 495–518. Janos, P. M., Sanfilippo, S. M., & Robinson, N. M. (1986). “Underachievement” among Markedly accelerated college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15, 303–313. Noble, K. D. (1989). Living out the promise of high potential: Perceptions of 100 gifted women. Advanced Development, 1, 57–75. Noble, K. D., Arndt, T., Nicholsen, T., Sletten, T., & Zamora, A. (1999). Different strokes: Perceptions of social and emotional development among early college entrants. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 10, 77–84. Noble, K. D., & Childers, S. A. (2008). A passion for learning: The theory and practice of optimal match at the University of Washington. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(2), 236–270. Noble, K. D., & Drummond, J. E. (1992). But what about the prom? Students’ perceptions of early college entrance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 106–111. Noble, K. D., Childers, S. A., & Vaughan, R. C. (2008). A place to be celebrated and understood: The impact of early university entrance from parents’ points of view. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3), 152–166. Noble, K. D., Robinson, N. M., & Gunderson, S. A. (1993). All rivers lead to the sea: A follow-up study of gifted young adults. Roeper Review, 15, 124–130. Noble, K. D., & Smyth, R. K. (1995). Keeping their talents alive: Young women’s assessment of radical, post-secondary acceleration. Roeper Review, 18, 49–55. Noble, K. D., Vaughan, R. C., Chan, C., Childers, S. A.., Chow, B., Federow, A., et al. (2007). Love and work: The legacy of early university entrance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 152–166.

1364 Noble, K. D., Vaughan, R. C., Chan, C., Federow, A., & Hughes, S. (2005). The UW academy for young scholars: An evaluation of the first three years (2002–2005). Paper presented at the Mary Gates Undergraduate Research Symposium, University of Washington, Seattle. Robinson, N. M., & Janos, P. M. (1986). Psychological adjustment in a college-level program of marked academic acceleration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15, 51–60.

K.D. Noble and S.A. Childers Robinson, N. M., & Robinson, H. B. (1982). The optimal match: Devising the best compromise for the highly gifted student. In D. Feldman (Ed.), Developmental approaches to giftedness and creativity (pp. 79–84). San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Chapter 72

How Do You Get to Carnegie Hall? Gifted Education in New York City Dona J. Matthews

Abstract New York City provides a dynamic case study of problems and possibilities in urban gifted education. The story is grounded globally in changing understandings of teaching, learning, and expertise, based on converging evidence from developmental psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and education. Diverse forces are at play locally, including bottom-up and top-down political pressures, concerns about equity and social justice, media responses, and changing legislation and standards. Resulting changes in NYC educational practice are interpreted as a movement toward a mastery model of giftedness, including providing a flexible range of programming options to address individual students’ diverse gifted learning needs, expanded teacher development and networking opportunities, and changing identification policies. Recommendations focus on urban concerns and opportunities, with an emphasis on the importance to gifted development of practice, practice, practice.

a renaissance in New York. It is an exciting time to be here, not least because of the generally chaotic state that gifted education has found itself in. There is an opportunity to develop new systems from the ground up, systems that work well to support high-ability learners and that reflect current knowledge of best practice in the field. In this chapter, I discuss ways that current knowledge of the teaching and learning principles that foster high-level development can be translated into evidence-based practice in a large urban setting, using New York City as a dynamic case study of problems and possibilities.

A Shifting Paradigm: Mystery to Mastery

Over the past two decades, and rapidly accelerating in the past few years, there has been a change in prevailing definitions of intelligence and giftedness, in the Keywords Gifted · Giftedness · Gifted education · ways that gifted learners are identified, and in the proNew York City · Urban education · Urban gifted ed- gramming that is recommended for them (Matthews ucation · Mastery model · Expertise & Foster, 2005b, 2006). This change is grounded in emerging understandings of human development, neuroscience, psychometrics, and the cognitive and motivational processes underlying exceptional huIntroduction man performance and competence and has been discussed by many observers and experts in the field After many years of a waning political commitment to (Dai, 2009; Dai & Renzulli, 2008; Horowitz, 1987; gifted programming and a concomitant fragmentation Horowitz & O’Brien, 1985; Keating, 1991, in press; of programs and networks throughout the city, gifted Lohman, 2005, 2006; Plucker & Barab, 2005; Subeducation is currently experiencing the possibility of otnik & Calderon, 2008; Worrell, 2005, in press). Increasingly the focus is moving away from the categorization of some children as “gifted” (with all D.J. Matthews (B) others implicitly therefore in the “not gifted” cateCity University of New York, New York, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] gory) and toward a focus on individual differences in L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 72, 

1365

1366

developmental trajectories, recognizing that pathways to high-level achievement are enormously diverse, domain specific, and incremental in nature (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Dweck, 2006; Howe, 1990; Keating, in press; Matthews & Keating, 1995; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005). Studies of extraordinary performance across many different domains emphasize the importance of effort in high achievement, along with appropriate opportunities to learn (Bloom, 1985; Gottfried, Gottfried, & Guerin, in press; Simonton, 1994). The growing field of scholarship on expertise that combines psychology and cognitive science provides compelling data that validate Edison’s description of genius as 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993; Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich, & Hoffman, 2006). David Dobbs, in a recent article on the nature of talent, suggests that it is truer to the data to say that genius is comprised of 1% inspiration, 29% good instruction and encouragement, and 70% perspiration (Dobbs, 2006). He observes that “Studies of extraordinary performance run a wide gamut, employing memory tests, IQ comparisons, brain scans, retrospective interviews of high achievers and longitudinal studies of people who were identified in their youth as highly gifted. None bears out the myth of inherent genius” (Dobbs, 2006, p. 40). Converging with the expertise findings, neuroscience is proving another New York story true, one that musicians enjoy telling. A stranger is reported to have approached Artur Rubinstein in the street one day, and asked, “Pardon me, sir, but how do I get to Carnegie Hall?” His reply: “Practice, practice, practice.” Recent findings on the neural basis of memory and learning show that the brain is much more plastic than was previously thought and is constructed over time by an individual’s environmental interactions, effortful study, and repeated practice. The number and strength of nerve connections associated with a particular memory or skill increase in proportion to the frequency and strength of an individual’s learning experiences (Kandel, Schwartz, & Jessel, 2000; Nelson, 1999). Research in the highly disparate areas of human development, cognitive science, gifted education, expertise, and neuroscience, then, are converging to demonstrate that, contrary to popular misconception, the chief variables in “genius” are

D.J. Matthews

motivation, effort, and opportunities to learn, rather than innate genetic superiority. Obviously, there are some very real implications for gifted education of this changing understanding of what genius (or high ability, or giftedness) is and how it develops. There are many indicators that cracks have formed in support for the traditional conception of giftedness, cracks leading to political problems and even the demise of gifted education in many communities. This has not been helped by the disconnection of gifted education in both policy and practice from regular and special education, as well as from theoretical and empirical work in cognitive and developmental psychology. Accepted definitions of giftedness and standards of practice in gifted education are moving from a static, innate model of giftedness that is mysterious in many of its dimensions toward an evidence-based approach that is best conceptualized as differentiating curriculum to match the learning needs of exceptionally advanced students and incorporating a dynamic responsivity to individual developmental differences as they change over time. This approach is aligned in many ways with talent development approaches (Subotnik & Calderon, in press; Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005; Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Arnold, 2003; Tannenbaum, 1983, 2003). Joanne Foster and I have described this shift elsewhere as a gradual move in the field from a “mystery model” to a “mastery model” (Matthews & Foster, 2005b, 2006). When gifted education is conceptualized as providing a dynamically responsive domain-specific curriculum match for educationally advanced students, not only are the results more appropriate developmentally, but also the resulting programming is more easily defended against the attacks of elitism which have plagued the field since its inception (Matthews & Foster, 2005a; Matthews, Foster, Gladstone, Schieck, & Meiners, in press; Matthews & Kitchen, in press a and b). That is, when educators employ a special education or mastery approach, and provide a wide range of learning options to address individual students’ diverse kinds of gifted learning needs, the resulting programs are more consistent with emerging knowledge of child and adolescent development and are better able to simultaneously foster both excellence and equity in a diverse society (Lohman, 2005, in press; Worrell, 2003, in press).

72

How Do You Get to Carnegie Hall? Gifted Education in New York City

Study Design

1367

mographically, and geographically, as is every community, and at the same time, because many of the conThe mastery perspective has been described as pro- straints and learning opportunities are replicated elseviding “fresh new ways to view pressing issues in the where, it provides a model for consideration by many field such as the dynamic tension between excellence educators and policy makers. This evaluation is likely and equity” (Ambrose, 2006). Nowhere is this dynamic to apply more readily to large and diverse urban juristension more evident than in New York City, which dictions like New York, but there is much that we are has been undergoing intense educational reform in the learning here that is also applicable to smaller cities, past few years. I selected a case study approach as the towns, and suburban or rural communities. best research design for the topic of interest (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Lichtman, 2006; Ragin & Becker, 1992) and describe here the renewal in gifted education poliThe Context cies and practices as an evaluative case study of current knowledge of best practice in gifted education, being There are many reasons for what I am describing as a implemented in a large diverse urban setting. Information for this chapter was collected and possible renaissance in gifted education in New York organized through a series of observations, interviews, City. We are in one of those rare moments when very and discussions with stakeholders, including parents, real needs and concerns are simultaneously generating educators, administrators, policy makers, media bottom-up pressures and top-down mandates, the kind observers, students, and interested citizens, as well of moment Michael Fullan has described as propitious as participation in many events and activities, and for real educational change (Fullan, 2001). In a context study of relevant articles and other documents. Over of extraordinary pressures and opportunities, we are at the past 3 years, I have worked in many capacities a turning point, that volatile moment of possibility that and on many dimensions of gifted education in New contains the seeds both of chaos and enlightenment, of York, developing and teaching a graduate program destroying all the supports that have been developed in gifted education; working closely with Hunter over time, or of putting into place policies that lead to College Campus Schools; consulting on issues of models of best practice in the field. policy and practice to a wide range of educators, including teachers, principals, regional coordinators, and citywide administrators; consulting to parents and parent organizations; participating on a citywide Background think tank; speaking at public forums; testifying at a City Council hearing on gifted education; establishing New York is a city of extremes. Its diversity extends local, regional, national, and international liaisons and to the far ends of every demographic spectrum: linnetworks; and providing interviews to members of guistic, racial, economic, and religious, to name only the media. While clearly reducing my objectivity, my a few. This diversity is one of its chief assets as well as proximity to the situation as a participant-researcher a tremendous liability. It is rich with public resources in has the advantage of providing an intimate inside view. its architecture, museums, parks, libraries, and artistic, I present alternative views where available and make entrepreneurial, and scientific opportunities of every every attempt to report as objectively as possible on description, including such treasures as the American the activities described. Because of my closeness to Museum of Natural History; Central Park; the Dance the situation and desire to stay involved, however, Theatre of Harlem; the Lincoln Center Institute; the my focus is more on the positive than the negative; Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island Immigration Center; I emphasize here those provisions that work and that the Institute for American Indian Studies; the Intrepid appear to be useful for colleagues interested in consid- Sea, Air & Space Museum; El Museo del Barrio; the ering, implementing, or expanding an evidence-based African Burial Ground; the Asia Society; the Brookapproach to gifted education in their own settings. lyn Historical Society; the American Museum of the This study is as limited in its generalizability as any Moving Image; the Museum of the City of New York; single case study: New York is unique historically, de- the Museum of Jewish Heritage, A Living Memorial

1368

to the Holocaust; the New York Stock Exchange; the New York Transit Museum; the Cathedral of St. John the Divine; and countless more. As wealthy as it is in so many ways, New York also has deeply entrenched problems with poverty and social challenges of every description. An important subtext in the public discourse on gifted education in New York City, as in many other urban areas, concerns the under-representation of certain minority groups, English language (ESL) learners, and students whose families live in poverty. Andrew Wolf, discussing the relatively low enrollment of black and Hispanic students in New York City’s elite high schools, wrote, “I believe the seeds of success are sown in kindergarten and even before. I lay much of the blame for these distressing results on the systematic dismantling of selfcontained gifted and talented programs that we have witnessed over the past 20 years” (Wolf, 2006, p. 9). Whether Wolf is right to blame low high school enrollments on gifted program policies – and I think that this is far too simplistic a conceptualization of the situation – he is identifying fundamental and urgent questions that must be addressed. There are currently 1,100,000 children attending over 1300 New York City public schools. As of August, 2006, there were 190 elementary and middle schools with programs designated as self-contained gifted and talented, and 69 schools designated as Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) schools. There were also 21 schools with Honors programs; eight specialized high schools, some of which are internationally renowned, such as the LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts (the high school featured in “Fame”), the Bronx High School of Science, and Stuyvesant High School; and the Hunter College Campus Schools, publicly funded by New York State as part of the City University of New York and open to qualified students in New York City, although not part of the NYC DOE. There are big differences in the quality, focus, and scope of the 268 gifted programs across the city, as well as in ease of local access to gifted programming. The Association of the Bar of the City of New York recently published a study entitled Ending Discrimination in Gifted Education in the New York City Public Schools (Committee on Education and the Law, 2003). Based on a review of available investigative research and interviews with parents and other interested citizens, the authors of this report documented concerns about timely and accessible communication of gifted

D.J. Matthews

education options to parents and educators, racial discrimination against black and Hispanic students, and provisions for English language learners as well as students with other special needs in addition to giftedness (e.g., gifted and learning disabled) who are not eligible for gifted programming. The committee’s recommendations included (a) providing flexible entry to and exit from gifted programs, as exists with learning disabilities, contingent on demonstrated educational need; (b) adding spaces in programs over time, starting small with the primary grades, and building to larger classes of more students in gifted programs in high school; (c) distributing information about gifted programs widely and conveniently; (d) using multiple criteria for admissions, including portfolios, dynamic assessment, test scores, teacher observation, behavioral checklists, past school performance, parent interviews, writing samples, and/or input from the child’s racial/cultural group; (e) using subject-specific test scores rather than aggregate scores such as IQ; and (f) providing gifted programming options within regular classrooms for some students. It is interesting to note that all of the recommendations of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York to end discriminatory practices are consistent with a mastery model of giftedness. They reflect current knowledge of how giftedness develops and the teaching approaches that best support and facilitate the cognitive and motivational processes underlying exceptional human performance and competence. We return to the equity question as it applies to gifted education and academic excellence later in this chapter. In January 2005, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg made a commitment in his annual State of the City address (Bloomberg, 2005) to expanding and strengthening gifted programming, including both maintaining all existing programs and also creating new gifted programs in historically under-served districts. Very shortly thereafter, the New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE) announced a “comprehensive, citywide approach to gifted and talented education in elementary schools, including the creation of new programs, particularly in traditionally underserved communities, as well as maintaining and supporting existing programs” (New York City Department of Education, 2006a, para 3). The NYC DOE also announced plans to expand and improve

72

How Do You Get to Carnegie Hall? Gifted Education in New York City

professional development opportunities in gifted and talented education for administrators and teachers. The Office of Gifted/Talented and Enrichment (G/T & E) was then established “to meet the educational needs of exceptional students while ensuring equity of access to gifted and talented programs for all students in New York City public schools” (New York City Department of Education, 2006a, para 1). The goal of this office was “to maintain, develop, and expand gifted/talented and enrichment programs in an effort to provide challenging standards-based instructional practices and highly engaging learning opportunities to children with exceptional capacity or creative talent” (New York City Department of Education, 2006a, para 2). By August of 2005, in addition to the citywide director, a coordinator of gifted education was in place in each of the ten New York City regions, charged with assessing programs currently in place, developing new programs as appropriate, and coordinating professional development for teachers in gifted programs. There was considerable discussion in the media and elsewhere about the nature and specifics of the strengthened gifted and talented programming, and the Department of Education made a commitment to implement a continuum of programs and services for gifted and talented students, including self-contained programs where students are grouped together by ability and assigned to full-time programs; as well as Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) programs, where giftedness is defined more broadly and flexibly and learners are given opportunities to develop their creative productive abilities (Renzulli & Reis, 2003); and school-based honors programs. The specific implementation details are very much a work in progress, as the next sections of this chapter illustrate.

Gifted Education in the News: Political Responses and Media Reports A confluence of bottom-up and top-down pressures for improved gifted education has created a bit of a “perfect storm” for those critics who would like nothing better than to see all gifted programs demolished, as well as for those who want no changes in the status quo. And so, as might be expected, there has been considerable media coverage these past few years, not all of

1369

it in favor of strengthening provisions for gifted learners. Some reporters have suggested that the recent political commitment to gifted programs is opportunistic. For example, in a New York Times article describing Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s announcement of several new high school programs for gifted learners, one education reporter wrote, “Mr. Bloomberg’s announcement of new, selective schools – a prospect particularly appealing to middle-class voters – was timed perfectly to the start of the frenzied high school admissions process” (Herszenhorn, 2005, p. B2). Some commentators suggest that all children are potentially gifted and that gifted programs constitute barely masked racial prejudice, a way to create classrooms that make middle class white parents happy by excluding minority children. For example, in an invited column in the New York Daily News, two education professors wrote, “Why persist in the charade of using evidence of supposed giftedness to select advantaged students for discriminatory and segregated programs? Why not, instead, help our schools learn how to educate all our children effectively and discover the giftedness in all?” (Fruchter & Siegel, 2005, p. 46). When the gifted education argument is rooted, as Fruchter and Siegel’s is, in an adherence to the outdated mystery paradigm (giftedness as an innate, permanent, and global category of person, determined by meeting an arbitrary cutoff on a certain test and resulting in assignment to segregated gifted classes), its resolution devolves to matters of opinion or belief such as a belief that the mandate of public education is to “discover the giftedness in all,” or conversely, that children who score well on intelligence tests deserve to be grouped together and provided with an enriched education. The discussion becomes more interesting as well as better informed when the focus shifts away from rigid dichotomous categories (gifted/not gifted) to the mastery model’s goal of matching individual students’ dynamic learning needs with appropriate educational programming. In an invited response that was juxtaposed with Fruchter and Siegel’s column, I emphasized the individual and societal importance of providing an appropriately advanced or accelerated education to those students who can benefit from it, as well as supporting high-level development in all students, a more comprehensive and inclusive perspective: “There are two important agendas in gifted education. The first recognizes that one size does not fit all. Just as learning dis-

1370

abilities require special education, so, too, does giftedness, which can and should be assessed and addressed in straightforward ways. The second agenda, equally important, is to support high-level learning for all students, helping them find and develop their interests” (Matthews, 2004, p. 46). In the same column, I went on to suggest that elitism is rarely charged when a coach chooses the most capable players for the school basketball team. Few people argue that schools should restrict themselves to offering one-size-fits-all basketball instruction in a general gym class and avoid creating teams or other learning opportunities for gifted athletes. Drawing the parallel to academic areas, I wrote, “We know what happens when third-graders reading at advanced levels are asked to do third-grade work. We see frustration, self-esteem problems, or dumbingdown, and it gets worse with time. The problems cut across gender, social class, race and culture. Surely we are not so wealthy in cultural and scientific and other human resources that we can afford to squander children’s potential.” The discussion of gifted education policies and programs has continued in the local media, with positions advanced on many sides of many related questions. One columnist, describing the admissions pressure for Hunter College High School, a specialized school for highly gifted students, wrote in support of increasing gifted programs across the city: “This year, 3,178 students are vying for 250 openings. ‘What I worry about is all the kids who don’t get in,’ said Jennifer Raab, president of Hunter College, which oversees the high school. ‘Where will they go?’ They will be left to scramble to find a quality school, just as the smartest kids do in the city’s grade schools. But things are starting to look up. Mayor Bloomberg, in his State of the City speech, vowed a vast expansion of the gifted programs for grade-schoolers and Advanced Placement classes for high schools” (Schwartz, 2005). A reporter writing for another city paper (Levy, 2005, in the New York Sun) wrote somewhat skeptically about the commitment to new full-time gifted programs announced by the mayor and reiterated by Schools Chancellor Joel Klein. She identifies some concerns and raises some questions in her report on an interview with Randi Weingarten, the President of the teachers union: “Weingarten said the United Federation of Teachers has been pushing for more gifted-and-talented programs for months. ‘Now the DOE, which has at best a mixed record of

D.J. Matthews

support for these initiatives and has assembled a secret task force most of us believed was intended to water down or phase out gifted programs, has apparently seen the light,’ she said. ‘But many questions remain unanswered. How will the selection process for kids define giftedness? What will the curricula and resources be for these gifted programs? How will the instruction differ from what now goes on in the best classrooms?”’ The “secret task force” to which Weingarten refers here was established internally by the DOE and included Joe Renzulli as the only outside consultant. Many parents, teachers, and media observers were concerned that the city would use the Schoolwide Enrichment Model to water down and eventually abolish gifted programs as they had previously been constituted. The New York City Council, responding to pressure from the media, parents, and educators, held a hearing on gifted education in March of 2005. In my testimony at the hearing, I talked about my perceptions of the pressing need for increased programs and emphasized the importance of gifted learners getting an education targeted to their level of ability: “I’ve visited schools throughout the city, and talked to parents, educators, and administrators. Across the grade spectrum, we have some extraordinary possibilities and options for gifted learners. At the same time, however, there are far too many schools where gifted children do not get any special services at all, or the services that are provided are not targeted effectively to their learning needs. The direction and extent of giftedness and the developmental pathways that lead to giftedness are as various as people’s lives and circumstances. Gifted programming then, must include a range of options that can be flexibly matched to individual students’ exceptional learning needs. The range of possible options varies from enrichment in the regular classroom, through many kinds of acceleration, through extracurricular activities, to full-time congregated classrooms and schools for exceptionally capable learners.” Apparently responding to political and media pressures, senior city administrators opened up the Department of Education think tank and the provision of professional development to include myself and colleagues at Hunter College, as well as national colleagues such as Elissa Brown at the College of William and Mary (Bracken & Brown, 2006; Brown, Avery, VanTassel-Baska, Worley, & Stambaugh, 2006) and Carolyn Callahan at the University of Virginia

72

How Do You Get to Carnegie Hall? Gifted Education in New York City

(Callahan, 2000, 2003). While Joe Renzulli remains an important and active player in gifted education, there are several other experts and perspectives actively involved in both policy and practice. New full-time gifted programs are being developed in areas of the city that have had none in the past, and existing programs are changing dramatically, strengthened by changing regulations and expanded opportunities for teacher development. Although, and perhaps because, there have been structural changes in New York City’s gifted education policies and programs in the past 2 years, and the necessary improvements in teacher and administrative expertise will take some time to bear obvious fruit, some observers continue to be critical of what is happening. Writing in the New York Daily News, Michael Goodwin (2006) argued that senior officials at the NYC DOE are intentionally undermining gifted learners and that citizens should consider taking legal action: “Prejudice against smart kids seems to be acceptable among some educrats. . .Thousands of smart kids are stuck in dumbed-down classes because the city has too few gifted slots.” He advocated that citizens consider a lawsuit against these officials, focusing on (then) Deputy Chancellor of Schools, Carmen Farina: “I would like to believe her commitment to excellence is real, but my suspicions linger. That’s why I think a lawsuit may be needed to prove the city is not endorsing prejudice under the guise of ‘equity.’ And that gifted children, like all children, are getting the education they need” (Goodwin, 2006, p. 33).

Legislated Structures and Standards As these various reports illustrate, there are some good reasons for concern about gifted education in New York City today. At the same time, my experience with city teachers and administrators, along with my professional development work in the schools, and my knowledge of changes in the field of gifted education locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally, suggest that there are also reasons for optimism about New York City’s approach to gifted education. As I detail below, increasing numbers of educators are acquiring the necessary knowledge and expertise to provide meaningful gifted programs; increasing numbers of schools are providing such programs; and structures and standards are being legislated at the state, national,

1371

and teacher education accreditation levels that are harmonious with a mastery perspective and that reflect current findings in developmental psychology, gifted education, and other areas of investigation into optimal human development. New York State Gifted Certificate Extension. As of September 2006, New York State is requiring that teachers who work with gifted and talented children hold a gifted certificate extension to their New York State teaching certification. To qualify for the gifted certificate extension, teachers must pass the Gifted Content Specialty Test that most teachers experience as very challenging (the failure rate varies between 40 and 60%), complete 50 university-supervised field hours with gifted learners, and receive 12 credits in a state-approved graduate program in gifted education. As a result of these requirements, many universities in New York State are creating programs to meet the growing demand, including Hunter College, where I am the coordinator of one such state-approved program. With many teachers participating in the demanding graduate program at Hunter College and elsewhere, a knowledgeable cadre of educators is emerging, expanding the base and enriching the city’s network of competent gifted education practitioners. New York State’s standards for teachers of gifted learners were developed over a period of several years and synthesized many sources of information. The Gifted Content Specialty Test development process included ongoing consultation with educators in many communities across the state, with diverse kinds of experience working with gifted learners, including teachers, administrators, researchers, and academics. Close attention was paid to evolving knowledge of teaching and learning practices most conducive to supporting and facilitating gifted development. Other information was also factored into the consideration, including recommendations from individual citizens and parent and teacher associations. As a result of this thoughtful process, the test objectives reflect current knowledge in the field and are consistent with the mastery paradigm. The test objectives affirm that “The educator of gifted and talented students is able to use evolving concepts of learning and intelligence to modify curriculum and instruction in ways that address the needs of individual students, foster self-esteem and a sense of independence, and motivate students to achieve their individual potential” (New York State Education De-

1372

partment, 2003, p. 7). This embodies the attention to individual developmental differences, the need for special educational adaptations, and the dynamic nature of the learning process that are foundational principles of the mastery perspective and that are largely absent in a categorical or mystery approach to gifted education. More specifically, the test affirms the importance of providing a continuum of curriculum options for gifted learners in order to address the individual differences in gifted development, assessing the teacher’s knowledge of “different models of teaching and learning that are used in gifted education (e.g., differentiated instruction, pullout, consulting, mentoring, acceleration, independent study) to accommodate different levels of giftedness” (New York State Education Department, 2003, p. 8); recognizes the domain specificity of gifted development, assessing the teacher’s ability to “analyze profiles of giftedness reflecting varied learning strengths and needs across disciplines” (New York State Education Department, 2003, p. 8); and incorporates an understanding of the dynamic and idiosyncratic nature of gifted development, assessing the teacher’s skills in “analyzing the implications of atypical educational transitions (e.g., early entrance to college, grade advancement, subject advancement, enrollment in special schools, pull-out programs)” (New York State Education Department, 2003, p. 13). While the mystery model in its traditional form is more or less static and categorical (“once gifted, always gifted,” with the best programming option the full-time gifted class from kindergarten through to the end of high school), the mastery model prescribes all of these state-recommended approaches for those working with gifted learners: providing a continuum of curriculum options, attending to learners’ domain-specific strengths, and responding effectively to the dynamic and idiosyncratic nature of gifted development. New York State Education Department requires that programs leading to the gifted certificate extension include

D.J. Matthews

(3) knowledge and understanding of appropriate curriculum design for gifted students; (4) knowledge and skills for planning, providing, coordinating, and evaluating differentiated teaching and learning environments to challenge and assist gifted students in learning to their highest levels of achievement; and (5) skill in collaborating with other school staff, families, and the community to provide appropriate individualized instruction for gifted students; and (b) college-supervised field experiences of at least 50 clock hours teaching gifted students” (New York State Education Department, 2005, subpara v, para 4b, Section 52.21).

These program requirements affirm the mastery model approach in many ways, including the special education focus on individualizing instruction to flexibly match individual developmental differences, rather than the mystery model’s categorical focus; the importance of providing a continuum of learning opportunities, rather than a once-size-fits-all gifted program; and the importance of ongoing collaborations with families, other school professionals, and the broader community, rather than the isolation that has characterized traditional mystery model programs. Although many teachers admit that they are taking the gifted education courses only because they need the official New York State accreditation in order to get or keep the jobs they want, those who have taken courses over the past 2 years at Hunter College have almost invariably described the experience as valuable not only in their understanding of giftedness but also in their pedagogical expertise and professional satisfaction. Many describe themselves as understanding better how to recognize and support optimal child development, as professionally reinvigorated, recommitted to education and the teaching and learning process, both “(a) Study that will permit the candidate to obtain the for themselves and for their students. Their sometimes begrudging enthusiasm is not particular to the Hunter following knowledge, understanding, and skills: experience. I have talked to teachers who have partici(1) knowledge of the characteristics of gifted stu- pated in several of the other New York State-accredited dents who learn at a pace and level that is sig- programs, and I am delighted at the renewed enthusinificantly different from their classmates; asm for teaching and learning that they are expressing (2) knowledge of various tools and methods for as they learn more about how to support and faciliidentifying and assessing gifted students, and tate optimal learning outcomes in ways that reflect state skill in using such tools and methods; policies on giftedness and the mastery model approach.

72

How Do You Get to Carnegie Hall? Gifted Education in New York City

Although I have many concerns about individual test items and certain aspects of the test construction (e.g., too much reliance on right answers to multiplechoice items, and not enough allowance for test takers’ explanations of nuance that are critical to effective work with exceptional learners), the well-considered foundation of evidence-based objectives that informed the test design and program requirements has led to some excellent professional development opportunities for teachers. Based on my interactions with teachers and administrators, and my observations of their classrooms and New York City schools, I predict that many of the teachers now achieving their New York State gifted certificate extension will go on to become educational leaders. As they acquire important skills for responding to individual developmental differences and facilitating giftedness, they are becoming empowered professionals, thinking about the wide range of learning options available to them both within their schools and much more broadly in the community, and creating networks of support and connection. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education Standards. One of the topics covered in New York State’s Gifted Content Specialty Test concerns key issues and trends in the field, including national guidelines related to gifted education. We address this in Hunter’s graduate courses by considering national standards of practice in gifted education. These are currently being revised in the United States by a group of cooperating regulating bodies to take into account the changing knowledge of teaching, learning, and human development (National Association for Gifted Children, 2006). In the 2006 Summer Institute on Gifted Education, we spent some time in the graduate course on Leadership and Professional Development in Gifted Education considering the proposed National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards for gifted and talented teacher preparation programs, based on recommendations from a committee of the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) (National Association for Gifted Children, 2006). The proposed NCATE standards start with commitments to the dynamic understanding of giftedness based on evolving state-of-the-art knowledge and to individual and developmental diversity that form the core of the mastery perspective. For example, Standard 1 (Foundations) opens with “Educators of the gifted

1373

understand the field as an evolving and changing discipline based on philosophies, evidence-based principles and theories, relevant laws and policies, diverse and historical points of view, and human issues. . .. They further understand how issues of human diversity impact families, cultures, and schools, and how these complex human issues can interact in the delivery of gifted and talented education services” (National Association for Gifted Children, 2006, para 1). Another example of enlightened policy in the proposed NCATE standards is a focus on the development of giftedness over time in response to environmental affordances that is an important emphasis of the mastery perspective, the absence of which is a serious flaw in the mystery perspective, at least from the standpoint of current knowledge of neurological and cognitive development. NCATE Standard 2 (Development and Characteristics of Learners) states, “Educators of the gifted know and demonstrate respect for their students as unique human beings. They understand variations in characteristics and development between and among individuals with and without exceptional learning needs and capacities. . .. Educators of the gifted also understand how families and communities contribute to the development of individuals with gifts and talents” (National Association for Gifted Children, 2006, para 3). There are many other examples of the ways that the proposed NCATE standards reflect the mastery perspective on gifted education, but in the interest of brevity, I will provide just one more. Standard 7 (Instructional Planning) states, “Educators of the gifted. . .take into consideration an individual’s abilities and needs, the learning environment, and cultural and linguistic factors. . .. Learning plans are modified based on ongoing assessment of the individual’s progress. Moreover, educators of the gifted facilitate these actions in a collaborative context that includes individuals with gifts and talents, families, professional colleagues, and personnel from other agencies as appropriate” (National Association for Gifted Children, 2006, para 14). The special education focus on matching the curriculum to an individual’s learning needs, responding to his or her changing needs over time and working collaboratively with other professionals, the child himself or herself, and the family, is in synch with a mastery perspective on giftedness and markedly different from the one-size-fits-all gifted

1374

program that is typically offered under the traditional or mystery perspective. My graduate students have a wide range of experience working with high-ability learners, from none (having just completed their preservice training) to 15 years working in a full-time congregated gifted program. Their collective response to the proposed NCATE standards was that they suffer (as does any set of national standards) from being annoyingly wooly and vague, but at the same time, they were strongly positive and enthusiastic about the conceptual framework that they provide. Over a series of discussions analyzing different components of the standards and their implications for practice, they concluded that not only do the proposed NCATE standards reflect current theoretical and empirical work in gifted education as described by the mastery model, but they also provide an excellent foundation on which to build solid recommendations for practice. It was our collective opinion that teachers who have the knowledge and skills specified in the NCATE standards will be well positioned to work effectively with gifted learners across a range of programming options, from regular classrooms, through extracurricular and community-based activities, to congregated gifted classrooms.

Teacher Development Opportunities On May 25, 2006, several hundred New York City educators convened from across the five boroughs to discuss best practice in gifted education. For the first time in 20 years, educators from Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and Queens came together at Hunter College, The City University of New York, for a day-long conference on gifted education that was sponsored collaboratively by the New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE) and by Hunter College. The theme of the conference was The Differentiated Curriculum: Raising the Bar for Gifted Students, and the focus was on best practice to support highability learners. An overflow crowd came to hear Joyce VanTassel-Baska (VanTassel-Baska, 2005; VanTasselBaska & Stambaugh, 2006), Sally Reis (Reis, 2005; Renzulli & Reis, 2003), Joe Renzulli (2002), and a host of local experts including Anna Commitante (Director of the Office of Gifted/Talented and Enrichment, NYC DOE), Barry Oreck (Oreck, Owen, & Baum, 2003),

D.J. Matthews

Laurance Splitter (Splitter, 2006, in press), and myself discuss evolving perspectives on gifted education as these impact on classroom practice. The response to the conference was overwhelmingly positive. Principals of schools with gifted programs were meeting for the first time with principals of similar schools, sometimes only a few blocks away, and sharing experiences, perceptions, and contact information. Teachers were meeting others for the first time who had been battling the same battles and differentiating the same curriculum; they were excitedly sharing ideas, strategies, and e-mail addresses. Both oral and written evaluations were highly enthusiastic, with most participants volunteering that it had been hugely valuable and telling us that we had to do this again soon. In accordance with the mayor’s commitment, professional development opportunities in gifted education have been dramatically expanded for New York teachers in the past year. In addition to the required coursework for the New York State gifted certificate extension, New York City teachers working with gifted learners participated in a series of workshops in 2005– 2006. These workshops, sponsored and organized by the NYC DOE and available to educators across the city who work with gifted learners, included such topics as adapting and designing curriculum for gifted students, working with gifted English language learners, working effectively with parents, developing and strengthening full-time gifted programs, implementing Schoolwide Enrichment activities, fostering communities of inquiry, addressing misconceptions about giftedness, and many others. The gifted and talented education coordinators in each of the NYC DOE’s ten regions have taken different approaches both to programming models and to professional development in gifted education. In some schools and regions, the programs and professional development emphasis are entirely or almost entirely Schoolwide Enrichment, whereas in other regions, teachers are taking advantage of many different kinds of professional development opportunities. Five of the ten regions have elected to provide at least some of their professional development through the Hunter College Center for Gifted Studies and Education (one of four official professional development providers for the NYC DOE), and to date this has included individual school consultations, Socratic seminars, program improvement workshops, helping schools use evidence

72

How Do You Get to Carnegie Hall? Gifted Education in New York City

to strengthen program capacity, and supporting leadership for change.

Collaborative Networks Jennifer Raab, the President of Hunter College, initiated the Hunter College Center for Gifted Studies and Education in 2002. She consulted Rena Subotnik (now the Director of the Center for Psychology in the Schools and Gifted Education Policy at the American Psychology Association in Washington) about the focus and direction of such a center, and I was hired in September 2003 as the first director of the center. The activities of this center include an active involvement in the Hunter College Campus Schools; developing, administering, coordinating, and teaching the courses in the graduate program in gifted education; developing, administering, coordinating, and providing professional development to city schools; participating in public forums on gifted education; providing interviews to media; participating in a variety of collaborative activities at local, regional, national, and international levels; and creating networks of access to the expertise and resources that educators need to work effectively with high-ability learners. As mentioned earlier, in May of 2006, the New York City Department of Education and Hunter College cosponsored a citywide conference that exceeded all expectations both in its attendance numbers and in the participants’ enthusiasm. It was clear from conference responses that the next professional development emphasis should be on sustaining the sense of community that so many participants described themselves as hungry for and as valuing in the conference. Building as it did on the workshops and coursework that many teachers had been participating in through the year, on the strengthened supports for gifted education at the city, state, and national levels, and on the context of 20 prior years of little or no professional development or sense of community, this conference felt like a crucible experience. The feeling of an emergent renaissance in gifted education was palpable. Wanting to take advantage of this abundant goodwill and creative momentum, we were faced with questions about how best to proceed. Serendipitously, in the summer of 2006, Ian Warwick arrived from London, England, to talk with us

1375

about what he is doing with his colleagues there. In the past 4 years, London Gifted and Talented (where he is Director of Development) has succeeded in implementing a vibrant model of what gifted education can be in a setting that is very like New York’s (see the chapter in this volume on the London implementation experience). London Gifted and Talented has created a wellfunded program of investigation, application, planning, and development and is doing extraordinary work with urban gifted education as it intersects with poverty, and in the same kind of context as New York’s of enormous diversity of race, culture, and language. They have in place there a wide range of learning options that are designed to be adapted and differentiated according to individual learners’ needs, interests, and circumstances, as well as the complex network of teacher supports that are necessary to implement these options intelligently and appropriately. London Gifted and Talented have also developed and tested some working models of ongoing interactive professional development that show promise for New York. The London findings illustrate the essential foundational importance of listening to teachers, of teachers being respected as professionals, and of their being given the time, opportunity, and support to become seriously engaged in working together to share and develop best practice. This perspective aligns very well with the emphasis on collaboration and professional development in the NCATE, NAGC, and CEC national standards of practice in gifted education, as well as in the New York State requirements for teachers who work with gifted learners. All of the London Gifted and Talented curriculum products to date have been made easily and generously available at no cost (www.londongt.org). With their encouragement, we are looking for ways to capitalize on the work they have done and to establish mutually beneficial collaborative relationships.

Programming Essentials A Flexible Range of Options From a mastery model perspective, the direction and extent of giftedness and the developmental pathways that lead to giftedness are as various as people’s lives

1376

and circumstances. In the column I wrote for The Daily News (Matthews, 2004), I proposed providing a wide range of options, including special classes, acceleration, advanced placement, and special schools, as some examples, in order to effectively meet gifted children’s advanced learning needs. I observed that none of these options is as widely accessible as necessary in New York City and that we need more places like the Hunter College Campus Schools and citywide gifted and talented programs where academically gifted learners are encouraged by the school culture, their classmates, and their teachers to develop their abilities as far as they are able. As prescribed by national and state standards, a wide range of flexible programming options that can be differentiated to respond to individual interests and exceptionalities is an important feature of the London approach to gifted and talented education, as it is of the evolving New York City approach. By providing a range of options, New York City can work toward matching curriculum to the diversity of individual learners’ developmental levels and trajectories, which facilitates the continued engagement in school and learning that is required to sustain the motivation that is critical to expertise, talent, and/or greatness (Bloom, 1985; Dobbs, 2006; Ericsson et al., 2006; Gottfried et al., in press; Simonton, 1994). In defense of keeping full-time gifted programs and schools open, then, we do not need to go to the unsavory and hardto-defend places of trying to prove that children with high intelligence quotients are potentially more valuable to society than others, or that high IQ kids need to be with each other or they will suffer, or that such programs save from perdition or ignominy a few geniuses every year or decade, or that we need gifted programs to keep (white and Asian) wealthy families in the city and/or the public schools. Instead, we can simply make the case that a school system works better with more choices rather than fewer, that there are many different kinds of learners out there, and that (thinking about Dobb’s allocation of 29% of genius to “good instruction and encouragement”) in our gifted programs we are simultaneously creating a particular kind of learning environment and providing opportunities for learning about high-level teaching and learning. To reflect what we know of exceptional development, then, as well as recommended best practice in the field, gifted programming must include a range of options that can be flexibly matched to individual students’ exceptional learning needs. The range of pos-

D.J. Matthews

sible learning options varies from enrichment in the regular classroom, through many kinds of acceleration, through mentorships and extracurricular activities, through online courses and community internships, to full-time congregated classrooms and schools for exceptionally capable learners. Academic acceleration bears some consideration as the most obvious example of a useful, inexpensive, and solidly validated but infrequently used option for advanced learners (Assouline, Colangelo, LupkowskiShoplik, Lipscomb, & Forstadt, 2003; Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004). Rather than holding children to an age/grade lockstep, acceleration is an effective tool for providing flexibility about what ability level learners are assigned to, by subject area. In addition to reducing boredom and encouraging continued engagement in learning, it has the added advantage of getting them through school faster, which is cost saving. As many teachers point out when they encounter the range of options notion for the first time, and as many educational onlookers argue, it sounds like an impossible management task, an ivory-tower ideal that is unrealistic in practice. And in fact, the critics are right. For jurisdictions wanting to put into place a flexible range of options to support gifted development, effective management is a formidable challenge. Teachers cannot be expected to know all the possible ways to differentiate programming effectively for individual gifted learners, much less to implement, supervise, and monitor these adaptations for every child in his or her classroom. So, what is needed to implement a range of options, system-wide?

Ongoing Teacher Development and Collaboration General education classroom teachers cannot differentiate effectively for diverse learning needs all by themselves. Standards of practice in special education emphasize that teachers working with special needs learners require special training and ongoing professional development and that they work collaboratively with other professionals and with parents in order to provide an optimal educational match for the child’s changing learning needs over time (Council for Exceptional Children, 2003). There is no reason to think this might be different for teachers working with ex-

72

How Do You Get to Carnegie Hall? Gifted Education in New York City

ceptionally advanced learners, and in fact Standards 1 through 9 of the NAGC/CEC recommendations under consideration by NCATE address the requisite training and professional development, and Standard 10 addresses the need for collaboration. In addition to having comprehensive knowledge about gifted development, identification, and education, teachers working with gifted learners are expected to “collaborate with individuals with gifts and talents, their families, general, and special educators, and other school staff to articulate a comprehensive preschool through secondary educational program” (National Association for Gifted Children, 2006, para 20). Collaborative consultation has been demonstrated as valuable for gifted education teachers in many areas, including differentiating instruction; designing and planning programming; evaluating programs; working through challenges relating to timelines, budgets, and other constraints; co-teaching; involving parents and community; coordinating programs system-wide; monitoring students’ strengths and needs; and working with educators, administrators, and teams of teachers (Hughes & Murawski, 2001; Kirschenbaum, Armstrong, & Landrum, 1999; Landrum, 2001; Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Slavin, 1993). My colleagues and I have conducted two studies of large school boards that have implemented a range-of-options approach, one in a mixed urban/rural public school board and the other in an urban board of affiliated parochial schools (Matthews & Foster, 2005a; Matthews et al., in press). In each case, collaboration played a critically important role, and teachers were helped to develop systems of ready access to consultants, colleagues, administrators, and parents. Our findings showed the importance in the collaborative process of administrators’ respecting (1) teachers’ professionalism, (2) students’ individual developmental diversity, and (3) context-specific opportunities and constraints. In our reports on these studies, we discussed ways that integrating a network of consultative processes into board-wide policies and practice can help address the diverse and constantly changing needs of gifted learners and also encourage high-level outcomes in learners not formally identified as gifted. The New York City Department of Education took the essential first step in implementing an effective range of options policy when it committed to providing a continuum of programming options

1377

for gifted learners (New York City Department of Education, 2006b). The second step that helped put this policy into practice was to assign a full-time gifted and talented education coordinator for each of the DOE’s ten regions in 2005 and to provide funding that allows these coordinators to consider teachers’ needs for professional development at the local level. The next step will be the hardest, the on-the-ground process of developing a network of consultants across the city who are ready, willing, and able to support teachers in differentiating curriculum, creating what Joanne Foster and I have called elsewhere a dynamic scaffolding model (DSM) of teacher development (Matthews & Foster, 2005a). The dynamic scaffolding model provides a way to give teachers the training and support that they need to implement a range of options on programming approach. Working with school-based colleagues, we documented its implementation in two large boards of education (Matthews et al., in press). Ideally, over time the New York City implementation will include a consultant in every school assigned to work with teachers in differentiating curriculum for gifted and talented learners, as is now being done in London (London Gifted & Talented, 2006). In the Hunter College graduate course on leadership in gifted education in the summer of 2006, we discussed the dynamic scaffolding model of teacher development. I asked my students (all New York City teachers), working in small groups, to answer this question: “Do you think that the DSM might work in New York City?” Some excerpts from their answers are the following: “The DSM model is extremely supportive of teachers and increases a sense of community within schools and within the NYC teaching community.” “The coordinator would have to be highly competent, have a wide set of subject interests and a growth mindset.” (We had also discussed Carol Dweck’s work on mindsets in the course [Dweck, 2006].) “The consultants must not only be well versed in the study of gifted education, but must also be able to work well within the very political structure of the New York City schools. . .If administrators would give the gifted education consultants unlimited access to the staff for follow-up and guidance, the DSM would have a greater chance of working as well.”

As illustrated by these comments, and reiterated repeatedly in many different contexts in my conversations with teachers over the past 2 years, what seems to be emerging as the most urgently pressing next step is a sense of community among teachers working with

1378

gifted learners, best fostered through a system of effective and meaningful collaboration, in a climate of ready access to gifted education consultants.

Evolving Perspectives on Identification Just as programming models are evolving to reflect advances in our knowledge of teaching and learning processes, so are approaches to identifying giftedness. In alignment with mastery model principles, identification approaches in many jurisdictions are becoming more obviously connected to domain-specific learning need at a given point in time, and in a particular context, in the same way that educators approach learning problems (Matthews & Foster, 2006). Rather than using one global test score to determine a child’s categorization as gifted, educators are increasingly advocating use of multiple domain-specific measures, including opportunities to observe a child’s actual performance in learning situations, in addition to standardized test scores. For example, David Lohman advocates a domain-specific aptitude perspective which involves assessing “(a) prior achievement in a domain, (b) the ability to reason in the symbol systems used to communicate new knowledge in that domain, (c) interest in the domain, and (d) persistence in the type of learning environments offered for the attainment of expertise in the domain” (Lohman, 2005, p. 333). One of the chief advantages of this approach is that identification of subject-specific advancement leads simply and directly to educational planning. It is not only the measures themselves and their validity in identifying learning exceptionality that must be considered but also the issue of timing. From a mystery model standpoint, gifted identification is a permanent marker of categorical status and should be done as early as possible; from this perspective, once a child is identified as gifted, he or she belongs to the gifted category. From a mastery perspective, identifying children’s areas of exceptional strength constitutes an ongoing assessment process, providing the information needed to design curriculum that is flexibly responsive to changing circumstances and developmental needs. One of the more obvious benefits of the mastery perspective is the coherence across definition, identifica-

D.J. Matthews

tion, and programming implications. Gifted identification measures are determined by the definition of giftedness as domain-specific mastery; what is needed by way of programming then makes obvious sense from the identification data. For example, if we discover, using high-ceiling tests of mathematical skills and reasoning, as well as prior achievement, that a child is three grades ahead mathematically, then she is mathematically gifted. The assessment has not only given us a descriptive label (“mathematically gifted”) but also provided specific prescriptive information: the child needs a more advanced mathematical curriculum than would normally be provided. Depending on the child’s age, learning profile, interests, and local affordances, subsequent adaptations to her programming might involve mathematical acceleration, some kind of mentorship experience, an enriched math group, participation in a math contest, and/or any number of other learning accommodations, responsively to the student’s interests, psychosocial development, and abilities, and as available. The New York City Department of Education has recently adopted a policy on gifted identification that reflects these advances in knowledge and understanding of the nature of gifted development. Changes in process at the time of writing include the use of multiple measures, including high-ceiling academic achievement and reasoning tests where possible, and the provision of ongoing assessments over time, with more flexible entrance points to gifted programming: “The Department of Education is. . .developing a standardized, citywide assessment/identification process for Kindergarten and first grade students in gifted and talented programs. For admission into programs in grades 2-5, multiple criteria (including standardized tests, student work, teacher recommendations, etc.) is required” (New York City Department of Education, 2006a, para 5). The changes in identification policies in New York have been made at least partly in response to the political and media pressures discussed above, including the charges of racial and social inequity. Although gifted identification policy is very contentious, Lohman concludes after a careful consideration of the aptitude or mastery perspective, “Although the principles discussed here are useful for all students, they are particularly important for the identification of academically promising minority students” (Lohman, 2005, p. 333).

72

How Do You Get to Carnegie Hall? Gifted Education in New York City

Equity and Excellence: Mutually Exclusive? Some critics of gifted education argue that because of historic disparities in enrollment, when considered by race or socioeconomic status, gifted education is itself a racist enterprise and should be dispensed with entirely (e.g., Fruchter & Siegel, 2005). Others, more sympathetic to the urgency of differentiating curriculum for exceptionally advanced learners, have postulated that congregated/segregated gifted programs lead inevitably to resentment and that we must find other ways of providing appropriate learning matches for gifted learners (e.g., Borland, 2003; Callahan, 2003; Ford, 2003a, 2003b). A broader perspective on the question can be found by considering the achievement gap in the United States, between blacks and Hispanics on the one hand and whites on the other. Richard Rothstein (Rothstein, 2004, 2006), an economic and educational policy analyst, argues that we will not be able to close this achievement gap until we have effectively addressed the poverty, access to health and dental care, early learning experiences, family structure, educational resources, and cultural attitudes that underlie it. If we really want to close the gap, Rothstein argues, we have to equalize early opportunities to thrive and to learn. David Lohman and Frank Worrell make Rothstein’s case in the context of gifted education. Because differences in test scores are robust across various measures of intelligence and achievement, and reflect real differences in opportunities to learn, we should not expect the same number of African-American, Hispanic, and white children to be identified as gifted when their opportunities to learn are so different (Lohman, 2005, in press; Worrell, in press). They do not argue that we ignore the achievement gap, but rather that the underrepresentation of blacks and Hispanics in gifted education is a symptom of much larger social problems. Lohman and Worrell each conclude that differences in racial composition of our gifted programs point to the need both to ensure that our gifted identification processes are culture-fair (which does not mean throwing out intelligence and achievement tests) and also to ensure that early opportunities to learn are equitable. This is what my colleagues and I (Matthews & Foster, 2006) have referred to elsewhere as the two agendas of gifted education: we must both differenti-

1379

ate curriculum appropriately for gifted learners, whatever their race or socioeconomic status, and also facilitate high-level achievement in all students. From this standpoint, we should continue to use standardized tests (along with other measures) to ascertain which students need differentiated curriculum and at the same time support children from every community and race in gaining opportunities to develop areas of strength. We cannot blame gifted programming or identification practices for long-standing social problems and racial disparities, then, nor should we attempt to use gifted education to fix this problem. A good way to address the concerns of under-representation without destroying the highly select programs that address the needs of exceptionally capable learners is to do what New York City is in the process of implementing now: using local norms to identify students in all communities who are advanced relative to their local age-peers and create neighborhood gifted programs for those children; and using national norms to identify students for more select citywide programs. These local programs will be offered in addition to citywide programs like Hunter College Campus Schools, the specialized high schools, the Lower Lab School, the Anderson School, and other programs that require a higher entry score. This can be seen as analogous to opportunities for athletic or artistic development, with available programs ranging from neighborhood based to highly elite teams and classes and access depending on the level of demonstrated ability and motivation.

Conclusion: What Works and Why? Every jurisdiction and every context is unique, with idiosyncratic challenges and opportunities. At the same time, the changes to gifted education policy and practice currently in progress in New York City can be seen as providing an instructive case study, with effective policy and practice being implemented in many interconnected ways: 1. A foundational structure of administrative support is being built at the city level in the form of the Office of Gifted/Talented and Enrichment and fulltime gifted coordinators in each region. 2. New York State has mandated that teachers working with gifted learners have substantial additional qualifications in gifted education, demonstrating

1380

knowledge and skills that reflect current knowledge of best practice in the field. Evolving New York City policies and practices are consistent with new national standards in teacher education, developed by the National College of Accreditation in Teacher Education, the National Association for Gifted Children, and the Council for Exceptional Children. Current full-time congregated gifted programs are being strengthened and expanded. Teacher development in gifted education is being funded; teachers are being given many different opportunities to expand their expertise in working with high-ability learners. A range of gifted programming options is being implemented, including full-time programs at local and citywide, Schoolwide Enrichment, acceleration, special high schools, honors programs, and others. Identification procedures are being reviewed and expanded to include multiple measures and more flexible entry to gifted programs. There are rich opportunities for local and international collaborations.

D.J. Matthews

phasizes the importance to a healthy functioning society of diverse individual and institutional connections 3. to community and collaboration. In an article about expanding the conception of giftedness to promote social capital, Joe Renzulli (2002) wrote about using gifted education to cultivate the social capital, norms of reciprocity, and networks of civic engagement that Putnam identified as essential to civic 4. community and a thriving democratic society. And because gifted education in New York today is experi5. encing the simultaneous bottom-up and top-down pressures, as well as the systemic and legislative supports, that are required for lasting educational change (Fullan, 2001), it is a good time to apply Renzulli’s ob6. servations about Putnam’s conclusions to gifted education. If we continue to move away from the isolation and segregation that has characterized gifted education for much of the last century, and take advantage of the 7. abundant opportunities we have for collaboration, connection, and synthesis, we might find that gifted education is on the forefront of an educational renaissance, 8. part of facilitating a contemporary version of the flowering of the arts, crafts, and sciences that characterized the Renaissance. By shifting paradigms, and moving to understanding giftedness from a mastery model perspective, by strengthening diverse individual and instiMaking Gifted Education Work: Next tutional connections to community and collaboration, Steps we may find that the rich urban diversity that is one of our greatest challenges also constitutes one of our most In Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Mod- precious opportunities. I am working with several colleagues on an edited ern Italy, the social scientist Robert Putnam (1993) volume that considers what we know about the develwrites about the confluence of simultaneous pressures opment of giftedness and talent across the life span and affordances in northern and central Italy in the (Horowitz, Subotnik, & Matthews, in progress). Workmiddle ages that led to the kind of civil community required for a successful participatory democracy and to ing with eminent developmental psychologists, we disthe flowering in the arts, crafts, and sciences that char- cuss how significant advances in our knowledge and acterized the Renaissance. He concludes on the basis understanding of individual development across the of a thoughtful and intensive analysis of his research life span can be applied to understanding giftedness on Italy’s history and government that the broader so- and talent. In considering this work to date (Subotnik, cial context that supported the development of civic Worrell, & Matthews, 2006), we recommend community in northern and central Italy (and not the south) requires a history of investments in social capital, norms of reciprocity, and networks of civic en- 1. That jurisdictions support families and communigagement. In a subsequent bestseller, Bowling Alone, ties in providing optimal developmental opportuPutnam (2000) discusses what happens when these innities for all young children vestments, norms, and networks disintegrate, this time 2. Remedying the under-representation of minorities using modern America as his case study. Again in this in gifted programs by increasing achievement in book, but from a different perspective entirely, he emall members of underachieving groups

72

How Do You Get to Carnegie Hall? Gifted Education in New York City

3. Reducing the pressures placed upon children by implicit or explicit prediction of later gifted or not gifted performance 4. Moving away from group categorization (gifted/not gifted), toward identifying children’s emerging interests and abilities, consistent with Carol Dweck’s findings on incremental approaches to understanding intelligence and the importance of the growth mindset in optimal development (Dweck, 2006) 5. That assessment measures used for gifted identification match the educational programming to be offered 6. That talent be recognized as increasingly domain specific over time 7. Finding ways to support the dynamic development of individual children’s diverse interests and abilities, including in the visual/spatial domain 8. Expanding opportunities at every developmental stage for diversely gifted learners to acquire expertise and find creative outlets for their domains of strength and interest 9. That time and task commitment be emphasized in the talent development process 10. Opening opportunities for talent development across the lifespan 11. Supporting the development of late blooming gifts, including wisdom. Although New York City’s evolving policies and practices are philosophically consistent with all of these recommendations, there is much room for growth with respect to specific policy and implementation practices. Based on my analysis of the current situation in New York, and considering it against what we know and are learning about best practice in the field, urgent next steps include (a) ensuring that teachers and administrators become productively engaged in creating networks of best practice and personally relevant professional development, (b) supporting families and communities in providing optimal developmental opportunities for all young children, in order to foster gifted development more widely across the population, (c) identifying and supporting children’s emerging interests and abilities, in an ongoing assessment process that involves not only flexible entrance to gifted programming but also effective exit strategies where appropriate, (d) exploring the time, task commitment, and psychosocial factors that have been identified as

1381

critical to subsequent high achievement (Subotnik & Calderon, in press; Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005), and finally (e) building ongoing evaluation practices into the system. Because London is similar to New York City in its challenges and opportunities, and because it is farther along in a successful implementation of many of these best practices in the field of gifted education, it can provide a useful model for thinking about how New York City can best proceed from here. At time of writing, several colleagues and I are investigating ways to create useful partnerships with London Gifted and Talented. Some of the strengths of the New York system that we can share with London include the work that is being done at Hunter College Campus Schools and elsewhere with exceptionally gifted learners, our citywide system of select high schools, and our evolving identification and service delivery policies. By forming collaborative partnerships to consider, implement, and evaluate evidence-based policies and practices, and by fostering networks of best practice at the teacher and administrative levels, we can capitalize on the remarkable opportunity we have today in New York City to work together to make lasting changes that support and facilitate gifted development. Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Felice Kaufmann, Stephen Gross, David Steiner, Rena Subotnik, Anna Commitante, and Joanne Foster for their thoughts on the manuscript in preparation.

References Ambrose, D. (2006). From the editor’s desk. Roeper Review, 28, 2, 60–61. Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E., Lipscomb, J., & Forstadt, L. (2003). The Iowa acceleration scale (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine. Bloomberg, M. (2005, January). 2005 State of the city address. Retrieved August 28, 2006, from http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/searchlight/20050111/ 203/1243 Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

1382 Borland, J. H. (2003). Evaluating gifted programs: A broader perspective. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 293–310). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bracken, B. A., & Brown, E. F. (2006) Behavioral identification and assessment of gifted and talented students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24(2), 112–122. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Brown, E., Avery, L., VanTassel-Baska, J., Worley, B., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). A Five-State analysis of gifted education policy. Roeper Review, 29(1), 11–23. Callahan, C. M. (2000). Evaluation as a critical component of program development and implementation. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 537– 547). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Callahan, C. M. (2003). Searching for answers or creating more questions? A response to Robinson. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 274–282. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City, IO: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Committee on Education and the Law. (2003, Spring). Ending discrimination in gifted education in the New York City public schools. The Record, 58(2), 174–202. Council for Exceptional Children. (2003). What every special educator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines for special educators (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Dai, D. Y. (2009). Essential tensions in conceptions of giftedness: A historical-dialectical perspective. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), Handbook of gifted education. Springer. Dai, D. Y., & Renzulli, J. S. (2008). Snowflakes, living systems, and the mystery of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly. Dobbs, D. (2006, September). How to be a genius. New Scientist, 2569, 40–43. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House. Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., Hoffman, R. J. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ford, D. Y. (2003a). Desegregating gifted education: Seeking equity for culturally diverse students. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 143–158). New York: Teachers College Press. Ford, D. Y. (2003b). Two other wrongs don’t make a right: Sacrificing the needs of diverse students does not solve gifted education’s unresolved problems. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 283–291. Fruchter, N., & Siegel, D. (2004, November 28). Point/counterpoint: Are gifted programs good? No. The Daily News, p. 46. Fullan, M. G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Goodwin, M. (2006, March 19). Smart kids need not apply. New York Daily News. p. 33.

D.J. Matthews Gottfried, A., Gottfried, A. E., & Guerin, D. W. (in press). Issues in early prediction and identification of intellectual giftedness. In F. D. Horowitz, R. F. Subotnik, & D. J. Matthews (Eds.), The development of giftedness and talent: A life-span perspective. Washington: APA Publications. Herszenhorn, D. (2005, October 22). Under siege on schools, mayor pledges new programs. New York Times, p. B2. Horowitz, F. D. (1987). A developmental view of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(4), 165–168. Horowitz, F. D., & O’Brien, M. (Eds.). (1985). The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Horowitz, F. D., Subotnik, R. F., & Matthews, D. J. (in progress). The development of giftedness and talent across the life-span. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Howe, M. J. A. (1990). The origins of exceptional abilities. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Hughes, C. E., & Murawski, W. A. (2001). Lessons from another field: Applying co-teaching strategies to gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(3), 195–204. Kandel, E. R., Schwartz, J. H., & Jessel, T. M. (2000). Principles of neural science (4th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Keating, D. P. (1991). Curriculum options for the developmentally advanced. Exceptionality Education Canada, 1, 53–83. Keating, D. P. (in press). Developmental science and giftedness: An integrated life-span perspective. In F. D. Horowitz, R. F. Subotnik, & D. J. Matthews (Eds.), Developmental approaches to giftedness. Washington: APA. Kirschenbaum, R. J., Armstrong, D. C., & Landrum, M. S. (1999). Resource consultation model in gifted education to support talent development in today’s inclusive schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 39–47. Landrum, M. (2001). Resource consultation and collaboration in gifted education. Psychology in the Schools, 38(5), 457–465. Levy, J. (2005, February 17). Concern spreads on gifted programs. New York Sun (p. 6). Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lohman, D. F. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent: Implications for identification of academically gifted minority students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 333–360. Lohman, D. F. (2006). Beliefs about differences between ability and accomplishment: From folk theories to cognitive science. Roeper Review, 29, 32–40. London Gifted and Talented. (2006). London gifted and talented: Realizing our city’s potential. Retrieved August 30, 2006, from http://www.londongt.org/homepages/index.php Matthews, D. J. (2004, November). Point/counterpoint. Are gifted programs good? Yes. New York Daily News. Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. (2005a). A dynamic scaffolding model of teacher development: The gifted education consultant as catalyst for change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(3), 222–230. Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2005b). Being smart about gifted children: A guidebook for parents and educators. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2006). Mystery to mastery: Shifting paradigms in gifted education. Roeper Review, 28(2), 64–69. Matthews, D. J., Foster, J. F., Gladstone, D., Schieck, J., & Meiners, J. (2007). Supporting professionalism, diversity,

72

How Do You Get to Carnegie Hall? Gifted Education in New York City

and context within a Consultation, collaborative approach to gifted education. Journal of Educational and Psychological, 17, 315–334. Matthews, D. J., & Keating, D. P. (1995). Domain specificity and habits of mind: An investigation of patterns of high-level development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 319–343. Matthews, D. J., & Kitchen, J. (2007a). Allowing idiosyncratic learners to thrive: Policy implications of a study of schoolwithin-a-school gifted programs. Journal of School Choice, 1, 4, 27–53. Matthews, D. J., & Kitchen, J. (2007b). School-within-a-school gifted programs: Perceptions of students and teachers in public secondary schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 3, 256–271. National Association for Gifted Children. (2006). CECNAGC Initial knowledge and skill standards for gifted and talented education. Retrieved August 28, 2006, from http://www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/Information and Resources/NCATE standards/final%20initial%20standards %20(4.14.06).pdf Nelson, C. A. (1999). Neural plasticity and human development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 42–45. New York City Department of Education. (2006a). Gifted/talented & enrichment. Retrieved August 19, 2006, from http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/TeachLearn/ OfficeCurriculumProfessionalDevelopment/GiftedTalented/ default.htm New York City Department of Education. (2006b). New York City Department of Education Continuum of Programs/Services for Gifted & Talented. Retrieved August 19, 2006, from http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/TeachLearn/ OfficeCurriculumProfessionalDevelopment/GiftedTalented/ Programs/default.htm New York State Education Department. (2003). New York State teacher certification examinations preparation guide gifted education content specialty test (64). Amherst MA: National Evaluation Systems. New York State Education Department. (2005). Regulations of the commissioner of education: Registration of Curricula. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/part52.21.htm Oreck, B. A., Owen, S. V., & Baum, S. M. (2003). Validity, reliability, and equity issues in an observational talent assessment process in the performing arts. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(1), 62–94. Plucker, J. A., & Barab, S. A. (2005). The importance of contexts in theories of giftedness: Learning to embrace the messy joys of subjectivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 201–216). New York: Cambridge University Press. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse And Revival Of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Ragin, C. C., & Becker, H. S. (1992). What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press. Reis, S. M. (2005). Feminist perspectives on talent development. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of

1383

giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 217–245). New York: Cambridge University Press. Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Expanding the conception of giftedness to include co-cognitive traits and to promote social capital. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 33–58. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2003). The schoolwide enrichment model: Developing creative and productive giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 184–203). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic and educational reform to close the black-white achievement gap. New York: Teachers College Press. Rothstein, R. (2006, January). Review of Equity and excellence in American higher education, by William G. Bowen, Martin A. Kurzweil, & Eugene M. Tobin (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2005). Academe. Retrieved March 24, 2006, from http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ webfeatures viewpoints equity and excellence Schwartz, R. (2005, January 13). Mike’s gift for kids: Finally, programs for city’s gifted get a deserved boost. New York Daily News. Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington: National Academy Press. Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Splitter, L. (2006). Philosophy in a crowded curriculum. In H. W. Kam (Ed.), Philosophy in schools: Developing a community of inquiry: Report on the proceedings of the conference (pp. 56–65). Singapore: Singapore Teachers Union. Splitter, L. (2007). Delving ever deeper: Gifted students and philosophy. Gifted Education International, 22(2/3), 207–217. Subotnik, R. F., & Calderon, J. (2008). Developing giftedness and talent. In F. Karnes & K. Stephens (Eds.), Achieving excellence: Educating the gifted and talented (pp. 49–61). Columbus, OH: Pearson Education Inc. Subotnik, R. F., & Jarvin, L. (2005). Beyond expertise: Conceptions of giftedness as great performance. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (3rd ed., 343–357). New York: Cambridge University Press. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Arnold, K. D. (2003). Beyond Bloom: Revisiting environmental factors that enhance or impede talent development. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 227–238). New York: Teachers College Press. Subotnik, R. F., Worrell, F. C., & Matthews, D. J. (August, 2006). The development of giftedness and talent across the life-span. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan. Tannenbaum, A. J. (2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 45–59). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005). Gifted programs and services: What are the non-negotiables? Theory into practice, 44(2), 90–97. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

1384 Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Slavin, T. J. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Wolf, A. (2006, August 25). Why we’re losing ground. New York Sun, p. 9. Worrell, F. C. (2003). Why are there so few African Americans in gifted programs? In C. C Yeakey & R. D. Henderson (Eds.),

D.J. Matthews Surmounting the odds: Education, opportunity, and society in the new millennium (pp. 423–454). Greenwich, CT: Information Age, Inc. Worrell, F. C. (in press). What does gifted mean? Personal and social identity perspectives on Giftedness in adolescence. In F. D. Horowitz, R. F. Subotnik, & D. J. Matthews (Eds.), The development of giftedness and talent: A life-span perspective. Washington: American Psychological Association.

Chapter 73

London Gifted and Talented: A Case Study in High Challenge Urban Education Ian Warwick

Every child should have the opportunity to achieve their full potential. Some gifted & talented young people need extra support to break the cycle of under-achievement. London Gifted & Talented will ensure that background is no barrier to achievement, prioritising support for vulnerable groups. London Gifted & Talented will offer specific help to refugees and asylum seekers, speakers of English as an additional language, deprived children, and under-achieving ethnic minority students. Stephen Twigg, Schools Minister for London London Gifted & Talented launch speech 21st January 2004

Abstract This chapter analyses both London’s strengths and the challenges it faces in the educational environment, seeking to contribute to a clearer understanding of the most effective ways to bring about sustainable change for gifted and talented students. It also examines the role of London Gifted and Talented and London Challenge in bringing about such change within this environment, by investigating some of the models for teaching and learning that we have developed and trialled across the capital by working with students, schools and Local Authorities facing the most challenging circumstances. The final focus is on how effective our organisations have been in collaboratively building educator capacity by embedding what works in schools, and the impact our work has had on raising standards and realising the potential of our capital’s gifted and talented students. Keywords London Gifted and Talented · London Challenge · Urban gifted education · Local Authorities · Diversity · Disadvantaged gifted and talented children

I. Warwick (B) London Gifted & Talented, London, UK e-mail: [email protected]

The National and London Student Picture Around £73 billion is spent on education every year, with a further £20 billion on employment and training (as recorded on the Department for Education and Skills website, http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/). Recent public commitments from central government maintain education at the forefront of strategic national investment. This funding is set to rise further with the aim to boost funding so that, eventually, pupils in state schools will have the same amount spent on them as those in the independent sector. This will mean that all pupils – from those falling behind in English and maths to the exceptionally gifted – will get the advice and encouragement they need to reach their potential. By focusing sharply on nurturing strengths, as well as mitigating weaknesses, the achievements of all children can be raised. Core to this education policy is personalised learning and, as part of that, effective provision for gifted and talented students. Gifted students are more likely to reveal their abilities under an approach that seeks excellence for all, and where those who demonstrate significant aptitude are drawn from the full range of social groups. Across London, many organisations are working together to raise aspirations and engage more young people with the opportunities and the wealth

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 73, 

1385

1386

I. Warwick

of resources that London provides. The sentiment 7% of students attended independent schools and expressed in Stephen Twigg’s address is central 1% went to maintained and non-maintained special to understanding what principles underpin London schools. Challenge, and the part of it that London Gifted and r In London, 1.27 million students are taught in maintained nursery, primary and secondary Talented is responsible for delivering. As partners schools. Thirteen percent of inner London students we share a unique educational environment and a go to independent schools, and 12,000 London common role in trying to nurture the abilities of students attend maintained and non-maintained students who are drawn from across the full spectrum special schools (Source: Department for Education of society. We also both endeavour to work with all and Skills statistical release 2006/7). students to harness their potential by breaking down the barriers that exclude or prevent them from having their talents recognised and to transform their life Ethnicity chances.

r Student School Choice

r

In January 2006 there were 8.2 million students in 25,200 maintained and independent schools in England. Ninety-one percent of students were taught in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools;

Graph 73.1 Ethnicity of primary and secondary pupils

In maintained primary schools the percentage of students (of compulsory School age and above) who were classified as minority ethnic origin has increased from 19.3% in 2005 to 20.6% in 2006 – an increase of over one percentage point. A similar trend is apparent in secondary schools with 15.9% of students classified by minority ethnic groups in 2005 increasing to 16.8% in 2006.

73

London Gifted & Talented

Graph 73.2 Percentage of students in all schools whose first language is known or believed to be other than English

1387

47.4

Inner London

27.5

Outer London

9.5

All schools

0

Graph 73.3 Percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals

First Language In January 2006 the percentage of students in primary schools (of compulsory school age and above) whose first language is known or believed to be other than English was 12.5%, which represents an increase of almost one percentage point when compared with last year. The same trend is apparent in secondary schools where the proportion of students whose first language is known or believed to be other than English increased by around half a percentage point from last year to 9.5% in 2006. Thirty-eight percent of the population of London speak English as an additional language, which is reflected in the education system – 52.3% of students in maintained secondary schools in inner London speak English as a second language.1

2004, compared to a national average of 11%.

80

100

60

80

100

13.6

0

1

60

17.1

All schools

r

40

37.3

Inner London

Outer London

r

20

20

40

Thirty-eight percent of the country’s students from ethnic minorities study in London and in 2002, 6% of children in London schools were the children of asylum seekers.

The Improving Urban Educational Environment Urban schools are in distinctly different circumstances from other schools. They often face greater challenges of deprivation and need to respond to shifting populations: in 2004, 31% of children in inner London maintained schools were eligible for free school meals compared to 10.6% nationally. A total of 13.5% of all inner city secondary schools have been identified by OFSTED as having serious weaknesses or requiring special measures compared with 5.4% nationally.

1388

I. Warwick

In London, schools often serve a highly mobile2 population, with as many as 50% of the children starting in September changing secondary schools during the year. Nevertheless the focus necessary to deal with some of the challenges highlighted so far has also meant that urban teachers have developed highly effective strategies, that urban organisations have created more innovative solutions and that urban schools are not doing as badly as some might have anticipated.

gramme and the Schools Facing Challenging Circumstances initiative. Within a number of jurisdictions, the identification of and provision for gifted and talented students is core to government policy. For example, White, FletcherCampbell and Ridley, (2003, p. 1) highlights

Today I want to explode a myth about urban education. The one that says that urban schools are no good. A breeding ground for indiscipline and failure. In the late 1980s just 15% of students got five good GCSEs in inner London. I guess that we haven’t all noticed that by last year, that proportion had more than trebled to 47%. Or that London as a whole overtook the national average GCSE performance for the first time ever in 2004. Stephen Twigg, Minister of State for School Standards Speech to the Fabian Society; London, 9th February 2005

Montgomery (2003, p. 2) commented that the starting point within the United Kingdom for gifted and talented students

In addition, cities have some of the best resources for broadening horizons with world class cultural, sporting and business facilities. The best schools are taking advantage of the very best that the cities around them have to offer. Keen to be part of a ‘wider city mosaic’, they draw from a wealth of museums and galleries, sports facilities, theatres and music. Urban students are benefiting from the cities around them, and in turn helping to shape the urban environment into hubs of learning and creativity.

Recent Urban Initiatives Since first being elected in 1997, the current UK government has launched a series of initiatives to try to resolve the educational challenges of English inner cities. These have included the Excellence in Cities (EiC) initiative with linked programmes such as the Leadership Incentive Grant and Behaviour Improvement Pro-

2 Students are considered ‘mobile’ if they join or leave a school at any time other than the standard joining and leaving times (generally the start and end of the standard school year). This may be as a result of having newly arrived in the country (many of the main arrival points are in London, as is the headquarters of the National Asylum Support Service), moving as a result of family upheaval or having been excluded or removed from another school. A significant proportion of ‘mobile’ students are asylum seekers or refugees, with English as an Additional Language (EAL), sometimes unaccompanied.

A major strand of government policy in the United Kingdom, particularly that relating to education in inner-city areas, is provision for gifted and talented students

Began with the House of Commons Inquiry (1998–1999) and the setting up of the Government’s Gifted and Talented Advisory Group (1998–2001). Prior to this it had been assumed that grammar schools, streaming and setting within comprehensive schools and grant maintained schools or public schools (private schools) could cope with the need.

The EiC initiative acted as a catalyst for major and significant development for the gifted and talented. This programme was launched in September 1999 for improving educational achievement and addressing underperformance in schools located in deprived urban areas of England and sought to improve the identification, education and support for gifted and talented pupils and specifically help disadvantaged able children to reach their full potential (Edmonds, FletcherCampbell, & Kendall, 2003, p. 1). EiC began with the intention of raising standards and transforming the culture of low expectations and achievement. The project covered 58 local authority areas, with 96 ‘action zones’ tackling smaller pockets of deprivation in towns and suburbs. The strategy initially focused on five large conurbations – Inner London, Birmingham, Manchester/Salford, Liverpool/Knowsley and Leeds/Bradford. £200 million was spent on it in 2001–2002, with £300 million in 2002– 2003. Overall, £ 1.6 billion has been spent on the Excellence in Cities project since its inception. In summer 2001, the percentage point increase in students achieving five General Certificates of Secondary Education (the principal means of assessing pupil attainment at the end of compulsory secondary education) at A∗ - C in Excellence in City schools was almost double that of schools not in the programme. An Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) report in December 2005 said that the scheme was highly successful and had contributed to a steady improvement in

73

London Gifted & Talented

1389

GCSE results. Schools increased the proportion of stu- ties (LAs) with high student mobility across LA bounddents who gained five A∗ to C grades by 5.2 percent- aries. London’s education system has huge demands age points between 2002 and 2005, which narrowed the placed upon it: gap with other schools from 10.4 to 7.8 points. Inspectors said the EiC initiative had improved social inclu- r sion and standards in England’s poorest areas since its r ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity launch in 1999. In eight out of 10 EiC schools visited, r refugee and asylum seeker students students from the extremes of deprivation and the leadership and management were highly effective and had made the most of their extra money, an aver- r wealth traveller children age of £120 per student a year. r high levels of student mobility The results of students in schools benefiting from the r high proportion of students who have suffered loss Excellence in Cities programme have been improving or bereavement at more than twice the national rate. Nowhere has this r rising numbers of students with EAL improvement been more remarkable than in London, r students with a wide range of special educational whose students now perform above the national average Stephen Twigg MP, Minister of State for School Stanneeds dards National Association of Schoolmasters Union of r high rates of pregnancy amongst girls Women Teachers (NASUWT Conference speech, p. 2), r students who are disruptive and seriously challeng30th March 2005 ing r high percentage of children on the ‘at risk’ register

The London Context London is a great world city. It is an economic and cultural dynamo. It is the most kaleidoscopically diverse capital in the world, with over 300 languages spoken: a mix of thriving local communities, each with their own history, culture and connections. London is also a city of contrasts with extremes of wealth and deprivation – often in close geographical proximity. London faces a high concentration of urban deprivation. This is exacerbated by the high costs of living in the south east of England and significant wage differential between the public and the private sectors. Earnings are polarised, with a high proportion of earners in London being in the lowest and highest quartile of earners nationally (public-sector workers tend to be in the mid-range). A fifth of the most deprived electoral areas nationally are in London, and often disadvantaged neighbourhoods sit alongside affluent neighbourhoods. These statistics are reflected in London’s educational system.

Overview of the London Educational System London educates approximately a sixth of all students in England in 33 small, tightly-packed Local Authori-

Only 62% of parents get a place in their favoured secondary school as opposed to 85% in England overall, and there is a significant contrast between the highest and the lowest performing schools. There is a tendency for parents to have low levels of confidence in the London education system, which shapes public perception of the school system as a whole. There are also significant challenges for supporting the professional development of teachers in the region. In 2004 there were 61,500 regular teachers in London’s maintained schools, and teacher retention remains an important issue considering the 15% annual teacher turnover. Such high turnover – especially in the early stages of a career – and the high percentage of newly qualified teachers contribute to a shortage of teachers for specific subjects as well as broader recruitment and retention difficulties. Educators are teaching outside their specialist subject areas, and there are a high percentage of overseas trained teachers in schools. London already has many world class universities, schools and teachers. But the sense of excellence and achievement which characterises such educational facilities needs to become the ‘watermark’ for all. London faces unique challenges, but it also offers a unique concentration of world class opportunities – opportunities that the educational system is really beginning to explore fully.

1390

London Challenge What Is London Challenge?

I. Warwick

tories of weak capacity for improvement. Four of these boroughs were the subject of central government intervention in education, where delivery of education services was ‘outsourced’ to external contractors as a result of long-term systemic failure.3 The second strand of the targeted element was to work directly with a group of schools ‘on the front line’ in order to break the link between deprivation and poor educational outcomes. These schools are characterised as generally low attaining and often with limited leadership capacity. They have become known as ‘keys to success’ schools. The London Challenge programme has had a total budget of around £20m per annum, with around £3m available to support targeted work to raise standards in the ‘keys to success’ schools.

The London Challenge was launched in summer 2002 to respond to the particular challenges which Lon- r don faces. The accompanying 5-year strategy document was published the following May. It was initiated by the Department for Education and Skills, following analysis by the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit of the issues affecting public service delivery in London, and further analysis of the particular challenges for education in the capital. From the beginning, there was a strong political drive behind the initiative, which was launched by the then Secretary of State (Estelle Morris), with an identified Minister for London Schools (Stephen Twigg) and Commissioner for London Schools (Tim Brighouse). London Challenge was identified as one of the Prime Minister’s top 10 delivPan-London ery priorities, and the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit (PMDU) has monitored progress at school, borough and pan London levels since the launch of the pro- r One outcome of the London Challenge has been the development of the London Student Pledge. In gramme. London, the Student Pledge has challenged all orIts particular focus was on raising the aspirations of ganisations to extend the range of ‘experiences’ – young people across London. The primary aim of Loncultural, musical, sporting and more – available to don Challenge was to make London the world’s leading all young people. The pledge is a unifying vehicle learning and creative city and to ensure that all Lonin London for connecting the city’s very best redon’s schools are fit for the twenty-first century: for sources to some of its most disadvantaged young students, for teachers, for leaders, for parents and for people. Over 200 major London organisations are the community. In doing this, the intention was to celepart of making that a reality. brate, disseminate and embed the best and to transform the worst. London Challenge also tackled the image of r Crucial to any improvements are London’s teachers. Their daily efforts and skills change children’s life London as being behind the rest of the United Kingdom chances, and part of the London Challenge has been in terms of educational achievement with the aim of adto get behind their efforts. Our best schools know dressing the particular concerns that there were more that teachers perform best when they are supported ‘failing’ schools in London, more schools with below to develop their professional skills. Teachers in the average attainment and a lack of capacity to deal with capital registering to become Chartered London systemic problems at both school and local authority Teachers, recognise that it rewards the additional levels. and unique talents of London teachers who develop It started as a secondary strategy, working in the their skills and meet a demanding set of standards. schools with students aged between 11 and 18 with Since the introduction of the ‘Chartered London both targeted and pan-London elements. Teacher’ status in September 2004, over 6,000 London teachers (both primary and secondary) have Targeted registered.

r

The targeted elements focus on five key Boroughs, 3 Two boroughs have since been removed from intervention; all the lowest attaining London boroughs, with his- have substantially improved the quality of service provided.

73

London Gifted & Talented

Partnership Between London Challenge and London Gifted and Talented While London Challenge was launched as a central government initiative, from the beginning it deliberately developed strong links with local government and school leaders, whose support and commitment had always been seen as crucial to its success. Extra resources have been provided for key challenges, one of which was the channelling of extra support to gifted and talented children. In 2004 London Gifted and Talented was launched as part of a £10m drive to improve provision for gifted and talented young people in the capital. Part of its core brief was to act as a catalyst to create new partnerships and synergies across London in order to raise the aspirations and attainment of students and schools. Acknowledging the very specific needs of London, London Gifted and Talented has taken advantage of the particular opportunities for making a difference and exploiting the regional identity of London as a world class city. London’s strength depends more than ever on its education system. The great challenges are to tackle disadvantage, to achieve equity and progressively higher standards to increase excellence. The only route to excellence and equality today in secondary education is radical reform. This reform has to come as a benefit to all students, whatever their achievement levels and abilities. In this ambition for London, the provision for the most gifted and talented students cannot be ignored. London Challenge, as our umbrella organisation, fully funds London Gifted and Talented to deliver very specific student and educator input to meet the needs detailed above across all 33 London boroughs. As partners we share in a common analysis of London’s strengths and the challenges it faces and are able to contribute to a joint understanding of the most effective ways to bring about change.

Disadvantage and Gifted and Talented We believe that people should be able to rise by their talents, not by their birth or advantages of privilege. We understand that people are not all born into equal circumstances, so one role of state education is to open up opportunities for all, regardless of their background. This means we need to provide high standards of basics for all, but also recognise the different abilities of different chil-

1391 dren, and tailor education to meet their needs and develop their potential. Tony Blair, October 2nd 1996 Speech at Labour Party Conference, Blackpool

The original reference to ‘talents’ can be traced to the parable of the talents as found in Matthew 25. Since then gifts and talents, once thought of as being divinely inspired and then considered heretical during the Middle Ages, have been subject to much pretty pointless defining conjecture. Hymer and Michel (2002, p. 9) state, Robust, reliable and educationally authentic definitions of giftedness and talent are elusive

White et al. (2003, p. 1) have identified over 200 different definitions for gifted and talented while Cheshire County Council Education Services (1996, p. 6) note, There are difficulties in adopting any definition as part of working practice

Rather than fruitlessly debating the many and confusing definitions that have been used interchangeably and that are seemingly used as synonyms, the working definitions that will be used throughout this chapter are adopted from the Department of Education and Skills (DfES) in England through its Excellence in Cities (EIC) initiative quoted in a report by the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED, 2001, p. 11) The gifted are those with high ability in one or more academic subjects, and the talented are those with high ability in sport, music, visual arts and/or performing arts.

These students are distributed throughout the whole school population which means that every teacher is faced at some time or another with a gifted and/or talented child. The core of gifted education in any ‘integrated model’ is day-to-day classroom provision as part of a ‘high aspiration and high attaining’ education system. The standard school system should recognise individual differences, and every school should plan on the basis of meeting a variety of needs by tailoring the curriculum. Every school is required to identify its gifted students and to specify the ways in which the school meets their needs. Teachers not only need to think about how to plan for their gifted students but must also have a key role in deciding who might be considered gifted. Eyre and McClure (2001, pp. 1–2) argue that whole school benefits will result if gifted and talented provision is thus addressed:

1392

I. Warwick

Schools who meet the criteria for effective schools. . ..are also likely to be effective in meeting the needs of the gifted and talented. Meeting the educational needs of the gifted and talented is about building on good general school provision, not about providing something entirely different.

use data to identify individual gifted students from such groups and intervene to offer them access to the highquality opportunities and the support they require to realise their potential. These issues are addressed later in this chapter when one of the programmes that London Gifted and Talented run specifically investigating efThis supports Leroux and McMillan (1993, p. 7) who fective methods of intervention for such disadvantaged highlighted students is detailed. As different programme models evolved in local schools, regular classrooms benefited from the strategies developed and used in programmes for high ability students.

London Gifted and Talented Where gifted education is not specifically addressed evidence indicates that educational progress is ‘not so much a question of intellectual merit but rather a question of affluence, with the most affluent receiving the best education and therefore achieving most highly. This suggests significant intellectual ability being untapped and unnoticed’ (Campbell, Eyre, Muijs, Neelands, & Robinson, 2004, p. 4). The creation of better opportunities does not in itself ensure that gifted children from under-represented groups rise through the system. Even in a well-designed system, where barriers limiting the achievements of gifted and talented students are removed, low aspiration, combined with limited access to opportunities, will mean that ‘those reaping the most benefit will be largely from affluent groups’ (Campbell, Eyre, Muijs, Neelands, & Robinson, 2004, p. 4). This raises some core issues that need to be faced within gifted and talented education generally, notably the issues of representation with students’ backgrounds being taken into account. As several researchers have noted, there are perhaps some inherent problems that need investigation. Does gifted education have embedded in it the basis for the under-representation of certain groups outside the mainstream of any culture in which the concept is employed? Are the goals of gifted education and equity conceptually incoherent? Does the practice of gifted education in a multi-cultural society in which there are vast discrepancies in socioeconomic status simply serve to increase the gap between White and minority families? Many of the gifted and talented student cohorts across London are drawn from communities with distinct social, economic and cultural pressures. Special attention must be paid to those from these traditionally under-represented groups. This is achieved in part by working through the school system to improve the general education offer. However, each school must also

London Gifted and Talented operates within the challenging social and economic context outlined above. As an organisation led by experts in gifted and talented provision and educational technology we deliver personalised programmes and services which raise the aspirations and attainment of gifted and talented students within all 33 Boroughs of London, and which support their educators. Working within a collaborative framework with most of the nationally government-funded institutions, commercial companies and charitable organisations currently providing resources, support and training for gifted and talented students and their teachers, we ensure there is coherence in the gifted and talented offer to London students and educators. Our programmes draw on the diverse and rich cultural and academic resources of London while acting as a channel for the improved exchange of information, expertise and resources between all gifted and talented stakeholders in London.

Our Remit The London Gifted and Talented remit includes the people and management structures which are responsible for the education and care of student groups including parents and caregivers. We are now woven into the fabric of London’s educational provision, and in line with London Challenge, we focus on the disadvantaged and the under-achieving by targeting the most deprived LAs and schools. We seek to use the best of new and emerging technologies to deliver rich learning experiences which stretch, challenge and inspire. Smart students demand smart online tools which excite and empower them to

73

London Gifted & Talented

shape and evaluate their own learning within and beyond the classroom. In addition we have developed a range of courses and resources that add challenge to teaching and learning from Key Stages 2–5, have delivered over 170 online and live programmes to date, reaching more than 7,700 students and 5,500 educators across almost 1,600 schools.

Our Principles and Goals London Gifted and Talented believes that in order to create a thriving, risk-taking educational system celebrating the diversity which is London’s strength, we need to increase the motivation and self-esteem of all gifted and talented London students. As such we are completely committed to breaking down the barriers that prevent individuals from realizing their potential. We have four main goals:

r

1393

Regional Structure In order to promote a collaborative framework for the sharing of effective practice, London Gifted and Talented and the 33 London Boroughs that are London’s Local Authorities (LAs) created four ‘Regional Clusters’ determined by a combination of geography and types of borough. Each cluster liaised with London Gifted and Talented to deliver its objectives and identify the cluster’s needs, opportunities and existing good practice. In the first year each Cluster was responsible for:

r r r r r r

harvesting effective practice across the Cluster steering Cluster-wide provision for students and teachers agreeing targets and action plans with London Gifted and Talented staff managing, monitoring and evaluating their activities creating models for Borough and Cluster needs analyses developing maps of best practice/practitioners within boroughs auditing of Information and Communication Technology capacity of Boroughs mapping strengths, weaknesses and needs regarding students, teachers and schools

to improve the attainment, skills and motivation of London’s gifted and talented students r to improve the capacity of London’s educators to r provide effectively for London’s gifted and talented r students r to develop models of effective partnership working across all sectors of the city The four Clusters divide London into more pracr to build a portfolio of challenging and effective eticable areas and extend effective practice from exlearning resources isting programmes into the LAs that do not benefit from them and provide the opportunity for congruence We are discovering new approaches to integrating across many organisations working within their areas. online learning with classroom practice and out Currently, the four regional clusters, and London of school activities. And we are using our panChallenge personnel, are advising us on how to target London position to broker collaboration between networks at LAs and schools where need is greatest. schools/boroughs and major cultural, academic and We are also making an additional £200K available sporting organisations, to ensure their educational to clusters and LAs to develop new G&T practices offer serves the needs of more able students. We work and undertake action research in four areas: extended on the principles schooling, talent, humanities subjects (with additional incentives for work on Citizenship) and specialized r that all students are entitled to be stretched and chal- diplomas for 14- to 19-year-olds. Priority is given to lenged high-quality proposals from LAs where uptake of Lonr that the most effective gifted and talented provision don Gifted and Talented programmes and services has is rooted in good teaching and learning within the been lower to date. daily classroom The Clusters, London Challenge and LA’s provide r that a focus on more able student groups can be a us with a route to the key schools. Through them, we driver for whole school improvement now support, facilitate and provoke:

1394

r r r r

precise needs analyses of students, staff and other educators the identification and harvesting of effective practice the modelling and wider application of effective practice increased collaboration and new partnerships which match supply to demand across London

Effective Pan London Delivery Mechanisms To achieve these educationally ambitious goals, London Gifted and Talented creates bespoke personalised learning solutions for students, their educators and caregivers. These are delivered through a series of networks, programmes and educational e-resources. These delivery mechanisms provide one way of analysing our approach to the challenges of urban education. In the rest of this chapter they will be explored in more detail and case studies will be used to illustrate what these actually look like for students and educators across London. It has been widely recognised that the most effective and productive method of engaging more educators into any initiative is to have them undertake training at a time and venue which suits their needs and is preferably delivered by a peer. Acknowledging this, London Gifted and Talented works with and through collaborative online networks designed to build school and educator capacity to tailor learning to individual needs. The networks deliver professional development and provide space for the sharing of ideas and resource and the development of innovative practice. Networks are focussed at helping educators provide for gifted and talented students, and for educating colleagues. To give a clearer picture of what impact these networks can have the example of our A∗ Performance Network will be used. Alongside the networks, we also offer a selection of programmes. Student programmes operate within and across curriculum subjects, incorporating both core and cross-curricular skills development. Each Programme is a blend of seminars, scheduled events, training and rich on-line multi-media resources. Although each Programme is ‘individualised’, a portfolio of such solutions is used to best match needs and requirements of identified gifted and talented students, their teachers

I. Warwick

and their guardians. ‘Managing an Eco-System’ is one such programme, a case study of which will follow. Integral components of these programmes are the e-resources which we provide via our websites, both for educators and students. Our current portfolio supports a wide range of online and event driven programmes, which concentrate on the core subjects of Science, Mathematics and English, offering resources in some or all of these subjects for all age ranges. Just two examples of this are the Teacher Tools resources offered to educators and the Curriculum Compacting Science resources for students, which will be detailed later.

Learning Networks Evidence from the National College of School Leadership (NCSL) suggests there are seven key features essential to an effective learning network:

r r r r r r r

purpose and focus leadership accountability relationships collaboration enquiry building capacity and support

NCSL’s interim evaluation of its own learning networks suggests that these key features can result in the creation and sharing of professional knowledge and change practice.

A) London Gifted and Talented: Practitioner Networks London Gifted and Talented’s 2006–2007 learning networks apply lessons emerging from NCSL; lessons learned from our own pilot networks in 2005–2006 and feedback from practitioners who have participated in our Continuing Professional Development courses over the last few years. They also feature significant online components which we hope will enable practitioners to spend more of their learning and development time in their own schools. These networks are designed to increase both reach and impact. Piloted in 2005–2006, our network model

73

London Gifted & Talented

increases educator capacity to personalize teaching and learning, offers opportunities for professional development and provides space for the development of new and innovative practices. Themes selected for our core networks focus on improved attainment in the key external examination results at Key Stage (KS) 2 (11 years old), KS3 (14 years old) and KS4 (16 years old) across a 2-year period. Central to these core networks is the cascade of training and expertise to colleagues within schools as well as across networks. All schools participating in networks target cohorts of students for provision within the life of the networks. This network model drives funding directly into schools with funding linked directly to and triggered by hard outcomes. It also ensures educator training is applied and evaluated within the classroom and the curriculum. Training and teaching resources emerging from networks are then packaged into standalone-training kits to be rolled out across London and beyond. These learning networks offer teachers space to connect with colleagues, share expertise and explore new ideas. Our networks draw teachers and schools together from across the city through a combination of faceto-face and online sessions. Focusing on teaching and learning in the classroom, the networks are dedicated to building school capacity to stretch and challenge learners and to improving external examination results. They are collaborative communities designed to build school capacity to tailor learning to individual student needs by promoting the sharing of ideas and resources, offering opportunities for professional development and providing space for the development of innovative practice. In line with our commitment to prioritise the needs of currently under-achieving or disadvantaged students, 40% of schools participating in each of London Gifted and Talented’s learning networks come from London Challenge Families of Schools 12–23. All our networks are designed to support teachers in achieving Chartered London Teacher Status (see earlier).

Purpose and Focus

1395

tionally, invite practitioners to use, interrogate and add value to some of the e-teaching and learning resources we have developed since January 2004. Leadership LG&T has appointed a network leader for each of its 11 networks. The network leader is responsible for driving the network to its target outcomes, for supporting individual network members and for ensuring effective collaboration across the network. The network leaders work to an agreed set of deliverables. They communicate the network’s vision and purpose, monitor network activity and collaboration, support network members and steer the network to its agreed goals and outcomes. They also take administrative and operational responsibility for the network. The network leader is responsible for evaluating cascade of training and student provision within network schools.

Accountability Accountability for network inputs, outputs and outcomes is agreed through the contract between London Gifted and Talented and the network members’ schools. Network leaders sample and support network activity within schools – notably as the network member cascades learning to colleagues and develops/delivers provision to students. Equally important is the mutual accountability between network members.

Relationships The network leader is equally responsible for building and maintaining a mutually supportive culture across their network where relationships are based on professional trust and respect. Each network member partners with another network member to provide peer support in delivering agreed outcomes within their own schools and within the online community.

Two-term learning networks focus on teaching and learning in core subjects in years 6, 9 and 11, and Collaboration their target outcomes include improved external examination results. London Gifted and Talented’s one-term Our networks are professional spaces where colleagues networks also focus on teaching and learning but addi- can exchange dialogue, share ideas and increase their

1396

I. Warwick

own expertise. We expect all network members to bring What assets to the network, but equally to leave it enriched by their collaboration with others and ready to feed their Star Performance is a London Gifted and Talented netlearning on into new networks. work in which London schools work to double the proportion of their students achieving the top A∗ grade at GCSE (7% nationally – 2005) and to bring about Enquiry a longer term transformation in which the needs of Gifted and Talented students are identified and met Our networks provide real and virtual spaces for en- through whole class, group and individual learning. quiry, discovery and exchange. Network members are The network is configured around detailed analysis of able to interrogate research, access experts, explore re- individual school need to support development of comsources and experiment with new ideas and strategies. petence and confidence in teaching to A∗ , involving: Through these activities, they interrogate their own ber what A∗ outcomes look like within the school liefs, practices and experiences with a view to enhancr knowledge and skills to teach to A∗ level ing them. r revision planning for A∗ r formative assessment and specialised coaching for students to achieve A∗ Building Capacity and Support r managing whole class learning to meet the needs of potential A∗ students Networks can build capacity laterally across peers and also across the education system. Our network members cascade learning to their school colleagues, as well Aims as feeding it onwards into their own networks. The Star Performance Network aims are Network Websites

r

to double the number of A∗ grades achieved in English, Mathematics and Science at GCSE or equivalent by students in the participating London schools to develop and share the knowledge and skills needed to teach to A∗ level to use formative assessment to meet the needs of potential A∗ students to model specialized coaching for students to achieve A∗ to model how whole class teaching can meet the needs of A∗ students to support teachers in achieving Chartered London Teacher status

At the centre of each core network is a dedicated website offering tools for online communication and r collaboration, providing theme-specific training and resources and gathering emerging network assets to r make up the free-standing online training kits. These websites are a powerful means to ensure teacher r retention in the network as well as a way to enable substantial scaling up of the practices and resources r developed. They are also the main tool for sharing and learn- r ing and the hub of network communication. The learning network models we have established have minimised the time practitioners need to spend outside their school and maximised the opportunities for virtual communication, sharing, learning and reflection. Method

Example – Star Performance Network: transforming teaching and learning at GCSE through a collaborative CPD network

Schools are recruited for the network on the basis that they have been identified by London Challenge as under-achieving/coasting and have the capacity to improve results at the top end. The project’s coordination is on two levels: Partnership level meetings, the

73

London Gifted & Talented

1397

Head teacher and GT Coordinator from each school, is broader, faster and deeper. The online pathways and main meetings, the Coordinator and Heads of De- element not only engages students with interactive partment from the target subjects. content and collaborative experiences but also offers a personalised environment for each user. This is crucial to the longer term impact, reach and sustainability of the programmes. Although such Programmes assist Needs Analysis with the differing needs of all parties, their ultimate focus is on maximising the potential of the gifted and A detailed needs analysis is conducted with network talented student. The most effective programmes have schools, which identifies baselines relating to the tended to be those which enabled schools to develop learning/training objectives at school and subject teacher capacity and student achievement at the same level. Building on input from the first session schools time. are asked to consider areas of strengths, barriers to Our programmes deliver a range of the following: achievement at A∗ , areas for development and specific r Scheduled events such as CPD seminars and road support needs. The needs analysis findings tend to shows show r Ongoing courseware delivery sessions r School level view of teacher competence as almost r Peer working, student mentoring and vertical always lower than that at subject level – schools can grouping only meet the needs of G&T students ‘to some ex- r Enrichment workshops tent’ through whole class teaching. r revision support r Some schools find that staff turnover is significantly r Additional Curricular enrichment with the creation of signifiimpacting on results at the top end. additional resources r There is significant variation between schools that r cant Lectures with subject matter experts face outwardly similar circumstances – the depth of r Support sessions and provision of training for all skills and experiences varies and is seen as a key stakeholders driver of success. r Training on the online resources backed up with er Schools need to be able to choose their own areas tutors of focus – there were schools who had spent time r Online discussion forums working on some of the programme elements, e.g., r Online resources questioning, who would have preferred to concenStudent Programmes can be focussed within a trate on other elements. particular curricular subject, across a variety of Many barriers to achievement are addressed. There relevant curricular topics or by way of introduction is a significantly raised profile of G&T at Key Stage into a new subject. Each Programme offers students 4, and teacher expectations and expertise in identifying a broader and more in-depth opportunity to engage G&T students is honed. at a pace which takes cognisance of their enhanced ability.

B) London Gifted and Talented: Student Programmes Programmes were primarily created in response to key DfES initiatives through a needs analysis outcome from participating LA’s and London Challenge or through a strategic initiative from London Gifted and Talented and an associated partner. All programmes blend live and online elements to offer students the chance to engage in personalised learning that

Example – Managing an eco-system: a scientific problem-solving course for students aged 12–14

What This programme is designed to stretch and challenge students who are already working comfort-

1398

ably at level 6 (KS3 and 4). It is built around part two of London Gifted and Talented’s condensed KS3 science curriculum, ‘Interdependence’ (www.londongt.org/interdependence) which is detailed later under curriculum compacting.

I. Warwick

Outcome Objectives

Students who complete this programme develop their analytical skills in a practical context. They use creative thinking to test ideas and develop theories, and interpret data to reach scientific conclusions. The course demonstrates that there are some questions science cannot currently answer, and the programme prompts Aims discussion about how and why decisions about science and technology are made. It raises ethical issues The course consists of both live and online components about the social, economic and environmental effects and aims to: of decisions, and it enables students to present infordevelop an argument and draw a conclusion, r help students understand how living things and the mation, using scientific language and conventions, symbols and environment can be protected and the importance of ICT tools. sustainable development r teach students that habitats support a diversity of organisms that are interdependent r show how some organisms are adapted to survive C) London Gifted and Talented: e-Resources daily and seasonal changes in their habitats r show how predation and competition for resources affect the size of populations Our e-Resources are web-based multi-media rich educational tools which stimulate and motivate the learner onto further development. They are increasingly granular, web-based and open-source, therefore providing Method the flexibility for users to re-combine and adapt them for different learning activities. They are currently free This course is designed for students who work effec- at the point of use, empower students and their educatively in a team, can think creatively and can test ideas tors, and promote collaboration across London. with evidence. It challenges students working at Level 6 or above in Science to explore environmental change in a taiga ecosystem. The interactive tools and simulations they are introduced to then enable students to e-Resources for Students explore and manipulate a series of factors in order to learn how energy is transferred between organisms in London Gifted and Talented are delivering profood chains, and how organisms and resources in an grammes that will stretch student learning and take it beyond the classroom and into the wider community. environment are closely linked. All participants come together for a face-to-face Underpinning these programmes is our unique portfoevent, before being sent email bulletins alerting lio of 20 core e-resources which shows how smart use them to changes in the ecosystem they have studied. of technologies can increase intellectual challenge and Working in teams, participants represent the view- student motivation. Central to the e-resources are interactive tools point of four groups with interests in this location: environmentalists, the business community, scientists flexible enough to be used across curricula and key and local residents. They are required to respond onto stages, and with the potential to be customized for use a discussion forum where their online tutor offers by other niche student groups. Our nomination for a further guidance and challenge. They then all come 2006 British Educational Training and Technology together to share their ideas together in a ‘live online’ award, together with over 80,000 educators using our discussion and for a final ‘real world’ presentation e-resources nationally and internationally, is a clear indication of the high quality of our e-resources. session.

73

London Gifted & Talented

Example – Curriculum compacting: science

What London Gifted and Talented was asked by the Department for Education and Skills to work with the National Strategies to develop interactive high challenge e-learning resources for students and their science teachers to:

r r r

support planning and delivery of a compacted curriculum enrich the curriculum by extending learning beyond objectives embed provision for gifted students within mainstream classroom practice

Aims Curriculum compacting involves clustering learning objectives, to encourage challenging teaching which provides breadth, depth and pace. If students are helped to see key ideas in a subject then they are better placed to make connections and are more able to apply/transfer their knowledge and understanding to new contexts. One of the guiding principles directing the compacting exercise is that teachers need to spend less time teaching factual information and more time enabling their students to think.

1399

9 for enrichment activity or to free up Year 7 to concentrate on more effective transition. The 2 Year Key Stage 3 Project asked London Gifted and Talented to work with the condensed science material, developing it into an online resource for pupils and for teachers to support their planning and delivery. Additionally, the material was to be designed for use within an independent student ‘pathway’ or learning experience. One such pathway is called Deep Cells. This explores the links between what all cells need to survive, and therefore how specialized cells can survive deep inside human organisms. ‘Deep Cells’ is divided into two strands: teachers’ site and students’ site. The teachers’ site provides learning activities and comprehensive guidance for lesson delivery, while the students’ site gives the opportunity for more in-depth, independent personal discovery and learning about cells and the human body. One of the unique features of Deep Cells is its use of three-dimensional animations to illustrate the behaviour of cells, and how the body’s organs operate. These animations also contain ‘hot-spots’ leading to further animations. For example, in Activity 1 pupils can watch an animation of an amoeba engulfing its prey. In Activity 2 students can travel down a heart valve, see how blood circulates around the body and examine capillary flow. The pupil material on the website can be used in a number of different ways, such as supporting the teacher mediated activities or as standalone starting points for pupils to do their own exploration and research. Starting points for independent research could include how cells survive deep inside a human body, isolated from the energy they need, or how the energy in a banana gets to be available to a cell in the brain.

Method Curriculum compacting in three core subjects is part Outcome Objectives of the Two Year Key Stage 3 Project sitting within the National Key Stage 3 Strategy. The condensed frame- r Supports pupil progress at a key transition point at the beginning of KS3 works combine and cluster Yearly Teaching Objectives to allow earlier completion of KS3 Programmes of r Embeds provision for gifted and talented pupils within a national core age strategy and within classStudy. The ‘saved year’ resulting from this increased room practice pace is intended to open up curriculum flexibility. So far 44 schools have become involved with the Two Year r Increases student motivation and engagement through use of visual demonstrations and the online Key Stage 3 Project; the evidence to date suggests that environment these pilot schools are using the project to free up Year

1400

E-Resources: For Educators Clark and Callow (2002, p. 7) highlight There is no educational development without teacher development

And call for a radical revision of teacher professional development to enhance competency, instil confidence and make certain that the abilities of gifted and talented pupils are fully developed by their teachers.

Increasing educator capacity to provide for gifted and talented students is having an increased impact on student attainment, skills and motivation across London. Our e-resources for teachers are produced to ensure the quality of service delivered to gifted and talented students within their jurisdiction is maximised.

Example – Teacher tools: online school-based training resources

I. Warwick

with gifted and talented students. Teacher Tools positions school and professional development in the context of national policy for gifted education and national strategies. It provides an integrated improvement and training environment, through the use of audiovisual presentations which provide a concise overview, summaries and snapshots of research, practical tools and training activities.

Method Teacher tools is organised into three parts – identification; provision; and monitoring and evaluation. It is a portable resource in that it is freely accessible at www.londongt.org and can be customised to fit the context in which it is to be used. Usage statistics show that this is both a nationally and an internationally used resource which is indicative of the level of need for relevant teacher training resources.

What

Outcome Objectives

Teacher Tools is a suite of online tools which enable teachers to identify, monitor and develop provision for their gifted and talented students. It represents a critical consensus and synthesis of effective and interesting practice and research.

The Teacher Tools resources programme provides the necessary training and ready-to-use materials to provide for, identify and track gifted and talented students more effectively. It supports educators to develop many of the key features of effective teaching such as a clear understanding of how to plan class work and homework in order to increase the pace, breadth or depth of the coverage of the subject. Also developed are teacher’s capacity to envisage and organise unusual projects and approaches which catch students’ attention and make them want to explore their subject. It also supports them in creating tasks which help students to develop perseverance and independence in learning through their own research or investigation, while ensuring that they have the necessary knowledge and skills to tackle the work effectively on their own. It supports educators who want to develop demanding resources which help pupils to engage with difficult or complex ideas and demonstrates how to deploy high-level teaching skills in defining expectations, creating a positive classroom climate for enquiry, asking probing questions, managing time and resources and assessing progress through the lesson. We have been

Aims Critically, it is presented in a manner in which it can be accessed by a variety of audiences for different purposes, with varying degrees of expertise and experience. It can be equally used by school management to

r r r r

reflect on school provision and to make process improvements review the character of their teaching and learning programme in terms of complexity train teachers using a versatile kit to meet school development priorities provide tools and techniques to expand the teachers skill sets on curricular delivery

Another key aim of the teacher-based Programme is to defray the sense of teacher isolation when dealing

73

London Gifted & Talented

1401

told that it also helps to bolster the confidence to try out r enabling teachers to keep a complete accessible new ideas, to take risks and to be prepared to respond to record of students’ progress in electronic form. leads which look most likely to develop higher levels of thinking by pupils. On a wider school level it also offers a framework to enable a review of the principles underlying the organisation of pupils into teaching Method groups and the opportunity to consider different forms of organisation. e-TASC translates the eight steps into an online environment, and then offers users the facility to generate their own content, and locate, upload and save content New Technologies from anywhere on the World Wide Web. This content can be text, images, audio, video or hyperlinked. Users can categorise content they have located One of the key ways in which we are developing the and rate the importance of content. They can show provision for London’s most able students is through connections – graphically and textually – between harnessing new technologies. These allow the organisation to consider a far greater reach and are the key items selected. They can make notes on selected step in establishing both scale ability and transferabil- content, exploring, analysing and synthesising as they ity for our resources. An integral component of this in- proceed, or once the gathering process is complete. novative approach to gifted and talented education is The teacher can create a template containing particular our e-TASC programme, of which a case study follows. content, then each student gets a copy of that template Another good example is the recent podcasts available to which they can add their own choice of content, annotate and upload work they have done on solving on our website. the particular problem to which the e-TASC project relates. Example – LGT: e-TASC tool

What

Outcome

e-TASC is an interactive thinking skills e-tool that supports the TASC methodology created by Belle Wallace – Thinking Actively in a Social Context (TASC; see also Wallace & Maker chapter, this volume). eTASC has been created by LG&T with her full support. The TASC methodology provides an 8-step guide to take pupils through the stages of thinking and problem solving in a structured and sequential way. It promotes meta-cognition by inviting pupils to reflect on and evaluate the choices they make.

Pupils can use e-TASC independently or work collaboratively with peers. The tool empowers learners, allowing them to use multi-media content to think through and solve complex problems while developing their thinking skills in an online environment. Teachers can use e-TASC to create projects for pupils and also support and assess their progress by adding diagnostic comments as they progress. Teachers can use e-TASC to prepare and deliver lessons to whole classes or small groups. They can also use e-TASC to develop and share teaching and learning resources with colleagues in their own school and across schools.

Aims

The aims of e-TASC are to assist TASC with two major additions: Podcasting

r

the collection and storage of multimedia content (video, audio, images, electronic documents) in a single ‘online portfolio’

Student and teacher podcasting is one example of the ways we are extending the use of new technologies

1402

I. Warwick

over the next 2 years. The podcast interviews with Joseph Renzulli, the world renowned expert in the provision of gifted and talented education, are an example of this. The podcasts were recorded as a conversation with Joseph Renzulli and Ian Warwick of London Gifted and Talented in July 2006, at Confratute, University of Connecticut.4 The first instalment covers the background to Renzulli Learning and the issue of elitism in gifted and talented education; the second examines The Enrichment Triad and the American Model. The third and final part of the interview is on whole-school personalisation, under-representation in gifted and talented provision and supporting vocationally gifted students. The website also supports the London Gifted and Talented DVD ‘Realising our Cities Potential’. The DVD contains five sections, covering whole-school issues, primary, secondary, governors and working with parents. The website allows users to explore the sections and find key questions to prompt thinking, aid understanding and develop teaching practice. There is further information and guidance on how to get started with a gifted and talented programme and links to other useful resources.

Key Stage 3–4 Results

Impact Across London

Miriam Rosen, Ofsted’s Director for Education, said ‘the London Challenge has certainly made an important contribution to the improvements in the capital’s schools and this model may well merit consideration in other cities and areas where school performance is a concern’. This was then actually implemented in 2007 by the multi million pound extension of London Challenge into both Manchester and the Black Country.

In secondary schools, 2001s depressing picture has been turned around. London schools have improved ‘dramatically’ and standards are rising faster than in schools nationally, according to a report published in December 2006 by independent education watchdog Ofsted. At Key Stage 3 and 4 standards are rising faster than in schools nationally. Fewer London schools are in the lowest 25% of all schools. Ofsted found that investment in London Challenge, now £40m annually, has helped schools and boroughs make these ‘very significant improvements’. Lessons learned from London Challenge could influence school improvement in other parts of the country and in international cities. About the same proportion of schools require special measures as schools nationally, but fewer require a notice to improve. 1. In 2003, the floor target was 25% 5A∗ –C grades. In 2005, the floor target was increased to 30% 5 A∗ –C grades. 2. There are 70 Key to Success schools at any one time. The London Challenge Key to Success data in this survey is based on 48 schools that were Key to Success schools in 2003 and remained Key to Success schools in 2005.

Since launch in January 2004, London Gifted and Talented has worked with over fifteen hundred London schools. We have collaborated with more than 60 high profile educational, business, cultural and sporting partners. These include The National Strategies and the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, Crossrail and Transport for London, The Victoria and Albert Museum and The British Library, The Youth Sports Trust and the London Schools Athletics Association. In partnership with such institutions, and alongside GCSE (Key Stage 4) Results local authority and school partners, we have delivered 170 programmes to over 7,700 London students and London is the fastest improving region for secondary 5,500 educators. school GCSE performance and is now above the national average. Greater London has seen an improvement from 2004 to 2005 of 2.2 percentage points in the proportion of young people gaining five or more ∗ 4 These podcasts can be retrieved from The London Gifted A -C grades in GCSE or equivalent examinations. Re& Talented website: http://www.londongt.org/homepages/ sults for the core measure of the proportion of Lonindex.php?page=podcasts don students achieving 5 or more A∗ -C (higher grade)

73

London Gifted & Talented

1403

Inner London

89

Outer London

85

Metropolitan

79

7

4

12

3

14

7

Unitary authority

64

15

21

County

65

13

23

All schools

11

73

London Challenge Key to Success

85

Other London 0%

16

10 8

92 20%

Improved

Graph 73.4 Percentage of secondary schools below 30% 5 and 2005

40%

60%

No change

A∗ -C

GCSEs have improved at a faster rate in London compared with the national average. In 2004, for the first time, London overtook the national average, with 53% of students in maintained mainstream schools achieving this level, compared with 52% of students in similar schools nationally. Since overtaking the national average for the first time in 2004, London continued to be ahead of the national average in 2005, 2006 and 2007 with well over 55% of students in Greater London getting five good GCSEs compared with an England average for maintained schools of 54.7%. Twentyeight London schools are in the top 100 most improved 2002–2005 for five A∗ -C including English and Maths, with 4 in the top 10. Schools in inner London are improving fastest; with the proportion of students achieving five higher grade GCSEs increasing by 50% between 1997 and 2005. Commenting on the Ofsted report: Improvements in London schools 2000–2006, London Schools Minister Lord Adonis said ‘This year, the capital achieved its best ever GCSE results, with more London students achieving good results than elsewhere in the rest of the country. One in four London schools secured outstanding results at GCSE in 2005. Inner-London schools that were once written off as failing have seen some of the biggest improvements in the country’. Standards in poorly performing London schools have risen faster

4

80%

100%

Declined

GCSE in 2003 which have improved or declined between 2001

than in similar schools nationally. In inner London, 89% of secondary schools have made improvements in the number of pupils achieving five A∗ -C grades at GCSE, compared with 73% of secondary schools nationally.

Contextual Value Added Secondary schools in the London Challenge target local authorities do particularly well when their contexts are taken into account. This is calculated by considering what pupils can do when they start school and measuring the progress they make, bearing in mind how well other similar pupils do. This is called contextual value added (CVA). Schools in the target LAs have done particularly well. No schools are significantly below the national CVA rate and 67% are significantly above it.

Local Authorities Four London boroughs – Hackney, Islington, Lambeth and Lewisham – are the most improved LAs in

1404

I. Warwick

Inner London

Outer London

59 37

Target local authorities 0%

30 42

21

67 20%

Significantly above the national

11

33 40%

60%

In line with the national

80%

100%

Significantly below the national

Graph 73.5 Comparison of inner London, outer London and targeted keys to success Boroughs in terms of the national average in 2005

Schools

the country, and seven London LAs are in the top 20 improved boroughs since 2002. Results in every London local education authority are now above the Government’s floor target of 38%. No London borough is now below 44%, in comparison to 1997 when nearly two thirds of London boroughs were achieving below this level. Inner London schools are improving faster than outer London schools, with the Inner London average in 2005 above 50% (50.2%) for the first time. Judgements from recent inspections indicate that the capacity to improve in all five LAs has vastly improved. All five were judged to be good or very good in this respect. Four London boroughs are in the top 10 highest ranking local authorities achieving more than five A∗ -C. That is; Redbridge (70%), Sutton (68%), Kingston (67.6%) and Barnet (64.1%). London schools are achieving higher than schools with similar levels of free school meals in other parts of England.

Inspection evidence confirms this trend of improvement in secondary schools. The proportion of schools graded as good or better is significantly higher than nationally. Leadership, management and the quality of teaching have improved significantly. The number of low-attaining schools in London is declining. In 2000, there were over 60 schools achieving less than 25% 5 A∗ -C at GCSE; in 2005 only seven London schools achieved below this level. At the same time, the number of highly successful schools is rising. Between 2000 and 2005, the number of schools achieving over 70% 5 A∗ -C has doubled. Since 1997 there has been sustained progress. In tests, the proportion of inner London 11-year-olds getting the expected level in English has gone up from 54% in 1997 to 69% in 2002. The proportion of students attaining five A∗ C GCSEs has risen to 41% compared to just 11% in Section 5 data from inspections in 2005/06

73

London

58

All schools

Section 10 data from inspections in 2003/05

80

London

75

All schools Section 10 data from inspections in 2000/03

85

London

81

All schools

Graph 73.6 Percentage of secondary schools judged good or better for leadership and management

0

20

40 All schools

60 London

80

100

73

London Gifted & Talented

Graph 73.7 Percentage of secondary schools judged good or better for quality of teaching

1405 Section 5 data from inspections in 2005/06 57

London 51

All schools

Section 10 data from inspections in 2003/05 71

London

74

All schools Section 10 data from inspections in 2000/03 70

London

79

All schools 0

20

40

60

All schools

1987. The gap between inner London and the national average has reduced substantially.

Our Performance to Date As an integral part of London Challenge, we have contributed to the ‘step-change’ in the quality of London schools and the improvement in GSCE results through our services to London’s G&T students and educators. Since the definition of our key performance indicators, we have significantly exceeded targets agreed with the DfES.

80

100

London

London Gifted and Talented operate against five such headline indicators. See Table 73.1 for a table illustrating these target indicators and the 2005–2006 performance.

Moving Forwards Our 2006–2008 offers have built on these successes and substantially increased our reach into and impact on London schools, helping to make London a world leader in urban education, and in gifted and

Table 73.1 ‘KPIs’ Target indicator

Measure

Annual target

Annual total

Impact on attainment, skills and motivation of London’s G&T students (with particular emphasis on under-achieving groups) Impact on the capacity of London’s educators to provide effectively for London’s gifted and talented students

% G&T programme users reporting positive impact on student attainment, skills and motivation in each quarter

70%

86%

% educators using London Gifted and Talented reporting improved capacity to personalize learning for G&T students in each quarter % programmes involving partnership working in each quarter % educators/students reporting high challenge in each quarter

70%

90%

95%

97%

85%

90%

Total new educators and students using London Gifted and Talented e-resources in each quarter

1450

70286

Models of effective partnership working across all sectors Development of challenging and effective partnership working across all sectors of the city Uptake of students and educators for e-resources

Performance April 2005–April 2006

1406 Graph 73.8 Percentage of secondary schools judged good or better for overall effectiveness

I. Warwick Section 5 data from inspections in 2005/06

59

London

49

All schools

Section 10 data from inspections in 2003/05

71

London

68

All schools

Section 10 data from inspections in 2000/03

67

London

71

All schools 0

20

40 All schools

talented provision. Four strategic activity strands have increased our reach and impact:

r r r r

collaborative practitioner networks funding LAs and schools to develop new G&T practices targeted communications and marketing campaigns creative use of new technologies.

London Gifted and Talented’s work is at an exciting stage of development and progression. An area highlighted earlier in this chapter where gifted and talented education is criticized is in terms of elitism or specifically that identification and provision tends to centre on white males. Webster (1999, p. 49) suggests that the majority of children nominated by teachers as being very able are white middle class. Denton and Postlethwaite (1985, p. 66) wrote about the effect of social class and gender on teacher judgment, Marjoram (1988, p. 93) looked at children whose mother tongue or home language is not English and Stopper (2000, p. 81) concentrated on socially disadvantaged communities. In 2005, in order to address some of these core concerns London Gifted and Talented began this year to improve the quality of identification, provision and support for gifted and talented learners from the Black and Minority Ethnic and English as an Additional Language through its Realising Equality and Achievement for Learners Project (REAL). This two year project has been a good example of the way London Gifted and Talented diversified. The capacity of this model is that once innovative practice, ideas and resources are located, they are trialled across

60

80

100

London

the other LAs in London and then beyond. These have been found to be both scaleable and transferable, and they have then been shared with other locations around the country. We are currently negotiating with Gifted and Talented Regional groups who want to get involved with the REAL project to extend the lessons learned to other cities and indeed across the Rural Network too.

Example – REAL: Realising Equality and Achievement for Learners Project

What The REAL project is a network comprising several clusters of primary and secondary schools across London and the Midlands working together to examine their schools’ current provision for the distinct needs of Black Minority Ethnic and English as an Additional Language students. The project contributes towards the understanding of the general and specific issues relating to G&T students from these groups, and works to develop an action plan for improvement. By choosing to address educational disadvantage, the project targets the problems of the under-representation of minority ethnic groups in the gifted and talented programme to ensure that implementation of policy effectively guards against stereotypes and unintended consequences. The network has developed a set of multimedia tools and resources which can be adapted to the needs of other schools and LAs London wide and nationally.

73

London Gifted & Talented

1407

Aims

Outcome Objectives

r

r r

r r r r

Improve quality of identification, provision and support for G&T students from the Black Minority Ethnic and English as an Additional Language populations – especially under-achievers Improve access to G&T opportunities for underachieving BME/EAL students from disadvantaged backgrounds locally, regionally and nationally Improve support to schools and school leaders for this cohort of students Raise expectations of students, parents, staff and the wider community for this cohort of students Improve knowledge and understanding of BME/EAL/G&T issues in a range of schools

Objectives

r r r

Develop new strategies, activities and resources for BME/EAL and G&T students Develop effective networks of practitioners Tailor existing good practice specifically for this cohort (e.g. personalisation and quality standards)

Method Leading on this programme involves working with more than 30 schools operating in three cross-phase geographically based clusters within London, with an additional cluster outside London where BME/EAL pupils are a minority. The clusters together formed a single network over a 2-year period.

r r r r

r

r

Students – improved attainment for this cohort Families – improved awareness and ability to support their young people Schools – raised awareness of this cohort; improved knowledge skills and understanding; tried and tested strategies, tools and resources made available and easily transferable for others regionally and nationally Policy makers – improved knowledge, understanding and data from schools and LA

The Future Over and above the stated objectives of delivering programmes and innovation, London Gifted and Talented is aiming for more visionary wider outcomes, which will change the face of education in London and extend the lessons learned to other cities and other students. We are working hard towards breaking down the historic link between social disadvantage and educational under-achievement. We believe this is far more likely to occur in a system that seeks challenge for all its students, and secures access for them to the full range of learning opportunities available. It is also more likely in a system that ensures that race equality is seen as an essential requirement of effective gifted and talented education provision and one that looks outwards to raise the aspirations of students families and their wider community. As a result of this type of focus, urban schools and LAs may well have many lessons to offer others. Their progress in raising standards and building school educator capacity should mean that these lessons will be valuable in driving forward transformation within the wider school system.

Each school audited their current provision against the gifted and talented Institutional Quality Standard (IQS), focusing on BME/EAL students Each school developed an action plan against the IQS that formed part of their school improvement References plan Each cluster supported the implementation of their member schools’ action plans, with input from the Campbell, R. J., Eyre, D., Muijs, R. D., Neelands, J. G. A., & Robinson, W. (2004). The English model: Context, policy and project lead and additional sources of support challenge – NAGTY Occasional Paper 1. The network as a whole worked collaboratively to Cheshire County Council Education Services. (1996). Cheshire develop resources that assisted member schools in management guidelines: Identifying and providing for our the preparation and implementation of their action most able students. Cheshire: Cheshire Local Education Authority. plans

1408 Clark, C., & Callow, R. (2002). Educating the gifted and talented: Resource issues and processes for teachers (2nd ed.). London: NACE/David Fulton Publishers. Denton, C., & Postlethwaite, K. (1985). Able children: Identifying them in the classroom. London: NFER Nelson. Department for Education and Skills. (2003) Statistical release. London: National Statistics. Department for Education and Skills. (2006). Statistical first release: Schools and pupils in England. London: National Statistics. Edmonds, S., Fletcher-Campbell, F., & Kendall, L. (2003). Evaluation of the gifted and talented strand in (Excellence in Cities) phase 3 – partnerships: Final report. Slough: NFER/Excellence in Cities Consortium. Eyre, D., & McClure, L. (2001). Curriculum provision for the gifted and talented in the primary school. London: NACE/David Fulton Publishers. Hymer, B., & Michel, D. (2002). Gifted & talented learners: Creating a policy for inclusion. London: NACE/David Fulton Publishers. Leroux, L., & McMillan, E. (1993).Smart teaching: Nurturing talent in the classroom and beyond. Markham, Ontario: Pembroke Publishers. Marjoram, T. (1988). Teaching able children. London: Kogan Page. Montgomery, D. (2003). Gifted & talented children with special educational needs: Double exceptionality. London: NACE/David Fulton Publishers.

I. Warwick Office for Standards in Education. (2001). Providing for gifted and talented pupils: An evaluation of excellence in cities and other grant-funded programmes. A Report from Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools: HMI 334. London: Office for Standards in Education. Stephen Twigg, Schools Minister for London. (2004, January, 21). London gifted & talented launch, http://www. londongt.org/real/ Stephen Twigg, Minister of State for School Standards. (2005, February, 9) ‘Urban Education’ delivered to the Fabian Society, London, http://www.dfes.gov.uk/speeches/ search detail.cfm?ID=190 Stephen Twigg MP, Minister of State for School Standards. (2005, March 30)NASUWT conference speech, http://www.dfes.gov.uk/speeches/search detail.cfm?ID=205 Stopper, M. J. (2000). Meeting the social and emotional needs of gifted and talented children. London: NACE/ David Fulton Publishers. Tony Blair. (1996, October 2) Speech at labour party conference, blackpool, http://www.londongt.org/real/ Warwick, I., & Renzulli, J. (2006). Podcasts recorded at University of Connecticut, http://www.londongt.org/homepages/ index.php?page=podcasts Webster, C. (1999). Able and gifted children. Dunstable: Folens. White, K., Fletcher-Campbell, F., & Ridley, K. (2003). What works for gifted and talented pupils: A review of recent research. Slough, Berkshire: National Foundation for Educational Research.

Chapter 74

Giftedness and Diversity: Research and Education in Africa Jacobus Gideon (Kobus) Maree and Carol Noˆela van der Westhuizen

Abstract In this chapter, we present a comprehensive review of gifted education in Africa. Focusing on significant advances in the field of giftedness that have informed the theory and practice of gifted education in the past decade, we argue that the challenge in sub-Saharan Africa is to extend the existing body of knowledge in gifted education to better understand giftedness in the context of third world and developing countries. Positioning our framework within segments of career construction-post-modern-narrative approaches1 and embedded in knowledge systems, from an African perspective, we use a case study to demonstrate the possible value of such approaches in engaging diversity issues in gifted education. We use our case study to propose possible ways in which practitioners could ascertain and mobilise gifted adolescents’ personal and contextual resources as capital in gifted education and to provide us with accountable ways in which to comprehend and counsel (partner with) gifted, diverse adolescents.

Introduction

In 1990 participants at the World Conference on Education for All in Jomtien, Thailand, acknowledged that progress towards greater cooperation among nations, unprecedented communication capacity and the proliferation of information, as well as the cumulative experience of, among others, reform, innovation and research, could signify that the goal of basic education for all is – for the first time in history – attainable. The recognition of the value of education in addressing worldwide challenges such as debt, economic stagnation, civil strife and violent crime, especially in the least developed countries, as well as the function of (basic) education as the foundation for lifelong learning and human development, resulted in the EFA (Education for All) declaration: “Every person – child, youth and adult – shall be able to benefit from educational opportunities designed to meet their basic learning needs” (World Declaration on Education for All, 1990, pp. 1, 2). In April 2000 the World Education Forum reKeywords Giftedness · Gifted education in Africa · Diversity · African perspective · Career construction affirmed the 1990 Jomtien EFA vision and undertook approaches · Career counselling · Developing countries to ensure that by 2015 all children would have access to free and compulsory primary education of good quality and applauded the significant progress in a number of countries, while deploring the fact that worldwide over 113 million children still have J.G. Maree (B) University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa no access to primary education and 880 million e-mail: [email protected] adults remain illiterate (World Education Forum, 1 From a post-modern perspective individuals are treated as 2000). meaning-making persons, instead of being objectified and picWe argue that the challenge in sub-Saharan Africa tured as points on a so-called normal curve. A narrative ap- requires an extension of the field of knowledge in proach implies that problems and difficulties are embedded in texts, words and stories. Social constructionism is based on gifted education to better understand giftedness in knowledge as a social construct, language as a social phe- a third world/developing country context. In order nomenon and the individual as a rational person (Maree, 2005). to achieve this extension, we reflect on a framework L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 74, 

1409

1410

intended to embrace gifted education through third and fourth wave approaches in education and psychology, with particular emphasis on a career construction post-modern narrative approach. The driving questions are the following:

J.G. Maree and C.N. van der Westhuizen

for the gifted, including the Educational Resource Information Centre Clearinghouse on the Gifted and Talented (ERIC Clearinghouse) (Coetzer & Van Zyl, 1989; Freeman, 2002; Sherman, 1997). Although there was a marked upsurge of interest in gifted education during the final quarter of the 20th r How do recent advances in the field of giftedness century, characterised by an increase in funding in cerrelate to the context of third world and developing tain states (Freeman, 2002), and by the establishment countries? r Are practitioners able to sufficiently utilise the per- of the National Research Centre on the Talented and Gifted, interest in gifted education seems to have disonal, contextual and cultural capacities of learn- minished. This unsettling phenomenon is best illusers in third world and developing countries, particu- trated by both the dramatic decrease in the number larly in sub-Saharan Africa, to address learners’ di- of states mandating gifted education, from 50 in 1993 verse counselling needs through a career construc- to 23 in 2002, and the consequent significant decline tion post-modern narrative approach? in the number of gifted programmes and enrichment Specifically, we present the current state of the art in courses (Freeman, 2002). the area of gifted education in Africa, examine advances in the field of giftedness from an African perspective and demonstrate, by means of a case study, Gifted Education in Europe that the use of traditional, western career counselling approaches with a positivist perspective, in isolation, is not sufficient to counsel gifted adolescents from di- An inventory of gifted education in 21 European counverse cultures. The case study further illustrates that a tries reveals a shift in the general 20th century approach more (discriminately applied) eclectic approach, incor- to highly able (gifted) students. Individual potential for porating both positivist and constructivist approaches outstanding achievement in one or more areas is now could be utilised via a post-modern narrative career recognised and personal motivation, dedication and a counselling technique, allowing the gifted adolescent supportive social environment are acknowledged as reto participate actively with the counsellor–facilitator in quirements for developing individual potential (M¨onks and Pfl¨uger, 2005). the co-construction of his/her life design. According to M¨onks and Pfl¨uger (2005) the report We begin our analysis with a brief overview of the on the seminal workshop Education of the gifted in Eusituation in North America and Europe. rope, organised by the Council of Europe in Nijmegen in 1991, was used as a guideline for the first political European document concerning the special needs Gifted Education in North America of the gifted, i.e. recommendation 1248 of 1994 issued by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuNorth America’s century-long head start in gifted edu- rope. As a result, educational legislation in 14 of the cation began with the establishment of the first school 21 European countries surveyed refers specifically to for the gifted in Worcester, Massachusetts, in 1901, and gifted learners. American practice has since become a widely accepted Persson, Joswig, and Balogh (2000) contend that benchmark for gifted education in the western world there is still a largely ambivalent attitude towards (Freeman, 2002). gifted education in post-Communist Europe and Gifted child education has, over many decades, that the mainly political struggle between elitism been the focus of much academic and public attention and egalitarianism has been resolved in divergent in North America, where programmes for the gifted ways by European nations. For example, the forwere implemented from as early as 1867 (Coetzer & mer (relatively poor) Communist countries (Eastern Van Zyl, 1989; Freeman, 2002). More recently the Europe) have embraced gifted education, while in Marland Report (1972) on gifted education resulted in stronger economies in Western Europe where gifted the establishment of a number of offices and centres education is a contentious issue, most national school

74

Giftedness and Diversity: Research and Education in Africa

systems apply inclusive education as stipulated in the UNESCO Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (1994) (Persson et al., 2000). A very significant recent development in England was the government’s National Gifted and Talented (G&T) strategy to provide specifically for the gifted in mainstream schools and to establish the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth (NAGTY) where able learners from schools which lack resources may participate in summer schools (Paule, 2006). In addition, the expectation is that “by 2007 all schools in England will have a school policy and a coordinator for able gifted and talented pupils (M¨onks and Pfl¨uger, 2005, p. 153). The dynamic growth in gifted education in European countries has inspired the compilers of the inventory on European education to express the hope that “this century is on the right track to becoming the century of the gifted child” (M¨onks and Pfl¨uger, 2005, p. 157).

Gifted Education in Sub-Saharan Africa Education Separate education programmes for gifted children in Africa, even in the 21st century, are associated with colonialism, and the primary aim on the continent is education for all (EFA) as espoused by the delegates to the Jomtien conference in 1990 and the subsequent Dakar Framework for Action (2000). Only 58% of children in sub-Saharan Africa were enrolled in primary school in 2000 – 10 years after the Jomtien declaration (Education in Africa, s.a.). Furthermore, a UNESCO report estimates that sub-Saharan Africa will need to extend its teaching force by 68% to provide all children there with primary education by 2015 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, s.a.). The EFA goal is an attempt to improve sustained economic growth through education to, among others, alleviate poverty and create more equitable societies. Attempts at ensuring EFA are constantly thwarted by the low quality of education, thus preventing sub-Saharan countries from benefiting from the information and technology revolution and global integration. Higher enrolment rates in primary education will necessitate a focus on secondary and tertiary

1411

education to accommodate learners who qualify at primary level (The World Bank Group, 2007). Adult literacy rates in many sub-Saharan African countries, e.g. Chad, Mali and Benin, are below 40%, among the lowest in the world. Fifteen sub-Saharan countries are among the 30 countries most unlikely to reduce illiteracy by 50% by the 2015 deadline. In addition to this dismal outlook, fewer than 60% of any cohort of learners enrolled in primary education in half of the sub-Saharan African countries progress to the final grade. TIMMS-R (Third International Mathematics and Science Study Repeat Survey of worldwide trends in mathematics and science performance; Howie, 2003) data on Grade 8 learners for 2003 reveal that between 68% and 90% of the sub-Saharan African participants from Botswana, Ghana and South Africa were unsuccessful in reaching the low benchmark in mathematics. In addition, approximately 50% of sub-Saharan countries spend 2% less than the recommended 6% of their national income on education (United Nations Development Programme Report, 2005). Furthermore, a number of sub-Saharan African countries have, in addition to extremely high levels of poverty generally, relatively recently experienced civil strife and the near destruction of their education systems; for example, 1,500 classrooms were destroyed in Angola between 1992 and 1996 (UNICEF Angola, Education overview, 2007) and 11,000 Congolese children, most of them girls, are still missing, over 2 years after the launch of a government release and reintegration programme. Most of the children unaccounted for are believed to be with armed groups (Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): Child soldiers abandoned, 2006). The disastrous circumstances in many sub-Saharan African countries do not favour the attainment of basic education qualifications or, in many cases, initial access to school. The dearth of information on gifted education in sub-Saharan Africa is therefore understandable.

Gifted Education The only sub-Saharan country with a relatively consistent record of gifted education endeavours is South Africa, which was described in a 1987 report on the state of gifted education (with Israel) as one of the two

1412

nations that “. . .lead the world in level of commitment to gifted/talented education. . .” (Mitchell & Williams in Taylor & Kokot, 2000, p. 807). Giftedness as a pedagogic issue played out in two phases during the apartheid era. During the first phase differentiation, which is regarded as non-intentional, provision for the gifted was implemented nationally, and in the second phase the erstwhile four education departments attempted to provide specifically for the gifted (Lategan, 1986). A major longitudinal research project, which included the monitoring and testing of 70,000 white learners and which highlighted the importance of education for the gifted child, was conducted by the Institute of Manpower Research of the Bureau for Educational and Social Research in 1965 (Lategan, 1986; Coetzer & Van Zyl, 1989). Differentiated education was implemented in accordance with Law 39 of 1967 and provided specifically for gifted children by enabling them to follow curricula in specific subjects on the higher grade and to study computer science as a seventh, extracurricular subject. In addition, “vacation schools” were instituted after 1980. Provision was also made for children gifted in specific areas, e.g. by the end of 1981 there were 140 extracurricular centres for music attached to schools, 3 for ballet and 7 for art (Coetzer & Van Zyl, 1989). Most attempts at special provision for the gifted child involved out-of-school projects at the extracurricular centres. In the (then) province of Natal afternoon activity periods were run at resource centres and academic planners paid regular visits to schools to prepare and assist teachers. During the 1980s a number of extracurricular centres for the gifted were established in the erstwhile provinces: Transvaal, Natal, the Cape and the Orange Free State, where teachers’ training colleges and universities offered courses for gifted learners. During the same period the Office for the Gifted and Talented in the city of Port Elizabeth (1976), the Free State Society for Gifted Children (1980) as well as other organisations provided extracurricular activities for gifted learners (Bhorat, 1985). Teachers were not specially trained to teach or identify gifted children, but were strongly advised to avoid giving “busy work” (Passow, M¨onks, & Heller, 1993) in an attempt to cater to the needs of the gifted in the regular classroom. These same teachers selected the

J.G. Maree and C.N. van der Westhuizen

children who would attend classes at the extracurricular centres. Two relatively recent gifted education initiatives are the Growth of Children’s Potential Saturday morning township (Soweto & Daveyton) parent-run projects and the TASC (Thinking Actively in a Social Context) project launched by the University of Pietermaritzburg to develop skills among poor black2 children (Freeman, 2002). The only other programmes available in certain parts of the country, i.e. Natal and the Western Cape, are also parent driven. In spite of the fact that it was published 9 years ago, Kokot’s (1998) analysis of the status of gifted education in South Africa, in which she describes the future of gifted education as dismal in light of the dismantling of the infrastructure created by the previous government, is still considered timely. This has manifested through the closing down of centres for the gifted and the co-opting of specialist teachers responsible for overseeing the education of the gifted in schools to other departments. The implementation of a postapartheid education system in South African schools after 1994 is cause for particular concern in regard to gifted South African learners. The paradigm shift from an apartheid (exclusive) content-based education system to a democratic (inclusive) system was a major feature of the post-1994 transformation process. Efforts to transform the dual system which comprised a mainstream and a special education component into an inclusive one culminated in the establishment of a single, outcomes-based system, which was implemented for all Grade 1 learners in 1998 (Carrim, 2002; Porteus, 2003). Despite the stipulation in the equality clause in the South African Constitution, which holds that “the state may not discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds” (Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, Section 74.9, Chapter 2), concerns regarding negative attitudes towards gifted learners are justified (Kokot, 1998, 1999; Sherman, 1997; Yecke, 2003). The omission of gifted learners as a special education needs category from policy documents, such as White Paper 6 2

We recognise that a racial or ethnic classification of population groups is artificial. It is, moreover, reminiscent of the era of apartheid. It is, however, relevant to point out inequalities within the South African society in order to remedy the situation.

74

Giftedness and Diversity: Research and Education in Africa

in particular, is cause for concern (Department of Education (DoE), 2001; (Asmal, 2003; Knobel & Shaughnessy, 2002; Naicker, 2000). White Paper 6 acknowledges that certain learners may require intensive support to develop to their full potential and promotes, among others, human rights, social justice, equity and redress for all learners. It further stipulates that learner differences should be respected “whether due to age, gender, ethnicity, language, class, disability, HIV or other infectious diseases” (DoE, 2001, pp. 16, 6), yet makes no specific mention of gifted learners. Kokot (1998) is concerned that gifted children might be “viewed with mistrust and dislike and deliberately ostracised” and that their human rights will not be recognised under the new dispensation (Kokot, 1998, p. 2; also see Sherman, 1997). Notwithstanding the publication of a number of government and media reports on education “the plight of the gifted learner is seldom mentioned” (Kokot, 1999, p. 270). In light of the general education situation in subSaharan African countries it is understandable that few countries concern themselves with gifted education. Learners in Tanzania who enter secondary school according to a quota system “could resemble the highly able in some respects” as only the top learner from each primary school is selected for secondary education to ensure a relatively equitable distribution of learners from various groups (Taylor & Kokot, 2000, p. 807). In 1987 the Suleja Academy was established for gifted learners in Abuja, Nigeria, and in 1993 a special school for gifted and talented children was founded at Gwagwalada, a district in Abuja. The Nigerian government endured much criticism as the institutions were regarded as elitist (Kolo, 1996) and people feared that a particular ethnic group could dominate the programmes (Gwany, 1993). Taylor & Kokot (2000) contend that prior to independence the learners selected for secondary and postsecondary education in Botswana had exceptional potential or belonged to the ruling family. No specific programmes for gifted learners are currently available in Botswana (Yoder in Taylor & Kokot, 2000). Despite the extremely high adult literacy rate in Zimbabwe the current education system makes no provision for gifted children or for those with behavioural disorders (Chitiyo & Wheeler, 2004). Samkange (in Peresuh & Barcham, 1998) cites the perceived ability of gifted learners to develop their abilities sans special

1413

programmes as a reason for the lack of provision for the gifted and talented in Zimbabwe. Johnson, Haensly, Ryser, and Ford (2002) point out that the continuing emphasis on inclusive education and the closure of many programmes for the gifted make it essential for teachers to be trained to apply differentiation in the regular classroom in order for them to be able to differentiate the curriculum “based on each child’s learning style and preferred form of output” (Colangelo, 2005, p. 31). The varied global connotations of the term “giftedness” could highlight the reasons for differences between American and European (western) approaches on one hand and African interpretations on the other.

Culture and Conceptions of Giftedness During recent decades the meaning of “gifted” has shifted from largely western concepts such as high intelligence and academic achievement to different concepts, since high intelligence and academic achievement as sole measures of giftedness and talent have come to be widely regarded as inadequate (Baldwin, 2005). As a result of the shift in meaning there is no universally accepted definition of giftedness, and the concept of giftedness differs from culture to culture (Semakane, 1994). The formulation of a universal definition of giftedness is further hampered by the fact that giftedness is a socio-cultural phenomenon, which cannot be directly observed or measured (Feldhusen & Heller in Hern´andez de Hahn, 2000). Also, abilities and talents are manifested in different ways among various cultural groups. For example, in Gibson’s (1992) research on identifying gifted Aboriginal students in an urban setting (in Dorbis & Vasilevska, 1996) the most highly rated indicators of giftedness were communication, memory, motivation and inquiry. This finding illustrates that conceptions of giftedness vary among cultures and supports the relatively new view of culture, namely that besides being a “shared way of life of a group of socially interacting people”, culture is regarded not as an external reality affecting human behaviour but constituted through the daily interaction of individuals with their environments (Segal et al., in Hern´andez de Hahn, 2000, p. 549). Western views of giftedness do not necessarily reflect diversity and specifically African culture, hence

1414

this brief focus on African conceptions of giftedness. Prior to the colonisation of many African countries by western powers young African children were prepared in their gender groups by the elders in the community for adulthood and life in African society, focusing on aspects like dancing, singing, drawing and traditional rites of passage. After colonisation the situation changed when formal schooling was introduced (Education in Africa, s.a.). The dichotomy between traditional schooling and western formal schooling even today influences conceptions of education and giftedness in Africa. Taylor & Kokot (2000) acknowledge that Africans need to accommodate western patterns in their culture, but regard the possible loss of their original (African) cultural identity as tragic. A largely traditional view of giftedness in the African context is that giftedness in individuals is recognised only if it can be utilised for the greater good of the family or community (Lumadi in Taylor & Kokot, 2000). However, in her research on gender stereotyping, Kokot (in Taylor & Kokot, 2000) found that urbanised black gifted adolescents and their families were inclined to “reject traditional roles and support individual achievement in all spheres” (Kokot in Taylor & Kokot, 2000, p. 803). This could be an example of what Dorbis & Vasilevska (1996) mean when they refer to the diversity of groups in society and the historical legacy of early definitions of giftedness giving rise to cultural anomalies, i.e. the western perspectives of urbanised blacks in contrast to those of blacks who remain in the more rural areas. Although definitions of intelligence are still greatly influenced by Terman’s view that exceptional intelligence requires an IQ of 140+, socio-cultural and socioeconomic factors have lately been incorporated into most definitions of giftedness. The identification of gifted learners is one of the most often debated issues in gifted education.

J.G. Maree and C.N. van der Westhuizen Outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavour. (Dorbis & Vasilevska, 1996, p. 2).

Kerr, Colangelo, Maxey, and Christensen (1992) cite non-traditional identification methods and the development of so-called “culture-fair” tests and identification procedures as the area that has received the most attention in recent research on gifted minority students in North America. Baldwin (2005) discusses a number of processes which can be used to identify hidden potential, especially in the culturally diverse gifted, e.g. the Baldwin Identification Matrix and Maker’s DISCOVER model. Rawlinson (1999) advocates a multifaceted approach to creating a pool of hopeful adolescents across race, gender and socio-economic populations and also refers to Maker’s culturally relevant thematic units as an appropriate identification strategy. In this regard Porter (1999) cites New Zealand (Maori) and Australian (Aborigine) examples to illustrate the increasingly multi-dimensional understanding of giftedness as it relates to diverse cultures: “Any definition needs to be liberal enough to recognise those talents that the child’s particular culture considers valuable” (Porter, 1999, p. 32; also see Rawlinson, 1999). Prior to 1994 a number of culture-fair tests for most of the African language groups in South Africa were developed and standardised by the Human Sciences Research Council, e.g. the Individual Scale for Xhosaspeaking learners (1988) and the Academic Aptitude Test (AAT). Tlale (in Taylor & Kokot, 2000) believes that the western character of the tests rendered them unable to adequately reveal the abilities of black learners and has developed an African culture-based test to identify gifted Tswana learners, which he surmises could be used for all black learners in South Africa as they share a common culture. In their research on the Learning Potential Assessment Device (LAPD) Sibaya, Hlongwane, & Makunga (1996) found that persons who administer tests to learners from diverse Identification of Giftedness cultural groups should “have a good knowledge of cultural factors that can influence test behaviour” and The suggestion by Ford, Baytops, and Harmon (1997) that tests “should be administered in the language that minority students need to be recruited for and re- in which the adolescent is proficient, preferably the tained in gifted programmes is also applicable to black mother tongue” (Sibaya et al., 1996, p. 112). majorities in sub-Saharan Africa. Concerns about equiMultiple identification methods are also needed in table screening and identification instruments and pro- other sub-Saharan African countries for the majority cedures in North America led to the promulgation of of people who for many decades and various reasons the Javits Act of 1988, which specifies that have been deprived of educational opportunities,

74

Giftedness and Diversity: Research and Education in Africa

especially since multiple identification methods increase the chance of accurate selection (Skuy, Gaydon, Hoffenberg, & Fridjohn, 1990). Bonner (2000) also advocates a more global approach “that does not promote under-identification of any student group” (Bonner, 2000, p. 654). An important aspect that is closely linked to the identification of gifted learners is elitism.

Elitism, Equity and Gifted Education The antipathy towards special provision for gifted learners in Africa is described by Freeman (2002) as a “hangover from colonial times” when superior education was reserved for a select minority (the “elite”) while the majority received little education. In addition, the fundamental goal in Africa, including South Africa, is basic or primary education for all (EFA) (Freeman, 2002, p. 152). The inequity or under-representation of certain groups in gifted education programmes can be ascribed to the fact that “we have failed, as a field, to respond to our society’s diversity by adequately identifying and serving gifted students who are economically disadvantaged” (Borland & Wright, 1994, p. 164). Special provision for the most talented at the risk of neglecting the majority is an elitist notion, yet they cannot “conceive of an equitable society in which certain groups, defined by their socio-economic status, their race or ethnicity, are not able to achieve full educational provision for those among them with the greatest potential for learning and producing knowledge” (Borland, Schnur, & Wright, 2000, p. 30). Apropos the high regard of various African cultures, e.g. in Kenya and Venda (South Africa), for individual gifts, “the concept of ‘elitism’ that is still associated with the identification of and provision for gifted children in South Africa, is a political rather than a social issue” (Kokot, 1998, p. 12). In South Africa the unequal provision of educational resources during the apartheid era prevented disadvantaged learners from competing fairly with socio-economically more privileged learners. The view that gifted programmes which challenge learners and require diligent work promote elitism should be rejected: “If anything, these programmes preclude elitism” (Sisk in Seevers & Shaughnessy, 2003, p. 29).

1415

Frasier (1989) contends that the outdated accent on IQ as the sine qua non of giftedness is one of the great barriers to equity, and a more complete definition of intelligence is required as part of the solution. Renzulli and Reis (in Rawlinson, 1999) concur in regard to a shift in identification to give more children the opportunity to demonstrate their potential, especially those at risk of underachieving. The focus should be on potential, as it can be used to “create a pool of hopefuls. . .to increase chances of uncovering hidden talents” (Renzulli in Rawlinson, 1999, p. 2). Freeman (2002) suggests including “potential” in the definition of giftedness to penetrate the “elitist” barrier (also see Porter, 1999; Richert, 1987; Skuy et al., 1990), while Coetzer & Van Zyl (1989) and Kokot (1999) agree that all learners in a democratic system are entitled to equal opportunity at all levels to develop their ability fully, whether the ability is potential or realised. “Equality in education does not require that all students have exactly the same experiences” but “that everyone will have an equal opportunity to actualize their potential” (Fiedler, Lange, & Winebrenner in Sherman 1997, p. 15; also see Naicker, 2000). Torrance (US News & World Report, 1980) believes that the equal opportunity problem could be solved by equal provision for gifted children as for others. There is an urgent need for alternative, multiple methods for identifying gifted learners, since academic status alone is not a bona fide indicator of a learner’s ability (Gaydon, 1988; Rawlinson, 1999; VanTasselBaska, Johnson, & Avery, 2002). Research (Colangelo & Assouline, 2000; Greene, 2003; Maree & Beck, 2004) has shown that while gifted learners are often intellectually independent, they do require emotional and career counselling.

Special Needs of Gifted Adolescents The issue of the counselling of gifted adolescents from diverse cultures is quite appropriate in the context of the discussion of gifted education and giftedness research in Africa. It is generally agreed that it has become critically imperative that career counselling be made accessible to the majority of the African population. At the same time it has to continue to address the needs and diversity of individual learners. We explain

1416

some reasons for utilising a career construction approach to career counselling. This narrative approach, inter alia, comprises a consultative process of career counselling for all learners, irrespective of race, gender, age or culture. Concerns in regard to the counselling needs of the gifted date as far back as Leta Hollingworth’s work almost 70 years ago; yet, “the emergence of counselling as a major force in the education of the gifted and talented is a phenomenon of the last two decades” (Colangelo & Assouline, 2000, p. 605) and it is based on evidence of gifted learners’ unique social and emotional needs. As early as 1993, Passow et al. (1993) specified the necessity for the counselling of the gifted to be individualised and focused upon “concrete counselling problems and at the same time toward the goal of optimal development of the student” (Colangelo & Assouline, 2000, p. 895). More recently, Maree & Beck (2004) indicated that the technological advancement and information explosion of the 21st century have brought career counselling practice to a crossroads. A focus in career counselling for gifted students should be “on an individual’s values, needs and identity development”, an approach known as “values-based career counselling” (Wessel, 1999, p. 7). The post-modern-narrative-career construction approach described here was prompted by the realisation that career counselling for the gifted should follow an action-oriented and constructivist procedure in relationship to all aspects of life (see Greene, 2003). This major development in the field of career counselling has on one level served to exacerbate the existing dearth of counsellors suitably qualified to respond appropriately to the unique needs of the gifted (Greene, 2003). On a different level, it has served to underscore the need for suitably qualified counsellors equipped to deal with the idiosyncratic needs of the gifted disadvantaged. For gifted and talented young people who live in dire circumstances characterised by poverty, “career planning and decision making may not take precedence over immediate goals of daily life. Making long-range plans is not necessarily a priority when the present is difficult, and pursuing an interesting and fulfilling career may seem impossible and even selfish” (Maree, 2006, p. 139) (also see Lumadi in Taylor & Kokot, 2000). A possible solution could be for career guidance to run alongside intervention programmes in areas where gifted students face a dismal future (Cosser in Maree, 2006). In addition to

J.G. Maree and C.N. van der Westhuizen

“standard” counselling skills counsellors for such programmes would require specialised knowledge about the workplace, employment trends, etc., with specific reference to ways in which counsellors could attempt to meet the idiosyncratic needs of the gifted in the area under consideration. In view of the fact that we regard the post-modernnarrative-career construction approach to (career) counselling as particularly appropriate for the distinctive needs of the gifted disadvantaged, we now offer a brief description of this unique counselling style.

Career Construction Theory Applied in Gifted Education Hartung (2007) proclaims that “career construction theory and practice melds differential, developmental, dynamic, and learning-based perspectives on career. In this manner it considers what traits a person possesses, how the individual adapts over the life course to transitions and changes prompted by personal and environmental exigencies, and why an individual behaves and moves in the direction that they do”. Hartung (2007) explains that career construction theory and practice meld the following fundamental dimensions of career development: (1) life structure, which comprises the assemblage of those roles (including work-related roles) that shape persons’ lives; (2) career compliance strategies (the coping mechanisms persons employ to work through developmental tasks and changes that come to pass in the course of a lifetime); (3) “thematic life stories”, i.e. persons’ motivations, drives, and strivings that characterise and pattern lives; and (4) personality style, i.e. persons’ idiosyncratic configuration of e.g. abilities, needs, values, interests, aptitudes. Using a storied approach, these elements are blended into a constructivist career counselling strategy, which facilitates the elicitation and self-authoring of persons’ life and career stories and encourages persons to experience their career (work) as personally meaningful and socially relevant (Hartung, 2007). Savickas (2007), pioneer of the career construction approach, states that “narrative career counsellors help individuals move into their own story and learn to hold it, so that in the end the story can hold them and quell their uncertainty. Their narrative construction of self

74

Giftedness and Diversity: Research and Education in Africa

1417

and career becomes the structure that provides meaning and direction as they encounter transitions that involve a loss of place, position, and project”. In constructing and narrating their stories, persons are empowered; turn “tension into attention”; by “telling the reorganised narrative” they express “intention”. Applying career construction theory and practice should empower counsellors to assist individuals to achieve self-completion and make social contributions through work by providing a framework for comprehending vocational behaviour and a counselling model and methods (Savickas, 2002, 2005; in Hartung, 2007). Winslade (2007) contends that career counselling should not be useful only for upper and middle class persons who have access to state-of-the-art counselling and the widest array of careers possible. Instead, it should comprise a strategy and course of action that can possibly be of use to, for example, the following individuals to find meaning and make a social contribution: a person serving a lengthy prison sentence; a prostitute; an alcoholic vagrant; a gangster; and a 12-member family living in an informal settlement or “squatter” camp. In other words, the compass of career counselling should be broadened to include the full continuum of diversity, the disadvantaged in particular. According to Savickas (in Langley, 1999; Stead & Watson, 1999) narrative career counselling from a constructivist perspective involves the following five steps: 1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

constantly keeping in mind the need to remind themselves to put adolescents’ narratives into perspective, i.e. to interpret and perceive adolescents’ expressions in the very empirical context in which such meaning exists Chen, (2001). Adolescents need to be supported to make sense of their experiences. In so doing, a sense of flexibility and creativity in their perception of meaning is promoted and facilitated. The emphasis in career development should be on actively engaging adolescents in constructing meanings for planning the future. Moreover, we concur with Amundson (2003a, 2003b) who emphasises the need to include a broad range of counselling intervention and assessment methods, including “conventional” counselling and assessment methods and dynamic approaches. One could “imagine one pillar of [Super’s (1990) career archway of career determinants] holding the more quantitative and rational counselling methods while the other pillar would highlight more dynamic methods such as metaphor and storytelling” (Amundson, 2006, p. 6). A career construction approach to career development which embraces gifted adolescents’ environment and social experiences in their stories, drawing meaning from them, provides an appropriate means to answer their need to co-construct (reveal), deconstruct (unpack) and (re-)construct (re-author) (Brott, 2001) their experiences and career wishes, offering them the opportunity to recognise, acknowledge, recollect, reflect and put their numerous lifetime experiences toAdolescents narrate their own stories, revealing gether, and thus to enhance their chances of attaining their life themes. success in life. Counsellors repeat these themes to adolescents, In Table 74.1 we present an overview of facets of who, in turn, validate (or invalidate) these themes. career construction approaches to strengthen our ratioAdolescents’ indecision is described and discussed nale for utilising this approach to facilitate the career in terms of the life theme. counselling of gifted disadvantaged learners. Life themes are projected into the future by exIn the following discussions we present actual examining interests (problems encountered during a amples of research which investigates our assumptions. person’s early years) and occupations (solutions to these problems) that reflect these themes. Adolescent and counsellor practise skills that are assumed to be essential if a career decision is to be Contextualising Our Discussion implemented. on Gifted Education

In addition to these steps, we believe that the development of the self and decision making according to adolescents’ values are essential components of the process of counselling (Maree & Beck, 2004). We concur with Chen (2001) that counsellors need to develop a keen understanding of the career development context,

As in any intervention strategy, we strive to treat the individual and his/her environment holistically; therefore, it is essential to provide the general research context in South Africa. We focus primarily on disadvantaged populations, simply because very little has been

1418

J.G. Maree and C.N. van der Westhuizen

Table 74.1 Career construction characteristics (compiled from Hartung, in press; Maree, 2002; Savickas, 1993, 1996, 2002, 2005, 2006) Career construction approaches Focus on . . .

Foundation: The career construction approach . . .

Self-development

Is based on Super’s (1990) developmental perspective on career choice and adjustment Is grounded in and connects social constructionism and logical positivism Is based on the view that adolescents’ (career) identity is at the heart of the search for a solution to a central life problem Represents a shift from personality to identity to answering the following question: Have you been a member of a team? Will you fit into our team? (Savickas, 2006) Signifies the view that adolescents (in-)validate facilitators’ views

Perspectivity An adolescent who is at the centre of the intervention Teamwork through networking, co-operation and emphasis on relationship An adolescent who is perceived to be the sole expert and co-counsellor, who interprets own needs and shapes own life from a range of possibilities Career contructions approches Active participation in the community and making social contributions through one’s work Connecting personal stories, test scores and interpretations and adolescents’ personal meaning with the world of work Career development, which is aimed at finding meaning making instead of an optimal fit The establishment and acquisition of skills needed to write the next chapter of one’s life story

Utilises mattering instead of congruence as the (main) goal of career construction approaches Enables adolescents to fit work into their lives, instead of fitting adolescents into jobs (Savickas, 2004) Assists individuals to achieve self-completion Helps adolescents to (re-)write life and career stories, which link “vocational self-concepts to work roles” (Savickas, 2002, p. 192) Represents a move away from promoting career development to fostering human development by means of work and relationship

reported on research conducted on these populations ii. Assist adolescents to utilise their personal and we are dismayed at the extremely poor living and strengths, negotiate barriers and mobilise teaching conditions in parts of our country. In some of existing resources the schools, teaching facilities are sorely lacking. We iii. Enhance assessment (and employment!) opportuoften wonder how it is possible to facilitate any form nities for learners of career counselling in many schools in South Africa, iv. Help learners negotiate major life transitions (e.g. let alone cater to the needs of the gifted disadvantaged choosing a career at the end of their Grade 12 in particular, in these circumstances. Against the frame year) of reference of the vital need for career development to v. Assist learners to take their first steps in their be made accessible to the entire African population, the career path vast majority of which still has very little or no access vi. Administer (viable, affordable) career counto this crucial facility, it should be clear to the interselling to these learners ested reader why meeting the needs of the gifted sector vii. Link life stories and career choices of African society is not high on the agenda of any govIn attempting to facilitate career development, we ernment on the continent. During our individual and collective efforts with try to effect personal agency by viewing gifted learners as active agents in their own personal development gifted learners in particular, we attempt to and cultivating an increased emphasis on emotions and passions. Whereas Kidd (1998) notes that the major i. Facilitate an understanding of individual and col- distinction between a traditional and a more subjective lective strengths and barriers in career develop- approach lies in the increased emphasis which the latment ter places on adolescents’ purposes, emotions and pas-

74

Giftedness and Diversity: Research and Education in Africa

sions, McMahon & Patton (2002) emphasise that both approaches have a rightful place in the process of career development. In disadvantaged contexts especially, it is important to elicit and to attend to narratives which elaborate gifted learners’ purposes, emotions and passions, which are crucial in enabling individuals to recognise their own and other people’s emotions, understand these emotions and express these emotions in a nonthreatening way (Maree & Molepo, 2006). Since we often observe a noticeable discrepancy between gifted learners’ expected and actual performance, impaired levels of self-confidence and blaming others for their own troubles, which collectively result in unhappiness, we attempt to facilitate career counselling by linking our storied counselling endeavours to, for example, emotional intelligence in schools and regions where we conduct research. We now focus on a case study, in which we exemplify the application of the career construction approach in the case of a gifted, disadvantaged learner.

Exemplifying the Career Construction Approach in Gifted Education Maree and colleagues carried out a research project in 2003–2006 on ways in which to propose innovative career counselling methods. When we designed our research, we wanted to discover whether it was possible, while working with learners, to trace the impact of meaning making, writing life stories and applying lifestyle and biographical analysis to learners and to link these acts with the world of work, so that learners’ enthusiasm increased and they became ready to make career choices. We worked with 1,200 learners in Grades 9 and 11 in 13 schools in 4 South African provinces (Gauteng, Limpopo, Mpumalanga and North West); some of the schools are in the remotest regions of the country, e.g. in the Makhado region, some 480 km north of Pretoria. We gathered background data on the learners and visited the schools once every 2 months for 2 years. During the first 2 years of the project, half the schools and learners were in a control group, and half were in the experimental group. While we facilitated traditional career counselling to the learners in the control group, we facilitated post-modern career

1419

counselling to encourage and support the learners in the experimental group to choose careers based on a post-modern approach, hypothesising that if this succeeded, their career choices could be greatly enhanced. However, subsequently, we altered our mode of inquiry from quantitative-qualitative to qualitative and discarded the notion of a control group. Assessment is practical, hands-on and interactive, thus empowering and equipping learners to apply workshop principles to their own lives. Role-playing (during which the focus is on simulating real-life situations) that has been introduced at schools has yielded promising results. The team is currently focusing on the following assessment techniques: collages, life stories, informal assessment techniques, the Career Interest Profile, the South African Vocational Interest Inventory, the Rothwell–Miller Interest Blank, life and career style questions, EQ-i:YV (Bar-On & Parker, 2000), life chapters and life line. A purposefully selected case study will now be used to highlight the way in which the career construction approach can be used in the case of a disadvantaged, gifted (black) student. In so doing, we will show that it is possible to use this approach in an African context in particular. Matsemuto (1994) defines culture as certain attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviour that are part of a certain group of persons and which are transferred from one generation to another. We adopt a crosscultural approach, in the sense that the model is intended to be applicable to culturally diverse adolescents. It will hopefully be shown that the proposed approach can, in some way, contribute to alleviating the major and pressing problem of so many gifted students in Africa, who currently have no access to career counselling facilities.

The Case Study 1. Identification data Black male Vusi3 (whose parents did not have access to and could not afford traditional career counselling services) was 17 years and 9 months old and attended 3

A code name is used in the case study.

1420

J.G. Maree and C.N. van der Westhuizen

an English high school in a black township (despite the fact that Vusi was Zulu-speaking and that English was his third language of preference). Vusi was the elder of two children. His parents were unemployed. Neither parent had completed Grade 12.

significant others/influences and main activities, with the emphasis on the making of personal meaning. The overriding aim of this exercise was to create a future story aimed at facilitating the choice of a career. Furthermore, Vusi was requested to complete a life line and to present an image of his values and dreams. Informal and formal questionnaires were administered to co-determine Vusi’s interest and personality profile 2. General historicity and his personal strong and weak points, while narratives were also obtained from Vusi’s parents, friends Vusi expressed the wish to become an “executive” or a and teachers. game ranger. He wanted to assume responsibility “for a huge firm or organisation.” Vusi was anxious to rise 4. Discussion of the results above the depressing socio-economic circumstances in his township: “I want to make enough money to help my parents and others.” Preferred subjects were math- We administered formal and informal questionnaires to co-determine Vusi’s interest and personality proematics, economics and physical science. According to Vusi’s teachers, he was gifted; fur- files and his personal strengths and weaknesses. We thermore, he was “a born leader”, diligent, responsi- also obtained narratives from his parents, friends and ble, popular, hardworking, well brought up and always teachers. From the questionnaires administered, from eager to help. According to his friends, Vusi was elo- an analysis of Vusi’s configuration of school marks quent, he had never been afraid to help others, he spoke over a number of years and from discussions with his mind and people were attracted to him in a natu- his teachers, it appeared that Vusi had excellent interral way. He achieved above-average marks at school personal skills and was described as “an empathetic and his marks in all subjects were high above the class listener”. means. 4.1 Aptitude and intelligence

3. Assessment instruments administered Against the backdrop of the narrative approach adopted in the current research, namely that we believe that the counsellor is the co-creator of the adolescent’s narrative and not the expert, a narrative approach was facilitated. Vusi was assisted to narrate his life story as clearly and completely as possible. Some skills utilised during our intervention included warm, non-directive, respectful, genuine and empathic listening, narrative questioning and reflecting Vusi’s emotions, points of view and general demeanour. A career style interview was conducted (including the narration of three anecdotes) and he was requested to complete his life chapters (Vusi was requested to view his life as an autobiography, which he had to divide into chapters, with a title for each chapter). Reflexive questions were then asked regarding each chapter, including questions regarding conflicts, developmental experiences, main goals, interests, traits of personality, strong and weak points,

Notwithstanding the fact that the aptitude test yielded only marginally above-average academic, commercial and technical aptitudes (Vusi’s scores for vocabulary, verbal reasoning and calculations being his highest individual aptitudes), it became clear from an analysis of Vusi’s configuration of school marks over a number of years and discussions with his teachers that Vusi had superior academic and technical aptitudes as well as superior aptitude in the field of leadership. Furthermore, it became apparent from the administration of an emotional intelligence questionnaire that Vusi possessed superior emotional (and social) intelligence.

4.2 Interest Vusi’s highest fields of interest were, very clearly, the executive and management practice (managing and organising; promotion and persuasion; taking the lead

74

Giftedness and Diversity: Research and Education in Africa

and acting in an enterprising manner); social and legal sciences; the engineering and the built environment; marketing; adventure, plants, animals and the environment. Furthermore, he showed a clear dislike for word artistry and research.

1421

not the sole expert. Vusi, a motivated and committed adolescent, was eager to be counselled and readily accepted the idea of entering into a collaborative counselling relationship. Clearly located in his exploration (adolescence) stage of career development (Super, 1990), he displayed a delicate sense of awareness that his past and present influenced his future. He was able to narrate his life story and dreams and justify his 4.3 Personality values. Vusi was helped to identify a number of life themes. According to information obtained from significant others, he was a kind, well-mannered, empathetic, When asked to share his earliest recollections with the warm-hearted extrovert; a competitive, diligent, or- counsellor, he narrated the following incidents: derly, steadfast and responsible person (he displayed high ego strength) with a keen sense of humour. – When I was very young, we had to move away from our home in the village to an abode in the township Blessed with a phlegmatic temperament, he showed where we still stay today. This was the worst experia clear preference for working with people. He coence possible: moving away from surroundings to a operated in and enjoyed group activities, and fitted “foreign country”; a place where I did not at all feel into a group easily. Prepared to participate, he had comfortable. excellent leadership qualities. – My mother was very sick (she suffered from an asthma attack) and I was petrified. However, scared 4.4 Values as I was, I was always in control of the situation; I realised then already that one has to manage one’s Vusi wanted to be “rich, so I can enjoy financial freecircumstances. dom”. He had a desire to lead others and to help them to – I was an only child for a very long time. Then, evenrealise their potential. Furthermore, he wanted “to give tually, my little brother was born and I loved him back to the community what they have given to me”, from the start. I was so happy to share my room he wanted to be financially independent and to “rise to and my bed (initially) with my dear little brother, the top in my career”, and he expressed the desire to atto help him find his way around. It was so good to tain a position where “I can assume responsibility and have someone that looked up to me for guidance. manage others”. These were the typical themes of a young man who knew what he wanted; a naturally gifted, born leader. 4.5 Self-concept These life themes were extended into the future, discussed with Vusi and the following themes came to the Vusi’s self-concept and self-esteem appeared to be ex- fore: cellent. He was “perfectly sure that I have the ability to pass Grade 12 well enough to gain entrance to a univer- – I will achieve my goals, despite the fact that I will sity (after all, I have always achieved very well)”. He have to discover new shores and adapt to foreign performed well in unfamiliar situations and verbalised surroundings, putting the pieces of my life’s jigsaw his desire to rise to challenges, despite having grown puzzle together. I have always succeeded in manup in an atmosphere of relative uncertainty. Vusi set aging my circumstances and getting on top, and I extremely high goals for himself and he was certain of always will. what he wanted to achieve in life. – I realise that I have the capacity to help others, to manage them, to contribute greatly to humanity. I have abundant intellectual, leadership, emotional 4.6 Extending life themes and social skills to deal with any new circumstances. – From time to time, I will be confronted with major An assumption of the narrative approach is that the challenges, but I realise only too well that overcomcounsellor is the co-creator of Vusi’s narrative and ing these challenges is part of my own growth pro-

1422

cess; it is important never to overreact and to still maintain a sense of perspective. I shall be able to cope with future disappointments. I am a very principled person and I shall never betray my principles and ideals. – Having survived major challenges in my life, I now exude self-confidence and I am looking forward to exciting times ahead. – I am a gifted leader. I will take the best from the past on which to build a better future.

5. Recommendations for tertiary training Investigation of the following broad fields of study at university level was recommended:

r r r r r r r r

Construction management and quantity surveying Property studies City and regional planning and urban design Engineering (e.g. industrial) Financial, investment, marketing or labour, organisational psychology and human resource management Accounting sciences Law Psychology

In order to facilitate Vusi’s experience of the actual reality of career activities and help him crystallise his occupational preference (Niles & Harris-Bowlsbey, 2002), we recommended that Vusi do job analysis, including interviews with people, reading brochures and work shadow. Vusi was advised to arrange interviews with corporate and bank managers, human resource managers, chain store managers, managers of different organisations (e.g. a local garage) and to look for part-time or vacation work with a construction company, a bank, an accountant’s office and to ask for permission to observe these professionals at work. Furthermore, Vusi was advised to plan his career path (setting realistic short-, medium- and long-term goals for himself in conjunction with the counsellor), to acquire and read books or chapters written by or about black professionals in the career fields recommended, to work co-operatively with students in his class and to attend short courses in entrepreneurship.

J.G. Maree and C.N. van der Westhuizen

Vusi was reminded that the ultimate responsibility for exercising a career choice was his own, that this process entailed much more than a linear, onceoff choice of one specific job and that the choice of a career is a process of lifelong learning and growth in a dynamic, ever-changing world of work. Vusi is currently studying engineering.

Conclusions In this chapter, we analysed the current situation regarding gifted education and giftedness research in Africa. Specifically, we argued that the challenge in sub-Saharan Africa is to extend the existing body of knowledge in gifted education to better understand giftedness in the context of third world and developing countries. Existing theories on giftedness are by and large informed by North American and European ideologies, to a significant extent alienating communities that fall outside these parameters. Building our discussion on ongoing research endeavours in South Africa, like others, we infer that besides acknowledging diversity, gifted education can be utilised to guide individuals in terms of existing (e.g.) personal, contextual and cultural capacities. Positioning4 our framework within segments of a career construction postmodern narrative approach, and embedded in knowledge systems, from an African perspective, we used a case study to demonstrate their possible value in engaging diversity issues in gifted education against the framework of the situation in North America. The case study, which involved a gifted black child whose parents did not have access to and could not afford traditional career counselling services, exemplified the implementation of the proposed career construction approach to career counselling in sub-Saharan Africa. In doing so, we challenged the use of traditional approaches in identifying and coping with giftedness. We used our case study to propose possible ways in which practitioners could ascertain and mobilise gifted adolescents’ personal and contextual resources as capital in gifted education and to provide us with account-

4 Our sincerest thanks are due to a number of colleagues; however, we would like to thank Professor Mark Savickas of the Ohio State University in particular, whose indefatigable courage, leadership, ingenuity and creativity prompted our work in this direction.

74

Giftedness and Diversity: Research and Education in Africa

1423

able ways in which to comprehend and counsel (part- Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Amendment Act, No. 2. of 2003. Pretoria: Government Printers. ner with) gifted, diverse adolescents. In doing so, we Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): Child Soldiers Abanlocated our thinking within existing gifted education doned. (2006). Amnesty International press release, 11 Octotheory on the one hand and reflected on future pathber. http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGAFR620192006 Accessed: 3 January 2007. ways on the other, illustrating possible gifted education DoE. (2001). Education White Paper 6, Special Needs Educadevelopment application of our considerations.

References Amundson, N. E. (2003a). Active engagement: Enhancing the career counselling process (2nd ed.). Richmond: Ergon Communications. Amundson, N. E. (2003b). Physics of living. Richmond: Ergon Communications. Amundson, N. E. (2006). Bridge over troubled waters: Guidance crosses. Keynote address: IAEVG Conference – Denmark. Asmal, K. (2003, July 29). Speech by the minister of education at the opening of the new premises of the READ Education Trust, Johannesburg. Baldwin, A. Y. (2005). Identification concerns and promises for gifted students of diverse populations. Theory into practice, 44(2), 105–114. Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D.A. (2000). Bar-on emotional quotient inventory: Youth version. Technical manual. Toronto: MultiHealth Systems. Bhorat, F. (1985). Educational provisions for the gifted Indian child in the Republic of South Africa. Unpublished MEd dissertation. Pretoria: UNISA. Bonner, F. A. (2000). African American giftedness: Our nation’s deferred dream. Journal of Black Studies, 30(5), 643–663. Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(4), 164–171. Borland, J. H., Schnur, R., & Wright, L. (2000). Economically disadvantaged students in a school for the academically gifted. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(1), 13–32. Brott, P. (2001). The storied approach: A postmodern approach for career counselling. The Career Development Quarterly, 49(4), 304–310. Carrim, N. (2002). Inclusion in South African education. Institute of Development Studies, Discussion Paper no. 2. Chen, C. P. (2001). On exploring meanings: Combining humanistic and career psychology theories in counselling. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 14(4), 317–330. Chitiyo, M., & Wheeler, J. (2004). The development of special education services in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Special Education, 19(2), 5–10. http://www.internationalsped.com/documents/chityo %20zimbabwe%20(6).doc. Accessed: 5 January 2007. Coetzer, I. A., & Van Zyl, A. E. (1989). Historical education: Some contemporary challenges in education. Study guide. Pretoria: UNISA. Colangelo, N. (2005). It’s time that America had a different discussion. Trend Watch, 28–31. Colangelo, N., & Assouline, S. G. (2000). Counselling gifted students. In: K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 595–607). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

tion: Building An inclusive education and training system. Pretoria: Department of Education. Dorbis, C., & Vasilevska, S. (1996). Cultural gifts in the 90s and beyond. http://www.nexus.edu.au/teachstud/gat/dor vasi.htm Accessed: 27 March 2006. Education in Africa. (s.a.). http://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/ Education in Africa Accessed: 4 January 2007. Ford, D. Y., Baytops, J. L., & Harmon, D. A. (1997). Helping gifted minority students reach their potential: Recommendations for change. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3&4), 201–216. Frasier, M. M. (1989). Poor and minority students can be gifted, too! Educational Leadership, March, 16–18. Freeman, J. (2002). Out-of-school education provision for the gifted and talented around the world. Report to the DfES. London, United Kingdom. Gaydon, V. P. (1988). Predictors of performance of disadvantaged adolescents on the Soweto/Alexandra gifted child programme. Unpublished research report. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand. Greene, M. J. (2003). Gifted adrift? Career counselling of the gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 9–21. http:// goliath.ecnext.com./coms2/summary 0199-2519357 ITM Accessed: 24 November 2006. Gwany, D. M. (1993). The state of affairs of gifted education in Nigeria. In B. Wallace & H. Adams (Eds.), Worldwide perspectives on the gifted disadvantaged. Great Britain: AB Academic. Hartung, P. J. (2007). Career construction theory and practice: Structure, strategies, stories, and style. In J. G. Maree (Ed.), Shaping the story – A guide to facilitate narrative counselling. Pretoria: Van Schaik publishers. Hern´andez de Hahn, E. L. (2000). Cross-cultural studies in gifted education. In: K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 549–561). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Howie, S. (2003). Conditions of schooling in South Africa and the effects on mathematics achievement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29, 227–241. Johnson, S. K., Haensly, P. A., Ryser, G. R., & Ford, R. F. (2002, Winter). Changing general education classroom practices to adapt for gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(1), 45– 63. Kerr, B., Colangelo, N., Maxey, J., & Christensen, P. (1992, May/June). Characteristics of academically talented minority students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 606– 609. Kidd, J. M. (1998). Emotion: An absent presence in career theory. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 52, 275–288. Knobel, R., & Shaughnessy, M. (2002). A reflective conversation with Joe Renzulli. Gifted Education International, 16(2), 118–126. Kokot, S. (1998). Fulfilling potential: Options for educating gifted learners in South Africa. Research report. Pretoria: UNISA.

1424 Kokot, S. (1999). Help: Our child is gifted! Guidelines for parents (2nd ed.). Johannesburg: Radford House. Kolo, I. A. (1996). Reflections on the development of gifted education in Nigeria. Roeper Review, 19(2), 79–81. Langley, R. (1999). Super’s theory. In: Stead, G. B. & Watson, M. B. (1999). Career psychology, Pretoria, J. L. van Schaik Publishers, 67–90. Lategan, M. M. (1986). Education for the gifted child: A historical overview. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Pretoria, UNISA. Maree, J. G. (2002). Theoretical approaches: An overview. Chapter In J. G. Maree & L. Ebers¨ohn (Eds.), Lifeskills and career counselling, 1–32. Cape Town: Heinemann. Maree, J. G. (2005). The use of narratives in cross-cultural career counselling. In M. MacMahon, & W. Patton (Eds.), Career counselling: Constructivist approaches, 69–81. Routledge: New York. Maree, J. G. (2006). A fairer deal for the gifted disadvantaged in rural areas in South Africa. In B. Wallace & G. Eriksson (Eds.), Diversity in gifted education: International perspectives on global issues. London: Routledge. Maree, J. G., & Beck, G. (2004). Using various approaches in career counselling for traditionally disadvantaged (and other) learners: Some limitations of a new frontier. South African Journal of Education, 24(1), 80–87. Maree, J. G., & Molepo, J. M. (2006). Narrative career counselling: facilitating a storied approach to counselling in four provinces in South Africa. Annual report. Pretoria: University of Pretoria. Matsemuto, D. R. (1994). People: psychology from a cultural perspective, California, Brooks/Cole. McMahon, M., & Patton, W. (2002). Using qualitative assessment in career counselling. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 2, 51–66. M¨onks, F. J., & Pfl¨uger, R. (2005). Gifted education in 21 European countries: Inventory and perspective, conducted on behalf of the German federal ministry of education and research. Nijmegen: Radboud University. Naicker, S. M. (2000). Presentation: From apartheid education to inclusive education: The challenges of transformation. International education summit for a democratic society. Niles, S. G., & Harris-Bowlsbey, J. (2002). Career development interventions in the 21st century. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall. Passow, H., M¨onks, F. J., & Heller, K. A. (1993). Research and education of the gifted in the year 2000 and beyond. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook for research and development of giftedness and talent. London: Pergamon Press. Paule, M. (2006). England: Issues in education for gifted and talented pupils. In B. Wallace & G. Eriksson (Eds.), Diversity in gifted education. Great Britain: Routledge. Peresuh, M., & Barcham, L. (1998). Special education provision in Zimbabwe. British Journal of Special Education, 25(2), 75–80. Persson, S., Joswig, H., & Balogh, L. (2000). Gifted education in Europe: Programs, practices and current research. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & Subotnik, R. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 703–734). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Porter, L. (1999). Gifted young children. Buckingham: Open University Press.

J.G. Maree and C.N. van der Westhuizen Porteus, K. (2003). Constructing an analytic framework for inclusion/exclusion for the decolonising context. Perspectives in Education, 21(3), 13–23. Rawlinson, C. (1999, November/December, 1–3). Gifted and talented students: Teachers’ recognition of children with special abilities. Paper presented NZARE/AARE, Melbourne. Richert, E. C. (1987). Rampant problems and promising practices in the identification of disadvantaged gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, Fall, 31(4), 149–154. Savickas, M. L. (1993). Career counselling in the postmodern era. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 7(3), 205–215. Savickas, M. L. (1996). A framework for linking career theory and practice. In M. L. Savickas, & W. B. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of career counselling theory and practice. Palo Alto: Davies-Black. Savickas, M. L. (2002). Career construction: A developmental theory of vocational behavior. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 149–205). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Savickas, M. L. (2004, April 14). Career as story: Using life themes in counselling. 13th AACC National Conference, Coolangatta, Australia. Savickas, M. L. (2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In S. Brown, & R. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work. New York: John Wiley. Savickas, M. L. (2006, April 18). Counselling for career construction (Facilitating the storied approach in (career) counselling: practical implementation). 15th Australian Career Counselling Conference, Sydney. Savickas, M. L. (2007). Reshaping the story of career counselling. In J. G. Maree (ed.), Shaping the story – a guide to facilitate narrative counselling. Pretoria: Van Schaik, 1–3. Seevers, R., & Shaughnessy, M. (2003). Reflective conversation with Dorothy Sisk. Gifted Education International, 17(1), 16–41. Semakane, S. K. (1994). The academic self-efficacy beliefs of disadvantaged gifted black middle school students in the North West province of South Africa. Unpublished MEd dissertation. Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education. Sherman, L. (1997). Curiouser and curiouser. Northwest Education. Fall. http://www.nwrel.org/nwedu/fall/97/chapter2.html Accessed: 12 February 2007. Sibaya, P. T., Hlongwane, M., & Makunga, N. (1996). Gifted Education International, 11(2), 107–113. Skuy, M., Gaydon, V., Hoffenberg, S., & Fridjohn, P. (1990). Predictors of performance of disadvantaged adolescents in a gifted programme. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(3), 97–101. Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In Brown, D. (1990). Career choice and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 197–261. Taylor, C. A., & Kokot, S. J. (2000). The status of gifted child education in Africa. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & Subotnik, R. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 799–815). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Stead, G. B., & Watson, M. B. (1999). Career decision making and career indecision. In G. B. Stead & M. B. Watson (Eds.), Career psychology. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik Publishers.

74

Giftedness and Diversity: Research and Education in Africa

The World Bank Group. (2007). Africa: Education, http://www. worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/0. Accessed: 3 January 2007. UNESCO Institute for Statistics (s.a.) http://www.uis.unesco. org/ev.php?ID=6509 201&ID2=DO TOPIC Accessed: 3 January 2007. UNICEF Angola, Education Overview. (2007). http://www. unicef.org/angola/education.html Accessed: 4 January 2007. United Nations Development Programme Report. (2005). http://enwikipedia.org/wiki/List of countriesby literacy rate Accessed: 10 January 2007. US News and World Report. (1980). For many, being gifted brings lifelong struggle. Interview with E. Paul Torrance. VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Avery, L. (2002, Spring). Using performance tasks in the identification of economically disadvantaged and minority gifted learners: Findings from project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 110–123.

1425 Wessel, L. E. (1999). Career counselling for gifted students: Literature review and critique. Ohio State University document CG029045, 1–15. Winslade, J. (2007). Constructing a career narrative through the care of the self. In J. G. Maree (ed.), Shaping the story – a guide to facilitate narrative counselling. Pretoria: Van Schaik, 52–62. World Declaration on Education for All. (1990). http://ww2.unesco.org/wef/en-conf/jomtien%20Declaration %20eng,shtm. Accessed: 3 January 2007. World Education Forum. (2000). http://unesco.org/ education/efa/ed for all/dakfram eng.shtml Accessed: 3 January 2007. Yecke, C. P. (2003). The war against excellence: The rising tide of mediocrity in America’s middle schools. New York: Praeger.

Chapter 75

Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia Shane N. Phillipson, Jiannong Shi, Guofeng Zhang, Den-Mo Tsai, Chwee Geok Quek, Nobutaka Matsumura and Seokhee Cho

Abstract Despite sharing a common cultural heritage, recent developments in gifted education in several countries and regions within East Asia, including the People’s Republic of China (mainland China), Taiwan, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), Singapore, Japan, and South Korea, show that each country and region is now characterized by different approaches to gifted education. However, the challenges facing many of these countries and regions are remarkably similar, including a number of fundamental issues such as misconceptions as to the role of gifted education within communities that are dominated by extensive and pervasive examination systems, and the limited roles of indigenous research in conceptions of giftedness and curriculum development. In contrast, gifted education in Japan has had a “virtual” existence over many years, although the ability of its education systems – both public and private – to meet the specific needs of its “gifted” students is yet to be determined. Keywords Giftedness · Gifted education · East Asia · Hong Kong · Japan · China · Singapore · South Korea · Taiwan

Introduction The focus of this chapter concerns gifted education in several countries and regions within East Asia, including the People’s Republic of China (mainland China), S.N. Phillipson (B) The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong, China e-mail: [email protected]

Taiwan, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), Singapore, Japan, and South Korea. Each section of this chapter is written by researchers who are familiar with developments in gifted education within each country, region and the wider context. They describe issues related to identification of gifted students, curriculum development and implementation, and societal views toward gifted education. Despite a common cultural heritage, it is clear that each jurisdiction has followed independent pathways in many aspects of gifted education. It is also apparent that there are many similarities in the challenges facing gifted education, although the solutions are often unique.

People’s Republic of China1 After the nightmare period of the so-called Great Cultural Revolution, the Chinese government called upon the country to identify and educate people with high abilities. Under the instruction of educating more people with high abilities, and earlier and better, China resumed its national university enrollment examination system in 1977. A special class for academically gifted young adolescents aged 11–16 years old was set up at the University of Science and Technology of China which directly appertains to the Chinese Academy of 1 Preparation of this section was supported by NSFC (No. 30670716), Laboratory of Learning and Cognition, Capital Normal University, and key project of National Educational Science (No. GBB010921). Corresponding author is Jiannong SHI, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Laboratory of Learning and Cognition, Capital Normal University, Beijing. E-mail: [email protected].

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 75, 

1427

1428

Sciences in 1978. A national collaborative research group was set up for gifted and talented children in the same year. The state of gifted education in China before 2000 was summarized in two chapters (Zha, 1993; Shi & Zha, 2000) included in the International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (Heller, M¨onks, & Passow, 1993) and in the International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (Heller, M¨onks, Sternberg, & Subotnik, 2000). In this chapter, we focus on the latest developments in giftedness research in mainland China. It is important to mention that a new term, supernormal children, was created by Chinese psychologists (Zha, 1993; Shi & Zha, 2000) and will be used here synonymously with “gifted and talented children”.

Creativity Research One of the directions in giftedness research in China is an attempt to explain the nature of creative abilities. Specifically, a systematic model of creativity was proposed (Shi, 1995; 2004), which includes nine interrelated components. These components are further divided into two main categories: inner world category and external world category. The inner world category includes natural intelligence level or intellectual potential, knowledge, and experience (including general and specific knowledge and practical skills which are mastered in previous experience), non-intellectual personality traits, attitude or tendency to work creatively, and creative behavior. The external world category includes social environment or macro-environment and working situation (including family, economic and physical conditions), education or educational opportunities, and creative product(s). All these components or variables cannot be directly observed or measured, but they play their own roles in the system of creativity (Shi, 2004). According to this model, creative outcome is regarded as a function of one’s active intelligence, personality, tasks, factors from social environment, and the time one is engaged in creative activity (Shi & Xu, 1999b).

Speed of Information Processing Chinese psychologists have also studied speed of information processing in gifted children. Their earlier

S.N. Phillipson et al.

investigations focused on gifted children’s observation, reasoning, memory, and meta-cognition (Shi & Zha, 2000; Zha, 1993; Zha, 1998). However, most investigations are unable to determine why gifted children perform better than children who are of average ability. The reason is that gifted children normally were identified with intelligence tests or cognitive tests, which include different cognitive items or tasks related to the various aspects of their memory, language, visual aspects, and thinking. In order to investigate basic differences between gifted and average children, a series of cognitive studies focusing on the speed of information processing (SIP) were conducted (Chen et al., 2004; Liu, Shi, & Cheng, 2003; Liu, Shi, & Cheng, 2003; Yun, Shi, Tang, & Liu, 2004; Zou, Shi, Yun, & Fang, 2003). It was found that (1) the supernormal group performed better than the normal group in elementary cognitive tasks either by shorter reaction time or by greater accuracy; (2) the speed of information processing (SIP) is different between the two groups, and it is associated with the complexity of the task; and (3) the task complexity affects the reaction time and accuracy of both the supernormal and normal children, but in different ways. With the increase in complexity, the reaction times of both normal and supernormal children were prolonged. At the same time, the accuracy of the normal group declined while that of the supernormal group kept stable at a rather high level (Zou et al., 2003). Moreover, the difference in the speed of information processing between the supernormal and the average children kept stable in different ages (Yun et al., 2004). In order to avoid the influence of the movement and tactics of the response, an indicator named inspection time (IT) was used (Deary & Stough, 1996; Nettelbeck & Rabbitt, 1992). Results indicated that the inspection time of supernormal and normal children decreased gradually as their ages increased, but the developmental speeds or developmental curves were different on different inspection time tasks. The inspection time of supernormal children was significantly faster than that of the normal children on the tasks in different ages. The correlation coefficients between inspection time and IQ scores in both supernormal and normal children were significant. Furthermore no schooling effects on children’s speed of information processing (IT) were found. Comparing the developmental speed of the inspection time of the two samples, we suggested that their school knowledge and experience have no effects

75

Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia

on the development of children’s inspection time (Liu et al., 2003; Chen et al., 2004).

Metamemory of Supernormal Children Some researchers are interested in the metamemory of supernormal children (Sang, Miao, & Deng, 2002; Shi, 1990a, 1990b). In the previous studies, supernormal teenagers and a comparison group with average ability were tested with memory tasks and their memory and metamemory were analyzed. The results indicated that the gifted are superior to the normal not only in the amount of recall and the speed of remembering, but also in some aspects of metamemory, such as memory monitoring and memory organization. It was also found that the speed of remembering, as one important aspect of memory performance, was significantly correlated with the memory monitoring in either gifted or average children. The two metamemory components, memory monitoring and organization, were closely correlated (Shi, 1990a, 1990b). In a later study focusing on the development of metamemory knowledge of supernormal children, it was found that the metamemory of supernormal children increased with their age, with the most rapid development occuring between ages 5 and 7 years. It was also found that the gifted children’s metamemory was better than the same aged non-gifted peers and equivalent with the performance of 1 year older non-gifted peers (Sang et al., 2002).

Non-intellecual Factors and Supernormal Children Another research direction of the Chinese psychologists working in the area of giftedness is related to the study of non-intellectual factors. Specifically, they developed questionnaires to compare ambitions, independence, self-confidence, persistence, and selfconsciousness of supernormal and normal children. The results indicate that these qualities are better developed in supernormal children than in normal ones (Yuan & Hong, 1990; Zha & Zhao, 1990). Several studies pertaining to self-concept, stateanxiety and trait-anxiety, achievement motive, and

1429

reward of gifted and average children were conducted (Li et al., 2004; Qu & Shi, 2005; Shi, Li & Zhang, 2008). The results demonstrate that the selfconcept of gifted children aged 13 years was lower than that of the normal control group of the same age. The differences in physical self-concept, peer self-concept, classroom self-concept, self-confidence, non-academic self-concept, and the general self-concept were all statistically significant. It is interesting to note that every dimension of the self-concept of the gifted children aged 11 years was higher than the normal control group of the same age, except the ability self-concept and the general self-concept; however, the difference between them was not significant (Li et al., 2004; Shi et al., 2008). In a decade comparison study between 1993 and 2003, Kong and Zhu (2005) found that social environment has a significant impact on the non-gifted adolescents while its influence on the gifted is comparatively slight. The gifted sample in 1993 has more positive academic self-concept than the non-gifted peers while it is not true for the gifted sample in 2003. Using factor analysis, Kong, Wei, Fang, and Zhu (in press) investigated the non-intellectual factors of gifted adolescents. It was found that competition awareness and self-control ability play important roles among the non-intellectual factors. Gifted students’ mental health is also attractive to some scholars. A practical service program was developed to help gifted adolescents in Xi’an Jiaotong University (Shen & Zhang, 2006). Motivation is an important force for study, work, and recreation. In a recent study, the reading motivation of gifted and non-gifted children was investigated (Wu, 2004). Generally, it was found that there was no significant difference in reading motivation between gifted and non-gifted children. These findings suggest that more attention should be devoted to the development of non-intellectual aspects of gifted children.

The Neuropsychology of Supernormal Children Chinese psychologists have also worked in the area of the neuropsychology of giftedness. Research on the relationship between event-related potentials (ERPs) and psychometrical intelligence found consistently negative correlation between ERP latencies and IQ

1430

(Robaey, Cansino, Dugas, & Renault, 1995). This can be interpreted by the neural efficiency hypothesis that “high-IQ subjects” brains work more efficiently (Chalke, 1965). Most of these results came from studies conducted with adults. People wanted to know whether these findings are equally true for gifted children. In one of the recent studies children with different levels of intelligence were invited to attend some event-related potential (ERP) experiments in order to see whether the same degree of content specificity on the elementary cognitive task–intelligence relationship reported in adults could be found in children. The ERP studies revealed that supernormal children had shorter latency of P300 or P600 but greater amplitude than normal children (Zhang & Shi, 2006a). An experiment with the sound odd-ball pattern was conducted recently and the mismatched negativity (MMN) and P3a component were analyzed (Liu, Shi, Zhao, & Yang, n.d.). The results indicated that intellectually gifted children had larger MMN amplitude on deviant sound and larger peak amplitude of P3a in anterior area on novel sound than their average peers. These findings support the neural efficiency hypothesis suggesting that the previously found pattern of relationship between intelligence and brain activity in adults also exists in children. It also provides further evidence that supernormal children are more efficient in their information processing in comparison with normal children. Apart from these studies, Chinese psychologists have focused on using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) or event-related fMRI to know the neural correlates of insight (Luo & Niki, 2002, 2003; Niki & Luo, 2000). Participants were imaged by fMRI when they were solving the riddles and puzzles. Results showed activities in frontal, temporal, and parietal areas to be associated with the process of insight. But we still need more experiments in order to understand the realtionships between neural correlates and insight.

S.N. Phillipson et al.

school children were set up at Tianjin Experimental Primary and Tianjin Yaohuan Middle School in 1984. In the mid-1980s, a number of experimental classes for gifted children and adolescents were set up at different universities and middle and elementary schools all over the country. However, the experimental classes for adolescents at university levels diminsihed in the mid-1990s. Fortunately, gifted programs in primary and secondary schools continue to be developed. When the first experimental class for gifted preschool children was set up in Beijing Happy Time Kindergarten, a sophisticated system for gifted and talented children in China was established with different patterns of gifted education such as acceleration, enrichment, after-school programs, and grade-skipping.

Future Directions in Gifted Education in Mainland China All of the above demonstrate that important findings have been obtained in the area of giftedness research in mainland China during the last 10 years. There are, however, several important issues that still need to be addressed (Zhang & Shi, 2006b), including:

r r r r

A great effort should be made to establish a sound theoretical basis for giftedness research and gifted education. The government should increase funding for giftedness research and gifted education. The teachers of gifted children need to be supported and encouraged through professional development programs. The research into specific types of giftedness – such as giftedness in the arts and athletics – also requires greater attention.

Recent Development of Gifted Education in Taiwan2 The Education of Supernormal Children The development of gifted education in Taiwan can be generally described by two stages: a stage of experi-

From the point of view of gifted education, a number of experimental classes from kindergarten to university levels have been set up since 1978. The first 2 Corresponding author is Den-Mo TSAI, Kaohsiung Normal experimental classes for gifted elementary and middle University, Taiwan. E-mail: [email protected].

75

Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia

mentation and a stage marked by the introduction of the Law of Special Education.

The Stage of Experimentation Motivated by the suggestions of the National Education Convention in 1962, administrators of two elementary schools in Taipei started an enrichment curriculum for gifted students in 1963. In order to explore the characteristics of gifted students and develop appropriate effective forms of education, the Ministry of Education began experimental programs for gifted students in 1973. Over time, these programs have proceeded through three phases. These phases, which included policies and guidelines, play an important role in the recent development of education for gifted students in Taiwan. The first phase of programs was designed to provide special education for gifted elementary school students. This occurred from 1973 to 1979. During this period, the major strategy consisted of self-contained special classes for gifted students in elementary schools. Enrichment was done within the special class (Ministry of Education, 1979). In 1978, Taiwan Normal University proceeded with an evaluation of 18 classes from six experimental schools, comparing them with the same number of gifted students from regular classes in the same area. The results showed that programs for gifted students in elementary schools were beneficial for children’s academic achievement in Chinese and math (W. T. Wu, 1983). Because all of the highly capable students were in the same class, the competition between students was high and they suffered from the pressure of parents’ and teachers’ expectations (Kuo, 1979). The second phase of programs was designed to extend special education to gifted students at the junior high school level. Since evaluation of phase one revealed some problems with the self-contained special class, resource room programming was also made available (Ministry of Education, 1979). Gifted students were in regular classrooms, but during certain periods they were able to take advantage of resource rooms and the help of specialist teachers (Chung, 1981). During the second phase, more and more schools provided programs for gifted students. The programs also included talented students in music, art and dance.

1431

A brief review of special classes for the gifted in R.O.C. showed that by 1981, there were 69 schools which provided special programs for gifted students. Of these, 40 schools had programs which served intellectually gifted students and 29 schools served students talented in music, art, or dance. The total number of students served in 1981 was 5,055, with 362 professional teachers involved. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the second phase for the four years between 1979 and 1982 was completed by Professor Wu of the National Taiwan Normal University (W. T. Wu, 1983). Twelve junior high schools with 1,087 gifted students from self-contained special classes and resource rooms were involved in this study. In addition, 1,046 bright and high-achieving students from regular classes in the same schools were randomly selected as a comparison group. The methods used were field visits and questionnaire surveys. The findings showed that gifted students from both types of classes showed better interpersonal relationships than the bright students from regular classes and that gifted students from the self-contained special class showed better creative thinking and academic achievement than did those from the resource class and the comparison group. In general, the positive effects of the program for gifted students were confirmed. The third phase of programs occurred from 1982 to 1989. In addition to the services provided in the second step, this phase included opportunities to accelerate through the grade level sequence by skipping school years (Ministry of Education, 1982). Some statutes were also established to foster acceleration. A few studies showed positive results of the programs for gifted students. For example, 287 gifted students from grades seven to nine drawn from three junior high schools in Taipei were compared with 338 students from regular classes. The results showed that gifted students were superior to regular students in science and mathematics (W. T. Wu, Chen, & Tsai, 1985). Another survey, which included a sample of students and teachers from six high schools, showed that gifted students benefited in the learning results compared with regular students. They had more resources available in the learning environments, enjoyed higher level learning involved in the processes, and achieved higher in language, math, and science. A 10-year follow-up study of the students being served in programs for gifted students showed that the students would again

1432

like to be in the programs for gifted students if they had the chance. Overall, they had positive attitudes toward the program for gifted students in Taiwan (Chen, 1989).

The Stage of Special Education Law In 1984, the Law of Special Education which included gifted education was promulgated, and later revised in 1997. The law and its subsequent regulations resulted in a rapid growth of gifted education in Taiwan. Program resources were improved and programs had more flexibility. The services for highly capable students have been growing year by year. In 1982, the number of gifted students being served in special programs was 5,783; in 1989, the number increased to 16,716. In 1995, the number increased to 30,699 (Chang & Liau, 1995). In 2006, the number increased to 50,693 (Ministry of Education and Human Resources Delevlopment, 2006).

Services Provided for Gifted Students Over the past 30 years, with the efforts of law makers, administrators, educators, parents, and many others, gifted students in Taiwan now are given more and better opportunities to learn and grow. The advantages for gifted students provided by the school system include earlier enrollment, acceleration, more and better-trained teachers, access to special programs, additional avenues to schools, and more available resources. These advantages come from official policies and are supported by law. Many opportunities have been created to serve the special needs of highly capable students. Without these opportunities, gifted students might have difficulties adjusting to rigid systems and group teaching and their potentials might have been wasted. The services are described in the following sections. Access to special programs. According to the Special Education Law, giftedness means having high potential or achievement in general intellectual abilities, academic aptitudes (natural sciences, math, social sciences, or language arts), talent in arts (music, dance, or drawing), creativity, leadership, or other special talents.

S.N. Phillipson et al.

Students whose abilities are one and half standard deviations above the mean or ranked above 93 percentile should be identified as gifted and provided with special programs. From elementary to senior high school levels, those who are identified as gifted students are formally placed in self-contained special classes or pullout resource room programs. The student/teacher ratio in each regular class is two teachers for one class of 35 students, while special classes for gifted students have three teachers for one class of 30 students. Other than formal teacher education, teachers from special classes are required to have special education training. In 2005, there were 45,537 gifted students from both elementary and senior high school who were formally placed in self-contained special classes or resource rooms, corresponding to 1.27% of the total student population (Ministry of Education, 2005). High school students who are gifted in science and math can also go to universities and attend science programs during weekends, summer, or winter breaks. About 20 universities are supported by the Ministry of Education each year with grants to provide higher level learning in science for gifted high school students. Options for acceleration. On the basis of the Special Education Law, ten types of accelerations are provided in Taiwan. The acceleration options include (1) early admission to first grade; (2) curriculum compacting; (3) acceleration in one or more subjects; (4) gradeskipping in one or more subjects; (5) acceleration in all subjects; (6) grade-skipping in all subjects; (7) early graduation; (8) early entrance into junior high school, senior high school, or college; (9) selection of a course or courses above one or more than one grade early; and (10) selection of a course or courses above one or more than one stage of education early. For early admission to first grade in Taiwan, young children need to have an IQ that is more than 2 standard deviations above the mean. Children also need to be evaluated on social and emotional development. Many studies stated that early entrance to first grade has positive effects on children’s performance (Colangelo, Assouline, & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2004). Colangelo, Assouline, and Lupkowski-Shoplik (2004) stated, “By starting school early, an unchallenged child doesn’t learn what it’s like to be bored. Instead of finding school is easy and that he can succeed without having to work, a child who is placed in the classroom, right from the start will learn that striving to improve

75

Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia

is a wonderful part of learning” (p. 16). A study on early admission to first grade in Kaohsiung, Taiwan (Kaohsiung Bureau of Education, 2005a, 2005b), has shown positive results: Gifted young children who received early admission performed well on math, science, social studies, and language arts. They achieved higher than children who did not receive early admission. Their social adjustment also showed positive performance and more than 90% of them were satisfied with the early admission. For curriculum compacting and other acceleration options, students are assessed on a subject-by-subject basis and on their related fields of aptitude. Their aptitude test scores need to be 1.5 standard deviations above the mean or above 93 percentile. They are accelerated only in their field(s) of strength and their advanced subject(s). Their social and emotional mutuality are also evaluated. If students have difficulties in social adjustment, rather than rapid grade-skipping, they will be advised to stay in the same grade and use curriculum compacting. Curriculum compacting is an instructional technique that is designed to make appropriate curricular adjustments for advanced students (Renzulli & Reis, 1997). Various research studies (see, for example, Reis et al., 1993) have shown that students whose curriculum was compacted achieved equally to their age mates whose curriculum had not been compacted. By compacting the curriculum, teachers were able to eliminate materials already known and provide time for higher levels of enrichment activities. Students were also provided with a challenging environment that is appropriate for their ability level. In Taiwan, Tsai (1999) completed research on curriculum compacting for elementary school children in math. The mathematic diagnostic pre-test demonstrated that 36% of students have shown mastery of more than 40% of the materials, 10% of students more than 60%, and 3% of students more than 80%. The research showed that students who received curriculum compacting in math performed as well as before although they spent less time in the regular mathematics class. This indicates that curriculum compacting does not have negative impact on students’ performance in the regular class. However, students benefited by saving 33–64% of their time and were able to be involved in more challenging-enrichment activities.

1433

Acceleration is an educational intervention that moves students at a rate faster than usual or at a younger age than is typical. Concerning the overall effectiveness of accelerations, tremendous evidence has demonstrated that bright students benefit from accelerated programs of instruction at a younger age (Colangelo et al., 2004). They usually perform similarly to their bright older non-accelerated classmates and score almost one grade level higher on achievement tests than do bright, same-age non-accelerated students (Kulik, 2004). Other than curriculum compacting, there are 17 types of acceleration (Southern & Jones, 2004). The other types include (1) early admission to kindergarten and first grade; (2) grade-skipping; (3) continuous progress; (4) self-paced instruction; (5) subject matter acceleration; (6) combined classes; (7) telescoping curriculum; (8) mentoring; (9) extracurricular courses; (10) correspondence courses; (11) early graduation; (12) concurrent enrollment; (13) advanced placement and credit by examination; (14) acceleration in college; (15) early entrance into middle school; (16) early entrance into high school; and (17) early entrance into college. Terman and Oden’s (1959, cited in Horne, 1981) 35-year follow-up study on children with IQs of 135 or higher found that students who were accelerated by 1–3 years were usually more successful than equally bright students who were held in the educational lockstep of promotion based solely on age. In Taiwan, research on the effectiveness of acceleration was completed by Tsai (2005). The types of acceleration most often used in Taiwan were curriculum compacting, grade-skipping in all subjects, grade-skipping in one or more subject(s), and acceleration in one or more subject(s). The Acceleration Effectiveness Questionnaires and In-Depth Interviews were used to collect data. The sample population was gifted students from elementary or junior high schools who received acceleration services during the school year of 2004–2005. One hundred and forty-three accelerants were surveyed and 12 of them and their parents were interviewed. Using ANOVA, the results showed that there was no significant difference on the effectiveness of acceleration in terms of the four types of acceleration. Gifted students who received acceleration services skipped or accelerated one year in one or more or in all subjects. With one year skipped, they still achieved well above average

1434

compared with their non-accelerated classmates. In the accelerated subject(s), more than 90% of the accelerants performed well, in the top 10% in the higher grade class. No accelerants scored below the top 20% in the higher grade class. The study has shown the positive effect of acceleration for gifted students. By accelerating in their strong subject(s), gifted students skipped one year or more and still performed well in the top levels of the class. They spent one year where other non-accelerated gifted students spent two years and achieved the same scores. Beyond saving time, accelerations also enhanced students’ attitudes toward schools. In the same study, the researcher interviewed the accelerants and their parents and found that gifted students and parents tended to support accelerations because acceleration avoided repetition, saved time, provided opportunities for a challenging curriculum, and enhanced motivation. Parents, however, responded that some schools did not support acceleration because teachers and school administrators needed to do extra work. The social and emotional development of gifted students is an issue that concerns educators. Using 114 accelerants and 185 gifted children in the resource room program as participants, a study of life adjustment of accelerated gifted students in Kaohsiung showed that the accelerants adjusted well and performed better than non-accelerated gifted children in their ways of affiliation, in dealing with a sense of inadaptability, physical inferiority, and life adjustments. They were also better at handling their negative psychological problems.

Problems and Challenges Facing Taiwan Gifted students can learn broadly, deeply, and at a faster pace. Without flexibility, schools and regular curriculum might not match their special needs and thus lead to a waste of their potential. In Taiwan, formal gifted education has been developed over three decades. With all the efforts of administrators and teachers, and with the support of the Special Education Law, which includes gifted education, many gifted students have been provided with services pertaining to fulfil their potentials. However, there are still problems facing Taiwan. In 2005, the 45,537 gifted students in Taiwan who are formally placed in special classes or resource room

S.N. Phillipson et al.

programs represented only 1.27% of the total student population. In 2006, this number had increased to 50,693. Although the number continues to increase, gifted students being served with special education are still under-represented. In addition, only 519 (13%) of Taiwan’s 3,989 schools formally provide programs to place gifted students. This means there are still many more gifted students who are not identified and who are not provided with suitable special education. Bright students are bright, no matter whether they are identified or not and whether gifted programs have been provided or not. If their special needs have not been addressed, their potential may have been wasted. There are many options for acceleration that are supported by Special Education Law in Taiwan. Each year many high-ability students who are advanced in learning were served with pre-tests and other assessment and were accelerated, which proved to have positive effects. Except in Taipei and Kaohsiung Cities and Taipei County, however, most of the schools in Taiwan have not put enough effort in encouraging students or their parents to take advantage of these accelerated strategies because many teachers or administrators may be afraid of extra work or because they do not know the benefit of the adjustment. It is clear that more educators need to be aware of the advantages of various options for acceleration. Concerning the development of gifted education in Taiwan, another challenge is the impact of entrance examinations. The purpose of entrance examinations is to provide a fair means of identifying student candidates based on objective test scores. Students who do well on examinations go to schools with better reputations. Since these schools are usually public rather than private, less tuition is charged. To go to the best schools in Taiwan, students do not need to come from rich families. They only need to work hard on their studies and do well on entrance examinations. Entrance examinations are so emphasized by the society that they put much pressure on educators, which even the educators involved in programs for gifted students cannot avoid. Many junior high schools developed special classes for recruiting gifted students. Their focus was on preparing for entrance examinations, with repetition and practice being emphasized. Parents also believed that children from special classes could do better on entrance examinations; therefore parents tried hard to transfer their gifted children to special classes. The special class be-

75

Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia

came “entrance-exam preparation class”, defeating the purposes of gifted education. The number of special classes for gifted students has increased more than usual in 2005 and 2006. Many educators protested against this. Many voices from the mass media have also complained that there should not be so many gifted students. To respond to these concerns, the Ministry of Education reinforced the processes of identifying giftedness, emphasizing multiple stages and multiple criteria, and enhanced the threshold of standardized tests, from 1.5 standard deviations above the mean or ranked above the 93rd percentile increased to 2 standard deviations above the mean or ranked above the 97th percentile. Most scholars and educators in gifted education, however, do not support tightening of the criteria. To meet these challenges, in July 2006 the Ministry of Education in Taiwan organized a national conference on gifted education which recruited most scholars of gifted education and many teachers from gifted programs. The proceedings have further been used as the basis for producing Taiwan’s national policy on gifted education and the second revision of the Special Education Law. It is hoped that gifted education in Taiwan will continue to move forward into a new era.

The Development of Gifted Education in Hong Kong3 When examining the current status of gifted education and research about giftedness in Hong Kong since 2000, it is important to first describe some of the major issues and educational reforms being debated in Hong Kong because of their impact on gifted education. When focusing on gifted education, the fourcomponent model of gifted education (S. N. Phillipson, Kaur, & S. Phillipson, 2003) provides a conceptual framework for this examination, allowing for some tentative conclusions to be made regarding the future of gifted education in Hong Kong. Since 1997, Hong Kong has enjoyed the status of Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the 3

The valuable comments from Mr. Pui-tin Chan on an early draft of this section of the chapter are deeply appreciated. Corresponding author is Shane N. Phillipson, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, E-mail: [email protected].

1435

People’s Republic of China (mainland China). As an SAR, Hong Kong exercises “. . . a high degree of autonomy in executive, legislative and independent judicial power . . . “ (Basic Law Article 2). It retains responsibility for many of its internal commercial and cultural affairs, including monetary and financial policies (Basic Law Article 110) and total responsibility for the “. . . development and improvement of education. . .” (Basic Law Article 136).4 As with many other countries, Hong Kong is actively positioning itself in the global education marketplace, including a focus on both secondary and post-secondary education (D. K. K. Chan, 2007; M. H. Lee & Gopinathan, 2003; Mok, 2003, 2005; Mok & Lee, 2000; Post, 2003). In 2003, the Education Department (ED) merged with the Manpower Bureau and named the Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB). In 2007 it was again renamed as Education Bureau (EDB). The function of EDB is to take responsibility for the formulation, development, and review of policies related to education and manpower in Hong Kong, including the development of curriculum through the Curriculum Development Institute (CDI). The two independent bodies advising the government on matters relating to overall objectives and policies, and curriculum and syllabus development in both primary and secondary schools, are the Education Commission (EC) and the Curriculum Development Council (CDC), respectively. The EDB also monitors services provided by the Universities Grants Committee (UGC) and the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessments Authority (HKEAA), among others. In terms of teacher education, the EDB manages the number of student places available in the various teacher education awards at the universities, using demographic information to anticipate future demands. The Gifted Education Section (GES) of the CDI, primarily through the Fung Hon Chu Gifted Education Centre (FHCGEC), coordinates the government’s efforts in gifted education by providing enrichment opportunities for gifted students, financially supporting the professional development of teachers and in supporting schools in school-based curriculum development.

4

Information regarding the Basic Law of The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China was obtained from http://www.info.gov. hk/basic law/fulltext/index.htm, accessed March 19, 2007.

1436

Hong Kong is currently experiencing a number of curriculum reforms (Curriculum Development Council, 2001), including a broadening of the subjects studied by primary and secondary schools, with an emphasis on generic skills such as problem solving and creativity, students’ self-directed learning, a movement away from examination-orientated assessment, and biliteracy (English and Chinese) and trilingualism (English, Cantonese, and Putonghua) (Kennedy, Fok, & Chan, 2006). In broad terms, these reforms will result in a 6-year secondary education program and a single exit examination for university entrance, and the implementation of a minimum 4-year university degree, as well as significant changes to curriculum and methods of assessment. Although there is general widespread support for curriculum reform from the business, academic, and teacher and other community groups, different groups have expressed different concerns regarding various aspects of the reform. Among the academic sector, major concerns centered on the lack of empirical evidence justifying the reasons for change, the lack of a major focus and a failure to address issues of justice and quality (Kennedy et al., 2006, p. 123). Teacher groups were concerned about the lack of details regarding the practical implementation of the reform, particularly at a time when there are widespread concerns regarding teachers’ ever increasing workload and concomitant stress (D. W. Chan et al., 2001; Forestier, 2006; Kember & Leung, 2006; Kennedy et al., 2006; Law & Walker, 2005). The importance given to new subjects such as Liberal Studies means that gifted education is given a lower priority, particularly when teachers have many demands on their time. Other initiatives arising out of the climate of reform in Hong Kong include moral education and civic consciousness (Cheng, 2004; C.-K. Cheung, Lee, Chan, Liu, & Leung, 2004; Keung & Ho, 2004), student stress (Fitzpatrick et al., 2006), the plight of ethnic minority groups, particularly from mainland China (Heung, 2006; Rao & Yuen, 2001), school leadership (M. Lai & Lo, 2007; Law & Walker, 2005; Wan, 2005), language proficiency (Glenwright, 2002; Ho, 2001), and early childhood education (Y. L. Li, 2004; Pearson & Rao, 2006). The merits of the government’s language policy continue to be contentious, with community groups generally supportive of English as the medium of instruction (MOI) in secondary schools for reasons relating to the maintenance of a unique (Hong

S.N. Phillipson et al.

Kong) identity as well as international competitiveness (E. Chan, 2002; Fan, 2003; Kennedy et al., 2006; P.-S. Lai & Byram, 2003; N. Li, Leung, & Kember, 2001). Today, a limited number of secondary schools are allowed to use English as the MOI with the majority of schools retaining Cantonese and studying English and Putonghua as subjects. The importance placed on the English language by the community in general means that these secondary schools often attract the best students from primary school. As well as government schools, there are a number of private and international schools competing openly for high-achieving students from both the Chinese Hong Kong society and the students from a still significant expatriate community. The teachers in these schools are recruited from the local population as well as overseas. The EDB recruits Native English (speaking) Teachers (NET) to teach English at the government schools, often bringing with them experience in gifted education from other countries. The key to understanding the development of gifted education in Hong Kong is in recognizing the contributions from both its Confucian heritage and Western influences, particularly in education. The influence of the West in the education system in Hong Kong has persisted over many decades and will continue to do so (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martinez, 2000), creating an idiosyncratic education system with “. . . pragmatism . . . rather than tradition its key value” (Kennedy et al., 2006, p. 112). In this system, the pervasive and intensive preoccupation with assessment of students is felt at many levels although educational reform is attempting to change this. In broad terms, there is ever-increasing support by the Hong Kong government through EDB toward the needs of gifted students in funding the professional development of teachers. However, there are at least four tensions that mitigate the success of this support. First, student assessment is limited in scope and fails to value creativity and critical thinking, despite these elements being core skills in the gifted education curriculum. Second, student priorities are geared toward the public examinations at Secondary 5 and 7, rather than the curriculum enhancement programs in the earlier secondary years. Third, highly capable students are not able to fast-track their Secondary school education. Last, parents persist in requesting single measures to assess giftedness (such as IQ score), in contrast to the EDB policy of multimodal assessment tools.

75

Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia

Several of the eight publicly funded institutes of higher education5 currently provide enrichment opportunities for gifted students in one way or another as well as pursuing active research programs in issues related to giftedness and other associated areas. However, it would be misleading to describe the enrichment or research programs as clearly coordinated or possessing a common agenda. Each of the researchers with in the universities exercises a high degree of independence in their research interests as is the case in other countries. As well as research, many of the universities offer teacher education awards at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. In addition to government and universities, gifted education is an integral part of many government and non-government primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong. In government schools, however, it is not mandatory that the needs of gifted students are specifically catered for, with the decision being at the discretion of the staff. The “banding” of secondary schools according to the examination results of its students effectively streams its students into three ability groupings. In non-government schools, the curriculum is largely determined by the educational system from which the school’s name is derived. Gifted education at these schools is at the discretion of the management board. In Hong Kong, a number of parent groups offer a forum for parents of gifted children to share ideas and experiences as well as opportunities to lobby for government policies. The two most prominent groups are the Hong Kong Association for Parents of Gifted Children (Ltd.) and the Gifted Education Council.

1437

national level, Phillipson et al. (2003) described a fourcomponent model consisting of (1) national policy, (2) advocacy, (3) research, curriculum development, and teacher education, and (4)school implementation. The model emphasizes the active and ongoing interactions between these four components as essential for the success of any national initiative in gifted education. In terms of national policy, the needs of gifted children should be an active part of the political agenda through the design and implementation of policies. The policy must have a sound theoretical basis and reflect the views and needs originating from the three other components. The second component, advocacy, helps to place the needs of gifted children and their parents on the “political agenda” (Phillipson et al., 2003, p. 144) and requires an active membership of parents, teachers, and researchers. In the model, advocacy groups should also help shape research programs and the content of teacher education awards. The third essential component is the role played by universities in research, curriculum development, and teacher education. The research must be relevant to the local context and conform to international standards. It is important to be mindful of recent criticism that research in gifted education often lacks the rigor necessary for meaningful interpretations of the results (Craven, Marsh, & Print, 2000) because of a lack of appropriate comparisons and control groups. The final component, school implementation, is the role played by schools in implementing curriculum that reflects both the needs of gifted children and government directives. As well as the active support of gifted students and their teachers for their professional development, schools should also be in a position where A Four-Component Model of Gifted they can inform government policy and help to direct Education research agendas and the design of teacher education awards. Although gifted education in Hong Kong dates In recognizing the essential elements that characterize a successful gifted education program at the from the 1990s and earlier, the results of government and public efforts in this area are yet to be comprehensively researched. In describing the 5 At the time of writing, there were eight higher education incurrent status and future directions of gifted edustitutions funded by the University Grants Committee, a noncation in Hong Kong, the four-component model statutory committee that advises the government on the development and funding needs of these institutions. The eight institu- provides a convenient theoretical basis for the tions are The Hong Kong Institute of Education, City University structure of this section of this chapter, as well as of Hong Kong, The Hong Kong University, Hong Kong Baptist allows for a tentative assessment as to whether the University, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, The Hong Hong Kong “model” of gifted education has been Kong University of Science and Technology, The Hong Kong successful. Polytechnic University, and the Lingnan University.

1438

Being Gifted in Hong Kong: Toward a National Policy Gifted education in Hong Kong developed rapidly throughout the concluding part of the twentieth century in response to the growing awareness of international trends in gifted education, including the formation of a non-government organization – the Gifted Education Council in 1988, and publication of a paper in the Bulletin of the Hong Kong Psychological Association by Feldhusen (1991). In 1990, the Education Commission recommended that the government investigate the best way to cater for the needs of gifted students through the development of a 3-year pilot school-based program for academically gifted students (Education Commission Report No. 4, 1990). To facilitate this project, research was conducted during 1992–1993 on the adaptation of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking, and parent and teacher checklists developed for the identification of academically gifted students. The program was completed between 1994 and 1997 in 19 primary schools and with the support of the Special Education Needs Section of the Curriculum Development Institute. The Fung Hon Chu Gifted Education Centre (FHCGEC) was established in 1995, reflecting one of the recommendations of the Education Commission Report No. 4 (1990) to directly support the project. The subsequent report by the Education Department (2000) concluded that the changes to the school-based curriculum resulted in positive changes in student thinking (high-order thinking skills, creativity, and personal–social competency) in all students, not just those identified as academically gifted. The Gifted Education Section of the CDI was established in 2003. In 2000, the Education Commission (2000a) recommended that “elements of gifted education (including higher-order thinking skills, creativity, and social skills) should be incorporated into the school curriculum, thereby enriching and extending it” (p. 110). In addition, for “students with relatively higher abilities, schools could provide specialized courses . . . mak[ing] use of other resources . . . (such as teacher mentor schemes, personalized training programs and early advancement to higher classes)” (p. 110). Furthermore, the Commission proposed improving the services for gifted students and adding an emphasis on diverse abilities such as sports, leadership, and art. The Commis-

S.N. Phillipson et al.

sion was also keen to avoid the adverse effects of “labeling” to “avoid the harmful drilling in order that they can become gifted students” (p. 111). These submissions were echoed in a similar document published by the Education Commission (2000b), with the addition of the needs to strengthen teacher training through preand in-service courses (p. V-7), and better flexibility in the admission and promotion of gifted students (p. V7). The (then) Education Department (2000) adopted the proposals and outlined a detailed implementation plan, commonly referred to as the three-tier model because of the three levels of support depending on the level of giftedness. In 2001, the “Support Measures for the Exceptionally Gifted Students Scheme” was launched and implemented by the FHCGEC. In this scheme, teachers nominated students who they believe would benefit from advanced studies in leadership, mathematics, and sciences, using guidelines and tools provided by the FHCGEC. To date, over 5,000 students from Secondary 3 level and above have benefited from the scheme. An additional component of the scheme is the professional development of teachers through foundation courses in gifted education for exceptionally gifted students, leadership, the social and emotional development of gifted students, and creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving. These professional development courses are generally tendered through the GES and taught by academics and other professionals. In October 2006, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong announced the formation of the Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education during his 2006–2007 policy address (Tsang, 2006), with later elaborations provided by EMB to the Legislative Council Panel on Education (LC Paper No. CB(2)28/06-07(01) and LC Paper No. CB(2)344/06-07(01)). The Academy targets exceptionally gifted students aged 10–18 years who distinguish themselves in either academic or non-academic domains through enrichment courses, as well as providing a forum for researchers, teachers, and parents. In terms of research, the Academy plans to coordinate the research and teaching expertise of academics and other professionals in Hong Kong and internationally. The Academy is to be supported financially through an initial contribution of HKD200 million, with equal contributions being made by a private benefactor and the EDB. Although details of the Academy are yet to be established, the exceptionally gifted are defined as

75

Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia

1439

the “. . .top end of the ability range (about 2% or some 10,000 students) . . .” (LC Paper No. CB(2)344/0607(01), p. 3). Furthermore, the “. . . provision the services will be contracted out to tertiary institutions, professional bodies, social service agencies, and individuals with expertise in a particular field” (p. 4).

At Level 3, the final tier, the top 0.1% of students can be identified using more sophisticated instruments, with aptitude tests, tests of creativity, intelligence tests, social–emotional assessment, among others, being mentioned. At Level 3, students should receive individualized support, possible outside the school, whereas students at Levels 1 and 2 should receive support within their school. Furthermore, only students at Level 3 should be referred to as “gifted”. Throughout Some Definitions the document, the relationship between potential and achievement, reminiscent of Gagn´e’s (2000) DifferThe policy documents that currently form the basis of entiated Model of Gifted and Talented, is mentioned gifted education in Hong Kong have taken a broad view although Gagn´e is not specifically referred to. of giftedness. In emphasizing multiple academic abilities, opportunities should also be provided to students with talents in different domains (Education Commis- Advocacy Groups sion, 2000a, p. V-6). In operationalizing gifted education, the Education Department (2000) specifically referred to a number of “principles”, including a “broad A number of advocacy groups are active in Hong Kong. definition of multiple intelligences (MI) instead of a The main group is the Hong Kong Association for Parrestrictive one . . .should be adopted” and where “nur- ents of Gifted Children (Ltd.), a not-for-profit organi6 turing MI is a fundamental goal ...” (p. 1). The “. . . zation that was established in 1992. The association very exceptionally gifted students” (p. 1) were also currently has 300 families as registered members, with specifically referred to, as well as those who are “gifted eligibility determined on the basis of their child’s ceryet with emotional/behavioural or learning . . . difficul- tified IQ score being 130 or above, or by another recognized selection criterion. The aims of the associaties” (p. 1). In addition to the references to multiple intelli- tion are to promote the needs of gifted children in the gences, exceptionality and those with “difficulties”, wider community, to support parents of gifted children, the Education Department (2000) also referred to the to lobby government for better resources for parents “broad definition of gifted children” (p. 3) outlined and gifted children, and to provide enrichment courses earlier in the Education Commission Report No. 4 for their children. As part of its ongoing support to par(1990), where giftedness meant “exceptional achieve- ents and the wider community, the association orgament or potentials in one or more of the following. . .” nizes monthly meetings where topics such as the social (p. 3). The items are readily identifiable as those and emotional needs of gifted children are discussed, from the Marland definition, including, in this case, often in formal seminars or workshops, enabling oppsychomotor ability. The culmination of the Education portunities for mutual support. The Hong Kong Association for Parents of Gifted Department (2000) document is the description of the three-tier model of gifted education, including Children (Ltd.) is also active in providing enrichment identification criteria and provision. The first tier, opportunities to gifted students from the wider commuLevel 1, refers to the top 10% of students as identified nity. In 1999, the association obtained financial support using either standardized or non-standardized tests of from EDB through the Quality Education Fund for a 4achievement and/or teacher/parent checklists. (The year project involving students from Primary 4 to 6. curriculum at this level is also deemed suitable for stu- Conducted at one local secondary school with the supdents of all abilities.) The second tier, Level 2, refers port of their teachers, the project provided enrichment to “students with superior intelligence, or excellent performance in specific areas . . . or academically in 6 Information regarding the Hong Kong Association for Parents the top 2–4% of students”. Again, a number of instru- of Gifted Children is from Lam, Fred Y. F. (personal communiments can be used to identify these students, including cation, March 29, 2007), their current information brochure and website (http://www.gifted.org.hk). awards for excellence and “off-ceiling testing” (p. 5).

1440

courses (leadership, English, drama, creative Chinese writing, and creative mathematics) as well as supporting the development of a website and booklet. The Hong Kong Association for Parents of Gifted Children (Ltd.) has also been active in supporting research and has ongoing links with university academics and government. The association helped organize the 11th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children in Hong Kong in 1995. In recent times, many university academics have been invited to address parents and conduct workshops. The EDB also refers parents to the association for their support. Recently, the association has also been involved in discussions regarding the planning for the Academy for Gifted Children. The second major advocacy organization is the Gifted Education Council (GEC).7 The council was established in 1988 with the aims of providing enrichment for gifted children and the promotion of gifted education. Currently, the GEC overseas the G.T. School (primary school) and G.T. College (secondary school), with both schools based on a gifted education curriculum and in nurturing the multiple intelligences of students. The GEC has also held a conference on creativity in 2003 with scholars from the United States, Australia, mainland China, and Germany among the invited speakers.

S.N. Phillipson et al.

despite recommendations by the Education Commission (2000a, 2000b) and elsewhere. Students can, however, study modules related to gifted education as electives at the undergraduate level and pursue advanced studies at the PhD level. Although there are specializations in special needs and/or inclusive education at the postgraduate diploma of education (PGDE) or equivalent and master’s levels, similar specialization in gifted education is not yet available. Students wishing to pursue studies at the master’s level are forced to study as international students. Some of the universities do offer professional development courses for teachers in aspects of gifted education, including foundations of gifted education, leadership, affective education, and creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving. These courses are tendered by EDB through the GES and are typically of 30–36 h duration. The GES also provides teacher development opportunities through modular courses, seminars, and workshops conducted by officers of the EDB. Research into aspects of giftedness and related topics that have originated in or focused on Hong Kong since the late 1990s can be categorized into two broad groups – research that is published in referred journals and research that has been presented in regional conferences. The next section outlines some of the themes in this research.

Universities, Giftedness Research, and Teacher Education Conceptions of Giftedness, Intelligence, The eight universities in Hong Kong offer a wide and Creativity range of courses, including teacher education. The main teacher education providers in Hong Kong are The Hong Kong Institute of Education, The Hong Kong University, Hong Kong Baptist University, and The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Joint teaching awards are offered by The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and Lingnan University, for example. Modules8 in gifted education are not compulsory for students at the undergraduate level,

Implicit Chinese conceptions of giftedness have been investigated in Zhang and Hui (2002) and Zhang and Sternberg (1998). Based on the pentagonal model, Hong Kong teachers are similar to teachers from the United States in believing that rarity is important in giftedness. In contrast, excellence, productivity, and value were important for mainland Chinese teachers, but rarity and demonstrability were not. Interest in the multiple intelligences (MI) of Chi7 Information regarding the Gifted Education Council is derived nese Hong Kong gifted students includes perspectives from brochures and other promotional material published by the from students, parents, teachers, and peers (D. W. GEC. It should also be noted that S. N. Phillipson is currently Chan, 2004a), the relationship between MI and learnserving on the academic board of advisors to the G. T. School. 8 In Hong Kong, the term module is commonly understood to refer to a self-contained unit of study, consisting of approximately 30–40 contact hours of tuition. Students are expected to success-

fully complete a number of modules before being eligible for an award.

75

Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia

ing preferences (D. W. Chan, 2005a), self-efficacy (D. W. Chan, 2003a) and gender (D. W. Chan, 2006a). Other research into the relationship between MI and gender in a random sample of Chinese Hong Kong adolescents was reported in Yuen and Furnham (2005). Further afield, J. Chan (2007) concluded that some aspects of the Confucian-heritage culture contributed to the development of giftedness, whereas other aspects were inhibitory. Creativity has also been a focus of recent research in Hong Kong, although not necessarily with gifted students. The validity and reliability of the Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing Production to measure the creative potential of Chinese Hong Kong adolescents was assessed in Rudowicz (2004). The creativity of university students was dependent on both the field and the year of study (Cheung, Rudowicz, Yue, & Kwan, 2003), although it could be enhanced through training (C.-K. Cheung, Roskams, & Fisher, 2006). A study of the problems faced by teachers when teaching creative writing skills to primary students showed some discrepancy between belief and practice (W. M. Cheung, Tse, & Tsang, 2003), as well as age-related (D. W. Chan et al., 2001; C. H. Wu, Cheng, Ip, & McBridge-Change, 2005) and knowledgedependent differences in a number of creative tasks (C. H. Wu et al., 2005). More widely, the relationship between creativity and culture was investigated by Niu and colleagues (Niu, 2006a, 2006b; Niu, Zhang, & Yang, 2006). In response to the EDB focus on the leadership development of Chinese Hong Kong gifted students, research about leadership has also received attention. The research includes a validation of the Roets Rating Scale for Leadership (Chan, 2000a) and the development and assessment of the veracity of the creative leadership program for these students (D. W. Chan, 2000b, 2003b). The research cited here was conducted on students who had been nominated by their teachers as likely to benefit from leadership training and, hence, reflect what is known as “convenience sampling” (Heiman, 2001, p. 116). Because these students are not purposefully sampled and neglect the use of control groups, the findings are difficult to interpret (Matthews, 2004). The affective characterization of Chinese Hong Kong gifted students has also received scrutiny, including the development of a Student Adjustment Problems Inventory (D. W. Chan, 2003c), the relation-

1441

ship between adjustment problems and self-efficacy, and psychological distress (D. W. Chan, 2004b, 2006b) and emotional intelligence and social coping (D. W. Chan, 2003d). Once again, however, students in these studies appear to be convenience sampled so it is difficult to determine if the findings can be generalized. At a broader level, research into the moral and civic education of gifted students in Hong Kong has yet to receive attention, despite a growing general interest in these areas (Cheng, 2004; C.-K. Cheung et al., 2004; C.-K. Cheung & Ngai, 2004; Keung & Ho, 2004). According to D. W. Chan (2000d), gifted education in Hong Kong reflects the Confucian tradition of nurturing special abilities. The methods for identifying gifted students rely on a combination of tests of ability, such as the Hong Kong Wechsler Intelligence Scale of Children and the Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM) test for the “intellectually gifted”, tests of achievement for the “academically gifted”, and the Hong Kong version of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking or the Wallach-Kogan Tests for the “creatively gifted”. Other methods for identifying the gifted such as the teacher, parent, and peer nomination checklists have been investigated for their ability to complement the identification process (D. W. Chan, 2000c). The underachievement of students is receiving increasing attention (D. W. Chan, 1999; Lau & Chan, 2001; Phillipson & Tse, 2007). Using Rasch modeling of responses to the RSPM and a test of mathematical achievement, Phillipson and Tse showed that in a sample of nearly 1,000 Chinese Hong Kong Primary 5 students, the underachievement of students in mathematics was more or less consistent at all levels of ability. This is an area of ongoing research at The Hong Kong Institute of Education, with the responses of Primary 3, Secondary 1, and Secondary 3 students currently being studied (Phillipson, 2008). The characteristics of effective teachers of gifted students have received some attention, although such research is still undeveloped. D. W. Chan (2000a) showed that Chinese Hong Kong teachers with no experience in gifted education believed that philosophical ideals (reflecting educational values and ideals such as respect, responsibility, flexibility, empathy, and the consideration of individual differences) were the most important personal characteristics for teachers of gifted students, followed by specific skills (being able to encourage creativity and problem solving, identification, questioning, and counseling). K. Cheung

1442

S.N. Phillipson et al.

and Phillipson (in press) have extended this research by comparing the self-ratings of teachers with and without experience in teaching gifted students and found, as expected, that self-efficacy improved with experience. The effects of ability grouping among secondary students on students achievement, self-esteem, academic self-concept, and test anxiety were examined in M. S. W. Wong and Watkins (2001) and C.-K. Cheung and Rudowicz (2003). Such research is important in the context of the current practice of banding students into three ability groups (Bands 1, 2, and 3),9 based on their examination results in their last year of primary school, and a growing awareness of the needs of gifted students and policies of inclusion in Hong Kong. The two studies relied on 280 students from four schools, designated “high band” and “low band”, and 2,720 students from “high band”, “medium band”, and “low band”, respectively. Wong and Watkins’ findings supported the big-fish-little-pond effect of higher self-esteem of students in higher stream classes within schools but not across different schools. C.-K. Cheung and Rudowicz (2003) extended M. S. W. Wong and Watkins’ (2001) study not only by increasing the number of students but also in extending the variables to include IQ score, test anxiety, and past performance. They found that the grouping of students with similar ability or achievement within schools facilitated school performance, but had no significant effect on self-esteem, academic self-concept, or test anxiety. Across bands, however, students studying at high banded schools had higher test anxiety than those at lower banded schools. Reports of recent research into the development and assessment of an appropriate curriculum for gifted students in Hong Kong in the research literature appear to be non-existent. Furthermore, an examination of the proceedings of the 2002, 2004, and 2006 conferences of the Asia-Pacific Federation of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children for similar research showed no reference to Hong Kong, despite current reform in the government schools in the area of inclusive

education (Chong, Forlin, & Au, in press; Forlin, submitted). Clearly, research in this area will be of growing importance. Other recent studies related to giftedness include self-perceptions by gifted students of creativity, family characterization and emotional intelligence (D. W. Chan, 2005b), self-assessments of learning styles preferences (D. W. Chan, 2001b), and family environment (D. W. Chan, 2005c). The generalizability of these studies may not be high, however, because of the reliance of self-perceptions and convenient samples.

9

10

Before 2000, students were placed into five bands on the basis of their last primary school examination. The current policy places students into three bands with plans to eventually abolish banding.

School Implementation Although both government and non-government schools in Hong Kong are encouraged to implement gifted education, the actual number of schools that do is unknown. The 3-year pilot program for academically gifted students commenced in 1994–1995 with 19 primary schools and involved Primary 3–5 students. Since this time a small number of schools have participated in collaborative research and development with the FHCGEC, with the schools and number varying from year to year. In 2002–2003, 11 secondary and 17 primary schools participated as “seed” schools, changing to 8 secondary and 15 primary schools in 2003–2004 and 16 secondary and 13 primary schools in 2004–2006. Many more schools participate in school-based programs, making use of the extensive guides to the curriculum development (teaching designs and exemplars) and identification tools (learning interest questionnaires, behavioral characteristics checklist),10 although the precise number is difficult to determine. Competition for the best students, based on their assessable achievements, between the schools is very keen, helping to retain the culture of assessment. The retention of high-ability students in Hong Kong is of growing importance, with both The Hong Kong University and The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology offering early entry and scholarship support to exceptional students, although the number of students has so far been very limited.

The EDB publishes a Curriculum Guide on SchoolBased Gifted Development Programs in http://www.edb. gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeID=3165 (accessed April 1, 2007).

75

Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia

Gifted Education in Hong Kong: Future Directions It is clear that gifted education in Hong Kong is growing, despite a relatively late start compared to other countries in the region. Currently, the education of its most able students is becoming an important issue and the government is particularly active in the development and implementation of policies relating to gifted education. At the same time, the government is acutely aware of the potential social harm associated with a meritocracy based on IQ score. Public support for gifted education is also growing and the two main advocacy groups are very active at the level of student and parent support as well as influencing government policy. There are also some areas for concern. The increasing diversity of the student population, particularly those from mainland China and the implementation of full inclusion, places added burdens on teachers. These burdens include dealing with conceptions of giftedness that may not be shared by all of the various cultural groups. At present, giftedness is defined with specific and implicit reference to Western conceptions. With the growing awareness of different cultural conceptions of giftedness (Phillipson & McCann, 2007) comes the need to develop gifted programs that are based on indigenous conceptions of giftedness. The challenge facing Hong Kong will be to integrate these indigenous conceptions with a fiercely international context, particularly if aspects of Confucianism inhibit giftedness (J. Chan, 2007). In terms of teacher education, Hong Kong appears to be out of step with many other educational systems around the world with universities by not mandating the study of gifted education in teacher education awards at the undergraduate level. Given the strong local impetus in inclusive education, this deficiency may be overcome in time. In research, there is a clear lack of research in curriculum design and evaluation originating from the universities. Of the research that has been conducted, care must be taken to ensure that the findings can be more widely applied. It remains to be seen whether or not the establishment of the Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education can provide a forum for the coordination of the research efforts of the various universities.

1443

Tannenbaum (2000) described giftedness as the ultimate instrument of good and evil. In Hong Kong, the moral education and civic responsibility of gifted students is of increasing importance in the wider context (2004; C.-K. Cheung et al., 2004; C.-K. Cheung & Ngai, 2004) and explicitly addressed through courses in leadership development for exceptionally gifted students. The inroads made in these two areas reflect the government and community’s commitment to this important aspect of gifted education, despite the normally pragmatic nature of the educational system. The relatively small number of schools involved in gifted education is a concern, although the precise number is as yet unknown. One reason for this would be related to the current policy of banding, where “gifted” students are perceived to be only found in the Band 1 schools. Within these schools, teacher perceptions may also conclude that giftedness only occurs in the top stream and only as the result of effort. The pervasive Confucian belief that effort and ability are essentially the same concept (J. Chan, 2007; W. O. Lee, 1996) may also work against teachers when identifying underachieving gifted students (Phillipson, 2008; Phillipson & Tse, 2007). Gifted education in Hong Kong is entering a mature stage of development with each of the four components working together. The overwhelming force in gifted education, however, appears to be with government initiatives rather than community groups and the universities. The reasons for this imbalance remain to be fully explored but they may lie in the unique cultural basis of the modern educational system in Hong Kong as described in Kennedy et al. (2006).

Singapore11 Much has changed in the Singapore education landscape to keep pace with changes necessitated by the transition from the traditional economy to the new economy. Gifted education, now entering its third decade, has also changed in tandem with the diversification of the education setting. This section will give a history of gifted education, summarize the main features of the centrally run gifted education 11

Corresponding author is Chwee Geok QUEK, Ministry of Education, Singapore. E-mail: quek chwee [email protected].

1444

program (GEP), and describe the latest developments that reflect a subtle shift in policy toward education of gifted learners. Different countries have different practices and policies for gifted education, depending on their social and political attitudes, as well as availability of resources. In Scandinavian countries such as Sweden and Denmark it is not acceptable to provide differently for pupils who show evidence of higher level potential than others, although this is now being reconsidered (Freeman, 2002). On the other hand, the United States spends millions of dollars in public and private money every year on research and programs for gifted education. In Taiwan, Korea, and Israel, there is commitment at the national level to provide gifted education. Singapore’s approach to gifted education has been shaped by a recognition of the central role education plays in the country’s success. The mission of Singapore’s Education Service is to mould the future of the nation. They strive to identify, develop, and harness the abilities and talents of every child, as their collective abilities and talents ultimately define the overall national capacity. They stretch the best and brightest to enable them to realize their potential and provide them with a holistic education that would prepare them to become conscientious and responsible citizens. In resource-scarce Singapore especially, it is critical to nurture every child, including the intellectually gifted, so that they can contribute, whether as future entrepreneurs, scientists, researchers, or leaders, more effectively to the continued survival and success of Singapore. This was the rationale for the introduction of the gifted education program (GEP) in 1984. It was also recognized that there should be special provisions to meet the needs of pupils who are intellectually gifted, because without special help, some gifted children might underachieve as a result of becoming bored and frustrated. The introduction of the GEP was in line with the underlying philosophy of the New Education System (NES) implemented in 1979, which introduced abilitybased streaming to allow each pupil to learn at his or her own pace. The intention of this mass customization was to cater to all learners and to allow every pupil to maximize his or her potential. Prior to the implementation of the GEP, a team had studied many gifted education programs in other parts of the world. The study team felt that gifted children must maintain regular contact with other school children, hence Singa-

S.N. Phillipson et al.

pore’s adoption of the model featuring self-contained classes for the gifted within a normal school. In such a model, while the gifted children are provided with an intellectually challenging curriculum, they would not be deprived of the opportunities to socialize with their age peers. They would be able to interact with other school children in schoolwide programs as well as co-curricular activities and all other aspects of school life. GEP pupils can thus undergo the natural socialization and maturation process with age peers, so that they will also undergo experiences normal at their age. Such experiences are invaluable in the growing-up process and will help them develop social and interpersonal skills through peer interaction and friendship bonding. The GEP was first introduced in two primary schools from Primary 4 to Primary 5 and two secondary schools from Secondary 1 to Secondary 4, spanning 3 and 4 years, respectively. The first batch of 100 pupils each for both the primary and secondary levels only constituted about 0.25% of each age cohort. Although the conventional definition of the intellectually gifted population is the upper 2% of school age children, the GEP started with a smaller cohort because of resource constraints and the need to build up expertise. The GEP enrollment was gradually increased and stabilized at about 1% of all students at each age.

Identification Pupils are selected on the basis of verbal, numerical, and visual–spatial ability. The English Language, Mathematics and General Ability Tests (GAT) in the two-stage screening/selection identification process tap a wide range of intellectual abilities in these three dimensions and assess pupils’ readiness for the enriched GEP curriculum. Note that the GAT is used only in the second stage of the selection process. Every pupil in Primary 3 is eligible to sit the screening test. Students who performed at the 95th percentile are then invited for the selection tests. A second entry point was at the end of Primary 6. Pupils who had performed well on a national examination were invited for the P6 selection test. Admission to the GEP is based solely on the pupil’s performance in the battery of tests.

75

Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia

Enrichment Model Eligible pupils are placed in self-contained classes in designated regular schools. The GEP is essentially an enrichment program, based on the syllabus of the national curriculum. The differentiated GEP syllabus is pitched at a more challenging cognitive level. Topics are dealt with in greater depth and breadth. Greater emphasis is placed on the development of creativity as well as critical thinking, problem-solving, and inquiry skills. Pupils are encouraged to work independently on projects. GEP pupils sit the same national examinations as other pupils. Apart from developing the intellectual capacities of the pupils, an equally important concern of the GEP is developing pupils to be socially aware and be committed to contribute to society. This is done through the enriched civics and moral education curriculum emphasizing self-awareness, social awareness, and involvement in the community. The individualized study option (ISO) is an integral part of the GEP-enriched curriculum. An ISO project is an independent research project based on pupils’ personal interests. It aims to develop in pupils library research skills, inquiry skills, learning-how-tolearn skills as well as written, oral and visual communication skills. It offers pupils the opportunity to pursue a self-selected real-life problem as a practicing professional would. A teacher-mentor supervises a small number of pupils, and monitors and provides constant feedback to guide and encourage the pupils. Another extension of the GEP-enriched curriculum takes the form of special programs. Pupils who show aptitude for and interest in specific domains can sign up for one of the wide range of mentorship programs catering to those inclined toward the creative arts, social sciences, computers, and science and technology. Mentorship attachments provide an educational experience beyond the formal education system. During the period of mentorship, which ranges from 6 months to a year, pupils enter the real world of research and engage in hands-on learning while working with university professors and industry experts on research in their fields of discipline. GEP pupils experience the same non-formal curriculum as other pupils. They are required to participate in community involvement programs and co-curricular activities in the aesthetics, sports, and physical educa-

1445

tion, all of which are important for character building and leadership development.

GEP Teachers Teachers for the GEP are specially selected to teach in the program. The Gifted Education Branch of the Ministry of Education is responsible for the identification and selection of these teachers. Teachers with strong academic qualifications and relevant teaching experience are invited for interviews with the Branch. Those deemed to have an interest in education of the gifted and to meet the prerequisites are then requested to allow a subject specialist observe them teaching a lesson. An offer to teach in the GEP is made only if the specialist assesses the teacher to be suitable. A major part of the training of GEP teachers takes place on the job. All GEP teachers have to attend the mandatory foundation course in gifted education, curriculum differentiation for the gifted, and affective education for the gifted (30 h each), during their first 2 years in the program. Following the completion of the three modules, teachers are also required to complete a curriculum differentiation practicum which entails the development of a curriculum unit to be implemented in a GEP class. In addition to these three courses, ongoing training is provided by the GE Branch, which also complements inhouse workshops with training by overseas consultants. There are also opportunities for GEP teachers to apply for overseas attachments to schools and agencies and attend courses and conferences in the field of gifted education.

Recent Developments To address the challenges Singapore faces in the global environment, there was a fundamental re-orientation in the education system. It was recognized that young people had to acquire the right skills, values, and knowledge for the new economy. The ability-driven approach to education was further refined to customize educational programs and inject greater flexibility into the system in order to cater to groups of students with different needs and talents. The GEP has also moved in concert with the rest of the changes taking place on

1446

the education landscape. What follows is a description of the refinements that have been made to the GEP.

S.N. Phillipson et al.

for the recruitment of teachers. The Branch provided training in the theory and practice of gifted education and talent development for all IP teachers and offered consultancy services to schools on a needs-and-request basis. The Branch continues to support these schools Secondary GEP by providing gifted students with opportunities to participate in special programs in various domains which In 2004 the Integrated Program (IP) spanning sec- the Branch co-organizes with tertiary institutions, inondary (Secondary 1–4) and junior college education dustry, and other research agencies. (pre-university, grades 11 and 12) was implemented to provide a variety of programs and routes to cater to the varied talents and aptitudes of students. A key feature of the IP is the removal of the national exam- Primary GEP ination – General Certificate Ordinary Level examination (“O” Levels) which is normally taken by students At the primary level, refinements have taken the form at the end of Secondary 4. Another feature of the IP of measures to create even more opportunities to prois the less structured learning environment. Students mote more regular interaction between GEP pupils and need not prepare for the “O” level examination and so their school mates in the mainstream. Pilot integration have more time to engage in broader learning experi- models that place GEP and high-ability regular stuences and to pursue an area of interest and talent in dents in the same home class were introduced in two greater depth. Schools can offer alternative curricula GEP schools. Teachers teaching this “mixed” home and qualifications to the General Certificate Advanced class would be trained in gifted education. GEP pupils Level (“A”) examination, as long as these are interna- are pulled out for an enriched curriculum in math, scitionally recognized and enable students to progress to ence, and English, while remaining in the home class further education. Two specialized schools were also for all other lessons. GEP pupils have to meet the reset up to cater to students with talents in sports (Singa- quirements such as the individualized study option, pore Sports School in 2004), and mathematics and sci- which is optional for high-ability pupils. In all of the nine GEP schools, the practice of GEP ence (National University of Singapore High School for Mathematics and Science in 2005), with another pupils working on projects with other GEP pupils was school for arts talents (School of the Arts) to be es- discontinued. Instead, GEP pupils will work on joint community involvement projects with schoolmates in tablished in 2008. With the advent of the IP, the majority of secondary the mainstream. More places were given to eligible GEP students were channeled to the IP schools. IP mainstream pupils who could also benefit from out-ofschools set their own admission criteria, some of which class enrichment programs. In 2007, all primary schools were encouraged to included placement tests. As a result, the second entry point into the (secondary) GEP at the end of Primary 6 make enrichment provisions for Primary 4 non-GEP was abolished. The former secondary GEP centers con- high-ability pupils who show advanced ability in a spetinue to attract the majority of GEP students. The cen- cific area such as mathematics or English language. trally run GEP was no longer necessary as IP schools Checklists of characteristics and behaviors of learnprovided school-based gifted education programs to ers precocious in these two subject areas were discater to the learning needs of GEP and other high- seminated to schools, and training was provided to ability students. While the centrally run GEP ended at help teachers identify pupils who could benefit from the end of Secondary 4, in the IP, school-based gifted more challenging curricula and enriching learning exeducation services were extended to the junior college periences. The Gifted Education Branch mounted inservice courses for teachers of high-ability learners level. With these changes, there was also a shift in the role and collaborated with the National Institute of Educaof the Gifted Education Branch of the Ministry of Ed- tion (the only teacher training institution in Singapore) ucation. Schools were free to develop their own gifted to offer programs for teachers seeking qualification in education curricula and programs and were responsible teaching pupils with high ability. Out-of-class enrich-

75

Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia

1447

ment programs in these two subject areas targeted at One surprising finding in Wong’s study was that boys this group of high-ability learners were organized to used more strategies and used them at a higher level of augment school-based and cluster-based initiatives. sophistication than girls in meaning-making a poem. In another study that examined the effects of gender, Lenden-Hitchcock (1994) who studied math achievement among GEP students found that contrary to the Developing Talents of the Exceptionally literature, girls in her sample of 364 GEP students had Gifted significantly higher SAT-M scores than boys. She also found that girls tended to attribute their success in math Cognizant that the enriched GEP curriculum is not able to their ability and effort more strongly than boys. C. to meet the needs of the few exceptionally gifted chil- L. Quek (2001) completed a study of the impact of the dren who are years ahead of the moderately gifted, chemistry laboratory environment and student–teacher more has been done to help these exceptional children interaction on student attitudes toward chemistry. Her find their appropriate level of stimulation, expose them sample comprised 200 Secondary 4 GEP and 297 to learning experiences to help them develop positive mainstream pupils, and the three instruments used regard for their ability, and progress as far as their ap- were the Chemistry Laboratory Environment Inventory titude and interest will take them. While adhering to (CLEI), Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI), the general policy of non-acceleration, exceptions are and Questionnaire on Chemistry Related Attitudes made for the exceptionally gifted who are assessed to (QOCRA). She found that GEP pupils perceived their need, and can benefit from, acceleration. A handful of learning environment and their chemistry teachers these children are also given opportunities to learn with more favorably than the mainstream pupils. Among like-minded peers, and where appropriate, mentored by GEP pupils, boys were less satisfied than girls. She also found a positive correlation between students’ university professors. perception of the nature of the laboratory classroom environment and students’ attitudes toward chemistry. Chua (1990) investigated the correlates of achieveResearch on Gifted Education ment in Chinese language among secondary GEP students. He found that language exposure (compared to The limited research that has been conducted about home background, parental influence, attitudes toward gifted education has so far been largely confined to language learning, peer influence, and motivation) had studies undertaken by graduate school students for the highest correlation with Chinese language achievetheir theses. The research focus has been mainly on ment. Of the various forms of language exposure, reading had more impact than listening to the radio or pupil characteristics and teacher-related issues. The earliest studies on GEP pupils were con- watching television programs. Another common area of research focus had to do ducted on secondary-level pupils, and dealt with their problem-solving strategies and achievement in specific with GEP students’ psychological and social emodomains. Ramasubban (1997) investigated differences tional adjustment. Heng (1992) studied low-achieving in performance in math-solving processes among 73 GEP students to see if their perception of control, 15-year-old GEP boys in a secondary school and found academic self-concept, and learning style differed differences in the strategies and heuristics adopted by from those of high-achieving GEP students. She found boys of different levels of ability. M. L. Wong’s (1997) that low-achieving students had lower perception of study focused on the meaning-making strategies used control, and lower academic self-concept compared in literary reading by 197 14-year-old GEP students. to high-achieving students. In terms of learning style, She found that the extent to which students used the low achievers tended to prefer concrete experience and whole range of strategies was positively related to active experimentation, while reflective observation their achievement in literature (as measured by their and abstract conceptualization were preferred by high performance in semestral examinations). There was achievers. M. C. C. Wong’s (1992) study of factors also a marked difference in the level of effectiveness related to underachievement of secondary GEP stuof use of these strategies by high and low achievers. dents revealed a significant positive relation between

1448

the following: self-factors and academic achievement; internal locus of control and academic achievement; and internal locus of control and self-esteem. Teo and Quah (1996) administered the MBTI (Form G) to a sample of 13-year-old GEP pupils in three secondary schools and found that the majority of the 148 boys and 91 girls were of the perceptive-intuitive MBTI type. Their study also found a statistically significant but negative correlation between academic achievement and perception, and no significant correlation between academic achievement and intuitive perception, or sense perception. The higher the perception score on the MBTI, the lower the GEP pupil’s academic achievement in school. A sample of GEP students was also studied from a Dabrowskian perspective by Thiruman (2000). He compared GEP and regular students’ over excitability (OE) scores on a 50-item Overexcitability Questionnaire Two (OEQ-II) and found that GEP students’ OE scores were significantly higher than the mainstream students’ on all OEs except psychomotor OE. Among the GEP students, females scored significantly higher than males for sensual and emotional OEs. Tan (1999) examined GEP students’ perceptions and attitudes toward the “gifted” label and its effects on their social relationships. She found that more males than females accepted the “gifted” label. Subjects in her study reported that the label brought them “personal and academic advantages” but caused “social disadvantages”. One of the few studies that were conducted on primary GEP students dealt with the topic of stress in GEP students’ lives. Nazima (2004) studied GEP students aged 10–12 years and found that grade level or age did not have a notable effect on students’ perception of stressful events. However, she found that male GEP students had higher mean stress scores than female students. Another interesting finding was the mismatch between students’ perceptions of their ability to cope with stress and teachers’ ratings of students’ ability. When students perceive themselves as having the ability to cope with stressors, their teachers rated their coping ability as poor or average. The set of studies that focused on teachers dealt with their preferred teaching styles, and effectiveness in the use of specific instructional strategies. Thaver (1995) found in her comparison of 110 GEP and 134 regular teachers that GEP teachers showed a significant preference for the more intellectually ori-

S.N. Phillipson et al.

ented intuitive-thinking and intuitive-feeling teaching styles, and that these corresponded positively with the reported learning preferences of gifted children. Regular teachers, by contrast, preferred the sensingthinking teaching style that was more factually and outcome oriented. Further sub-analyses of GEP teachers revealed that secondary teachers showed a greater preference for the intuitive-thinking style, compared to primary teachers. In terms of teachers teaching in different domains, it emerged that science teachers at both primary and secondary levels had a stronger preference for this teaching style, compared to the humanities teachers. H. C. Ng (2003) studied the potential benefits of using investigative tasks in a primary math GEP classroom. He taught a class of 29 12-year-old GEP students and found that the open-ended nature of the investigative tasks he used promoted flexibility and inventiveness in problem solving, and that through active engagement in mathematical investigation, students developed perseverance in problem solving. He concluded by advocating the use of investigative tasks in primary math classes. Another recent study on math instructional strategy sought to find out the impact of web-based instruction on geometric transformation of trigonometric curves. The study was conducted by B. K. Ng (2004) who taught 29 15-year-old GEP students in a secondary school. He allowed the students in groups of three or four to experiment with web-based simulation to learn how to perform sketches and translations on trigonometric curves. An online forum was provided for students to explain the concept behind each transformation. He found that self-experimentation with webbased simulation, together with guided worksheets, enhanced students’ ability to sketch singular as well as combined transformations, and the explanations students provided for their transformation were more in number and more varied than what would normally be provided by a teacher. Yeo (2006) studied the impact of cooperative learning using group investigation method on the states and quality of interaction among a group of 14-year-old male students in two GEP geography classes in a secondary school. The control class used the unstructured group work method. Both experimental and control classes had similar number of lessons on the same geography curriculum. Yeo found that the experimental class using the group investigation method was signifi-

75

Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia

cantly more cooperative and less individually task oriented than the control class. The Gifted Education Branch has been conducting evaluation studies of the GEP ever since its inception (C. G. Quek, 2004). In recent years, it has collaborated with other educational agencies to conduct studies on teaching patterns in GEP classrooms. One such study was a cross-cultural comparison of a sample of selective secondary level teachers in gifted education classrooms in Singapore and the United States. The Teaching and Learning Patterns Study examined the distinguishing and comparable teaching practices in secondary gifted classrooms and explored teachers’ beliefs about best teaching practices and ways in which these beliefs affect instructional practices. Teachers’ lessons in five subject domains (including mathematics, science, English literature, social studies, and second language) were coded using an adapted version of The William and Mary developed-Classroom Observation Scale-Revised (COS-R) (VanTassel-Baska et al., 2003). The COS-R is a scale developed for measuring teachers’ instructional practice against expectations derived from best practices in mainstream and gifted education classrooms (VanTassel-Baska et al., 2007). The comparative results from the classroom observation data suggested that the Singapore teachers were younger, better prepared, and well trained in both content knowledge and gifted education, despite a lack of advanced degrees (e.g., masters or doctorate degree). Both the Singapore and the U.S. teachers demonstrated frequent employment of four dimensions of the instructional strategies reflected on the COS-R scale. However, Singapore teachers demonstrated more effective usage of these instructional approaches than the U.S. teachers in all dimensions of the scale. Interview results from Singapore and U.S. teachers suggested that there were more similarities than differences in the two cultures about what an exemplary teacher signifies, and qualities of exemplary teachers. Both groups agree that an exemplary teacher would have content expertise, flexible instructional repertoires, and passion for the discipline taught and for the students. It is interesting to see that teachers from both cultures cited very similar differentiation practices deemed important in their teaching practice. Another-cross cultural study sought to understand similarities and differences between scientifically talented students in Singapore (C. G. Quek, 2005) and

1449

the United States (VanTassel-Baska & Subotnik, 2004) in terms of their talent development process, with a focus on the role of the family, school and personal factors in their talent development journey. There were strong similarities between the Singapore and U.S. participants in citing passion in teachers as a “crucial” factor contributing to the development of scientific talent. Participants also reported that interest in science began at a young age. While Singapore students cited freedom to explore own interests as having the most impact on their development, suggesting an open, liberal and laissez-faire approach of parents, U.S. students’ early interest in life science was attributed to exposure to the school curriculum in the early grades. Both the studies showed that opportunities for advanced studies and research are key elements in developing talents in specific domains.

Conclusion A new and broader research agenda is in the pipeline as gifted education enters its third decade in Singapore. It is anticipated that further refinements to the GEP will be made on the basis of emerging research evidence and in response to new challenges to nurture the best and brightest to use their talents for the good of humanity.

Japan12 Japan is unique in that despite its place as one of the most advanced countries in the world, gifted education does not officially exist. Instead, other opportunities exist for gifted students, giving gifted education a “virtual” existence.13

Uniform Curriculum After World War II, the education system in Japan was reformed on the principle of providing equal opportunities for all children, and a simplified single-line 12

Corresponding author is Nobutaka Matsumura, Kansai University, Japan. E-mail: [email protected]. 13 For further details see Matsumura (2007).

1450

6+3+3+4-year school system was established for elementary, middle, high, and tertiary schools, respectively. Early admission to middle and high schools on the basis of merit, which existed as the official form of gifted education before the war, was abolished, and entry was considered solely on the basis of age. At this time of egalitarianism, discussing gifted education became taboo. Textbooks have been authorized by the Monbusho/Monkasho14 in accordance with the course of study, which was the national standard for the content of the curriculum that all schools had to adhere. Teachers had to teach the prescribed range of content and students would learn everything by the same methods. There was no provision for gifted education.

S.N. Phillipson et al.

students were free to study a wide range of topics, including international understanding, ICT, environment, local welfare, and health. In recent years, the term “respecting individuality” is often quoted in the context of educational reform. However, it is still difficult to talk explicitly about gifted education in modern Japan. The concept of developing the giftedness and talents of students is not openly discussed because doing so may risk criticism of being elitist, promoting meritocracy, or being labeled a neo-liberal.

Change of Emphasis on Improvement of Achievements

Policy Change to Individualized Education Criticism of the “education with latitude” approach by

Monbusho arose in 1999 when some of the students at top-level universities sometimes made mistakes in In the 1990s, the policy of the government changed in mathematics problems typical to the elementary or the direction of individualized education in response middle school levels (Nishimura, 2001). Furthermore, to the growing criticism of the “cramming” of uni- the ranking of Japan fell in the international surveys form knowledge and learning centered on memoriza- of achievement for elementary and middle school tion. Various teaching and learning methods, such as students, such as TIMMS and PISA.15 Criticism of flexible small learning groups and team teaching, were the “education with latitude” continues to increase introduced to facilitate the change to teaching to indi- because of the perceived decline of educational stanviduality. dards, although there have been no research studies The revised Course of Study for grades 1–12 was to date that demonstrate a link between the “educaput into effect in 2002, with the aim of fostering a wide tion with latitude” with the decline of achievement range of abilities without the pressure of cramming. (Nakai, 2001). A 5-day week was introduced to replace the existing In response to the criticism, the Monkasho changed 6-day school week. In addition, the numbers of class- its emphasis to improve student achievement, although room hours were reduced and a content reduction of the principle of “education with latitude” has been all textbooks by 30% was introduced. The number of maintained. In 2002, the Monkasho gave each school school days decreased from 240 to 190 days per year, the discretion to teach advanced content beyond that although many private middle and high schools contin- prescribed by the Course of Study, according to the ued to have classes on Saturdays. needs of the students. In the revised Course of Study Comprehensive study started in 2002 for third grade and above in order to promote “education with latitude”, or classes free from pressure of cramming. The 15 TIMMS, or Trends in International Mathematics and Science hour-long classes consisted of cross-curricular, experi- Study, is investigated every 4 years by the International Associaential, and problem-solving learning exercises devised tion for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Fourth- and by each school or teacher for 3 hours each week. Since eighth-grade students in 46 countries and regions participated in the study in 2003. PISA, or Programme for International Student the content was not designated by the Course of Study, Assessment, is carried out every 3 years by the OECD, or Orga14 The Monbusho was reorganized in 2002 into the Monkasho, abbreviation of Monbu-kagaku-sho, or the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.

nization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Fifteenyear-old students in 41 countries and regions participated in the assessment in 2003. The major fields investigated are reading, mathematical, and scientific literacy. The ability to use knowledge and skills in solving problems in the real life is demanded.

75

Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia

of 2003, textbooks containing advanced content were permitted. Furthermore, annual Japanese language and mathematics achievement tests began in 2007 for all students in grades 6 and 9.

Arguments for the Gakuryoku to Be Developed Some educators have argued that certain types of “gakuryoku”, or abilities to learn, should be fostered in the “education with latitude” (Kato & Takaura, 2001). The Monkasho recently promoted the idea of so-called solid gakuryoku, which covers a wide range of abilities including foundational knowledge and basic skills, eagerness to learn, thinking, judgment, expression, ways of learning, and finding a problem and solving it. The government expects teaching that every student can understand, such as individualized instruction to foster the solid gakuryoku. The arguments continue as to how to develop the gakuryoku as a wide range of abilities in a variety of learning settings while at the same time ensuring that all students have a firm educational foundation.

The Virtual Existence of Gifted Education in Japan Despite the official point of view that denies the existence of gifted education, other aspects of education in modern Japan ensure its “virtual” existence, allowing that both academic giftedness and that in other areas can be fully developed.

Hierarchies of Middle and High Schools According to Achievement

1451

test-taking competitions to enter a university of higher ranking. High schools are also ranked according to the achievements of their students, and there are a number of high schools, mostly private such as Kaisei and Nada, who consistently maintain their public rankings as the best in the nation. These first-ranked high schools, many of which are combined with middle schools, are ranked according to the scores obtained by elementary school students at the entrance examination. Thus, the clustering of schools according to student ability can be viewed as one type of gifted education because students are screened on the basis of achievement. In many private middle and high schools, the 6 years of education are fully integrated. In these schools, students can learn more advanced subject content than their normal grade level, and so they are usually better prepared for entrance examinations of competitive universities. This may be regarded as one form of acceleration, but it is not official acceleration by which credit for an advanced course is admitted by the government. Students at these schools have high academic abilities because they have succeeded at the keenly contested entrance examinations. They form a highly homogeneous group of students at each school in terms of academic ability, and although the focus is the formal curriculum, they also actively participate in clubs and other school events. Some students get excellent results in nationwide contests, such as those in music, drama, and debate. In this respect, the schools succeed in developing various aspects of giftedness apart from academic success (Honma, 1997). Since 1999, a new kind of private and public school called “secondary education school” has come to existence in Japan. In these schools, an integrated 6-year secondary curriculum is offered within one school, instead of separate middle and high schools. The aim of these schools is the diversification of secondary education according to the needs of the individual students, providing varieties of enrichment. In 2007, there are 30 secondary education schools throughout Japan.

Universities are ranked according to the achievement scores of high school students who pass the entrance examinations in mathematics, Japanese language, science, social studies, and English. The University of Education-Related Industry Tokyo and Kyoto University are at the top as national universities, as are Keio and Waseda as private uni- Students who participate in test-taking competiversities. High school students are involved in intense tions want to acquire higher academic achievement.

1452

However, individualization of learning may be limited at school. Parents try to give their children the opportunity of learning outside the school, even if they have to pay extra. Juku or cram schools. There are various scales of “juku” or cram schools, that is, private schools held outside of normal school hours. About 40% of elementary school students and about 70% of middle school students attend juku after school, on weekends or during vacations. Most of the classes closely match those found in the students’ regular schools and are designed to help students acquire the skills that help them reach university, high school, middle school, elementary school, or even kindergarten. On the entrance examinations of the highly ranked schools, problems are presented that exceed the grade level. That is why juku are allowed to teach more advanced levels of content than normal grade schools. Juku are ranked according to the achievements of their students on the entrance examinations of the highly ranked schools, and it is a source of pride for them. Juku are meeting a public need and are commonly considered to be a “necessary evil” because there is severe competition for entrance examinations. In reality, however, opportunities for learning in juku depend on the economic status of the family and, hence, opportunities are not equitably distributed. It has been pointed out that hierarchical differences in academic abilities are increasing between the different social strata, according to the income, occupation, or academic careers of the parents (Kariya, 2001). In other words, the more opportunities there are to attend private school or juku, which children of the richer families enjoy, the higher the level of achievement they acquire. One of the reasons why gifted education is not generally welcome is that people are concerned that gifted education may perpetuate the inequality in educational opportunities. Preparatory schools. Preparatory schools are another type of high school, in place for high school graduates who fail to enter a satisfactory university and want to enter university in the following year. There are several large preparatory schools with branch schools, such as Sundai and Kawaijuku. About 20% of university freshmen, that is, about 10% of high school graduates and about two-thirds of students in competitive departments like medicine, were preparatory school students. In preparatory schools, students are thoroughly trained in test-taking skills, aiming at higher achieve-

S.N. Phillipson et al.

ment. Ability classes are grouped according to the specific needs based on the students’ choices of universities. The schools implement large-scale “imitation tests” and inform each student of their achievement and the likelihood of success for the university of their choice. Correspondence education. Correspondence education allows students to study at home. The content of this learning meets the individual needs of the students, from supplementary lessons for their grade level to accelerated learning. Several large companies, such as the Benesse Corporation, offer numerous courses to students at each grade level, from preschool to high school. Many academically gifted students take accelerated courses. Students respond to the learning materials delivered every month or every week by themselves or they are assisted by their parents, usually their mothers if they are young children. They complete the drills and write their answers to the tests and then return them to the school. The students’ responses are corrected, usually with comments, and returned to them. Telephone, fax, and other communication technologies as well as mail are used. Lessons other than juku. Outside of school, lessons other than juku that develop talents in sports and art are also popular. About 80% of elementary school students and 30% of middle school students take afterschool lessons. The attendance by students decreases rapidly as they move into middle school in order to attend juku. A number of cultural activities are popular, including piano, Japanese calligraphy, and painting. In the physical area, swimming, soccer, and gymnastics are popular. For middle and high school students, extracurricular clubs at school are more popular. Thus, education-related industries provide learning activities that are not provided by regular school, playing the role of gifted education outside of school.

Early Admission to University Early admission to universities began in the 1990s by the Monbusho. It is officially named “the exceptional measure in education”. Eleventh-grade students who have “especially excellent disposition” in the field of mathematics and physics can be admitted to university. It is generally referred to as “skipping entrance” and is the only officially permitted acceleration option for

75

Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia

students in the post-war period. The Monbusho deliberately avoided the term “gifted education” so as not to be criticized as undemocratic or elitist as the Japanese term implies. The target for this was the exceptional few, that is, only a small number of students nationwide every year. From the start, the motive was political, with the intention of making it the symbol of the educational reform, and not for the consideration of the needs of the gifted (Kobayashi, 1999). Early admission was started at the national Chiba University in 1998. Five students entered selected through special examinations, and they went on to top-level national graduate schools. Forty-one students entered Chiba by 2006. Other universities, the private Meijo University and prefectural University of Aizu, have started early admission since 2001 and 2006, respectively, and 20 students and one student have entered them, respectively. The list of fields for early admission was expanded to behavioral science at Chiba in 2004, and to music and English at three other private universities in 2005, though no student has entered the latter. However, early admission has deviated from its original aim, because it does not attract students with the highest talent. It is not welcomed by high school students and teachers because the universities implementing it are not of the highest rank. The merit and appeal to enter one of those universities one year earlier is limited. Rather, students are anxious about any possible disadvantages which may arise if they miss out on their last year of high school.

1453

ciency”. It has been implemented at about 70% of elementary and middle schools. However, there are criticisms that there is no evidence that proficiency grouping improves the achievement, particularly for the lowachieving group in spite of the merit for the highachieving group, and that it promotes discrimination labeling the former low achievers. High school–university collaboration program. High school–university collaboration programs offering enrichment programs to high school students are now implemented at many universities, accepting students for courses after school and giving open lectures and summer seminars. The activities they provide are only for enrichment, and students do not make use of them as credits for high school or university at present. However, each university actually has the discretion to provide credits for these programs and hence it is a possible form of acceleration in the future. Special programs for science and English study. Special programs for science and English study began in 2002. Schools compete for funding based on their plans for school improvement and are given funding support for 3 years. In many cases, high-ranked high schools are successful and school-based enrichment programs in science, mathematics, or English are offered. These constitute a type of gifted education, in that they offer special enrichment to the whole groups or some students in the courses they choose. For science, technology, and mathematics, the schools are designated as “super science high schools”. The schools design and develop an innovative curriculum in collaboration with universities and research institutes, allowing students the chance to learn from specialist lecturers and opportunities Various Plans to Improve Gakuryoku for experimentation and fieldwork. For English, the schools are designated as “super English language The Monkasho has recently made plans to improve the high schools”. These schools establish special classes, wide concepts of gakuryoku, to include basic academic give special lectures, and instruct some subjects in English. abilities, while promoting individualized learning. When the outcomes of these programs are evaluDevices of groups and methods of learning at ated, the motivation and eagerness of the students were school. Recently, devices for individualized learning found to improve (Ogura, 2005). However, the achievehave increased. Teachers are organizing the flexibility ment of these students does not necessarily improve. At of learning groups at each school and introducing present, only a small percent (3%) of all schools across various flexible learning methods such as selected learning, individual and group instruction, learning by the country participate in these programs and only for ability grouping, repeated learning, remedial learning, a period of 3 years. The various initiatives of the Monkasho are a de and advanced learning. facto, or “virtual” gifted education program, intending In 2002, the Monkasho recommended ability groupto identify and develop every student’s talent, and it ing, although it was called “grouping in terms of profi-

1454

S.N. Phillipson et al.

has been welcomed by teachers and parents. However, South Korea16 the general public worries that these programs may further promote differences in achievement among stuGifted education in Korea is characterized by selectdents and schools. ing very few students in grades 3–9 through rigorous, severe competition. It is also characterized by its emphasis on enrichment rather than acceleration with the goal of nurturing creative problem-solving abilities in Problems and Perspectives various programs such as gifted classes, gifted education centers supervised by offices of school districts or Gifted education in various forms described above vir- universities, and a gifted science high school. Programs tually exists in Japan, even if the term is avoided. In are generally provided after school or during the weekthe future, it may continue to develop in the name of ends and vacation period except in a special science “individualized” education. However, any educational high school, titled Korea Science Academy. program labeled as gifted education will not be acGifted education in Korea started in 1983 with the cepted by Japanese society for the time being. The establishment of one science high school. In 2000, identification of gifted children, and referring to them the Law for the Promotion of Gifted Education was as such, will also not be implemented. The develop- promulgated, and with the collaboration of various ment of plans which meet the diverse learning needs of ministries, school district offices, research centers, each student will continue without the description of and universities, Korean gifted education system was gifted education. established by 2002. Through a very rigorous system, In the future, giftedness in disabled children will gifted students are selected annually among students be more recognized. Starting in 2007, the conventional in grades 3–9 and provided with special programs system of special education for students with disabil- in the ensuing year. The number of gifted students ities, who make up less than 2% of all students, will provided with enrichment programs in 2006 was only be reformed into a “special support education” and 39,339, which is 0.51% of the 7,299,204 students in will include students with mild developmental disor- grades 1–12. This represents a 13% increase compared ders, who make up 7% of all students. The twice- to that of 2005. The students are provided with preexceptionality of children who are both disabled and dominantly either math or science programs (Ministry gifted is hardly recognized at present. However, with of Education and Human Resources Development, the start of a special support education, various tal- MOEHRD, 2006). Looking into the details of student ents of both disabled and regular children may be paid proportions by the types of institutions, more than more attention to. It is desirable that discussion about half (53.2%, 20,036 students) of them participate it will increase and that psychological and educational in 151 gifted centers organized by school district research on giftedness will be requested and developed offices, 29.8% in 108 gifted classes, 15.8% in 25 (Matsumura, 2003). gifted centers managed by universities, and 1.2% In Japanese elementary and secondary education, it in the Korean Science Academy. In terms of school is impossible to officially introduce gifted education levels of gifted students, 46.8% of them are students in that selects some children early as the elite and gives grades 4–6, 47.5% in grades 7–9, and 5.7% in grades them special extra services. It will be of little use if only 10–12 (MOEHRD, 2006). There are 81 special senior extremely exceptional measures such as the current high schools for nurturing students’ talent either in early admission to university are continued. It would sciences, foreign language, arts, or sports. They were be more effective to distinguish between the various not included in the above statistics. abilities, interests, and learning styles of all students, to Most of the Korean gifted education programs prepare the continuum of special services which makes admit and provide students with enrichment programs full use of these traits, and to encourage individualized by domains. The percentage of gifted students studyadvanced learning, such as in the Schoolwide Enrichment Model by Renzulli (Renzulli & Reis, 1997). Students with the highest ability in specific domains would 16 Corresponding author is Seokhee CHO, St. John’s University, New York. E-mail: [email protected]. develop in those circumstances of learning.

75

Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia

ing in enrichment programs by domains is 44.3% in science, 39.7% in math, 7% in information technology, and 9% in others. There are very few enrichment programs in social studies, foreign language, arts, or interdisciplinary programs. It implies that the gifted in these domains are not identified and nurtured enough. For selection of gifted students, the National Research Center on Gifted Education (NRCGE) develops logical thinking tests and creative problem-solving tests in math and in science each year, which are implemented at the same time all over the country. Each province or metropolitan city is responsible for the arrangement, scoring, and utilization of the test results. There are about 85 different tests developed in either science or math to be used by school districts for selecting students who will participate in gifted education programs. NRCGE has developed more than 150 different items of instructional material to be used by teachers as references for teaching math or science to gifted students in grades 4–9. The Korea Science Academy develops its own instructional materials. Teachers are those who teach all students in regular schools during the school hours. The average teacher–student ratio in gifted education programs is 1:7. Only 56% of gifted education teachers have received in-service training on gifted education in 2006. Even though there are more trained teachers than needed, not all of them are appointed to gifted programs because of the ongoing practice of teacher rotation in Korea. School districts are encouraged to carry out program evaluations to enhance the accountability of the programs. In 2005 and 2006, only five and eight metropolitan and provinces implemented program evaluations. In the future, gifted education in Korea will be featured with more gifted students, more diverse groups to be served and more diversity in the domains of gifted education programs. In 2002, the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (MOEHRD) decided to gradually increase the ratio of gifted students provided with special programs to 1% of the total student population by 2007 in addition to the number of students attending the special high schools for talent development (Oh, 2002). The Law for the Promotion of Gifted Education has been revised in 2006 in order to accommodate

1455

more diverse groups of gifted children in a more flexible manner. There will be more gifted education programs provided to younger students who are in grades 1–3. More gifted classes will be available in regular schools. In addition, the prodigies, identified by professionals as showing highly advanced performance compared to their chronological peers, will also be provided with appropriate programs such as mentoring, multiple enrollments, acceleration, and individual research projects. The programs for prodigies will be supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology from 2007. More of the economically disadvantaged gifted and the female gifted will be selected and provided with enrichment programs separate from the existing gifted education programs (Cho, 2004; Cho & Lee, 2006). More gifted education programs in arts will be provided by gifted centers affiliated with universities with supports from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism from 2007. Research projects on how to apply the expertise in gifted education to all students in regular schools are in progress in order to enhance excellence in general education. Changing the status of the Korea Science Academy from the current provincial to a national school under the supervision of and support from the Ministry of Science and Technology is under discussion among the educational policy makers. Discussions on establishing more science high schools at either the provincial or the national level are also under way and will be concluded in 2007. It is expected that the nature of the programs for the gifted will be gradually moving toward meeting the needs of society in the twenty-first century which is more knowledge based, fast changing, and diversified than before. Contents of teacher training programs will also be revised accordingly. By the year 2008, a database to collect information on gifted education will also be established in order to plan, monitor, and evaluate gifted education programs more efficiently. It should also be noted that there is a good support system for gifted education in Korea. Specifically, the Korean Academy of Gifted Education (KAGE), the Korean Minjok Leadership Academy, the Busan Science Academy, the Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, and the recently established Cyber Gifted Education system online (http://gifted.kedi.re.kr) all play an important role in gifted education in Korea.

1456

References Chalke, F., & Ertl, J. (1965). Evoked potentials and intelligence. Life Science, 4, 1319–1322. Chan, D. K. K. (2007). Global agenda, local responses: Changing education governance in Hong Kong’s higher education. Globalisation, Societies & Education, 5(1), 109–124. Chan, D. W. (1999). Reversing underachievement: Can we tap unfulfilled talents in Hong Kong? Educational Research Journal, 14(2), 177–190. Chan, D. W. (2000a). Assessing leadership among Chinese secondary students in Hong Kong: The use of Roets Rating Scale for leadership. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(2), 115–122. Chan, D. W. (2000b). Developing the creative leadership training program for gifted and talented students in Hong Kong. Roeper Review, 22(2), 94–97. Chan, D. W. (2000c). Exploring identification procedures of gifted students by teacher ratings: Parent ratings and student self-reports in Hong Kong. High Ability Studies, 11(1), 69– 82. Chan, D. W. (2000d). Identifying gifted and talented students in Hong Kong. Roeper Review, 22(2), 88–93. Chan, D. W. (2001a). Characteristics and competencies of teachers of gifted learners: The Hong Kong teacher perspective. Roeper Review, 23(4), 197–202. Chan, D. W. (2001b). Learning styles of gifted and nongifted secondary students in Hong Kong. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(1), 35–44. Chan, D. W. (2003a). Multiple intelligences and perceived selfefficacy among Chinese secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 23(5), 521–533. Chan, D. W. (2003b). Leadership skills training for Chinese secondary students in Hong Kong: Does training make a difference? Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14(3), 166– 174. Chan, D. W. (2003c). Assessing adjustment problems of gifted students in Hong Kong: The development of the Student Adjustment Problems Inventory. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 107–117. Chan, D. W. (2003d). Dimensions of emotional intelligence and their relationships with social coping among gifted adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32(6), 409–418. Chan, D. W. (2004a). Multiple intelligences of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong: Perspectives from students, parents, teachers, and peers. Roeper Review, 27(1), 18–24. Chan, D. W. (2004b). Social coping and psychological distress among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 30–41. Chan, D. W. (2005a). Perceived multiple intelligences and learning preferences among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(2), 187– 212. Chan, D. W. (2005b). Self-perceived creativity, family hardiness, and emotional intelligence of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(2/3), 47–56. Chan, D. W. (2005c). Family environment and talent development of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(3), 211–221.

S.N. Phillipson et al. Chan, D. W. (2006a). Perceived multiple intelligences among male and female Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong: The structure of the Student Multiple Intelligences Profile. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(4), 325–337. Chan, D. W. (2006b). Adjustment problems, self-efficacy, and psychological distress among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Roeper Review, 28(4), 203–209. Chan, D. W., Cheung, P.-C., Lau, S., Wu, W. Y. H., Kwong, J. M. L., & Li, W.-L. (2001). Assessing ideational fluency in primary students in Hong Kong. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3/4), 359–365. Chan, D., & Mok, K.-H. (2001). Educational reforms and coping strategies under the tidal wave of marketisation: A comparative study of Hong Kong and the mainland. Comparative Education, 37(1), 21–41. Chan, E. (2002). Beyond pedagogy: Language and identity in post-colonial Hong Kong. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(2), 271–285. Chan, J. (2007). Giftedness and China’s Confucian heritage. In S. N. Phillipson & M. McCann, M. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness: Sociocultural perspectives (pp. 35–64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chang, B. L., & Liau, Y. K. (1995). Directory of special education, rehabilitation and welfare services in the Republic of China. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University, Special Education Center (in Chinese). Chen, L., Shi, J., Liu, Z., Qu, X., Zhao, D., Wang, Z., et al. (2004). The inspection time (IT) of 8–12 years old supernormal and normal children. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36(6), 712–717. Chen, M. I. (1989). A follow-up study of the elementary and junior high school students who were graduated from the first three years of stage one. Unpublished master’s thesis, Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan (in Chinese). Cheng, R. H. M. (2004). Moral education in Hong Kong: Confucian-parental, Christian-religious and liberal-civic influences. Journal of Moral Education, 33(4), 533–551. Cheung, C.-K., & Ngai, N.-P. (2004). Humanist approaches to youth development in the summer youth program of Hong Kong. Journal of Social Service Research, 31(2), 1–24. Cheung, C.-K., & Rudowicz, E. (2003). Academic outcomes of ability grouping among junior high school students in Hong Kong. Journal of Educational Research, 96(4), 241–254. Cheung, C.-K., Lee, T.-Y., Chan, W.-T., Liu, S.-C., & Leung, K.-K. (2004). Developing civic consciousness through social engagement among Hong Kong youths. Social Science Journal, 41(4), 651–660. Cheung, C.-K., Roskams, T., & Fisher, D. (2006). Enhancement of creativity through a one-semester course in university. Journal of Creative Behavior, 40(1), 1–25. Cheung, C.-K., Rudowicz, E., Yue, X., & Kwan, A. S. F. (2003). Creativity of university students: What is the impact of field and year of study? Journal of Creative Behavior, 37(1), 42–63. Cheung, H. Y., & Phillipson, S. N. (2008). Teachers of gifted students in Hong Kong: Competencies and characteristics. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 17(2), 143–156. Cheung, W. M., Tse, S. K., & Tsang, H. W. H. (2003). Teaching creative writing skills to primary school children in Hong Kong: Discordance between the views and practices of language teachers. Journal of Creative Behavior, 37(2), 77–98.

75

Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia

Cho, S. (2004). Identification and nurturing of the economically disadvantaged gifted. Paper presented at the 22nd KEDI Educational Forum. Korean Educational Development Institute (in Korean). Cho, S., & Lee, M. (2006). Program effects of the economically disadvantaged on their aspiration and satisfaction with the enrichment programs. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 3(2), 52–66. Chong, S., Forlin, C., & Au, M. L. (2007). The influence of an inclusive education course on attitude change of pre-service secondary teachers in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 161–179. Chua, C. L. (1990). Correlates of Chinese language achievement among gifted students. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Chung, S. C. (1981). Examining the effect of resource room projects for gifted students. Gifted Education Quarterly, 3, 15–21 (in Chinese). Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (Eds.). (2004). A Nation Deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1–2). IA: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E. (2004). Whole-Grade Acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A Nation Deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp.77–86). IA: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., & Print, M. (2000). Gifted, streamed and mixed-ability programs for gifted students: Impact on self-concept, motivation, and achievement. Australian Journal of Education, 44(1), 51–75. Curriculum Development Council. (2001). Learning to learn: The way forward in curriculum development. Hong Kong: Government Printer (Work published in Chinese). Deary, I. J., & Stough, C. (1996). Intelligence and inspection time: achievements, prospects and problems. American Psychologist, 51, 599–608. Education Commission. (2000a). Learning for life – Learning through life: Reform proposal for the education system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Government Printer. Education Commission. (2000b). Review of education system: Reform proposals consultation document. Hong Kong: Government Printer. Education Commission Report No. 4. (1990). The curriculum and behavioural problems in schools. Hong Kong: Author. Retrieved 1 April, 2007, from http://www.emb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content 3201/ ecr4 e.pdf Education Department. (2000). Development of gifted education in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Government Printer. Fan, M. Y. (2003). Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, and actual usefulness of second language vocabulary strategies: A study of Hong Kong learners. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 222–241. Feldhusen, J. F. (1991). Basic issues and approaches in identifying and educating gifted youth. Bulletin of the Hong Kong Psychological Society, 26–27, 28–46.

1457 Fitzpatrick, L., Adiga, A., Beech, H., Hua, B., Jakes, S., Qu, N., et al. (2006). Asia’s over scheduled kids forget about playtime. Children today are caught up in an endless race of extra tuition sessions, tennis classes, piano lessons, late-night homework and much, much more. Are we preparing them for success or overloading them with stress? Time International, 167(12), 48. Forestier, K. (2006). Suicides spark staff protests. The Times Educational Supplement, 4669, 20. Forlin, C. (2006). Realising inclusive education through educational and societal reform in Hong Kong. Asia – Pacific Journal of Inclusive Education, 3, 87–102. Freeman, J. (2002). Out-of-school educational provision for the gifted and talented around the world. A report to the DfES. Downloaded 1 April, 2007, from http://www.joanfreeman.com/content/Text%20part%20one.doc Gagn´e, F. (2000). Understanding the complex choreography of talent development through DMGT-based analysis. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 55–79). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Glenwright, P. (2002). Language proficiency assessment for teachers: The effects of benchmarking on writing assessment in Hong Kong schools. Assessing Writing, 8(2), 84–109. Heiman, G. W. (2001). Understanding research methods and statistics: An integrated introduction for psychology (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Heller, K. A., M¨onks, F. J., & Passow, A. H. (Eds.). (1993).International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Heller, K. A., M¨onks, F. J., Sternberg, R., & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.). (2000). International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier Science. Heng, M. A. (1992). Low-achieving secondary school students in the gifted education program: three psychological aspects. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Heung, V. (2006). Recognizing the emotional and behavioral needs of ethnic minority students in Hong Kong. Preventing School Failure, 50(2), 29–36. Ho, W. K. (2001). Models of bilingual memory of primary pupils in Hong Kong (China). Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 61(10-A), 3859. Hong, Y. Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and learning. American Psychologist, 55, 709–720. Honma, H. (1997). The circumstances of gifted education. In M. Aso & M. Iwanaga (Eds.), Education for the creative talent (pp. 172–192). Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press (in Japanese). Horne, D. L., & Dupuy, P. J. (1981). In favor of acceleration for gifted students. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60(2), 103–106. Kaohsiung Bureau of Education. (2005a). Kaohsiung parents’ brochure of early entrance to elementary schools. Kaohsiung City Government (in Chinese). Kaohsiung Bureau of Education. (2005b). Parent brochure for gifted children. Kaohsiung City Government (in Chinese). Kariya, T. (2001). Stratified Japan and the crisis of education. Tokyo: Yushindo (in Japanese).

1458 Kato, Y., & Takaura, K. (Eds.). (2001). Criticism of emphasis on the decline of gakuryoku. Tokyo: Reimei-shobo (in Japanese). Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2006). Characterising a teaching and learning environment conducive to making demands on students while not making their workload excessive. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 185–198. Kennedy, K. J., Fok, P. K., & Chan, K. S. J. (2006). Reforming the curriculum in a post-colonial society: The case of Hong Kong. Planning and Changing, 37(1/2), 111–130. Keung, H. K., & Ho, B. (2004). A review of moral education curriculum materials in Hong Kong. Journal of Moral Education, 33(4), 631–636. Kobayashi, T. (1999). Early admission to college: Can Japanese education change? Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Simbun Inc. (in Japanese). Kong, Y., & Zhu, H. (2005). A decade comparison: Self-concept of gifted and non-gifted adolescents. International Education Journal, 6(2), 224–231. Kong,Y., Wei, L., Fang, X., & Zhu, H. (in press). Factor analysis on non-intellectual tests for gifted students. Gifted and Talented International. Kulik, J. A. (2004). Meta-Analytic studies of acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A Nation Deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 13–22). Iowa: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Kuo, W. F. (1979). An evaluation of the self-concept of gifted children. In Education of the Gifted Children. Taipei: Ministry of Education (in Chinese). Lai, M., & Lo, L. N. K. (2007). Teacher professionalism in educational reform: The experiences of Hong Kong and Shanghai. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 37(1), 53–68. Lai, P.-S., & Byram, M. (2003). The politics of bilingualism: A reproduction analysis of the policy of mother tongue education in Hong Kong after 1997. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 33(3), 315–334. Lau, K. L., & Chan, D. W. (2001). Identification of underachievers in Hong Kong: Do different methods select different underachievers? Educational Studies, 27(2), 187–200. Law, L. Y. S., & Walker, A. (2005). Different values, different ways – principal problem solving and education reform. International Studies in Educational Administration, 33(1), 62–78. Lee, M. H., & Gopinathan, S. (2003). Reforming university education in Hong Kong and Singapore. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(2), 167–182. Lee, W. O. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the Confucian heritage. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese Learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 25–41). Hong Kong, China and Victoria, Australia: Comparative Education Research Centre and The Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd. Lenden-Hitchcock, Y. P. (1994). Gender differences in mathematics achievement among gifted secondary students in Singapore. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.

S.N. Phillipson et al. Li, N., Leung, D. Y. P., & Kember, D. (2001). Medium of instruction in Hong Kong universities: The mis-match between espoused theory and theory in use. Higher Education Policy, 14(4), 293–312. Li, Y. L. (2004). The culture of teaching in the midst of Western influence: The case of Hong Kong kindergartens. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 5(3), 330–348. Li, Y., Shi, J., Zhao, D., Wang, Z., Zhuang, J., & Mao, L. (2004). The difference of non-intellectual factors. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 18(8), 561–563. Liu, T., Shi, J., Zhao, D., & Yang, J. (n.d). The event-related low frequency activity of high and average intelligent children. Unpublished manuscript. Liu, Z., & Shi, J. (2003). A review of researches on inspection time and intelligence. Advances in Psychological Science, 11(5), 511–515. Liu, Z., Shi, J., & Cheng, L. (2003). The relations between inspection time and intelligence of children. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(6), 823–829. Luo, J., & Niki, K. (2002). Role of medial tempo rallobe in extensiveretrieval of task-related knowledge. Hippocampus, 12, 487–495. Luo, J., & Niki, K. (2003). Function of hippocampus in insight of problem solving. Hippocampus, 13, 316–323. Matsumura, N. (2003). Education of the gifted and talented in the United States: Special support addressing varieties of learning needs. Tokyo: Toshindo (in Japanese). Matsumura, N. (2007). Giftedness in the culture of Japan. In S. N. Phillipson and M. McCann (Eds.) Conceptions of giftedness: Sociocultural perspectives (pp. 349–376). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Matthews, M. S. (2004). Leadership education for gifted and talented youth: A review of the literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(1), 77–113. Ministry of Education. (1982). The statue of compulsory education. In Laws and regulations about special education and social welfare of R.O.C. (pp. 35–37). Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University, Special Education Center (in Chinese). Ministry of Education. (1979). The stage one experimental programming for gifted children. Taipei: Ministry of Education (in Chinese). Ministry of Education. (2005). Taiwan special education annual statistic report, 2005. Taipei: Ministry of Education (in Chinese). Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2006). Statistics of gifted education. Unpublished document (in Korean). Mok, K.-H. (2003). Globalisation and higher education restructuring in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(2), 117–130. Mok, K.-H. (2005). The quest for world class university: Quality assurance and international benchmarking in Hong Kong. Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, 13(4), 277–304. Mok, K.-H., & Lee, H.-H. (2000). Globalization or recolonization: Higher education reforms in Hong Kong. Higher Education Policy, 13(4), 361–378. Nakai, K. (Ed.). (2001). Controversy over the collapse of gakuryoku. Tokyo: Chuo-koron-shinsha, Inc. (in Japanese).

75

Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia

Nazima, B. S. (2004). Stress of gifted students in the primary GEP in Singapore. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Nettelbeck, T., & Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1992). Aging, cognitive performance, and mental speed. Intelligence, 16, 189–205. Ng, B. K. (2004). Impact of web-based instruction on geometric transformation of trigonometric curves on gifted secondary students. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Ng, H. C. (2003). Benefits of using investigative tasks in the primary classroom. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Niki, K., & Luo, J. (2000). The hierarchical structure of prefrontal cortex subserving direct and indirect inhibition in recognition. Proceeding of the Seventh International Conference on Neural Information Procesing (pp. 862–867). Nishimura, K. (Ed.). (2001). The decline of gakuryoku ruins the country. Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Simbun Inc. (in Japanese). Niu, W. (2006a). The meaning of dragon: When yours is different from mine. American Journal of Psychology, 119(4), 655–659. Niu, W. (2006b). Development of creativity research in Chinese societies: A comparison of Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The international handbook of creativity (pp. 374– 394). New York: Cambridge University Press. Niu, W., Zhang, J. X., & Yang, Y. (2006). Does culture always matter: For creativity, yes, for deductive reasoning, no! In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp. 282–296). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ogura, Y. (2005). Report on the actual condition survey on the motivation and eagerness in science learning. Tokyo: Japan Science and Technology Agency (in Japanese). Oh, S. (2002). Educational policy for the promotion of gifted education. Paper presented at the Seminar on the promotion of gifted education. Seoul: Seoul Education Training Center (in Korean). Pearson, E., & Rao, N. (2006). Early childhood education policy reform in Hong Kong. Childhood Education, 82(6), 363–368. Phillipson, S. N. (2008). The optimal achievement model and underchievement in Hong Kong: An application of the Rasch measurement model. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50(2), 147–172. Phillipson, S. N., & McCann, M. (Eds.). (2007). Conceptions of giftedness: Sociocultural perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Phillipson, S. N., & Tse, Ka-on. (2007). Discovering patterns of achievement in Hong Kong students: An application of the Rasch measurement model. High Ability Studies, 18(2), 173– 190. Phillipson, S. N., Kaur, I., & Phillipson, S. (2003). A late developer – Gifted education in Malaysia within a global context. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 12(2), 135–175. Post, D. (2003). Post-secondary education in Hong Kong. Asian Survey, 43(6), 989–1011. Qu, X., & Shi, J. (2005). Evaluation and reward on verbal creativity of field dependent-independent children. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 19(6), 408–412. Quek, C. G. (2004). The Singapore evaluation experience: One country’s progress in gifted program development. In J.

1459 VanTassel-Baska & A. Feng (Eds.), Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program evaluation (pp. 205–226). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Quek, C. G. (2005). A study of scientific talent development in Singapore. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, College of William & Mary, VA. Quek, C. L. (2001). Laboratory classroom environment and teacher-student interaction among gifted chemistry students in Singapore secondary school. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Western Australia. Ramasubban, R. (1997). Differences in performance and choice of heuristics in mathematical problem solving among secondary three male gifted pupils in Singapore. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Rao, N., & Yuen, M. (2001). Accommodations for assimilation: Supporting newly arrived children from the Chinese mainland to Hong Kong. Childhood Education, 77(5), 313–318. Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F., H´ebert, T., Plucker, J., et al. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January?: The curriculum compacting study. CT: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Robaey, P., Cansino, S., Dugas, M., & Renault, B. (1995). A comparative study of ERP correlates of psychometric and Piagetian intelligence measures in intellectually average and hyperactive children. Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology, 96, 56–75. Rudowicz, E. (2004). Applicability of the test of creative thinking-drawing production for assessing creative potential of Hong Kong adolescents. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 202–218. Sang, B., Miao, X., & Deng, C. (2002). The development of gifted and non-gifted young children’s metamemory knowledge. Psychological Science, 25(4), 406–409, 424. Shen, X., & Zhang, L. (2006). The research and practice on the education of Juvenile College Students’ mental health. Gifted Education International, 22, 57–64. Shi, J. (1990a). Memory and memory monitoring of gifted and normal children. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 3, 323–329. Shi, J. (1990b). Memory and organization of memory of gifted and normal children. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2, 127–134. Shi, J. (1995). A system model of creativity. Developments in Psychology, 3, 1–5. Shi, J. (2004). Intelligence current in creative activities. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 170–185. Shi, J., & Xu, F. (1999a). Discovering Gifted Children. Beijing: China Esperanto Publishing House. Shi, J., & Xu, F. (1999b). Intelligence, motivation and creative thinking of supernormal and normal children. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 8(2), 11–15. Shi, J., & Zha, Z. (2000). Psychological research on and education of gifted and talented children in China. In K. A. Heller, F. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 757– 764). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

1460 Shi, J., Li, Y., & Zhang, X. (2008). Self-concept of gifted children aged 9-to 13-years-old. The Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(4), 481–499. Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (2004). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A Nation Deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 5–12). IA: The University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. Tan, C. S. (1999). Towards the ”gifted” label and its effects on their social relationships. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Tannenbaum, A. J. (2000). Giftedness: The ultimate instrument for good and evil. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 447–465). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Teo, C. T., & Quah, M. L. (1996). The relationship between perception and academic achievement of teenage pupils in the Gifted Education Program (GEP) in Singapore. Paper presented at the First Education Research Association, Singapore and Australian Association for Research in Education ERA-AARE Joint Conference, 25–29 November, 1996, Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore. Thaver, T. L. (1995). A study of the preferred teaching styles and their relationships with selected variables (gender, levels and subjects taught, and experience with the gifted) of teachers of the gifted in Singapore. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Thiruman, M. M. (2000). Understanding gifted adolescents in Singapore: A Dabrowskian perspective. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Tsai, D. M. (1999). An enrichment model: A study of developing a pilot program for gifted students. Gifted Education International, 14, 66–78. Tsai, D. M. (2005). An evaluation study of grade-compacting in gifted students. (NSC 93-2413-H-017-012). Tsang, D. Y.-K. (2006). The 2006–07 policy address: Proactive pragmatic always people first. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government. Retrieved 28, March 2007, from http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200610/11/ P200610110101.htm VanTassel-Baska, J., & Subotnik, R. (2004). Background variables of participants in two contrasting models of highly selective out of school science programs: A preliminary analysis. Presentation at the 51st Annual Convention of the National Association for Gifted Children, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. VanTassel-Baska, J., Avery, L., Struck, J., Feng, A., Bracken, B., Drummond, D., et al. (2003). The William and Mary classroom observations scales revised (COS-R). Williamsburg, VA: Center for Gifted Education. VanTassel-Baska, J., Quek, C., & Feng, A. (2007). The development and use of a structured teacher observation scale to assess differentiated best practice. Roeper Review, 29(2), 84–92. Wan, E. (2005). Teacher empowerment: Concepts, strategies, and implications for schools in Hong Kong. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 842–861.

S.N. Phillipson et al. Wong, M. C. C. (1992). Factors related to underachievement amongst high-ability secondary students in Singapore. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Wong, M. L. (1997). Meaning-making strategies in the literary reading of gifted secondary two students in Singapore. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Wong, M. S. W., & Watkins, D. (2001). Self-esteem and ability grouping: A Hong Kong investigation of the Big Fish Little Pond Effect. Educational Psychology, 21(1), 79–87. Wu, C. H., Cheng, Y., Ip, H. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2005). Age differences in creativity: Task structure and knowledge base. Creativity Research Journal, 17(4), 321–326. Wu, D. (2004). Study on the reading motivation of the supernormal children. Journal of Hefei University: Natural Sciences, 14(3), 86–90. Wu, W. T. (1983). Evaluation of educational programs for intellectually gifted students in junior high schools in the Republic of China. Paper presented at the 1983 annual convention of NAGC, Philadelphia. Wu, W. T., Chen, M. F., & Tsai, C. C. (1985). Personal traits, perceived learning environment, and education benefits of the intellectually gifted students in junior high schools. Bulletin of Special Education, 1, 277–312. Yeo, L. H. K. (2006). Effects of cooperative learning using the group investigation method on the behaviour states and quality of interaction of lower secondary gifted students. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Yuan, J., & Hong, D. (1990). A report from the investigation on intellectual gifted adolescents with CA-NPI. In CRGSCC (Ed.), The selected works on supernormal children of the last ten years in China (pp. 116–124). Beijing: Unity Publishing House. Yuen, M., & Furnham, A. (2005). Sex differences in selfestimation of multiple intelligences among Hong Kong Chinese adolescents. High Ability Studies, 16(2), 187–199. Yun, M., Shi, J., Tang, H., & Liu, Z. (2004). The speed of information processing (SIP) of 8–12 years old supernormal and normal children. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Society, 5(2), 233–248. Zha, Z. (1993). Programs and practices for identifying and nurturing giftedness and talent in the People’s Republic of China. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 809–814). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Zha, Z. (1998). Cross-cultural study on technical creativity of supernormal and normal children from China and Germany: Basic hypothesis and research method. In Z. Zha (Ed.). The mystery of the development of supernormal children: The collection of research on psychological development and education of supernormal children in China in the last 20 years (pp. 25–40). Chong Qing: Chong Qing Publishing House. Zha, Z., & Zhao, Y. (1990). A comparative study of personality and cognitive development between gifted and normal children. In: CRGSCC (Ed.), The selected works on supernormal children of the last ten years in China (pp. 125–133). Beijing: Unity Publishing House.

75

Recent Developments in Gifted Education in East Asia

Zhang, L. F., & Hui, S. K. F. (2002). From pentagon to triangle: A cross-cultural investigation of an implicit theory of giftedness. Roeper Review, 25(2), 78–82. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). The pentagonal implicit theory of giftedness revisited: A cross-validation in Hong Kong. Roeper Review, 22(2), 149–153. Zhang, Q., & Shi, J. (2006a). Intelligence and information processing during a visual search task in children: An event-related potential study. NeuroReport, 17(7), 747–752.

1461 Zhang, Q., & Shi, J. (2006b).China: Psychological research on gifted and talented ‘supernormal’ children. In B. Wallace & G. Eriksson (Eds.), Diversity in gifted education: International perspectives on global issues (pp. 293–296). London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Zou, Z., Shi, J., Yun, M., & Fang, P. (2003). Speed of information processing (SIP) of 7 year old intellectually supernormal & normal children. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(4), 527– 534. A brief review of special classes for the gifted in R.O.C. (1981). Gifted Education Quarterly, 4, 46.

Chapter 76

Gifted Education in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern Regions: History, Current Practices, New Directions, and Future Trends Taisir Subhi-Yamin

Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to provide a historical perspective on the origins of excellence in education in addition to an explanation of provisions available to gifted and talented children in the Arabian Gulf region and the Arabic countries in the Middle East. It concerns with an overview of the varying cultures in the region, each with their own experience practices; the development of terminology and conceptions of exceptionality; and current thinking on a number of major issues in the area of identification and the development of giftedness and creativity. This chapter will shed some light on new directions in gifted education. This chapter has encountered many of the major issues to face educators in both the Arabian Gulf and the Middle East, and those addressing gifted education over several decades. The aim is to offer a summary of these ideas, which can be divided into seven categories: gifts or talent as entities, the philosophy of gifted education, identification, programmes, educational technology and the “digital world”, future research, and challenges that lie ahead. Keywords A’ql (brain) · Al-Hikmah (wisdom) · Arabian Gulf · Arabic education · Computerized provision

Introduction As we prepare for the new millennium, gifted education (tarbiyat al-mowh¯ubeen) appears to be gaining T. Subhi-Yamin (B) Ulm University, Ulm, Baden-W¨urttemberg, Germany e-mail: [email protected]

much popularity in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern regions. Consequently, prominent issues relating to gifted education have been gaining momentum, interest, and support among ministries of education in these countries and government funds have been increasing. We should continue our effort and search for a new generation of knowledge in the form of ideas (afk¯ar), theories (nathary¯at), and practices (tajarob) to improve the educational provisions being made available for the gifted (mowh¯ub) and talented (motafwiq) learners who share our culture and language. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a historical perspective on the origins of excellence in education, in addition to an explanation of provisions available to gifted and talented children in the Arabian Gulf region including Iran and the Arabic countries in the Middle East. Because we are dealing with issues that have such important consequences for resource allocation and the future of children and the Gulf and Middle Eastern regions, it is important to look critically at both the past as well as the present situation and to decipher the future educational trends. This chapter concerns itself with an overview of the varying cultures in the Gulf and Middle Eastern regions, each with their own experience practices; the development of terminology and conceptions of exceptionality; and current thinking on a number of major issues in the area of identification and the development of giftedness (mowh¯ubiah) and creativity (Ibdaa’). In addition, this chapter will shed some light on new directions in gifted education. It has been a great learning adventure. I hope readers will enjoy the same rewarding journey

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 76, 

1463

1464

T. Subhi-Yamin

Middle East map provided by: www.worldatlas.com

History of Education in the Arabic Islamic Ancient Terminology and Conception Countries of Exceptionality The Middle East is the birthplace of three great religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Scruton, 2002). “. . . all stem from the same root; all have essentially the same basic beliefs, and are nourished from the same source” (G¨ulen, 2006a, 231). The Gulf and Middle Eastern regions are composed of 24 nations and five major languages: Arabic, Hebrew, Turkish, Farsi, and Urdu. It is encompassing people with extraordinary histories and cultures. The word “Arab” is applied to Jews, Christians, and Muslims who speak the Arabic language and identify themselves with the Arab way of life. Moreover, 5–10% of Arabs are Christians and have played a disproportionate role in the revival of the Arabic literature (Scruton, 2002).

In dealing with this subject, the author has returned to the sources of Islam, the Qur’an and the Hadith, and developed a methodology for dealing with the history of education in Islamic and Arabic countries in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern regions; ancient terminology; and the conception of exceptionality. Interactions among culture, language, and gifted education – as mediated by human cognition and social life, and expressed through linguistic features – have been the specific object of investigation in this chapter. Islam is an Arabic word. It means the act of res´ ignation to God (al-Ilah or all¯ah). The root word is SLM, pronounced “salam” which means peace (Ahmad, 1980).

76

Gifted Education in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern Regions

Islam as a religion and cultural system is based on knowledge. As the Qur’an states, each individual is responsible for the effective and efficient use of his/ her intellect to discover the truth (haqiqah), which represents the goal of human life, and to see things in the light of reality (Halstead, 2004). Every person is advised to pray: “O my Lord! Advance me in knowledge” (Al-Qur’an, 2006, 20:114). The Prophet Muhammad said, “to seek knowledge is obligatory for every Muslim”. It is clearly expressed in the Qur’an and the Hadith that it is the duty of a Muslim to seek al-Oloom al-Aqliyyah (intellectual sciences). This makes the seeking of elim (knowledge) sacred to Muslims (Halstead, 2004). As far as the brain (al-’Aql) is concerned, ’Aql is referred to in the Qur’an as logical ability. The Arabic word implies the utilization of the intellectual power of al-nutq (speech). In addition, the term qalb (the heart) is used as the organ of al-tafkir al-r¯uhi (spiritual thinking). The Qur’an states, In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created – Created man, out of a leech-like clot: Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful. He Who taught (the use of) the Pen. Taught man that which he knew not (Al-Qur’an, 2006, 96:1–5). ´ a means read, or recite, or reThe Arabic word Iqra´ hearse. It is impossible to produce in a translation the ´ a (read), complete orchestral harmony of the words Iqra´ teach (ta´aleem), qalam (pen), which imply reading, writing, books, study, research, and knowledge. “It is He Who brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers when ye knew nothing; and He gave you hearing (sam´a) and sight (basar) and intelligence (thaka´a) and affections: that ye may give thanks (to Allah)” (Al-Qur’an, 2006, 16:78). On the other hand, action is described in the Arabic language by the word (´amal). In Islamic and Arabic communities, a´ mal is actually the manifestation of to what degree Muslims are true servants of God (Ahmad, 1980). Actions are based on learning (ta´allum), enlightenment (tanweer), wisdom (hikmah), knowledge (Ma’rifah), expertise (khibrah), and task commitment (iltizam wa muthabarah). Wisdom (Hikma) has been of interest to the Sufi scholars and has been linked with the correct judgment and doing what is necessary to do at the right time and

1465

right place. Both theoretical and practical aspects of wisdom mean goodwill (G¨ulen, 2006b). Knowledge is described in the Arabic language by the word Ma’rifah. Arab and Muslim scholars greatly value knowledge. In the light of the literature review, knowledge was the central field of Sufi’s interests. Ma’rifah denotes skills, talents, self-realization, and immune system. Furthermore, Abu Hamid al-Ghaˇzali classified knowledge on three criteria: first, as obligatory or not (e.g., individual requisite (fard a´ yn) and social requisite (fard kif¯aya) which are obligatory for the Muslim community as a whole). Second, by source (e.g., Shar´ıyya Sciences (ul¯um shar´ıyya) and non-Shar´ıyya Sciences (ul¯um ghayr shar´ıyya)) including natural and philosophical sciences. Third, by social function (e.g., praiseworthy (mahm¯ud) sciences such as medicine and mathematics and blameworthy (mathm¯um) sciences such as magic and astrology) (Husaini, 1980). Husaini (1980) concluded that “the individually obligatory knowledge should be acquired first before gradually embarking upon specialisation, that is, the fard kif¯aya sciences are obligatory from the community’s viewpoint” (p. 41). This implies, according to al-Ghaˇzali, that social utility, requirements, and kif¯aya in a dynamic time–space context should be the criteria for task force development. Similarly, Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) pointed out that philosophical sciences are natural because all individuals are capable of knowing them by the very nature of thinking as a rational being (Husaini, 1980). Ma’rifah, also spelled Tariqah, Arabic Tariqah (“road”, “path”, or “way”), refers to the Muslim spiritual path toward direct knowledge (ma’rifah) of God or Reality (haqq). In the 9th and 10th centuries tariqa meant the spiritual path of individual Sufis (Tariqa, 2005). As the Qur’an states, “soon we will show them Our signs in the utmost horizons of the universe and within their own souls until it becomes manifest to them that this revelation is indeed the truth” (41:53). The Arabic Islamic culture asserted the importance of leadership (al-qiyyadiah) and wisdom (al-Hikmah). The Qur’an states, “Our Lord! send amongst them a Messenger of their own, who shall rehearse Thy Signs to them and instruct them in scripture and wisdom, and sanctify them: For Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise” (Al-Qur’an, 2006, 2:129).

1466

“A similar (favor have ye already received) in that We have sent among you a Messenger of your own, rehearsing to you Our Signs, and sanctifying you, and instructing you in Scripture and Wisdom, and in new knowledge” (Al-Qur’an, 2006, 2:151). Sufism believed that the most important form of “useful knowledge” is the direct knowledge cannot be described but rather experienced, and cannot be taught but rather received (Frager & Fadiman, 1984). Within Sufism the conception of certainty (yaqin) is described as a continuous access to direct knowledge. “Certainty is immediate; it is knowledge that your whole being knows. For example, imagine that you wish to know about peaches. One way would be to see slides of different peaches, to study their biology; to learn about the methods of cultivation, where they are grown, how much they cost, what pests they attract, and so on. Experiencing a peach is comparable to certainty” (Frager & Fadiman, 1984, pp. 488–489). Sufism seeks to educate people. This is a path demanding the individual’s active participation in his/ her cognitive and spiritual growth and development. In addition, Sufism concentrates on the individual’s inner world and deals with a number of key concepts and characteristics that should be considered as important mean to “elevate each individual to the rank of a universal, perfect being (al-insan al-kamil). This is very famous Sufi term denotes an individual’s final spiritual perfection which causes him/ her to have a universal nature that can represent the entire creation and reflect all that is best in it” (G¨ulen, 2006b, xviii). Sufis view reflection (Tafakkur) as a vital step in conducting observation and of being able to get more knowledge and to draw conclusions. Tafakkur means to think on a subject deeply, systematically, and in great details (G¨ulen, 2006b). A number of key concepts were introduced by Sufism. The truly creative and productive (Muntig) people were characterized by: –

– – –

T. Subhi-Yamin

– Self-confidence (Thiqa) and sensitivity (Hasasiyah) to community needs. – Ethical (Khuluq) qualities. – Humility (Tawad´u) and treating others humbly and respectfully. – Truthfulness (Sidiq) and good reputation. – Modesty (Haya´a). G¨ulen (2006b) defined haya´a as “shame, bashfulness, and refraining from saying or doing anything improper or indecent” (p. 89). – Thankfulness (Shukr) and using one’s body, abilities, motivation, and thoughts in actions or daily life. – Patience (Sabr). G¨ulen (2006b) defined sabr as “enduring, bearing, and resisting pain, suffering and difficulty, and being able to deal calmly with problems” (p. 99).

In addition, Sufism shed some light on other important attributes and behavioural characteristics, including expansion (Inbisat), which indicates an attribute of the intellectuals who are interested to serve their community. This requires highly committed person with clear decision (Qast and Azm). It means “confidence, determination, choosing, single mindedness, thinking and reasoning moderately and deliberately, and living a moderate and balanced life” (p. 117). Sufi scholars believe that Qast and Azm will never achieve any aims and objectives without strong Irada (willing). Irada means that “the mental power by which a person can direct his/her thoughts and actions” (p. 120). According to the Sufi scholars, the person’s contribution could reach certainty (Yaqin) when he/ she has no doubt about the truth of a matter and arriving at accurate, doubt-free knowledge through precise verification (G¨ulen, 2006b). One’s yaqin is coming from knowledge, direct observations, and experience. More behavioural characteristics could be derived from the literature pertinent to Sufism. Insight and discernment (Basira and Firasa) are two other attributes Sadness or sorrow (Huzun) to express the pain one that could be added to the list of behavioural charactersuffers while fulfilling his/ her duties. Sadness arises istics of able people. These attributes mean perception, from the individual’s perception of what it means to intelligence, and the ability to predict the consequences of any action (G¨ulen, 2006b). be human (G¨ulen, 2006b). G¨ulen (2004) believes that social justice and develPiety (Taqwa) means purity of heart and sincerity. Task commitment (Iltizam) and sincerity or loyalty opment could be achieved by tolerance, quality education, and adequate universal education. He pointed out (Ikhlas). Responsibility (Mas´ouliyah) and straightforward- that the Arabic Islamic countries should extend the past and should support quality education. ness (Istiqama).

76

Gifted Education in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern Regions

The mosque and its school (madrasah), together with the souq or bazaar, formed the public spaces in traditional Muslim towns (Scruton, 2002). The madrasah building had a large courtyard with nearly a thousand cubicles, where students from all parts of the country came to stay. Boarding and lodging were free. The primary schools were generally founded by elite ranked statesmen or sultans and located within mosque complexes (k¨ulliye), adjacent to a mosque or in a separate structure. Because they demanded little in terms of investment in finance and space, they were to be found in every village, every neighbourhood, and every district (Cook, 2000; Shaw, 2001). In addition, depending upon the specifics of their charters, such schools might be coeducational or have separate buildings for girls (banat) and boys (awlad). In agreement with G¨ulen (2006a), creation is the object employed by the gifted and talented. Their role is very important and they are expected to serve their families, relatives, neighbours, countries, and humanity. From Islamic point of view, the principal duty in life is to acquire intellectual and spiritual perfection in thinking, perceptions, and belief (G¨ulen, 2006a). “The majority of people can train their bodies, but few can educate their minds and feelings” (G¨ulen, 2006a, 202). More recently, the resolution on Child Care and Protection in the Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, adopted by the 10th session of the Islamic Summit Conference (Putrajaya, Malaysia, 11–18 October 2003), stipulated the necessity to safeguard children’s rights and fulfil the obligations of the states thereon. The author got the report of this conference from the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO). Furthermore, the author edited the report in order to report its content in this chapter. This international organization was entrusted with convening the First Islamic Ministerial Conference on the Child, in cooperation with United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the Organization of Islamic Conference (UNDP, 2004). The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is a group of 57 geographically scattered countries with predominantly Muslim populations. Stretching from Indonesia to Morocco and from Uganda to Kazakhstan, they are home to 1.3 billion people, but their economies are generally among the world’s poorest, and illiteracy levels are among the highest. Six of the eight poorest countries

1467

on the planet are OIC members (Rahman and Nasim, 2004). The 57 member states of the OIC asserted to double their efforts in raising (isl´ah) the quality of primary education and to make it available, free and compulsory (ilz´ami) to all; to progressively work toward making secondary, higher, and vocational education and technical training generally available and accessible to all; and to care for the gifted and talented. In addition, these member states reaffirmed the commitment to achieve gender equality in education by 2015, in light of decisions and recommendations issued by conferences on education for all, with a focus on ensuring permanent and equal access to full basic education of good quality for girls and young women (UNDP, 2004). Furthermore, they affirmed the need to (1) create childfriendly environments where children can feel safe, protected from abuse, violence, and discrimination and are healthy and encouraged to learn and (2) ensure that education programmes and materials fully reflect the promotion and protection of human rights and the values of peace, tolerance, dialogue, and gender equality, under the provisions of the International Decade for a Culture of Peace (thaqafat al-salam) and NonViolence for the Children of the World, 2001–2010. Hasan (2000) reported that Jordan, for example, has recently developed and implemented a comprehensive educational reform project aimed at improving the quality of school learning and teaching. The project called for, among other things, a school curriculum that is differentiated to meet student diversity: it promotes critical thinking skills, relates school learning to work and life, and enables students to use their school learning in problem solving and decision making. For teachers, the project obliged them to further develop their expertise through staff development programmes and activities to make them effective in realizing the new learning goals envisioned by the school curriculum.

The Educational Process: Aims and Philosophy The aims of the educational process in the Arabic countries were formally set out in the 1960s and were derived from a variety of sources. Prior to the 1960s, education was based on the Arabic Islamic heritage and a view of knowledge inherited from the British and the

1468

French. This philosophy emphasized cognitive development and excellence in education. Its purpose was to develop the mental ability of children, but it did not take into account the development of the whole person or the needs of the society. The old aims of education concentrated on instilling knowledge, facts, and information. Students learned subject matter by heart, although it often did not link with their daily lives. These aims and objectives (ahdaf wa ghayat) reflect the influence of international developments in the region’s educational systems. The problem has become whether the new philosophy and its associated aims of education can be realized in practice by societies that possess traditional attitudes toward education. Current practices reveal that these aims are general and vague and not sufficiently defined to permit easy translation into curriculum objectives or instructional materials, making it difficult to institutionalize them and realize them adequately in practice. Aims do not show where and how they could fit into the general philosophy of education for these countries. Neither does it show how they can be used to develop specific curriculum measures.

The Characteristics of the Educational Process Arabic and Islamic countries face a number of problems and challenges in relation to education in general and gifted education in particular. Problems vary in complexity and magnitude from state to state. The First Conference for Education Development (1987), which took place in Jordan, summarized the weaknesses of the Arabic educational process as follows: (1) The region suffered from educational neglect (ihmal) during many centuries of foreign domination. During the earlier years of this century, efforts were directed primarily toward the expansion of available resources and little attention was paid to quality. (2) The region is still far from providing sufficient facilities for all school-age males and females. (3) Among the most serious problems which reduce the efficiency and increase the real cost of education are excessively high dropout and repetition rates in all education cycles.

T. Subhi-Yamin

(4) Teachers making suitable provisions for gifted and talented students are not always appreciated. (5) Lack of ability (qudrah) and interest (ihtimam) in creating a supportive environment, which is essential for nurturing gifts and talents. (6) Lack of opportunities for students to participate in discussions on issues of concern to them. (7) Lack of interest on the part of males in joining the teaching profession in both the Arabian Gulf and the Middle East regions, coupled with a high turnover rate due to a variety of moral, material, professional, and social causes. (8) Shortage of qualified teachers in academic and vocational secondary schools.

Change, Innovation, and Development Change and innovation (ibtikar) have always been a vital part of human existence, yet only in the recent past has the process of change been transformed into a worldwide revolution (thawra). This revolution originated in Western Europe, but only as the process of modernization became an increasingly universal experience. In one Arabic country after another, the transformation of traditional society and culture has taken place, though at varying speeds and in different ways (Subhi-Yamin, 1997). Schools are viewed as instruments of change, and maxims about this are frequently encountered in the speeches of Arab officials (Al-Tall, 1979; Szyliowics, 1973). Practically speaking, every country is seeking to achieve a rapid rate of economic growth. Underlying the huge investment being made in education is the belief that schooling is a major variable determining the level of economic development. In general, researchers have concluded that positive relationships do exist between the formation of human capital – in which education is a major component – and economic growth. Experts have calculated that much of the rise in income in the United States between 1900 and 1956 was due to improvements in workers’ educational qualifications. The (former) USSR and Japan are often cited as further evidence of this relationship. All three countries possessed highly developed educational processes, and a significant proportion of their population was literate before the economy began to undergo rapid development (Sa’ab, 1980; Szyliowics, 1973).

76

Gifted Education in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern Regions

Gifted Education Arab research into creativity, intelligence, and giftedness is dominated by the Western view of these concepts (Khaleefa, 1999; Subhi-Yamin & Maoz, 2000). Khaleefa’s meta-analysis suggested that there was a need for both indigenous and cross-cultural studies of creativity, intelligence, and giftedness. Furthermore, Khaleefa believed that employing the “practice of importing methods of studying creativity, intelligence and giftedness without rigorous adaptation is handicapping [for Arab research in these concepts]” (p. 25). Khaleefa concluded that the Arab world must develop an indigenous psychology of creativity, intelligence, and giftedness that is specific to their needs by testing the generalizability of current notions of these concepts. Without this research, the Western view will continue to influence the processes of identification. Khaleefa’s (1999) concerns are highlighted in a recent study of Islamic women living in the United States. Although not an empirical study, Al-Lawati and Hunsaker (2002) described five dimensions of the development of five gifted Islamic women, including social motivation, spiritual motivation, and a focus for change. These dimensions are not seen in Western conceptions of giftedness. Phillipson, Kaur, and Phillipson (2003) concluded that “gifted education in Malaysia’s neighbours reflects a reliance on intelligence tests as initial indicators of giftedness and the need for students to continually prove their ongoing giftedness, reflecting, in part, the reliance on Western conceptions of giftedness. However, there are strong indications that other cultures have different conceptions of giftedness. Without first understanding how giftedness is understood within Malaysian culture, Malaysian education risks conflict between different value systems, or possibly losing these conceptions altogether, if they decide to rely on Western conceptions” (p. 157) Gifted education in the Arabian Gulf did not draw much attention (intibah) until the first school for the gifted and talented was established in Jordan in 1991 and a centre for the gifted and talented was established in 1999 in the State of Qatar. The establishment of the centre was considered given highest priority by the Ministry of Education. In 1995, the Jordanian government introduced acceleration options such as early

1469

entrance into elementary school, grade skipping, and early graduation from secondary school. In the Arabian Gulf and the Middle East, like other developing regions, gifted children are regarded as the elemental modernization of society. About 55% of the population are under 15, every third person is a student, and the regions’ governments spend about 8% of its annual budget on education. School is organized around three cycles: elementary (6–12 year olds), preparatory (13–15 year olds), and secondary (16–19 year olds). The first two cycles are compulsory for all boys and girls. All schools follow the curriculum laid down by the Ministry of Education, and Arabic is the medium of instruction. In elementary school, children learn Arabic, religion, mathematics, geography, science, drawing (for boys), embroidery (for girls), music, drama, and physical education. Starting from the fifth grade, all children learn English as their second language. The preparatory cycle was added in the 1960s, providing children with an education designed to prepare them for secondary education or the labour market. This cycle is seen as enabling students to develop scientific thinking; to form positive notions about life and society; to have respect for truth, discipline, and work; and to recognize their rights and responsibilities. Those students who pursue the secondary cycle take the General Secondary Examination (Tawjihi) at the end of the cycle. Arabic is the medium of instruction and English is a compulsory subject. Although many educational bodies in Arabic countries are responsible for minor aspects of education, the Ministry of Education in every Arabic country maintains centralized control of all education other than universities. The ministry recruits all teachers in state schools, administers the Tawjihi, and provides all educational resources including textbooks, prepared centrally, which are given out free of charge to children in the compulsory cycle and at cost to students in the secondary cycle. In recent years, however, the Ministry of Education in each country has taken a number of steps to decentralize the control. For example, it now delegates responsibility for implementing ministry decisions with regard to staffing, scholarships, and building. As of 1998, 74.9% of academic and vocational secondary school teachers were untrained, but an increasing number of teachers are attending 2-year part-time postgraduate diploma courses in education

1470

offered by universities. The universities now also offer courses for a B.Ed. degree and gifted education. Teaching the gifted and talented reflects particular competencies (knowledge, skills, and expertise), therefore, those who are not qualified to teach the gifted and talented should be provided incentives (hawafiz) to participate in formal training and professional development programmes that include ongoing activities for all school personnel.

The Multiple Criteria Identification Processes

T. Subhi-Yamin

instruments and procedures must match with the programme provided to gifted and talented children (Subhi-Yamin, 1992). Current practices based on the adopted definition reveal that six types of tools are being administered: standardized intelligence (thaka´a) tests, creativity (ibda´a) tests, achievement (tahseel) tests that measure abilities, rating scales (e.g., Scales for Rating the Behavioural Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS)), inventories (e.g., interests and learning styles), and attitude (itijah´at) surveys (e.g., attitudes toward gifted education). Task commitment (iltizam wa mothabra) is measured by tests of achievement, rating scales, and judgment (hukm) of teachers and parents.

“There is something that is much more scarce, something finer far, something rarer than ability. It is the ability to recognise ability” (Elbert Green Hubbard).

The major purpose of a multiple criteria identification process is to determine which children have a need for special educational provision, whether as a supplement or as an alternative to regular mainstream instruction, and to pinpoint or diagnose their special needs (Subhi-Yamin, 1992). The multiple criteria identification process should be flexible and inclusive rather than exclusive (Feldhusen & Wyman, 1980). According to Hallahan and Kauffman (1981) potentially gifted and talented individuals can go through life unrecognized for their gifts and talents because they are not given the right opportunities to employ their gifts and talents in efficient and productive ways. Gifted children are identified in the Gulf and Middle Eastern regions as those who have demonstrated high ability (including high intelligence), high creativity, high task commitment, and behavioural characteristics. Three Arabic countries, Jordan, Bahrain, and Egypt, have added specific academic achievement (e.g., in mathematics) as the fifth criterion. The multiple criteria identification procedure adopted by the Arabic countries is based on a number of principles (or rationales), including (1) gifted and talented children should be identified as early as possible in their educational careers; (2) the focus of identification is not to label students, but to recognize and respond to gifted and talented students’ educational needs; (3) the identification of gifted and talented students requires the utilization of formal and informal measures obtained from many sources in a wide variety of settings; and (4) identification

Alternative Models of Provision Changing philosophies and goals, economic priorities, and what we know about gifted children imply the need for multiple aims for gifted education in Arabic countries including developing an efficient and comprehensive procedure for identifying gifted and talented students in school as early as possible; providing gifted and talented students with an educational environment that enhances their abilities (qudrat); developing problem-solving abilities and creative thinking skills, research skills, individual interests, independent study skills, communication skills in the humanities (visual, oral, and written), and intellectual learning activities. Problem formulation abilities are also very valuable in all endeavours. An appropriate curriculum (minhaj) is crucial to gifted education, and some instructional strategies may be more efficient than others in delivering the appropriate content to gifted students (Fox, 1981). Renzulli (1980) noticed that gifted programmes are too often patchwork collections of random practices and activities; he suggested that differentiated programmes for the gifted must include modification of the ways in which advanced materials are presented. Because we are dealing with an issue that has such important consequences for resource allocation and for the future of children, it is important to look critically at the nature of the process involved in identifying gifted and talented children and provide them with special provision and programmes to meet their special needs.

76

Gifted Education in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern Regions

Indeed, this education challenged al-Ghaˇzali, insofar as he relied exclusively on experience derived from subjective s¯ufi practices. In al-Ghaˇzali words, one only attains equilibrium (´ad˘ala) and harmony (intiz˘am) when one’s actions coincide with the aggregate of most noble virtues. It is with the perfection of the ability to attain temperance (hilm), to show and acquire courage (shujaah), and a certain amount of harmony, equilibrium, and justice (´ad˘ala) that the self acquires sovereignty over the body (Moosa, 2005). Al-Ghaˇzal¯ı’s description of the intellect foreshadows the developmental models of Piaget and Inhelder. He distinguishes four stages of development. First, curiosity or the need for competence. Second is “axiomatic” intellect, which is the capacity to understand logical relationships. The third element is “empirical knowledge”; this aspect is concerned with external things and events. The fourth element to appear is the “developed” intellect, which is a higher form of the original drive for understanding. “It is this quality of the intellect that guides inner development” (Frager & Fadiman, 1984). Based on al-Ghaˇzal¯ı’s description, the conventional methods of teaching can retard the “developed” intellect if its function is not understood (Frager & Fadiman, 1984). Recently, to recruit students with great potential in mathematics and science, high schools were utilizing interviews and oral tests as well as written tests to diagnose students’ problem-solving ability in mathematics and science. Application to science high school was restricted to students who rank high in mathematics, science, or information technology olympiads, or nationwide contests. In addition, high achievers in all subject areas from junior high schools were also given the opportunity to apply. As a result, science high schools are composed of a very homogeneous group of students. This admission policy resulted in students who were exceptionally talented in one particular subject of either mathematics or other science, but are not prizewinners, not getting a chance to be admitted. The rapidly changing field of giftedness and creativity is opening rich possibilities for gifted and talented children to gain valuable learning experiences, and is providing an environment for creative expressions. The major goals of programmes and special provisions designed for gifted and talented children are to help them develop higher levels of competencies and productive thinking skills.

1471

Included in the very broad spectrum of forms of special provision for the gifted and talented are acceleration and enrichment, and it is increasingly being recognized that they are best seen as complementary. A number of acceleration models are in place, such as grade skipping in Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Qatar, and Kuwait, and grade or advancement placement in single subjects in Egypt, Morocco, and Lebanon. Other special provisions include grouping within the ordinary class, special schools, and special classes, providing resource rooms, extracurricular activities, and similar measures. Provision outside the traditional school has also been reported, such as competitions, summer camps, and mentoring programmes (Urban, 1993). Private groups, such as the National Association for Gifted Children, support family emotional needs, offer summer schools, and promote the children’s interests to the public. New enrichment materials have been produced, and a number of workshops are being conducted in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern regions. Survey studies conducted in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern regions (Subhi-Yamin, 1997) indicated that the most common form of provision for gifted children at the primary level is permission to leave their normal classes for a resource room or computer lab with a specially trained teacher. This is followed by self-contained classes. At the secondary level, grade skipping, special classes, and independent studies were applied most often. In addition, mathematically gifted students profit by participating in accelerated mathematics programmes.

Thinking Skills Projects: A Critical Priority for Talent Development As we begin a new century, it is a good time for the Arabian Gulf and Middle Eastern regions to reconsider the purposes of schooling and the things that educational leaders can do to prepare young people for creative and productive lives in a rapidly changing world. As we move toward a modern, post-industrial world, creativity, inventiveness, entrepreneurship, and concerns about social well-being will determine which nations initiate ideas and provide leadership for continued productivity, economic growth, and improved societal services for all of our citizens.

1472

The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC G/T) based in Connecticut, USA has a long and honoured relationship with educators in both the Arabian Gulf and the Middle East regions who share a similar belief that developing the gifts and talents of young people is one of the most important responsibilities of a nation’s comprehensive education system. The economic, social, and cultural wellbeing of any nation is directly related to the quality of thinking, problem solving, and creative productivity demonstrated by its citizens. The Gulf Arab States Educational Research Center (GASERC) recognized the need to develop the thinking skills of all of its young people by proposing an innovative curriculum development programme and related teacher training that would foster talent development and maximize the creativity, inventiveness, and the mathematical, scientific, and language arts pursuits of the young people who are to become future leaders in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle East regions. In 2002, both the Arab Bureau of Education for the Gulf States (ABEGS) and the Gulf Arab States Educational Research Center (GASERC) signed a contract with the NRC G/T to develop the Thinking Skills Project. This project is based on an approach to education that focuses on maximizing the potential of each child as a learner, a thinker, and a creative producer. The plan for the project is built around the four major subject areas that are the core of all scholastic curricula (mathematics, science, social studies, and language arts) and three major dimensions of thinking that have been identified in the research literature (creative thinking, critical thinking, and problem solving). Curricular focus on the intersection between and among these subject areas and thinking skills has demonstrated effectiveness in bringing about significant changes in advanced levels of learning in young people. A highly qualified team of curriculum writers and teacher trainers was selected under the leadership of Dr. Joseph S. Renzulli to prepare the thinking skill activities across the grade levels for each of the four major subject areas. Members of the GASERC team under the direction of Dr. Taisir Subhi-Yamin contributed to the training guides and were responsible for translations from English into Arabic. The general approach recommended in the training was one of infusing more effective thinking skill practices into existing school structures rather than replacing the ways in which schools are organized and operated.

T. Subhi-Yamin

Research opportunities in a variety of special programmes allowed gifted educational practices in the Arabian Gulf and Middle Eastern regions to develop instructional procedures and programming alternatives that emphasize the need to (1) provide a broad range of advanced-level enrichment (ithr´a) experiences for all students and (2) use varied student responses to these experiences as stepping stones for relevant follow-up on the parts of individuals or small groups. This approach is not viewed as a new way to identify who is or is not “gifted!” Rather, the process simply identifies how subsequent opportunities, resources, and encouragement can be provided to support continuous escalations of student involvement in both required and selfselected activities. Educational leaders in both the Arabian Gulf region and the Middle East have made an important commitment to help students acquire thinking skills in multiple curricular areas. The types of activities included in this project should be viewed as opportunities to develop gifted behaviours in young people rather than to merely find and certify a person as “gifted” or not gifted! The region’s experience has shown that all students benefit from an approach that makes cognitively rich activities available to the general population of students. Struggling, average, or advanced learners who can ascend to the highest levels of academic and creative accomplishment can benefit from thinking skills training. In using these activities, students are encouraged to become responsible for extending their own learning and develop a passion and joy for learning that results from using their advanced powers of mind. As students pursue problem-solving opportunities and thinking skill challenges, they learn naturally to acquire communication skills and to enjoy creative challenges. The activities provide the opportunity for each student to develop his or her gifts and talents and to begin the process of lifelong learning.

Problem Solving (hal mushkilat) Problem solving session, activities, and programmes are available in a large number of schools in the Arabic countries. Both public and private schools provide educational experiences that use a set of problem-solving strategies, such as looking for a pattern; comparing and contrasting; making a list; guessing and testing; search-

76

Gifted Education in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern Regions

ing randomly; setting up a question; and working backward. The task, however, is to find realistic ways to implement programmes which develop thinking skills in the classroom (McCluskey & Walker, 1991). A number of private and public schools in both the kingdoms of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia allow students in the secondary level the opportunity to employ creative problem solving (CPS). Students are quite familiar with SCAMPER (Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to other uses, Eliminate, Rearrange). “SCAMPER” is a checklisting tool that uses an acronym to prompt the use of several action words or phrases to evoke or “trigger” new or varied options. It is based on Alex Osborn’s “Idea Spurring Questions” (Treffinger et al., 2003, 6). In agreement with McCluskey, Treffinger, and Baker (2002) “creative problem solving is one mechanism that can facilitate the process of challenging students, focusing on problem solving, and teaching for talent development”. (p. 4) During the next decade, the main focus should be on using different approaches to provide students with opportunities to explore and experience productive thinking derived from their own social environment.

1473

More recently, the future problem-solving programme and programmes for developing (tatweer) thinking skills have been spreading throughout the Arabian Gulf and the Middle East regions and now involve more than 2 million students. Torrance argued that students need to be able to see clear links between school learning and their current and future lives outside the school. He viewed the school’s role as enabling students to enlarge, enrich, and make more accurate images of the future. In addition, he recognized the need to provide mentoring support for highly creative students, who tend to be “too full of ideas”. He established the “future problemsolving” programme, which challenges highly creative students while teaching them group problem-solving skills and teamwork. Participants work through a series of challenges following the CPS strategy and a number of other creative thinking methods including scenario building. His focus on the development of creativity via the normal delivery of the school curriculum is particularly attractive. As he remarks, this is not an easy option, as it demands the most skilled teaching. Torrance suggested three methods for teaching creatively, including the incubation model of teaching (which consists of three elements: warming up to get attention, heightening expectations, and stimulating curiosity; deepening expectations; and keeping things Future Problem Solving going), sociodrama (as a useful method uses a variety of problem-solving techniques to resolve the conflict), The Ikhwan al-Safa were very much interested in prob- and quality circles (it comprises a small group of lem solving and the epistemology or the theory of young people working together to solve a problem knowledge. The name Ikhwan al-Safa was assumed by which has a direct impact on them, in order to improve a group of Muslim scholars who cultivated science and the quality of their lives, environment, or work). philosophy not for the sake of science and philosophy, but in the hope of forming a kind of an ethicospiritual community in which the elites of the heterogeneous Muslim Empire could find a refuge from the de Bono Thinking Skills Programme struggle that was raging among religious congregations, national societies, and Muslim sects themselves In Saudi Arabia, King Abdulaziz and His Companions Foundation for the Gifted and Talented adopted (Farrukh, 2006). The prevailing belief in ancient times was that the the de Bono CoRT programme. In addition, the Minheart constituted the most important organ of the body: istry of Education in Bahrain, the Ministry of Eduthe centre of sensation, the seat of intelligence, and cation in Kuwait, and the Ministry of Education in the house of life. Aristotle was also of this opinion. United Arab Emirates are currently employing this proThe Ikhwan al-Safa decided in favour of the brain and gramme throughout a large number of public schools. The Palestinian Ministry of Education currently emheld that it is the brain where the processes of perception, emotion, and concept formation develop (Far- ploys a number of teachers solely to develop de Bono’s thinking skills programme in schools. This pilot prorukh, 2006).

1474

gramme is an action research project on the effect of introducing de Bono’s thinking skills into primary schools. A similar project is being carried out in private schools in Jordan. In addition, de Bono’s work has had a considerable impact on organizational training provision in the Arabian Gulf region and the Middle Eastern countries.

T. Subhi-Yamin

education for all learners. This approach has been adopted by seven countries: Bahrain, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. More recently, a number of public and private schools in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle East started administering the Renzulli Learning System (renzullilearning.com) which is considered to be the most original and practical resource for classroom differentiation. This system provides teachers with a Differentiated Instruction rich and ready-made bank of learning styles, abilities, and interest-based resources that can be integrated into The current view of differentiated instruction in the curriculum in all grades and subjects. The Renzulli Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern regions is to Learning System is an exciting new interactive method modify lessons in the general education classroom, for developing high achievement and talent potentials adapt differentiated lessons in place of the regular in schools across the Arabian Gulf and the Middle classroom lessons (e.g., off-grade level instructional East. materials; conducting research within a course of study to extend learning; inquiry-based instruction; Socratic discussion; teaching higher-order thinking skills within the domain; complexity and depth of The Middle East content; and small group instruction for faster pace and less practice), and provide supplementary curricular resources and materials. Such resources should Egypt: Mentorship (talmatha) include provision of novels that replace basal readers; development of interest and learning centres; delivery In Egypt, the first special school for high achievers of community, library, and other resource materials was established in 1955. Eleven years later, more to the classroom; development of problem-solving programmes were designed and special classes were programmes to supplement math programmes; pro- founded. These programmes were established in vision of student contracts for individual study of recognition of the special educational needs of gifted advanced curriculum; use of interactive math and and talented children. Egypt has a long educational tradition. For thouscience materials to supplement the regular curricula; provision of curricula materials that allow flexible sands of years, Sufism (mysticism) has offered a path pacing; real-life problem-solving and problems-based on which one can progress toward the “great end” of learning; use of technology to extend studies; de- self-realization. It is a collection of t´adib (disciplinary velopment of book clubs to replace reading groups; education) and ta´addub (moral cultivation). It has been provision of mini-courses, modules, and mentors. described as means toward love, devotion, and knowlFurthermore, a number of provisions could be recom- edge. Through its many manifestations, it is an apmended, including: Gifted Individualized Educational proach that reaches beyond the intellectual and emoPlans; curriculum compacting; independent study tional obstacles that inhibit spiritual progress (Frager projects and contracts; mentors; dual-class enrolment; & Fadiman, 1984). Mentor connection is a new, 3-week, residential and extended research opportunities. In addition, it is recognized that it is important to identify the summer programme organized for national and intervarying abilities, interests, learning styles, attitudes, national young people entering the last 2 years of their high school experience. This programme provides and background knowledge among students. The intent of differentiated instruction is to maxi- opportunities to participate in creative projects and mize each student’s growth and individual success and investigations under the supervision of university mendesigning instruction that matches students’ needs in tors. Each year, accomplished university professors the general education classroom, thereby improving and graduate students work side by side with students

76

Gifted Education in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern Regions

on research projects, productions, and other works in progress in shared areas of interest. Students and mentors become a community of scholars of all ages working together on important problems that are on the cutting edge in the arts and sciences. Mentor connection students have the opportunity to participate in a variety of other experiences in addition to their preselected mentorship. Young people attend workshops designed to teach them about computer technology and state-of-the-art electronic data retrieval systems. Programme participants enter the real world of research; engage in hands-on, high-level learning; and emerge from the programme with new visions of who they might become. This programme allows students to achieve their highest potential by participating in experiential research projects that provide direct, apprentice-based involvement with faculty members who are conducting research in their respective disciplines.

1475

celebration of the late King Hussein’s accession to the throne. The Jubilee School was founded as an independent coeducational secondary school for outstanding scholarship students. In the Fall of 1993, 87 of Jordanian ninth graders, chosen for their exceptional individual and academic potential, embarked on a pioneering educational experience. The school expanded the following year to include 197 ninth and tenth graders. It is now well established and accommodates more than 600 gifted and talented Jordanian students. The second peak then emerged in 2000 with the establishment of academic programmes in Jordanian universities in the field of gifted education. Jordanian initiatives took place in both private and public schools and governmental support provided acceleration, enrichment, leadership, mentorship opportunities as well as curriculum differentiation to better meet the social, cognitive, affective, and emotional needs of the gifted and talented. The Jubilee School has developed a number of “Gifted Individualized Educational Programmes (GIEPs)”. These programmes have been implemented Kingdom of Jordan in a number of public and private schools in Jordan. The GIEPs can range from independent study activGifted children need greater pace, breadth and depth ities (to supplement, extend, or substitute classroom than most other children. This implies a need to provide work for gifted and talented students) to formalized all kinds of provision in order to enrich the normal aca- long-term planning. The main components of GIEP demic curriculum in breadth and depth (Urban, 1993). involve the adaptation of content, the process, the It is clear that enrichment (ithr´a) should provide oppor- product, and the learning environment, if necessary, tunity for creative production and expression of ideas after a careful assessment of individual strengths and and actively train general strategies or techniques of weaknesses. study, which can then be applied to intellectual work in general. Since the 1990s, there have been numerous practices of acceleration, a variety of innovative enrichment activities, and content modification based on appropri- Lebanon ately differentiated learning opportunities. The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM) is employed in a large In Lebanon, there is still no official definition of either number of schools in Jordan. Students are given the the conception of giftedness or the conception of creopportunity to pursue their own special interests by be- ativity, or public policy concerning gifted and talented coming firsthand inquirers and are enabled to develop children. Currently, a few special programmes for the necessary competencies for advanced levels of in- gifted students are being offered in individual schools or in clusters of schools or run as private enterprises, quiry in an area of interest. Beginning in 1993 and continuing until today, gifted mainly as after-school activities and Friday or Sunday education in Jordan progressed in a largely positive and classes, which offer students opportunities to interact accelerating movement. The first peak of interest co- with and be stimulated by other gifted and talented incided with the establishment of the Jubilee School. students. From time to time (not on a regular basis) a It is the first school for the gifted and talented stu- special workshop or field trip is organized by private dents. It was first announced in 1977 amidst Jordan’s schools.

1476

Since 1996, the field of gifted education, in Lebanon, has been successfully engaged in developing, promoting, and utilizing curricular and instructional strategies which are now recommended for use with all students. Scholars, amongst them Iman Osta and Katie M. Sarouphim, continue to bring new insights from gifted education and learning theories to the traditional education system. Practices in gifted education are very limited due to the civil war in the 1980s and the ongoing economic situation.

T. Subhi-Yamin

Very few people pursue education for the purpose of enlightenment and intellectual stimulation. In any educational institution, academic performance is given utmost importance because it fetches a person a lucrative job, allowing the person to survive in a highly competitive world. Thus, the effort to nurture the gifted and talented children in the traditional education system is a difficult and impractical task. Realizing the importance of gifted education and the need to nurture the gifted and talented, the Ministry of Education in Sudan has introduced a number of programmes. In addition, under the leadership of scholars (i.e. Prof. Omar Haroon Khalifah), a broadened conSyria cept of giftedness is finding new possibilities to develop, which in turn could strengthen the planned proIn Syria, there is still no official definition of the con- grammes by guiding various school practices, such as ception of giftedness nor identification procedure. Very identification procedures and the selection of curricula limited research has investigated the abilities of Syrian and instructional methods. students, examined how to nurture the gifted and talented, or explored how creativity might be related to intelligence. The educational system in Syria is vastly Arabian Gulf different in comparison to other countries such as the United States, England, and Germany. Thus, the quality of services provided for the gifted and talented, in The strategic location as well as the rapid internal both theory and practice, is still lacking. Academic in- social development that is occurring in each of these stitutions offer few courses in excellence and gifted ed- states in the Arabian Gulf is creating an increased ucation and few programmes and instrumentation are need for effective educational systems. Furthermore, developed for this purpose. In Syria, publications fo- the rapidly changing economies of these nations, cusing on excellence and gifted education are scarce. catalyzed by the massive development of natural This country faces challenges in staff development, ca- resources during the last 50 years, feed the need for pacity building, and preparing principals and teachers a highly skilled workforce. This implies that it is the to work with the gifted and talented, which must in- responsibility of the educational system to qualify clude the development of the conception of giftedness students and equip them with required competencies. and thorough understanding of gifted and talented stu- School in general could do a much better job in stimulating and nurturing gifted and talented children. dents’ special needs. In an effort to further broaden methods and process of screening and identification, researchers from all Arabian Gulf countries have cooperated to develop Sudan the Arabian Gulf Multiple Intelligences Tests. These tests will be standardized and local norms will be deWhen I look at the definition of giftedness in Sudan, veloped. I find no single or uniform line of thought. Not only have ancient conceptions of giftedness been devalued over the centuries but an educational system emerged in which the intellectual abilities of the citizens were Kingdom of Bahrain not recognized to their full potential. In this country, education is viewed as a pathway The Bahraini Association for the Gifted and Talented to get a job, gain financial security and social stabil- (BAGT) applauds and supports national initiatives to ity, and attain a higher social status and respectability. nurture the gifted and talented. The BAGT believes

76

Gifted Education in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern Regions

strongly in the emphasis on individual student needs; the teaching of productive thinking skills; teachers as facilitators, rather than knowledge providers; the use of interdisciplinary curricula; the encouragement of each student working on his/her own pace; the student belonging to a family; and the extension of learning beyond the textbooks. Along similar lines, the Bahraini Centre for the Gifted (BCGT), established in 2006 and affiliated with the Ministry of Education, has adopted both the threerings conception of giftedness and the multiple criteria identification process. The establishment of this centre is part of the Ministry of Education’s strategic educational plan for the future. In concurrence with the Ministry of Education’s plan for qualitative development, and within its efforts to improve the education system in Bahrain, it has been decided to establish The Bahrainin Centre for Appraisal and Assessment.

1477

(e.g., computer science, journalism, archaeology, space and astronomy, and philosophy). Privately organized Friday morning or after-school classes for special tutoring are common in Kuwait, for example, those designed to foster cultural traditions and languages. As far as competitions (munafas¯at or musabaq¯at) are concerned, Freeman (1990) pointed out that competitions can be a strategic way of finding and defining children’s capabilities. She added, “Many highly able children used [competition] quite consciously to improve their skills, because of the reward it offered them. But they knew that in order to be effective, the comparison had to be meaningful, as well as part of the process of getting to the top, which is not the same as the simple thrill of winning” (pp. 93–94). International, national, and regional competitions may be valuable assessments of and incentives for achievement. Further, competitions may provide feedback as to how the student compares with others who are interested in the same area. Competitions can be found in Arabic countries in most fields, including math, science, computer programming, writing, enState of Kuwait gineering, geography, environmental, art, music, and dance. During the last decades, competitions have become McCluskey, Treffinger, and Baker (2002) pointed out very popular in many countries in the Gulf and Midthat “in any subject area, there should be opportunities for flexible grouping and continuous progress. . . . stu- dle Eastern regions including Kuwait; and the number dents should be able to move through curriculum at a of participants in international competitions or educapace commensurate with their ability and accomplish- tional Olympiads has greatly increased. ments” (p. 5). After decades of neglect, the conceptions of both giftedness and creativity are now receiving more attention in Kuwait. It is for this reason that little attention Sultanate of Oman has been paid to grade skipping. A limited number of schools include productive thinking skills and creative Oman experienced the weaknesses of its traditional activities as an instructional strategy for reaching all educational practices, which tended to emphasize children. It is now becoming possible for gifted and teacher’s authority and neglected the student’s need to contribute as an active participant in educational talented students in Kuwait to “skip grades”. Gifted education in the State of Kuwait is being settings. In contrast, economic development and promoted, and the Ministry of Education has estab- competencies required for the workplace required lished a National Committee for the Gifted and Tal- active and effective participation. Recently, the Minented. Scholars and interested people in Kuwait are istry of Education has introduced new curricula and planning to form a law to enforce the consideration of instructional materials aimed at developing expertise gifted children in education. In addition, a national as- and equipping students with dynamic competencies sociation for the gifted and talented was established in relevant to productive professional practices. Furthermore, Oman is planning to establish a national centre the year 2008. Furthermore, special Friday courses constitute one for excellence in education in addition to a number of of the main services provided for gifted children. Many schools designed to offer differentiated curricula for different topics are offered for pupils in grades 6–8 the gifted and talented.

1478

State of Qatar

T. Subhi-Yamin

ine, think speculatively, and make bold connections between ideas. In Saudi Arabia, three enrichment programmes are provided for children from grade 3 to grade 12. These programmes are conducted on a part-time withdrawal basis one morning or afternoon per week. The Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1977) has been implemented in a large number of private schools in this country. Resource rooms, as a special provision for gifted and talented children, are used in this country. In a special room(s) within the school building, students work independently or under the guidance of a special resource teacher on freely chosen or assigned projects. The effective and efficient use of the resources room(s) depends on the availability of the trained and experienced resource teacher. More recently, King Abdulaziz and His Companions Foundation for the Gifted and Talented has contracted a team of international consultant to develop a strategic plan for developing gifted programmes in Saudi Arabia. The plan will be implemented during the coming 10 years.

In the State of Qatar, the Ministry of Education grounded its first programme designed to meet the special needs of the gifted and talented. The author established the Qatari Centre for the Gifted and Talented (QC/GT) in 2001. The QC/GT is the first of its kind in the Arabian Gulf region. This centre features special provisions for gifted and talented students; pre-service teacher training courses which enable teachers to build competencies in the teaching of the gifted and talented; support materials to assist teachers in recognizing the special needs of gifted and talented students; and promotes nationwide gifted programmes. In 2002, the Supreme Education Council (SEC) was established in the State of Qatar. It monitors the progress of education reform efforts and oversees the education and evaluation institutes, approving the institutes’ budgets and appointing the directors of each. The Supreme Education Council also approves contracts for independent schools. The SEC plays an integral role in the development and implementation of the education reform effort, which includes the development of special provisions for the gifted and UAE: A Strategy for Excellence in Education talented children. The main focus of gifted education programmes in the United Arab Emirates includes selecting target stuKingdom of Saudi Arabia dents, teacher training, curriculum, and special provision development. In the UAE, policy makers, educators, and parents In Saudi Arabia, research was conducted to describe the most effective approach for identifying gifted and believe that curricular designs and teaching and learntalented children. In addition, the Ministry of Edu- ing strategies such as higher-order thinking, creativity, cation has established a new department to support and enrichment programmes adopted in gifted educaprojects designed to meet the needs of gifted and tal- tion should also be applied in mainstream education. ented children and serve the country’s population of Schools may plan their school-based gifted developgifted and talented students. The department, in co- ment programme according to their current situation operation with King Abdulaziz and His Companions in terms of, for example, students’ abilities, interests, Foundation for the Gifted and Talented, will establish learning styles, characteristics, and teachers’ compehigh schools for gifted youth, enrichment programmes tencies (kifayat). The educational system and educators in the UAE as well as other projects of merit. These enrichment programmes are designed to fo- value: cus gifted students’ attention systematically on each aspect of a problem in order to reach a workable so- r Lifelong learning opportunities that respond to the needs of gifted, creative, and talented students and lution. It enables Saudi students to use more of their their parents and teachers and are accessible, affordthinking potential to generate more and better ideas able, and of the highest quality. and to work more effectively in a group. The key goals include restoring student’s natural capacity to imag- r Excellence and innovation.

76

r r

Gifted Education in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern Regions

Freedom to foster a virtual (iftiradi) educational environment. The public trust placed in this educational system to prepare children for their role as productive world citizens.

A unique master plan for gifted education in the United Arab Emirates was developed by a team of scholars from the University of Ulm. The Hamdan Bin Rashid Al-Maktoum Award for Distinguished Academic Performance (HBRAADAP) and the University of Ulm reached an agreement to implement this master plan and signed a contract on 17 October 2006. The estimated costs for the implementation of all action plans (1–8 and the Executive Plan) included in this master plan is EUR 19,738,000. This master plan provides HBRAADAP with a decision-making and action-oriented document that will serve as the basis for subsequent implementation. The general purpose of this master plan is to support and encourage the development of gifted students, through an understanding of their abilities, interests, and needs, by fostering appropriate educational opportunities for them at home, in school, and in the larger community. The Centre of Educational Sciences, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Ulm, is one of the leading educational institutions in gifted education. It serves as a vehicle for providing the kinds of intellectual leadership necessary for the further stimulation, advancement, and improvement of theory, research, and practice in educational psychology in general and gifted education in particular. This strategy was developed by a team of scholars from the Centre of Educational Sciences, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Ulm, Germany. Three members were involved in the development process: Taisir Subhi-Yamin, Albert Ziegler, and Heidrun Stoeger. It comprises nine action plans, namely, identification of gifted students; development of gifted educational material and programmes; training-qualified UAE gifted professionals; guidance and mentoring services; general awareness and scientific publishing materials; MoU with international bodies; organizational structure; and internal and external scholarships; and the execution plan. This ambitious project will have a strong positive impact on the educational system in the United Arab Emirates. It is associated with a number of unique

1479

contemporary characteristics, including leadership investment for the future; high standards; interactive developmental strategic processes; and national– international innovation. This master plan provides HBRAADAP with a decision-making and actionoriented document that will serve as the basis for subsequent implementation. Developing national manpower in the United Arab Emirates is a high priority for the leaders of this country. The UAE is making every attempt to identify all gifted and talented students and to provide educational opportunities to cultivate students who are able to solve problems using advanced productive thinking skills. The projects proposed by this strategy will address a number of talent domains, including sciences; math and computer technology; engineering; social and life sciences; business; leadership; and Islamic studies. The organizational changes look very positive when I take into consideration that new programmes will be established for the first time in this part of the world. On the other hand, these new projects also take into consideration the outcomes of research and studies done in this field and will rely more on a new conception of giftedness as well as a new model of identification. It provides a research-based conception of giftedness that has a logical connection to identification; staff development; general awareness; and curriculum programmes. A multiple criteria identification process will be used to accurately pinpoint Emirates gifted and talented students for appropriate programmes. Using multiple measures reduces the risk that students with specific disabilities or a history of underachievement are ignored. The process of identification for gifted and talented students must be dynamic and continuous, allow for identification at any stage of the child’s development, and allow for the highly talented to emerge from the larger talented group. As a result of implementing this master plan, it is expected that the UAE2007 Policy for the Education of the Gifted and Talented will be developed. This policy will include, but is not limited to, policy rationale and aims; definitions of giftedness; principles and procedures for identification; guidelines for staff development programme; guidelines for provisions and programmes; and guidelines for organizational issues (e.g., transition and transfer; resources; and monitoring and evaluation).

1480

This project harmonizes with the vision of the leadership in the United Arab Emirates. Based on the strategic vision of this country, it is planned to establish a National Centre for the Gifted and Talented (NC/GT) in the HBRAADAP. This centre will be one of the leading institutions, nationally and internationally, and will operate on different levels and tracks. The successful education of the gifted and talented is dependent on the attitudes, knowledge, and skills of their teachers, and the support services made available to them. The national collaborative effort that HBRAADAP has initiated will include ways of improving teacher training, at both the pre-service and in-service levels. Collaboration will also be sought to enhance the quantity and quality of curriculum information available to classroom teachers to meet the special needs of the gifted and talented. The National Centre for the Gifted and Talented will be requested to strengthen the services provided by HBRAADAP. In sum, 2000 teachers will be trained; 300 principals and teachers will be qualified for a M.A. in gifted education; and 40 specialists will be qualified for Ph.D. in gifted education. In addition, the Institute for Gifted Education and Excellence (UAE/IGEE) will be established in Ulm University in Germany, its resources and tasks include 16 specialists in guidance and counselling; 16 specialists in Educational Technology; 1 annual exchange programme for gifted and talented children; 1 annual exchange programme for the teachers of the gifted and talented; and 4 Olympiads. Furthermore, 36 5-day workshops will be conducted; 70 books will be developed in both Arabic and English; 5 international conferences will be organized; 5 documentary films will be produced; 1 international scholarship programme, 1 national and regional scholarship programme, a national team for screening and identification, a national team for curricula differentiation, and an e-Centre will be established; a number of research studies will be conducted; 3,600 gifted and talented students will be identified and 28 schools for the gifted and talented will be established. The HBRAADAP’s recent initiatives are aimed at ensuring that the most efficient and productive use is made of the available resources including the UAE/IGEE and the e-Centre. Furthermore, new horizons will be open to Emirates professionals working with the gifted and talented via international bridging with leading international universities.

T. Subhi-Yamin

Future Planning in the Arabian Gulf Educational planning is at a critical point in Arabic countries in general and the Arabian Gulf states in particular. Good progress has been made in terms of the overall development of the public education system. However, the progress is always shadowed by the awareness that the education systems in place are still not reaching the total educable population, nor are they totally eradicating illiteracy in the Arabian Gulf states. In most of the countries in the Arabian Gulf region, students continue to be identified based on how well they perform on achievement and ability tests. In addition, some Arabic countries consider nomination methods that reflect students’ leadership, creativity, interests, and learning styles. A limited number of tools have been Arabized and standardized to be employed in a multiple criteria identification process. Current practice outcomes reveal that some students are being overlooked by the traditional methods employed. In order to project a greater emphasis on the value of education in the region, the Arab Thought Forum, an intellectual organization and a nongovernmental cooperative venture in the Arab nations, convened in Jordan to produce an action plan for educational development in the Arab world. This document, now in its final revision and already endorsed by all Arab nations, includes guidelines for excellence in education and standards.

The Gifted and Talented in the Digital World Many reasons have been brought up for introducing computers (hwaseeb) in education. Hawkridge, Jaworski, and McMahon (1990) summarize these reasons in terms of six rationales: First, a social rationale to equip all students for a future in which technological awareness and basic computer skills will be necessary. This implies that individuals should follow courses of computer awareness. Second, a vocational rationale to build a resource base of people skilled in information technology. Computer education should be related to future jobs, and individuals should be prepared to function adequately as professional workers in a technological society. Third, a pedagogical rationale to use new technology to enrich

76

Gifted Education in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern Regions

the existing curriculum and improve instructional processes and learning outcomes. Fourth, a catalytic rationale to promote changes in education by moving toward a more relevant curriculum and by bringing educational opportunities to a larger number of people. Fifth, an information technology rationale to stimulate the national computer industry by governmental expenditure on large numbers of nationally produced or nationally assembled computers in the schools. Finally, a cost-effectiveness rationale which argues that computers can reduce the overall cost of education. In the context of Jordan and other Arabic countries, one might distinguish another rationale, namely, the opportunistic rationale: the expectation that the use of computers in private schools may contribute to attracting more students to those schools. However, if there is no explicit policy, computers are used in an uncoordinated fashion. Teachers are not trained, software is scarce, and hardware is incompatible, and spares, repairs, and maintenance hardly exist (Hawkridge et al., 1990). A mixed picture emerges from a survey conducted in the Gulf and Middle Eastern regions (SubhiYamin, 1997). While computers are used quite widely in schools, they are thinly distributed and few teachers have training in their use. There are problems with software availability and the most frequent educational use of computers is for drill and practice rather than for developing cognitive ability through problem-solving and open-ended computer programmes. This implies that the most worthwhile use of computers in schools lies with more innovative software. When I start to consider cognitive development to be of more central interest, and place children in the most appropriate educational settings, then I can see impressive achievements through the use of innovative software (e.g., open-ended, simulation, Logo, problem solving, spread sheets, databases, productivity software, etc.). If the Arabic countries are to achieve the potential of the computer which led Papert (1980) to anticipate an educational revolution, then they need to do a lot of work to optimize the use of computers in Arabic schools and overcome the obstacles mentioned previously. In other words, real innovation can take place only when good quality software products are available in both Arabic and English, and teachers are well acquainted with these products by being trained in using them and integrating them into their instructional approaches.

1481

If computerized problem solving is to be the focus of the mathematics curriculum, then it must also be given a place in teacher training programmes. In other words, we must make effective and efficient use of what we know about how gifted children become problem solvers in designing training programmes for teachers. In addition, this implies that a course in computerized problem solving be required for all mathematics teachers. Teachers working with computer programming should be aware of the ideas gifted and talented children are forming and assist them in improving their performance and developing their mathematical skills and productive thinking. Yet, there are still many debates on how, and to what degree, the virtual environment can enhance schooling outcomes and how this environment can provide special provision for gifted and talented children. Concerning computerized provisions designed for gifted and talented children, there are no recent Arabic or cross-cultural large-scale studies on the impact of a virtual environment on children’s achievement and creativity (Subhi-Yamin, 1999). The need to keep accurate records of the abilities that children display has been clearly demonstrated. In the absence of these records, teachers’ memories of specific abilities seem to fade, so judgments based on memory alone are likely to be based on overall and unreliable impressions. In addition, the effective record keeping I have recommended (SubhiYamin, 1999) should be computerized and used continuously to permit teachers to monitor each student’s progress. Some obstacles exist to greater and better computer utilization. Computers must be purchased, software must be selected, facilities must be prepared, and then a curriculum has to be written for the inclusion of computers. Once these steps have been taken, staff development must proceed and, finally, teachers must change the way they teach. I must not expect effective use of computers to be developed in a year or even two. But with careful planning, a virtual environment can be established in order to improve the teaching/ learning process. A number of schools in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle East are now employing the latest developments in educational technology, including Renzulli Learning Systems; London Gifted and Talented; and Stratis e-Suite.

1482

T. Subhi-Yamin

Renzulli Learning System

London Gifted and Talented

Renzulli Learning System is a completely new adaptation of work that is based on almost 30 years of research designed to help students learn more about their own interests and talents. Taking advantage of state-of-the-art technology, Renzulli Learning searches out an enormous amount of information on the web to find enriching, challenging differentiated enrichment opportunities for all students in their areas of interest and choice. Renzulli Learning is based on the research conducted by Prof. Dr. Joseph Renzulli and Prof. Dr. Sally Reis of the University of Connecticut’s Neag School of Education. This research suggests that students achieve at higher levels when they pursue topics and activities of personal interest and that enrichment can be provided to all students through the use of Renzulli Learning. The Renzulli Learning System is a system for school’s administration, teachers, students, and parents that is used to identify and develop the gifts and talents of all children by providing easily accessible high-quality materials and resources. The Renzulli Learning System is an exciting new online comprehensive system that matches students’ abilities, interests, learning styles, and preferred modes of expression to many different opportunities designed to provide enriched, challenging learning. All of the activities and options in the Renzulli Learning System are based on The Enrichment Triad Model, which has been cited as the most widely used plan for enrichment and talent development in the world. In the Renzulli Learning System, the Renzulli ProfilerTM generates an individual profile for each student. Then an individualized Enrichment Differentiation collection of Internet and downloadable resources are made available. In order to accommodate for the needs of students across many different levels of academic achievement, many teachers have adopted a variety of withinclassroom strategies referred to as differentiated instruction. The Renzulli Learning System can help teachers access, with minimal cost or time, a wealth of opportunities to provide appropriate differentiation activities for students of all levels of achievement and abilities.

Along similar lines, a limited number of schools in the Middle East adopted “London Gifted and Talented” system. London Gifted and Talented (LGT) is a British organization. It was established in 2004 to offer programmes and services designed and developed to meet the special needs of the gifted and talented. In addition, this system delivers programmes and services to school principals, teachers, and parents. LGT’s programmes are a combination of live events such as a masterclasses, seminars, and workshops and online learning activities to ensure longer term impact and learning. LGT’s interactive tools are flexible enough to be used across curricula and key stages, and with the potential to be customized for use by other student groups.

Stratis e-Suite More recently, the Centre for British Teachers (CfBT) has introduced Stratis e-Suite. It is the new revolutionary web-based solution developed for schools around the world by the CfBT. Stratis e-Suite provides the most comprehensive profile of school self-evaluation. It enables educators to undertake a moderated school self-review that informs the content of the school; transfers emerging issues from selfreview into priorities for improvement; embeds school priorities in team improvement plans; and creates improvement plans for subject, aspects, and key stages. In the Gulf and Middle Eastern regions, a number of schools have contracted the International Centre for Innovation in Education to employ Stratis e-Suite in their educational settings.

Organizations The Arab Council for the Gifted and Talented The Arab Council for the Gifted and Talented (ACGT) in Amman, Jordan was founded in 1996 by Joan

76

Gifted Education in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern Regions

Freeman, Taisir Subhi-Yamin, and other Arabic scholars. The ACGT now represents 13 Arabic countries, including Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Palestine. The ACGT aims at providing a network for the exchange of ideas and research findings and results related to the training of gifted and talented students among individuals and institutions in the Arabic countries; promoting public awareness of the exceptional abilities of gifted and talented children; conducting research and providing database and technical facilities to meet the special needs of gifted and talented children.

The Arabian Gulf University (AGU) The Department of Gifted Education/ Faculty of Graduate Studies in the AGU offers high diploma and Masters degrees in gifted education. The AGU has established a link between regional programmes designed to serve gifted children and international institutions working in this field. The gifted programme in the AGU is committed to eight aims and objectives, including to focus regional attention on gifted children and ensure the realization of their valuable potential to the benefit of humankind; assemble, for an exchange of ideas and experiences; create a climate of acceptance and recognition that gifted children are a valuable national and global asset; initiate, conduct, and support research into the nature of giftedness, disseminate the findings of this research, and provide a database for researchers; establish means for a continuing worldwide exchange of ideas, practices, and experiences; persuade governments to recognize gifted children as a category for special attention in normal educational programmes, and to cooperate with national and other organizations for gifted and talented children who share these purposes; design activities that bring together gifted children worldwide; and encourage parent and family education and support to enhance all children’s potential. In 2007, the Arabian Gulf University has established a new programme which offers Ph.D. in gifted education. It is the first of its kind in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern regions.

1483

Giftedness and Creativity Forum (GCF) Recent advances in communications and information technology (IT) are influencing the design and delivery of educational programmes. The World Wide Web (WWW) has enabled the delivery of virtual environments to different customers in a more cost-effective way. The GCF will be employed to facilitate strategic planning, to help course administration, to manage student learning, to deliver content, to provide interaction and feedback, to support research and development, to provide guidance and counselling, to support assessment and evaluation, and to enable teachers, parents, and students around the world to plan and conduct virtual sessions, lectures, seminars, and conferences. In the “Digital World” we are moving toward mobile teaching and virtual learning environments. This world adds another layer of complexity. The current advances enable data to follow us, and to be encrypted, minimized, sent wirelessly, shared and copied effortlessly. The mission of the GCF is to empower every person to become a responsible, self-directed, lifelong learner through a positive partnership of families, teachers, scholars in gifted education, ministries of education and community. The GCF will be committed to the development of all students and teachers as productive world citizens and leaders for the future. The GCF believes that everyone can learn; education is learner centred; education prepares learners to solve real-life problems; continual personal and professional growth is vital; technology is essential to education; education can actively link the community; assessment and evaluation are critical steps in the cognitive process. There are two assumptions underlying the assertion that the GCF can be used for educational benefit. The first is that educational personnel, decision makers, teachers, parents, students, and the society in general would like to see the successful introduction and the effective and efficient use of IT in the classroom with all students including the gifted children. The second assumption is that by using virtual environments as tools, they become both an amplifier of human capabilities and a catalyst to cognitive development. In 2007, the GCF was responsible about the establishment of the International Centre for Innovation in Education (ICIE) in Paris.

1484

New Directions in Gifted Education The field of gifted and talented education is entering a period of intense change in ability identification, programmes, teachers’ education and training, classroom practices, funding, introduction of educational technology, and terminology. In the last three decades, educational movements stressing equity have resulted in the elimination or reduction of programmes and special provisions designed to meet the special needs of gifted and talented students in many countries including the Arabian Gulf and the Middle East regions. If these programmes and provisions are to survive attacks from many quarters, and if gifted education is to advance, it is essential to question some of our paradigms or practices and to develop new directions. This chapter has encountered many of the major issues to face educators in both the Arabian Gulf and the Middle East, and those addressing gifted education over several decades. The aim is to offer a summary of these ideas, which can be divided into seven categories: gifts or talents as entities, the philosophy of gifted education, identification, programmes, educational technology and the “digital world”, future research, and challenges that lie ahead.

(1) Gifts and Talents as Entities Some advances were achieved and some advances can be expected in the understanding of brain functioning, intellectual processes (productive thinking, metathinking, and so forth), and their relationship to the development of gifts and talents, particularly the developmental processes by which abilities and personality interact with environmental factors to create gifted and talented individuals. Although the role of genetics has been clearly established in the development of giftedness, especially in intellectual development, more research is needed to gain a better understanding of the role of environmental settings and culture (educational practices, values, identity, attitudes, societal rules, and so forth) on gifts and talents development. This may further redefine what we refer to as “gifted” or “talented” individuals and the instructional methods applied to identify, develop, or enhance their potential (Gallagher, 1997, 2004a, 2004b).

T. Subhi-Yamin

According to Cohen (2003) “A unified theory of creative intelligence must address how something new is created, how the self and a field of endeavour are transformed, and the type of giftedness found in adults. We believe that our efforts should focus on creativity as the end point, and we should work backward to understand how to support its development in children, so that they can become productive, creative adults” (pp. 35–36). Cohen (2003) also pointed out that “theories of creativity should be the sources for understanding both intelligence and optimal development (giftedness), as well as creativity. We need to understand where giftedness can lead [and to] focus on mature creativity as an endpoint” (p. 66). In the light of this argument, I am interested in how the brain supports creative intelligence involving representations and relationships in general, and I am seeking evidence for the neural correlates of such cognitive behaviours in particular. Teaching should maximize a student’s intellectual abilities through the challenge of high-quality creative output. Creative output is conceptualized by Urban (Subhi-Yamin, 2002) as incorporating the creation of a new, unusual, and surprising product; and/ or a communication that may be grasped directly via the senses or via symbolic representation and experiences by others as meaningful and significant (Subhi-Yamin, 2002). When I focus on what I mean by thinking, I need to consider the various levels of thought that humans are capable of. The complexity of the cognitive process becomes evident. A four-part model has been developed as a global view of thinking which includes four components: cognition (the skills associated with essential and complex processes); metacognition (the skills associated with the learner’s awareness of his or her own thinking); epistemic cognition (the skills associated with understanding the limits of knowing, as in particular subject matter and the nature of problems that thinkers can address); and conation (the striving to think clearly, including personal disposition, and to develop and consistently use rationale attitudes and practices). By asking questions, selecting terms, clarifying ideas and processes, providing data, and withholding value judgments, teachers can stimulate and enhance the thinking of their students in general and of their gifted and talented students in particular. A highquality teacher channels abilities into competencies and competencies into expertise by introducing a series of sufficiently challenging experiences that

76

Gifted Education in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern Regions

can be practiced and mastered. Several important research questions about the relationship between teacher education and student thinking remain to be investigated. They offer fertile opportunities for action research projects shared by scholars around the world within institutional partnership.

(2) Philosophy of Gifted Education

1485

ern regions, are employing that process inappropriately. Definitions of giftedness are influenced by social, political, economic, and cultural factors (Renzulli, 1980). A definition of giftedness is the foundation upon which special educational provisions for gifted children are built. The specific abilities included in a definition determine the kinds of identification criteria that are used to select children for a programme and the kinds of educational services that are provided to those children. Despite advances in defining the conception of giftedness and identifying the gifted children, intelligence testing still plays a large role. Today, most experts in the region define a gifted child as one who acquires and processes information and solves problems at a younger age and a faster rate than others. It is essential to bear in mind that the purpose of identification is not to label students, but to find and develop their latent and manifest potential. In the Arab Islamic culture, there was no original Arabic/ Islamic conception of giftedness. Recently, giftedness has been conceptualized using Western influences. Current practices reveal that giftedness is really limited to the high intellectual ability.

Conflicting educational philosophies lie at the heart of many problems in getting appropriate education for the gifted and talented students. Philosophy and practice in gifted education emphasize the need for a comprehensive planning policy which takes into account the total experience of the gifted student and the need for a differentiated curriculum. Gifted education should include basic skills, general curriculum, talent development, and interpersonal relationships and values. Gifted education policies should work toward the matching of school programming to gifted students’ developmental levels, on a subject-specific basis, at the minimum ensuring that students are not required to attend classes covering curriculum they have already mastered. It is very important to point out that gifted education becomes one of the major sciences (e.g., physics and chemistry) and there is a need for interIn Sum, What About the Past, Present, national institutional collaboration that enables us to face the future challenges and to achieve our aims and and Future of the Identification Process? objectives in the light of our global vision and values. This implies that we should have cross-cultural studThe Past: single criterion based on classical theoies that address wide range of cultures, values, levels ries, very conservative, and employed culturalof education, fields of study, methods of identification, biased screening and identification tools. types of gifted programmes, etc. The Present: multiple criteria including I.Q.; creativity; achievement; interests, learning styles, attitudes; behavioural characteristics; wisdom; and other personality and environmental fac(3) Definitions and Identification tors based on modern theories, more liberal, employing wide range of cultural-free identifiA great deal of work in the Arabian Gulf and the Midcation and screening tools, and offers detailed dle Eastern regions has been invested during the last comprehensive profiles. three decades to develop identification procedures and The Future: online (or computerized) reliable and instruments that are culturally and linguistically approvalid measures and tools; online (or computpriate. However, as long as the broad spectrum of gifterized) comprehensive cultural-free multiple edness is not addressed in our programming or sercriteria identification process (e.g. renzullilearnvices, multiple criteria identification procedures will ing.com; Giftedness and Creativity Forum; remain a meaningless task because many schools and and the Computerized SRBCSS). Furthermore, educational systems, in the Gulf and the Middle Eastenvironmental factors (e.g., psychological, bio-

1486

T. Subhi-Yamin

logical, social, educational, and natural) are sure contribute to the development of individuals with conto come under more extensive investigation. siderable expertise. They must support the commitment needed for the long training that is necessary in every field. They should also cultivate personality characteristics that link to creative performance: (4) Gifted Programmes tolerance to ambiguity, moderate risk taking, willingness to surmount obstacles and persevere, willingness Parallel with efforts being made to develop enriched to grow, open-mindedness, and self-esteem (Sternberg curricula for all, educators must create, promote, and & Lubart, 1993). More room is also needed in promaintain educational measures uniquely appropriate gramming for social and emotional well-being. A secfor gifted education. Theorists in the field of gifted ond challenge concerns the establishment of standards education have sought to advise on curriculum models for viable gifts and talents development programmes (and modifications) which would better suit the needs that will integrate current and future knowledge about of these students. They have argued that the ideal brain functioning, as well as developmental processes curriculum for gifted students therefore should be by which abilities interact with environmental factors. presented in a way which includes emphasis on higher-level thinking skills and productive thinking skills; abstractness and complexity; originality, novelty, unpredictability; freedom of choice and ability to individualize learning; self-directed discovery and experimentation as focal points of learning; openendedness and a non-judgmental response to student explorations; interdisciplinary learning, making connections across traditional boundaries; and a combined enrichment and acceleration. In the future, measures that are effective with both gifted students (Shore & Delcourt, 1996) and with general education should be integrated into the regular school curriculum (Richert, 1997). These measures include enrichment; inquiry; discovery; professional end products as standards; computer science; independent projects; individualized learning; development of thinking skills, such as problem solving, problem finding, and decision making; and creativity. In addition, using strategies to develop potential in the classroom will improve the quality of education for all students instead of a small minority. The educational systems in the Arabian Gulf and Middle Eastern regions must also take advantage of World Wide Web (WWW) technologies for offering special services in the regular classroom in schools geographically isolated or with limited instructional resources. “Tele-learning” and “tele-mentoring” will probably increase access to enrichment provisions for gifted and talented students (e.g., Renzulli Learning and the Virtual School for the Gifted (VSG)). On the other hand, the motivation issue deserves particular attention. Educational professionals must become more sensitive to the variety of motivations that

In Summary, What About the Past, Present, and Future of Gifted Programmes? The Past: very limited number of models including enrichment. Therefore, instructional methods used may have been refined for a specific gift or talent and developmental period. The Present: a number of programmes and special provisions are available to meet the special needs of the gifted and talented. The Future: the future will witness a number of programmes and special provisions designed and developed for the gifted and talented, including tele-mentoring; online enrichment clustering; e-learning and virtual learning environments; teaching for productive thinking and future problem solving; and global networks and forums for gifted and talented students, teachers, parents, and scholars aimed at sharing knowledge, experience, interests, values and outcomes and benefits. The optimal educational response to exceptionally high-level development is to move toward providing a wide range of creatively flexible curriculum adaptations that take into account variability in gifted students’ abilities, interests, learning styles, and attitudes. By the year 2010, the “Global Virtual Schools for the Gifted and Talented Students” will be part of our educational system.

76

Gifted Education in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern Regions

(5) Educational Technology and the “Digital World”

1487

theft, distribution of child pornography, false advertising, and other forms of cyber crimes is already a reality and appears to be on the increase. Tools that greatly increase the accessibility of information also sometimes Technology has often been considered as an agent of facilitate the invasion of privacy. But such is the price educational change. However, the likelihood of techof progress; any tool can be used for bad purposes nology fostering such a change is greatly increased as well as good, and the more powerful the tool, the when cognitive theories guide design. “. . .there is ingreater the potential in both cases” (p. 23). creasing awareness not only of the way technology shapes human activity but also the way human cognition is shaped by its evolved capacity to profit from cultural tools” (Preiss, 2005, 203), and Dillon (2005) (6) Future Research asserted that “we must enter this world with a commitment to explore. . . . As we enter a new digital world we are challenged and yet blessed to be part of this transi- What can we expect to see at the start of the 21st century as issues in the education of the gifted and talented tion” (p. 315). But students? r What is the impact of different technologies on huThere is a good reason to expect continued research and instructional interest in the fate of gifted students man abilities? r How does technology enhance or limit human intel- in this decade (Gallagher, 1997). Surely some continued advances can be expected in the understanding of lectual functioning? r How can we design computerized provisions and intelligence itself, which may further redefine what we refer to as gifted students. programmes that foster intellectual growth? r How does technology mediate the impact of cultural Decision-making processes and “metacognition” (which refers to one’s knowledge concerning one’s variables on human intellectual functioning? own cognitive process and products) are sure to There are many ways in which information tech- come under more extensive investigation. Some nology is being or could be used to amplify cogni- additional and different measures of intelligence built tion. Nickerson (2005) listed a number of examples, on information processing models also are likely to including facilitation of idea generation via computer- emerge. assisted brainstorming; knowledge assessment; debiMapping the sequential and developmental process asing: antidotes to common biases and illogicalities; by which intelligence interacts with environmental facvalue discovering: often we do not know our own val- tors to create superior-thinking individuals is a diffiues and their relative weight, as they pertain to choice cult task ahead of us. In addition, other factors such as situations, but they can be inferred from expressed motivation, persistence, courage, and loving what one preferences between hypothetical alternatives; facili- is doing become more important than ability. Torrance tation of identification of possible state of the world called these the “beyonder” characteristics (Torrance & and decision alternatives; problem-solving help; pre- Safter, 1999). We need to know more about these chardiction: provision of runable “what if” models that let acteristics. Interest in multicultural influences accelera decision maker explore possible (probable) conse- ated as we approached the 21st century. In fact, 21st quences of possible actions; error prevention; negoti- century may be known in history as the multicultural ation and conflict resolution; facilitating probabilistic century. It certainly promises to be such insofar as dereasoning; and planning, forecasting, and budgeting. velopments regarding creativity are concerned. Interest Nickerson (2005) discussed the risks in cognition in these multicultural influences on creativity has been amplification, and pointed out that “. . .there are risks slow to develop (Meador, 1999). involved in the development of cognition amplificaThere is a need for more research on persontion tools. There is, for example, the possibility of ality, especially with a biographical inventory [· · · ] technology being used in ‘bad’ way for propa- (Cramond, 2001). There should be more research ganda, brainwashing, and manipulation,” (p. 23). In ad- on creativity assessment like that done with the dition, the use of the Internet could “facilitate identity multiple intelligences by Gardner. That is a blind

1488

spot (Cramond, 2001); and there is a need for more research on creative products and environments (Cramond, 2001).

(7) Challenges That Lie Ahead A large challenge for the Arabian Gulf and Middle Eastern regions is to pay special attention to staff development (all teachers and teachers of gifted education). There are many gaps in personnel preparation in gifted education (Gallagher, 1997; Parker, 1996). All teachers must master methods that individualize teaching (learning centres, independent studies, individualized units, compacting, and “tele-learning”) and other methods that develop higher-order thinking skills in cognitive, creative, socio-affective, habits of mind, and ethical realms. In the context of educational reform, we encourage gifted educators to foster continuous improvement to set high learning standards and expectations for all students and to contribute to improved education for all students; collaborate with other professionals; increase connections between studies of giftedness and mainstream psychological and educational research, taking into account that studies of giftedness have contributed to mainstream theory and may play special roles in theory development; structure new roles for gifted education personnel; and integrate gifted education with general education in meaningful ways.

Conclusion and Recommendations Wide fluctuations have occurred over the years in efforts to identify and educate gifted and talented children. At one extreme is the situation where neither special efforts nor special provisions are made or designed to meet the special needs of these children (e.g. Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, and United Arab Emirates (UAE)) whereas at the other extreme we have intensive efforts to identify these students and provide them with an education appropriate to their special needs (e.g., Bahrain, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Libanon, and Saudi Arabia). In the Middle East, gifted education is designated to be implemented in three ways:

T. Subhi-Yamin

in gifted high schools, in gifted education centres as a pull-out programme, and in gifted classes as a pull-out programme in regular schools. Modernization and economic development based on Western models continue to emit forceful undercurrents in terms of policy and planning, but anxieties concerning a moral and spiritual deficit in educational development plans have become more pressing than ever. The national debate in education in Egypt illustrates a renewed call in the Muslim world for Islamic identity and authenticity, reflecting a desire to find indigenously based solutions for the acute problems of the present (Badran, 1989; Cook, 2000). There is a great concern about the appropriateness of Western education in a region with a predominantly Muslim population, which has been raised in religious traditions that cannot immediately be reconciled with Western culture, inevitably introduced along with Western educational methods (Badran, 1989, p. 1). In agreement with Hasan (2000), students’ empowerment can be made possible only by fostering their critical awareness of their political, economic, social, and cultural situations; unleashing their visions and creativity; and developing their skills and strategies for thinking, believing, and acting. In this view, global education appears to be an approach to education that embodies constructivistic and critical inquiry orientations. Third World problems in educating their gifted and talented children arise from unique political and economic issues. These issues frequently concern the perceived needs of the country, the availability of jobs in the present market, and demographic surveys which reflect the present rather than the future status of the nation’s economy, including health problems and population figures. These issues rarely centre on the children themselves, on their needs, or on their potential to contribute to a global as well as domestic society (Harris, 1986; Subhi-Yamin, 1997). In Arabic countries, the picture of gifted education is far from rosy particularly in the case of small developing countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Morroco, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen which are currently undergoing political, economic, and social upheavals that leave little time for matters such as providing special provision for gifted and talented children. Arabic countries should not be content to wait for improvement and development to occur spontaneously in teaching gifted and talented children. These countries really want to improve their educational systems,

76

Gifted Education in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle Eastern Regions

and to meet the special needs of gifted and talented children in the Arabic society it will be necessary to take some very direct and deliberate actions. Earlier studies on giftedness did not make use of computers or related forms of educational technology. One of the key considerations in the early stages of this chapter was to determine whether, and how, educational technology and virtual learning environments could be used to benefit gifted children. More recently, the range of possibilities for using computers and multimedia in education has increased significantly. It is important for gifted and talented programmes implemented in any developing country to gain notice and recognition, not only within their own borders but in interchange with others. I suggest establishment of a network that provides a forum of exchange, provides information, support, encouragement, examples, and ideas, to strengthen opportunities for both the gifted and their countries. In addition, the network could branch off into research areas, provide an arena for follow-up studies, stimulate planning efforts, provide a way of sharing concerns, serve to illustrate what giftedness means to emerging nations, and promote international awareness. The future of the field of giftedness appears to involve finding the balance between giftedness as a unique entity and as a part of existing fields. This dual perspective would align the necessary supports (e.g., funding for gifted programmes) from the various political, educational, and societal groups that play critical roles in improving the field of giftedness. In agreement with Gallagher (2004b) I conclude that “in the 21st century, we should be able to say proudly that we saw our limitations and took action against them. Much of this action must be done collectively since we, as individuals, are hardly able to make major institutional (Global) changes” (p. 32).

References Ahmad, A. (1980). The Islamic outlook on life. In Ahamad, A. (Ed.), Islam: Its meaning and message. London: The Islamic Foundation. Al-Lawati, F. A., & Hunsaker, S. L. (2002). Muhr and Mawhibah: A multicultural perspective on women’s gifts. Roeper Review, 25, 22–26. Al-Qur’an (2006). Al-Qur’an Network. Translations of the Qur’an. Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http://www.alqurannetwork.net/

1489

Al-Tall, A. (1979). Education in Jordan (1921–1977). Pakistan: National Book. Badran, A. (Ed.). (1989). At the crossroads: Education in the Middle East. New York: Paragon House Publishers. Cohen, L. M. (2003). A conceptual lens for looking at theories of creativity. In D. Ambrose, L. M. Cohen, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Creative intelligence: Toward theoretic integration. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc. Cook, B. J. (2000). Egypt’s National Education Debate. Comparative Education, 36(4), 477–491. Cramond, B. (2001). Interview with E. Paul Torrance on creativity in the last and next millennia. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(3), 116–120. Dillon, A. (2005). Conclusion: so what is this thing called information. In H. Oostendorp, L. Breure, & A. Dillon (Eds.), Creation, use and development of digital information. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Farrukh, O. (2006). Ikhwan al-Safa. Retrieved February 21, 2006, from Muslim Philosophy http://www. muslimphilosophy.com/hmp/18.htm Feldhusen, J. F., & Wyman, A. R. (1980). Super Saturday: Design and implementation of Purdue’s special programme for gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24, 15–21. Fox, L. H. (1981). Identification and the academically gifted. American Psychologist, 36(10), 1103–1111. Frager, R., & Fadiman, J. (1984). Personality and personal growth (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. Freeman, J. (1990). The intellectually gifted adolescent. In M. Howe (Ed.), Encouraging the development of exceptional skills and talents. UK: The British Psychological Society. Gallagher, J. J. (1997). Issues in the education of gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 10–23). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gallagher, J. J. (2004a). Unthinkable thoughts: Education of gifted students. In J. J. Gallagher (Ed.), Public policy in gifted education (pp. 21–34). California: Crowin Press. Gallagher, J. J. (2004b). Introduction to public policy in gifted education. In J. J. Gallagher (Ed.), Public policy in gifted education (pp. xxiii–xxix). California: Crowin Press. G¨ulen, M. F. (2006a). Toward a global civilization of love and tolerance. New York: The Light, Inc. G¨ulen, M. F. (2006b). Key concepts in the practice of Sufism (Vol. 1). New York: The Light, Inc. G¨ulen, M. F. (2004). Key concepts in the practice of Sufism (Vol. 2). New York: The Light, Inc. Hallahan, D., & Kauffman, J. (1981). Exceptional children: Introduction to special education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Halstead, M. J. (2004). An Islamic concept of education. Comparative Education, 40(4), 517. Harris, C. R. (1986). Third world networking: problems, issues and practical solutions. In A. J. Cropely, et al. (Eds.), Giftedness: A continuing worldwide challenge. New York: Trillium Press. Hasan, O. H. E. (2000). Improving the quality of learning: Global education as a vehicle for school reform. Theory into Practice, 39(2), 97–104. Hawkridge, D., Jaworski, J., & McMahon, H. (1990). Computers in third-world schools: Examples, experience, and issues (1st ed.). London: Macmillan Press.

1490 Husaini, S. W. A. (1980). Islamic environmental system engineering. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd. Khaleefa, O. (1999). Research on creativity, intelligence and giftedness: The case of the Arab world. Gifted and Talented International, 14, 21–29. McCluskey, K. W., & Walker, K. D. (1991). The doubtful gift: Strategies for educating gifted children in the regular classroom. Canada: Ronald P. Frye. McCluskey, K. W., Treffinger, D. J., & Baker, P. A. (2002). The Amphitheater model: An approach to talent recognition and development. In K. W. McCluskey & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Enriching teaching and learning for talent development. Florida: Center for Creative Learning, Inc. Meador, K. (1999). Creativity around the globe. Childhood Education, 75, 324–325. Moosa, E. (2005). Ghaz˘ali and the poetics of imagination. USA: The University of North Carolina Press. Nickerson, R. S. (2005). Technology and cognition amplification. In R. J. Sternberg & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Intelligence and technology: The impact of tools on the nature and development of human abilities (pp. 3–27). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Papert, S. (1980), Mindstorm: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Sussex: The Harvester Press Limited, Basic Books. Parker, J. (1996). NAGC standards for personnel preparation in gifted education: A brief history. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 158–164. Phillipson, S. N., Kaur, I., & Phillipson, S. (2003). A late developer – Gifted education in Malaysia within a global context. The Asia-Pacific education researcher, 12(2), 135–175. Preiss, D. D. (2005). Technologies for working intelligence. In J. S. Sternberg & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Intelligence and technology: The impact of tools on the nature and development of human abilities (pp. 183–208). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Rahman, A., & Nasim, A. (2004). Time for enlightened moderation. Nature, 432(7015), 273–274. Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programmes for the gifted and talented. Wethersfield, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S. (1980). Will the gifted child movement be alive and Well in 1990?. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(1), 3–9. Richert, E. S. (1997). Excellence with equity in identification and programming. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 75–88). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Sa’ab, H. (1980). Studies on the cultural revolution necessary for the Arab progress in the modern age. Beirut: Dar al-Elm Lilmalayeen.

T. Subhi-Yamin Scruton, R. (2002). The political problem of Islam. Intercollegiate Review, 38(1), 3–15. Shaw, P. (2001). A Christian educator looks at Muslim education. Christian Education Journal. Glen Ellyn, 5(2), 91–110. Shore, B., & Delcourt, M. (1996). Effective curricular and programme practices in gifted education and the interface with general education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 138–154. Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1993). Creative giftedness: A multivariate investment approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 7– 15. Subhi-Yamin, T., & Maoz, N. (2000). Middle east region: Efforts, politics, programs and issues. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 743– 756). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Subhi-Yamin, T. (1992). Giftedness and creativity: The computerized comprehensive identification procedure. Amman – Jordan: Scientific Enlightenment Publishing House. Subhi-Yamin, T. (1997). Who is gifted? A computerized identification procedure. High Ability Studies, 8(2), 189–211. Subhi-Yamin, T. (1999). The impact of LOGO on gifted children’s achievement and creativity. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(1), 1–11. Subhi-Yamin, T. (2002). Comments on from creativity to responsible createlligence. World Gifted, 21(2), 8–9. Szyliowics, J. (1973), Education and modernization in the Middle East: A comparative analytical study of education development, and modernization in three countries in the Middle East: Turkey, Iran, and Egypt (including Some of other Arab Countries). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Tariqa (2005). Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Premium Service http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9071298 Torrance, E. P., & Safter, H. T. (1999). Making the creative leap beyond. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation Press. Treffinger, D. J., Nassab, C., Schoonover, P., Selby, E., Shepardson, C., Wittig, C., et al. (2003). Thinking with standards: Preparing for tomorrow, secondary level. Florida: Center for Creative Learning, Inc. UNDP. (2004). Human development report. New York: UN Development Programme. http: //hdr.undp.org/reports/ global/2004 Urban, K. K. (1993). Fostering giftedness. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(1), 31–49.

Chapter 77

Gifted Education and Research on Giftedness in South America Eunice M.L. Soriano de Alencar, Denise de Souza Fleith and Violeta Arancibia

Abstract National educational policies have been edited since the 1970s in Brazil and in other countries of South America. Some aspects of the education of the gifted are usually present in most of these nations such as the scarcity of programs for training teachers and psychologists in the giftedness area; shortage of financial support for implementing programs and services for gifted students; preference for enrichment educational strategies; and predominance of misconceptions related to giftedness among parents, educators, and administrators. However, differences might be observed among these countries with respect to definitions and terminologies adopted. It is important to remember that South American nations do not share the same cultural, linguistic, ideological, social, and economical background. As a consequence, these differences reflect on the terminology, practices, and policies implemented for the gifted in this continent. Although advances in the areas of gifted education and research have been reported in South America, there is a long way to go. More research needs to be conducted for a better understanding of the effects of different educational strategies, including cross-cultural studies.

Keywords South America · Research on giftedness · Programs for the gifted

E.M.L. Soriano de Alencar (B) Catholic University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction There is an increasing recognition of the importance of educational provisions for the gifted in different countries of South America. National and international conferences have been organized to call attention to the needs of gifted students, such as the First International Conference on Intelligence in Colombia in 1987, the International Conference on Education of High Intelligence in Argentina in 1998, several conferences of the Ibero-American Federation of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children in Brazil in 1998, Colombia in 2002, Ecuador in 2004, and Argentina in 1994 and 2006, in addition to national conferences organized by different associations, such as the Brazilian Association for the Gifted, the Brazilian Council for Giftedness, and the Alberto Merani Foundation for the Development of Intelligence in Colombia. These conferences have contributed to eliminating misconceptions, informed teachers about educational practices for the gifted, and drew the attention of educational authorities and society to the need for educational investments for the gifted, highlighting the advantages of efforts in favor of the gifted to promote national benefits. National educational policies have been revised since the 1970s in Brazil and in other countries of South America. However, differences might be observed among the countries with respect to programs for the gifted, allocation of resources for the development of talented students, and the definitions and terminologies adopted. Scarcity of research is the norm, although an increasing number of studies have been conducted over the last decade at several Brazilian universities’ graduate programs.

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 77, 

1491

1492

This chapter presents current trends in gifted education in South America, which is the fourth largest continent with 12 countries, 3 territories, and a population of about 380 million inhabitants. Spanish is the official language in the majority of the countries. The exception is Brazil, whose official language is Portuguese. The chapter will focus first on the Spanishspeaking South American countries, where provisions for the gifted are available. Following, gifted education in Brazil will be presented. This is a South American country with a long history and more diverse programs for gifted students. National policies, the most well-known programs, and research into giftedness will be addressed. The main barriers for and difficulties with implementing programs for the gifted discussed include misconceptions, lack of teacher preparation, insufficient investment into education, scarcity of services provided to gifted students, and values and beliefs that impede minority groups to realize their talents. The chapter concludes by highlighting issues that need to be addressed and directions for the future of gifted education and research on giftedness in South America.

Gifted Education and Research in Spanish-Speaking South American Countries Argentina Gifted education was first addressed in a federal law of the Ministry of Education in 1992. According to this law, the official education authorities are supposed to organize or facilitate the organization of programs to be implemented in schools for the early identification, education, and follow-up of students with special capacities and talents (Vergara, 2004, 2006). This law was followed by policies in several provinces of the country. The Federal Council of Culture and Education, located at the province of Buenos Aires, established one of these policies in 1998. It aimed at giving support to gifted students by means of enrichment programs. It is stated that the program ought to be conducted through curriculum adaptations for each individual student with the purpose of expanding and deepening the curriculum content. Gifted education teachers are responsi-

E.M.L. Soriano de Alencar et al.

ble for the organization of the enrichment provision, in contrast to those teachers who handle the assistance to students with deficits and behavioral problems. The integrating teachers serve several schools and are allocated in the Direction of Special Schools, a department of the General Direction of Culture and Education of the province of Buenos Aires. There are two positions in Argentina related to gifted and talented nomination. One position adopts the differentiation between the gifted and the talented student. Giftedness would be characterized by high general intellectual ability and academic achievement above mean scores, while the talented child would have a high level of ability in a specific academic or artistic area. The second position adopts “talent” to refer to both types of students – presenting high general intellectual ability and superior ability in a specific area. “Gifted”, “talented”, and “high-ability students” are the most frequently used terms to refer to the gifted (Vergara, 2004). During the last decade, several organizations have been created to support gifted education. One of them – Support to Creativity and Talent founded in 1991 – is an association of gifted children’s parents with the purpose of informing parents, teachers, and authorities about the gifted and their needs. Another association is the Foundation for the Evaluation of Talent and Creativity, which initiated its activities in 1991 with the purpose of identifying and counseling the gifted and their families, as well as preparing teachers to attend to the gifted. More recently, in 2000, the Center for the Development of High Potential was founded. This institution has provided courses and seminars on gifted education in addition to identifying and supervising gifted students in regular schools. Several private institutions were also created to look after the needs of gifted children (Kloosterman, 1999). Their main goal was to identify and encourage the abilities of the children coming from the middle and upper-middle classes. The identification and programs were based on Renzulli’s (1978) conception of giftedness and the methodology included parents’ and teachers’ counseling services (Alencar, Blumen-Pardo, & Castellanos-Simons, 2000). One of them, the Institute of Creativity and Talent, which was founded in 1993, discontinued its activities in 2002 due to financial difficulties and lack of governmental support. Another one, Norbridge School, established in 1993 as a school ex-

77

Gifted Education and Research on Giftedness in South America

clusively for gifted students, more recently began admitting general academic populations (Vergara, 2006). Enrichment activities are the educational provision more widely used in public schools, with the support of the integrating teacher, who is the teacher responsible for the organization of the enrichment activities. In private schools, the teacher has the support of the schools’ psychopedagogical service for the adaptation of the curriculum, according to the gifted students’ educational needs. Guidelines for the implementation of enrichment programs, particularly in private schools, are also provided by different institutions, such as the Center for the Development of High Potential. The early entrance and grade skipping in school for children with superior intellectual ability are regulated by law. Permission for grade skipping has occurred only in a few cases (Vergara, 2004). In spite of the several organizations’ interest in the attention given to gifted and talented students and to the enrichment programs for the gifted in private schools, there is a lack of published research in Argentina. In a recent paper on this topic, Vergara (2004) described only two investigations being carried out.

1493

This program has been under way since 2001, with the joint efforts of the Catholic University of Chile and several public and private organizations. Originally a joint project between a private foundation and the University, it soon acquired an important part of its present scope through the setting up of a real collaboration and financing system, which is shared by the municipalities of the districts the children come from. The program defines “a student with academic talent” as a child or youth who shows general intellectual abilities or specific academic aptitudes significantly placing him or her above the average among his or her peers. At the same time, the program organizers understand that those abilities and aptitudes may be present rather as a potential to be developed in the future than as a performance of excellence already reached, given the diversity of educational and learning opportunities which characterizes the school population. The above program is an extracurricular enrichment program, which offers learning opportunities that enrich, widen, and deepen those opportunities provided by the habitual school experience, taking into account the students’ areas of interest, previous knowledge, acquisition speed, and style of learning. Sixth-grade students can join the program and participate in the proChile gram until their graduation in the fourth grade of high school, which means that they may be enrolled in the A new educational reform was initiated in 1994 with program for 7 years. The program selects its students according to a multhe aim of strengthening teaching processes and stutistage process that takes the following phases into acdents’ learning in Chile. Special education is considcount: ered a differentiated modality from general education. It is noted that special education does not take into consideration the gifted and talented students as requiring a) In-service training in the identification of academic talent for school teachers special educational needs. This is an exception to what has happened in other South American countries (Be- b) Teachers’ designation of applicants on the basis of guidelines provided by the program and with the navides, Rios, & Marshall, 2004). Scarcity of educasupport of checklists specifically designed for this tional policies on giftedness prevails in Chile. purpose The most important initiative on gifted education c) Group application of the Raven’s Progressive in Chile, and possibly in the other Spanish-language Matrices Test (general scale) and of a motivation countries of South America, is the Educational Proquestionnaire gram for Children with Academic Talents (PENTAUC). This program was designed with the aim of taking over the educational needs and capacities of school The program not only provides a specialized educachildren with academic talents, especially of those stu- tional service to the students with academic talents, but dents who come from low-income sectors of Santiago, also has an impact on a meaningful number of teachthe capital of Chile. The students in these areas have ers by bringing them into contact with the education of not had access to an education that may contribute to academic talents and by training them in the process of their talent development. academic talent identification.

1494

The curriculum activities implemented are oriented toward being significant based on the participants’ personal interests, problems, and experiences. Besides, the activities are geared toward the development of advanced content within each of the study subjects, covering current themes at high complexity levels and above all, emphasizing in-depth learning. The approach to this type of content allows focusing on the development of higher thinking abilities such as critical thinking, creativity, metacognition, and research and task-solving skills. It aims at getting the students to put what they have learned into practice, providing them with experience in generating original, high-quality pieces of work. Together with this framework of academic excellence, the enrichment program also seeks to attain the students’ affective and social development, where self-confidence, self-assuredness on their own capabilities, and self-esteem are considered fundamental pillars that promote cognitive development and are, at the same time, the basis for the development of interpersonal communicative skills, leadership, and social relationships. Methodologically, several elements are considered relevant: emphasis on the establishment of interdisciplinary relations as the basis for the setting up of abstract categories; technology integration; and emphasis on team work, which is likely to allow for maximizing the students’ capabilities. Students choose two courses and one workshop each semester and one intensive course during summer. About 75 courses in different domains, such as physics, biology, chemistry, social sciences, humanities, and theology are offered each semester. Workshops are conducted on personal and social development, sports, arts, language, and literature, among others. The program is extended to the community through activities for teachers and parents. Secondary school teachers are allowed to enroll in some of the courses offered by the program together with the regular students and thus making it possible for them to gain access to additional information from the course teacher – as a subject expert – and from the educational psychologists belonging to the program team, as experts on education for talent. This scheme ends with the design and implementation of a transference project, in which the participant teachers propose a plan to transfer what they have learned to their school environment. PENTA-UC also develops two or three

E.M.L. Soriano de Alencar et al.

workshops for parents every year, with the objectives of (a) increasing mothers’ and fathers’ knowledge on characteristics and needs of children and youth with academic talents; (b) identifying strategies, attitudes, and patterns of behaviors that support the academic, emotional, and social development of their children; and (c) generating networks of support and facilitating the exchange and communication among the parents of students enrolled in the program. Several studies have been conducted to evaluate, among other aspects, the impact of the program on the students; students’, teachers’, parents’, and school administrators’ perceptions of the program; and characteristics of the nominated students. The program has been transferred to four regional universities, increasing the coverage of attention to students with talents and enabling universities to keep the more talented students within their ranks. It is also expected that in the next 4 years, 7000 grants will be given, so that students coming from the poorest areas of the country may gain access to the programs that use the PENTA-UC model (Arancibia, 2006a, 2006b).

Colombia The first initiative toward legislating gifted education in Colombia took place in 1994, with the creation of the General Law of Education. This law stated the need for special attention to gifted students and also that the national government would support schools that provide educational opportunities with early identification and curriculum adaptation for students with exceptional capacities or talents. Other decrees and laws followed, regulating the educational attention of the gifted and talented students. The recommendation is that educators adapt the curriculum to the needs of exceptional children, to ensure the development of their abilities and special conditions. More recently, the National Ministry of Education published a document outlining the official definitions and differentiations of gifted and talented students. The gifted are students with a result above the 98th percentile on intelligence tests. Talent is a capacity in a specific domain, according to the following typology: scientific, technological, and subjective talents (Villarraga, Maz, & Torralbo, 2004). This document also includes guidelines for the attention to the gifted in the schools. A financial fund to provide

77

Gifted Education and Research on Giftedness in South America

scholarships for the gifted students has recently been initiated, with the purpose of helping low-income students to enroll in private institutions, where their educational needs could be attended to. In spite of the educational legislation, only a small number of public schools have provisions for the gifted, with no effective mechanisms of systematic training for teachers. Some institutions were founded to supply educational programs for the gifted. The most well known is the Alberto Merani Foundation for the Development of Intelligence, created in 1986 with the goal of identifying and educating gifted and talented children and youth. The foundation has developed psychological and educational tools to identify gifted children and has administered intelligence tests to more than 10,800 students (De Zubiria, 2006). The Alberto Merani Institute has developed programs to prepare teachers to work with gifted students as well as enrichment programs for over 2000 students, with the participation of about one thousand teachers in the last 20 years (De Zubiria, 2006). The institute has carried out about one hundred studies on the characteristics and development of reasoning skills in gifted students, the relationship between thinking abilities and giftedness, gifted children’s family structure and gender, as well as the effects of the program developed at the institute on the students. Longitudinal studies were conducted with gifted students and their families by the research team of the foundation (De Zubiria & Dur´an, 2001). Families of 250 gifted children with an IQ between 130 and 170 were studied for the period of 8 years. The nature of the interaction of these children with the family was observed, as well as their parents’ characteristics. The strong effect of the parents’ cultural and educational level on the child’s performance was the most striking result. The institute’s pedagogical model and guidelines for the detection, promotion, and shaping of talents in areas such as mathematics, literature, and science were described by the research team of the Alberto Merani Institute in a recent publication (De Zubiria et al., 2006).

1495

ment of Thinking, Talent and Creativity by the Technical Private University of Loja and the Catholic University of Ecuador. This institute aims for teacher training and research and implementation of programs for the development of students’ reasoning, intelligence, talent, and creativity (Zabaleta, 2006). Between 1998 and 2000, the first national study was conducted by the institute to identify the intellectual level of over 170,000 students between the ages of 6 and 14 years from different regions of the country and to examine the influence of several socioeconomic and psychopedagogical variables on the students’ intellectual abilities. One thousand and two hundred students were identified as very intelligent or exceptionally intelligent, with the 6-year-old children obtaining the best results on the tests (Molina, 2006). The study highlighted the precarious situation of the national educational system and suggested radical changes to be introduced to the educational system. The team responsible for the study also contributed to the elaboration of the regulation of the Law of Ecuador Special Education from 2002 to 2003. As a result of this cooperation, a manual on giftedness was published by the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2004. Moreover, the institute initiated a graduate program on the development of intelligence, giftedness, talent, and creativity in 2000. The Technical Private University of Loja has plans to initiate an online course on giftedness for teachers, in association with the Organization of the American States. In 2004, the Technical Private University of Loja organized the 5th Ibero-American Conference on Giftedness and Talent, with the participation of over 500 teachers and parents. This conference contributed to the attention given to gifted students. However, the country is still at a very preliminary stage with respect to assistance for the gifted, with scarcity of publications on this topic and lack of information on promoting programs for the gifted at the majority of the educational institutes.

Peru Ecuador A greater recognition of the need for special provision for gifted students occurred in 1998, with the foundation of the Ibero-American Institute for the Develop-

Peru’s history of provisions for the gifted started with the establishment of a general law of education in 1983. This law included an article on special education, in which the need for attention to the gifted was

1496

stated. In the same year, the Ministry of Education published another document regulating the law and defining the gifted as the child with results significantly superior in intelligence tests (Guti´errez, 2004). In 2001, the Ministry of Education published a document with the guidelines for the organization and implementation of programs for gifted and talented children. More recently, in 2003, the strategies to focus on the gifted were outlined in a new Law of Education. The recommendations were to provide scholarships in order to guarantee schooling for low-income students with high academic achievements and to complement the program in regular classes according to the students’ needs. The use of intelligence tests and the evaluation of students’ academic achievement and learning processes were recommended for such identification. The Ministry of Education initiated enrichment programs for talented and gifted students in seven pilot schools in 2001. Four thousand students have already participated in these activities under the supervision of 76 teachers. In 2002, the supervisors of these pilot schools were in charge of expanding the enrichment project to other schools surrounding the pilot centers. They were also responsible for preparing teachers to provide educational opportunities for the gifted. With the support of the Special Education Unit of the Ministry of Education, workshops for teachers, designed to sensitize them to the needs of special provisions for the gifted and talented, were offered in several cities of the country (Guti´errez, 2004). Enrichment activities, such as knowledge bowl, chess club, debate, drama and music classes, and math and science-related clubs are available in some schools. Students also participate in various talent search programs sponsored by universities in Peru and in other countries of the continent, as well as science fairs, inventors’ fairs, and math competitions, among others. Clustering has also been implemented, especially for grades 1–5. Students identified are grouped in the same class, and their teacher is supervised to adapt the curriculum considering the students’ needs (Alencar et al., 2000; Alencar, Fleith, & Blumen, 2002). According to the legislation of the country, acceleration is not permitted. Most of the research on giftedness has been developed at the Catholic University of Peru. In the early 1990s, research focused on the development of creative abilities and creative behavior. A partnership was then established with the Catholic University of Ni-

E.M.L. Soriano de Alencar et al.

jmegen, in the Netherlands, for the development of research on giftedness and talent. The first book on giftedness – Our Children Are Talented – was published in 1997 (M¨onks, Ypenburg, & Blumen, 1997), with recommendations for parents and teachers on helping gifted children in their development and adjustment. This book also includes guidelines for schools to initiate programs for the gifted within the school setting. Several of the recommendations described in this book were based on research conducted by the team of the Catholic University of Peru, supervised by Dr. Franz M¨onks from the University of Nijmegen. In 1999, the European Advanced Diploma in Educating the Gifted, sponsored by the European Council for High Ability and the University of Nijmegen, was started in Lima. The participants of this program developed research on different topics related to the effects of enrichment programs on children’s cognitive and creative abilities, family characteristics of the gifted children, teachers’ training to work with the gifted, and the characteristics of giftedness according to parents, teachers, and children. Several of these were published by the Special Program for Improvement of the Quality of Peruvian Education (Blumen, 2006; Guti´errez, 2004). The most well-known private institute of giftedness in Peru is Mente Futura (Future Mind), founded in 1999. Identification, differentiation, and training workshops on the needs of impoverished gifted children attending public schools of both Lima and the provinces have been the main focus of the institute. Due to the different languages and cultures of the country, which includes those of the ethnic minority groups of the Amazon and the Andes mountain range, the institute has given special attention to intrinsic motivation and creative performance in the gifted and talented identification process. This is a strategy to compensate for the lack of valid and reliable instruments for the multicultural population (Blumen, 2006).

Venezuela The attention to the gifted in Venezuela started five decades ago, when a Jesuit priest founded a school for children with superior intelligence. This priest, who also founded the Catholic University Andr´es Bellos of Caracas, was interested in children with superior intelligence, especially those who presented with

77

Gifted Education and Research on Giftedness in South America

learning difficulties and attention problems (Villegas & Ball, 2004). The term gifted is designated to refer to students with high achievement levels, with superior intelligence, fast learning, or with superior talents. In the 1970s, several organizations were created with the purpose of identifying and attending to gifted ´ students. One of them was CREATICA, founded in 1970. Its purpose was to develop a psychoeducational program to foster intelligence and to remodel the educational system with new pedagogical strategies. This institute has organized workshops for teachers in order to prepare them to use its model of teaching, Educational Cre´atica. The organization also offered a program for parents on strategies to develop their children’s intelligence. In 1973, the CENATEC Foundation was created with the mission of improving the educational processes in science, technology, and associated areas. This foundation is responsible for organizing the annual national Olympics in physics, chemistry, biology, and the Petrolera Olympics, which is an important event because it allows for the identification of potential employees for the petroleum industry, the country’s most important economic activity. In 1979, the Ministry for the Development of Intelligence initiated its activities with several programs, such as the Program to Learn to Think, which aimed at training fourth- to sixth-grade students in De Bono’s lateral thinking skills, the Intelligence Project, in association with Yale University in the United States, the Instrumental Enrichment Program, and the Early Stimulation Program, among others. Several well-known scholars, including Robert Sternberg, David Perkins, and Edward De Bono, were invited to visit the country and requested to design programs for teachers and students aimed at developing students’ intelligence and creative abilities. In 1984, with a new government, the programs lost their political support, and most of them were discontinued (Villegas & Ball, 2004). At present, the program of the Network of Excellent Schools is one of the most important in the country. Its purpose is to implement a culture of intelligence in the classroom by means of new pedagogical practices, for example, Powerful Questions, which highlights the importance of questions as elements to develop reflection and analytical abilities among students. The Foundation for Educational Excellence was established in 1997 to create new methodologies for the

1497

development of students’ thinking abilities. This program has been implemented in 400 public and private schools, with the participation of 5,000 teachers and school administrators and about 200,000 students (Villegas & Ball, 2004). Despite these programs, research is very scarce.

Issues in Gifted Education in the Spanish-Language Countries of South America An analysis of the education scenario in Spanishspeaking South American countries suggests that, in spite of several initiatives and educational policies in gifted education, unfavorable circumstances prevail in the education of most gifted and talented students. The continent is characterized by a tremendous social inequality. The income distribution is extremely uneven, and poverty prevails in most countries. There is lack of opportunities for poor children and youngsters to have access to good quality schools, aggravated by the lack of their families’ support for their educational needs. These factors contribute to the high index of school failures and truancy among school-aged children. The educational needs of gifted children attract much less attention than the needs of children with learning disabilities. Lack of theoretical knowledge and expertise is also a factor that contributes to the lack of adequate investment in gifted education. Furthermore, education does not seem to be a priority for the national governments and the scarcity of information regarding giftedness for parents and teachers contributes to the problem of gifted students remaining unidentified, without opportunities to have their needs attended to at school. Special resources, such as universities, research institutes, museums, and other professional organizations, are still neglected in educating the gifted and talented children, with a few sporadic exceptions. These institutes have the knowledge, the personnel, and the equipment that may cater to gifted and talented students and could also provide mentorship to gifted students. Research is scarce and dispersed. An aggravating problem is the lack of a tradition of documenting the educational experiences and of publishing the studies in national and international journals. More common

1498

are the restricted availability of research reports to certain groups and the limitations to abstracts included in conference summaries. It has been noted that several programs, which were implemented in the public and private schools in countries such as Argentina and Venezuela, were discontinued due to lack of governmental support. Furthermore, although educational policies have been created in different countries, their implementation has proved to be highly limited, without the necessary means for the conduction of the proposed guidelines (Castro, 2004).

Gifted Education and Research in Brazil

E.M.L. Soriano de Alencar et al.

Although the Brazilian government has been investing on the education of the gifted for many decades, it is noted that the resources and the number of students attending special programs for the gifted are still limited. As a consequence, in 2005, the Ministry of Education implemented a High Abilities/Giftedness Center of Activities in 27 Brazilian states in order to increase the number of gifted students who have been identified and should have an education consistent with their needs and abilities. The purpose of the center is, therefore, to provide educational conditions for meeting the needs of gifted students, in-service training for teachers to work with the gifted, support for families, educational resources, and technological equipment. The structure of the center includes teachers’ and students’ attending units and a family support unit (Brazil, 2005a). Teachers who attend the center receive training in the characteristics of the gifted, the identification processes, educational strategies, creativity, and issues related to the families of the gifted. They also have the opportunity to engage in research on giftedness. The training is supported by partners such as universities, non-governmental agencies, and other organizations. At each center, at least one consultant is available to advise teachers and to examine materials produced by them. With respect to students, the center offers courses in cognitive skills and affective training (such as creativity, “how-to”, research and library skills, etc.). Furthermore, the students are stimulated to plan and implement projects that attend to the communities’ needs and to participate in fairs, seminars, and contests. The Family Unit aims to advise, inform, and give support to the families of the gifted. Seminars, conferences, and opportunities for families to attend parent support groups are provided. The Ministry of Education and the Education State Secretaries evaluate the centers’ activities on a regular basis. It is expected, with the implementation of the High Abilities/Giftedness Centers of Activities, that the number of students identified as gifted will increase in Brazil.

The movement toward gifted education in Brazil started more than five decades ago, under the influence of the Russian teacher Helena Antipoff, who published several articles calling attention to the need for early identification and educational services for the gifted in the 1930s and 1940s. However, the federal government only established a national law for the education of the gifted in 1971 (Alencar et al., 2000; Fleith & Alencar, 2004). In 1995, the Secretary of Special Education of the Ministry of Education in Brazil produced a document containing governmental educational policies regarding the education of the gifted. The expression high ability is introduced to refer to the abilities of gifted students. According to this document, gifted children are those who demonstrate high achievement and/or potential in any of the following areas: general intellectual ability; specific academic aptitude; creative or productive thinking; leadership ability; music, visual, and performance arts; and psychomotor abilities. However, the Brazilian authorities have revised this definition. According to the Resolution of the National Council of Education (Brazil, 2001), highability/gifted students are those who learn easily and master concepts and procedures fast. This resolution also recommends flexibility regarding curricular adaptations, teaching methods, resources, and evaluation procedures for the gifted. As a consequence, the Brazilian government provided a document for teach- Programs for the Gifted ers, containing pedagogical strategies and guidelines for the teaching of gifted students from kindergarten It is important to highlight that special provisions for the gifted had been initiated in different states of the through grade 8 (Brazil, 2002).

77

Gifted Education and Research on Giftedness in South America

country much before the implementation of the High Abilities/Giftedness Centers of Activities. The most well-known programs are those offered by the Educational Office of the Federal District, the one implemented by the Center for Talent Development in Minas Gerais, and by the Objetivo Education Center, which is a private educational complex in S˜ao Paulo. Different formats of enrichment activities are provided for gifted students. The Enrichment Program for Gifted and Talented Students, for example, was established by the Secretary of Education of the Federal District in 1975. Approximately 1,000 primary and secondary school students are enrolled in the program. In the past, the program used to serve kindergarten students as well. The program offers gifted students opportunities to optimally develop their potentials and talents, to promote their social and school adjustment, to expose them to experiences, materials, and information outside the bounds of the regular curriculum, and expose students to more in-depth content (Alencar et al., 2000). The program is implemented at resource rooms, where enrichment activities are developed in different academic domains, such as science, mathematics, literature, and computer science, under the supervision of a trained teacher. Visits to museums, exhibitions, and libraries are other activities implemented. There are also provisions for special talents in music and visual arts. The activities are carried out once or twice a week outside of regular school times (Magalh˜aes, 2001). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model by Renzulli (1986, 1994; Renzulli & Reis, 1997) guides the program. Most students who attend the program are from poor families and receive little environmental or parental stimulus (Magalh˜aes, 2001). The Project to Orient and Identify Talents, provided by the Objetivo Education Center, a private institution, was initiated in the 1980s. Extracurricular courses are the format adopted by the program. A large number of extracurricular activities are offered especially for underachieving students (Cupertino, Guenther, Delou, & P´erez, 2006). Three different kinds of courses are presently implemented: general courses that help students to identify their abilities and interests; specific courses, which focus on selected topics; and personal relationship courses, which aim to help the gifted students to understand themselves, better relate to their peers, and accept their personal differences. Last year

1499

440 students attended the project (Cupertino, 2006, personal communication). The Center for Talent Development was founded in 1993 in Lavras, Minas Gerais. Its goals are (a) to identify the special interests and educational needs of talented children and adolescents and to provide assistance toward meeting their needs and interests, (b) to offer support to gifted children in their personal and emotional developmental needs, and (c) to ensure proper stimulation of youth so as to develop specific abilities and talents (Guenther, 1995). In the center, each gifted child has an individual work plan organized around three types of enrichment activities: projects, interest groups, and general encounters. The individual projects are developed under the supervision of a mentor (most of them volunteers). Each semester, about 60–70 volunteer instructors develop activities for 450– 500 students. Interest groups are formed with children with common interests, who meet outside of regular school times for a 2-hour period each week. The general encounters are large meeting sessions with about 100 children from different schools. Approximately 700 primary and secondary school students are members of the center (Cupertino et al., 2006). In 1998, the Institute for Learning Optimization, which aims at providing opportunities for gifted, talented, and potentially gifted individuals to develop their potentials fully, was founded. This institute has a program for supporting gifted children’s parents, and besides encouraging parents, educators and concerned professionals are involved with and support educational opportunities for the gifted (Beker, Franke, & Sabatella, 2001). Six-hundred and forty-eight gifted children have been served by the institute. Nowadays, 138 students attend the institute. ACERTA is a private institution in Rio de Janeiro that caters to gifted students and their families, through an after-school program and a parent program. The after-school program aims at offering the students opportunities for studying more elaborate and complex ideas than they do at school, applying productive thinking to solving everyday problems, developing self-initiated and self-directed learning, developing global awareness and an attitude of interdependence among people, and developing positive social actions. The parent program aims at helping parents understand their children’s proclivities, find the best academic opportunities for their children, and develop coping strategies. The program is based on Gardner’s

1500

conception of multiple intelligences, Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence, Bloom’s taxonomy, and Kohlberg’s conception of moral development. The students meet once or twice a week in groups of three to six for 2 hours. They play challenging mind games, read books of their choice, write, build structures, play number games, research themes of their interest, discuss ideas, and participate in special workshops (Sodr´e, 2006, personal communication). Programs implemented by the Brazilian Association for the Gifted in association with the Secretary of Education are also offered in some Brazilian states (P´erez-Barrera & Lima, 2001; Simonetti, 2001). Provisions for the gifted at college level occur by means of a national program, the Tutorial Education Program, which was initiated in 1979 by the Department of Improvement of Graduate Personnel of the Ministry of Education. The program aims to (a) provide an excellent and interdisciplinary academic preparation to those students who demonstrate an outstanding performance in their academic activities, (b) supply students with opportunities to further develop higher level thinking abilities and communication skills, and (c) stimulate new pedagogical experiences to improve college education. Undergraduate students are selected for this program during their second, third, or fourth semester at the university. The main criteria for the selection are high academic achievement and high interest and motivation in carrying out their studies. In each department, a professor is chosen as the mentor and is responsible for planning the activities and supervising the students. The mentor is selected from the institute of professors who demonstrate real interest in the program, high academic productivity, and a good relationship with colleagues and students. Each mentor is responsible for 12 students. The program is evaluated each year. The students receive a scholarship and remain in the program throughout their undergraduate program (Alencar et al., 2000). To date 3,117 university students from different regions of Brazil have participated in the program (Brazil, 2005b). In the past, there were excellent provisions for the disadvantaged gifted at high school levels. However, most of these programs were discontinued due to several reasons, such as lack of financial support from the government, financial difficulties by the private organizations that support the program, or lack of adequate direction and leadership. New initiatives in this

E.M.L. Soriano de Alencar et al.

direction have started again, as ISMART (Maria Telles Social Institute) was created in 1999. It is a philanthropic organization funded by the Telles family as a result of their long-term commitment to fostering social and economic development in Brazil. The institute’s mission is to prepare a new and more diverse generation of leaders, identifying and nurturing gifted students from underrepresented communities through educational opportunities that lead them to attend selected colleges and succeed in demanding careers. The programs offered by ISMART are (Guimar˜aes, 2006; World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, 2005) the following: (a) Space for Talent, which offers scholarships and extracurricular activities to promote the cognitive, moral, ethical, and professional development of 130 youth. (b) Alicerce Project, implemented in partnership with private schools of excellence in S˜ao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, is targeting seventh-grade students and divided into two segments: the first is a 2-year course executed by the schools to prepare them for its admission exams. The second one benefits only those who pass the exams, granting full scholarships and material support, complemented by a mentoring system that offers professional and personal guidance. (c) Talent Scholarship: Students from the public schools of the country, with outstanding academic performance, from seventh grade to first year college, are eligible for this scholarship program. A recommendation from school principals and some of the student’s teachers is mandatory and constitutes the first phase of its selection process. Apart from the scholarships, they receive material support to cover study-related expenses, are encouraged to join research projects in their area of choice, and complemented by the same mentoring system as applied in the Alicerce Project.

Trends in the Identification Process Multiplicity of criteria has been the rule in the identification process for participating in the gifted programs available in the country. Observation by teachers on the basis of a list of characteristics, nomination by parents

77

Gifted Education and Research on Giftedness in South America

and teachers, school performance, as well as psychological evaluation are usually utilized in the identification process. Changes occurred recently in the identification procedures utilized by the Objetivo Education Center. From 1972 to 1998, the identification procedures were based on the results of intelligence tests (95th percentile or higher) and teacher nomination. Since 1999 though, any student who perceives him/herself as talented may initiate the extracurricular activities provided by the program. However, only those students who demonstrate motivation, creativity, high achievement, besides special abilities, may continue in the more advanced level of the program (Alencar et al., 2002). Similarly, the identification process utilized by the Center for Talent Development starts with the teacher’s nomination on the basis of a list of characteristics and is finalized with data about the children collected by different teachers working with them during the school year. The selection process conducted at the ISMART includes intellectual potential evaluation through an internationally standardized test, mathematics and language (reading and essay) tests, individual, group, and family interviews, and a home visit. ISMART only selects the students who meet the following criteria: (a) score in the 75th percentile or above on the internationally standardized test; (b) performing well on mathematics and language tests, have high level of commitment to studies and an academic and professional future; and (c) receive support from their families to dedicate themselves exclusively to their studies (Guimar˜aes, 2006; World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, 2005).

1501

dren’s intellectual, social, and emotional development (Sabatella & Beker, 2001). Another recent counseling service for parents of the gifted implemented is the Psychoeducational Service for Parents of Gifted and Talented Students. This service was created in 2002 at the University of Brasilia and its main purpose is to provide an opportunity for parents to receive information on giftedness, share experiences with other families, and discuss strategies to be implemented in the familial context to enhance and cultivate children’s abilities. This service aims to present and discuss topics related to giftedness and the enrichment programs attended by their children, to offer opportunities for parents to share their doubts, difficulties, and successes related to the education of their gifted child, and to discuss stimulation strategies for their children’s potential. A parent group is organized each semester. Nine meetings of 2 hours are held with parents 1 week apart in the evenings. Two psychologists coordinate the meetings. A lecturing approach is avoided and the methodology includes reading, discussions, group dynamics, and videos (Fleith & Guimar˜aes, 2006).

Brazilian Research on Giftedness

Although educational policies related to gifted education were proposed more than 30 years ago, little research on giftedness has been conducted in Brazil since. After the third Ibero-American Conference on Giftedness held in Brazil in 1998, an increasing number of research investigations on giftedness, although still sparse, has been noted. Most Brazilian studies have dealt with students’ perceptions on giftedness, schools, family, and peers. Ferreira and Souza (2000) examined school perception of Services for Parents of Gifted Children gifted students from the south-east, from elementary to middle school grades. The results of this study pointed In Brazil, very few counseling services for parents out that students evaluated the schools satisfactorily. In of the gifted have been implemented (Alencar & the southern regions, Costa (2001) investigated the perFleith, 2001). One of them is implemented at the ceptions of gifted adolescents on family, school, and Institute for Optimizing Learning, located in the south peers. The results indicated that society needs to reof the country. Families of gifted children receive think its values, especially those related to individual information about giftedness and have opportunities differences, allowing gifted students to conduct their to discuss significant educational concerns to foster projects. positive and stable family relationships. As a result, Likewise, Virgolim (2005) found that gifted and parents become confident in supporting their chil- talented students, from ages 9 to 17 years, who

1502

were attending an enrichment program in Brasilia, perceived themselves as both creative and intelligent. However, the ideal student profile described by those students was the schoolhouse type of giftedness (Renzulli, 1986). The students also evaluated the enrichment program and reported that the program offered opportunities for them to learn more and indepth and fulfill their academic and emotional needs. The program teachers were perceived in a favorable way, the teaching method was seen as different from the traditional one, and they felt that their learning style was respected. The students also emphasized that the lack of physical resources and equipment was a barrier to the full development of their potentialities. Melo and Alencar (2006) evaluated pedagogical practices used to implement mathematics activities in a program for gifted students. Mathematics teachers from the program and from regular classrooms participated in the study. The results pointed out that the activities implemented in the program attended only partially to the needs of gifted students. Moreover, teachers from regular classrooms did not have information regarding the activities implemented in the program. Maia-Pinto (2002, 2006) also conducted a research study to evaluate the impact of a program designed to meet the needs of gifted and talented students on the academic performance and creativity of its participants, to investigate teachers’, students’, and parents’ perception of activities and strategies implemented in the program, and to examine the extent to which activities and educational strategies adopted in the program differed from the ones used in the regular classes. Seventy-seven students from primary and secondary schools who attended a program designed for gifted and talented students, 11 teachers who worked in the program, 6 teachers from regular classes, and 6 parents of students who attended a special program participated in this study. The perception of teachers, students, and parents about activities and strategies adopted in the program was, in general, positive. However, it was found that parents and regular teachers lacked information about the objectives and the work developed in the program. It was also observed that, in spite of the teachers’ theoretical background about giftedness, they found it difficult to transfer the knowledge to the teaching practice. Furthermore, Maia-Pinto and Fleith (2002) investigated how elementary school teachers perceived gifted

E.M.L. Soriano de Alencar et al.

students. The findings suggested that both private and public school teachers believe that the school’s participation in the educational process of the gifted students is important. However, neither public nor private schools, whose teachers participated in the study, adopted any student identification instrument or have special programs for those students. The teachers also stated that they had never had gifted students in their classes. It was observed that teachers had a superficial knowledge concerning giftedness’ definition and its identification process, and they did not have specific orientation about the implementation of educational practices that could attend to gifted students’ needs. Some studies have been conducted with respect to the profile of the gifted. Camara (1999), for example, investigated the relationship between precocious literacy and giftedness in 34 children aged 5–8 years. Data were collected through parent interviews, observations, and testing. The results indicated that these children obtained high scores on intelligence tests. The familial environment was very stimulating for the children. The study concluded that precociously reading children may not be considered gifted. With the purpose of describing the social profile of students who attended a gifted program in public schools in Rio de Janeiro, Delou (2001) interviewed students and analyzed school documents. She found that the students were from low socioeconomic statuses and they were nominated for the program because of their school performance. Fortes (2004) analyzed how gifted adolescents constructed morality and pro-social morality. Five secondary school students who attended a program for gifted students participated in the study. The conclusions of the study were that (a) morality cannot be evaluated solely as a function of the cognitive level of each student, (b) morality development does not follow invariable, hierarchical, or universal stages, and (c) motivation, values, and virtues are connected with moral acts. Ourofino (2005) compared gifted students, hyperactive students, and those presenting giftedness and hyperactivity, in relation to intelligence, self-concept, creativity, attention deficit, hyperactivity and impulsivity, antisocial behavior, and learning difficulties. The study had the participation of 114 students. Among these, there were 52 gifted students taken from a program for the gifted and talented, 43 ADHD students

77

Gifted Education and Research on Giftedness in South America

attending regular schools, and 19 gifted/hyperactive students. A set of instruments, including psychometric tests, scales of characteristics, documental analysis, and demographic questionnaire, was used to access the variables investigated. The results indicated that the gifted students had a significantly higher performance in relation to intelligence, self-concept (in the academic competence, physical appearance, behavior conduct, and global self-esteem dimensions), and creativity (in the verbal originality aspect) when compared to the other groups. On the other hand, the hyperactive students achieved higher scores on the lack of attention and hyperactivity/impulsivity measures in comparison to the other groups. The results also revealed that the hyperactive students presented higher scores in both antisocial behavior and learning difficulties when compared to the gifted students. Also, Moreira (2005) investigated the perception of perfectionist gifted adolescents in relation to perfectionism and the consequences of it in their school performance. A total of 51 grades 5–8 students who attended a program for the gifted participated in the study. In general, the perception of these students regarding perfectionism was positive. They also considered this trait as an attribute that helps with the completion of academic tasks. Few studies regarding the family of the gifted have been brought to implementation. In one of them, Aspesi (2003; Aspesi & Fleith, 2006) investigated the family processes as a context to the development of giftedness, considering giftedness as a multidimensional phenomenon. Twelve preschool children attending the gifted program, run by the Brazilian Federal District public educational network, and their parents (12 mothers and 9 fathers) participated in the study. The bioecological approach was adopted as the theoretical-methodological reference. The children were observed according to a behavioral scale at school (SRBCSS-R). Their parents answered an inventory on parental attitudes (PAAT) and a semi-structured questionnaire and were interviewed. Quantitative and qualitative procedures were used. Results indicate that there are physical, psychological, and support network incentives in the family environment. The study proposed that gifted children’s families have a main role in the development of giftedness, so they need support services. In another study, Chagas (2003; Chagas & Fleith, 2006) examined the characteristics related to

1503

the development of gifted behaviors in families with and without gifted children from disadvantaged environments. Fourteen gifted students and their parents, 14 non-gifted students and their parents, 4 educational managers, 4 teachers, and 2 psychologists participated in the study. The data were collected through semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire. The results indicated that (a) participants perceived giftedness as a set of factors related to superior cognitive and academic abilities, besides affective and innate characteristics; (b) gifted students occupied a special family position: first born or only child; (c) more than half of the students presented a gap between their age and the age-appropriate grade; (d) gifted students were involved in more activities during their free time when compared to their non-gifted peers.

Issues in Gifted Education in Brazil It is unarguable that positive changes have occurred in the education of the gifted in Brazil especially in the last decade. However, several barriers to the development of talents are still prominent (Alencar et al., 2002). Misconceptions or lack of information regarding giftedness are two of them. For example, it is not uncommon for a gifted child to be diagnosed with ADHD because psychologists or educators are not prepared to work with the gifted. There is no comprehensive undergraduate or graduate training for these professionals. Likewise, parents feel immobilized because they do not know how to deal with a gifted son or daughter. In Brazilian society it is also usual to mistakenly label gifted children as “little geniuses”. The majority of programs and services provided to gifted students have focused on fostering cognitive and academic abilities. Very few have paid attention to the development of affective characteristics. Another problem is the lack of integration between programs for the gifted and those of regular classrooms. Although enrichment programs are accepted by schools and families, acceleration is less usual and implemented in very few circumstances. Therefore, information about giftedness and an explanation of educational practices for the gifted should be disseminated among parents, teachers, and students. It is interesting to note that the majority of research projects related to giftedness are not integrated. Most

1504

of them are results of master theses or doctoral dissertations from special education or school psychology graduate programs. In this regard, it seems urgent to set an agenda on studying talent development that could answer questions, clarify doubts, and eliminate myths about giftedness. On the other hand, efforts from governmental agencies, universities, non-governmental organizations, such as the Brazilian Council for Giftedness, to establish a network in order to provide a forum of exchange, teacher training, parental support, and services for gifted children are noted.

The Future of Gifted Education and Research on Giftedness in South America Although advances in the areas of gifted education and research have been reported in South America, there is a long way to go. It is important to remember that not all South American countries share the same cultural, linguistic, ideological, social, and economical backgrounds. These differences are reflected in the terminology, practices, and policies implemented for the gifted. However, certain gifted education issues are present in most of the South American nations: (a) scarcity of programs for training teachers and psychologists in the giftedness area; (b) shortage of financial support for implementing programs and services for gifted students; (c) limited number of studies on giftedness; (d) discontinuity of programs for talented children; (e) lack of instruments to identify gifted children from disadvantaged environments; (f) preference of enrichment educational strategies; and (g) the predominance of misconceptions related to giftedness among parents, educators, and administrators. Based on these conditions, the education of the gifted in South America is unquestionably challenging. To arrive at a more promising scenario and optimism, it is necessary to take action. First, it is important to improve the efficiency of partnerships between schools, universities, and governmental as well as non-governmental organizations regarding teacher and counselor training and parental group support programs and include undergraduate and graduate courses in the areas of gifted and talented education in university curricula. Second, more research needs to be conducted for a better understanding of the

E.M.L. Soriano de Alencar et al.

effects of the different educational strategies, including cross-cultural studies. Third, it is relevant to encourage exchanges among these nations and those whose education for the gifted is more advanced. Fourth, national policies should be extended and implemented based on research results and theoretical frameworks. Finally, more attention should be paid to the development of both cognitive and affective characteristics of gifted students. For developing countries, as is the case with most countries in South America, the investment into the education of the gifted and research on giftedness is essential and a guarantee for the improvement of quality of life in those societies. In this regard, we must continue to develop special provisions to meet the needs of gifted children because they are “the most precious natural resource a civilization can have” (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986, p. ix).

References Alencar, E. M. L. S., Blumen-Pardo, S., & Castellanos-Simons, D. (2000). Programs and practices for identifying and nurturing giftedness and talent in Latin American countries. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 817–830). Oxford: Elsevier. Alencar, E. M. L. S., & Fleith, D. S. (2001). Superdotados: Determinantes, educac¸a˜ o e ajustamento [The gifted: Determinants, education and adjustment]. Sao Paulo: EPU. Alencar, E. M. L. S., Fleith, D. S., & Blumen, S. (2002). Trends in gifted education in South America: the Brazilian and Peruvian scenario. Gifted and Talented International, 17, 7–12. Arancibia, V. (2006a). Atenci´on de los talentos acad´emicos provenientes de sectores de escasos recursos [Attention to the academic talent from sectors with scarcity of resources]. Ideacci´on, 25, 125–132. Arancibia, V. (2006b). Evaluation of five years of an enrichment program for gifted students from poor contexts. Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the European Council for High Ability [p. 124]. Lahti, Finland: ECHA. Aspesi, C. C. (2003). Processos familiares relacionados ao desenvolvimento da superdotac¸a˜ o em crianc¸as pr´e-escolares [Family processes related to the development of giftedness in preschool children]. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Brasilia, Brazil. Aspesi, C. C., & Fleith, D. S. (2006). Family processes and development of giftedness. Gifted Education International, 21, 44–53. Beker, S., Franke, M. C., & Sabatella, M. L. P. (2001, August). Institute of Learning Optimization: A bright idea for bright minds. Paper presented at the 14th Biennial Conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children. Barcelona, Spain.

77

Gifted Education and Research on Giftedness in South America

Benavides, M., Rios, C. G., & Marshall, M. V. (2004). La educaci´on de ni˜nos con talento en Chile [The education of the talented children in Chile]. In M. Benavides, A. Maz, E. Castro, & R. Blanco (Eds.), La educaci´on de ni˜nos con talento en Iberoam´erica [The education of the talented children in Iberoamerica] (pp. 105–114). Santiago: Editorial Trineo. Blumen, S. (2006). An´alisis de los programas de enriquecimiento y aceleraci´on para la superdotaci´on y el talento intelectual [An analysis of enrichment and acceleration programs for giftedness and intellectual talent]. Ideacci´on, 25, 143–154. Brazil. (2001). Resoluc¸a˜ o n. 2 do Conselho Nacional de Educac¸a˜ o/Cˆamara de Educac¸a˜ o B´asica [National Council of Education/Chamber of Basic Education number 2 Resolution]. Brasilia: Secretaria de Educac¸a˜ o Especial. Brazil. (2002). Estrat´egias e orientac¸o˜ es pedag´ogicas para a educac¸a˜ o de crianc¸as com necessidades educacionais especiais. Altas habilidades/superdotac¸a˜ o [Pedagogical strategies and orientations for the education of children with special needs. High Abilities/Giftedness]. Brasilia: Secretaria de Educac¸a˜ o Especial. Brazil. (2005a). N´ucleos de atividades de altas habilidades/superdotac¸a˜ o [Centers of activities of high abilities/giftedness]. Brasilia: Secretaria de Educac¸a˜ o Especial. Brazil. (2005b, March). Programa de Educac¸a˜ o Tutorial – Distribuic¸a˜ o dos grupos PET [Tutorial Education Program – Distribution of PET groups]. Retrieved from http://www.mec.gov.br/sesu Camara, C. G. (1999). Auto-alfabetizac¸a˜ o precoce: ind´ıcio de superdotac¸a˜ o ou resposta a um ambiente rico em est´ımulos? [Precocious literacy: A sign of giftedness or a response to a stimulating environment?]. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of S˜ao Paulo, Brazil. Castro, E. (2004). Perspectivas futuras de la educaci´on de ni˜nos con talento [Future perspective of children with talent]. In M. Benavides, A. Maz, E. Castro, & R. Blanco (Eds.), La educaci´on de ni˜nos con talento en Iberoam´erica [The education of the talented children in Iberoamerica] (pp. 171–185). Santiago: Editorial Trineo. Chagas, J. F. (2003). Caracter´ısticas familiares relacionadas ao desenvolvimento de comportamentos de superdotac¸a˜ o em alunos provenientes de n´ıvel s´ocio-econˆomico desfavorecido [Family characteristics related to the development of gifted behaviors in students from low socioeconomic level]. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Brasilia, Brazil. Chagas, J. F., & Fleith, D. S. (2006). Development of gifted behaviors: A study with families of socio-economically disadvantaged environments. Gifted Education International, 21, 10–18. Costa, M. R. N. (2001, August). A study on gifted adolescent. Paper presented at the 14th Biennial Conference of the World Gifted Council for Gifted and Talented Children, Barcelona, Spain. Cupertino, C. M. B. (personal communication, March 2006). Cupertino, C. M. B., Guenther, Z., Delou, C., & P´erez, S. (2006). Diversity and gifted education: Four Brazilian examples. In B. Wallace & G. Eriksson (Eds.), Diversity in gifted education (pp.158–164). London: Routledge. De Zubiria, J. (2006). Alberto Merani Institution: Two decades educating gifted youngsters in Colombia. Gifted Education International, 21, 75–78.

1505

De Zubiria, J., Collazos, J. C. M., G´omez, D. R., Gallo, A. Y., Ram´ırez, U. M., Sierra, S. H., et al. (2006). C´omo formar el talento? [How to build the talent?] Bogot´a: Instituto Alberto Merani. De Zubiria, M., & Dur´an, N. (2001). The Alberto Merani Foundation. Proceedings of the 14th Biennial Conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children [p. 82]. Barcelona: WCGTC. Delou, C. M. C. (2001). Sucesso e fracasso escolar de alunos considerados superdotados: Um estudo sobre a trajet´oria escolar de alunos que receberam atendimento em salas de recursos de escolas da rede p´ublica de ensino [School success and failure of gifted students: A study about the school life of students who attended resources rooms in public schools]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Catholic University of S˜ao Paulo, Brazil. Ferreira, A. S., & Souza, L. (2000, September). Alunos superdotados e sua representac¸a˜ o de escola [Gifted students and their representation of school]. Paper presented at the XIII Semin´ario Nacional da Associac¸a˜ o Brasileira para Superdotados, Porto Alegre, Brazil. Fleith, D. S., & Alencar, E. M. L. S. (2004). La educaci´on de ni˜nos con talento en Brasil [The education of talented children in Brazil]. In M. Benavides, A. Maz, E. Castro, & R. Blanco (Eds.), La educaci´on de ni˜nos con talento en Iberoam´erica [The education of the talented children in Iberoamerica] (pp. 79–91). Santiago: Editorial Trineo. Fleith, D. S., & Guimar˜aes, T. G. (2006). Psycho-educational service for parents of gifted and talented students: A Brazilian experience. Gifted Education International, 21, 63–68. Fortes, A. V. (2004). Moral em superdotados: Uma nova perspectiva [Morality in the gifted: A new perspective]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Brasilia, Brazil. Guenther, Z. C. (1995). A center for talent development in Brazil. Gifted and Talented International, 10, 26–30. Guimar˜aes, C. (2006). Ismart – A catalyst for low income young talents in Brazil. Gifted Education International, 21, 69–72. Guti´errez, E. (2004). La educaci´on de ni˜nos con talento en Per´u [The education of the talented children in Peru]. In M. Benavides, A. Maz, E. Castro, & R. Blanco (Eds.), La educaci´on de ni˜nos con talento en Iberoam´erica [The education of the talented children in Iberoamerica] (pp. 143–154). Santiago: Editorial Trineo. Kloosterman, V. I. (1999). Treasures of the south: Gifted and talented children in Argentina. Gifted and Talented International, 14, 112–117. Magalh˜aes, M. G. (2001, August). Brasilia’s program for the gifted: Challenges and innovations. Paper presented at the 14th Biennial Conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children. Barcelona, Spain. Maia-Pinto, R. R. (2002). Avaliac¸a˜ o das pr´aticas educacionais implementadas em um programa de atendimento ao aluno superdotado [Evaluation of educational practices implemented in a program for gifted students]. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil. Maia-Pinto, R. R., & Fleith, D. S. (2002). Percepc¸a˜ o de professores sobre alunos superdotados [Teachers’ perception of gifted students]. Estudos de Psicologia, 19, 78–90. Maia-Pinto, R. R. (2006). Educational practices on a Brazilian gifted and talented program. Gifted Education International, 21, 32–43.

1506 Melo, M.A. F., & Alencar, E. M. L. S. (2006). Avaliac¸a˜ o das pr´aticas desenvolvidas em matem´atica em um programa de atendimento a alunos portadores de altas habilidades [Evaluation of practices implemented in Mathematics in a program for gifted students]. Ideacci´on, 25, 315–322. Molina, J. M. M. (2006). Ibero-American Institute for the development of thinking, talent and creativity. Gifted Education International, 21, 73–74. M¨onks, F. J., Ypenburg, I., & Blumen, S. (1997). Nuestros ni˜nos son talentosos [Our children are talented]. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica del Peru. Moreira, G. E. (2005). Perfeccionismo em adolescentes superdotados atendidos em um programa para alunos com altas habilidades/talentosos [Perfectionism in gifted adolescents who attend a program for gifted and talented students]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Catholic University of Brasilia, Brazil. Ourofino, V. T. A. T. (2005). Caracter´ısticas cognitivas e afetivas entre alunos superdotados, hiperativos e superdotados/hiperativos: Um estudo comparativo [Cognitive and affective characteristics of gifted, hyperactive, and gifted/hyperactive students: A comparative study]. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Brasilia, Brazil. P´erez-Barrera, S. G., & Lima, A. S. (2001, August). ABSD-RS – parents, teachers, professionals and gifted persons – together we go further. Paper presented at the 14th Biennial Conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children. Barcelona, Spain. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davis (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53– 92). New York: Cambridge University Press. Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Sabatella, M. L., & Beker, S. (2001, August). Parenting gifted children: How we can help. Paper presented at the 14th

E.M.L. Soriano de Alencar et al. Biennial Conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children. Barcelona, Spain. Simonetti, D. V. (2001). Atividades desenvolvidas pela Associac¸a˜ o Brasileira para Superdotados, sec¸a˜ o do Esp´ırito Santo, Brasil [Activities implemented by the Brazilian Association for the Gited, Espirito Santo, Brazil]. Brazilian Association for the Gifted: Technical Report. Sodr´e, M. C. (personal communication, March 2006). Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press. Vergara, M. (2004). La educaci´on de ni˜nos con talento en Argentina [The education of the talented children in Argentina]. In M. Benavides, A. Maz, E. Castro, & R. Blanco (Eds.), La educaci´on de ni˜nos con talento en Iberoam´erica [The education of the talented children in Iberoamerica] (pp. 61–77). Santiago: Editorial Trineo. Vergara, M. (2006). Camino recorrido para la identificaci´on y atenci´on escolar del superdotado en la Rep´ublica Argentina [The path undergone for identifying and assisting the gifted in the Argentinian Republic]. Ideacci´on, 25, 52–61. Villegas, J. L., & Ball, M. (2004). La educaci´on de ni˜nos con talento en Venezuela [The education of the talented children in Venezuela]. In M. Benavides, A. Maz, E. Castro, & R. Blanco (Eds.), La educaci´on de ni˜nos con talento en Iberoam´erica [The education of the talented children in Iberoamerica] (pp. 155–169). Santiago: Editorial Trineo. Villarraga, M., Maz, A., & Torralbo, M. (2004). La educaci´on de ni˜nos con talento en Colombia [The education of talented children in Colombia]. In M. Benavides, A. Maz, E. Castro, & R. Blanco (Eds.), La educaci´on de ni˜nos con talento en Iberoam´erica [The education of the talented children in Iberoamerica] (pp. 93–103). Santiago: Editorial Trineo. Virgolim, A. M. R. (2005). Criatividade e inteligˆencia: Um estudo com alunos superdotados brasileiros [Creativity and intelligence: A study with Brazilian students]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, USA. World Council for Gifted and Talented Children. (2005). News from around the world. WCGTC Newsletter, 24, 6–7. Zabaleta, L. I. (2006). Curso virtual: introducci´on a la superdotaci´on [Virtual course: an introduction to giftedness]. Ideacci´on, 25, 224–233.

Part XIV

Conclusions

Chapter 78

Research on Giftedness in the 21st Century Albert Ziegler

Abstract First, the question of what giftedness research is is briefly dealt with. Afterward, the issue of whether present rationalizations for the existence of this field of research can remain justified is discussed. Particular attention is given to justifications concerning the individual needs of the gifted and the needs of society regarding specific contributions by gifted persons. Following this the probability that giftedness research will be displaced by one or both of its major rivals is examined to determine whether possible synergies with expertise research and innovation research can be expected in the future. Although this question can be positively answered from the perspective of giftedness research, the accuracy of the answer is decisively dependent on the degree to which the field is able to master the major challenges of the 21st century. This point is illustrated through the allegory of the Tower of Creativity. In conclusion a three-point summation of the contribution is drawn up. Keywords Tower of Creativity · Giftedness research · Expertise research · Innovation research · Creativity

(Kreibich, 2006). This chapter will therefore form the counterpart to the contribution made by Stoeger (in this book), which deals with the history of gifted education. It also differs from the chapter composed by Shaughnessy and Persson (in this volume), which addresses trends in gifted education. Here, the main concern is the future of giftedness research in the 21st century. Futurology is based on scientific methods (Fowles, 1978). The results they generate, and extrapolations on these results, are reflections of existing trends as well as the personal opinions of the researchers themselves. In this chapter I will primarily draw on the comprehensive prior works of the scientists contributing to this book. Then, of course, the prognoses presented in this chapter are also a reflection of my personal subjective assessments of how giftedness research will evolve in the 21st century.

What Is Giftedness Research?

If one would like to throw light on the future of giftedness research, one must first clarify the question Introduction of what exactly should be illuminated. In other words, What is giftedness research? This poses an indeed The converse to scientific examinations of past events serious problem: There is no generally accepted is futurology. This branch of science investigates definition of giftedness research.1 It is clear that it possible, probable, and desirable developments in the lies on the intersection of various disciplines, among future. An investigative topic, prevalent in the field, them are educational science, psychology, sociology, addresses future systems of raising and educating children and the theoretical models associated with them 1

A. Ziegler (B) University of Ulm, Ulm, Baden-W¨urttemberg, Germany e-mail: [email protected]

In the following I will use the terms “gifted,” “gift,” and “giftedness” exclusively. The concept associated with these terms is often also referred to with synonymously applied terms such as “talents” or “abilities.”

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 78, 

1509

1510

anthropology, biology, and history. Its individual character results from the object of its research, which brings up even more problems. The ambiguity concerning what is meant by giftedness research is easily matched by that of its namesake gift (for interesting and stimulating chapters on the nature of giftedness, see Dai; Davidson; Ericsson; Gagn´e; Hertzog; Shavinina; Sayler; Silverman & Miller). These problems are mirrored in the identification and assessment of the gifted. Despite tremendous progress over the last decades and promising new approaches (see the excellent chapters on assessment and identification of giftedness by Silverman; Lohman; Brody; Shavinina) we are still far away from a consensus on how to best identify the gifted. One reason for this is that gifts are not to be considered among the so-called natural concepts like the sun, trees, or oxygen. Therefore, as an investigative object, it is not simply given but is rather constructed by the researcher him/herself. Naturally, considerable deviations are found between one researcher and another. For example, there is a huge dissent concerning the rather elementary problem of determining how many gifted persons are among us. According to Terman (1925) this would be the top 1% of the population; according to Robinson (2005) the top 1–3% percent; according to Brody and Stanley (2005) the top 3%; according to Freeman (2005) the top 5–10%; according to Gagn´e (2005) the top 10%; according to Gordon and Bridglall (2005) the top 15%; and according to Renzulli (2005) the top 15–20%. In comparing the rather conservative percentage rates given by Terman and Robinson with the more generous percentage rates quoted by Gordon and Bridglall or Renzulli, one finds that the latter estimates the proportion of gifted persons to be more than 1,000% (sic!) greater than the former. Since researchers do not formulate definitions randomly, but rather with intent, one can assume that these researchers are not referring to the same thing when they are speaking of gifted persons or gifts. As long as the object being examined by giftedness research is not clear, and considerable deviations continue to exist, a standard definition along the lines of “Giftedness research is a scientific discipline which describes and explains the organization, structure, conditions for establishment, and influences of gifts” is insufficient. This may, at first, come across as rather sparse, but there is a way out. Giftedness is a relational concept, in other words gifted persons are gifted

A. Ziegler

at some specific thing (e.g., music, physics, academics, chess). This allows us to identify the object, as is similarly the case with objects in several other fields of science (e.g., gravitation, energy), by means of its effects.2 Fortunately, there is a wide consensus among giftedness researchers concerning the relational meaning of gifts; that gifts are involved, in a non-trivial manner, in the establishment of achievement excellence and innovations. Non-trivial means that they can be considered as causes. The definition of the investigative object of giftedness research could therefore read Giftedness research is a scientific discipline addressing the organization, structure, conditions for the establishment, and influences of the causes of achievement excellence and innovations.

Applied giftedness research would accordingly be the scientific discipline that addresses the application of the results of giftedness research to encourage achievement excellence and innovations.

Justification for Giftedness Research: Individual and Social Perspectives Almost all of the researchers contributing to this book have explicitly or implicitly stated that giftedness research will remain meaningful and significant in the future. Of course, part of this optimism is owing to the fact that one of its main objectives, gifted education, is ubiquitously perceived as one of the most important challenges of the 21st century (see the chapters on giftedness research and gifted education around the world by de Alencar & Arancibia; Maree, Bester, & van der Westhuizen; Matthews; M¨onks & Chandler; Noble & Childers; Subhi; Tsai et al.; Warwick), a point which has brought some nations to make or to consider deliberate societal adjustments to meet this challenge (see, as examples, the chapters by Van Tassel-Baska on gifted education policy; by Karnes & Stephens on legal issues; and the chapter by Carroll, Crowe, Earle, Orland, Moon, Ross, & Subotnik on the development of national strategic agendas). As giftedness research has, in the past, made a tremendous contribution to the education of the gifted (implementations in regular educational settings, constant improvement, evaluation, etc.), 2 It is important to note that the effects allow for the identification of gifts, but do not define them. They only point reliably to the object of research.

78

Research on Giftedness in the 21st Century

it seems to be the natural ally of gifted education (see the stimulating chapters on recent advances in gifted education and how they are built on research findings by Baldus, Assouline, Croft, & Colangelo; Colangelo & Assouline; Cramond; Davis; Eyre; Ferrari; Heng & Tam; Pyryt; Renzulli & Reis; Sriraman & Dahl; Van Tassel-Baska; Wallace & Maker; and the two chapters by Shavinina). However, many questions have yet to be answered and many problems are not well understood presently (see, for example, the chapters on individual differences, personality, and gender by Friedman-Nimz & Skyba; Piechowski, Jackson, & Frankfourth Moyle; Reis & Sullivan; Se¸kowski, Sieka´nska, & Klinkosz; see also the chapters on metacognition by Shore, Irving, & Redden; on gifted motivation by Gottfried & Gottfried; on twice-exceptional gifted students by Lupart & Toy, on the dropout problem by Matthews; and on suicidal behavior of gifted students by Cross & Hyatt). However, the lack of research findings is, of course, a strong argument for more, not for less, research. A closer inspection of all the arguments in favor of a flourishing future for giftedness research shows that they can be broken down to two basic arguments. In the first place, there is a strong emphasis on the right each person has to reach his/her full potential. This also applies to the gifted. To ensure and implement this right, knowledge, i.e., research is needed (see, for example, the introductory chapter by Shavinina as well as the chapters by Gross; Friedman-Nimz & Skyba; Cross & Hyatt; Van Tassel-Baska; Carroll, Crowe, Earle, Orland, Moon, Ross, & Subotnik; Karnes & Stephens). In the second place, society has a well-justified, high degree of interest in encouraging its cleverest and most creative members in the best possible way. This is shown plainly in all the chapters on domain-specific and multiple giftedness in this book (see the chapters by Shavinina on Nobel laureates; Phillipson & Callingham on mathematics; Simonton on cinema; Schnur & Marmor on reading and writing; Persson on music; van Rossum on sport; Shavinina on entrepreneurial giftedness; Heinzen & Picciano on information technology; Porath on the gifted educator; Shavinina on managerial talent; Root-Bernstein on polymaths; see also the chapters by Bar-On & Maree on emotional and social giftedness; Rogers on leadership). Nations which have the expertise to succeed in helping their talents to tap their full potential in these domains insure not only prosperity but also social, cultural, scientific as well as economic progress (Heller & Ziegler, 2007).

1511

Although the first argument should already suffice that giftedness research will continue to play a significant role, one should avoid building hopes on illusions. To put it bluntly, there is next to no doubt that the amount of funds made available to giftedness research during the 21st century will be decisively dependent on how convincingly the second argument can be defended by, and empirically confirmed through, giftedness research. Findings, such as those by Simonton (1988, 2004), that persons demonstrating achievement excellence proliferate innovations at a rate which is widely overproportional, are helpful. However, the fact that, over the course of about one century, giftedness research has not been able to identify one single Nobel Prize winner or recipient of a Field Medal, among the millions of children assessed, is harmful. Even more damaging is that future Nobel Prize winners have been excluded from samples of gifted children on the basis of insufficient talent, as was the case for Nobel Prize winners Shockley and Alvarez who were both rejected by the Terman study (Terman & Oden, 1959). I do not want to be misunderstood here. By no means am I asserting that giftedness research is not capable of justifying its own existence. What I would much rather like to emphasize is that it has not yet been able to achieve this. There is still, worldwide, no gifted program or gifted school whose former students are consistently admitted to National Academies of Sciences or regularly compete for Nobel Prizes, Field Medals, or prominent literature prizes, etc. Instead, giftedness research has been characterized by two unpleasant developments. First, at the current time, giftedness research is hardly acknowledged by its parent disciplines. This is no exaggeration when one considers that the articles published in the three empirical journals on giftedness with the highest citation impact (Gifted Child Quarterly, High Ability Studies, Journal for the Education of the Gifted) are hardly ever found in the reference lists in the correspondent journals for the fields of educational and developmental psychology, educational science, sociology, etc. Furthermore, it is disconcerting that the topic of giftedness barely plays a role in the leading journals of these parent disciplines. Articles on talent are sought in vain in these publications. Also alarming is that giftedness research has, in the last two decades, not been able to supply its parent disciplines with new investigative questions. Giftedness research is largely receptive, even to the

1512

point of being pushed into the sidelines. However, despite this gloomy appraisal of the current situation, I am personally convinced that giftedness research is actually predestined to become the drosophila of its parent disciplines in the 21st century: Its main topics are successful learning processes and successful development processes, which are a precondition for excellence and innovation. The results of giftedness research are, therefore, capable of offering excellent models of effective learning, efficient child rearing, and effective socialization for the design of optimally stimulating learning environments, etc. In my view it is mandatory for giftedness research to internalize this self-perception as a scientific pacesetter, instead of almost exclusively applying concepts derived from its parent disciplines. The second, and only at first sight more unpleasant development, is that giftedness research is faced with two powerful scientific rivals in the form of expertise research and innovation research. Of course, giftedness research since Terman (1925) has successfully absorbed a large number of theoretical advances. Davidson (in this volume) mentions, for example, the change from models based purely on intelligence to models of multiple talents. Here one can further differentiate between purely additive models (Renzulli, 1986; Sternberg, 2003) and stochastic models (e.g., Gagn´e, 2004). As this is subjected to more comprehensive review in other chapters of this book (see the chapters by Dai, Phillipson, Stoeger) I will not elaborate further. However, since expertise research and innovation research will continue to have a strong and enduring influence on further theoretical development in giftedness research, I will go into greater detail here.

A. Ziegler

acteristics and learning potentials of the gifted and talented as prerequisites for exceptional performance, expertise research generated its objectives from a fully disparate direction. Experts, according to the widely influential definition developed by Posner (1988), are persons who exhibit durable, and not only singular, extraordinary achievements (see also Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich, & Hoffman, 2006). Naturally, this perspective was not alien to giftedness research. For example, biographical analyses of the lives of eminent persons are among their core competencies (e.g., Gruber, 1981, 1998; Shavinina, 2004; Simonton, 2004). However, what was new here was, first, the radical rejection of a purely psychometric approach and a strong accentuation on the cognitive–scientific elements associated with it. In fact, it was now clear that giftedness research had been overly concentrated on traits for a long period of time (with certain exceptions such as Kholodnaya (1993), Shavinina and Kholodnaya (1996), Shore and Kanevsky (1993), and Sternberg (1986), just to mention a few). For example, Kholodnaya (1993) criticized the personality trait approach in the psychology of giftedness and insisted on the change in a research paradigm. Vekker (1981) demonstrated that study of any psychological phenomena is not productive if it based on the study of its own traits. Crises in psychology testify to it. Moreover, Shavinina (1995) specifically criticized the trait approach and demonstrated that traits of the gifted are results of their unique cognitive experience. Without doubt, one of the major weaknesses in the field was its neglect of cognitive psychology and, above all, aspects of learning (Sternberg, 1985; Ziegler, 2005). Again, exceptions exist. For example, Kholodnaya (1993), Shavinina and Kholodnaya (1996), Shore and Kanevsky (1993), and Sternberg (1986), just to mention a few, studied Giftedness Research and Its Most cognitive processes in the gifted. Also new was the definition of the research objective through perImportant Rivals formance and no longer through persons and their traits. Giftedness Research and Expertise Giftedness research accepted these stimulations Research gratefully – despite isolated pockets of skepticism – and developed them further. Elegant conceptions of In the 1970s giftedness research obtained forceful giftedness were proposed which united the benefits of impulses from the expertise approach to giftedness both approaches. For example, the Munich Model of (Gruber & Ziegler, 1996; Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Giftedness developed by Heller (see Heller, Perleth, Roring, 2005). In contrast to giftedness research, & Lim, 2005) and in particular the very influential which at the time focused primarily on the char- DMGT by Gagn´e (2004; see the chapter in this

78

Research on Giftedness in the 21st Century

book). The explanatory potential of these models widely surpasses that of the giftedness conceptions they displaced. Individually, these attempts at reform were so wide reaching that even the most innate concepts of giftedness research were reinterpreted to better serve expertise research. Noteworthy among them was Sternberg’s renowned hypothesis, in which talents were redefined in terms of developing expertise (Sternberg, 1999). As a giftedness researcher, one may debate whether or not in such hypotheses the relationship between giftedness and expertise research has been able to find an optimal point of balance. However, the innovative capacity of giftedness research and its potential to solidify a fruitful synthesis can, in retrospect, hardly be subjected to serious doubt. For example, not only were learning aspects integrated more deeply but also a developmental perspective surfaced, which led to a new sense of dynamism from the perspective of giftedness research (see Gagn´e, 2005; M¨onks, 1992; M¨onks & Mason, 2000; Subotnik, 2003; see also the chapters by Gross; Moltzen; Perleth & Wilde).

Giftedness Research and Innovation Research For several years a new field of research has been developing which will be able to stimulate the field of giftedness research to the same new heights that expertise research has been able to encourage: innovation research. As a telling sign of the thriving nature of this new branch of research, Shavinina published the International Handbook on Innovation in 2003, wherein several of the central figures in this investigative field have been gathered (Shavinina, 2003). A giftedness researcher who closely examines the concepts and issues surrounding innovation research cannot escape the impression that giftedness research is standing at the threshold of another change in its basic paradigm. We have previously mentioned that giftedness research has long defined its research object through persons and their characteristics, and expertise research has focused primarily on achievements. These achievements, however, have always been accomplished by persons. Innovation research has completely filtered persons out of the definition of their research object. They pursue their investigations by starting off with innovative products. As a conse-

1513

quence, they are treading on ground very familiar to the field of giftedness research. Researchers here have investigated the innovations produced by exceptional personalities such as Mozart or Edison, as well as the conditions for the generation of inventions, masterpieces, creative achievements (e.g., Gruber, 1998; Shavinina, 2004). However, a brief glance through the index of the handbook published by Shavinina would be rather jolting for a giftedness researcher. Excluding the 20-page chapter by giftedness researcher Renzulli, which Shavinina refers to in the introduction as “the chapter where an author was given an explicit assignment,” the central terms in giftedness research are blatantly absent from the subject index of the volume! In the remaining 1092 pages of the handbook the term “Giftedness” has only one single reference, and the terms “Talent,” “Ability,” and “Intelligence” are not referred to once. How can it be that the terms central to the basic constructs of giftedness research are virtually ignored in innovation research, although the objects of these two branches of research should be widely overlapping? In my opinion, this is due to three tendencies in innovation research, all of which are clearly portrayed in the handbook. I hope that the first two will prove to inspire similar movements in giftedness research; as to the third, I am personally concerned that it is bound to provide detrimental influences for giftedness research in the 21st century. (1) In innovation research, innovations are clearly understood as cooperative efforts among persons, in other words as the result of a team. And is it not true that current major discoveries are primarily being made by effective research groups? The extension of this perspective away from the individual and to the group is particularly well illustrated by Cooper’s (2003) work on product innovations. According to his assessment of the field’s research objective, the introduction of a new product results from cooperative efforts spanning a number of different functional areas: Market research, research and design, marketing and sales, etc. Although it is quite apparent that the specific talents of an individual employee can be established as a trace element of the entire success of an innovative product, this contribution cannot expect to be particularly potent in consideration of the number of persons involved in the entire process. Furthermore, one must also keep in mind that the end users, or consumers, always have a say in the ultimate establishment of an innovation. This in itself certainly does not justify a general neglect of

1514

the central constructs of giftedness research, however incomprehensible this may be from the perspective of innovation research. (2) The accent which is placed on interdisciplinary orientation in innovation research is remarkable. This can be detected on three levels. First, the professional background of these researchers is varied and stretches from economics over historical research and psychology to neurophysiology. Of course, giftedness research has caught up in recent years and these sciences are also well represented in giftedness research (see for example the exciting chapters about the neuropsychology of giftedness by Geake; Kalbfleisch; Vandervert & Liu). Nevertheless, the interdisciplinary nature of innovation research is not only reflected by the opportunity for a meeting of the minds among researchers stemming from the most disparate of areas. It is also evident in the fact that in single studies, quite deliberately, methods of different scientific disciplines are ingeniously combined. This was particularly well expressed in the work done by Weisberg (2003). He employed historical analyses to isolate the indicators of the psychological thought processes upon which innovations are based. Such approaches are rather rare in giftedness research. Indeed, most talent models do not include the analysis of cognitive processes (with some exceptions: Gross, this volume; Kholodnaya (1993), Shavinina and Kholodnaya (1996), Shore and Kanevsky (1993), and Sternberg (1986)), so it is no surprise that they were not used as explanatory constructs. Actually, it must be nothing less than shocking for giftedness researchers to hear that Weisberg was able to summarize the results of his analyses with the simple formula “common thought processes, uncommon products.” Heinzen and Vail (2003) arrive at a completely analogous result when they summarize that “Ordinary personalities in extraordinary circumstances will innovate.” Such assessments are a stern condemnation of giftedness research, resulting, not in the least, from a lack of familiarity with their potential explanatory contributions. The third level of interdisciplinarity is a consequence of the domain being investigated, which habitually crosses traditional borders among and between fields of study. In our modern society, innovations occur primarily in acutely branched and highly specialized domains situated on the interface of several scientific disciplines. It is next to impossible to define them in terms of common scholastic subjects or classify them into

A. Ziegler

the achievement areas given preference in giftedness research. What particular talent does a person have at their disposal when he/she can innovatively improve chat dungeons? By the same token, due to the stormy modernization of newer and newer domains with blurred borders, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recognize the physical contours of special gifts at an early stage, those which will lead to achievement excellence in these new domains in the future. (3) The third noteworthy trend in innovation research results from the definition of their research objective. While giftedness research deals chiefly with the generation of new ideas, products, masterpieces, etc., the authors of the handbook are, in addition, also explicitly concerned with the acceptance and realization of such innovations. Nevertheless, acceptance and realization take place under strong competitive pressure. This is dramatically formulated in a quote taken from the final chapter by Vandervert (2003) who summarizes “The vision and energy of innovation is all about kicking some competitor’s butt!” Aside from the fact that this orientation is, in my opinion, rather callous, I consider it to be a scientific misstep to include a random component in a definition of the investigative object of a branch of research. And chance market niches, unpredictable fashion currents, or quickly varying taste predilections are definitively random. At this point I am involuntarily reminded of the words of an unknown author: “Innovation is when the market shouts ‘Hurrah!”’ In my opinion, giftedness research would be poorly advised to assume similar orientations. Essential fields of research such as underachievement would fall completely to the wayside – for this reason we define the objects of our research differently. The three trends depicted here will have, as already pointed out, massive consequences on talent research in the 21st century and must lead to a paradigm change. As the number of extraordinary achievements by teams increases, the amount of explanatory power associated with talent theories focusing on the individual will decrease. Therefore, the development of talent models that also include groups will be a necessary consequence. In addition, giftedness research will have to increasingly seek out dialogues with social psychologists, organizational psychologists, and sociologists and integrate their work with meta-theories such as system theories. Giftedness research will, in my opinion, increasingly have to take new domains into consideration, those in which major innovations are to be

78

Research on Giftedness in the 21st Century

expected – otherwise funding for research and promotion will start to dry up in the foreseeable future. Tightly structured academic subject boundaries and talent concepts based on scholastic success models will, presumably, soon have to give way to much more flexible concepts which are more domain specific and less trait oriented. It is up to us, as giftedness researchers, to improve the viability of our concepts and to transfer them into the field of innovation research, a field that will be under increasing demand in the future and one which is still ignoring us today.

The Challenge of the 21st Century It is a steadfast fact that everything changes, nothing stays the same, and structures come to pass: Mountains erode, buildings go to ruin, machines rust, paintings turn yellow, and organisms die. Therefore, many of our actions are directed toward stemming entropy. We plant foliage on precipitous slopes to keep avalanches from forming, mend the roofs of buildings, coat machines with layers of protective paint to keep them from rusting, restore paintings, and visit doctors in the case of illness. Quite topical in the media are discussions of assorted measures under consideration to reduce the results of the climate change. Possible sea level increases, for instance, entail the danger that many coastal towns or even entire countries, like the Netherlands, must engage in various preventative measures to insure existing structures. Finding solutions, and the just as important optimization of defensive processes that are directed primarily toward preservation, is one side of the challenge we must be in a position to face. However, we are also aware of processes by which the order is increased. New, more complex life forms come into being with novel opportunities to engage their energies for the preservation and further evolution of structures. However, with these evolutions we also see how the systems that are poorest at conforming are replaced by systems that are more effective at resisting decay. It has been long intuitive that systems have to keep developing if they do not want to collapse. Standstill is not possible. Indeed, the 21st century is marked by rapidly expanding globalization and worldwide competition, which will only increase in intensity. Products, ideas,

1515

and scientific theories have ever shorter half-lives, i.e., they become obsolete faster and faster. Fifty years ago they were about 400% longer than they are today (for details see Shavinina, 2003). The resulting gigantic demand for innovation can, and should, become one of the central catalysts of giftedness research for the third millennium. However, in my opinion, the field is poorly prepared to meet these challenges. According to current viewpoints, the key driving force behind innovations is creative persons. Nevertheless, a brief glance through one’s history book shows how perceptions which focus completely on the creativity of individuals are far too simplistic. If giftedness research would like to make a substantial contribution to this, our conceptions of giftedness must be revised in several regards.

A Limited Perception of Creativity It has long been accepted that there are limitations on a purely individualized view of creativity and giftedness (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Moenks & Mason, 2000; see also the chapters on giftedness, society, and economy by Ambrose, Reichenberg & Landau; Shavinina; Simonton). This perspective does not, for example, permit a realistic analysis of the Golden Ages. How is it possible that, in the Florence of the Medici’s, the work of unforgettable genii like Leonardo da Vinci, Sandro Botticelli, Pietro Perugino, Andrea del Verrocchio, Giorgio Vasari, Michelangelo, and Raphael could be concentrated within a time span of 50 years? In the German language area, within a good 100 years, several of the greatest composers of all time were born: Johann Sebastian Bach, Georg Friedrich H¨andel, Ludwig van Beethoven, Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Franz Schubert, Robert Schumann. However, there are also contemporary parallels. For instance, no less than 11 pupils and colleagues of the Nobel Prize recipient Ernest Rutherford were also awarded Nobel Prizes. This impressive figure is even more astounding when one considers that over the course of the entire 20th century, only five women received a Nobel Prize in the natural science disciplines of physics, chemistry, and medicine. Nevertheless, differences between boys and girls, or men and women concerning creativity, as described by creativity researchers with the aid of tests and other standardized methods, have yet to surface.

1516

In addition, Rutherford’s own teacher, Sir Joseph John Thomson, was also bestowed with a Nobel Prize, as was his son George Paget Thomson. A rather obvious assumption would be that Sir Joseph John Thomson was in possession of a great deal of the qualities needed to encourage and sponsor scholars and that Rutherford seems to have learned a great deal about this from him. A perspective based purely on individuals would obviously be insufficient to explain what is depicted in the previous examples. Rutherford was, with a probability bordering on certainty, not the best creativity and giftedness diagnostician of all time and merely gathered the best available talent around him. One must, at the very least, also take into consideration cultural and social contexts as well as material and (research) equipment availability. A more effective treatment of the topics of creativity and giftedness, therefore, calls for a modification of our individual-based perspective. It also necessitates consideration of another issue. Suppose you visit a kindergarten for the gifted. You observe a child asking one of the kindergarten teachers: “Why is the Nile so long?” The answer amazes you: “Because of the Niles length.” A minute later you observe another child asking the same kindergarten teacher: “Why is a wrestler so strong?” To your annoyance he answers “Because of his strength.” Again one minute later you observe a third child asking this kindergarten teacher: “Why is the tallest man of the world so tall?” And surely, the child gets the answer “Because of his tallness.” However, before you can say anything to the kindergarten teacher he approaches you beaming with joy and full of pride: “Did you hear the children? They are always so curious. Their questions are so creative! By the way, do you happen to know in your capacity as a giftedness researcher why these kids are so creative?” I have to warn my readers. Those who are tempted to answer “Because of their creativity” are behaving just like the kindergarten teacher, and committing a fallacy called reification – the act of representing an abstraction, a theoretical construct as a real thing.

A New Take on the Innovation Problem in the 21st Century Life without development – and this refers to innovations of the most different kind – is not a continuous

A. Ziegler

alternative. This allegation applies on various levels: species, actions, groups, individuals and their tools, ideas. The concept of evolution, the replacement of older, less-appropriate systems with new, more appropriately configured systems, is a highly recognizable characteristic of thought in the 19th century. Darwin used it in conceptualizing the evolution of species, Marx for the evolution of economic systems, and Comte for the evolution of modes of thinking. The Darwin example is particularly practical for demonstrating that the process of finding newer, more creative solutions is by no means an idea which originated in the deliberations of Homo sapiens. It is as old as the necessity of species to be able to change and adapt in order to insure their survival. The foundation for the following consideration is an idealization suggested by the philosopher Daniel Dennett, who introduced it while investigating the role of language in intelligence (Dennett, 1994). I will greatly expand on the basic framework, adapting it to make it apply to, and work for, the issue of creativity. In addition, I will introduce an allegory which I refer to as the Tower of Creativity (see Fig. 78.1). Its six floors are inhabited by different types of creatures.

Floor 1: Darwinian Creatures The bottom floor of the Tower of Creativity is occupied by Darwinian creatures. The actions they take in their habitats are not random. Their activities are rooted in the information that is available to them. However, this information is stored in their DNA. Their habitats are subject to change, and when such changes occur, the information they have access to may no longer be useful. In these situations it is vital that they adapt to the new habitat (Mayr, 2001). This necessitates innovation. Darwinian creatures are not able to plan innovation. They rather rely on the more or less random processes of gene recombination and mutation. Therefore, Darwinian creatures need to test an immense number of variations before one turns out to be useful. It is often the case that such variations lead to the demise of the creature. The adjustment process occurs over generations, and is therefore extremely time consuming. In actuality, the history of life on our planet is marked by the development of innovative, creative so-

78

Research on Giftedness in the 21st Century

Fig. 78.1 The Tower of Creativity

1517

1518

lutions such as photosynthesis, the sense of smell, and flight. This process is driven by the mechanisms of the Darwinian evolution of species, namely variation, replication, natural selection, and mate choice. The pressure to adapt is, however, extremely high and innovations are not always feasible. In terms of time spent roaming this planet, the average duration of a species only comprises about 200,000 years (Miller, 2000). One can then understand the life cycle of a species as a constant history of innovations to improve its capacity to adapt, to the eventual point where adaptation is no longer possible and the species becomes extinct

Floor 2: Skinnerian Creatures One of the most decisive and exciting events of evolution was the emergence of creatures which we, along with Dennett, will designate Skinnerian creatures. Skinner was the scientist who most clearly detected the parallels between Darwinian evolution and operant learning as well as the vast power of operant learning processes: “Where inherited behavior leaves off, the inherited modifiability of the process of conditioning takes over” (Skinner, 1953, p. 83). The development of a species was no longer only driven by variation and field testing with genes. Organisms also have the opportunity to develop variations on actions and can then select the most successful of the bunch. In another context I have referred to this process as the “survival of the fittest action” (Ziegler, 2005, see also Hull, Langman, & Glenn, 2001). Skinnerian creatures raised the tempo of innovation dramatically. Instead of several generations, innovations can now arise within the life span of an individual. However, they are reliant on the, more or less, random production of several other action alternatives, among which one is proven to be the most successful. This type of creativity is evident among children who, through trial and error, often arrive at the most surprising solutions. Several scientific discoveries can also be seen as products of chance, having come about through indirect action variations. Skinnerian creatures suffer a grave disadvantage. The process of trying things out can be dangerous. For instance, someone using the trial and error method to determine whether a specific plant has medicinal value could very easily wind up with a poisonous plant. It

A. Ziegler

is interesting to note here that in some African cultures, the term “gifted” is equivalent to the term used to describe someone with the ability to heal themselves. In order to prevent having to try things out blindly, an ability is needed which is first detected among the creatures on the next floor up.

Floor 3: Popperian Creatures The philosopher Karl Raimund Popper divided the world into three areas: (1) a physical world; (2) a world of individual perceptions and consciousnesses; and (3) a world of human knowledge and culture, ideas, concepts, etc. (Popper, 1959). According to Popper, this third world has its own set of conditions for existence as well as its own prerequisites. In a process similar to selection, the ideas which prevail are those which are closest to the truth. An infamous example used by Popper here is numbers. Popperian creatures can move freely through this third world. Thus, they obtain the capacities to formulate their own models of the real world and to manipulate these models mentally (see also JohnsonLaird, 1983). Among the prototypical representatives of these creatures, many giftedness researchers would include Vincent van Gogh, the incomparable and long underestimated genius Isaac Newton, who during his own lifetime had already taken on mythic proportions, and the exceptional talent, still cloaked in mystery, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. They have all been credited with visionary work. Empowering their own spirit in their respective fields, they were able to see, in a certain way, things that no one else was able to perceive and could clearly recognize things that were unclear or hazy to others. Creativity research has also investigated individuals who did not become famous. Typical here are studies on activities in the so-called creative fields, for example, painting, music, or writing (see the chapters by Geake; Kaufman, Kaufman, Beghetto & Burghess; Kim; Root-Bernstein; Saunders Wickes & Ward). In most cases, the investigations involved children or young adolescents who had a wide variety of capabilities (such as originality, a powerful imagination, fantasy, courage) and were able use these skills to mentally manipulate their realities. Such capabilities signify a formidable advancement in

78

Research on Giftedness in the 21st Century

human capacity. In contrast to Skinnerian creatures, in testing out new action alternatives, the Popperian creatures did not have to risk life and limb. They did not even have to execute the action in question, for instance in determining the medicinal value of a plant. In many cases this could be accomplished through contemplation. In a certain sense, ideas expire when they are found to be invalid, not the persons who had the ideas (Popper, 1959). While Skinnerian creatures survive through luck, Popperian creatures survive because they are – in the conventional sense – intelligent and creative. The opportunities opened up by mental manipulations of reality are enormous. Dennett (1994) accurately pointed out that each and every one of us is today in the position to understand ideas that would have been inconceivable for our grandparents. We can surpass the boundaries of our imaginations and comprehend concepts like subatomic particles and black holes. We, like Albert Einstein, are able to envision riding on a beam of light through the universe and, on the basis of this visionary power, can unravel the most difficult of problems. The fantastic opportunities that Popperian creatures can take advantage of through their access to the third world are very likely the reason why many giftedness researchers investigate creativity almost exclusively with these creatures. However, they would only have climbed halfway up the Tower of Creativity.

1519

broached above in reference to the Golden Ages. I would like to elaborate this idea further with the help of an arresting study by Qin and Simon (1990). The objective here was to replicate a celebrated scientific discovery. The eminent 17th century mathematician Johannes Kepler had access, as did his fellow astronomers, to a set of data which defined the distance of each planet in the solar system to the sun as well as their solar periods or the time they needed to complete one rotational orbit around the sun. First he discovered, for the five planets closest to the sun, that the periods increased with the squares of the distances. However, he was never really satisfied with his publication of this finding, since the fit was not good. For 10 long years he was not able to come up with a better solution, until he finally realized that the square of the orbital periods are proportional to the cube of their distances from the sun. This law is valid to this day, and is known to us as Kepler’s third law. If there had been a Nobel Prize at that time, Kepler most certainly would have received it. Qin and Simon provided college sophomores with the data set used by Kepler. These sophomores were, up to this point, not known to possess any special talents. However, some of the students were actually capable of recognizing, in less than an hour, the mathematical relationships in this data set for which Kepler had needed 10 years to verify. Why were these otherwise rather unexceptional students capable of quickly realizing creative achievements for which a recognized genius like Kepler had Floor 4: Spencerian Creatures needed 10 years? And would Kepler also need 10 years to make this discovery if he were working today, or In going up another flight, one runs into the Spence- would this be a much quicker process for him too? rian creatures. In a certain sense, they draw their intel- The answers here are, of course, highly speculative. ligence and creativity from the societies and cultures But it is plausible to assume that Kepler, in the 21st in which they subsist. They owe their name to the En- century, would be capable of making his discoveries glish philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer. He much faster. In the first place, at that point in time, his made the ideas of evolution and adaptation productive basic mathematical knowledge was equivalent to that for the analysis of the development of social groups. amassed by a good student by the end of the 11th grade He (and not Darwin!) coined the term the “survival of today. This knowledge is sufficient to make this discovthe fittest.” This expression is actually somewhat de- ery and is now much more familiar to students. There is ceptive, as it seems to imply that only one society – the another even more significant point. The belief that the fittest – will survive. In fact, Spencer was of the opinion physical world could be explained mathematically was that at a particular point in time several different types only first instituted during the 17th century, and this of societies can exist, and that all could have adapted is one of the central convictions of modern scientific conceptions of the world (Cohen, 1994; Kuhn, 1970). (Barker, 1997). The belief that entire societies can be creative, or Academics like Kepler and Galileo were the first to achave the potential to become creative, has already been tively experiment with this approach in the quest for

1520

knowledge. The students participating in the investigation with Qin and Simon (1990) can therefore be understood as Spencerian creatures who, in the course of their individual socialization, adapted themselves to a scientific/epistemic world, which has command over methodological and mathematical abilities that are completely different from those which were accepted by the world in the 17th century. This mathematical and methodological background, made available through their social community, enables them to make discoveries for which – in this example – Popperian creatures Kepler and the best of his contemporary astronomers, despite possibly superior individual learning capacities, would only be capable of making after an extremely long period of time, if at all. We should be able to agree on the fact that all persons have the capacities to understand several types of ideas and appreciate artistic developments which were inconceivable by the geniuses in our grandparents’ generation. Just like the students in the investigation by Qin and Simon (1990), we are nowadays all capable of discoveries which persons living in previous centuries would have been generally considered brilliant. It would be presumptuous to accord these discoveries to ourselves. As scientists, today more than ever, we are much more akin to Spencerian creatures in yet another sense. Brief glances through the tables of contents in the best scientific journals prove that publications are mostly the result of teamwork. Also, Nobel Prizes are often bestowed for cooperative achievements – achievements which could only have been accomplished jointly. Spencerian creatures are, from this perspective, extremely social. They are able to realize that several innovations, creative achievements, etc., can no longer be produced by individuals alone, rather only though the collective accomplishments of several individuals.

A. Ziegler

recognized in a rather indirect form: By introducing tools we greatly expand both our intelligence and our creative potential. The telescope enabled Galileo to assess the Copernican geocentric system. With the help of radio telescopes, Penzias and Wilson were able to peer into the deep recesses of the universe, all the way back to its origins, and were able to discover cosmic microwave background radiation. The discoveries made by Leeuwenhoek, who invented the microscope, characterized the so-called century of the Animalcula, the world of the miniscule. Among the sensations of the era were the discoveries of red blood corpuscles in 1668 and microorganisms in 1675. Leeuwenhoek’s invention is also a fitting example of how Gregorian creatures are capable of surmounting the chromosomal limitations under which Darwinian creatures collapse. It is astounding that H. sapiens were able to exist for more than 100,000 years without being aware of the presence of microorganisms, which compose no less than 60% of the entire biological mass on our planet and encompass a diversity of species amounting to ca. 3,000,000,000 varieties. This is several times the number of species visible to us. In terms of our own bodies, this comes to ca. 10 microorganisms for each cell. Only in the guise of a Gregorian creature were H. sapiens able to discover this. In the same way technical equipment was able to augment the creative capabilities of scientists, auxiliary resources can encourage advances in achievement in all fields of human activity. The tennis/table tennis players who were at the top of the game in the middle of the last century would not stand a chance against modern players, since contemporary racquets/paddles allow players to make hit balls in ways that were unthinkable with the materials used in earlier equipment. Further examples from the field of sports include the introduction of tartan lanes in short distance sprinting competitions and the use of sophisticated water compositions in swimming competitions. Both of these accomplishments triggered a flood of world records in Floor 5: Gregorian Creatures their respective disciplines. A wide variety of examples can be found in the arts as well. The introduction If we ascend yet another floor in the Tower of Cre- of electronic instruments enriched the acoustic specativity, we find Gregorian creatures. Their creative trum of music. The year 1856 was a milestone in the prospects are much more far reaching than those of the history of painting. Henry William Perkins discovered, Spencerian creatures. They were named after Richard at the age of 18 years, the first aniline dye (aniline Gregory, an emeritus professor of neuropsychology at purple, known as mauve or mauveine). Its primary apthe University of Bristol. In his work he systematically plication was as a textile colorant. The first synthetic pursued an idea, one which anthropologists have long pigments launched a true revolution in the field of

78

Research on Giftedness in the 21st Century

painting, which drastically enhanced the opportunities artists had to work with color for decades to come, and enabled the establishment of modern painting as we know it today (Garfield, 2000). However, not only were new pigments discovered, but the properties of paint were also revolutionized. Who has not heard about the infamous artistic rivalry between Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo? Leonardo was commissioned to eternalize the victorious battle of Anghiari on the wall of a meeting chamber in Florence’s city hall. He experimented with a special type of finishing for this work of art. However, through this rather ineffectual drying method, using burning coals, the artwork was destroyed. To a minor degree, the effort was actually successful, but the heat was only effective for the bottom half of the chamber, and the paint used for the upper half of the mural melted away. Were this rivalry between Leonardo and Michelangelo to take place today, questions concerning the durability of the paint would play, at most, a subordinate role, and the outcome of this competition in creativity would be decided on the basis of entirely different qualities. Popperian creatures, who have been favored in creativity research, only have the prospect of using mental manipulation to incite their internal mental worlds to reach new levels of expertise. Gregorian creatures blast past these barriers. They design portions of their external environment in order to substantially broaden the scope of their creativity.

1521

der to bring them to completion one needs (1) several scientists, engineers, programmers, etc. This aspect is very familiar to us through Spencerian creatures: Certain discoveries cannot be made by individuals, and rather necessitate cooperation among several individuals, in some cases calling for large, international research teams. But this is not all. (2) In addition to the activities of the research team, IBM supplied the project with immense stores of computer capacities. However, the utilization of tools was already recognized among Gregorian creatures. What is then so new about Blue Brain creatures? (3) Blue Brain has had two deficits from the start. In the first place, the simulation of the brain requires capacities to calculation which no computer in the world was capable of. In the second place, they need theoretical knowledge from the field of neurobiology, which is not yet available. Blue Brain is therefore a project, which requires its staff and its tools to be evolving beings. Research centers, which educate their own scientific offspring with specific talents and specifically develop research instruments to insure the evolution of the field itself, are perfect examples of Blue Brain creatures. They are entities which, as a team, have realized their own need for learning and the need to continually develop the tools at their disposal and actively pursue these goals in addition to developing the actual innovations they are charged with. A defining characteristic is that they have, as a solid goal, the evolution of themselves and their tools in order to attain their creative objectives.

Floor 6: Blue Brain Creatures

Of What Service Is the Allegory of the As impressive as the creative capabilities of Grego- Tower of Creativity? rian creatures may be, they are easily eclipsed by the, historically speaking, youngest creatures, those which occupy the uppermost floor of the Tower of Creativity. Blue Brain creatures are no longer singular individuals, they rather exist in the form of cognitive networks, teams that utilize tools. Their name is derived from Blue Brain, a project inaugurated in May 2005. It is a collaboration between IBM and Henry Markram’s ´ Brain and Mind Institute at the Ecole Polytechnique in Lausanne, Switzerland. The goal of the project is the first computer simulation of the entire human brain. Projects like Blue Brain can no longer be conducted by a single creative person; this means that Popperian creatures are doomed to fail at such projects. In or-

The benefit offered by the allegory of the Tower of Creativity is that it facilitates more sophisticated and, presumably, better responses to the central challenges facing giftedness research in the 21st century. In a rapidly and ever changing world, with quickly developing markets and an immense pressure for innovation, routine solutions are no longer adequate. There is a restriction on the number of new solutions Popperian creatures are capable of coming up with, which also concur with the paradigmatic normal case of giftedness research (cf. Heller, M¨onks, Sternberg, & Subotnik, 2000). In this light, their potential contribution to meeting the central challenges of the 21st century seems to be essentially

1522

limited. In order to remain sustainable in the future, giftedness research has to expand its own perspectives. The allegory of the Tower of Creativity suggests that, in the future, giftedness research will be assessed by how well it can conceive of Spencerian creatures, Gregorian creatures, and above all Blue Brain creatures as the architects of innovations. Practically speaking, it will be assessed on whether or not it can provide effective programs to promote these creatures. Otherwise, and in all probability, expertise and innovation research will overtake it.

Conclusions Giftedness research will remain in demand in the foreseeable future and, according to the opinions of several of the authors contributing to this handbook, this demand will even increase in intensity. I share this optimism. The fact that this exceptional book, with contributions from researchers from all parts of the world, can be published is a clear expression of justification for such optimism. Without a doubt, in many countries a great deal of hope will be placed on giftedness research and applied giftedness research to afford them opportunities to insure advances in prosperity, cultural enrichment, and sustainability. However, as giftedness researchers, we must also pose the question of how long this trend can be maintained and what we ourselves can, or in better terms, must be doing to extend it, perhaps even how to bolster it. In drawing a summary of this contribution, I would like to refer to three points which we should essentially be keeping in mind. We have to be capable of self-criticism. Research is a never ending process that is constantly producing preliminary results. It is massively dependent on a permanent willingness to continue intentionally evolving its own methods and models. Two developments characterize the maturity of a branch of science. The first is that it is cognizant of its own transformation, in other words, its history. This has been established in giftedness research for several decades. An entire chapter of this book has been dedicated to this history, and several other chapters also take it into consideration. The second discernible milestone is whether a branch of science is open to a meta-theoretical perspective. This does not only offer, as in historical considera-

A. Ziegler

tions, the opportunity to make temporal comparisons of research findings, a meta-theoretical perspective also offers opportunities for theoretical and methodological optimization. Quality standards can be discussed, introduced, and made compulsory. For example, Ziegler and Heller (2000) developed a list of quality standards to be applied to scientific definitions of giftedness. These were, for example, applied by the editors of the book Conceptions of Giftedness: Socio-cultural Perspectives (Phillipson & McCann, 2007) to insure the quality of the manuscripts submitted for publication. In this book, Phillipson and Dai each composed highly interesting chapters from meta-theoretical perspectives. To sum up, these two trends of competent, yet critical, self-inspection and meta-theoretical self-reflection should be established more deeply in the field. A vigorous giftedness research must be prepared to actively seek out discourses with its parent disciplines such as psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc., instead of just applying their concepts. It must be able to reciprocally supply them with novel research questions and a more prolific exchange must be realized. In my opinion, this calls for much more adept profiling in the field of giftedness research. It should keep its eye on the intrinsic objective of this branch of research: successful processes (learning, education, achievement, etc.). In this way it can become a drosophila to its parent disciplines. In conclusion, giftedness research will have to resist its, with certainty, ever-strengthening rivals’ expertise research and innovation research. Let us assume that the following scenario were to develop: Expertise researchers prove to be able to prognosticate Nobel Prize winners before giftedness researchers are able to and then, 1 year later, someone is awarded a Nobel Prize who was educated according to recommendations made by innovation research. In contrast those who were educated according to recommendations made by giftedness research went home emptyhanded. It is easy to see where future research funds will be flowing. In order to prevent this from happening, giftedness research must be able to evolve. It is much too closely bound to the conceptions of achievement excellence and innovation I have attributed to Popperian creatures. It should also focus on Spencerian creatures, Gregorian creatures, and Blue Brain creatures. This handbook is hard proof that opportunities for evolution in the field do exist. Should giftedness research be able to accomplish this, it will have tremen-

78

Research on Giftedness in the 21st Century

dous chances of advancing to one of the most important research disciplines of the 21st century.

References Barker, R. (1997). Political ideas in modern Britain. London: Routledge. Brody, L. J., & Stanley, J. C. (2005). Youths who reason exceptionally well mathematically and/or verbally: Using the MVT:D4 model to develop their talents. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 20–37). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, H. F. (1994). The scientific revolution : A historiographical inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cooper, R. G. (2003). Profitable product innovation: The critical success factors. In L. V. Shavinina, (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 139–157). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins. Dennett, D. C. (1994). The role of language in intelligence. In J. Khalfa (Ed.), What is intelligence? The Darwin College Lectures (pp. 161–178). Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A., Nandagopal, K., & Roring, R. W. (2005). Giftedness viewed from the expert-performance perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 287–311. Fowles, J. (1978). Handbook of futures research. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Freeman. (2005). Permission to be gifted: How conceptions of giftedness can change lives. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 80–97). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Gagn´e, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. High Ability Studies, 15, 119–147. Gagn´e, F. (2005). From gifts to talents. The DMGT as a developmental model. In R. Sternberg, & J. Davidson (Eds.) Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98–119). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Garfield, S. (2000). Mauve/Lila. How one man invented a colour that changed the world. London: Faber & Faber. Gordon, E. W., & Bridglall, B. L. (2005). Nurturing talent in gifted students of color. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 147–170). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Gruber, H., & Ziegler, A. (Eds.). (1996). Expertiseforschung [Expertise research]. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag. Gruber, H. E. (1981). Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity (Rev. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gruber, H. E. (1998). The social construction of extraordinary selves: Collaboration among unique creative people. In R. C. Friedman & K. B. Rogers (Eds.), Talent in context: Historical and social perspectives on giftedness (pp. 127–147). Wash-

1523 ington, DC: American Psychological Association. Heller, K. A., Perleth, C., & Lim, T. K. (2005). The Munich Model of Giftedness designed to identify and promote gifted students. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 147–170). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Heinzen, T. E., & Vail, N. (2003) Innovations by the frail elderly. In L. V. Shavinina, (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 309–320). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Heller, K. A., M¨onks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.). (2000). International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Heller, K. A., & Ziegler, A. (Eds.). (2007). Begabt sein in Deutschland [To be gifted in Germany]. Muenster, Germany: Lit. Hull, D. L., Langman, R., & Glenn, S. (2001). A general account of selection: biology, immunology and behaviour. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 511–528 Kreibich, R. (2006). Zukunftsforschung [Future studies]. Berlin, Germany: IZT. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kholodnaya, M. A. (1993). Psychological mechanisms of intellectual giftedness. Voprosi psichologii, 1, 32–39. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mayr, E. (2001). What evolution is. New York: Basic Books. Miller, G. (2000). The mating mind: how sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. London: Heineman. M¨onks, F. J. (1992). Development of gifted children: The issue of identification and programming. In F. J. M¨onks, & W. A. M. Peters (Eds.), Talent for the future (pp. 191–202). Assen/Maastricht, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum. M¨onks, F. J., & Mason, E. J. (2000). Developmental psychology and giftedness: Theories and research. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 141–156). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Phillipson, N. S., & McCann, M. (Eds.). (2007). Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper and Row. Qin, Y., & Simon, H. A. (1990). Laboratory replication of scientific discovery processes.Cognitive Science, 14, 281–312. Posner, M. I. (1988). Introduction: What is it to be an expert? In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. I. Posner (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. XXIX–XXXVI). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness: A Developmental Model for Promoting Creative Productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246–279). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, N. M. (2005). In defence of a psychometric approach to the definition of academic giftedness: A conservative view

1524 from a die-hard liberal. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 280–294). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Shavinina, L. V. (1995). The personality trait approach in the psychology of giftedness. European Journal for High Ability, 6(1), 27–37. Shavinina, L. V. (2003). The International Handbook on Innovation. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Shavinina, L. (2004). Explaining high abilities of Nobel laureates. High Ability Studies, 15, 243–254. Shavinina, L. V., & Kholodnaya, M. A. (1996). The cognitive experience as a psychological basis of intellectual giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(1), 4–33. Shore, B. M., & Kanevsky, L. S. (1993). Thinking processes: Being and becoming gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 133–147). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. New York: Cambridge University Press. Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science. New York: Cambridge University Press. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York : Macmillan. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triarchic theory of intellectual giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 223–243). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Intelligence as developing expertise. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 359–375.

A. Ziegler Sternberg, R. J. (2003). WICS as a model of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 14, 109–138. Subotnik, R. F. (2003). A developmental view of giftedness: From being to doing. Roeper Review, 26, 14–15. Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1, Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius: The gifted group at mid-life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Vandervert, L. R. (2003). The nature of innovation. The neurophysiological basis of innovation. In L. V. Shavinina, (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 3–16). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Vekker, L. M. (1981). Psychical processes. Vol. 3. Leningrad: Leningrad University Press. Weisberg, R. W. (2003). Case studies of innovation: ordinary thinking, extraordinary outcomes. In L. V. Shavinina, (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 204–247). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Ziegler, A. (2005). The Actiotope Model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 411–436). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Ziegler, A., & Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective. In K. A. Heller, F. J. M¨onks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 3–22). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Author Index

A Ambrose, D., 8, 71, 627, 885–900, 1228, 1367, 1515 Arancibia, V., 12, 1491–1504, 1510 Assouline, S. G., 9, 11, 29, 114, 218, 221, 222, 225, 348, 426, 530, 990, 994, 1000, 1007, 1038, 1085–1097, 1174, 1175, 1177, 1225–1233, 1286, 1376, 1415, 1416, 1432, 1511 B Baldus, C. M., 10, 29, 1181, 1225–1233, 1511 Barfurth, M. A., 5, 397–414, 1264 Bar-On, R., 6, 21, 162, 446, 473, 559–568, 1419, 1511 Beghetto, R. A., 6, 145, 427, 585–595, 614, 1238, 1518 Berch, D., 11, 1313–1325 Binet, A., 18, 19, 25, 42, 44, 65, 105, 110, 147, 171, 354, 403, 951, 957 Blank, J. N., 1225 Boyd Collins, E., 103 Branson, R., 793, 795, 796, 797, 798, 800–804, 805, 806, 839, 840, 844–846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 1259, 1260, 1261, 1264, 1265 Brody, L. E., 9, 27, 42, 65, 165, 330, 347, 509, 518, 649, 672, 673, 678, 689, 693, 999–1012, 1091, 1092, 1175, 1229, 1258, 1266, 1315, 1345, 1510 Burgess, S. A., 6, 278, 585–595 C Callingham, R., 7, 671–693, 1511 Carroll, T., 11, 71, 1313–1325 Ceci, S. J., 21, 44, 48, 50, 53, 56, 57, 58, 62, 82, 83, 172, 245, 705, 1019, 1020, 1126, 1127, 1160 Childers, S. A., 12, 1345–1363, 1510 Cho, S., 12, 1427–1455 Colangelo, N., 3, 9, 11, 25, 29, 70, 114, 156, 218, 221, 222, 225, 231, 348, 426, 437, 439, 527, 530, 689, 751, 873, 874, 879, 990, 994, 1007, 1078, 1085–1097, 1173, 1174, 1175, 1177, 1178, 1225–1233, 1258, 1266, 1286, 1376, 1413, 1414, 1415, 1416, 1432, 1433, 1511 Coleman, L., 47, 50, 53, 54, 55, 65, 132, 145, 194, 207, 208, 211, 212, 424, 431, 543, 826, 832, 835, 1065, 1068 Cox, C., 23, 105, 356, 367, 370, 373, 376, 476, 551, 603, 608, 853, 866 Cramond, B. L., 10, 530, 533, 546, 547, 575, 577, 579, 714, 716, 717, 721, 1072, 1075, 1078, 1143–1150, 1258, 1487, 1488, 1511

Croft, L. J., 11, 29, 1178, 1225–1233, 1511 Cross, T. L., 6, 47, 53, 54, 55, 56, 65, 66, 70, 132, 207, 208, 211, 212, 424, 428, 431, 444–445, 537–553, 715, 716, 899, 1175, 1339, 1511 Crowe, E., 11, 71, 1313–1325, 1510, 1511 D Dahl, B., 11, 689, 1235–1253, 1511 Dai, D. Y., 4, 17, 22, 39–72, 222, 249, 426, 529, 589, 619, 625, 660, 689, 1051, 1365, 1510, 1512, 1522 Darwin, C., 24, 41, 42, 55, 56, 68, 71, 99, 102, 105, 182, 249, 270, 356, 362–363, 364, 562, 660, 879, 896, 909, 1036, 1075, 1109, 1516–1518, 1519, 1520 Davidson, J. E., 4, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 30, 44, 56, 58, 81–95, 131, 132, 155, 156, 225, 231, 282, 401, 467, 470, 473, 476, 498, 499, 500, 501, 718, 722, 728, 734, 739, 743, 771, 1026, 1036, 1076, 1173, 1204, 1286, 1504, 1510, 1512 Davis, G. A., 9, 25, 70, 156, 225, 231, 440, 507, 509, 510, 516, 517, 577, 619, 636, 751, 1035–1043, 1078, 1173, 1236, 1247, 1258, 1286, 1511 Dell, M., 793, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799, 839, 1259, 1260, 1261, 1264, 1265 E Earle, J., 11, 71, 1313–1325, 1510, 1511 Edmiston, A., 11, 1313–1325 Einstein, A., 49, 63, 64, 68, 100, 251, 252–253, 276, 285, 301, 308, 311, 312, 314, 373, 440, 507, 590, 593, 608, 633, 650, 651, 652, 653, 655, 657, 659, 661, 664, 855–857, 858, 859, 862, 866, 1018, 1024, 1061, 1149, 1194, 1249, 1519 Ericsson, K. A., 4, 21, 23, 24, 25, 44, 45, 48, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 62, 63, 64, 68, 69, 87, 88, 129–150, 155, 156, 158, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 171, 172, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 233, 295, 297, 298, 307, 309, 311, 314, 320, 321, 325, 326, 327, 361, 650, 729, 738, 739, 740, 757, 770, 771, 801, 833, 835, 845, 972, 1019, 1263, 1366, 1376, 1510, 1512 Eyre, D., 9, 119, 1045–1058, 1391, 1392, 1511 F Ferrari, M., 9, 84, 219, 248, 249, 254, 529, 591, 651, 664, 829, 830, 935, 1028, 1099–1110, 1187, 1194, 1246, 1261, 1511

1525

1526 Friedman-Nimz, R., 5, 421–432, 649, 1175, 1301, 1511 Fuchs, B., 11, 1313–1325 G Gagn´e, F., 4, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 49, 51, 53, 55, 56, 58, 61, 62, 65, 86, 91, 93, 94, 107, 132, 145, 145–148, 149, 155–194, 202, 216, 217, 218, 221, 235, 262, 266, 320, 338, 339, 355, 425, 476, 480, 529, 588, 589, 590, 619, 623, 625, 633, 675, 692, 727, 734, 751, 752, 758, 761, 763, 764, 765, 1037, 1042, 1090, 1290, 1439, 1510, 1512, 1513 Galton, F., 18, 19, 24, 41, 42, 51, 55, 56, 71, 72, 82, 88, 99, 101, 102, 105, 111, 129, 130–132, 133–136, 144, 186, 354, 356, 357, 358, 359, 364, 367, 376, 440, 467, 474, 683, 701, 905, 906, 908, 909, 947, 948, 951 Gardner, H., 21, 22, 43, 48, 57, 58, 63, 64, 65, 83, 84, 85, 106, 107, 162, 173, 186, 219, 236, 243, 244, 252, 253, 320, 325, 327, 353, 355, 356, 361, 362, 366, 375, 376, 446, 473, 474, 560, 561, 572, 578, 588, 590, 591–592, 633, 661, 728, 730, 733, 734, 751, 752, 799, 804, 827, 828, 829, 833, 853, 854, 856, 857, 920, 950, 973, 1037, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1049, 1062, 1063, 1075, 1101, 1105, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1129, 1133, 1157, 1158, 1162, 1164, 1170, 1196, 1208, 1246, 1268, 1487, 1499 Gates, W., 7, 795, 797, 798, 818, 819, 885, 897, 1148, 1192 Geake, J. G., 5, 42, 49, 55, 58, 68, 119, 142, 232, 261–271, 276, 278, 470, 673, 1514, 1518 Goertzel, M. G., 26, 104, 124, 357, 363, 367, 368, 370, 373, 376, 421, 507, 602, 608, 1068 Goertzel, T., 100, 104, 373, 1068 Goertzel, V., 26, 104, 124, 357, 363, 367, 368, 370, 373, 376, 421, 507, 602, 608, 1068 Gottfried, A. E., 6, 41, 51, 56, 69, 132, 162, 221, 328, 340, 367, 372, 425, 427, 617–628, 687, 875, 1236, 1366, 1376, 1511 Gottfried, A. W., 6, 41, 51, 56, 69, 132, 162, 221, 328, 340, 367, 372, 425, 427, 617–628, 687, 875, 1236, 1511 Graham, M., 104, 107, 857 Gross, M. U. M., 5, 9, 61, 107, 114, 166, 218, 221, 222, 225, 262, 266, 324, 337–350, 367, 368, 439, 450, 451, 514, 517, 530, 537, 540, 543, 544, 546, 548, 549, 561, 600, 612, 650, 879, 880, 895, 921, 964, 994, 1007, 1036, 1085, 1090, 1092, 1174, 1177, 1178, 1226, 1231, 1286, 1376, 1511, 1513, 1514 H Heinzen, T. E., 7, 40, 809–822, 1511, 1514 Heng, M. A., 10, 21, 218, 473, 1021, 1157–1170, 1261, 1447, 1511 Hertzog, N. B., 4, 40, 61, 205–213, 1510 Hollingworth, L., 25, 26, 61, 99, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 121, 122, 124, 132, 337, 341, 342, 343, 344, 354, 440, 543, 544, 546, 608, 609, 610, 613, 965, 999, 1177, 1416 Hyatt, L. A., 6, 537–553, 1511 J Jackson, P. S., 6, 437–462, 534 K Kalbfleisch, M. L., 5, 68, 69, 233, 253, 261, 265, 275–287, 438, 1514

Author Index Kanevsky, L., 53, 59, 234, 245, 262, 338, 340, 398, 399, 400, 401, 411, 412, 413, 530, 1019, 1020, 1028, 1193, 1512, 1514 Karnes, F. A., 11, 425, 515, 636, 638, 644, 973, 1177, 1301, 1302, 1305, 1327–1340, 1510, 1511 Kaufman, J. C., 6, 22, 29, 145, 585–595, 716, 853, 855, 865, 1017, 1021, 1161, 1162 Kaufman, S. B., 6, 22, 145, 585–595 Kholodnaya, M. A., 231, 232, 234, 237, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 254, 652, 653, 660, 665, 666, 800, 925, 932, 938, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196, 1262, 1264, 1512, 1514 Kim, K. H., 6, 248, 280, 533, 571–580, 766, 811, 1065, 1069, 1078, 1518 L Landau, E., 8, 277, 799, 873–881, 917, 1290, 1515 Liu, H., 55, 68, 138, 142, 276, 284, 295 Lohman, D. F., 9, 44, 46, 51, 56, 58, 61, 63, 67, 161, 206, 674, 971–995, 1038, 1097, 1365, 1366, 1378, 1379, 1510 Lupart, J., 6, 24, 26, 62, 275, 284, 480, 507–521, 534, 834, 835, 1511 M MacFarlane, B., 9, 1061–1080, 1266 Maker, J., 10, 25, 26, 275, 284, 508, 514, 516, 561, 562, 756, 886, 1039, 1050, 1113–1139, 1401, 1414, 1511 Maree, J. G., 6, 12, 559–568, 1409–1423, 1510, 1511 Marmor, S., 7, 592, 713–724, 1511 Matsumura, N., 12, 1427–1455 Matthews, D. J., 12, 51, 53, 402, 507, 509, 510, 511, 513, 515, 516, 517, 518, 585, 713, 1365–1381, 1510, 1511 Matthews, M. S., 6, 527–535, 1441, 1510, 1511 Miller, N. B., 4, 99–125, 423, 438, 439 Moltzen, R., 5, 323, 353–376, 1513 Morita, A., 795, 839, 1259, 1260, 1261, 1265 Moyle, V. F., 6, 437–462, 1511 N Nandagopal, K., 4, 23, 87, 88, 129–150, 155, 309, 320, 325, 729, 833, 835, 972, 1263, 1512 Noble, K. D., 12, 92, 111, 122, 278, 363, 421, 488, 489, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 627, 689, 860, 1345–1363, 1510 P Perleth, C., 5, 24, 25, 51, 88, 91, 319–332, 561, 1205, 1512, 1513 Persson, R. S., 6, 7, 8, 11, 585–595, 727–744, 913–923, 1073, 1285–1290, 1410, 1411, 1509, 1511 Phillipson, S. N., 7, 12, 18, 25, 30, 671–693, 1427–1455, 1469, 1511, 1512, 1522 Picciano, L. M., 7, 809–822, 1511 Piechowski, M. M., 6, 61, 108, 162, 237, 270, 282, 283, 437–462, 560, 898, 1062, 1165, 1169, 1511 Porath, M., 7, 83, 394, 589, 825–835, 1511 Pyryt, M. C., 10, 25, 517, 534, 1173–1179, 1181, 1227, 1320, 1511

Author Index Q Quek, C. G., 12, 26, 1427–1455 R Rayhack, K., 11, 145, 1313–1325 Reichenberg, A., 8, 799, 873–881, 1515 Reis, S. M., 6, 10, 24, 26, 29, 70, 72, 92, 93, 117, 123, 209, 215, 217, 222, 224, 330, 331, 376, 409, 414, 424, 430, 477, 487–502, 509, 510, 514, 515, 517, 519, 527, 530, 549, 550, 567, 578, 627, 689, 1037, 1041, 1175, 1176, 1182, 1203–1222, 1227, 1252, 1258, 1266, 1287, 1369, 1374, 1415, 1433, 1454, 1482, 1499, 1511 Renzulli, J. S., 10, 22, 29, 41, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 56, 57, 60, 61, 63, 64, 68, 70, 72, 89, 90, 92, 93, 107, 165, 206, 209, 222, 235, 249, 262, 382, 394, 404, 409, 423, 424, 425, 471, 476, 477, 479, 480, 488, 496, 497, 511, 517, 529, 531, 532, 534, 567, 579, 588, 589, 619, 625, 655, 660, 673, 937, 972, 973, 983, 990, 991, 992, 1035, 1037, 1041, 1042, 1050, 1075, 1101, 1173, 1175, 1176, 1181, 1182, 1203–1222, 1227, 1252, 1258, 1266, 1285, 1287, 1365, 1369, 1370, 1371, 1374, 1380, 1402, 1415, 1433, 1454, 1470, 1472, 1474, 1478, 1481, 1482, 1485, 1486, 1492, 1499, 1501, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513 Robinson, H., 27, 963, 964, 1346, 1347, 1357 Robinson, N., 40, 45, 47, 51, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 87, 89, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 218, 342, 344, 345, 480, 560, 567, 834, 879, 962, 1004, 1009, 1090, 1091, 1093, 1345, 1346, 1347, 1354, 1363, 1510 Roeper, A., 108, 109, 443, 445, 537, 543, 544, 545, 546, 548, 549, 550, 636, 1165 Rogers, K. B., 7, 25, 218, 338, 345, 633–645, 1086–1087, 1301, 1511 Root-Bernstein, M., 6, 599–614, 649, 650, 651, 741, 915, 1182, 1263, 1511, 1518 Root-Bernstein, R., 8, 58, 64, 440, 649, 650, 651, 741, 853–867, 915, 1182, 1237, 1238, 1245, 1246, 1249, 1259, 1263, 1511, 1518 Roring, R. W., 4, 23, 87, 88, 129–150, 155, 309, 320, 325, 729, 833, 835, 972, 1263, 1512 Ross, P. O., 71, 1315 S Sayler, M. F., 4, 166, 215–226, 561, 1510 Schnur, R., 7, 208–209, 592, 713–724, 886, 1415, 1511 Schuck, J., 11, 1313–1325 Sekowski, A., 6, 18, 467–481 Shaughnessy, M. F., 11, 567, 717, 916, 917, 1285–1290, 1413, 1415, 1509 Shavinina, L. V., 3–13, 29, 48, 56, 62, 66, 69, 132, 142, 145, 194, 223, 231–254, 266, 308, 309, 310, 387, 431, 529, 649–667, 742, 793–806, 839–850, 925–942, 1017–1029, 1181–1198, 1246, 1257–1266, 1316, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515 Shi, J., 12, 270, 1126, 1427–1455 Sieka´nska, M., 6, 467–481, 1511 Silverman, L. K., 4, 8, 19, 21, 24, 26, 92, 99–125, 166, 207, 237, 240, 242, 243, 247, 254, 337, 339, 376, 438, 440, 443, 446, 513, 514, 531, 543, 544, 545, 548, 549, 560, 561, 636, 878, 880, 898, 900, 947–967, 1017, 1018, 1021, 1026, 1510

1527 Simonton, D. K., 7, 8, 24, 29, 46, 47, 48, 51, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 71, 86, 130, 131, 134, 145, 185, 186, 201, 353, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 368, 369, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 422, 425, 473, 474, 589, 649, 650, 661, 662, 699–710, 729, 733, 735, 795, 800, 905–911, 1063, 1064, 1068, 1073, 1196, 1257, 1315, 1322, 1366, 1376, 1511, 1512, 1515 Sklodowska–Curie, M., 103 Soriano de Alencar, E. M. L., 12, 1491–1504 Sriraman, B., 11, 687, 689, 1235–1253, 1511 Stephens, K. R., 11, 1177, 1301, 1302, 1305, 1327–1340, 1510, 1511 Sternberg, R. J., 3, 18, 20, 21, 22, 29, 30, 39, 43, 44, 47, 51, 54, 56, 57, 58, 63, 64, 71, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 95, 106, 107, 149, 156, 158, 162, 172, 185, 188, 193, 202, 218, 231, 234, 235, 237, 238, 244, 245, 319, 322, 339, 355, 360, 361, 381, 382, 385, 391, 392, 393, 394, 398, 400, 401, 402, 410, 467, 470, 473, 474, 476, 477, 480, 488, 489, 496, 507, 508, 560, 562, 585, 587, 588, 590, 591, 593, 594, 610, 614, 634, 635, 636, 637, 644, 663, 664, 666, 729, 731, 733, 738, 751, 799, 800, 825, 826, 831, 834, 853, 891, 920, 1017, 1018, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1026, 1028, 1037, 1042, 1049, 1062, 1063, 1067, 1076, 1100, 1101, 1104–1106, 1108, 1109, 1117, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1166, 1167, 1170, 1173, 1193, 1194, 1196, 1204, 1208, 1237, 1246, 1258, 1279, 1285, 1287, 1288, 1289, 1428, 1440, 1486, 1497, 1499, 1504, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1521 Stoeger, H., 4, 17–31, 94, 527, 586, 673, 675, 676, 689, 692, 1479, 1509, 1512 Subhi-Yamin, T., 12, 1463–1489 Subotnik, R., 3, 11, 18, 22, 29, 47, 48, 49, 55, 57, 60, 63, 64, 65, 71, 88, 92, 111, 121, 122, 145, 156, 185, 231, 319, 356, 421, 422, 488, 489, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 551, 599, 600, 609, 627, 729, 731, 732, 740, 742, 743, 751, 762, 877, 878, 1036, 1258, 1287, 1313–1325, 1365, 1366, 1375, 1380, 1381, 1428, 1449, 1510, 1511, 1513, 1521 Sullivan, E. E., 6, 92, 93, 487–502, 520, 627, 721, 1069, 1511 T Tam, K. Y., 10, 218, 1157–1170, 1261, 1511 Tannenbaum, A., 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 57, 64, 71, 85, 86, 90, 91, 93, 94, 107, 207, 210, 235, 275, 284, 329, 425, 473, 476, 488, 489, 497, 546, 610, 799, 801, 898, 928, 974, 1037, 1042, 1075, 1103, 1314, 1324, 1340, 1366, 1443 Taylor, C. W., 24, 381, 382, 571–580, 586 Terman, F., 929, 936, 937, 940, 941 Terman, L., 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 41–42, 43, 45, 51, 55, 64, 67, 71, 72, 102, 105, 106, 110, 113, 124, 319, 337, 341, 342, 345, 346–347, 354, 356, 357, 359, 362, 363, 367, 369, 371, 373, 376, 421, 422, 424, 425, 440, 476, 542, 551, 586, 592, 593, 599, 600, 608, 609, 610, 613, 701, 853, 866, 906, 947, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955, 956, 957, 964, 965, 1000, 1036, 1041, 1042, 1414, 1433, 1510, 1511, 1512 Thorndike, E. L., 42, 102, 103, 106, 206, 345, 477, 560, 948, 950, 952, 953, 954, 955, 956, 1206 Torrance, P., 6, 10, 283, 374, 383, 431, 540, 543, 550, 571–580, 586, 610, 1025, 1061, 1066, 1073, 1075–1078, 1143–1150, 1196, 1208, 1237, 1287, 1415, 1438, 1441, 1473, 1487, 1489 Tsai, D.-M., 12, 1427–1455, 1510

1528 V Van der Westhuizen, C. N., 12, 567, 568 Van Rossum, J. H. A., 157, 166, 173, 178, 181, 735, 753, 755, 756, 757, 760, 761, 762, 763, 765, 766, 767, 768, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 780, 781, 782, 783 Van Tassel-Baska, J., 9, 11, 22, 26, 92, 248, 480, 715, 718, 722, 886, 973, 1001, 1011, 1041, 1042, 1061–1080, 1258, 1266, 1286, 1289, 1295–1310, 1370, 1374, 1415, 1449, 1510, 1511 Vandervert, L. R., 5, 55, 68, 138, 142, 145, 232, 263, 266, 276, 284, 295–314, 1192, 1196, 1514 Vygotsky, L. S., 231, 234, 237, 239, 407, 1026, 1027, 1116

Author Index W Wallace, B. C., 10, 916, 1113–1139, 1401 Warwick, I., 12, 1126, 1375, 1385–1407, 1510 Wilde, A., 5, 319–332, 428, 715, 861, 1007, 1513 Z Zhang, G., 12, 1427–1455 Ziegler, A., 13, 17, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 47, 55, 57, 61, 62, 66, 69, 81, 94, 145, 188, 320, 321, 329, 330, 426, 471, 527, 619, 625, 671, 673, 674, 675, 676, 686, 687, 689, 692, 727, 752, 1036, 1479, 1509–1522

Subject Index

A Ability, 51, 91, 130–132, 145–146, 149–150, 191, 206, 277– 279, 280, 284–285, 319, 320, 321, 322–323, 329, 331, 344, 350, 477, 499, 527, 761, 799–800, 827, 961, 962, 963, 967, 973, 974, 975, 991–993, 1038, 1089, 1096, 1265, 1444, 1452, 1496, 1511, 1513 general, 277–279 grouping, 27, 70, 344, 350, 1437, 1442, 1453 Above-level tests, 532, 964, 999, 1003, 1004, 1006, 1038, 1087, 1229 Academic and social effects of acceleration, 1086 intelligence, 635, 644, 1158, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1170 intrinsic motivation, 340, 425, 427, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 626, 627, 628 Accelerated development, 247 Acceleration, 3, 5, 9, 12, 25, 65, 114, 163, 208, 213, 340, 348, 349, 407, 519, 534, 667, 688, 689, 756, 819, 956, 967, 975, 990, 994, 1000, 1001, 1007–1008, 1035, 1036, 1039, 1040, 1042, 1085–1097, 1174, 1175, 1178, 1228–1229, 1242, 1249, 1274, 1278, 1286, 1296, 1302, 1034, 1307, 1310, 1314, 1334, 1354, 1372, 1376, 1432, 1433, 1447, 1451, 1453, 1455, 1469, 1475, 1486, 1496, 1503 radical, 5, 12, 348, 1000, 1092, 1350, 1353 types of, 1086–1087, 1432–1433 Accountability, 11, 720, 1051, 1056, 1167, 1178, 1269, 1270, 1281, 1296, 1297, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1304, 1305, 1321, 1394, 1395, 1455 Achievement of eminence, 244, 673, 674, 675, 676, 690 tests, 9, 53, 111, 112, 123, 147, 165, 168, 170, 172, 207, 208, 343, 385, 477, 514, 574, 577, 604, 701, 964, 971, 974, 975, 977, 980, 981, 984, 985, 986, 988, 989, 990, 991, 994, 995, 1009, 1021, 1041, 1158, 1159, 1170, 1210, 1278–1279, 1317, 1318, 1379, 1433, 1451 Action based problem solving, 1148 repertoire, 7, 30, 57, 62, 69, 94, 671–693 Actiotope model of giftedness, 7, 24, 30, 94, 671, 673, 675–676, 693 Activity theory, 402, 407, 408, 409, 1185 Adult abilities, 144

Adulthood achievements, 8, 906 Advanced placement (AP), 10, 11, 1007, 1009, 1039, 1087, 1088, 1089, 1092, 1175, 1225–1233, 1269, 1270, 1289, 1301, 1302, 1305, 1307, 1310, 1321, 1370, 1376, 1433 Advocacy, 42, 70, 71, 519, 638, 1296, 1301, 1303, 1310, 1437, 1439, 1440, 1443 Affective characteristics, 61, 340–346, 1001, 1002, 1008, 1090, 1503, 1504 development, 338, 341 African perspective on giftedness, 1410, 1422 Al-Hikma (wisdom), 1465 Altruism, 345–346, 636, 638, 639, 644, 645, 885, 886, 888, 895, 1102, 1169, 1170 American College Testing Program (ACT), 115, 165, 210, 532, 691, 964, 982, 1003, 1347, 1349 Analogical reasoning, 271, 339 Angiogenesis, 141 Apprenticeships, 6, 123, 603, 608, 613, 863, 1071, 1101, 1109, 1185, 1186, 1316, 1317, 1318 Aptitude, 9, 18, 41, 44, 50, 51–54, 58, 61, 85, 89, 111, 112, 115, 123, 157, 158, 160, 161, 167, 169, 173, 180, 210, 342, 343, 347, 354, 355, 386, 389, 394, 405, 425, 477, 488, 516, 517, 572, 577, 588, 589, 623, 727, 728, 735, 877, 891, 909, 964, 971, 972, 976, 978–983, 987, 989, 1004, 1008, 1010, 1011, 1020, 1037, 1074, 1095, 1096, 1205, 1314, 1378, 1414, 1420, 1433, 1445, 1447, 1498 ’Aql (brain), 1465 Arabic education, 1468 Arbitrary nature of giftedness, 4, 205–213 Aspiration, 56, 114, 115, 119, 124, 249, 250, 251, 252, 330, 362, 475, 478, 480, 491, 627, 633, 654, 655, 703, 761, 812, 886–894, 896, 897, 898, 900, 1007, 1011, 1045, 1055, 1075, 1089, 1090, 1164, 1225, 1316, 1354, 1358, 1359, 1360, 1385, 1390, 1391, 1392, 1407 Assessment, 6, 8, 9, 21, 40, 53, 56, 66, 81, 84, 99, 100, 105, 112, 139, 165, 175, 206, 218, 225, 327, 339, 345, 386, 392, 404, 427, 472, 480, 516, 517, 552, 577, 594–595, 618, 672, 700–701, 722–723, 945–1032, 1078–1079, 1127, 1211, 1275–1277, 1305, 1307, 1309, 1309, 1322, 1414, 1419, 1420, 1435, 1450, 1477

1529

1530 of intellectual abilities, 9, 1017, 1018, 1020, 1021–1029 of problem-solving, 1070 Athletics, 29, 104, 134, 157, 175, 548, 589, 751, 753, 754, 757, 758, 762, 765, 770, 772–774, 775, 783, 785, 987, 1216, 1273, 1359, 1402, 1430 Attentional control, 5, 233, 286, 298, 303, 304, 305, 306–307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312–313, 314 Attributions, 5, 26, 286, 287, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 408, 413, 421, 422, 425, 426, 429, 431, 675, 687, 688, 730, 743, 812, 813, 820, 877 Autonomous learning, 411, 413 Award-winning films, 855 B Basal ganglia, 279, 280 Biographical inventories, 573–574, 645 Birth order, 366, 367–369, 590 Business talent, 793 C Career construction approaches, 1416, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1422 counseling, 123, 1305, 1307 Center for Talent Development (CTD), 1003, 1498, 1499, 1501 for Talented Youth (CTY), 347, 1001, 1002–1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1008, 1010, 1011, 1174, 1249 Cerebellum, 295–314 Certification, 18, 1042, 1252, 1303, 1307, 1308, 1320, 1338, 1371 Character, 261–271, 633–645, 699–710, 873–881, 1045–1058, 1491–1504 education, 1101, 1102, 1103 Child/Children, 5, 8, 25, 29, 61, 102, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 116, 118, 165, 319–332, 358, 361, 373, 399–401, 411, 412, 423, 425, 427, 428, 429, 447, 448, 449, 451, 476, 493, 507, 513, 540, 552, 573, 578, 579, 600, 609, 627, 714, 719, 721–722, 834, 873–881, 888, 954, 957, 958–960, 992, 1050, 1057, 1107, 1115, 1119, 1124, 1126, 1195, 1328, 1373, 1380, 1412, 1439, 1471, 1496, 1500, 1501 curiosity, 809–822 literature, 114, 721–722 prodigies, 5, 53, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, 232, 233–234, 235, 236, 237, 240, 246, 254, 296, 304, 306, 309, 313, 325, 358, 368 phenomenon, 232, 233, 234, 247, 296, 303, 1257 Cinema directors, 706 talent, 7, 699–710 Cinematic products, 700, 704, 705, 708, 709 Civil society, 8, 890, 891 Classroom -based research, 406, 409 provision, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1056, 1391 roles, 397–414 Coach, 430, 518, 689, 753, 754, 756, 758, 759, 760, 762, 764, 765, 767, 768, 769, 771, 772, 773, 782, 783, 784, 1189, 1210, 1215, 1370 Coders, 7, 389, 809–822 Cogito.org, 1005, 1006, 1322

Subject Index Cognitive, 89–90, 92–93, 95, 136–148, 231–254 development, 5, 9, 10, 24, 27, 45, 55, 58, 59, 60, 231–254, 275, 286, 287, 327, 402, 404, 512, 515, 651, 666, 873, 874–881, 952, 1018–1021, 1024, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1065, 1103, 1106, 1182, 1195, 1373, 1468, 1481, 1483, 1494 -developmental theory of giftedness, 9, 247, 252, 253, 254, 651, 666, 1018–1020, 1024, 1028, 1029 experience, 231, 232, 234, 236, 240, 243, 244, 245–246, 247, 250, 251, 254, 387, 651, 656, 666, 667, 846, 847, 849, 850, 1019–1020, 1021, 1024, 1025, 1027, 1028, 1068, 1512 giftedness, 559–568 intelligence, 324, 471, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 566, 567 processes, 5, 21, 56, 58, 83, 136, 247, 248, 271, 276, 277, 279, 281, 282, 283, 284, 298, 299, 313, 323, 340, 354, 360, 362, 381, 382, 385, 386, 387, 388, 390, 391, 397, 400, 402, 403, 405, 406, 408, 410, 430, 468, 470–471, 473, 512, 530, 590, 649, 663, 672, 675, 678, 680, 741, 830, 1028, 1076, 1127, 1175, 1193, 1237, 1483, 1484, 1487, 1512, 1514 science, 45, 397, 402, 403, 407, 408, 1108, 1126, 1322, 1366 strategies, 5, 266, 328, 338, 388, 398, 399, 401, 403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 430, 1066, 1071, 1193 Coincidence theory, 431 Collective products, 699 Communication skills, 637, 638, 983, 1116, 1155, 1175, 1214, 1290, 1445, 1470, 1472, 1500 Community problem solving, 1144, 1145, 1148, 1150, 1154 Compensatory education, 27, 1332, 1333, 1336–1337 mechanisms, 248, 846, 848, 849, 850, 938, 939, 940, 1028 Competitions, 129, 134, 165, 208, 226, 732, 756, 766, 771, 784, 915, 1000, 1012, 1075, 1211, 1213–1215 Computer hackers, 7, 40, 809–822 Computerized provision, 1481, 1487 Conceptual structures, 245, 254, 389, 600, 831, 833, 834, 1193, 1198 Context-sensitive revelation, 809–822 Counseling, 110, 117, 122, 123, 437, 440, 448–449, 450–451, 454, 459, 460, 461–462, 479, 511, 534, 544, 575, 765, 1002, 1003, 1006, 1011, 1035, 1036, 1074, 1286, 1288, 1290, 1305, 1307, 1308, 1314, 1346, 1349, 1362, 1441, 1492, 1501 Courage, 68, 89, 91, 100, 114, 220, 437, 496, 499, 560, 637, 795, 828, 1134, 1164, 1165, 1168, 1258, 1265, 1266, 1422, 1471, 1487, 1518 Crackers, 812 Creative abilities, 6, 84, 158, 163, 269, 322, 367, 391, 473, 474, 489, 580, 589, 590, 655, 795, 800, 847, 874, 919, 934, 1028, 1162, 1181, 1182, 1191, 1194, 1196, 1259, 1262, 1428, 1496, 1497 adults, 8, 241, 397, 599, 604–608, 1061, 1484 behavior, 303, 382, 390, 391–394, 480, 575, 576, 579, 599, 601, 604, 607, 608, 610, 613, 656, 1062, 1069, 1195, 1205, 1428, 1496 cognition, 5, 381–394, 473 development, 249, 363, 364, 480, 580, 591, 593, 604, 667, 1063, 1065, 1075, 1077, 1262

Subject Index giftedness, 3, 5, 6, 7, 261–271, 276, 283–284, 361, 571–580, 585–595, 599–616, 651, 656, 667, 854, 865–866, 867, 933, 1288 play, 601–602, 611, 817 problem-solving, 508, 1070, 1071, 1175, 1211, 1454, 1455 process, 61, 249, 284, 362, 457, 501, 547, 593, 601, 613, 650, 661 productivity, 90, 610, 611 self-image, 381, 382, 390, 391–394 teaching, 1077 vandalism, 818 Creativity, 6, 8, 12, 22, 28, 29, 30, 40, 45, 46, 50, 52, 57, 61, 63–66, 81, 82, 86, 89, 90–93, 122, 125, 136, 167, 201, 208, 210, 229, 235, 241, 243, 244, 247, 252, 268, 269, 276–277, 282–285, 295, 296, 298, 313, 357, 360, 362–376, 381 general, 8, 854, 857–858, 1263 Tower of, 1516–1522 Critical period, 87, 144, 462, 1067 thinking, 7, 72, 381, 440, 508, 510, 511, 517, 520, 586, 637, 715, 717, 721, 1066, 1070, 1077, 1105, 1108, 1120, 1168, 1173, 1176, 1193, 1196, 1210, 1211, 1214, 1221, 1235, 1237, 1287, 1289, 1290, 1307, 1436, 1438, 1440, 1445, 1467, 1472, 1494 Cross -cultural research, 30 -sectional distribution of impact in various domains of achievement, 905 Cryptospeak, 819 Cultural capital, 372, 896, 897 diversity, 30, 99, 116–121, 365, 1156 Curiosity, 234, 253, 327, 328, 373, 427, 438, 444, 461, 478, 508, 559, 561, 579, 600, 602, 603, 604, 617, 619, 621, 622, 626, 762, 828, 829, 875, 878, 879, 915, 942, 1177, 1195, 1204, 1290, 1315, 1319, 1471, 1473 Curriculum differentiation, 10, 1173, 1178, 1301, 1303, 1306, 1445, 1475 and instruction for twice-exceptional students, 517–520 Cyber -punks, 7 -terrorists, 812 D Deadline management, 1258, 1261, 1266 Deliberate practice, 4, 23, 44, 50, 56, 58, 62, 64, 87, 130, 134, 136, 139, 141, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 160, 164, 177, 184, 185, 188, 199, 201, 202, 203, 233, 297, 298, 307, 309, 311–312, 314, 320, 322, 325, 326, 327, 332, 770, 771, 772, 835 Democracy, 8, 10, 42, 52, 70, 71, 892, 893, 895, 898, 899, 900, 917, 920, 922, 937, 1158, 1167–1169, 1380 Deprivation, 221, 627, 886, 887, 888, 896, 897, 1050, 1387, 1388, 1389, 1390 Developing countries, 12, 1145, 1152, 1410, 1422, 1488, 1504 Development, 5, 6, 7, 11, 50, 65, 99, 112, 113, 136, 138–139, 140–141, 157, 159, 225, 237, 238, 243, 311–312,

1531 320–322, 323–331, 337–350, 353–376, 447, 452– 460, 468, 480, 487–502, 573, 577, 579, 617–628, 641, 738, 765, 777, 800–804, 880, 947, 960, 1001, 1002, 1072, 1175, 1229, 1230, 1295–1310, 1324, 1373, 1376–1378, 1430–1435, 1468, 1471–1472, 1495, 1497, 1501 Developmental, 5, 7, 8, 9, 28, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45–48, 50, 54, 55, 57, 60, 61, 62, 67, 68, 69, 88, 100, 110, 111, 113, 124, 131, 138, 140, 142, 158, 163, 174, 217, 231–254, 271, 282, 286, 306–307, 312, 317–418, 431, 437–439, 451–452, 456, 516, 568, 589, 590, 643, 651, 666, 674, 676, 692, 755, 757, 815, 818, 828, 888, 994, 1018–1019, 1103, 1128, 1194, 1263, 1352, 1366, 1416, 1428, 1484, 1511, 1513 potential, 437–439, 445, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 456, 461, 462 Dialectical thought, 891 Differentiated model of giftedness and talent (DMGT), 675 catalyst, 93, 157, 159, 160, 162, 165, 190, 589 chance, 86, 93, 157, 159, 187, 589 developmental process, 158, 159, 163, 202, 589 giftedness, 86, 91, 156–160, 161, 179, 193, 203, 588, 589 prevalence, 156, 159, 187 talent, 86, 91, 156–160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 201, 216, 588, 589 Differentiation, 10, 17, 20, 46, 47, 61, 62, 66, 72, 157, 161, 162, 165, 211, 221, 245, 302, 324, 403, 407, 414, 469, 511, 520, 588, 689, 720, 722, 928, 955, 1025, 1040, 1047, 1048, 1071, 1113–1139, 1203, 1211, 1222, 1299, 1300, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, 1412, 1413, 1445, 1449, 1474, 1475, 1480, 1482, 1492, 1494, 1496 Digital safe-haven, 817 sandbox, 817 tribalism, 818 Disadvantaged gifted and talented children, 1419 Discovering Strengths and Capabilities while Observing Varied Ethnic Responses (DISCOVER), 10, 1039, 1113–1139, 1414 Diversity, 12, 116–121, 123–124, 210–213, 498, 499, 529–530, 720–721, 1139, 1409–1423 DNA – human operating system, 820 Dogmatism, 374, 898, 899, 900 Domain dependence of creativity, 8, 1263 -specific giftedness, 713, 714, 731 specificity, 57, 59, 60, 61, 70, 164, 320, 331, 591, 734, 735, 736, 737, 1065, 1372 specific talent, 210 Dropout, 24, 169, 178, 329, 348, 527, 528–529, 530, 531–534, 552, 572, 574, 769, 774, 776, 781–783, 819, 1301, 1468, 1511 Dual enrolment, 1087, 1088, 1089, 1305, 1307, 1336, 1346, 1348 -language education, 11, 1269, 1281 Dynamic assessment, 53, 56, 472, 593, 594, 723, 1386

1532 E Early entrance program, 12, 1091, 1092, 1345, 1346–1348, 1349, 1353, 1358, 1361, 1363 Economic development, 820, 895, 926, 942, 1468, 1477, 1488, 1500 diversity, 123 prosperity, 8, 11, 365, 925, 926, 942, 1069, 1257, 1258, 1266 Education, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 24–26, 27, 28, 70, 107, 112, 115, 132, 174, 329, 355, 450, 451, 479, 508, 509, 517, 520, 528, 531, 620, 623, 633, 639, 720, 756, 768, 775, 794, 830, 833, 928, 1033–1292, 1293–1342, 1343–1506, 1511 policy, 4, 9, 11, 1047, 1048, 1051, 1056, 1057, 1297, 1375, 1379, 1385, 1510 Educational efficiency, 1290 Educator, 7, 9, 13, 49, 70, 86, 94, 108, 114, 115, 123, 206, 211, 212, 218, 269, 327, 329, 330, 341, 403, 451, 509, 511, 516, 520, 574, 591, 593, 595, 626, 650, 677–678, 717, 715, 719, 722, 825–835, 873, 888, 900, 965, 1004, 1012, 1040, 1062, 1079, 1092, 1102, 1165, 1174, 1178, 1186, 1204, 1230, 1254, 1255, 1278, 1285, 1319, 1367, 1373, 1389, 1394, 1400, 1434, 1478, 1494, 1499, 1503, 1511 Egoistic individualism, 886, 887, 888 Elite athletes, 137, 138, 149, 176, 177, 180, 182, 190, 191, 755, 757, 763–764, 765, 767, 769, 770, 771, 777, 778, 781, 782, 783 Emergenic–epigenetic model of giftedness, 46, 57, 86 Eminence, 45, 54, 61, 92, 93, 101–105, 106, 107, 111, 114, 124, 179, 182, 186, 187, 202, 244, 355, 356, 357, 358, 364, 367, 372, 374, 451, 487, 491, 496, 497, 501, 551, 595, 603, 609, 627, 673, 674, 675, 679, 690, 692, 728, 729, 853, 889, 910, 1074, 1315 Eminent women, 93, 104, 121, 487, 488, 490, 496, 497, 498, 499, 502 Emotional, 6, 437–462, 479, 516, 519, 543–548, 559–568, 576, 740, 763, 877, 880–881, 1134 giftedness, 162, 441, 445–446 intelligence, 6, 21, 162, 441, 446, 473, 559, 560, 561, 562–563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 1134, 1419, 1420, 1441, 1442 intensity, 92, 441, 442, 450 sensitivity, 125, 242, 247, 375, 442, 445, 450, 475 social giftedness, 6, 559–568 social intelligence, 6, 563 English model of gifted education, 9, 1045–1058 Enrichment, 10, 511, 619, 972, 992, 1035, 1037, 1039, 1041, 1042, 1175, 1176, 1203–1222, 1228–1230, 1258, 1266, 1287, 1288, 1368, 1369, 1370, 1374, 1379, 1380, 1397, 1402, 1431, 1445, 1445, 1454, 1475, 1478, 1482, 1492, 1496, 1497, 1499 Triad Model, 511, 1037, 1203, 1204, 1206, 1209, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1478, 1482 Entrepreneurial ability, 793, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806 giftedness, 3, 7, 8, 164, 742, 793–806, 840, 844, 846, 849, 850, 925, 937, 941, 942, 1258–1260, 1266, 1511 talent, 793, 794, 801, 802, 804, 805, 806, 896 Entrepreneurship, 29, 793, 794, 795, 849, 926, 927, 928, 941, 1258, 1422, 1471

Subject Index Evaluation, 10, 11, 25, 28, 53, 105, 116, 133, 135, 137, 161, 180, 220, 224, 225, 248, 371, 382, 392, 398, 407, 427, 437, 440, 456, 471, 510, 518, 530, 542, 577, 608, 613, 635, 637, 652, 662, 672, 703, 706, 716, 723, 737, 767, 917, 934, 1004, 1041, 1065, 1070, 1077, 1093, 1095–1096, 1118, 1124, 1137–1139, 1161, 1198, 1229, 1269–1281, 1298, 1308, 1319, 1358, 1374, 1381, 1394, 1431, 1449, 1479, 1483, 1498, 1504, 1510 Excellence, 10, 39, 52, 70–72, 107, 114, 672–673, 676–677, 679–688, 718, 755, 785, 830, 881, 928, 929–937, 1041, 1157, 1225–1233, 1266, 1296, 1298, 1303, 1379, 1388, 1389, 1391, 1478–1480, 1497 Exceptionally gifted, 111, 114, 116, 244, 338, 340, 342, 343, 344, 384, 385, 452–460, 476, 546, 730, 953, 956, 959, 962, 963, 964, 965, 967, 1381, 1385, 1438, 1439, 1443, 1447 Executive abilities, 1258, 1259, 1263, 1264, 1266 function, 271, 278, 298, 306, 313, 408 Experience, 68, 245–246, 280, 440–442, 453, 875, 1019–1020, 1070, 1120–1121, 1131 Expertise, 4, 9, 13, 23–24, 25, 29, 42, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 55, 56, 62, 63–65, 66, 72, 83, 87–88, 90, 91, 130, 133, 134, 137, 138, 145, 146–148, 164, 171, 172, 178, 185, 201, 203, 210, 213, 244, 277, 279, 282, 320, 322, 325–327, 331, 361, 372, 398, 402, 403, 411, 520, 590, 608, 634, 639, 649, 690, 709, 729, 732, 740, 757, 768, 770, 772, 775, 794, 819, 829, 830–833, 835, 919, 927, 929, 935, 938, 955, 973, 978, 979, 980, 993, 1037, 1051, 1055, 1063, 1100, 1104, 1108, 1133, 1197, 1198, 1228, 1262, 1279, 1280, 1286, 1315, 1322, 1371, 1375, 1376, 1380, 1395, 1397, 1439, 1449, 1455, 1465, 1477, 1486, 1497, 1511, 1512–1513, 1521, 1522 Expert-performance approach, 4, 140, 146, 185 External factors and child prodigy phenomenon, 234 and natural abilities, 85 in talent development, 497 Extracognitive abilities, 7, 249–252, 253, 254, 650, 656, 657, 663–666, 667, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 932, 933, 1022, 1028, 1029, 1193, 1260, 1262, 1266 F Family, 8, 24, 71, 91, 93, 102, 104, 118, 119, 122, 124, 125, 134, 159, 167, 176, 179, 186, 200, 219, 236, 244, 285, 321, 323, 324, 327, 329, 356, 358, 359, 361, 368, 372–373, 376, 445, 454, 460, 477, 494, 499, 502, 509, 530, 541, 552, 578, 590, 622, 625, 656, 690, 714, 743, 757, 774, 782, 800, 818, 875, 890, 896, 1038, 1048, 1063, 1103, 1164, 1275, 1330, 1351, 1359, 1373, 1414, 1417, 1428, 1483, 1498, 1501, 1503 culture, 876 environment, 179, 321, 324, 328, 540, 541, 618, 622, 624–625, 801, 875, 876, 1039, 1351, 1352, 1442, 1503 Female talent development, theory of, 6, 488, 495–501

Subject Index Flourishing, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, 223, 224, 226, 933, 937, 1511 Fluid intelligence, 20, 21, 58, 83, 279–283, 296, 298, 312–313, 1158, 1159, 1163 Formative program evaluation, 1270, 1273, 1275 Free and appropriate education (FAPE), 1336 Friendship, 5, 86, 109, 117, 226, 341, 342–345, 346, 349, 350, 430, 441, 442, 453, 510, 546, 756, 804, 1271, 1351, 1354, 1355, 1356, 1357, 1358, 1444 Frontal cortex, 266, 267, 271, 277, 279, 282 Fronto-parietal network, 266, 267, 269, 270, 271 Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), 261, 262, 266, 267, 270, 271, 276, 279, 280, 281, 284, 285, 307, 1430 G Gender, 5, 6, 19, 26, 82, 85, 92–93, 101, 104, 112, 113, 114, 117, 119, 122, 124, 125, 138, 159, 212, 225, 319, 323, 329–331, 344, 361, 375, 404, 406, 419–504, 538, 567, 579, 589, 590, 640, 672, 687, 707, 762, 768, 875, 876–879, 879, 897, 953, 1009, 1011, 1093, 1252, 1274, 1320, 1339, 1352, 1358, 1370, 1414, 1441, 1447, 1467, 1495, 1511 differences, 6, 26, 92, 323, 328, 329–331, 344, 501, 594, 640, 643, 707, 873, 876–879, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1356, 1358, 1359 equality, 1467 stereotypes, 114, 124, 331, 443 Gene/environment interactions, 24, 25 General creativity, 8, 854, 857–858, 1263 intelligence (g), 20, 23, 28, 42, 43, 65, 83, 85, 107, 146, 156, 165, 166–167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 183, 187, 193, 200, 201, 203, 262, 268, 271, 278, 280, 325, 354, 355, 358, 471, 472, 473, 477, 733, 950, 951, 955, 957, 958, 959, 962, 963, 967, 1101, 1127 General Ability Index (GAI), 961, 962, 963, 967 Genetics, 18, 20, 24–26, 57, 67, 69, 130, 145, 162, 167, 174, 175–178, 183, 190, 191, 193, 199, 200, 203, 204, 219, 275, 282, 357, 358, 468, 470, 481, 885, 909, 1126, 1235, 1290, 1484 approach, 319 Genotypes, 322, 471, 474, 727–728, 731 Gifted, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 70, 99, 101, 105–106, 107, 110, 111–113, 115, 116, 121–122, 124, 206, 210–213, 215–226, 237, 242–243, 251–253, 286, 337–350, 369–372, 381–394, 397–414, 419–504, 505–556, 567, 589, 618–627, 636, 639, 713–714, 717, 718–720, 827–830, 833–834, 835, 879, 881, 896, 913–923, 955, 956, 962, 1007–1011, 1017–1029, 1033–1292, 1293–1342, 1343–1506, 1511 adolescents, 60, 245, 248, 249, 251–252, 265, 328, 382, 384, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 427, 430, 443, 445, 446, 478, 537, 538, 543–544, 545, 546, 548, 549, 550, 551–553, 624, 638, 643, 755, 756, 1022, 1024, 1029, 1165, 1349, 1410, 1414, 1415–1416, 1417, 1422, 1429, 1501, 1503 and society, 1266 and talented, 3–28, 45, 53, 67, 69, 85, 92–94, 114, 119, 121, 125, 130–134, 143–144, 149, 159–161, 183–189, 206, 208, 210–213, 216–219, 253, 266, 326, 343,

1533 347, 354–357, 362, 366, 371–375, 383, 404, 407, 421–432, 487–501, 508, 516, 517, 520, 531, 537, 551, 572–580, 588–589, 627, 634, 651, 655–692, 706, 708, 709, 713–719, 730–739, 752–785, 793–806, 809–822, 839–850, 865, 874, 881, 893, 898–900, 905, 910, 913–923, 925–942, 971–995, 999, 1001–1012, 1037–1040, 1045–1058, 1065, 1126, 1181, 1198, 1203, 1225–1233 and talented children, 10, 12, 253, 573, 667, 905, 919, 925, 1050, 1051, 1182, 1183, 1328, 1371, 1391, 1413, 1428, 1430, 1440, 1442, 1463, 1470, 1471, 1474, 1475, 1476, 1478, 1480, 1481, 1483, 1488, 1489, 1491, 1495, 1496, 1497, 1500, 1501 at risk, 429, 430, 624, 624, 1303 children with difficulties, auditory, 10, 21, 83, 354, 510, 516, 680, 682, 684, 734, 735, 737, 739, 740, 741, 751, 859, 960, 962, 1120, 1128, 1131, 1136, 1137, 1334 education, 70, 159, 210, 211, 567, 720, 1297, 1298, 1437, 1438, 1443, 1454, 1469, 1477, 1485, 1492 in Africa, 12, 1410 in Arabian Gulf, 12, 1463–1489 in China, 18, 71, 220, 270, 876, 889, 1004, 1005, 1126, 1128, 1166–1167, 1168, 1313, 1328, 1350, 1427, 1428, 1430, 1435, 1436, 1440, 1443 in East Asia, 12, 895, 919, 1328, 1427–1455 in Hong Kong, 588, 1039, 1078, 1144, 1148, 1427, 1435–1443 in Japan, 71, 306, 689, 730, 756, 1313, 1323, 1328, 1427, 1449, 1450, 1451, 1454, 1468 in New York City, 12, 25, 101, 109, 112, 116, 404, 721, 723, 1365–1381 in Singapore, 588, 688, 925, 1144, 1148, 1157, 1169, 1427, 1443–1449 in South America, 12, 1491–1504 in South Korea, 1454–1455 in Taiwan, 445, 588, 1128, 1427, 1430–1435, 1444 educators, 7, 70, 108, 206, 210, 516, 517, 595, 825–835, 1061, 1378, 1488, 1511 girls, 26, 93, 101, 106, 109, 110, 111–116, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 125, 267, 330, 344, 345, 422, 426, 427, 549, 550, 690, 877, 878, 879, 917, 1036, 1251, 1353 learning disabled, 959, 966, 977, 1368 literacy, 716, 721, 722, 723 minority children and youth, 1035 motivation, 6, 7, 162, 427, 428, 617, 618–627, 628, 1511 nature of, 7, 13, 15–258, 357, 650, 846, 847, 848, 933, 935, 1019, 1020, 1025, 1041, 1046, 1057, 1193, 1260, 1483, 1510 readers, 713, 714–715, 717, 718–720, 721, 722 students, 345, 414, 443, 476, 508, 514, 518, 715, 962, 1010, 1035, 1036, 1040, 1041, 1073, 1074, 1248, 1279, 1288, 1385, 1429, 1431, 1433, 1434 with Asperger’s syndrome, 6, 284, 285, 430, 512 with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, 6, 275, 284, 285, 512–514, 577 with autism, 6, 183, 275, 282, 285, 511–512 with hearing disabilities, 514–525 with intellectual disabilities, 511–512 with sensory disabilities, 514–515 with visual impairment, 515 writers, 714, 716, 718, 719, 720, 722

1534 Giftedness, 3–13, 15–258, 259–316, 317–418, 428–431, 439–440, 445–447, 467–481, 533, 547, 552, 557–646, 647–870, 871–944, 945–1032, 1036–1037, 1051, 1075, 1099–1110, 1177, 1204–1206, 1257–1260, 1263, 1290, 1343–1506, 1509–1523 and exceptional performance/competence, 41, 48 conceptions of, 12, 20, 22, 29, 30, 31, 43, 46, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56, 85, 92, 95, 105, 107, 108–111, 122, 156, 212, 427, 476, 481, 516, 586, 588–592, 595, 675, 752, 827, 1049, 1101, 1173, 1204, 1413–1414, 1440–1442, 1443, 1469, 1476, 1512, 1515, 1522 definition, 44, 45, 53, 55, 67, 108, 110, 111, 243, 262, 322, 427, 532, 533, 560–563, 565, 566, 571, 588, 633, 972, 1101, 1306, 1378, 1413, 1415, 1476, 1485, 1509 general, 1246 models, 24, 88, 479, 592 research, 26, 28, 30, 131, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1514, 1522 history of, 4, 17–31, 586 spiritual, 6, 162, 441, 446–447 G-loadings, 265, 959, 960, 961, 962 Global disintegration, 458 Globalization, 8, 886, 893–894, 1235, 1515 Goals, 398, 687, 691, 761, 769, 784, 1121, 1393 Great managers, 8, 650, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844–846, 850, 1260–1261 Group ability tests, 981, 982 Guidelines for teaching gifted students, 1041 H Hackerdom, 817 Hacker heresy, 820 synergy, 819 Happiness, 3, 5, 108, 109, 121, 122, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 223, 224, 225, 226, 497, 501, 550, 619, 665, 831, 1046, 1109, 1115, 1169, 1355, 1356, 1358, 1360, 1419 Heredity, 7, 21, 102, 134, 159, 187, 357, 358, 367, 733, 735, 736, 738, 947, 948, 977 Heritability, 44, 83, 85, 88, 134, 147, 149, 162, 171, 172, 175, 176, 178, 185, 188, 190, 191, 192, 200, 275, 908, 977 Higher order thinking skills, 1065, 1068, 1173, 1289, 1438, 1474, 1488 High intellectual and creative educational multimedia technologies (HICEMTs), 10, 1181–1198, 1265, 1266 I Identification, 8, 9, 46, 85, 111–113, 206, 208, 296, 303, 306, 310, 389, 403, 410, 476–481, 515–517, 544, 733, 874, 945–1032, 1038–1039, 1041, 1042, 1056–1057, 1303, 1305, 1306, 1322, 1378, 1380, 1414, 1419, 1444, 1470, 1485–1486, 1496, 1500–1501 of the gifted, 43, 45, 46, 246, 476–477 of twice-exceptional students, 1093 Identity formation, 891, 892, 893 Imaginal experience multilevel disintegration, 438, 440–442, 447, 448, 451, 457–460

Subject Index Imaginary worlds, 3, 6, 109, 440, 441, 442, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613 Imaginative play, 452, 461, 599, 600, 603, 608, 610, 612, 613, 614 Implicit theories, 382, 390, 391–394, 1100, 1198 Inclusion, 90, 94, 184–187, 205, 342, 345, 357, 364, 389, 414, 489, 507, 517, 589, 605, 626, 858, 952, 992, 1205, 1271, 1287, 1301, 1306, 1328, 1389, 1442, 1443, 1481 Independent learning, 994, 1114, 1126 Individual contributions, 678 differences, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24–26, 43, 45, 46, 50, 55, 56, 59, 66, 67, 88, 129, 134, 135, 138, 142–143, 148, 149, 160, 161, 164, 165, 167, 172, 178, 179, 187, 190, 191, 201, 246, 276, 278, 285, 313, 358, 373, 388, 392, 419–504, 562, 585, 674, 681, 780, 810, 812, 843, 940, 977, 1012, 1027, 1100, 1101, 1126, 1264, 1328, 1372, 1391, 1441, 1501, 1511 and education, 479–480 principle of innovation, 1264 innovation, 849, 1259, 1264 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004, 1327 Influences on giftedness development, 323–331 Innate talent, 60, 129, 131, 143, 144, 145, 148, 149, 155, 156, 161, 163, 166, 183, 185, 186, 189, 193, 194, 220, 358, 743, 766 INNOCREX, 1265–1266 Innovation, 11, 29, 50, 565, 849, 933, 939, 1017–1018, 1182, 1184–1189, 1257–1266, 1468, 1482, 1483, 1513–1515, 1516 education, 3, 11, 794, 795, 796, 849, 940, 1018, 1257–1266 gap, 1263, 1264 instructional techniques, 1065, 1066, 1433 research, 13, 29, 926, 1512, 1513–1515, 1522 science, 1258, 1259, 1264, 1266 Instruction, 47, 59, 62, 72, 81, 209, 210, 212, 213, 383, 390, 414, 472, 479, 512, 514, 518, 520, 534, 580, 594, 595, 963, 976, 980, 989, 990, 993, 994, 1000, 1041–1042, 1065, 1066, 1077, 1078, 1151, 1162, 1173, 1178, 1184–1189, 1210, 1211, 1227, 1274, 1287, 1303, 1449, 1468, 1474, 1477, 1486, 1487 Integrity, 169, 216, 217, 219–221, 224, 226, 241, 278, 450, 703, 809, 893, 914, 1106, 1107, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1170, 1177, 1211, 1338, 1363 Intelligence academic achievement, 478 definition, 167 heritability, 171 job performance, 842 plasticity, 169 predictive power, 169 theories, 20, 22, 43, 429 Interdisciplinarity, 1235–1238, 1246, 1252, 1514 Interdisciplinary, 3, 11, 13, 48, 287, 470, 628, 692, 779, 885, 887, 900, 938, 940, 1103, 1196, 1206, 1235–1253, 1455, 1477, 1486, 1494, 1500, 1514 ideas in gifted education, 3, 11, 1235–1253

Subject Index Interest, 8, 9, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 47, 50, 53, 71, 89, 109, 144, 145, 164, 178, 179, 201, 210, 215, 218, 222, 238, 239, 241, 242, 253, 265, 287, 296, 309, 323, 327–328, 354, 374, 384, 388, 390, 404, 406, 410, 412, 423, 424, 428, 478, 508, 530, 567, 574, 575, 5889, 600, 619, 655, 710, 719, 757, 762, 796, 800, 865, 917, 952, 957, 981, 983, 1010, 1039, 1055, 1073–1074, 1120, 1132, 1186, 1213, 1253, 1272, 1317, 1367, 1441, 1445, 1468, 1475, 1511 Internal factors and natural abilities, 85 in talent development, 497 Internals (IT), hackers, 812 Intuition, 248, 661, 686, 1010, 1266 Iowa Acceleration Scale, 1087, 1089, 1091, 1095 IQ testing, 42, 105–107, 112, 574, 577, 594 J Joy of hacking, 817–818 L Latino, gifted children, 529, 530, 534, 618, 1038, 1039, 1216, 1271 Leadership giftedness, 7, 633–645 transactional, 635 transformational, 635, 638 Learning, 1376 for life, 1114 Legislation, 11, 12, 125, 491, 493, 897, 1087, 1285, 1290, 1296, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1328, 1330, 1339, 1410, 1494, 1496 Lifespan, 5, 21, 81, 82, 88, 91, 92, 95, 242, 243, 353–376, 397, 502, 550, 625, 1381 development, 1381 Lifestyle, 8, 497, 699, 873, 1139, 1354, 1419 Linguistic, 10, 12, 55, 67, 83, 85, 116, 211, 238, 241, 265, 284, 299, 301, 313, 343, 355, 529, 586, 592, 613, 683, 751, 874, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1120, 1127, 1128, 1129, 1130, 1131, 1135, 1139, 1252, 1269, 1270, 1271, 1277, 1281, 1300, 1367, 1373, 1389, 1464, 1485, 1504 Living values research, 1115 Local authorities, 12, 1389, 1393, 1403, 1404 London challenge, 12, 1386, 1390–1392, 1393, 1395, 1396, 1397, 1402, 1403, 1405 gifted and talented, 12, 1126, 1375, 1381, 1386, 1391, 1392, 1393, 1394–1396, 1397–1299, 1402, 1405, 1406, 1407, 1481, 1482 Longitudinal studies, 19, 25, 27, 29, 59, 64, 67, 105, 112, 122, 124, 169, 170, 181, 191, 244, 319, 328, 329, 331, 338, 340, 342, 345, 346, 347, 348–349, 356, 357, 368, 371, 410, 421, 424, 425, 531, 550, 551, 552, 575, 599, 609, 618–619, 620, 753, 754, 762, 766, 772, 776, 777, 778, 779, 782, 783, 880, 937, 964, 978, 986, 1006, 1048, 1062, 1064, 1075, 1088, 1175, 1205, 1212, 1249, 1316, 1317, 1320, 1323, 1352, 1366, 1495

1535 M Managerial talent, 3, 8, 795, 839–850, 1260–1261, 1266, 1511 Marginalization, 363, 375, 376, 916, 917, 920, 989 Mastery model of giftedness, 12, 53, 585, 1366, 1368, 1369, 1372, 1374, 1375, 1378, 1380 Mathematics/Mathematical, 11, 383, 461, 672, 677–679, 684–686, 687, 688, 689, 864, 991, 1186, 1216, 1235, 1238, 1250–1252, 1313–1325, 1331, 1336, 1394, 1396, 1411, 1444, 1446, 1450, 1502 giftedness, 7, 267, 268, 671–693 /symbolic abilities, 10, 1128, 1135 Matrix of human abilities, 1131, 1132, 1133 Measurement, 8, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 30, 42, 44, 49, 51, 61, 66, 72, 85, 92, 99, 101, 103, 133, 146, 147, 160, 164–165, 166, 174, 179, 201, 404, 421, 423, 472, 477, 527, 560, 563, 572, 579, 587, 644, 700, 766, 772, 780, 843, 874, 897, 947–967, 971, 981, 982, 993, 999, 1018, 1020, 1025, 1027, 1078, 1095, 1174, 1322, 1350 Medicine, 29, 49, 64, 69, 118, 132, 219, 287, 516, 572, 657, 658, 659, 661, 738, 742, 777, 854, 866, 1235, 1236, 1249, 1251, 1452, 1465, 1515 Memory, 5, 20, 21, 23, 41, 58, 83, 86, 137, 138, 147, 148, 167, 171, 191, 192, 222, 241, 242, 247, 261, 263, 269–271, 276, 280, 285, 297–299, 301–303, 304–309, 311, 313, 322, 323, 386, 403, 442, 469, 515, 517, 589, 684, 728, 729, 741, 874, 938, 953, 954, 956, 960, 961, 962, 963, 982, 1021, 1025, 1063, 1108, 1116, 1122, 1129, 1160, 1193, 1366, 1413, 1428, 1429, 1481 long-term, 298 working, 5, 21, 58, 83, 138, 222, 261, 263, 265, 267–269, 271, 276–279, 295–313, 316, 420, 471, 472, 954, 956, 959, 960–963, 982, 1118 Mental models, 298, 303, 306, 682 representations, 50, 135, 136, 137, 138, 254, 360, 683, 684, 685 speed, 1021, 1025–1026, 1428 Mentoring, 50, 90, 221, 222, 329, 372, 690, 816, 1040, 1073, 1088, 1114, 1215, 1230, 1286, 1288, 1290, 1320, 1346, 1349, 1359, 1361, 1372, 1397, 1433, 1455, 1471, 1473, 1479, 1486, 1500 Metacognition, 397–414 Metacognitive manifestations of giftedness, 232 Methodological and procedural principles of intelligence testing, 1028–1029, 1065–1066 Micro-social environment, 799–800 Mischievous creation, 817 play, 817 Mismatch negativity, 468, 469 MOdular Selection and Identification for Control (MOSAIC), 296, 298, 303, 304, 305, 306–307, 308, 309, 310, 311–312, 313, 314, 1388 Moral development, 343, 345, 544, 546, 886, 891, 892, 1105, 1499 education, 446, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1436, 1443, 1445 Motivation, 6, 41, 87, 170, 283, 327–328, 340, 361, 424–428, 617–628, 687, 692, 740, 741, 765, 812–815, 816,

1536 930, 940, 983, 991, 1035, 1051, 1067, 1124, 1259, 1429 Motivational needs hierarchy, 821 Multicultural literature, 721 Multi-dimensional models of giftedness, 22–23 Multilevelness, 437–439 Multiple domains, 8, 309, 866, 1263, 1378 intelligences (MI), 21, 43, 57, 58, 81, 82, 83–84, 107, 125, 162, 265, 355, 561, 588, 591–592, 675, 751, 1040, 1133, 1162, 1196, 1439, 1440, 1476, 1487, 1499 Talent Teaching Program, 574 Munich dynamic ability achievement model (MDAAM), 51, 91, 319, 321, 322–323, 331 model of giftedness (MMGA), 91, 320, 752, 1512 Muscle fibers, 138, 141, 176 Music/Musical capacity, 727, 728, 733, 739 giftedness, 7, 26, 164, 727–744 intelligence, 84, 727, 728, 734, 741, 751 talent, 3, 40, 60, 65, 324, 703, 728, 741, 847 Myelinization, 142 N Natural ability constraints, 193 definition, 193 measurement, 477 Neoclassical economics, 894, 895, 896 Neoliberal ideology, 886, 894–896 Neo-Piagetian theory, 830 Neural function, 5, 261, 264, 958 plasticity, 5, 50, 60, 68, 69, 231, 233, 275–287, 438 structure, 263 Neurology, 179, 263, 481, 1286–1287 Neuropsychology of giftedness, 3, 5, 232, 259–316, 1429, 1514 New developments in gifted education, 4, 9, 592, 1035–1043, 1221 Nobel laureates, 3, 7, 103, 249, 269, 625, 649–667, 854, 855, 858, 859, 860, 861, 864, 866, 913–914, 942, 1249, 1262–1263, 1266, 1511 Nobel Prize, 22, 61, 69, 103, 104, 249, 328, 649, 650, 651, 654, 658, 659, 660, 661, 663, 666, 678, 701, 714, 715, 793, 855, 858, 859, 860, 863, 866, 914, 919, 920, 1001, 1262, 1317, 1511, 1515, 1516, 1519, 1520, 1522 Nomothetic versus idiographic approaches, 65–67 Nursing, 132, 550 O Objectivization of cognition, 232, 650, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 666, 667, 1020, 1194, 1262 Old-guard hackers, 812 Out-of-hours programmes, 1054–1055 Outside-the-box thinking, 820 Overexcitability, 438, 439, 442, 444, 445, 447, 448, 462, 1448

Subject Index P Paracosm, 599, 603, 604, 608 Paradigm shift, 49, 107, 212, 281, 287, 560, 818, 825, 1237, 1250–1252, 1412 Parents, 7, 9, 11, 13, 24, 86, 93, 99, 100, 111–123, 134, 144, 149, 159, 173, 181, 184, 206, 215, 221, 239, 252, 309, 321–346, 356, 358, 362, 367, 370, 372–376, 385, 397, 404, 427, 440–446, 454, 460, 478, 492–494, 500, 510, 515–520, 530, 545, 578, 609, 612–627, 682, 687, 691, 707, 714, 739, 743, 753, 765–769, 772–776, 780, 797, 799, 800–806, 813, 845, 848, 873–881, 891, 965, 983, 1001, 1011, 1021, 1038, 1051, 1056, 1077, 1086, 1089, 1091, 1103, 1125, 1127, 1139, 1183, 1191, 1211, 1272, 1274, 1277–1281, 1286, 1288–1289, 1300, 1320, 1328–1340, 1346–1362, 1367, 1370, 1377, 1389, 1392, 1409, 1419, 1420, 1431–1454, 1470, 1478, 1482, 1483, 1486, 1492, 1494 Parietal cortex, 277, 285, 306 Peak performance, 48, 133, 134, 177, 706, 771 Perceived talent, 143–144 Persistence, 9, 93, 357, 370, 376, 422, 424, 425, 427, 429, 439, 490, 498, 508, 515, 608, 617, 626, 740, 742, 761–764, 783, 797, 803, 842, 850, 865, 892, 898, 972, 979, 981, 986, 994, 995, 1038, 1068, 1261, 1287, 1315, 1378, 1429, 1487 Personality, 5, 10, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 41, 55, 60, 61, 66, 85, 89, 91, 95, 107, 109, 124, 162, 167, 169, 180, 201, 219, 225, 234, 236, 243, 296, 298, 313, 319, 320–327, 331, 342, 362, 368, 369, 375, 382, 421–432, 446, 451, 457, 468, 472–480, 488, 492, 498, 502, 545, 552, 565, 576, 608, 621, 636, 644, 650, 672–675, 736, 740, 763, 794, 801, 810–814, 821, 829, 844, 865, 934, 948, 957, 1002, 1010, 1049, 1055, 1062, 1070, 1100, 1109, 1182, 1194, 1239, 1263, 1315, 1351, 1416, 1428, 1485, 1512 approaches to understanding giftedness, 4, 5, 9, 827, 885, 1041, 1380 Personal talent, 162, 431 Phenotypes, 174, 175, 176, 190, 727, 728–729, 731, 738 Phreakers, 812 Physical abilities definition, 173–178 heritability, 175, 190 measurement, 174, 175, 179 predictive power, 159, 164, 173, 174, 178–181, 191, 193, 203–204 race differences, 181, 190 Physiological mechanisms of individual differences, 469 Policy, 4, 9, 11, 13, 40, 203, 493, 719, 888, 926, 940, 941–942, 964, 986, 988, 989, 993–995, 1040, 1047–1057, 1097, 1118, 1121, 1156, 1264, 1269, 1270, 1287, 1295–1310, 1313–1324, 1328, 1332, 1335, 1339, 1347, 1366, 1371, 1375, 1377, 1381, 1388, 1400, 1406, 1407, 1411, 1435–1439, 1442–1455, 1471, 1475, 1478, 1485, 1489, 1510 definition, 1297 Polymaths/Polymathy, 8, 613, 649, 853–866, 867, 914, 1236, 1245, 1252, 1259, 1263, 1511 Positive disintegration, 6, 61, 437, 455–456, 460, 545

Subject Index maladjustment, 446, 448 psychology, 421 Practical intelligence, 10, 21, 29, 43, 90, 158, 282, 473, 591, 644, 663, 733, 795, 797, 800, 1021, 1157–1170 intuition, 1266 Prediction, 6, 55, 59, 62, 65, 170, 180, 203, 207, 263, 302, 305, 323, 327, 339, 347, 391, 406, 422, 427, 510, 538, 542, 572, 574, 591, 619, 620–623, 758, 760, 763, 779–780, 813, 844, 909, 965, 987, 995, 1025, 1075, 1130, 1162, 1381 Predictive power, 22, 44, 106, 159, 161–174, 178–179, 186–187, 191, 193, 202–204 Pre-school development, 319 Prevalence, 6, 21, 156, 159, 186, 187, 202, 337, 339, 445, 527–534, 552, 1009, 1093, 1157 Problem-solving continuum, 674, 1128, 1129–1133 types, 1138 Prodigies, 5, 53, 59, 61–65, 131, 163, 184, 188, 192, 232–247, 262, 296, 304–309, 313, 325, 358, 368, 422, 438, 610, 613, 733, 799, 951, 1000, 1005, 1007, 1063, 1455 Professional criminals, 812 development, 9, 212, 213, 414, 520, 1036, 1045, 1054, 1056, 1065, 1069, 1077, 1227–1231, 1266, 1276, 1296, 1303, 1308, 1322, 1324, 1369–1377, 1381, 1389, 1394, 1400, 1430, 1435–1440, 1470, 1500 Profoundly gifted, 25, 61, 113, 337–340, 342, 344, 346, 349, 534, 953, 955, 956, 959, 964–966, 972, 1092 Program development, 1208, 1297, 1298, 1303, 1305, 1306, 1346 evaluation, 11, 1002, 1103, 1269, 1270, 1273, 1275, 1297, 1301, 1455 selection, 967, 1317 Programs for the gifted, 112, 222, 479, 905, 990, 1067, 1258, 1266, 1270, 1298, 1328, 1333, 1337, 1339, 1455, 1491–1492, 1495–1500, 1503 Promotion of high ability, 402, 799–800, 889, 893 Psychological basis of giftedness, 236, 244, 245, 246 mental context, 1021, 1022 Psychotherapy, 6, 437–462, 880 Public policy, 1040, 1046, 1048, 1257, 1475 R Ratio IQ scores, 965, 966 Raven’s Progressive Matrices, 8, 248, 279, 477, 948, 949, 950, 964, 1039, 1493 Reasoning, 165, 345–346, 685, 890, 953, 954, 960, 961–963, 967, 981–983, 991 Reductionism versus emergentism, 52, 67–70 Regions of excellence, 941, 942 Regression to the mean, 44, 71, 977, 985 Relative age effect, 143–144, 189 Reliability, 184, 208, 356, 384, 470, 492, 579, 623, 650, 701, 702, 772, 801, 845, 948, 952, 981, 982, 984, 1029, 1049, 1078, 1441 Religious traditions, 220, 890, 920, 1245, 1488

1537 Renzulli Learning System (RLS), 10, 1175, 1176, 1203, 1204–1221, 1287, 1474, 1481, 1482 Research on giftedness, 4, 12, 13, 46, 48, 237, 400, 470, 594, 825, 926, 928, 1204, 1257, 1454, 1491–1504, 1509–1522 Resiliency, 213, 428–431, 453, 552, 563, 566, 892 Responsibility, 22, 52, 82, 85, 88–90, 92, 93, 108, 109, 123, 193, 303, 304, 338, 345, 347, 355, 370, 413, 439, 443, 450, 451, 461, 473, 498, 545, 546, 564, 565, 636, 637, 638, 665, 676, 705, 717, 719, 720, 759, 816, 874, 876, 890, 931, 956, 1054, 1071, 1077, 1101, 1105, 1158, 1163, 1169, 1212, 1228, 1265, 1299, 1300–1304, 1331, 1334, 1351, 1354, 1395, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1435, 1441, 1443, 1466, 1469, 1476 Retrospective and prospective assessments, 1026–1027 Right-wing authoritarian, dogma, 899 Romanticism, 898 Rural schools, 973, 1227, 1228 S Sandboxes, 817 Scaffolding, 518, 519, 834, 835, 1066, 1114, 1188, 1211, 1251, 1377 School environment, 252, 327, 329, 373, 479, 1000, 1162, 1494 Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM), 10, 981, 982, 1041, 1078, 1175, 1176, 1203–1222, 1368–1370, 1454, 1475, 1499 Science history of, 654, 655 Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), 11, 279, 328, 719, 1072, 1313–1324, 1356, 1464 Scientific misconduct biased interpretation, 187–192 cluttering, 186, 187 mean effects, 184–185 testimonial information, 183–184 talent, 7, 246, 249, 649–667, 925, 967, 1009, 1025, 1028, 1262–1263, 1449 Screen play, 701, 702, 704, 705 writers, 7, 699, 702–710 Script kiddies, 812 Second language acquisition, 117, 280, 577, 976, 1270, 1271, 1274, 1276, 1387, 1449, 1469 Segregation, 177, 357, 887, 888, 1380 Self -concept, 85, 114, 115, 328–330, 421–424, 455, 509, 510, 519, 541, 548, 623, 875, 879, 1009, 1011, 1038, 1069, 1072, 1212, 1222, 1351, 1352, 1418, 1421, 1429, 1442, 1447, 1502 -efficacy, 69, 89, 117, 119, 226, 361, 406, 408, 422, 424–430, 478, 519, 591, 639, 643, 644, 672, 687–688, 690, 691, 735, 767, 1212, 1222, 1354, 1441, 1442 -esteem, 92, 115, 225, 349, 376, 422–424, 440, 474, 519, 541, 550, 567, 687–688, 691, 742, 769, 813, 917, 921, 1036, 1055, 1067, 1069, 1089, 1090–1094, 1114, 1120, 1125, 1126, 1165, 1280, 1320, 1351, 1370, 1371, 1393, 1421, 1442, 1448, 1486, 1494, 1502

1538 -fulfilling prophecy, 87, 331 -fulfillment, 886–888, 890–893, 900 Sensitive periods, 48, 50, 142, 233–247, 252, 309, 651, 847, 929, 1029 Sensitivity, 66, 68, 84, 89, 108–111, 124, 174, 234–254, 282, 305, 354, 375, 439–442, 450, 460, 474, 496, 510, 543, 545–546, 549, 552, 577, 651, 659, 681, 736, 740, 799, 826, 847, 887, 1095, 1169, 1178, 1244, 1287, 1466 Service learning, 10, 638, 643, 1158, 1169–1170, 1347, 1362 Sexism, 70, 117–118, 119, 122, 124, 422, 878 Siblings of gifted children, 879, 881 Silicon Valley, 794, 818, 926–942, 1192 Skill acquisition, 85, 135, 138, 181, 408, 865, 1206–1208 Social capital, 89–90, 93, 896, 897, 926, 1167, 1380 dominance theory, 899 identity theory, 809, 812–816 justice, 12, 348, 545, 1045, 1050, 1051, 1108, 1109, 1413, 1466 psychology of creativity, 809, 813, 814, 816, 940 Societal benefits of adulthood achievements, 8 Sociobiology, 867, 918 Solitary practice, 139, 311 Somatic Marker, 278, 286, 287 Spearman g, 948 Specialization thesis, 8, 1263 Special programs for the gifted, 905, 1498 schools, 25, 28, 221, 340, 479, 972, 1069, 1286, 1316–1318, 1372, 1376, 1386, 1413, 1471, 1474, 1492 Sports, 7, 130–146, 155, 158, 160, 173–190, 204, 222, 299, 339, 357, 362, 390, 393, 540, 541, 547, 549, 567, 592, 600, 624, 628, 734, 738, 751–785, 795, 798, 801, 815, 859, 907, 911, 914, 919, 979, 1010, 1021, 1053, 1071, 1096, 1166, 1187, 1259, 1320, 1334, 1359, 1388, 1391, 1393, 1402, 1438, 1445, 1494, 1511, 1520 Stages of problem-solving, 339, 340, 385, 1071 Stanford-Binet scales, 8, 951–956, 958 Star model of giftedness, 85, 86, 91, 93, 94 State of mind, 233, 277, 279–283, 287, 411, 1247 Stigmatization, 887, 888, 916–917, 920 Subjective mental space, 66, 245, 254 Success, 6, 121–122, 394, 489, 507–520, 704–705, 934, 1088, 1125, 1266, 1402, 1403 Successful intelligence, 21, 43, 82, 84–85, 93, 149, 162, 488–489, 496, 591, 634, 1100, 1104, 1158, 1161 Suicide proneness to, 538, 543 rates, 538, 539, 551, 552 theories of, 540–542 vulnerability to, 6 T Talent development, 5–7, 46–68, 93, 107, 125, 155–164, 171–174, 178, 181, 184, 201–210, 215–217, 221, 224, 266, 347, 353–376, 421, 425, 428, 431, 487–502, 589, 627, 649, 753–755, 762–786, 885–893,

Subject Index 999, 1001–1011, 1068, 1073, 1175, 1205, 1225, 1230–1233, 1262, 1314–1324, 1359, 1362, 1366, 1381, 1446, 1449, 1471-1472, 1482, 1485, 1493, 1498, 1501, 1503 identification, 143, 144, 175, 176, 362, 389, 544, 738, 971, 1000–1005, 1011, 1036, 1315, 1317, 1319, 1321–1324, 1493 realization in women, 92, 491 searches, 165, 204, 347, 673, 964, 975, 1000–1012, 1175 Talented, see Gifted and talented children Taxonomy computer hackers, 811–812 for special education, 479 gifted social functions, 918–919 Teacher education, 520–521, 830–833, 835, 1131, 1133, 1305, 1307, 1324, 1371, 1373, 1380, 1432, 1435, 1437, 1440, 1443, 1485 ratings, 9, 85, 208, 971, 983, 990–993 Teaching creativity, 1065–1066, 1068, 1077 problem-solving, 10, 203, 296, 325, 338, 339, 347, 385, 387, 398, 402, 449, 508, 510, 561–565, 608, 638, 642, 643, 673, 685, 689, 733, 875, 960, 965, 1022, 1069, 1070, 1079, 1113–1118, 1121–1139, 1144, 1155, 1161, 1175, 1207, 1211, 1221, 1295, 1397, 1445–1455, 1470, 1471–1474, 1481, 1487 Teamwork, 637, 699, 803, 804, 848, 930, 1070, 1122, 1149, 1418, 1473, 1520 Technological literacy, 721 Technology, 9–12, 26, 42, 43, 67, 69, 71, 155, 175, 190, 213, 407, 508, 519, 589, 673, 677, 690, 720, 721–722, 765, 812, 817, 820, 862, 885, 896, 919, 926, 932, 936, 940, 1018, 1040, 1067–1069, 1131, 1136, 1144, 1155, 1156, 1173–1178, 1181–1198, 1203–1222, 1226–1228, 1236, 1264, 1286–1290, 1313–1324, 1392 Temperament, 83, 86, 93, 159, 162, 216, 219, 324, 327, 428, 468, 471, 474–475, 514, 542, 621, 742, 743, 763, 948, 978, 1064, 1421 Testbeds, 817 Thinking Actively in a Social Context (TASC), 10, 1113–1139, 1401, 1412 processes, 382, 398, 399, 401, 542, 650, 678, 801, 845, 1113–1117, 1214, 1221, 1253 skills, 361, 476, 637, 717, 721, 1037, 1040, 1065, 1066, 1068, 1069, 1075, 1076, 1113–1117, 1123, 1124, 1139, 1145, 1152, 1155, 1173, 1175, 1204–1213, 1221, 1289, 1401, 1438, 1467–1474, 1477, 1479, 1486, 1488, 1497 Three-ring conception of giftedness, 46, 68, 89, 92, 107, 1204–1206, 1205 Three stratum theory of giftedness, 89 of intelligence, 20–21, 82–83, 950–951 Thriving, 4–5, 166, 215–225, 431, 1251, 1380, 1389, 1393, 1513

Subject Index Tools for effective thinking, 1121–1126 Triarchic theory of successful intelligence, 82, 84–85 Twice exceptional, 6, 24, 62, 253, 275, 276, 284–285, 430, 507–521, 800, 959, 961, 964, 966, 1010, 1036, 1093, 1261, 1306, 1309, 1330, 1337, 1511 Twins, 24, 131, 134, 176, 186, 187, 192, 358, 367, 467, 977 U Underachievement, 26–28, 53, 111, 115–116, 160, 166, 224, 342, 510, 513, 527, 530, 531, 534, 567, 572, 626, 689, 1035, 1036, 1040, 1042, 1047, 1092, 1114, 1177, 1229, 1288, 1290, 1350, 1351, 1441, 1447, 1479, 1514 Unilevel disintegration, 438, 448 Unique representations, 245–247, 650, 1024 vision, 5, 8, 47, 63, 245, 254, 666, 709, 840, 846, 847, 849, 1211, 1259 University of Washington (UW) Academy for Young Scholars, 12, 1345, 1348, 1363 Urban education, 12, 1385–1407 gifted education, 12, 1375 Utah Conferences, 572–573

1539 V Validity of identification process, 1011 Values, 8, 41, 43, 50, 83, 89, 109, 118, 120–123, 169, 185, 187–190, 202, 212, 215, 216, 219, 220, 223, 248, 251, 363, 373–375, 430–431, 437, 438, 447, 448, 450–453, 456, 492, 500, 502, 540, 543, 546, 548, 549, 590, 606, 611, 625, 635, 638, 656, 657, 664–667, 680, 688, 703, 704, 739, 769, 773, 783, 799, 800, 812, 828, 833, 848, 876, 881, 889, 896, 897, 899, 942, 979, 1006, 1009–1010, 1048, 1054, 1066, 1067, 1073, 1074, 1077, 1100–1105, 1139, 1147, 1150, 1158, 1163 Virtues, 49, 217–220, 224, 370, 898, 1053, 1103, 1471, 1502 Visual/spatial abilities, 10, 959, 961, 967, 1120, 1128, 1129, 1136, 1381 W Wasting, 217, 220–224, 1286 Wechsler scales, 8, 279, 953, 954, 956, 958, 960, 962, 965–967 Wisdom, 9, 10, 22, 30, 89, 90, 93, 216–218, 220, 235, 354, 355, 431, 450, 471, 527, 588, 590, 591 applied, 1266 intelligence, creativity, synthesized (WICS) model, 89, 90, 590–591, 634 Women and eminence, 496 Writing skills, 7, 713, 715, 716, 718, 719, 1288, 1290, 1441